When Declaring an ’Emergency’ Is Not Enough
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two nations divided by a common language
I have personal experience, that others have confirmed, that there are places in the US - particulalry the south - where English"English" is not understood at all. The solution was to adopt a 'southern drawl' which worked perfectly. Also had the same problem in my youth when flying into Catania in Sicily. In the end the captain did a fine job
'allo Catania approach, this eeza naivy Sea King 051, weera feefty miles a too tha sowth. Requesta zee joining instrushons.'
Again worked perfectly after several minutes of
'aircrafta calling. pleasea say again'
My understanding was that ICAO require ATC at international airports to be conducted in English. As you are aware each nation has the right to opt out of certain parts of the ICAO regs and these 'opt-outs' are then listed in the ICAO books. I believe that only France and Russia have opted out of using English for ATC in this way.
'allo Catania approach, this eeza naivy Sea King 051, weera feefty miles a too tha sowth. Requesta zee joining instrushons.'
Again worked perfectly after several minutes of
'aircrafta calling. pleasea say again'
My understanding was that ICAO require ATC at international airports to be conducted in English. As you are aware each nation has the right to opt out of certain parts of the ICAO regs and these 'opt-outs' are then listed in the ICAO books. I believe that only France and Russia have opted out of using English for ATC in this way.
SASless,
I can assure you that I NEVER used the expression "Charlie" and cringed whenever I heard it (only slightly less than when I heard "charlie, charlie"!)
I would not claim to always use perfect RT on every transmission, but I endeavour to. I also endeavour to instil it amongst those whose standards I am responsible for. Below is an extract from a circular I put out a few years ago, which attempted to correct some bad habits that were creeping in:
Radio discipline.
It is important that we maintain high standards of RT discipline at all times, regardless of the inevitable frustrations we experience daily. Not specific to fleet type or operator, particular areas to watch are the following:
•Start clearance should always be obtained at XXX prior to start
•‘Back chat’ with the controller should be avoided (use the phone or pay him a visit). Similarly sarcasm or a condescending tone should not be used.
•Listen out for clues that someone else is talking or about to talk even if you can’t hear them; e.g “ABCD 462 go ahead with your message” would suggest a reply is likely. ‘Stepping on’ transmissions just adds to the time taken and causes irritation.
•Avoid non standard terminology e.g. “out of thirty five hundred”, “expecting runway twenty four”.
•The use of the word “take off” should only be used to acknowledge a clearance to do so. This will come following the announcement that you are “ready for departure”. Phrases such as “ready to line up and take off” should not be used.
•Use the correct sequence of departure information and think before transmitting. Speak clearly and slowly, avoiding non-words and verbiage.
I can assure you that I NEVER used the expression "Charlie" and cringed whenever I heard it (only slightly less than when I heard "charlie, charlie"!)
I would not claim to always use perfect RT on every transmission, but I endeavour to. I also endeavour to instil it amongst those whose standards I am responsible for. Below is an extract from a circular I put out a few years ago, which attempted to correct some bad habits that were creeping in:
Radio discipline.
It is important that we maintain high standards of RT discipline at all times, regardless of the inevitable frustrations we experience daily. Not specific to fleet type or operator, particular areas to watch are the following:
•Start clearance should always be obtained at XXX prior to start
•‘Back chat’ with the controller should be avoided (use the phone or pay him a visit). Similarly sarcasm or a condescending tone should not be used.
•Listen out for clues that someone else is talking or about to talk even if you can’t hear them; e.g “ABCD 462 go ahead with your message” would suggest a reply is likely. ‘Stepping on’ transmissions just adds to the time taken and causes irritation.
•Avoid non standard terminology e.g. “out of thirty five hundred”, “expecting runway twenty four”.
•The use of the word “take off” should only be used to acknowledge a clearance to do so. This will come following the announcement that you are “ready for departure”. Phrases such as “ready to line up and take off” should not be used.
•Use the correct sequence of departure information and think before transmitting. Speak clearly and slowly, avoiding non-words and verbiage.
Last edited by 212man; 26th Aug 2005 at 16:40.
•The use of the word “take off” should only be used to acknowledge a clearance to do so. This will come following the announcement that you are “ready for departure”. Phrases such as “ready to line up and take off” should not be used.
Also I hear a lot of acknowledges that are only "similar" to the ATC clearances, again asking for troubles, is it so difficult just to acknowledge just in the "exact" way?
I've been taught to say"Mayday,mayday,mayday, XXX declaring emergency... etc. etc." this will cover the entire world, no?
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 51
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was still being taught in Embry Riddle University when I was in Ormond Beach in 2000. They would all say "ready for take off" or "lining up for take off".
Non-English air tragic will know standard RT, and a small amount of English they have heard in the job and elsewhere. Standard RT is all you can assume, and a word such as emergency might be connected to them with the word "lighting" for example. If you use the phrases they have learnt, then they'll sit up!
Non-English air tragic will know standard RT, and a small amount of English they have heard in the job and elsewhere. Standard RT is all you can assume, and a word such as emergency might be connected to them with the word "lighting" for example. If you use the phrases they have learnt, then they'll sit up!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-Geoffersincornwall you Mentioned Russia and France.
Canada offers Bilingual (English/French) air traffic services in the Province of Quebec and also Ottawa (National Capital Region).
ICAO will be coming out with an English “Standard”-a basic level pilots will have to achieve when conducting international ops. I think the implemetation date is sometime around 2007.
Now, in Canada if you do a flight test conducted in English your license will be endorsed with an English classification i.e. expert.
There will be some opportunities for Teachers of English as a Second Language in non-English airlines as the implementation date draws near.
Canada offers Bilingual (English/French) air traffic services in the Province of Quebec and also Ottawa (National Capital Region).
ICAO will be coming out with an English “Standard”-a basic level pilots will have to achieve when conducting international ops. I think the implemetation date is sometime around 2007.
Now, in Canada if you do a flight test conducted in English your license will be endorsed with an English classification i.e. expert.
There will be some opportunities for Teachers of English as a Second Language in non-English airlines as the implementation date draws near.
212man....I was referrring to ATC types in Nigeria....sorry if I mislead you.
My recollection of ATC there was along the lines of ......"XXXX Tower, Seed Bird Umphdehumph....Mayday...Mayday...Mayday...Engine failure at Brass....Mayday...Mayday...Mayday!
To hear.....Seed Bird calling XXX tower...standby!
My recollection of ATC there was along the lines of ......"XXXX Tower, Seed Bird Umphdehumph....Mayday...Mayday...Mayday...Engine failure at Brass....Mayday...Mayday...Mayday!
To hear.....Seed Bird calling XXX tower...standby!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aser / 212Man
Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons...
Where does it actually say, anywhere officially, that 'Ready for Takeoff," must not be used?.
Before you flame me, I know the issues and have studied the accidents involved with miscommunication, and particularly the Tenerife, Canary islands, 1977 crash; all in detail for a research paper I'm working on.
This is why I ask, because I couldn't actually find much (any) 'official' guidance on this phraseology. I'm talking about an official (CAD / CASA / FAA etc..) policy change or advisory circular, rather than just an information website on good practice or an amateurs thoughts...I have seen most of those.
Of course, I strive to use standard RT, and employ any measures I can (including avoiding the word takeoff) to reduce the chance for miscommunication, a subject which I am very interested in.
Here's another issue (one of many):
How to report altitudes??
Approach: Seed Bird 27, descend to four thousand feet.
Pilot: Roger, leaving FL 310, descending to FL24...
Approach: Huh?
Of course here, the homophones (to / two) are being confused. Solution...always insert the word Altitude or FL before any altitude. Four and For are also easily confused. i.e.
Approach: Seed Bird 27, descend to altitude four thousand feet.
One last one for US pilots...(a real pet hate).
How many of you say, " Traffic not in sight"? THIS IS WRONG!
Only Negative Contact or Traffic in Sight are acceptable replies!
"Traffic not in sight", "I've got him on the fish-finder" are other commonly used errors. I don't consider the term "no joy" confusing but I don't see it in the book either. Ditto for "tally ho," "looking," "searching," and "radar contact."
Food for thought...
IHL
Interesting you say that. I am trained in TEFL, TESOL and have an education degree. I have done a lot of research about 'Aviation English' and ESL. So far all the courses by schools that I have looked at are taught by either....'Education experts with little or no aviation background', or 'pilots with little or no education background'.
In fact 'pilots with little or no education background' is a general problem in aviation training across the board.
cl12pv2s
This is one of the most common RT errors I hear every day...
Where does it actually say, anywhere officially, that 'Ready for Takeoff," must not be used?.
Before you flame me, I know the issues and have studied the accidents involved with miscommunication, and particularly the Tenerife, Canary islands, 1977 crash; all in detail for a research paper I'm working on.
This is why I ask, because I couldn't actually find much (any) 'official' guidance on this phraseology. I'm talking about an official (CAD / CASA / FAA etc..) policy change or advisory circular, rather than just an information website on good practice or an amateurs thoughts...I have seen most of those.
Of course, I strive to use standard RT, and employ any measures I can (including avoiding the word takeoff) to reduce the chance for miscommunication, a subject which I am very interested in.
Here's another issue (one of many):
How to report altitudes??
Approach: Seed Bird 27, descend to four thousand feet.
Pilot: Roger, leaving FL 310, descending to FL24...
Approach: Huh?
Of course here, the homophones (to / two) are being confused. Solution...always insert the word Altitude or FL before any altitude. Four and For are also easily confused. i.e.
Approach: Seed Bird 27, descend to altitude four thousand feet.
One last one for US pilots...(a real pet hate).
How many of you say, " Traffic not in sight"? THIS IS WRONG!
Only Negative Contact or Traffic in Sight are acceptable replies!
"Traffic not in sight", "I've got him on the fish-finder" are other commonly used errors. I don't consider the term "no joy" confusing but I don't see it in the book either. Ditto for "tally ho," "looking," "searching," and "radar contact."
Food for thought...
IHL
There will be some opportunities for Teachers of English as a Second Language in non-English airlines as the implementation date draws near.
In fact 'pilots with little or no education background' is a general problem in aviation training across the board.
cl12pv2s
Last edited by cl12pv2s; 27th Aug 2005 at 04:43.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
charliegolf scribbled:
Ah, there's nothing like stereotyping an entire country of pilots based on your limited exposure to a few. Thanks for that. Please feel free to post again, but please do fully engage the clutch on your brain and/or common courtesy next time.
Dave Blevins
San Jose, CA
(who has done currency more than once in f/w and r/w aircraft, has no idea about what sport you're talking about, and by the way there's a Paris in Texas, USA (didn't you see the movie???) so sometimes we have to make ourselves clear.)
It's a conceptual thing.
Americans have a problem visualising a 'world' outside the US.
They:
Don't 'do' currency, except dollars
Have a world championship in a game for american teams only
'Qualify' place names, eg Paris-France
They have a very parochial view.
Lovely folk though, the ones I know!
CG
Americans have a problem visualising a 'world' outside the US.
They:
Don't 'do' currency, except dollars
Have a world championship in a game for american teams only
'Qualify' place names, eg Paris-France
They have a very parochial view.
Lovely folk though, the ones I know!
CG
Dave Blevins
San Jose, CA
(who has done currency more than once in f/w and r/w aircraft, has no idea about what sport you're talking about, and by the way there's a Paris in Texas, USA (didn't you see the movie???) so sometimes we have to make ourselves clear.)
cl12pv2s,
the UK RT manual below has some more info on pages 51 and 52
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF
I'm sure there will be more in ICAO documents
the UK RT manual below has some more info on pages 51 and 52
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP413.PDF
I'm sure there will be more in ICAO documents
Ameericuns....parochial view????
Surely not one presented by other "English" speakers I guess!
But then one would think we mere spams have a monopoly on that....that view in itself not being "parochial" by any means of course.
Surely not one presented by other "English" speakers I guess!
But then one would think we mere spams have a monopoly on that....that view in itself not being "parochial" by any means of course.
Combine Operations
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, to return to the original thread, are we all agreed?
If we have an emergency, and we are in need of diversion, priority, assistance etc, we use Mayday or Pan Pan in order to inform ATC and other traffic?
On the other hand, if we have an emergency, and we are not too bothered about any of the above, and have no particular desire to get our message across, we declare an emergency, or use some other non-standard phraseology?
If we have an emergency, and we are in need of diversion, priority, assistance etc, we use Mayday or Pan Pan in order to inform ATC and other traffic?
On the other hand, if we have an emergency, and we are not too bothered about any of the above, and have no particular desire to get our message across, we declare an emergency, or use some other non-standard phraseology?
Last edited by Farmer 1; 27th Aug 2005 at 15:55.
F1, correct
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to know how many non European ATCOs whose first language is not English speak anything other than technical English, i.e. standard phaseology to get the job done.
I know that most people (except the Brit's
) make an effort to learn a little more than the essentials if they have to use a second language for work, but even if they did, I wouldn't expect them to be fluent and understand everything when used in a technical environment.
Under the circumstances to which this thread pertains, the ATCOs concerned could not be blamed.
It was the failure of the B757 crew to use standard phraseology and their airline's training/standards departments failure to adhere to proper procedures, led to them not recieving the priority that they would otherwise have got.
I know that most people (except the Brit's
) make an effort to learn a little more than the essentials if they have to use a second language for work, but even if they did, I wouldn't expect them to be fluent and understand everything when used in a technical environment.Under the circumstances to which this thread pertains, the ATCOs concerned could not be blamed.
It was the failure of the B757 crew to use standard phraseology and their airline's training/standards departments failure to adhere to proper procedures, led to them not recieving the priority that they would otherwise have got.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you use non-standard RT, you can expect "a non-standard" response.
One commander once bitched like no tomorrow, because there was no fire/rescue in attendance when he landed.....after calling a pan-pan for a "minor tech problem".
Well, say mayday instead then!!!!!
And offcourse burnt child dreads the fire, so the next time I got a Pan-pan, I called a local standby, and got a bollocking because flashing lights would scare the passengers!
You cannot please the customers!
One commander once bitched like no tomorrow, because there was no fire/rescue in attendance when he landed.....after calling a pan-pan for a "minor tech problem".
Well, say mayday instead then!!!!!
And offcourse burnt child dreads the fire, so the next time I got a Pan-pan, I called a local standby, and got a bollocking because flashing lights would scare the passengers!
You cannot please the customers!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I appreciate the mind-numbing precision with which you all decided that the controllers have no responsibility in this, you are dead wrong.
We all respond to situations with our brains, not our rule books. When we speak of a helo that ditches and the CP does not blow the floats, because he read the book and it says that he should beg permission to do anything from the Captain, that CP is WRONG, because his passengers hired him to have a brain. Similarly, the passengers of that airliner rely on the brains of ATC to be better than one word thick in regards to maintaining the safety of the operations they control. If you ppruners think that one word wrong allows this to happen, you deserve to live and work in such a system. You passengers deserve more, however.
The pilots erred, of course, but so did the controllers, and you have not said anything about that. How about you guys drop the books and pick up some common sense?
Lets transpose this tale. You daughter stops to ask a policeman directions to the nearest gas station. He gives them to her, and then watches her drive up the exit of a motorway the wrong direction, but does nothing because it is, after all, her fault. Does he get off free, and she dies of her own fault?
We all respond to situations with our brains, not our rule books. When we speak of a helo that ditches and the CP does not blow the floats, because he read the book and it says that he should beg permission to do anything from the Captain, that CP is WRONG, because his passengers hired him to have a brain. Similarly, the passengers of that airliner rely on the brains of ATC to be better than one word thick in regards to maintaining the safety of the operations they control. If you ppruners think that one word wrong allows this to happen, you deserve to live and work in such a system. You passengers deserve more, however.
The pilots erred, of course, but so did the controllers, and you have not said anything about that. How about you guys drop the books and pick up some common sense?
Lets transpose this tale. You daughter stops to ask a policeman directions to the nearest gas station. He gives them to her, and then watches her drive up the exit of a motorway the wrong direction, but does nothing because it is, after all, her fault. Does he get off free, and she dies of her own fault?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Incidental to the real gist of the thread but:
captain I know recently got excreted upon from a disorientating altitude for declaring an emergency as she wasn't sure from the mess of warning lights whether it was a particular minor fault which was problematic but not essentially life threatening or another which indicated immediate likelihood of complete hydraulic and brake failure. It would have been extremely difficult under duress to determine which of these scenarios prevailed and she had a full pax load. So she responded in the affirmative to ATC's request as to whether she was declaring an emergency.
The reason 'management' was upset ? Cos now they would get a bill for calling out the emergency services...
captain I know recently got excreted upon from a disorientating altitude for declaring an emergency as she wasn't sure from the mess of warning lights whether it was a particular minor fault which was problematic but not essentially life threatening or another which indicated immediate likelihood of complete hydraulic and brake failure. It would have been extremely difficult under duress to determine which of these scenarios prevailed and she had a full pax load. So she responded in the affirmative to ATC's request as to whether she was declaring an emergency.
The reason 'management' was upset ? Cos now they would get a bill for calling out the emergency services...
Combine Operations
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NickLappos
I agree 100% with part of what you said:
If a pilot has an emergency, as a result of which he wants to get back onto terra cotta as quickly as possible, and have the whole shooting match of fire and ambulance services etc. waiting for him on arrival, then the first word of his next transmission should be Mayday.
That word is magic. All on its own, it informs all those who hear it that there is an aircraft IN DISTRESS. It wakes people up; it starts them pressing buttons, making telephone calls, and basically opening fire with the aforementioned shooting match. It also makes other pilots in the area start thinking about diversions, alternate fuel, and the many and varied other ways the recently-announced situation might affect them.
If the pilot does not say that magic word, I doubt very much if ATC will immediately jump to the conclusion that the aircraft is in distress and act accordingly. They are professionals, after all, and respond to situations with their brains, as you say. So I would expect them to ask for some details of the nature of the emergency. It will take some finite time for him to decide if it is a distress situation or not, but if that is the case, then all that time will be time wasted. And he should not have to waste that valuable time with asking unnecessary questions.
So, chaps, if you want to get your message across instantly, and avail yourselves of the services of all those professionals whose job it is to help you in your distress, then say the magic word. I'm sure just the word on its own, plus your callsign, will set the ball rolling. If, on the other hand, you want to risk the emergency services not being ready, willing and waiting for you on arrival, then say something else. Anything else will do.
I agree 100% with part of what you said:
The pilots erred, of course
That word is magic. All on its own, it informs all those who hear it that there is an aircraft IN DISTRESS. It wakes people up; it starts them pressing buttons, making telephone calls, and basically opening fire with the aforementioned shooting match. It also makes other pilots in the area start thinking about diversions, alternate fuel, and the many and varied other ways the recently-announced situation might affect them.
If the pilot does not say that magic word, I doubt very much if ATC will immediately jump to the conclusion that the aircraft is in distress and act accordingly. They are professionals, after all, and respond to situations with their brains, as you say. So I would expect them to ask for some details of the nature of the emergency. It will take some finite time for him to decide if it is a distress situation or not, but if that is the case, then all that time will be time wasted. And he should not have to waste that valuable time with asking unnecessary questions.
So, chaps, if you want to get your message across instantly, and avail yourselves of the services of all those professionals whose job it is to help you in your distress, then say the magic word. I'm sure just the word on its own, plus your callsign, will set the ball rolling. If, on the other hand, you want to risk the emergency services not being ready, willing and waiting for you on arrival, then say something else. Anything else will do.
Last edited by Farmer 1; 27th Aug 2005 at 16:03.
212man,
A few years back, at night, rainy season....fixed wing aircraft....diverted due to weather...arrived overhead a dark airfield....closed airport....despite pleas by the Captain...Airport Manager refused to turn the lights on....aircraft crashed after as it attempted to land on an unlit airfield.
Remember which airport....which airline....how many dead?
A few years back, at night, rainy season....fixed wing aircraft....diverted due to weather...arrived overhead a dark airfield....closed airport....despite pleas by the Captain...Airport Manager refused to turn the lights on....aircraft crashed after as it attempted to land on an unlit airfield.
Remember which airport....which airline....how many dead?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps standard phraseology would have helped in the following example ... or would we expect the native English speaking ATC guy to pick up something required urgent attention ??
Avianca Flight 052 - New York
CAM = Cockpit Area Mic, RDO = Radio Transmissions from Avianca 052, TWR = JFK Tower, APPR = JFK Approach
2123:34 RDO-2: Executing a missed approach, Avianca zero five two heavy.
2123:39 TWR: Avianca zero five two heavy, roger, ah, climb and maintain two thousand, turn left, heading one eight zero.
2123:43 CAM-1: We don't have the fuel...
2123:45 CAM-2: Maintain two thousand feet, one eight zero on the heading.
2124:04 TWR: Avianca zero five two, you are making a left turn, correct sir?
2124:06 CAM-1: Tell them we are in emergency.
2124:08 RDO-2: Thats right to one eight zero on the heading, and, ah, we'll try once again. We're running out of fuel.
2124:15 TWR: Okay.
2124:17 CAM-1: What did he say?
2124:18 CAM-2: Maintain two thousand feet, one eight on the heading. I already advise him that we are going to attempt again, because we now can't.
2124:22 CAM-1: Advise him we are emergency!
2124:26 CAM-1: Did you tell him?
2124:28 CAM-2: Yes sir.
2124:29 CAM-2: I already advised him.
2124:32 TWR: Avianca zero five two heavy, continue the left turn, heading one five zero, maintain two thousand.
2124:36 RDO-?: One five zero, maintaining two thousand, Avianca zero five two heavy.
2124:39 TWR: Avianca zero five two heavy, contact approach on one one eight point four.
2124:42 RDO-?: One one eight point four.
2124:55 RDO-2: Approach, Avianca zero five, ah, two heavy, we just missed a missed approach, and ah, we're maintaining two thousand and five on the...
2125:07 APPR: Avianca zero five two heavy, New York, good evening, climb and maintain three thousand.
2125:08 CAM-1: Advise him we don't have fuel.
2125:10 RDO-2: Climb and maintain three thousand, and ah, we're running out of fuel, sir.
2125:12 APPR: Okay, fly heading zero eight zero.
2125:15 RDO-2: Flying heading zero eight zero, climb to three thousand.
2125:28 CAM-1: Did you already advise that we don't have fuel?
2125:29 CAM-2: Yes sir, I already advise him, hundred and eighty on the heading. We are going to maintain three thousand feet, and he's going to get us back.
2125:29 CAM-1: Okay.
2126:27 APPR: Avianca zero five two heavy, turn left, heading zero seven zero.
2126:31 RDO-?: Heading zero seven zero, Avianca zero five two heavy.
2126:35 APPR: And Avianca zero five two heavy, ah, I'm going to bring you about fifteen miles northeast, and then turn you back onto the approach, is that fine with you and your fuel?
2126:43 RDO-2: I guess so, that you very much.
2126:46 CAM-1: What did he say?
2126:46 CAM-3: The guy is angry.
2129:11 RDO-2: Ah, can you give us a final now? Avianca zero five two heavy.
2129:20 APPR: Avianca zero five two, affirmative sir, turn left, heading zero four zero.
2130:21 RDO-?: Avianca zero five two heavy, left turn two five zero, and ah, we're cleared for ILS.
2130:32 APPR: Avianca fifty two, climb and maintain three thousand.
2130:36 RDO-2: Ah, negative sir. We just running out of fuel. We okay three thousand. Now okay.
2130:44 APPR: Okay, turn left, heading three one zero sir.
2130:47 RDO-?: Three one zero, Avianca zero five two.
2130:55 APPR: Avianca fifty two, fly heading of three six zero please.
2130:58 RDO-?: Okay, we'll maintain three six zero now.
2131:01 APPR: Okay, and you're number two for the approach. I just have to give you enough room so you can make it without, ah, having to come out again.
2131:07 RDO-?: Okay, we're number two and flying three six zero now.
2131:10 APPR: thankyou sir.
2132:08 APPR: Avianca zero five two heavy, turn left, heading three three zero.
2132:11 RDO-?: Three three zero on the heading, Avianca zero five two.
2132:38 (Sound of momentary power interruption to the CVR.)
2132:39 CAM-3: Flame out! Flame out on engine number four.
2132:41 (Sound of momentary power interruption to the CVR)
2132:42 CAM-1: Flame out on it.
2132:43 CAM-3: Flame out on engine number three, essential on number two, one number one.
2132:49 RDO-2: Avianca zero five two, we just, ah, lost two engines and, ah, we need priority, please.
2132:54 APPR: Avianca zero five two, turn left, heading two five zero, intercept the localizer.
2132:56 (Sound of engine spooling down.)
2132:57 CAM-2: Two five zero.
2133:04 APPR: Avianca zero five two heavy, you're one five miles from the outer marker, maintain two thousand until established on the localizer. Cleared for ILS two two left.
2133:12 RDO-?: Roger, Avianca.
2133:24 (End of recording)
Avianca Flight 052 - New York
CAM = Cockpit Area Mic, RDO = Radio Transmissions from Avianca 052, TWR = JFK Tower, APPR = JFK Approach
2123:34 RDO-2: Executing a missed approach, Avianca zero five two heavy.
2123:39 TWR: Avianca zero five two heavy, roger, ah, climb and maintain two thousand, turn left, heading one eight zero.
2123:43 CAM-1: We don't have the fuel...
2123:45 CAM-2: Maintain two thousand feet, one eight zero on the heading.
2124:04 TWR: Avianca zero five two, you are making a left turn, correct sir?
2124:06 CAM-1: Tell them we are in emergency.
2124:08 RDO-2: Thats right to one eight zero on the heading, and, ah, we'll try once again. We're running out of fuel.
2124:15 TWR: Okay.
2124:17 CAM-1: What did he say?
2124:18 CAM-2: Maintain two thousand feet, one eight on the heading. I already advise him that we are going to attempt again, because we now can't.
2124:22 CAM-1: Advise him we are emergency!
2124:26 CAM-1: Did you tell him?
2124:28 CAM-2: Yes sir.
2124:29 CAM-2: I already advised him.
2124:32 TWR: Avianca zero five two heavy, continue the left turn, heading one five zero, maintain two thousand.
2124:36 RDO-?: One five zero, maintaining two thousand, Avianca zero five two heavy.
2124:39 TWR: Avianca zero five two heavy, contact approach on one one eight point four.
2124:42 RDO-?: One one eight point four.
2124:55 RDO-2: Approach, Avianca zero five, ah, two heavy, we just missed a missed approach, and ah, we're maintaining two thousand and five on the...
2125:07 APPR: Avianca zero five two heavy, New York, good evening, climb and maintain three thousand.
2125:08 CAM-1: Advise him we don't have fuel.
2125:10 RDO-2: Climb and maintain three thousand, and ah, we're running out of fuel, sir.
2125:12 APPR: Okay, fly heading zero eight zero.
2125:15 RDO-2: Flying heading zero eight zero, climb to three thousand.
2125:28 CAM-1: Did you already advise that we don't have fuel?
2125:29 CAM-2: Yes sir, I already advise him, hundred and eighty on the heading. We are going to maintain three thousand feet, and he's going to get us back.
2125:29 CAM-1: Okay.
2126:27 APPR: Avianca zero five two heavy, turn left, heading zero seven zero.
2126:31 RDO-?: Heading zero seven zero, Avianca zero five two heavy.
2126:35 APPR: And Avianca zero five two heavy, ah, I'm going to bring you about fifteen miles northeast, and then turn you back onto the approach, is that fine with you and your fuel?
2126:43 RDO-2: I guess so, that you very much.
2126:46 CAM-1: What did he say?
2126:46 CAM-3: The guy is angry.
2129:11 RDO-2: Ah, can you give us a final now? Avianca zero five two heavy.
2129:20 APPR: Avianca zero five two, affirmative sir, turn left, heading zero four zero.
2130:21 RDO-?: Avianca zero five two heavy, left turn two five zero, and ah, we're cleared for ILS.
2130:32 APPR: Avianca fifty two, climb and maintain three thousand.
2130:36 RDO-2: Ah, negative sir. We just running out of fuel. We okay three thousand. Now okay.
2130:44 APPR: Okay, turn left, heading three one zero sir.
2130:47 RDO-?: Three one zero, Avianca zero five two.
2130:55 APPR: Avianca fifty two, fly heading of three six zero please.
2130:58 RDO-?: Okay, we'll maintain three six zero now.
2131:01 APPR: Okay, and you're number two for the approach. I just have to give you enough room so you can make it without, ah, having to come out again.
2131:07 RDO-?: Okay, we're number two and flying three six zero now.
2131:10 APPR: thankyou sir.
2132:08 APPR: Avianca zero five two heavy, turn left, heading three three zero.
2132:11 RDO-?: Three three zero on the heading, Avianca zero five two.
2132:38 (Sound of momentary power interruption to the CVR.)
2132:39 CAM-3: Flame out! Flame out on engine number four.
2132:41 (Sound of momentary power interruption to the CVR)
2132:42 CAM-1: Flame out on it.
2132:43 CAM-3: Flame out on engine number three, essential on number two, one number one.
2132:49 RDO-2: Avianca zero five two, we just, ah, lost two engines and, ah, we need priority, please.
2132:54 APPR: Avianca zero five two, turn left, heading two five zero, intercept the localizer.
2132:56 (Sound of engine spooling down.)
2132:57 CAM-2: Two five zero.
2133:04 APPR: Avianca zero five two heavy, you're one five miles from the outer marker, maintain two thousand until established on the localizer. Cleared for ILS two two left.
2133:12 RDO-?: Roger, Avianca.
2133:24 (End of recording)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Written by IHL
English is the language of INTERNATIONAL AVIATION, not the international language of aviation.
Citizens of France, Italy, Spain, Russia, or where ever, when conducting domestic flights, have every right to speak in their native tongue; whatever that may be.
English is the language of INTERNATIONAL AVIATION, not the international language of aviation.
Citizens of France, Italy, Spain, Russia, or where ever, when conducting domestic flights, have every right to speak in their native tongue; whatever that may be.
ATC does a great job since even understanding a Cubana or Iberia pilot speaking spanish is difficult, now the Japan Air Lines pilots are almost impossible to understand! The Russians send pilots in their cargo planes that barely speak English.
Sure English speakers would love for the rest of the world to speak only their language but I just don't think its gonna happen anytime soon.