A320 flight crew reported during initial climb ATC issued confusing instructions using non-standard phraseology which contributed to a heading deviation. Flight crew stated the aircraft landing right behind them was directed by ATC to go-around due to lack of aircraft separation and both aircraft were being vectored to regain separation.
Synopsis
A320 flight crew reported during initial climb ATC issued confusing instructions using non-standard phraseology which contributed to a heading deviation. Flight crew stated the aircraft landing right behind them was directed by ATC to go-around due to lack of aircraft separation and both aircraft were being vectored to regain separation.
Narrative
Halfway through a normal taxi to runway XXC our load close out was deleted; I advised ground; and irregular instructions were given. We joined [taxiways] 1; 2; 3; held short 4 for runway XXC. Approaching 4 on 3 I advised tower we were ready for departure. Shortly thereafter; we were given line up and wait XXC instruction. I advised tower we were unable as a company aircraft was now [on taxiway] 4 and holding short XXC. Tower cleared the aircraft for departure and for us to line up and wait XXC. Shortly after lining up on XXC we received a takeoff clearance; no delay; company aircraft 2 mile final. The captain started to spool the IAE engines; and again the tower controllers tone of urgency for us to depart became more apparent. I came across the radio and told him it takes time for the IAE's to spool. What felt simultaneous; was us departing the runway and tower issuing the company aircraft on final a go around. Tower told the go around aircraft to maintain visual separation; which would shortly become impossible as we were IMC shortly thereafter. There was more exchange between the go around aircraft and the tower controller that I cannot remember. At around 1300 ft. AGL; I heard tower issue Aircraft X (my flight) to fly a 160 heading. Because the Captain was hand flying the aircraft; I pulled the heading bug and selection a 160 heading and replied to the ATC instruction. At about 2800 ft. MSL we heard an instruction to climb to 3000 ft. Thus; I dialed in 3000 ft.; at this point; the autopilot was now engaged and the aircraft was successfully capturing 3000 ft. MSL. Upon replying to the 3000 ft. call; the controller said that we should be flying the RNAV sit and EXPEDITING though 3000. At this point; I was starting to at best feel a bit behind the aircraft due to the high workload demand and lack of clarity in the instructions. In order to let the controller know what we were doing as we believed to be correct; I replied with 'ok; we were instructed to fly a 160 heading and maintain 3000 ft.; (those two instructions were not concurrent) I also said I'm sure you meant to give the go around aircraft the 160 heading; but you gave it to us; but we are now rejoining and climbing via the ZZZZZ SID. The controller asked; sarcastically; if we were done - I didn't reply. The tower controller then instructed us to contact departure. We continued with no further incident.Overall; there was a communication breakdown between the tower controller and the go around aircraft and the tower controller and myself. Lack of standard phraseology.We need to have more clarity in instructions during periods of high workload. I should have asked the controller to verify the heading instruction; which the controller would have either confirmed or denied; which would have given the controller better opportunity to handle the one go around aircraft instead of two aircraft on similar headings.
Second reporter narrative
After being cleared for takeoff on XXC; tower told us to expedite; since traffic was stated to be on a two mile final. I wasted no time applying power; but we do have to pause momentarily to let EPR stabilize before we can apply takeoff power. Once we approached around 120 knots speed on takeoff roll; tower instructed aircraft behind us to go around. He asked if traffic behind us could keep us in visual contact. They replied that they could not. Tower gave us a heading of 160; and we turned to that heading. He then gave the go around traffic 140 heading. Tower then said something we interpreted as Aircraft X; climb to 3000." We were passing 2300 at that point. Our departure procedure altitude was 10;000; so I figured since we were already off the departure; and flying the new altitude; tower meant to level us at 3000. My FO quickly set 3000; and I began leveling. Tower told us to "hurry through 3000." It could be that we misinterpreted the original instruction; because he did not use standard phraseology. "Expedite" would have made the 3000 altitude instruction unmistakable. We didn't actually level at 3000; only started to. When the controller mentioned 3000 a second time; it was clear that he wanted us to pass through that altitude quickly-at which point; we set 10;000 quickly; I selected open climb; and we got past the altitude very quickly. Our energy state was still high; and climb was rapid. During this event; multiple instructions were given to both our flight and the flight on the go around; multiple altitudes and headings. I heard that other aircraft assigned 140 heading at some point as well. It was unclear to me what the controller's intent was with the headings; but we complied with ours. He then directed us to fly direct to a fix and rejoin the SID. From that point; we continued the flight normally. We never heard any TCAS TA or RA; so I am not sure how close the aircraft got. From our perspective; it was a very rapid fire set of instructions to both aircraft; and we complied with all of them to the best of our knowledge.I think the root issue here is the way some controllers use assumed separation. I know they are under pressure to maximize runway utilization; but I think they should be much more conservative with assumed separation. We didn't dilly on our takeoff roll a bit. On these older engines; the spool up time can be much longer. On old IAEs; sometimes the time to set takeoff thrust can be 3x or more the time for CFMs [engines]. Controllers need to create more space so these situations can't occur. The big issue that made this event so difficult was the barrage of verbal instructions to both aircraft. Some were unclear; and even with an experienced crew; prompt and correct compliance can was difficult. Tower instructions need to be paced clearly; annunciated clearly; and carefully planned in order to ensure proper compliance with intent. Two flight crews did our best to comply with the instructions and avoid a dangerous situation; but we both had trouble interpreting very rapid and sometimes unclear instructions. Succinct; standard phraseology would have prevented much confusion. Had I understood that a plane was landing so close behind our takeoff; I would never would have accepted the takeoff clearance. Perhaps due to some slight visual illusion; I was certain the landing lights I saw were lined up with XXL."
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.