GA1310

I am a pilot of around 20 years’ experience, with the last 10 years flying out of [Airfield 1]. So, I feel as though I ought to know the Manchester low-level route pretty well. However, a recent incident has led me to reflect on that belief. I was out for a bimble with a friend, also a pilot, just to keep us both current and take advantage of a break in a run of poor weather. We had decided on a three-stage hop, out of [Airfield 1], via the low-level route, to [Airfield 2]. Land there for a quick stop for a bacon butty then over to [Airfield 3], change pilots and back to [Airfield 1] via the low-level. All very standard stuff, and a chance for a chat and catch up for us both. The flights out to [Airfield 2] and on to [Airfield 3] were uneventful and I took the controls for the flight back to [Airfield 1]. Clearing [Airfield 3], I got a Basic Service from [ATCU] Information and, as I approached the low-level, I was cleared to listen to Manchester Approach. I squawked 7366, had a quick check of the Manchester ATIS and descended to 1100 ft for the transit, giving me a 200ft clearance below the 1300 foot ceiling of the low-level route.

Around three-quarters of the way along the route I was called by a Manchester controller to ask what height I was registering, I told him 1100ft, at which point he told me I was showing 1400ft on their systems. Not questioning, I informed him I was descending and dropped a further 200 feet. I heard no more and landed back at [Airfield 1] with no further incident. On landing I realised that I had misheard the QNH setting on the Manchester ATIS before entering the low-level route thus leading to my altimeter giving me a wrong reading. Clearly a lesson learned ALWAYS DOUBLE-CHECK the Manchester QNH before entering the low-level route from whichever direction and I’m grateful to the Manchester controller for his gentle corrective action.

However, another thought does also occur. I always seek some form of service when entering new airspace and, whenever I do, the control data for that airspace is subject to a read-back. Thus, whenever I mishear an element – be it squawk or pressure setting – I am corrected and asked to repeat the correct data. Manchester low-level route is Class D airspace and the QNH is a critical element in remaining clear of the ceiling, but if I mishear the ATIS then there is no failsafe of a re-back. I suppose I could have asked [ATCU] for the Manchester QNH before leaving them, but one purpose of a listening squawk is to reduce demand on controllers and I would simply be shifting the burden from Manchester to [ATCU]. I have no solution to the issue, other than continued personal vigilance, but it remains a concern that in an environment where we look for double-checked read-back as a safety norm there is no such facility when entering the Manchester low-level route.

Lessons learnt: When preparing a flight the majority of variables can be pre-planned for at the pre-flight stage, but en-route QNH is not one of them. As a personal mantra I will, henceforth, always double-check any data that I derive from an automatic source such as an ATIS to satisfy myself that I have heard it correctly.