Flyers,

I'll run this scenario past the group and see what you all think and is if
Mr. McNicoll can shed some light as well.

First, some quick background. At my airport if you are IFR and are heading,
say, southwest (as I was) it's too bad...you're clearance is to send you 22
miles north to a fix and then 15 mile east to another fix and then they will
turn you on course. Usually, if asked, you can get direct on course shortly
after take-off. If traffic permits they will clear you to go direct to your
first filed fix on course.

Ok so...I took-off on an IFR flight plan and I had just leveled off at 4000'
north bound for their fix. Next they gave me a vector of 090. After a
minute or so I asked the controller, "McGuire Approach, Cardinal 07G, any
chance direct Smyrna (ENO)?" The response I got was, "07G direct Smyrna
unable." Ok...that would be fine if that was what my busy brain heard, but
I did not hear it that way...my brain heard, "07G direct Smyrna 'when
able'." Shortly after I turned direct for ENO I got a VERY large lecture
with unneeded and unnecessary attitude. "07G I TOLD YOU STAY 090. CAN'T
YOU LISTEN OR UNDERSTAND ATC INSTRUCTIONS? WHEN I GIVE YOU A VECTOR YOU ARE
TO FOLLOW IT EXACTLY AND CAREFULLY!!"

When I explained to him that I heard him say, "...direct ENO when able." he
became even more belligerent. "I DID *NOT* SAY THAT!! YOU NEED TO LISTEN
TO ATC INSTRUCTION MORE CAREFULLY AND FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTION EXACTLY."

Whoa! Like I needed to know any of that and like anyone needs to be yelled
at over the airwaves with an attitude. This controller was a young military
male for what any of that is worth.

Granted I heard him wrong and I made a mistake. But I think the controller
needs to take some responsibility for using confusing verbiage and surely it
was unprofessional to lay me out like that. This reminds me of how a
mid-air occurred in LA because a new controller took time to admonish a GA
pilot for a couple minutes while a commercial plane and a Piper collided
right in front of him on his screen.

So my question to Steve McNicoll is...is that standard verbiage to say,
"...direct Smyrna 'unable'??. 'cause I'm here to tell ya that, that can be
EASILY confused with 'direct Smyrna 'when able'. What's your thoughts on
this and did he use proper language or did he just use poor phraseology?

Kobra

Kobra wrote:

> was unprofessional to lay me out like that. This reminds me of how a
> mid-air occurred in LA because a new controller took time to admonish a GA
> pilot for a couple minutes while a commercial plane and a Piper collided
> right in front of him on his screen.
>

I'll leave the comments about your handling to others, but your
characterization of that 1986 tragedy over Cerritos, CA is grossly
misleading.

The NTSB found no fault with the controller working those aircraft. In
fact, he is a highly regarded airspace manager today.

The Piper pilot was illegally within the TCA (Class B airspace).

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Kobra wrote:
>
>> was unprofessional to lay me out like that. This reminds me of how a
>> mid-air occurred in LA because a new controller took time to admonish a
>> GA pilot for a couple minutes while a commercial plane and a Piper
>> collided right in front of him on his screen.
>>
>
> I'll leave the comments about your handling to others, but your
> characterization of that 1986 tragedy over Cerritos, CA is grossly
> misleading.
>
> The NTSB found no fault with the controller working those aircraft. In
> fact, he is a highly regarded airspace manager today.
>
> The Piper pilot was illegally within the TCA (Class B airspace).

Hello Sam,

I did not mean to be misleading and of course I don't have all the facts.
Using only the information I do have, I feel it a fact that he spent
needless time lecturing a GA pilot who was also illegally in the TCA. It
would not be a stretch to infer that this distracted him from his scope. No
one can say that it's not *possible* or even likely that if he didn't give
his lecture that he may have seen the conflict and warned the airliner about
the VFR target's position and direction of flight with the typical "altitude
known".

Hey, who knows, but I am surprised yet happy that this person came back to
the FAA and ATC. The show *Air Emergency* (which is how I learned about
this) made it appear that once he came back to work, he immediately decided
that ATC was not for him and he never worked for ATC again. I'm happy
everything worked out for him. I felt really bad for him when I saw the
show.

Kobra

Kobra writes:

> Ok so...I took-off on an IFR flight plan and I had just leveled off at 4000'
> north bound for their fix. Next they gave me a vector of 090. After a
> minute or so I asked the controller, "McGuire Approach, Cardinal 07G, any
> chance direct Smyrna (ENO)?" The response I got was, "07G direct Smyrna
> unable." Ok...that would be fine if that was what my busy brain heard, but
> I did not hear it that way...my brain heard, "07G direct Smyrna 'when
> able'." Shortly after I turned direct for ENO I got a VERY large lecture
> with unneeded and unnecessary attitude. "07G I TOLD YOU STAY 090. CAN'T
> YOU LISTEN OR UNDERSTAND ATC INSTRUCTIONS? WHEN I GIVE YOU A VECTOR YOU ARE
> TO FOLLOW IT EXACTLY AND CAREFULLY!!"
>
> When I explained to him that I heard him say, "...direct ENO when able." he
> became even more belligerent. "I DID *NOT* SAY THAT!! YOU NEED TO LISTEN
> TO ATC INSTRUCTION MORE CAREFULLY AND FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTION EXACTLY."

Where was your readback?

> Granted I heard him wrong and I made a mistake. But I think the controller
> needs to take some responsibility for using confusing verbiage and surely it
> was unprofessional to lay me out like that.

Had you read back the instructions, the chances of any confusion would have
been greatly reduced. You should always read things back.

> This reminds me of how a
> mid-air occurred in LA because a new controller took time to admonish a GA
> pilot for a couple minutes while a commercial plane and a Piper collided
> right in front of him on his screen.

When was this?

> So my question to Steve McNicoll is...is that standard verbiage to say,
> "...direct Smyrna 'unable'??. 'cause I'm here to tell ya that, that can be
> EASILY confused with 'direct Smyrna 'when able'. What's your thoughts on
> this and did he use proper language or did he just use poor phraseology?

If you read back "when able" after he says "unable," he'll probably catch it
and correct you. If you don't read anything back, you never know.

Kobra writes:

> I did not mean to be misleading and of course I don't have all the facts.
> Using only the information I do have, I feel it a fact that he spent
> needless time lecturing a GA pilot who was also illegally in the TCA. It
> would not be a stretch to infer that this distracted him from his scope. No
> one can say that it's not *possible* or even likely that if he didn't give
> his lecture that he may have seen the conflict and warned the airliner about
> the VFR target's position and direction of flight with the typical "altitude
> known".
>
> Hey, who knows, but I am surprised yet happy that this person came back to
> the FAA and ATC. The show *Air Emergency* (which is how I learned about
> this) made it appear that once he came back to work, he immediately decided
> that ATC was not for him and he never worked for ATC again. I'm happy
> everything worked out for him. I felt really bad for him when I saw the
> show.

If this is the one, I see no mention of ATC distraction:

NTSB Identification: DCA86AA041A.
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 31249.
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 129: Foreign AERONAVES DE MEXICO, S.A.
Accident occurred Sunday, August 31, 1986 in CERRITOS, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/7/1988
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32, registration: XAJED
Injuries: 82 Fatal, 8 Minor.

The Safety Board's full report on this investigation is provided as Aviation
Accident Report number AAR-87/07. To obtain a copy of this report, or to view
the executive summary online, please see the Web site at
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/publictn.htm


AT APRX 1140 PDT, A PIPER PA-28, N4891F, DEPARTED TORRANCE, CA ON A VFR FLT TO
BIG BEAR, CA. AFTER TAKEOFF, THE PLT TURNED EASTBOUND TWD THE PARADISE VORTAC
WITH HIS X-PONDER SQUAWKING 1200. AT THAT TIME, AEROMEXICO FLT 498 (DC-8, MEX
REGISTRY XA-JED) WAS ON ARRIVAL, RCVG NORTHBOUND VECTORS FM LAX APCH CTL (AR-1
CTLR) FOR AN ILS APCH TO THE LAX INTL ARPT. AT 1151:04, THE CTLR ASKED FLT 498
TO RDC SPD TO 190 KTS & DSCND FM 7000' TO 6000'. DRG THIS TIME, THE CTLR WAS
CTLG OTR TRAFFIC & PROVIDING RADAR ADVISORIES, BUT DIDN'T SEE A DISPLAY FOR
N4891F ON HIS SCOPE. AT 1152:09, N4891F & FLT 498 CONVERGED & COLLIDED AT APRX
6560', THEN FELL TO THE GND. AN INV REVEALED N4891F HAD INADVERTENTLY ENTERED
THE LAX TERMINAL CONTROL AREA (TCA) & WASN'T IN RADIO CONTACT WITH ATC. LAX
TRACON WASN'T EQUIPPED WITH AN AUTO CONFLICT ALERT SYS & THE ANALOG BEACON
RESPONSE FM N4891F'S X-PONDER WASN'T DISPLAYED DUE TO EQUIP CONFIGURATION.
N4891F'S PSN WAS DISPLAYED BY AN ALPHANUMERIC TRIANGLE, BUT THE PRIMARY TARGET
WASN'T DISPLAYED DUE TO AN ATMOSPHERIC INVERSION.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:
RADAR,APPROACH/DEPARTURE..INADEQUATE
PROCEDURE INADEQUATE..FAA(OTHER/ORGANIZATION)


Contributing Factors

IDENTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT ON RADAR..NOT ATTAINED
PROCEDURES/DIRECTIVES..NOT FOLLOWED..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
UNSAFE/HAZARDOUS CONDITION..INADVERTENT..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
VISUAL LOOKOUT..INADEQUATE..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
VISUAL LOOKOUT..INADEQUATE..PILOT IN COMMAND

Kobra wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Kobra wrote:
>>
>>
>>>was unprofessional to lay me out like that. This reminds me of how a
>>>mid-air occurred in LA because a new controller took time to admonish a
>>>GA pilot for a couple minutes while a commercial plane and a Piper
>>>collided right in front of him on his screen.
>>>
>>
>>I'll leave the comments about your handling to others, but your
>>characterization of that 1986 tragedy over Cerritos, CA is grossly
>>misleading.
>>
>>The NTSB found no fault with the controller working those aircraft. In
>>fact, he is a highly regarded airspace manager today.
>>
>>The Piper pilot was illegally within the TCA (Class B airspace).
>
>
> Hello Sam,
>
> I did not mean to be misleading and of course I don't have all the facts.
> Using only the information I do have, I feel it a fact that he spent
> needless time lecturing a GA pilot who was also illegally in the TCA. It
> would not be a stretch to infer that this distracted him from his scope. No
> one can say that it's not *possible* or even likely that if he didn't give
> his lecture that he may have seen the conflict and warned the airliner about
> the VFR target's position and direction of flight with the typical "altitude
> known".
>
> Hey, who knows, but I am surprised yet happy that this person came back to
> the FAA and ATC. The show *Air Emergency* (which is how I learned about
> this) made it appear that once he came back to work, he immediately decided
> that ATC was not for him and he never worked for ATC again. I'm happy
> everything worked out for him. I felt really bad for him when I saw the
> show.
>
> Kobra
>
>
You should read the full NTSB report. I found it on-line this morning
with a Google search:

http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR87-07.pdf

The Piper's primary target didn't show because of a weather inversion.
Because he was sqawking 1200 his beacon return was rudimentary (which
the NTSB did find fault with).

The other aircraft that violated the TCA was being worked by the
controller. When he determined (no mandatory Mode C at the time) that
the aircraft was inside the TCA without a clearance the controller made
it clear that he was inside the airspace and that he needed to use his
TCA chart more dilgently. It was an appropriate response to the
intrustion; not a tirade.

Traffic was light for LAX airspace, and there were two controllers on
this position. Had they both had their eyes glued on the DC-9 they
still couldn't have detected a potential mid-air in the making. The
technology at the time was just too crappy.

Anthony, where do you get off telling a real IFR rated pilot about how he
should read back instructions, when you have never been at the controls of
anything other than a computer game? Do you even remotely think that talking
with play controllers in any way mimics the real IFR environment?

Get a clue- you don't know anything about flying IFR or in IMC.

> Where was your readback?
>

I read it back and just like me he heard what his brain expected to hear:
'unable' when I actually said 'when able' . I wish I thought of that while
I was being reprimanded. I was just too busy flying, being embarrassed and
head scratching trying to figure out how this whole misunderstanding took
place.

But as I said before, the big issue with me was the way he snapped. I just
think he was a young man, given a little authority, probably a junior
trainee controller sitting with him, I'm in charge and fear me attitude and
probably having a bad day.

Kobra

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:07:57 -0400, "Kobra" > wrote:

>> Where was your readback?
>>
>
>I read it back and just like me he heard what his brain expected to hear:
>'unable' when I actually said 'when able' . I wish I thought of that while
>I was being reprimanded. I was just too busy flying, being embarrassed and
>head scratching trying to figure out how this whole misunderstanding took
>place.

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever. Now, were it me:

1) File an ASRS form, now.

2) WRT the instruction, I would have thought the prefered method would
have been "<aircraft>, unable Smyrna." As you mention, "Smyrna
unable" is confusing. In fact, if I read the 7110.65 right, he wasn't
in compliance with the approved terminology in 2-1-18(c):

2-1-18: Operational requests
c. State the word “UNABLE” and, time permitting,
a reason.
PHRASEOLOGY-
UNABLE (requested operation).
and when necessary,
(reason and/or additional instructions.)

3) Never get into an on-air discussion. Just shush and go on to the
next sector. It's not worth the airtime, regardless of what the guy
on the ground is doing. You have better things to be doing, like
flying the aircraft. If you want to get into it later after you
landed, ask for the controller's initials, note the time, and then
call his facility and ask for the supervisor or QA guy. They'll take
the information and pull the tapes.

Kobra wrote:
>
> Flyers,
>
> I'll run this scenario past the group and see what you all think and
> is if Mr. McNicoll can shed some light as well.
>
> First, some quick background. At my airport if you are IFR and are
> heading, say, southwest (as I was) it's too bad...you're clearance is
> to send you 22 miles north to a fix and then 15 mile east to another
> fix and then they will turn you on course. Usually, if asked, you
> can get direct on course shortly after take-off. If traffic permits
> they will clear you to go direct to your first filed fix on course.
>
> Ok so...I took-off on an IFR flight plan and I had just leveled off
> at 4000' north bound for their fix. Next they gave me a vector of
> 090. After a minute or so I asked the controller, "McGuire Approach,
> Cardinal 07G, any chance direct Smyrna (ENO)?" The response I got
> was, "07G direct Smyrna unable." Ok...that would be fine if that was
> what my busy brain heard, but I did not hear it that way...my brain
> heard, "07G direct Smyrna 'when able'." Shortly after I turned
> direct for ENO I got a VERY large lecture with unneeded and
> unnecessary attitude. "07G I TOLD YOU STAY 090. CAN'T YOU LISTEN OR
> UNDERSTAND ATC INSTRUCTIONS? WHEN I GIVE YOU A VECTOR YOU ARE TO
> FOLLOW IT EXACTLY AND CAREFULLY!!"
> When I explained to him that I heard him say, "...direct ENO when
> able." he became even more belligerent. "I DID *NOT* SAY THAT!! YOU NEED
> TO LISTEN TO ATC INSTRUCTION MORE CAREFULLY AND FOLLOW MY
> INSTRUCTION EXACTLY."
> Whoa! Like I needed to know any of that and like anyone needs to be
> yelled at over the airwaves with an attitude. This controller was a
> young military male for what any of that is worth.
>
> Granted I heard him wrong and I made a mistake. But I think the
> controller needs to take some responsibility for using confusing
> verbiage and surely it was unprofessional to lay me out like that. This
> reminds me of how a mid-air occurred in LA because a new
> controller took time to admonish a GA pilot for a couple minutes
> while a commercial plane and a Piper collided right in front of him
> on his screen.
> So my question to Steve McNicoll is...is that standard verbiage to
> say, "...direct Smyrna 'unable'??. 'cause I'm here to tell ya that,
> that can be EASILY confused with 'direct Smyrna 'when able'. What's
> your thoughts on this and did he use proper language or did he just
> use poor phraseology?
>

Bad phraseology on the part of the controller. When denying a pilot's
request the transmission is supposed to begin with "unable". When approving
a pilot's request it's supposed to end with "approved" or just "approved as
requested".



Order JO 7110.65S Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 1. General

2-1-18. OPERATIONAL REQUESTS

Respond to a request from another controller, a pilot or vehicle operator by
one of the following verbal means:

a. Restate the request in complete or abbreviated terms followed by the word
"APPROVED." The phraseology "APPROVED AS REQUESTED" may be
substituted in lieu of a lengthy readback.

PHRASEOLOGY-

(Requested operation) APPROVED.

or

APPROVED AS REQUESTED.

b. State restrictions followed by the word

"APPROVED."

PHRASEOLOGY-

(Restriction and/or additional instructions, requested operation) APPROVED.

c. State the word "UNABLE" and, time permitting, a reason.

PHRASEOLOGY-

UNABLE

(requested operation).

and when necessary,

(reason and/or additional instructions.)

d. State the words "STAND BY."

NOTE-

"STAND BY" is not an approval or denial. The controller acknowledges the
request and will respond at a later time.

REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-1-21, Traffic Advisories.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 4-2-5, Route or Altitude Amendments.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 7-9-3, Methods.

Peter Clark wrote:
>
> I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
> mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.
>

Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are correct.
That was never changed and never even proposed to be changed. It was widely
misreported.



Order JO 7110.65S Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 4. Radio and Interphone Communications

2-4-3. PILOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT/READ BACK

a. When issuing clearances or instructions ensure acknowledgment by the
pilot.

NOTE-
Pilots may acknowledge clearances, instructions, or other information by
using "Wilco," "Roger," "Affirmative," or other words or remarks.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Para 4-2-3, Contact Procedures.

b. If altitude, heading, or other items are read back by the pilot, ensure
the read back is correct. If incorrect or incomplete, make corrections as
appropriate.

Kobra writes:

> But as I said before, the big issue with me was the way he snapped. I just
> think he was a young man, given a little authority, probably a junior
> trainee controller sitting with him, I'm in charge and fear me attitude and
> probably having a bad day.

If he reacts that emotionally to something this trivial, perhaps air traffic
control is not the best career choice for him. Angry young males make poor
air traffic controllers (in fact, they are bad at just about everything except
perhaps bar fights).

Peter Clark writes:

> I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
> mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.

If ATC isn't supposed to correct an incorrect readback, why have readbacks?
Or is that not what you mean?

"Kobra" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Where was your readback?
>>
>
> I read it back and just like me he heard what his brain expected to hear:
> 'unable' when I actually said 'when able' . I wish I thought of that
> while I was being reprimanded. I was just too busy flying, being
> embarrassed and head scratching trying to figure out how this whole
> misunderstanding took place.
>
> But as I said before, the big issue with me was the way he snapped. I
> just think he was a young man, given a little authority, probably a junior
> trainee controller sitting with him, I'm in charge and fear me attitude
> and probably having a bad day.
>
> Kobra

Yeah, he got the phraseology bass-ackward.

Yeah, he gave you a ration you probably didn't have coming.

Maybe he was having a bad day. Maybe he just got told he's going to the
sandbox for another 13 months; for his second or third time. Maybe he was a
trainee trying to impress his trainer with his "control." Maybe a lot of
things.

If anyone else in the facility heard the exchange he's likely already gotten
some wall-to-wall counseling.

**** happens :-/ Be the adult and drive on.

Anthony, there you go again spouting and pontificating about topics where
you have absolutely no knowedge or experience other than playing your
computer game.

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:43:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Peter Clark wrote:
>>
>> I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
>> mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.
>>
>
>Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are correct.
>That was never changed and never even proposed to be changed. It was widely
>misreported.

Hm, OK, thanks. What I seem to remember is someone who got violated
for doing something that they read back incorrectly and used "but the
controller didn't fix the readback" as part of the defense and still
had the violation upheld as it wasn't ATC's issue if they didn't
correct an incorrect readback. Wouldn't be the first time I
misremembered somethin tho.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Kobra writes:
>
>> I did not mean to be misleading and of course I don't have all the
>> facts. Using only the information I do have, I feel it a fact that he
>> spent needless time lecturing a GA pilot who was also illegally in
>> the TCA. It would not be a stretch to infer that this distracted him
>> from his scope. No one can say that it's not *possible* or even
>> likely that if he didn't give his lecture that he may have seen the
>> conflict and warned the airliner about the VFR target's position and
>> direction of flight with the typical "altitude known".
>>
>> Hey, who knows, but I am surprised yet happy that this person came
>> back to the FAA and ATC. The show *Air Emergency* (which is how I
>> learned about this) made it appear that once he came back to work, he
>> immediately decided that ATC was not for him and he never worked for
>> ATC again. I'm happy everything worked out for him. I felt really
>> bad for him when I saw the show.
>
> If this is the one, I see no mention of ATC distraction:
>
> NTSB Identification: DCA86AA041A.
> The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 31249.
> Scheduled 14 CFR Part 129: Foreign AERONAVES DE MEXICO, S.A.
> Accident occurred Sunday, August 31, 1986 in CERRITOS, CA
> Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/7/1988
> Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32, registration: XAJED
> Injuries: 82 Fatal, 8 Minor.
>
> The Safety Board's full report on this investigation is provided as
> Aviation Accident Report number AAR-87/07. To obtain a copy of this
> report, or to view the executive summary online, please see the Web
> site at http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/publictn.htm
>
>
> AT APRX 1140 PDT, A PIPER PA-28, N4891F, DEPARTED TORRANCE, CA ON A
> VFR FLT TO BIG BEAR, CA. AFTER TAKEOFF, THE PLT TURNED EASTBOUND TWD
> THE PARADISE VORTAC WITH HIS X-PONDER SQUAWKING 1200. AT THAT TIME,
> AEROMEXICO FLT 498 (DC-8, MEX REGISTRY XA-JED) WAS ON ARRIVAL, RCVG
> NORTHBOUND VECTORS FM LAX APCH CTL (AR-1 CTLR) FOR AN ILS APCH TO THE
> LAX INTL ARPT. AT 1151:04, THE CTLR ASKED FLT 498 TO RDC SPD TO 190
> KTS & DSCND FM 7000' TO 6000'. DRG THIS TIME, THE CTLR WAS CTLG OTR
> TRAFFIC & PROVIDING RADAR ADVISORIES, BUT DIDN'T SEE A DISPLAY FOR
> N4891F ON HIS SCOPE. AT 1152:09, N4891F & FLT 498 CONVERGED & COLLIDED
> AT APRX 6560', THEN FELL TO THE GND. AN INV REVEALED N4891F HAD
> INADVERTENTLY ENTERED THE LAX TERMINAL CONTROL AREA (TCA) & WASN'T IN
> RADIO CONTACT WITH ATC. LAX TRACON WASN'T EQUIPPED WITH AN AUTO
> CONFLICT ALERT SYS & THE ANALOG BEACON RESPONSE FM N4891F'S X-PONDER
> WASN'T DISPLAYED DUE TO EQUIP CONFIGURATION. N4891F'S PSN WAS
> DISPLAYED BY AN ALPHANUMERIC TRIANGLE, BUT THE PRIMARY TARGET WASN'T
> DISPLAYED DUE TO AN ATMOSPHERIC INVERSION.
>
> The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
> cause(s) of this accident as follows:
> RADAR,APPROACH/DEPARTURE..INADEQUATE
> PROCEDURE INADEQUATE..FAA(OTHER/ORGANIZATION)
>
>
> Contributing Factors
>
> IDENTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT ON RADAR..NOT ATTAINED
> PROCEDURES/DIRECTIVES..NOT FOLLOWED..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
> UNSAFE/HAZARDOUS CONDITION..INADVERTENT..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
> VISUAL LOOKOUT..INADEQUATE..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
> VISUAL LOOKOUT..INADEQUATE..PILOT IN COMMAND
>

Nobody cares what you see, you moron.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Kobra writes:
>
>> Ok so...I took-off on an IFR flight plan and I had just leveled off
>> at 4000' north bound for their fix. Next they gave me a vector of
>> 090. After a minute or so I asked the controller, "McGuire Approach,
>> Cardinal 07G, any chance direct Smyrna (ENO)?" The response I got
>> was, "07G direct Smyrna unable." Ok...that would be fine if that was
>> what my busy brain heard, but I did not hear it that way...my brain
>> heard, "07G direct Smyrna 'when able'." Shortly after I turned
>> direct for ENO I got a VERY large lecture with unneeded and
>> unnecessary attitude. "07G I TOLD YOU STAY 090. CAN'T YOU LISTEN OR
>> UNDERSTAND ATC INSTRUCTIONS? WHEN I GIVE YOU A VECTOR YOU ARE TO
>> FOLLOW IT EXACTLY AND CAREFULLY!!"
>>
>> When I explained to him that I heard him say, "...direct ENO when
>> able." he became even more belligerent. "I DID *NOT* SAY THAT!!
>> YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO ATC INSTRUCTION MORE CAREFULLY AND FOLLOW MY
>> INSTRUCTION EXACTLY."
>
> Where was your readback?
>
>> Granted I heard him wrong and I made a mistake. But I think the
>> controller needs to take some responsibility for using confusing
>> verbiage and surely it was unprofessional to lay me out like that.
>
> Had you read back the instructions, the chances of any confusion would
> have been greatly reduced. You should always read things back.
>
>> This reminds me of how a
>> mid-air occurred in LA because a new controller took time to admonish
>> a GA pilot for a couple minutes while a commercial plane and a Piper
>> collided right in front of him on his screen.
>
> When was this?
>
>> So my question to Steve McNicoll is...is that standard verbiage to
>> say, "...direct Smyrna 'unable'??. 'cause I'm here to tell ya that,
>> that can be EASILY confused with 'direct Smyrna 'when able'. What's
>> your thoughts on this and did he use proper language or did he just
>> use poor phraseology?
>
> If you read back "when able" after he says "unable," he'll probably
> catch it and correct you. If you don't read anything back, you never
> know.

Anthony, you don't know **** from Shinola about using an AM radio, you
****ing moron. A total waste of life.

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> Anthony, there you go again spouting and pontificating about topics
> where you have absolutely no knowedge or experience other than playing
> your computer game.
>
>
>

One has to wonder how Anthony can even manage to play a computer game!

> One has to wonder how Anthony can even manage to play a computer game!

No one ever said he was any good at it, and he's probably orders of
magnitude worse than he thinks he is.

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:43:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>> Peter Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
>>> mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.
>>>
>>
>> Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are
>> correct. That was never changed and never even proposed to be
>> changed. It was widely misreported.
>
> Hm, OK, thanks. What I seem to remember is someone who got violated
> for doing something that they read back incorrectly and used "but the
> controller didn't fix the readback" as part of the defense and still
> had the violation upheld as it wasn't ATC's issue if they didn't
> correct an incorrect readback. Wouldn't be the first time I
> misremembered somethin tho.
>

It happened a little differently.

Aircraft A requested a different altitude. ATC assigns different altitude
to aircraft A. Aircraft A and aircraft B read back altitude issued to
aircraft A. Controller hears only loud squeal, asks aircraft A to say
again. Loss of separation occurs between aircraft B and aircraft C.
Aircraft B is violated for taking a clearance issued to another aircraft.
Aircraft B's defense is the uncorrected readback, a readback that was never
heard or acknowledged by ATC because it was blocked by aircraft A's
readback.

Viperdoc wrote:
> Anthony, there you go again spouting and pontificating about topics where
> you have absolutely no knowedge or experience other than playing your
> computer game.
>
>
And, he also plays with himself.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Peter Clark wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:43:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Clark wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
>>>> mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are
>>> correct. That was never changed and never even proposed to be
>>> changed. It was widely misreported.
>>
>> Hm, OK, thanks. What I seem to remember is someone who got violated
>> for doing something that they read back incorrectly and used "but the
>> controller didn't fix the readback" as part of the defense and still
>> had the violation upheld as it wasn't ATC's issue if they didn't
>> correct an incorrect readback. Wouldn't be the first time I
>> misremembered somethin tho.
>>
>
> It happened a little differently.
>
> Aircraft A requested a different altitude. ATC assigns different altitude
> to aircraft A. Aircraft A and aircraft B read back altitude issued to
> aircraft A. Controller hears only loud squeal, asks aircraft A to say
> again. Loss of separation occurs between aircraft B and aircraft C.
> Aircraft B is violated for taking a clearance issued to another aircraft.
> Aircraft B's defense is the uncorrected readback, a readback that was
> never heard or acknowledged by ATC because it was blocked by aircraft A's
> readback.

I read an ALJ's decision where a pilot got violated even though his readback
error was not caught. The controller was charged with an error as well.
This is no doubt the exception as usually the controller buys the error
exclusively.

Kobra wrote:
> Flyers,
>
> I'll run this scenario past the group and see what you all think and is if
> Mr. McNicoll can shed some light as well.
>
> First, some quick background. At my airport if you are IFR and are heading,
> say, southwest (as I was) it's too bad...you're clearance is to send you 22
> miles north to a fix and then 15 mile east to another fix and then they will
> turn you on course. Usually, if asked, you can get direct on course shortly
> after take-off. If traffic permits they will clear you to go direct to your
> first filed fix on course.
>
> Ok so...I took-off on an IFR flight plan and I had just leveled off at 4000'
> north bound for their fix. Next they gave me a vector of 090. After a
> minute or so I asked the controller, "McGuire Approach, Cardinal 07G, any
> chance direct Smyrna (ENO)?" The response I got was, "07G direct Smyrna

The usual way to say this is "unable direct" or "unable direct Smyrna".

Your readback of the whole instruction should have tipped him off, since there
was no real reason to read back what he basically read back to you, but
with "unable" at the front.

> unable." Ok...that would be fine if that was what my busy brain heard, but
> I did not hear it that way...my brain heard, "07G direct Smyrna 'when
> able'." Shortly after I turned direct for ENO I got a VERY large lecture
> with unneeded and unnecessary attitude. "07G I TOLD YOU STAY 090. CAN'T
> YOU LISTEN OR UNDERSTAND ATC INSTRUCTIONS? WHEN I GIVE YOU A VECTOR YOU ARE
> TO FOLLOW IT EXACTLY AND CAREFULLY!!"
>
> When I explained to him that I heard him say, "...direct ENO when able." he
> became even more belligerent. "I DID *NOT* SAY THAT!! YOU NEED TO LISTEN
> TO ATC INSTRUCTION MORE CAREFULLY AND FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTION EXACTLY."

I have had several controllers go off on me like that, and even went through
the motions of complaining, getting the tape read back, etc.

Why waste your time and energy. There was a misunderstanding. It wasn't
personal. In 5 minutes you will be talking to someone else, and if it is
*really* bad (a voilation), you don't want to be recorded as being
belligerent.

Mike wrote:
>
>I read an ALJ's decision where a pilot got violated

Speaking of questionable phraseology.

Who is "violating" all these pilots.

And what is the manner in which they are "violated".

sounds painful

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
news:88f9980d2063f@uwe...
> Mike wrote:
>>
>>I read an ALJ's decision where a pilot got violated
>
> Speaking of questionable phraseology.
>
> Who is "violating" all these pilots.
>
> And what is the manner in which they are "violated".
>
> sounds painful

Nobody does for phraseology.