Steven P. McNicoll
July 31st 03, 01:08 AM
"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because we're not discussing vectors requested by the pilot,
> but vectors suggested by the controller. Given that, your statement:
>
> >>> Not telling the controller that you don't desire vectors does not
> >>> constitute a request for vectors.
>
> is not relevent to the discussion.
>
But we're not discussing vectors suggested by the controller, we're
discussing vectors issued by the controller.
>
> You're familiar with twisty little passages?
>
No.
>
> How is this distinquished from an instruction?
>
It has the form of a suggestion.
>
> That makes sense to me. So if the controller had suggested a
> vector to Jay, then his acknowledgement of it - and then following
> it - would constitude concurrence.
>
Yes.
>
> So we're still left with the possibility that the controller didn't
> do anything wrong to suggest vectors. To show otherwise, you must
> show that the controller's vectors were not suggested, but were
> instead instructed.
>
It has been shown that the vectors were not suggested.
>
> Your attempts at ad hominems are not especially welcome, but don't expect
> me to rise to the bait and sink to that level (to grossly mix metaphors).
> I'm too curious about this peek into ATC operations.
>
No ad hominems. Your messages indicate you do not understand these terms.
>
> If a vector is suggested by the controller, does this not include a
> heading?
>
Typically, but not necessarily.
>
> If not, what form does the vector suggestion take? That is, what phrasing
> is used to suggest a vector which doesn't include a heading.
>
"Belchfire 1234A, suggest you turn twenty degrees left for traffic
avoidance."
>
> So I take it that you believe the information stated in the AIM to be
> correct?
>
The AIM contains a great deal of useful information, but it also contains
errors.
>
> Ihe item under discussion is, I believe, 4-1-16-d. This describes
situations
> in which vectors may be initiated by the controller to VFR aircraft, and
> includes -3:
>
> In the controller's judgment the vector is necessary for air safety.
>
> The reason I ask about the accuracy of the information in the AIM is that
> you earlier wrote:
>
> No, I'm suggesting the radar controller doesn't know he can't vector VFR
> traffic in Class E airspace outside of the TRSA
>
> As I read these two statements, there is a disagreement. You indicate
> that the controller cannot vector the VFR aircraft while the AIM indicates
> that the controller can - under certain conditions - initiate vectors to
the
> VFR aircraft.
>
The AIM is wrong.
>
> You also wrote:
>
> Controllers are required to abide by FAA Order 7110.65. If the AIM states
> that controllers will provide services in a manner contrary to FAAO
> 7110.65, it follows that the AIM is wrong.
>
> Interestingly, 4-1-16-d-3 doesn't use the word "suggestion". Someone
> familiar with the AIM but not with 7110.65 could conclude - incorrectly,
> as per 7110.65 - that a controller may initiate vector *instructions* to a
> VFR aircraft.
>
> So perhaps, even if by omission, there is an error in the AIM.
>
Bingo.
>
> Where is this documented in 7110.65?
>
Para 5-6-1.g.
>
> You exclude the possibility that the Honecks didn't feel free to decline
> the vectors because either:
>
> - They didn't realize at the time that they were suggestions, or
> - They didn't want to drop this traffic avoidance tool, or
> - They were familiar with the AIM but not 7110.65, or
> - Something else I'm not considering
>
The vectors were not suggested.
>
> What I don't see in the above is where the controller was made aware
> that the Honecks were not happy receiving the vectors. And just to be
> clear, the second cite you included was from a period of time after
> they'd already been switched to the JVL tower. Vectors were no longer
> being suggested at that time.
>
Vectors were not suggested at any time.
>
> Ah! That's what I'm seeking. So a suggestion must actually have some
> phrasing which distinguishes it from an instruction? Where's that stated
> in 7110.65. I've been missing it.
>
Para 5-6-1.g.
>
> No, but I don't see anything indicating otherwise either. That's why I've
> been pressing the point of phrasing differences between instructions and
> suggestions.
>
The vectors were not suggested because they weren't given in the form of a
suggestion.
...
>
> Because we're not discussing vectors requested by the pilot,
> but vectors suggested by the controller. Given that, your statement:
>
> >>> Not telling the controller that you don't desire vectors does not
> >>> constitute a request for vectors.
>
> is not relevent to the discussion.
>
But we're not discussing vectors suggested by the controller, we're
discussing vectors issued by the controller.
>
> You're familiar with twisty little passages?
>
No.
>
> How is this distinquished from an instruction?
>
It has the form of a suggestion.
>
> That makes sense to me. So if the controller had suggested a
> vector to Jay, then his acknowledgement of it - and then following
> it - would constitude concurrence.
>
Yes.
>
> So we're still left with the possibility that the controller didn't
> do anything wrong to suggest vectors. To show otherwise, you must
> show that the controller's vectors were not suggested, but were
> instead instructed.
>
It has been shown that the vectors were not suggested.
>
> Your attempts at ad hominems are not especially welcome, but don't expect
> me to rise to the bait and sink to that level (to grossly mix metaphors).
> I'm too curious about this peek into ATC operations.
>
No ad hominems. Your messages indicate you do not understand these terms.
>
> If a vector is suggested by the controller, does this not include a
> heading?
>
Typically, but not necessarily.
>
> If not, what form does the vector suggestion take? That is, what phrasing
> is used to suggest a vector which doesn't include a heading.
>
"Belchfire 1234A, suggest you turn twenty degrees left for traffic
avoidance."
>
> So I take it that you believe the information stated in the AIM to be
> correct?
>
The AIM contains a great deal of useful information, but it also contains
errors.
>
> Ihe item under discussion is, I believe, 4-1-16-d. This describes
situations
> in which vectors may be initiated by the controller to VFR aircraft, and
> includes -3:
>
> In the controller's judgment the vector is necessary for air safety.
>
> The reason I ask about the accuracy of the information in the AIM is that
> you earlier wrote:
>
> No, I'm suggesting the radar controller doesn't know he can't vector VFR
> traffic in Class E airspace outside of the TRSA
>
> As I read these two statements, there is a disagreement. You indicate
> that the controller cannot vector the VFR aircraft while the AIM indicates
> that the controller can - under certain conditions - initiate vectors to
the
> VFR aircraft.
>
The AIM is wrong.
>
> You also wrote:
>
> Controllers are required to abide by FAA Order 7110.65. If the AIM states
> that controllers will provide services in a manner contrary to FAAO
> 7110.65, it follows that the AIM is wrong.
>
> Interestingly, 4-1-16-d-3 doesn't use the word "suggestion". Someone
> familiar with the AIM but not with 7110.65 could conclude - incorrectly,
> as per 7110.65 - that a controller may initiate vector *instructions* to a
> VFR aircraft.
>
> So perhaps, even if by omission, there is an error in the AIM.
>
Bingo.
>
> Where is this documented in 7110.65?
>
Para 5-6-1.g.
>
> You exclude the possibility that the Honecks didn't feel free to decline
> the vectors because either:
>
> - They didn't realize at the time that they were suggestions, or
> - They didn't want to drop this traffic avoidance tool, or
> - They were familiar with the AIM but not 7110.65, or
> - Something else I'm not considering
>
The vectors were not suggested.
>
> What I don't see in the above is where the controller was made aware
> that the Honecks were not happy receiving the vectors. And just to be
> clear, the second cite you included was from a period of time after
> they'd already been switched to the JVL tower. Vectors were no longer
> being suggested at that time.
>
Vectors were not suggested at any time.
>
> Ah! That's what I'm seeking. So a suggestion must actually have some
> phrasing which distinguishes it from an instruction? Where's that stated
> in 7110.65. I've been missing it.
>
Para 5-6-1.g.
>
> No, but I don't see anything indicating otherwise either. That's why I've
> been pressing the point of phrasing differences between instructions and
> suggestions.
>
The vectors were not suggested because they weren't given in the form of a
suggestion.