Radio 'altercation' with ATC

I'm amazed at all the responses in this thread to "Call the supervisor once
on the ground".

Although I agree that arguments or disagreements should be held over the
phone or in person, rather than over the air, I totally disagree that the
first thing you should do is call the supervisor.

I've been flying for many years and much of it in and out of extremely busy
airspace and there have been a few instance where I've been asked to call
the tower, and some where I've taken it up on my self to call. Some of them
my fault and some of them the controllers.

But the point is, I have never been called by a supervisor, and I have never
called a supervisor. I have always been able to speak directly to the
controller involved and settle it on the spot with out it going any further.
I know I'm happy it's been done like that and I'm sure there are a few
controllers out there that appreciate the same.

For me I have learned just as valuable a lesson by talking to the controller
without it having to have escalate in to anything else. I would suggest
that anyone who has a beef with a controller try talking directly to that
controller first. Then after that if you are not satisfied, consider
calling a supervisor.

JMHO,
PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

Actually this thread reminds me of a some what funny incident that happened
to me once at Merrill field in Anchorage.

Merrill has a published pattern (which is some what tight in comparison to
most other airports) because of all the other aircraft activity in such
close proximity. Merrill is also a very busy airport. It used to be rated
the busiest general aviation airport in the US, but I have no idea if it
still holds that honor.

Anyway, a regular pain to pilots who know and follow the published pattern,
are pilots who fly huge, 747 patterns which ultimately mess up the timing of
everyone else attempting to fly the published pattern. Amazingly there are
two flight schools on the field who are notorious for teaching their
students this '747' pattern.

One day I was giving tailwheel instruction to a student and following behind
one of the other schools planes, which also had a student and instructor on
board. I was in a slow plane, a super cub, but because I was flying the
published pattern and much closer in that the 747 student in his C152, I was
gaining on him on each lap.

Finally about the 4th time around the controller asked me if I saw the other
traffic in the pattern ahead of me. (He was technically ahead of me, but
about a mile to my right - about 2 o'clock)

I replied that I had him insight to which the controller became rather
snotty and made a point to make sure that I knew that I was supposed to be
FOLLOWING that aircraft. I made no verbal response, but looked behind to my
right and then made a hard right turn, 90 degrees from my downwind heading
and started flying south.

After flying almost 1 mile the controller again called me and very upset
said "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?"

I calmly responded "Following the other aircraft in the pattern"

The next words out of the controllers mouth was "other aircraft, bring all
your downwind legs in about a mile, your to far out".

I continued flying with my student for about another half hour or so and
when we landed the controller asked me to call the tower. I called him up
and he apologized.

No harm, no foul. We're all human, we all make mistakes, we should help
each other out and learn from them.

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

How can you talk to the controller on the telephone while he is working
traffic?

PJ Hunt wrote:
But the point is, I have never been called by a supervisor, and I have never
called a supervisor. I have always been able to speak directly to the
controller involved and settle it on the spot with out it going any further.
I know I'm happy it's been done like that and I'm sure there are a few
controllers out there that appreciate the same.
For me I have learned just as valuable a lesson by talking to the controller
without it having to have escalate in to anything else. I would suggest
that anyone who has a beef with a controller try talking directly to that
controller first. Then after that if you are not satisfied, consider
calling a supervisor.

"john smith" wrote in message
...

How can you talk to the controller on the telephone while he is working
traffic?


He multitasks.

Dial the number. I've done it plenty of times. If it's slow they'll talk to
you and on the radio at the same time, if not they'll have another
controller fill in for them for a minute.

PJ

--

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

"john smith" wrote in message
...
How can you talk to the controller on the telephone while he is working
traffic?

PJ Hunt wrote:
But the point is, I have never been called by a supervisor, and I have
never
called a supervisor. I have always been able to speak directly to the
controller involved and settle it on the spot with out it going any
further.
I know I'm happy it's been done like that and I'm sure there are a few
controllers out there that appreciate the same.
For me I have learned just as valuable a lesson by talking to the
controller
without it having to have escalate in to anything else. I would suggest
that anyone who has a beef with a controller try talking directly to
that
controller first. Then after that if you are not satisfied, consider
calling a supervisor.

After communicating with the controller you should follow their
instructions and advise them of any deviation from those
instructions.

And the instructions were, as BTIZ was the first to point out, "Maintain
visual separation". He was following that instruction. Right?

-Frank

Frankster wrote:

After communicating with the controller you should follow their
instructions and advise them of any deviation from those
instructions.


And the instructions were, as BTIZ was the first to point out, "Maintain
visual separation". He was following that instruction. Right?

That was one of the instructions and a completely useless one at that.
Like telling you to get out of bed in the morning.

Gruff controllers are just a part of flying life, and it's better for the
student to learn that hearing someone else get it than him. Every so often a
guy gets his coffee seriously ****ed in, and the Nth pilot who gets his goat
is going to catch some heat. Sui generis, this case sounds like the pilot
over-reacting a little, and I agree that a "360 for spacing" call* prior
would have been a reasonable precaution. But, CFIs often get to know the
voices on the other end of the line pretty well, and their "personalities,"
and if I'd gotten the bum's rush from this guy once or twice before in a
similar case, I might have responded acridly as well.

In the spirit of self-criticism however, I'd also look a little more closely
at the CFI's acceptance of the original clearance. The difference between 11
and 2 o'clock seems well within the margin of error, more so if the two
cherokees were not on very different headings. I never acknowledge following
traffic unless I'm absolutely sure I've got the right one. I fly in very
busy airspace and goof-ups simply have too much potential for disaster. I've
seen one very near mid-air and been far too close for comfort (100') once
at my home field, both times right in the pattern at a Class D field with
radar repeaters and good controllers. FWIW I've heard lots of screwups on
the radio and never heard a controller chew a guy out quite that badly in an
area where authority was ambiguous.

* Controllers sometimes grumble when I announce that I'm doing something
when said announcement is not required, but my policy is that so long as
they have the right to file a deviation on me, then they are going to have
to live with my precautions. This is not to say that I always do it, but I
do it when my gut says so. For instance, I typically announce crossing a
runway when taxiing, but not at my home field, where I have a good feel for
the flow of things.

C Kingsbury wrote:

* Controllers sometimes grumble when I announce that I'm doing something
when said announcement is not required, but my policy is that so long as
they have the right to file a deviation on me, then they are going to have
to live with my precautions.

Keep in mind that others are listening to you as well. I tend to provide
"extra" information when appropriate for other pilots. For example, when I
report at a very common reporting point for my "home" airport, I'll add an
altitude. The tower doesn't care, but the 73 other aircraft over the same
small lake might.

- Andrew

wrote in message
ups.com...

Howdy,


Hi,



I was interested in some other pilots' 'takes' on the following. I was
up with a student a few days ago, when another CFI I know (flying out
of the same airport I do) also with a student had an issue with an air
traffic controller. We were both flying out of airport A, which is a
non-towered airport near a fairly large city. Airport B is a class D
(non federal towered) municipal airport about 10 miles South of airport
A. The controllers at airport B have a reputation as kind of prickly.
The following is the jist of the conversation:

Cessna "Airport B tower, this is Cessna 123, 2000 off of airport A, 10
miles North, inbound landing with kilo"

Tower "Roger, Cessna, you will be number 2 for runway 21R, follow
Cherokee traffic at your 11 O'Clock, you also have Cherokee traffic
transitioning at your 2 O'Clock, and Skyhawk traffic inbound on the ILS
for the parallel. Maintain visual separation."


"Maintain visual separation" is meaningless in this case as separation is
strictly the pilot's responsibility anyway.



Cessna "Roger, have the Cherokee traffic, will follow him in, visual
separation"

A couple minutes later

Tower "Cessna, what are you doing out there?"

Cessna "Tower, that Cherokee isn't making much progress, we're making a
couple 360s for spacing"

Tower (in a nasty tone) "Negative Cessna! You're following the wrong
Cherokee. You need my permission before making any maneuvers like
that. If you are inbound, you need to be a direct heading *to* my
airport. You can't be doing that kind of stuff without telling me."

[pause]

Cessna "Tower, I was following the Cherokee that was at my 11. Sorry
if I got the wrong one. But sir, I am VFR, *outside* of your
airspace...if I feel the need to do a 360 to maintain safe spacing,
that's exactly what I will do...I'm outside of your airspace. I don't
need your permission to do *anything* until I enter it. Turning 210 for
landing now"

The controller didn't say anything else, expect a gruff 'Cleared for
landing 21R'. I haven't talked to the other CFI about this yet. The
reason I am asking is that my student (already scared to talk to ATC)
is even *more* scared now, and asked me about it.

I told him that the pilot was technically right...if you are in
uncontrolled airspace, and are responsible for maintaining visual
seperation from other aircraft, then you can certainly make 'normal'
maneuvers to do that. And I told him that a Class D tower controller
doesn't have any say about what you do outside of his airspace.

I also told him that it usually wasn't a good idea to have an
altercation like that on the radio. That if the pilot wanted to talk to
the controller about that, he should have waited until he was on the
ground, and called the tower and asked to speak with a supervisor. I
also told him that the other CFI 'probably' should have told the
controller what he was doing as a matter of 'courtesy', and that if he
wasn't absolutely sure which Cherokee to follow, he should have told
the controller that he'd remain outside of his airspace until the tower
told him the traffic was clear, and then turn in. Plus, it isnt a good
idea to alienate the ATC guys in your own area....they can make life
'interesting' sometimes.

But the tower controller didn't tell him to copy a number (altho maybe
he got that on the ground. But I asked a few of the other CFIs I work
with about this..most agreed with me, but a couple thought the pilot
was wrong for various reasons.
So...what is your take on this?


Pretty much the same as yours.