ATC says wrong position

Tarver Engineering wrote:



There have been more unsafe situations resulting from vectors over the
years than anyone really knows. The NASA database is full of them, but
the FAA ignores the issue. Some are controller errors, some are pilot
errors, and some are a combination of the two.

That is because FAA is afraid of opening ATC controllers up to civil
liability. What FAA fails to comprehend is that "gross negligence", or
"restraint of trade", is required to win a lawsuit in such a situation.
Human error is not gross negligence and the issue could be safely addressed.

If the controller is reasonably acting within the scope of agency, there is no
way a controller is going to be held personally liable in any civil lawsuit. In
any case, the feds would indemify the controller in such a very unlikely event,
unlike the private sector.

The FAA is far more concerned about the NTSB and the industry "knowing too
much," thus forcing a change in entrenched ATC procedures. The handlers at the
FAA see every challenge at ATC procedures, if succesful, perhaps reducing
"capacity."

It's all about moving traffic and nothing about safety.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:42:51 -0700, wrote:

Go back to TWA 514 in 1974 and they didn't provide much information at
all with vectors to approach courses.


I thought that was more of a training issue. I have been told that up
until that accident, the training at the airlines (at least at TWA) was
that when ATC cleared you for an approach, descent to the initial charted
altitude on the approach plate was safe.

I was undergoing my instrument training at that time, and both I and my
instructor were surprised that TWA descended based on that approach
clearance. It was a number of years later that I discovered that their
descent was in accord with the then current TWA airline procedures.

There have been more unsafe situations resulting from vectors over the
years than anyone really knows. The NASA database is full of them, but
the FAA ignores the issue. Some are controller errors, some are pilot
errors, and some are a combination of the two.

Concur.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:42:51 -0700, wrote:

Go back to TWA 514 in 1974 and they didn't provide much information at
all with vectors to approach courses.


I thought that was more of a training issue. I have been told that up
until that accident, the training at the airlines (at least at TWA) was
that when ATC cleared you for an approach, descent to the initial charted
altitude on the approach plate was safe.


TWA, the Air Force, and some other operators taught that in training, as you
say. Others did not, but even those who didn't were still often in the lurch
with the ATC radar vector procedures in vogue at the time. With the
clearance TWA 514 received, those "who knew better" would have ended up far
too high to land, unless they could have gotten a fairly weak controller to
step them down on the MVA chart. Also, the approach chart was deficient as
to profile portrayal.


I was undergoing my instrument training at that time, and both I and my
instructor were surprised that TWA descended based on that approach
clearance. It was a number of years later that I discovered that their
descent was in accord with the then current TWA airline procedures.

So, you guys would have probably flown to the FAF at 7,000 then descended to
touchdown (300 feet) in some 5 miles. ;-)



There have been more unsafe situations resulting from vectors over the
years than anyone really knows. The NASA database is full of them, but
the FAA ignores the issue. Some are controller errors, some are pilot
errors, and some are a combination of the two.

Concur.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

wrote in message ...

Go back to TWA 514 in 1974 and they didn't provide
much information at all with vectors to approach courses.


TWA 514 wasn't vectored for the approach.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

Go back to TWA 514 in 1974 and they didn't provide
much information at all with vectors to approach courses.


TWA 514 wasn't vectored for the approach.

Well, technically you're correct. In fact the FAA tried to argue, and lost,
that he was a non-radar arrival. Washington Center vectored him onto the
Armel 301 radial (which eventually became the final approach course) some 35
miles prior to the VOR, told him to maintain 7,000 then handed him off to
approach control. Approach control simply cleared him for the approach
while the flight was still on the non-published portion of the 301 radial,
and the approach clearance contained no altitude restrictions.

If it smells like a vector, it is a vector. It would be more like a
7110.65P 5-9-4 vector than a 5-9-1 vector.

But, your assertion that 514 was not vectored for the approach is pure
Steve-techo-bablle bull****. It was that kind of attitude that created the
atmosphere at the FAA to set the stage for the crash.

When being vectored, and ATC says your 4 miles from X, I noticed
occasionally that they state the wrong X. They confuse the FAF with
the IF. For this reason, I tell students to never rely on ATC's
distance statements to make a descent.

How often do others see this?


On a VFR approach to Oakland, I was told I was a mile off course when in fact I
was lined up precisely with the runway. The aircraft ahead of me was told the
same thing (but I don't know what his alignment was). I suspect their radar
was a bit off that day.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

From a controllers point of view, the part about "you're X miles from X"
is just checking a box that needs to be checked. It's probably the one
messed up the most as either 1) you clear aircraft on multiple approaches
to multiple runways (not at the same time usually) and occasionally say
the wrong fix, or 2) you don't vector much for approaches and just
screw it up once in a while. I'm willing to bet all those other items,
(heading, altitude, approach clearance) are fairly accurate most of
the time. If I'm vectoring someone on a 100nm range (200nm from one
side of the scope to the other) and I say 3 miles instead of 3.5 or 4,
I suspect I wont get too much grief over it. If so, well, there's always
arcs and PT's.

For this reason, I tell students to never rely on ATC's
distance statements to make a descent.

Unless the mileage is off by some really high amount, I'd agree with
that approach, no pun intended. I assume most of you ignore the first
part of that clearance, as that is the only part of that transmission that
really is NOT a clearance anyway. Now if they give you the wrong
airport, runway, or approach, major warning flag.
But at a big airport with 12 ILS's and even more VOR, NDB, and GPS
approaches, and all the IAF's and FAF's to go along with all of those,
which are often not the same for a given runway - I'd be willing to cut
them some slack every now and then.

Chris

I'd be willing to cut them some slack every now and then.

As I am. I don't think poorly of ATC for making this mistake. Live
humans just aren't good at getting minute details correct on a
continual basis. But it's important that the pilot get a good feel
for all areas in which ATC *might* make a mistake and have a
contingency plan.

Thanks

Greg Esres wrote
When being vectored, and ATC says your 4 miles from X, I noticed
occasionally that they state the wrong X. They confuse the FAF with
the IF. For this reason, I tell students to never rely on ATC's
distance statements to make a descent.

How often do others see this?

All the time. In fact, sometimes when being vectored for the NDB-F at
my home field (EYQ), I get distances from HOCCO, a fix that used to be
charted on the FAC but has been gone for years.

Michael