Radio 'altercation' with ATC

tony roberts wrote:
Here is a Canadian take on it.
snip
After communicating with the controller you
should follow their instructions and advise them of any
deviation.from
those instructions. As they have the responsibility for maintaining
separation, they have to know where everyone is and what everyone is
doing.

In the U.S., the class D tower controller is not responsible for
separation in the class D airspace. Only on the runways. That should
give a U.S. pilot more leeway in a situation as described in the
original post. Since the tower controller is not responsible for
maintaining separation between aircraft, I'm more inclined to take
action on my own to ensure that separation is maintained. The caveat
being that I will inform the tower of what I'm doing and why.
John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Brien K. Meehan wrote:

Newps wrote:


No, the class D tower has no more authority in class E as he does in
class G.


Who says he has no authority in class E or G airspace?


Who says he DOES? Towers do not have authority outside the confines of
their airspace. Even Approach controls and centers do not have authority
outside their designated airspace.

Dave

On 10 Dec 2004 15:32:48 -0800, wrote in
om::

Lastly, mic-fright is what kept me from getting my Instrument rating
for so long.

May I humbly suggest you purchase a copy of Bob Gardener's book: Say
Again, Please. Here's a link:
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ...est=9999999997

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
============================================

Wasn't the instruction given to maintain visual seperation? Isn't doing a
360 to do that following that instruction?

mike regish

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message

... but if you call a controller and ask for service, you ARE talking
to someone. Aren't you obligated to follow instructions given to you
at that point? What regulation indicates otherwise?

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.

Brien K. Meehan wrote:
Newps wrote:


No, the class D tower has no more authority in class E as he does in
class G.


Who says he has no authority in class E or G airspace?

Our rule book.

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.

According to the Pilot/Controller Glossary, "Roger" means "I have received
all of your last transmission." It doesn't convey anything about the pilot's
intentions. A more appropriate response would have been "Wilco," which means
"I have received your message, understand it, and will comply." Sadly, too
few pilots use Wilco.

Bob Gardner

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
...
The CFI must have thought he was on a Usenet newsgroup.

The sensible response would have been, "Roger."

Don