If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Jim,
I'd just drop this, move on, and remember the experience. Did you get flight following or go IFR to PRC, if so maybe I talked to you NE of PRC. Anyway, is PRC a contract tower, I don't know, just wondering. As far as the controller in question, a few things are possible: she didnt say anything else about it, right? So she probably forgot about it and moved on to other things, busy or not. If she was truly troubled by it, but not enough to have you call in, she probably questioned herself if she was clear enough to you in what she wanted of you. If it was that big a deal, it'll probably be something she changes about the clarity of her clearances, and she'll watch out for readbacks that show the slightest amount of doubt in what's expected of the pilot. Personally I read alot in the tone of readbacks, even if theyre correct. Sure, I could always say later that "hey, he read it back right, it's on his back", but I dont like answering those kinds of questions, nor do I like tapes pulled. Resolve it at the time if possible and move on and do my job. If you fly enough you know controllers and pilots both screw up. You also know, as someone else rightly pointed out, that a controller can be manipulative, unfairly so to make you look bad and them good. I see it fairly often with certain personality types where I work. It's almost as if they're setting someone up for failure for their own kicks. I'm not implying that was the case here, might've been a power play on her part, she mightve been genuinely surprised or alarmed to not see you where she expected. But if there was no traffic, why make a big deal of it. We dont have the tape, we dont know how she put it. It could've been just her way of talking that seemed rude to you, but wasn't her intent. If she said nothing else about it, she didnt consider it a big deal, and neither should you. At the risk of this post being longwinded, I'll give you a recent example. It alone will probably flare up this topic again with people and their opinions and references. For some reason, this airline we regularly work started changing the way they operate and comply with clearances out of one of our airports. In short, they get a VFR climb on an IFR clearance and think they can deviate 120 degrees from their IFR route, but the clearance they request, and receive, is VFR climb on course, which in itself is a questionable clearance in itself IMO, but that's another story. Anyway, imagine Dept Pt A, first fix is Pt B about 25nm away is a 200 heading, Pt C is about 100 nm away on a 050 heading. These aircraft would take off and fly a 130 heading to join the course between B and C, or just turn direct C. This started hapenning on a daily basis, several times a day, different crews. Controllers were noticing, and not particularly caring for it, but not saying anything about it except amongst themselves. Finally, as tactfully as I could, I asked what was up. I guess my only real beef is that they ask for VFR climbs, the airlines I'm talking about here, but they really only want it to climb on course (no departure procedure) and dont want the responsibility of separating themselves, which a VFR climb requires. But I didnt bring it up with these guys (2 different crews), I just said if all of us had the "no harm, no foul" rule, we'd let it slide if there wasnt traffic. But the ONE time there is traffic and this turn puts them right in its face, the crew will have to answer as to how they perceived "as filed" meant a deviation like this. They apologized and saw the point I was trying to make, which is basically covering their own butts. I told them it wouldnt go any further than that, but just ask for the shortcut, how often is that particular one turned down? Hardly ever. Luckily, this sector is kind of off by itself and out of the hearing range of my supervisor. Once they hear something like this, the "no harm, no foul" rule goes right out the window and it's nothing but trouble for everyone involved. Phone calls, etc. Point I'm trying to make (slowly, gradually, sorry) is that I'm sure theres been times where I may have snipped at a pilot that messed up, it's hapenned to me as a pilot (sometimes my mistake, sometimes not). I cant speak for all controllers, but most I know are over it pretty quickly, whether you stay on freq for just a few more seconds or an hour. If I notice myself doing that, and I get the impression the pilot feels as if he's on the verge of having to call in or get violated, I try to make it clear that is not the case. I only get in trouble by my conversational tone on freq, which the supervisors hate, and I hear about regularly. Now you see why I dont want tapes pulled? Picture hangar flying, that kind of chit-chat, but on freq. Makes for a more enjoyable and relaxed experience for all, and that's what I'm shooting for. One last thought, in reference to your "it is potentially dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently" statement, more controllers should be pilots. That wont change the definitions, but less of an "us against them" mentality that is out there. As usual, these are just my observations, experience, and opinions. You guys that argue just for arguments sake, or flame for kicks, can pound it sideways, as my main man Phil Hendrie says. To the rest, happy flying, Chris |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Neil Gould" wrote in message link.net... IOW, the controller's job is to insure spacing. As Jim hasn't mentioned whether there was other traffic inbound or in the pattern, I'd think that would be an important factor in whether he was right or wrong to be off-center. If there was no traffic, there'd be no conflict and the controller was just being manipulative. If there was traffic, and the controller didn't call it out, that might be grounds for complaint. After all is said and done, the FARs make it quite clear who the PIC is, and one requirement is that they're in the cockpit. He's wrong whether or not there was other traffic. He did not follow the controller's instruction. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Judah" wrote in message ... I think Steven interprets the parenthetic reference to "final approach course" as a definition of Final Approach Course as the Extended Runway Centerline. Steven did not interpret anything. Steven posted the definition. Whether that is a valid definition and a true requirement could come into question, Why? What's open to question? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
... Please enlighten me... What can happen in five seconds? That's about as much time as any decent instructor needs to put the plane into an unusual attitude during instrument flight training. You never know when you're going to fly through some wind shear that would do the same thing. In any case, the idea that a pilot should close their eyes during flight is just silly, especially when there's nothing useful to be gained from it. Pete |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Peter Duniho posted:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message [...] IOW, the controller's job is to insure spacing. *At the runway*. Elsewhere, it is up to the pilots in command to ensure traffic avoidance. In order to do that, all aircraft in controlled airspace are "controlled". [...] And you may be right that the controller should be fired if they create such a situation, but if you don't follow the controller's instruction and wind up dead, who do you think is going to feel worse? You, or the controller? I know I'd rather be fired than dead. No argument, there. Whatever else you may think about the situation, it's a serious problem when a controller issues an instruction that is simply not even comprehended. In this case, the instruction used a standard phrase, so the error was the pilot's. I agree. I'm not defending the decision to fly 30 degrees off-center to the threshold. But, I do wonder whether we have all the information that would allow us to reach a conclusion that it was an error, as opposed to a poor choice? There are more than a few airports where it would be inadvisable, if not impossible to execute such an instruction by a strict interpretation of the AIM's descriptions of "Straight in". That may be why it appears in there and not in the FARs? If it's not in the FARs, it's at least a point of discussion rather than an infraction. Neil |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:11:23 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
wrote in . net:: more controllers should be pilots. And, the corollary, more pilots should be familiar with Order 7110.65, is also true. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"AJW" wrote in message Just a thought, without trying to start anything. You're in cloud at night. You're about to break out to a vision of some kind of bright light patterns associated with an ILS, possibly with rabbits. Why are you concerned with preserving night vision? |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"TaxSrv" wrote in message
... Perhaps you meant another word. Anything "regulatory" requires publication in the Federal Register in proposed form for public comment. The controller's handbook "regulates" what each and every controller must do. As for your claim that "anything 'regulatory' requires publication in the Federal Register", that's simply false. For example, changes to the Practical Test Standards are not required to be published, but they are very much regulatory. In any case, this particular nit has nothing to do with the core topic at hand, even if there was a point to it. Pete |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message
... [...] Now, why the FAA doesn't just change the class D rules to protect themselves I can't explain. Seems like after banging your head on the wall for a while you may want to change some things. Seems like, I'd agree. Of course, as you and I both know, the US courts grant incorrect judgments all the time, especially when it comes to liability issues. I'm not sure making the Class D rules more explicit would help things. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Peter Duniho posted:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message I agree. I'm not defending the decision to fly 30 degrees off-center to the threshold. But, I do wonder whether we have all the information that would allow us to reach a conclusion that it was an error, as opposed to a poor choice? Not sure what you mean there. All we can base our observations on is what Jim has posted. He's specifically said that the controller told him to be at a position that he never wound up at. That's an error AND a poor choice. You're placing the entire responsibility on Jim. Interesting that Steven's replies do not. Since he stated that he is a tower controller, I think I'd go with his interpretation of Jim's situation. Of course, the plot only thickens if you are *both* ATCs. ;-) Neil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Emergency Procedures | RD | Piloting | 13 | April 11th 04 08:25 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
Rwy incursions | Hankal | Piloting | 10 | November 16th 03 02:33 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |