Near Collision at BOS between Aer Lingus and US Air
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite an epic post there AMF, but you still haven't explained why I should put up with 7,000' slam dunks in ORD when there's no traffic around. You're still stuck in the groove on 'A games' and needing a 'bit of a larf' at work.
The TFS crash that you refer to was almost duplicated in BOS a few weeks ago. TFS was caused by bad RT and the accident is used to train pilots in 'what not to do' in CRM classes all over europe (except maybe the Netherlands) - and the very lessons being hammered home there are ignored daily in the US, and you think its 'jest fine an dandy, thats jest how we do it'.
To be fair, en-route ATC in the US is generally good.
Its in terminal areas, and specifically on Approach, Tower and Ground frequencies in places like JFK that the plot falls apart.
I was recently lied to about vis by a controller in JFK who decided to switch me to an approach to an unlit CAT1 runway in what were in fact CAT3 conditions - because it suited his pattern.
Their mentality is crummy.
The TFS crash that you refer to was almost duplicated in BOS a few weeks ago. TFS was caused by bad RT and the accident is used to train pilots in 'what not to do' in CRM classes all over europe (except maybe the Netherlands) - and the very lessons being hammered home there are ignored daily in the US, and you think its 'jest fine an dandy, thats jest how we do it'.
To be fair, en-route ATC in the US is generally good.
Its in terminal areas, and specifically on Approach, Tower and Ground frequencies in places like JFK that the plot falls apart.
I was recently lied to about vis by a controller in JFK who decided to switch me to an approach to an unlit CAT1 runway in what were in fact CAT3 conditions - because it suited his pattern.
Their mentality is crummy.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330Driver.....
Here's the alternative (and correct) answer to your presumtions that either 1) U.S. aircrews don't fly with charts, or 2) U.S. aircrews don't believe waypoints exist if they don't see them on their CRT/LCD screen. It's also why you'll hear U.S. crews refusing a clearance as you've described.....direct to a waypoint not found on their previous "as cleared" flight plan, and with nothing else forthcoming from ATC.
Their confusion with the waypoint lies in the fact thay they've not received airway routing beginning at the new waypoint, to either their destination or to re-join what they've been previously been cleared for. When hearing the single-waypoint clearance with no subsequent airway, the assumption on the U.S. crew's part is that the point is downroute somewhere in what's already been programmed.
This is because you'll never receive such a clearance in the U.S...an off-routing waypoint and nothing else. To accept it means that's your new clearance limit, and is not the same as receiving an off-route vector. This is also why you'll hear refusals for such a clearance found in UK/Euro. Personally, I don't refuse it, but I do request additional airway routing.
Now, I'm sure that if you receive a clearance to a new (or even downroute waypoint you're not familiar with) it's all crystal clear.....for example you hear; "A330Driver, cleared direct puppy". You of course automatically know it's spelled "PUPPI", as opposed to, say,.... PUPEE, PUPPE, PPUPY, PUPAY, PUUPI, or perhaps even PUPPY, but not everyone was blessed with your skill at instant interpretation and correction for regional accents and inflection, or knows every tidbit on the charts by heart.
Yes it's sad but true, given no other indicator such as a new airway, us Yanks sometimes have to ask for phonetic spelling in order to find out and confirm against our flight plan that the new assigned waypoint is nowhere on our cleared route, and then confirm spelling in order to begin looking for it somewhere on the charts (if we remembered to bring them) or program it into the FMS (so we really believe in it). You should market and sell the secret knowledge/skill you possess that bypasses this unique Yank-dysfunction. Then you could really cash in on American ineptitude, thus ensuring a lifetime of hot meals for you.
As someone so keen on R/T that you feel you could feed yourself pointing out the deficiencies in others, then I'm sure you can understand that real communication also means ATC telling the pilots what the plan is for them......just in case someone loses comm capability altogether. If it happens while you're on your route, you continue. If you've received an off-route vector, you return to your cleared route. But if you've recieved and accepted a clearance to a new waypoint only (which certainly sits on another airway, or perhaps an intersection) , what's the course of action for the remainder of the flight if you lose comm?
If I'm flying from LHR to HECA or OLBA and lose it over Paris approaching this new point-in-space with no real ROUTE clearance, who knows what I'll choose? Oh well, C'est la vie!
Once, just as an experiment when I was new to the aforementioned UK/Euro phenomena and in order to learn more, I flew the entire length of Italy from Switz to Greece receiving and accepting off-route, direct-to-waypoint clearances from them. No airway routing subsequent to each was ever offered, merely new "direct-to" assignments to waypoints not on our flightplan as we approached each one. Except for the FIRs, we were never on, or assigned, an airway or consecutive waypoints. It became a great game, trying to predict which way ATC was going to send us as we approached each limit and searching for the new place on the chart (we maybe even had to get spelling for some...I dont remember things like that). As a matter of fact, I think the F/O who was with me that day still owes me a few beers for being the better ATC mind-reader. Since we never knew what ATCs plan was for us (apparently being so Top Secret even we couldn't be told) I figured if we lost comms we'd just wander back somehow to our original routing, because at least then they'd know what we intended to do. We kind of got the feeling they didn't really care what we did, however.
You see in the U.S., direct-to-waypoint clearances aren't stand-alone points in the sky....they actually belong to something much larger having to do with how you'll get from Point A to Point B. They go something like this (and usually with a heads-up such as "new routing for you advise ready to copy"); "XXXFlight Xxx, cleared to destination present positon direct WANKR, J-191 TOSSR, blah blah blah PMPUS, as previously cleared".
You'll notice that the direct-to waypoint is merely the beginning of an actual route clearance that continues to Point B. The pilot actually knows what's expected of him after that point, and upon accepting it, it become his "Last Assigned Route". In other words, the crew knows what to fly if comms are lost. This is, indeed, unlike what you oftimes get in UK/Eurocontrol. I don't sweat it much...I just pull their teeth and get more info...but there's certainly nothing wrong with refusing a clearance to a point that goes nowhere.
The readback issue...
You don't have to agree with me..I'm just stating the ATC Saturation/Congestion Facts of Life for you. Readbacks are only helpful to the controller and therefore enhance safety up until they become a hinderance. At that point, because they eat up his time for issuing subsequent instructions and delaying what he wants to do with the BIg Picture, they become counterproductive to safety. The more aircraft, the more instructions, the less airwave time available, the more instructions, the more time readbacks for each one eat up, and so on....until him re-hearing what he just told you is getting in the way. He wouldnt be dropping the requirement if it weren't.
Non-radar, readbacks are indeed the best tool the controller has to predict that communication took place. I say "predict" because a readback is nothing more than theoretical, and doesn't guarantee to him that you've set your altitude, heading/speed bug, or FMS correctly. True communication takes place only if the real-world reaction aligns with what was said. Non-radar, the controller never really knows if what's happening out there is what has been communicated and agreed upon.
In a radar environment, even with a readback, the only true validation for the controller that communication took place between himself and the crew is always when he sees the airplane doing what he instructed. The real world reaction where midairs occur. A readback validates nothing in this reality...it's more like a promise to act using the language of re-communication. When saturated to the breaking point, he/she doesn't want or need your promise, they want and need your compliance. It's up to you and your other crew memeber to ensure reception, understanding, and comply without what is at that point merely a feel-good exercise for your benefit only, in that you think he's setting his priorities wrong. Let us know when you become a controller in the NYC Tracon and re-educate them on how and what communication procedures work best in an extremely dynamic, saturated airspace environment. I'm sure they could learn a thing or two about priorities....they have little experience with it.
Needless to say, unless he's using "break", readbacks are still expected, which is to say the vast majority of the time. But if time management demands that a controller make the decision to re-prioritize the readback tool to lesser importance while relying on his radar to compensate, it's done to achieve a higher level of safety than if they were required. If dropping them were detrimental to safety in those situations where time is of the utmost importance, then there would be aluminum chaff-cloud events appearing over Chicago, Atlanta, and the NYC area at least once a week.
Oops, and here I said I was through with this thread.
IDunno...
Sorry to break this to you old chap, but I never mentioned "bring your A Game" or "having a laugh" at work.
Funny, in the years I was based at ORD I never remember having "no traffic around". Kind of difficult for the busiest airport on the planet, don\'t you think? Especially when you consider that Midway (airline and corporate), and busy corporate/genav fields such as Palwakee, DuPage, Waukegan, etc, are all sitting nearby ORD and underneath Chicago Class B. They also utilize and are handled by Approach, and airspace is assigned for their arrivals and departures. In fact, if you added up the traffic movements for ORD and included all the airports in just the Chicagoland area underneath and near it\'s airspace, you might find it equals or exceeds on a daily basis the number of movements for the entire island of Great Britain.
Now, call me "crazy" too, but maybe they\'re keeping you above those other conflicts? You know, until you\'ve pointed it out, in the many hundreds of times I flew in and out of there I never realized they were keeping me high for no good reason. Just to screw with me and force me into my A Game.... Bastards!
I\'m sure you\'ve heard of nose abatement...gee I wonder if that may come into play.
Next time you go in there, when flying an arrival getting assigments you\'re unhappy or petulant about, just ask them why its the way it was. No doubt they\'ll be happy to answer all your questions. Please post their reasons here.
I\'m sorry if you think that U.S. ATC doesn\'t look at accidents everywhere and try to learn from them. I\'m sorry if you think they ignore it, or don\'t teach it. I\'m sorry you think we think "that\'s jest fine and dandy, that\'s jest how we do it". I\'m sorry you think we\'re "jest" a bunch of yokels. I\'m sorry you think you get lied to by what you think are crummy-attitude JFK controllers. I\'m sorry that you think every time you go there they\'re trying to kill you.
But most of all, I\'m sorry you even have to show up to endure it.
Here's the alternative (and correct) answer to your presumtions that either 1) U.S. aircrews don't fly with charts, or 2) U.S. aircrews don't believe waypoints exist if they don't see them on their CRT/LCD screen. It's also why you'll hear U.S. crews refusing a clearance as you've described.....direct to a waypoint not found on their previous "as cleared" flight plan, and with nothing else forthcoming from ATC.
Their confusion with the waypoint lies in the fact thay they've not received airway routing beginning at the new waypoint, to either their destination or to re-join what they've been previously been cleared for. When hearing the single-waypoint clearance with no subsequent airway, the assumption on the U.S. crew's part is that the point is downroute somewhere in what's already been programmed.
This is because you'll never receive such a clearance in the U.S...an off-routing waypoint and nothing else. To accept it means that's your new clearance limit, and is not the same as receiving an off-route vector. This is also why you'll hear refusals for such a clearance found in UK/Euro. Personally, I don't refuse it, but I do request additional airway routing.
Now, I'm sure that if you receive a clearance to a new (or even downroute waypoint you're not familiar with) it's all crystal clear.....for example you hear; "A330Driver, cleared direct puppy". You of course automatically know it's spelled "PUPPI", as opposed to, say,.... PUPEE, PUPPE, PPUPY, PUPAY, PUUPI, or perhaps even PUPPY, but not everyone was blessed with your skill at instant interpretation and correction for regional accents and inflection, or knows every tidbit on the charts by heart.
Yes it's sad but true, given no other indicator such as a new airway, us Yanks sometimes have to ask for phonetic spelling in order to find out and confirm against our flight plan that the new assigned waypoint is nowhere on our cleared route, and then confirm spelling in order to begin looking for it somewhere on the charts (if we remembered to bring them) or program it into the FMS (so we really believe in it). You should market and sell the secret knowledge/skill you possess that bypasses this unique Yank-dysfunction. Then you could really cash in on American ineptitude, thus ensuring a lifetime of hot meals for you.
As someone so keen on R/T that you feel you could feed yourself pointing out the deficiencies in others, then I'm sure you can understand that real communication also means ATC telling the pilots what the plan is for them......just in case someone loses comm capability altogether. If it happens while you're on your route, you continue. If you've received an off-route vector, you return to your cleared route. But if you've recieved and accepted a clearance to a new waypoint only (which certainly sits on another airway, or perhaps an intersection) , what's the course of action for the remainder of the flight if you lose comm?
If I'm flying from LHR to HECA or OLBA and lose it over Paris approaching this new point-in-space with no real ROUTE clearance, who knows what I'll choose? Oh well, C'est la vie!
Once, just as an experiment when I was new to the aforementioned UK/Euro phenomena and in order to learn more, I flew the entire length of Italy from Switz to Greece receiving and accepting off-route, direct-to-waypoint clearances from them. No airway routing subsequent to each was ever offered, merely new "direct-to" assignments to waypoints not on our flightplan as we approached each one. Except for the FIRs, we were never on, or assigned, an airway or consecutive waypoints. It became a great game, trying to predict which way ATC was going to send us as we approached each limit and searching for the new place on the chart (we maybe even had to get spelling for some...I dont remember things like that). As a matter of fact, I think the F/O who was with me that day still owes me a few beers for being the better ATC mind-reader. Since we never knew what ATCs plan was for us (apparently being so Top Secret even we couldn't be told) I figured if we lost comms we'd just wander back somehow to our original routing, because at least then they'd know what we intended to do. We kind of got the feeling they didn't really care what we did, however.
You see in the U.S., direct-to-waypoint clearances aren't stand-alone points in the sky....they actually belong to something much larger having to do with how you'll get from Point A to Point B. They go something like this (and usually with a heads-up such as "new routing for you advise ready to copy"); "XXXFlight Xxx, cleared to destination present positon direct WANKR, J-191 TOSSR, blah blah blah PMPUS, as previously cleared".
You'll notice that the direct-to waypoint is merely the beginning of an actual route clearance that continues to Point B. The pilot actually knows what's expected of him after that point, and upon accepting it, it become his "Last Assigned Route". In other words, the crew knows what to fly if comms are lost. This is, indeed, unlike what you oftimes get in UK/Eurocontrol. I don't sweat it much...I just pull their teeth and get more info...but there's certainly nothing wrong with refusing a clearance to a point that goes nowhere.
The readback issue...
You don't have to agree with me..I'm just stating the ATC Saturation/Congestion Facts of Life for you. Readbacks are only helpful to the controller and therefore enhance safety up until they become a hinderance. At that point, because they eat up his time for issuing subsequent instructions and delaying what he wants to do with the BIg Picture, they become counterproductive to safety. The more aircraft, the more instructions, the less airwave time available, the more instructions, the more time readbacks for each one eat up, and so on....until him re-hearing what he just told you is getting in the way. He wouldnt be dropping the requirement if it weren't.
Non-radar, readbacks are indeed the best tool the controller has to predict that communication took place. I say "predict" because a readback is nothing more than theoretical, and doesn't guarantee to him that you've set your altitude, heading/speed bug, or FMS correctly. True communication takes place only if the real-world reaction aligns with what was said. Non-radar, the controller never really knows if what's happening out there is what has been communicated and agreed upon.
In a radar environment, even with a readback, the only true validation for the controller that communication took place between himself and the crew is always when he sees the airplane doing what he instructed. The real world reaction where midairs occur. A readback validates nothing in this reality...it's more like a promise to act using the language of re-communication. When saturated to the breaking point, he/she doesn't want or need your promise, they want and need your compliance. It's up to you and your other crew memeber to ensure reception, understanding, and comply without what is at that point merely a feel-good exercise for your benefit only, in that you think he's setting his priorities wrong. Let us know when you become a controller in the NYC Tracon and re-educate them on how and what communication procedures work best in an extremely dynamic, saturated airspace environment. I'm sure they could learn a thing or two about priorities....they have little experience with it.
Needless to say, unless he's using "break", readbacks are still expected, which is to say the vast majority of the time. But if time management demands that a controller make the decision to re-prioritize the readback tool to lesser importance while relying on his radar to compensate, it's done to achieve a higher level of safety than if they were required. If dropping them were detrimental to safety in those situations where time is of the utmost importance, then there would be aluminum chaff-cloud events appearing over Chicago, Atlanta, and the NYC area at least once a week.
Oops, and here I said I was through with this thread.
IDunno...
Sorry to break this to you old chap, but I never mentioned "bring your A Game" or "having a laugh" at work.
Funny, in the years I was based at ORD I never remember having "no traffic around". Kind of difficult for the busiest airport on the planet, don\'t you think? Especially when you consider that Midway (airline and corporate), and busy corporate/genav fields such as Palwakee, DuPage, Waukegan, etc, are all sitting nearby ORD and underneath Chicago Class B. They also utilize and are handled by Approach, and airspace is assigned for their arrivals and departures. In fact, if you added up the traffic movements for ORD and included all the airports in just the Chicagoland area underneath and near it\'s airspace, you might find it equals or exceeds on a daily basis the number of movements for the entire island of Great Britain.
Now, call me "crazy" too, but maybe they\'re keeping you above those other conflicts? You know, until you\'ve pointed it out, in the many hundreds of times I flew in and out of there I never realized they were keeping me high for no good reason. Just to screw with me and force me into my A Game.... Bastards!
I\'m sure you\'ve heard of nose abatement...gee I wonder if that may come into play.
Next time you go in there, when flying an arrival getting assigments you\'re unhappy or petulant about, just ask them why its the way it was. No doubt they\'ll be happy to answer all your questions. Please post their reasons here.
I\'m sorry if you think that U.S. ATC doesn\'t look at accidents everywhere and try to learn from them. I\'m sorry if you think they ignore it, or don\'t teach it. I\'m sorry you think we think "that\'s jest fine and dandy, that\'s jest how we do it". I\'m sorry you think we\'re "jest" a bunch of yokels. I\'m sorry you think you get lied to by what you think are crummy-attitude JFK controllers. I\'m sorry that you think every time you go there they\'re trying to kill you.
But most of all, I\'m sorry you even have to show up to endure it.
Last edited by AMF; 2nd Jul 2005 at 14:41.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: EIDW
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys;
How on earth did this thread get so nasty, suely the bottom line is that....a mistake by controllers at BOS almost caused a very serious incident
Does it really matter where the best or worst ATC takes place.
How on earth did this thread get so nasty, suely the bottom line is that....a mistake by controllers at BOS almost caused a very serious incident
Does it really matter where the best or worst ATC takes place.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do we still have this festering feud between the two main antagonists here? Just because someone exaggarates about US aircrew not understanding where a waypoint they've been cleared to and then claiming that it happens every time doesn't need a full blown retort which only gives credence to the stupid generalising remark in the first place.
US crews, exactly as us UK crews, if we get a direct to a waypoint and we don't quite hear it correctly in that it doesn't appear to be in our flight planned route, then we just ask again and if we are still unclear we ask them to spell it out phonetically. No big deal. If the waypoint isn't in our planned route then we ask the controller to verify our routing after the waypoint and mention to him or her that it isn't in our original flight plan. What's the big deal?
Neither system is perfect and neither is dangerous, per se. It is just a fact that at times humans can make errors and iit is down to our and the controllers professionalism that we catch them in time and learn from them. No doubt in this case at BOS we will learn exactly what went wrong. Get used to it.
US crews, exactly as us UK crews, if we get a direct to a waypoint and we don't quite hear it correctly in that it doesn't appear to be in our flight planned route, then we just ask again and if we are still unclear we ask them to spell it out phonetically. No big deal. If the waypoint isn't in our planned route then we ask the controller to verify our routing after the waypoint and mention to him or her that it isn't in our original flight plan. What's the big deal?
Neither system is perfect and neither is dangerous, per se. It is just a fact that at times humans can make errors and iit is down to our and the controllers professionalism that we catch them in time and learn from them. No doubt in this case at BOS we will learn exactly what went wrong. Get used to it.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Near 50 West
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Danny but I have to disagree. Two aircraft departing on intersecting runways controlled by two separate persons on different frequencies has to be less safe then other options available. Many in the industry would consider there is no compromise with flight safety, maybe they do not live in the real world. In this case neither pilot could see the other until far too late, and neither pilot was privy to the clearance being given to the other. As you remember the Pan Am KLM accident, all the crews knew what was going on, they were all on the same freq. The sad thing is one of them choose to ignore the doubts of his F/O. Perhaps if there had of been a collision your assessment that the procedures which continue at BOS and many other airports, not just in the USA, would be somewhat different. We work in an environment where there are multiple redundancies, where crew actions are continually monitored, engineering procedures are cross checked. In this case I would like to ask who was monitoring the two controllers. Human error did take place but there should be procedures in place which will prevent such an incident from happening. This was not the case. The system failed.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Orlando, FL.
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idunno
You have to put up with slam dunks in ORD because you do. Thats all. It's how they get you in. If you think it's wrong call your chief pilot and tell him that you can't handle the crazy flying in the Colonies. I'm sure he'll have sympathy and re-assign you to out-and-backs with landing in the Isle of Man.
AMF
Amen brother.
You have to put up with slam dunks in ORD because you do. Thats all. It's how they get you in. If you think it's wrong call your chief pilot and tell him that you can't handle the crazy flying in the Colonies. I'm sure he'll have sympathy and re-assign you to out-and-backs with landing in the Isle of Man.
AMF
Amen brother.
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to put up with slam dunks in ORD because you do. Thats all.
For non-aviators a slam dunk approach is akin to having to pass through your gates at 80kph while safely stopping in your 10 metre driveway....with a load of passengers....in a double-decker bus.
Before someone takes the easy US bashing stick to me I would like to point out that ORD and BOS are the only two airports I would highlight. Everywhere else I've been has been at least good ( even JFK despite the lunacy of Canarsie ). I might add the poor guy on KEWR area ( NY west? ) deserves a medal for all the traffic on that frequency.
I would plead with our North American cousins that instead of the blame the idiot foreigner attitude you should stand up to poor practises if you see them on behalf of your industry and your passengers.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Orlando, FL.
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When a pilot is issued a slam dunk approach, it's a clearance for a visual approach. To execute the approach the pilot must first accept the clearance. I've turned down many approaches. And never been bashed or ridiculed for it. Not only slam dunks. Too close, bad weather, just didn't feel right. You have the option. If ORD or BOS give you a clearance for a visual and you think it's not right, refuse the clearance!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Orlando, FL.
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maxalt
If you are the PIC you can accept or refuse any clearance you feel isn't safe. Unless if in Ireland they have different rules? Here in the USA the PIC always has final authority over where and when his/her aircraft goes.
But you really knew that, didn't you?
If you are the PIC you can accept or refuse any clearance you feel isn't safe. Unless if in Ireland they have different rules? Here in the USA the PIC always has final authority over where and when his/her aircraft goes.
But you really knew that, didn't you?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry, we do that - where possible, but your North American colleagues on this thread referred to such behaviour as 'throwing sand in the works' or not having 'an A game'.
You seem unusually reasonable, I must say.
You seem unusually reasonable, I must say.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Orlando, FL.
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't give a s##t what I throw into the works. I was based in LGA for a time. Belive me they have some hard nosed controllers. But I've refused clearances, done go-arounds when they forgot to give me a landing clearance. I'm sure, under their breath, I was cursed to he$$. But, who cares! I stayed in my safe bubble, and nobody got hurt. Except my company. It was their fuel after all!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. Fuel.
There's the rub.
When you're jaunting around the US doing short sectors in your 737 or whatever, you've got the luxury of uplifting fuel on each sector, and taking extra whenever you feel like it.
And - fuel wise - a go around in a 737 is no big deal either.
But, when arriving into the terminal area after a long-haul flight in a widebody, we don't have the layers of fat you can afford. We're usually constrained by weight on departure. Carrying anything above flight-plan minimum is often impossible. A go-around in a heavy is therefore rather more contentious fuel-wise (as someone else already pointed out about Canarsie approaches). You can practically see the gauges dwindling before your very eyes. So much for 'safe bubbles'.
US ATC will do more than curse you under their breath if they think you are messing with them. They'll read the riot act to you on the airwaves and dismiss you to the holding pattern - where you'll sit and sweat, wondering if you should divert now, or pray the nice man will give you another chance. At his leisure.
Think AVIANCA, 1990
There's the rub.
When you're jaunting around the US doing short sectors in your 737 or whatever, you've got the luxury of uplifting fuel on each sector, and taking extra whenever you feel like it.
And - fuel wise - a go around in a 737 is no big deal either.
But, when arriving into the terminal area after a long-haul flight in a widebody, we don't have the layers of fat you can afford. We're usually constrained by weight on departure. Carrying anything above flight-plan minimum is often impossible. A go-around in a heavy is therefore rather more contentious fuel-wise (as someone else already pointed out about Canarsie approaches). You can practically see the gauges dwindling before your very eyes. So much for 'safe bubbles'.
US ATC will do more than curse you under their breath if they think you are messing with them. They'll read the riot act to you on the airwaves and dismiss you to the holding pattern - where you'll sit and sweat, wondering if you should divert now, or pray the nice man will give you another chance. At his leisure.
Think AVIANCA, 1990
Last edited by maxalt; 4th Jul 2005 at 13:31.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give us a break MAXALT.
US ATC will do more than curse you under their breath if they think you are messing with them. They'll read the riot act to you on the airwaves and dismiss you to the holding pattern - where you'll sit and sweat, wondering if you should divert now, or pray the nice man will give you another chance. At his leisure.
My credentials you ask? I have been a pilot since 1967, FAA jet ATP with the last 5-1/2 years based in Italy, the previous based in the U.S. Flown into 30+ countries in my humble career.
What you state above is a gross exageration of the facts, and you know it. If you screw up, US ATC may say something to you (remember you screwed up), but they will not maliciously put an aircraft in holding for punishment. This may have occurred at some point, but this would be very rare and inappropriate.
European ATC may also say something to you if you screw up. Certainly that is better than a visit to your Chief Pilot.
Sir, please keep to the facts and minimize the Yank Bashing!
US ATC will do more than curse you under their breath if they think you are messing with them. They'll read the riot act to you on the airwaves and dismiss you to the holding pattern - where you'll sit and sweat, wondering if you should divert now, or pray the nice man will give you another chance. At his leisure.
My credentials you ask? I have been a pilot since 1967, FAA jet ATP with the last 5-1/2 years based in Italy, the previous based in the U.S. Flown into 30+ countries in my humble career.
What you state above is a gross exageration of the facts, and you know it. If you screw up, US ATC may say something to you (remember you screwed up), but they will not maliciously put an aircraft in holding for punishment. This may have occurred at some point, but this would be very rare and inappropriate.
European ATC may also say something to you if you screw up. Certainly that is better than a visit to your Chief Pilot.
Sir, please keep to the facts and minimize the Yank Bashing!