Near Collision at BOS between Aer Lingus and US Air
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every once in awhile, West Coast 'gets it right'...and he is right on the mark with his brief comments about US vs EU/UK ATC.
IE: if you can't stand the pace, stay home where you belong.
411A has operated to nearly every European/UK large airport over the last 35 years with heavy jets, and I have to say that LHR is just a bit better than many others, but for total safe operations, cannot hold a candle to many busy airports in the USA.
As Harry Truman used to say....'can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen'.
IE: if you can't stand the pace, stay home where you belong.
411A has operated to nearly every European/UK large airport over the last 35 years with heavy jets, and I have to say that LHR is just a bit better than many others, but for total safe operations, cannot hold a candle to many busy airports in the USA.
As Harry Truman used to say....'can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen'.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Went into KORD the other day, to land on 22R. A 747 who was supposed to LAHSO on 27R - HOW???? (even though it's not an approved procedure for us actively or passively - never let details interfere with a slick operation!!) unsurprisingly missed his turn off and infringed our runway (we were visual at 500 feet so not a desperately big deal in itself - what if we'd been at 150 feet?). Another heavy jet took off from 32R while we were at 300 feet. It's an accident waiting to happen.
In answer to my own question of "What if we'd been at 150 feet?". If we'd gone around we'd be straight into the path of departing traffic from 27L. Nice. We can't LAHSO legally anyway, although if worst came to worst and you had enough distance, you'd have to if it was the least risky option - except we'd have real (serious) trouble stopping at our weight in the LAHSO distance on 22R.
So what do I do then - apart from bid to go somewhere else and make it someone elses problem?
In answer to my own question of "What if we'd been at 150 feet?". If we'd gone around we'd be straight into the path of departing traffic from 27L. Nice. We can't LAHSO legally anyway, although if worst came to worst and you had enough distance, you'd have to if it was the least risky option - except we'd have real (serious) trouble stopping at our weight in the LAHSO distance on 22R.
So what do I do then - apart from bid to go somewhere else and make it someone elses problem?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just thought i would educate the ill informed west coast
Busiest International Airport
London Heathrow handles the most international passengers (as opposed to passengers on domestic flights, which make up the majority of traffic at US airports). On an overall scale, Heathrow ranks third behind Atlanta and Chicago.
Busiest City (all airports)
When the flights from all airports in a city are combined, London is the busiest aviation centre in the world.
Only London, Tokyo and New York have two airports in the top 30 worldwide.
Combining New York's JFK (29 943 084) and Newark (29 202 654 ) still does not reach the same level as London Heathrow. Despite being the major international gateway for Japan, Tokyo Narita (28 883 606) is overshadowed by the mainly domestic Haneda (61 079 478). This puts Tokyo on a relatively even keel with Heathrow (63 338 641) and Gatwick (29 628 423).
When Stansted (18 750 000), Luton (6 500 000), and London City (1 500 000) are added on top, London handles a total of almost 120 million passengers annually.
Source: World airports Council , BAA, Luton Airport, London City Airport
As you can quite clearly see, the LTMA is by far the busiest in the world and all within such a confined area. On the other hand o'hare is pretty much isolated!!! on its own
Busiest International Airport
London Heathrow handles the most international passengers (as opposed to passengers on domestic flights, which make up the majority of traffic at US airports). On an overall scale, Heathrow ranks third behind Atlanta and Chicago.
Busiest City (all airports)
When the flights from all airports in a city are combined, London is the busiest aviation centre in the world.
Only London, Tokyo and New York have two airports in the top 30 worldwide.
Combining New York's JFK (29 943 084) and Newark (29 202 654 ) still does not reach the same level as London Heathrow. Despite being the major international gateway for Japan, Tokyo Narita (28 883 606) is overshadowed by the mainly domestic Haneda (61 079 478). This puts Tokyo on a relatively even keel with Heathrow (63 338 641) and Gatwick (29 628 423).
When Stansted (18 750 000), Luton (6 500 000), and London City (1 500 000) are added on top, London handles a total of almost 120 million passengers annually.
Source: World airports Council , BAA, Luton Airport, London City Airport
As you can quite clearly see, the LTMA is by far the busiest in the world and all within such a confined area. On the other hand o'hare is pretty much isolated!!! on its own
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
redout, with respect to the topic of this thread, aircraft movements rather than total passengers is the better gauge. For calendar year 2004, the busiest airport in the world in terms of total aircraft movements was ORD with 992,000.
The first non-US airport to appear in the rankings is CDG ranked 9th; FRA is ranked 14th; LHR is ranked 15th with 475,000 movements; AMS is ranked 20th; BOS is ranked 22nd; and MAD is ranked 24th.
____________________
on topic, I cannot find Meters archived on the Web for June 9th, but the climatological record for KBOS for June 9th reported fog, fog with visibility below a quarter mile, thunder, and haze as the significant weather. Winds were generally 160, peak wind was 15 mph. Precipitation was 0.45 iinch.
The first non-US airport to appear in the rankings is CDG ranked 9th; FRA is ranked 14th; LHR is ranked 15th with 475,000 movements; AMS is ranked 20th; BOS is ranked 22nd; and MAD is ranked 24th.
____________________
on topic, I cannot find Meters archived on the Web for June 9th, but the climatological record for KBOS for June 9th reported fog, fog with visibility below a quarter mile, thunder, and haze as the significant weather. Winds were generally 160, peak wind was 15 mph. Precipitation was 0.45 iinch.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stockport
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this case I would have thought the number of movements would be the best way to equate which is busiest
CDG has well over 500,000 per year but with 4 runways which are all basically parallel
FRA has somewhere near 450,000 from 3 runways
LHR 467,000 from 2 runways
CDG has one other busy airport nearby
Orly
Whilst LHR has 3 in LGW, STN and LTN
I cannot comment on North American airports
I did see fun and games once at MIA when one of the taxiways became congested making it impossible for an aircraft to clear the from the cross runway forcing go arounds off 2 runways and I would think a very high work load for the controllers
G-I-B
CDG has well over 500,000 per year but with 4 runways which are all basically parallel
FRA has somewhere near 450,000 from 3 runways
LHR 467,000 from 2 runways
CDG has one other busy airport nearby
Orly
Whilst LHR has 3 in LGW, STN and LTN
I cannot comment on North American airports
I did see fun and games once at MIA when one of the taxiways became congested making it impossible for an aircraft to clear the from the cross runway forcing go arounds off 2 runways and I would think a very high work load for the controllers
G-I-B
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Radar - why did you delete my post last night!?
I provided an important link debunking WC's nonsense assertions - and you deleted it. Fortunately others have commented and shown he hasn't a clue.
There was nothing in my post that was any stronger than the language he's been using. Don't twist the debate.
"I concede that things are 'generally' comparable on both sides of the pond."????
No they're not! Where'd you get that idea from exactly?
West Coast - 09L KORD is too uncomfortably short for heavies. If you knew anything about what you're spouting about you'd know there's only one RWY09 under discussion and it ain't 09L.
Of course you'd probably consider it a challenge to your manhood if you were ordered to land a 747 on 09L - so you'd have to do it anyhow, and bugger the consequences to the aircraft or passengers, right?
I'd consider it if I was on fire and it was the last runway open - but otherwise, you commuter types are welcome to it.
The DHL accident occurred late at night in airspace with practically no other traffic around. Don't compare that single freak accident to the near misses that occur every day in overloaded US airspace controlled by stressed out prima donnas - the odds are not on your side.
If KORD is 20% busier than EGLL by movement statistics - do you think that means the controlling is allowed to be 20% worse in KORD as a result? Whats your point with that?
ATC in the US isn't 20% worse than the UK - its 100% worse, all the time, everywhere.
There's only one standard required - not two as you seem to believe. There is no 'A Team / B Team' claptrap - but a single standard that should be applied - always.
I used the word 'discredited' because in my view any 'profession' becomes discredited when it has lost the RESPECT of its clients or customers. I don't know a single pilot (and I include the many US pilots I know) who has an iota of respect left for US ATC.
The LAHSO situation that Human Factor just related is another concrete example of the daily war fought by foreign pilots with US ATC. They insist on issuing clearances that they know are illegal or impossible to accept, and then lose the head if you reject it. Your solution? Don't go there. Great. How about retraining the whole ATC corp to understand the actual capabilities of heavy jet aircraft? Tell them that a clearance to fly an ILS at 200 knots to the OM is impossible - yet I've been told to try it (and gee, I didn't - I refused, what a wimp).
I see your profile says you are an ex-Marine? You're a scary guy! I hope I never sit in anything you're driving - care to tell me who you work for so I can avoid you?
"Perhaps you do, but I don't concern myself with what others think of me."
This is the redneck yankee attitude we've come to know and hate worldwide of late.
I provided an important link debunking WC's nonsense assertions - and you deleted it. Fortunately others have commented and shown he hasn't a clue.
There was nothing in my post that was any stronger than the language he's been using. Don't twist the debate.
"I concede that things are 'generally' comparable on both sides of the pond."????
No they're not! Where'd you get that idea from exactly?
West Coast - 09L KORD is too uncomfortably short for heavies. If you knew anything about what you're spouting about you'd know there's only one RWY09 under discussion and it ain't 09L.
Of course you'd probably consider it a challenge to your manhood if you were ordered to land a 747 on 09L - so you'd have to do it anyhow, and bugger the consequences to the aircraft or passengers, right?
I'd consider it if I was on fire and it was the last runway open - but otherwise, you commuter types are welcome to it.
The DHL accident occurred late at night in airspace with practically no other traffic around. Don't compare that single freak accident to the near misses that occur every day in overloaded US airspace controlled by stressed out prima donnas - the odds are not on your side.
If KORD is 20% busier than EGLL by movement statistics - do you think that means the controlling is allowed to be 20% worse in KORD as a result? Whats your point with that?
ATC in the US isn't 20% worse than the UK - its 100% worse, all the time, everywhere.
There's only one standard required - not two as you seem to believe. There is no 'A Team / B Team' claptrap - but a single standard that should be applied - always.
I used the word 'discredited' because in my view any 'profession' becomes discredited when it has lost the RESPECT of its clients or customers. I don't know a single pilot (and I include the many US pilots I know) who has an iota of respect left for US ATC.
The LAHSO situation that Human Factor just related is another concrete example of the daily war fought by foreign pilots with US ATC. They insist on issuing clearances that they know are illegal or impossible to accept, and then lose the head if you reject it. Your solution? Don't go there. Great. How about retraining the whole ATC corp to understand the actual capabilities of heavy jet aircraft? Tell them that a clearance to fly an ILS at 200 knots to the OM is impossible - yet I've been told to try it (and gee, I didn't - I refused, what a wimp).
I see your profile says you are an ex-Marine? You're a scary guy! I hope I never sit in anything you're driving - care to tell me who you work for so I can avoid you?
"Perhaps you do, but I don't concern myself with what others think of me."
This is the redneck yankee attitude we've come to know and hate worldwide of late.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A wrote: "I have to say that LHR is just a bit better than many others, but for total safe operations, cannot hold a candle to many busy airports in the USA."
As a controller who worked at Heathrow for 31 years - and did my utmost to provide the safest possible service - I was surprised at 411A's comments. Perhaps he would kindly tell us what he found unsafe about Heathrow's operations so that something might be done about it? Crews that I had the pleasure of meeting and working with, including American pilots for whom I have huge respect, appeared to have a different opinion.
As a controller who worked at Heathrow for 31 years - and did my utmost to provide the safest possible service - I was surprised at 411A's comments. Perhaps he would kindly tell us what he found unsafe about Heathrow's operations so that something might be done about it? Crews that I had the pleasure of meeting and working with, including American pilots for whom I have huge respect, appeared to have a different opinion.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idunno,
If you are at 180 and need to descend more than a 1000ft/min..try gear down on your airplane..non standard but im sure it will help;-)
Happy flying in the US.Cant be worse than Africa,Greece or Italy...
M.85
If you are at 180 and need to descend more than a 1000ft/min..try gear down on your airplane..non standard but im sure it will help;-)
Happy flying in the US.Cant be worse than Africa,Greece or Italy...
M.85
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
\\Perhaps he would kindly tell us what he found unsafe about Heathrow's operations so that something might be done about it?\\
Nothing 'unsafe' about LHR ops, Heathrow Director.
In fact, they generally do a fine job.
Just 'different' than at most large American air carrier airports.
However, since you asked, I personally think the guys at AMS do it better.
Just my opinion, you understand...and yes, I have been flying into LHR and AMS since the early seventies.
Nothing 'unsafe' about LHR ops, Heathrow Director.
In fact, they generally do a fine job.
Just 'different' than at most large American air carrier airports.
However, since you asked, I personally think the guys at AMS do it better.
Just my opinion, you understand...and yes, I have been flying into LHR and AMS since the early seventies.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well thanks for the flying lesson M.85, I'll try to remember that.
If you'd read my previous posts you'd see that I already referred to the stupidity of having to operate a heavy in that manner - gear down at 7000' downwind!
Its all the more ridiculous when there's absolutely no call for it on ATCs behalf - they throw you at the approach even when there is no traffic around.
If it looks like you're hacking it (gear down at 7000'!) they'll even attempt to tighten you up!!!
I guess bad habits are just hard to break.
Another 'solution' is to ask them (if you can get a word in around all the non-standard chatter) how many track miles they intend to give you.
If you try it, this question is usually met with a moments stunned silence (as they try to figure out what you mean by it) followed usually by a request to repeat the question - followed by another 3 minutes silence while they try to figure out how to calculate such a far-out concept. Followed by a snide comment to the effect 'I ain't got time for dat' (in other words, I haven't a clue what I'm doin.).
Do they ever really think what an aircraft is capable of when they're throwing you at the runway - or is it just some kind of big game of space invaders to them?
It should be A LOT BETTER.
Well 411A, the Dutch can be stupidly bloody-minded and argumentative too - but I'll take them over the US bunch any day.
If you'd read my previous posts you'd see that I already referred to the stupidity of having to operate a heavy in that manner - gear down at 7000' downwind!
Its all the more ridiculous when there's absolutely no call for it on ATCs behalf - they throw you at the approach even when there is no traffic around.
If it looks like you're hacking it (gear down at 7000'!) they'll even attempt to tighten you up!!!
I guess bad habits are just hard to break.
Another 'solution' is to ask them (if you can get a word in around all the non-standard chatter) how many track miles they intend to give you.
If you try it, this question is usually met with a moments stunned silence (as they try to figure out what you mean by it) followed usually by a request to repeat the question - followed by another 3 minutes silence while they try to figure out how to calculate such a far-out concept. Followed by a snide comment to the effect 'I ain't got time for dat' (in other words, I haven't a clue what I'm doin.).
Do they ever really think what an aircraft is capable of when they're throwing you at the runway - or is it just some kind of big game of space invaders to them?
Cant be worse than Africa,Greece or Italy...
Well 411A, the Dutch can be stupidly bloody-minded and argumentative too - but I'll take them over the US bunch any day.
Last edited by Idunno; 25th Jun 2005 at 14:12.
Dunno
Your face saving has a ways to go.
All this talk of how many runways an airport has isn't the only metric to determine the competence of your controllers as almost all of you are pointing out. Add in crossing runways and crossing final approach courses. One runway with for the most part only arrivals to it, another runway with only departures. volume, no complexity. Trying controlling arrivals off of 9L at ORD, your launching departures off 32L which conflict. Launching aircraft off of 4L which conflicts. If your really busy they might even be launching off 32R at the same time, which also conflicts. All that while the next arrival is only a few back. Arrive the same runway, just like LHR, but instead of only having to wait till the arrival is clear as in LHR, you have two runways you normally have to shoot the gap with departures along with the traffic on final. That's only half the airport, there's a whole different set of runways in use on the other side of the airport. Damn near a million ops a year. Makes one runway, one departure, one arrival seem down right sedate in comparison.
Again dunno, if your competence is in question, ask your Captain to fly the leg (is this where with great indignation you claim to be the Capt?) or don't go. You do have a responsibility to your passengers if the destination is beyond your capabilities, your aircraft isn't appropriate to the task or if you believe the ATC on the other end to be trying to kill you. Simply don't go. I would have more respect for your acknowledgment of your shortcomings or your belief in our ATC's shortcomings and simply not push the levers up.
"I don't know a single pilot (and I include the many US pilots I know) who has an iota of respect left for US ATC"
I bet I know more US pilots than you, even if however I don't I know a few who still respect the US system for their ability to move more traffic than anyone else. You surely know more Euro pilots, I however do know a couple who manage in ORD minus the whining. They accept they have to be on top of their game when they fly in to the worlds busiest airport. Over time I've heard most say kind things about ORD and US ATC in general.
Do you intend to stop flying in to US airspace? If I thought someone or some system either in or out of aviation was trying to kill me, I would likely stop going there. Especially so with the responsibility of the paying pax in back. Do you feel that same responsibility?
BTW, UA 747's arrive 9L on a regular basis. Perhaps those heavy pilots need some schooling from you.
Your face saving has a ways to go.
All this talk of how many runways an airport has isn't the only metric to determine the competence of your controllers as almost all of you are pointing out. Add in crossing runways and crossing final approach courses. One runway with for the most part only arrivals to it, another runway with only departures. volume, no complexity. Trying controlling arrivals off of 9L at ORD, your launching departures off 32L which conflict. Launching aircraft off of 4L which conflicts. If your really busy they might even be launching off 32R at the same time, which also conflicts. All that while the next arrival is only a few back. Arrive the same runway, just like LHR, but instead of only having to wait till the arrival is clear as in LHR, you have two runways you normally have to shoot the gap with departures along with the traffic on final. That's only half the airport, there's a whole different set of runways in use on the other side of the airport. Damn near a million ops a year. Makes one runway, one departure, one arrival seem down right sedate in comparison.
Again dunno, if your competence is in question, ask your Captain to fly the leg (is this where with great indignation you claim to be the Capt?) or don't go. You do have a responsibility to your passengers if the destination is beyond your capabilities, your aircraft isn't appropriate to the task or if you believe the ATC on the other end to be trying to kill you. Simply don't go. I would have more respect for your acknowledgment of your shortcomings or your belief in our ATC's shortcomings and simply not push the levers up.
"I don't know a single pilot (and I include the many US pilots I know) who has an iota of respect left for US ATC"
I bet I know more US pilots than you, even if however I don't I know a few who still respect the US system for their ability to move more traffic than anyone else. You surely know more Euro pilots, I however do know a couple who manage in ORD minus the whining. They accept they have to be on top of their game when they fly in to the worlds busiest airport. Over time I've heard most say kind things about ORD and US ATC in general.
Do you intend to stop flying in to US airspace? If I thought someone or some system either in or out of aviation was trying to kill me, I would likely stop going there. Especially so with the responsibility of the paying pax in back. Do you feel that same responsibility?
BTW, UA 747's arrive 9L on a regular basis. Perhaps those heavy pilots need some schooling from you.
167 mph = 245 fps -- USAir speed
171/245 = .7 seconds
Now if that clearance was nose to fuselage centerline, we're talking
( 171-99 = 72 )/245 = .3 seconds
after taking off half the A330-200 wingspan
171/245 = .7 seconds
Now if that clearance was nose to fuselage centerline, we're talking
( 171-99 = 72 )/245 = .3 seconds
after taking off half the A330-200 wingspan
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Radar - why did you delete my post last night!? I provided an important link debunking WC's nonsense assertions - and you deleted it.
Fortunately others have commented and shown he hasn't a clue. There was nothing in my post that was any stronger than the language he's been using. Don't twist the debate. "I concede that things are 'generally' comparable on both sides of the pond."???? No they're not! Where'd you get that idea from exactly?
Look at the high numbers of 'Level Busts' reported in the UK. Most of the rest of Europe claim not to have them and wonder why the UK expends so much energy trying to prevent them. It is simply because there is no way for them to be reported and thus allow the level of occurence measured in those countries to be guaged. If there are no reports and therefore no incidence of 'Level Busts' then their logic is that they must not happen. Not sure why they think that crews would suddenly change their professional perfomance as soon as they enter UK airspace and be more inclined to have an error in UK airspace only.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done so far. I haven't seen this much cock waving round here for ages.
411A has made a somewhat throw away comment that sums the whole thing up perfectly:
THE SYSTEMS ARE DIFFERENT!!!
From what I have seen here in North America (I'm including Canada and the US), there are several things that would have a UK controller wide eyed and shaking their head (The use of non-standard R/T just just scratching the surface). In the UK there are things done there that IMHO seem very archaic and almost analy retentive (the London TMA has evolved into a huge mess that needs a fire hose put through it).
BUT to sit here and read comments like "If you haven't brought your A game, go away".........what an absolute crock. You call yourselves professionals???? Professional nappy soilers at the moment.
I'll drop a little hint. Actual numbers of movements isn't the sole indicator to how busy or complex an airport is. Lack of airspace, proximity of other airfields, local training.........these are just some factors. Some poor controller in a tower,nowhere may very well be working like a one armed paper hangar with circit bashers, water bombers and alike without a single pax jet in sight. And giving the best damn service he can.
Go give your heads a shake.
411A has made a somewhat throw away comment that sums the whole thing up perfectly:
Just 'different' than at most large American air carrier airports.
From what I have seen here in North America (I'm including Canada and the US), there are several things that would have a UK controller wide eyed and shaking their head (The use of non-standard R/T just just scratching the surface). In the UK there are things done there that IMHO seem very archaic and almost analy retentive (the London TMA has evolved into a huge mess that needs a fire hose put through it).
BUT to sit here and read comments like "If you haven't brought your A game, go away".........what an absolute crock. You call yourselves professionals???? Professional nappy soilers at the moment.
I'll drop a little hint. Actual numbers of movements isn't the sole indicator to how busy or complex an airport is. Lack of airspace, proximity of other airfields, local training.........these are just some factors. Some poor controller in a tower,nowhere may very well be working like a one armed paper hangar with circit bashers, water bombers and alike without a single pax jet in sight. And giving the best damn service he can.
Go give your heads a shake.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be an attitude here that you measure ATC professionalism solely by the number of a/c shifted in minimum time - however they do it.
Well its not my measure of competence. I couldn't give a damn if everybody gets airborne today or next week.
Safety First.
If your airports were all designed in the 40's and continue to create chaotic and dangerous conflicts at intersections - wise up! Limit these intersecting runway operations. Its common to see mixing of t/o and landing traffic on each of three (or more!) runways at the same time - its pure insanity.
If that leads to delays - put some proper slot control systems in operation.
The taxi delays in ORD and JFK are already ridiculous at peak times. Hundreds of aircraft every day burning tons of taxi fuel for no good reason. Pure bullcrap.
Maybe you missed the news - 400 people missed being killed by a matter of seconds in Boston a fortnight ago. Who's fault was that by the way?
Bury your head in the sand if you wish, but I want the public to know about this - maybe then we'll see some changes.
Tell that to the skipper of that Aer Lingus Airbus.
I guess the US pilot who he nearly collided with is a happy camper too.
One last thing.
When a US ATCer asks me to do something I believe to be unreasonable or unsafe - I don't go hoking in my flight bag for my 'A Team' baseball cap and Joe Petroni ceegar.
Nor do I 180 and head for blighty.
NOWADAYS I JUST SAY NO!!
Works perfectly for me.
Well its not my measure of competence. I couldn't give a damn if everybody gets airborne today or next week.
Safety First.
If your airports were all designed in the 40's and continue to create chaotic and dangerous conflicts at intersections - wise up! Limit these intersecting runway operations. Its common to see mixing of t/o and landing traffic on each of three (or more!) runways at the same time - its pure insanity.
If that leads to delays - put some proper slot control systems in operation.
The taxi delays in ORD and JFK are already ridiculous at peak times. Hundreds of aircraft every day burning tons of taxi fuel for no good reason. Pure bullcrap.
Comone guys, put your pricks back in your pants where they belong, you are putting the fear of death into travelling Joe Public.
Bury your head in the sand if you wish, but I want the public to know about this - maybe then we'll see some changes.
As for near misses as a measure of safety performance, I don't think we have the stats to back up any argument on either side.
I guess the US pilot who he nearly collided with is a happy camper too.
One last thing.
When a US ATCer asks me to do something I believe to be unreasonable or unsafe - I don't go hoking in my flight bag for my 'A Team' baseball cap and Joe Petroni ceegar.
Nor do I 180 and head for blighty.
NOWADAYS I JUST SAY NO!!
Works perfectly for me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
So let me get this right. There are two runways in use and they intersect. And the movements on the two runways are being controlled by two different controllers.
Well I've never worked any of these airports that would give me cause to wave anything normally kept well hidden by my Y-fronts. But if I had to do a risk assessment on the operation there's one big hazard that comes to mind almost without thinking about it.
You do do risk assessments in the US, don't you?
Well I've never worked any of these airports that would give me cause to wave anything normally kept well hidden by my Y-fronts. But if I had to do a risk assessment on the operation there's one big hazard that comes to mind almost without thinking about it.
You do do risk assessments in the US, don't you?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But of course, we all know that if you are on different frequencies, there is no way that you will collide!
I have to agree that US ATC is poor with regard to maintaining safety standards. If readbacks are not wanted, then how will errors be spotted? I am sure that some airports are so busy that there is no time for a readback, but that is very dangerous.
Don't they all sound so cool on the R/T though?
London ATC are in my opinion the best, in terms of the amount of aircraft they deal with (as stated LHR, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, City) and the fact that clearances are readback and LISTENED to. In addition, they are courteous and helpful (headings to avoid weather).
In fact, readbacks occur all over Europe (ICAO?).
Standard RT is there for a reason, why is it only the US carriers who come out with the non-standard stuff? "Clear take off" = "Here we go!"
Then of course, there are the French who insist on speaking French to their own, even after accidents where language was a factor in not allowing English speaking crew to be aware of other aircraft clearances.
Amsterdam are good too, but have many more runways than Heathrow!!
I guess we are all different, but are supposed to be in the same game with the emphasis on safe operations.
Lets stop having tantrums like little kids.
I have to agree that US ATC is poor with regard to maintaining safety standards. If readbacks are not wanted, then how will errors be spotted? I am sure that some airports are so busy that there is no time for a readback, but that is very dangerous.
Don't they all sound so cool on the R/T though?
London ATC are in my opinion the best, in terms of the amount of aircraft they deal with (as stated LHR, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, City) and the fact that clearances are readback and LISTENED to. In addition, they are courteous and helpful (headings to avoid weather).
In fact, readbacks occur all over Europe (ICAO?).
Standard RT is there for a reason, why is it only the US carriers who come out with the non-standard stuff? "Clear take off" = "Here we go!"
Then of course, there are the French who insist on speaking French to their own, even after accidents where language was a factor in not allowing English speaking crew to be aware of other aircraft clearances.
Amsterdam are good too, but have many more runways than Heathrow!!
I guess we are all different, but are supposed to be in the same game with the emphasis on safe operations.
Lets stop having tantrums like little kids.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Orlando, FL.
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>>Thrown at approaches from impossible angles or heights or speeds. Ordered to observe ridiculous restrictions to keep speed too high on the ILS. Back course approaches, NDB and VOR approaches where they vector you inside the initial approach point and abandon you to your fate.<<<<
You aren't thrown at approaches. You accept approach clearances. If you don't feel you have the skill or the confidence to fly the approach, refuse the clearance. It's your decision.
I agree with West Coast. If you don't like it here, bid trips that miss the USA.
You aren't thrown at approaches. You accept approach clearances. If you don't feel you have the skill or the confidence to fly the approach, refuse the clearance. It's your decision.
I agree with West Coast. If you don't like it here, bid trips that miss the USA.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Staines
Age: 42
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is the quick, risky way to do things and a professional way to do things. It's like comparing a boy racer to a good driver A boy racer throws the car about and thrashes the engine, a good driver will drive smoothly and make the ride as comfortable as possible while still driving fast.
Being forced to drop the gear at 7,000ft is not the correct way to fly an aeroplane. I am not an expert, but the pilots I talk to try their hardest to avoid even using the speed brake at all and flying into LHR or most European airports, they rarely need to.
I'm sure British pilots would refuse approach clearances more often if they weren't met with the reaction that they should turn around and go somewhere else.
I can't believe that this thread has turned into an argument between the right way to do something and the wrong way to do something. Logically, the right way wins every time in most people's book. Typical that Yanks always think they are right, depite the fact that everything points otherwise.
Being forced to drop the gear at 7,000ft is not the correct way to fly an aeroplane. I am not an expert, but the pilots I talk to try their hardest to avoid even using the speed brake at all and flying into LHR or most European airports, they rarely need to.
I'm sure British pilots would refuse approach clearances more often if they weren't met with the reaction that they should turn around and go somewhere else.
I can't believe that this thread has turned into an argument between the right way to do something and the wrong way to do something. Logically, the right way wins every time in most people's book. Typical that Yanks always think they are right, depite the fact that everything points otherwise.