Strange atc request

[FLYbyWIT]

Recently I was taxiing at my local international in a C-172 and was asked to taxy all the way to the end of a taxy way instead of a intersection departure which I could have made, the reason given was "For test purposes"???
Any idea what this was in aid of????:confused:

[Gonzo]

Testing your patience? :E

Sorry.....

[Findo]

Surface movement radar being tested ? Why didn't you ask they wouldn't have bitten you. :O

[Vampy]

strange attitude to take 7P....whatever u call yourself. ATC are there to serve you...???!!!??? So ATC are some sort of butler to the pilots now?!? Not the sort of attitude I'd expect in this day and age.

[radarman]

Vamps,

Quote: "ATC are there to serve you...???!!!???"

7P may have come across a bit stroppy, but he has a point. ATC work to the Manual of Air Traffic SERVICES, controllers work at an Air Traffic SERVICE Unit, and provide a number of Air Traffic SERVICES (Approach Control SERVICE, Aerodrome Control SERVICE, Radar Advisory SERVICE, Radar Information SERVICE, Flight Information SERVICE). One word does seem to crop up fairly regularly!

While I'm not advocating a Master/Slave relationship between pilots and controllers, maybe you should reconsider which is the tail and which is the dog.

[360BakTrak]

Without one you wont have the other, so whats a tail and a dog got to do with anything?

[TC_LTN]

Could the response have been "for VORTEX purposes"?

A light departure from an intersection following anything larger from a full length departure requires 3 minutes separation. A departure from the same point i.e. a backtrack, only requires 2 minutes. Therefore in certain circumstances it can be more expeditious to back-track or at least take advantage of the wait to gain a bit more runway in front of you.

Just a thought.

[Jerricho]

Maybe they wanted to test to see if the pot-hole at the end of the taxi-way was big enough to swallow a 172? "I bet you it's not.............oh look, where's he gone?"

[Variable_pitch]

360BakTrak "Without one you wont have the other, so whats a tail and a dog got to do with anything? "

OK mate another metaphorical way of looking at it my be "who came first the chicken or the egg?"

In the case of aviation it was aircraft and then after a while we got ATS, no aircraft - no ATS, no ATS - no...... well actually there would still be aircraft but ops in many ways would be severely reduced, so it is without a doubt an essential service but not a prerequisite for flight. Imagine the Wright brothers being told "Nice contraption lads but this is transponder mandatory airspace so none of yer hopping about"

So in essence ATS units are there to serve pilots, if you dont like the expression serve try assist, big difference.

Finally as The Rev Bob Marley said No women - No Cry

[FlyingForFun]

I can't see why everyone is getting so stressed about this.

As I read it, FlyByWit was requested by ATC to do something in order to help them out. He made the decision that their request would not adversly affect his flight, so he complied with it. He didn't have a problem with it at the time, he doesn't have a problem with it now, and no one is accusing anyone of ordering anyone else around.

But FlyByWit's curiousity has caused him to wonder what the purpose of the request was. And, apart from a few tongue-in-cheek replies, this bickering is preventing him from getting any answers :confused:

FFF
--------------

[Wingsovadove]

7p317lot - "You are in charge of your aircraft.......They are there to serve you NOT the other way around."

Pathetic!!!

radarman - Another word crops up regularly as well - CONTROL!!!

Variable_pitch - "not a prerequisite for flight."

True, but a prerequisite for SAFE, orderly and expeditious flight. Wouldn't be a very long flight without it!!! (And I know which one I'd rather be on, particularly if 7p317lot was 'in charge'!

[Jerricho]

Guys and Gals,

Come on, we're on the same side now. Let's stop the "who is who's bitch" and play nice now.

We all know pilots are just glorified bus drivers, and ATC are just glorified "table tennis bat wavers".

[amanoffewwords]

Were they possibly testing a ground radar?

Just a thought from a passing layman... :8

[FLYbyWIT]

I am guessing the radar test option to be the best, I of course did not have any problem with this, as an intersection departure can mean a much longer wait for me compared to lining up with the rest of the commercial traffic at the end of the taxy way.
If however there was no C-172 there that day would they have asked a jet to do the same or would they have used one of the security jeeps????

[vector4fun]

Wit,

You may be correct that it was a ground radar test. On the other hand, your statement that there was a line of commercial traffic at the end of the taxiway makes me wonder if wake turbulence didn't have something to do with it.

At my airport, if there was a line of commercial jets waiting to at the departure runway, you might well be better served by getting in that line, than going to an intersection, where you'll get at 3 minute delay after each jet departure. And I'm going to keep rolling jets from the end that don't have/need a delay. Far from getting you out quicker, going to an intersection might get you out much later!

[amanoffewwords]

2nd guess from a layman:

maybe they wanted to test a small target on their ground radar as opposed to large jets to test against a Linate scenario? :ouch:

Which airport btw?

[Selma Soul]

"For test purposes".... or " (for) vortex purposes"? Could you have mis-heard?
In which case ATC have saved you a minute, although you've wasted 5 wondering why they said it!

[Onan the Clumsy]

In the case of aviation it was aircraft and then after a while we got ATS, no aircraft - no ATS, no ATS - no...... well actually there would still be aircraft but ops in many ways would be severely reduced, so it is without a doubt an essential service but not a prerequisite for flight. True. When the early mail runs got caught in IMC, they'd close the fuel, switch off the mags and jump over the side. When the fog lifted next day, they'd hunt for the wreakage, salvage the mail and get on their way.

Fancy trying that today? ;)

[av8boy]

...ATC are just glorified "table tennis bat wavers".

Ah, but so very glorious we are in our bat waving. :O


I've beaten this to death before, but will take this opportunity to kick it again: We provide a service. That's what we do.

The chicken/egg argument is worthless. When I was in the Air Force I was told that my job (aircrew) was the most important job in the service because without me, nobody else would have anything to do. Although certainly true in my case ;) as it turns out, that argument can be made for damned near any job. My son is now a computer programmer in the Air Force and arguably, without him and his co-workers there'd be no computers and the Air Force would come to a grinding halt. Cooks? Same deal. Sky cops? Yup. You name it. Each one of them is the "critical" member of the organization.

In our world aircraft operators are the customer. They pay (some places more, some places less) for our services, and our services are what we render. When we provide those services we enter into a safety partnership with the aircraft operator, and we're very important in the highly specialized field of anti-death. We're not slaves and they're not the masters. However, we are service providers. We "control" aircraft/airspace because, under our agreement with the operator (who, as we all know, remains the final authoirty when it comes to that aircraft) a portion of the operational control of that aircraft is ceeded to us. Sure, we've got government regs to back us up and the system is highly structured, but that's the deal. I think perhaps there is a problem with this because the whole thing has become institutionalized. This is to say, if you want to land at Heathrow you're going to have to talk to a controller. However, that fact arises from a government-mandadeted construct which forces "service" upon all operators in the interest of safety.

If I want to fly from Rock Springs, Wyoming to Rawlins, Wyoming (85 miles of sagebrush and rocks) I can call up Salt Lake Center for RADAR flight following service, but I'm under no obligation to do so. This is an easy one... I want it and they agree to provide it. It's a service.

Now, I want to fly from Rawlins, Wyoming to Wendover, Utah. Same sagebrush and rocks. Same uncontrolled airports. But this time I'm flying right over the Salt Lake City airport. Guess what? I'm going to have to talk to somebody, but the fact that I'm forced into doing this (or altering my route) doesn't detract from the fact that ATC is providing me with a service.

God help you if you're my student (or sitting at a scope within arm's reach of me) and forget that. Don't get me wrong... I'm proud and cocky and I think I'm pretty damned talented. What's more, I'm no less an aviation professional than the chap in the driver's seat of that Airbus. But when I work I provide that driver a service. That's the deal.

Rant temporarily suspended.

Dave

[This is a crisis]

To get back to the main point - I am pretty convinced this was for 'vortex purposes'.

We use this quite regularly at my airfield. By asking someone to backtrack for a full length departure, you can often get an outbound airborne ahead of an inbound confortably rather than sweating on having to wait for 3 minutes. If you say 'NO' then then you will probably have to spend another 3-4 minutes at the holding point burning precious fuel.

I cannot quite understand why any pilot would refuse such a requst -the phrase ' there is nothing so useless as runway behind you' comes to mind!

[Lon More]

At the risk of stating the obvious.

Ever thought about 'phoning to ask them. Give them the date, time and c/s and they should be able to tell from the daily log if it was w.i.p or from the tapes exactly what was said.

Lon More, here since before Pontius was a Pilot or Mortus was a Rigger

[27Foxtrot]

The problems comes in when you take into account the pilot doesn't always know whats best for him.

I know that a pretty arrogant and even silly thing to say, but 99% of the time the PIC is simply concentrating on getting his aeroplane from poin a to point B as quickly as possible with the least ammount of fuss.

The ATC is generally worried about getting half a dozen pilots from point a to point b as safly as possible, while accomodating the Maintenance crew viechiles working on the surfaces, the technicians testing and fixing radios, radars, telephones, contractors working in the tower, military requirements, legal requirements, procedural requirements, and stilll keeping his lisence.

Yes you could have probably made the departure quire happily from the intersection, but it probably fitted the ATC's plan to have you go full length. Maybe he needed the extra 30 seconds for a vehicle to vacate the runway, or for the ILS calibration aircraft to finish a run, or to see if his radio can be read 5/5 all over. Or maybe it was a wake turbulance/vortex seperation.

Safe Orderly Expeditious. I hate to spout the "party" line, but we have to take everything into account. While getting your C172 from here to there is your number one priority, you could well be our number 26th priority.

Especially when we've got to take into consideration things like faster jet traffic wanting to depart behind if you are on an SID, we'd prefer you to be delayed one minute burning the small ammount of gas you do than delay a 747 for 5 and burn HIS gas.

We might have zone saturation in the direction you want to fly, so to save having to pass 7 bits of traffic information (14 in total) we sent you 5 miles out of your way.

Generally there is method to our madness. Either ask up if the Freq isn't too busy, or call in after you land and have a chat.

Better still, pop ober to the controll complex for a cup of coffee one day as ask the people face to face.

27F

[xelophab]

Avoiding the ATC/Pilot bashing, in my limited experience I would have thought that when ATC need help they ask. Something like;

ATC: "G-ABCD ATC"
G-ABCD: "Go Ahead"
ATC: "Would it be possible to taxi to the end of the runway, we're just checking the ground radar?"
G-ABCD: "No problem."

or ...

ATC:"G-ABCD taxi to the end of the runway due wake turbulence"
G-ABCD: "Sorry did'nt realise I caused it!" :D :}

The crux of the matter here is that G-ABCD knew what was going on in both cases. Going back to the original issue, it seems that ATC either assumed that you knew that you were being moved for wake turbulence OR the forgot to say what they were up to.

Someone posted earlier "just ask". Which is something I can recommend, in most countries I have flown I have always got friendly ATC always willing to help.

:ok: :ok: :ok: