My ATC's better (spit & scratchfest)

[maxalt]

A while ago, flying into JFK, a mate had a light a/c vectored right across him when he was on the ILS. He got a TCAS RA.

He filed an airmiss report and an incident signal - as his company require.

Some months later he asked the Chief Pilot for feedback on the event.
He was told nothing had been heard back, and that it is common to have no response from the US to such reports.

Why so?

[AMF]

Maxalt,

Your mate and Company probably didn't get any feedback because it's pointless for ATC to spend the time doing so, even when they review it. Perhaps the review found that your mate wasn't at an assigned speed. Maybe your mate expects an apology because maybe he thinks he's operationally perfect. But maybe your mate helped create the conflict in the first place. Maybe, your story is nonsense.

Next time London ATC drops the ball with me, I'll be sure to demand a full-blown investigation and follow-up written report, delivered by hand via courier service to my doorstep. If I don't receive it, it can only mean there's an ongoing cover-up. After all, what happens to me is just that important, and I'm sure they have nothing better to do.

[maxalt]

ooooooh.....touchy-touchy AMF!

In the UK there is a committee called the UK Airprox Board (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=423) convened under the UK CAA.
When an airprox is reported it is investigated and they produce a report and make recomendations where necessary.

I don't think my mate expects a hand written apology - he was curious as to why it happened. He was the only a/c on approach at the time and was baffled by JFK ATC's decision to vector a Piper Cherokee directly through his approach 500' above him. Apparently its legal - but still, stupid under the circumstances, I'm sure you'd agree.

The fact is that in the UK (and in most of european airspace) this incident would have been investigated and a report produced, possibly improving future safety awareness for all. You might even have been told about the outcome by your Chief Pilot.

That is - if you are a pilot.

I doubt it given your enthusiasm to blame my mate for his incident - even when you had no details.:hmm:

[AMF]

MaxAlt

You've missed the point entirely...again. The fact is, if your mate responded to an RA and had to abandon the approach, no doubt an review was done. If he had the other aicraft visually and there was no conflict or in fact only got a TA, then it sounds like he's just upset he didn't have the entire sky to himself. In Class B airspace, the Cherokee was under positive control with a verified VFR assigned altitude 500' above your mate who in turn was established on an ILS, then what's the problem except for his nervousness?

Perhaps he flies into the U.S. with the same pre-concieved notions fostered by the "enlightened" armchair controllers in the UK as how to handle heavy volumes of traffic they have no experience with, or ever will? As you say, it was legal, and I dismiss your assertion that it was stupid. I have too much experience operating into and out of JFK, BOS, EWR, LGA, ORD, ATL and the like to worry about such trifling things.

As mentioned before. The FAA, NTSB, and OIG investigate incidents that are safety concerns, not to mention whistleblower follow-ups. They always have. Those sounding on this board sounds like they've just discovered something new, that "needs to be investitgated". A call to action for the U.S. to investigate these things! Never have I seen so many straw men mowed down just for people to flog away at something they don't understand or know how it operates with checks reviews, let alone use with any great frequency.

Oh, and I didn't "blame your mate for his incident" although it's convenient for you to assign me that in order for you to question my qualifications as a pilot. Actually, his whole "big, scary" situation sounds like an non-incident to me. He's just not used to busy airspace. Funny though, that this reveals you think pilots should automatically blame someone else....stick together if you will. If they don't...well, then they're obviously not a pilot!

What rot. About as much rot as your mate being the only one on an approach at JFK. Funny, that's never happened to me.

[maxalt]

STU Bigzorst - if only phraseology was all this was about!

AMF says In Class B airspace, the Cherokee was under positive control with a verified VFR assigned altitude 500' above your mate who in turn was established on an ILS, then what's the problem except for his nervousness? He seems unable or unwilling to grasp the danger in a system that allows a light-single to be vectored directly onto the same point in space as a wide-body heavy, with only a 500' vertical separation. This was at night - and with thousands of city lights cluttering the picture, no clear visual contact was possible. It didn't matter anyhow because (as we both know) this crazy situation is perfectly LEGAL in the US.

The problem is, even if a visual contact is made, it will not prevent the inevitable RA (not TA, AMF - RA!) which will occur in this situation. So this is a 100% guarenteed 'evasive action mandated' scenario that is 100% legal and therefore will continue to happen again and again and again.
All it would take is a mis-set altimeter to put these a/c together.
Any RA executed to avoid collision is also likely to require climb or descent - an 'altitude bust' which might lead to another more serious conflict, not to mention injuries to crew or pax.

AMF prefers to reduce the issue to another 'battle of the balls' - a case of mere disgruntlement by the heavy driver who had to share his airspace with a Cherokee.
Thats pretty feeble.

[AMF]

MaxAlt,

You contradict yourself and have nothing to support your premise that what your mate experienced was dangerous, let alone the situation "crazy". If there is (as you admit) 500' vertical separation with your mate below, then those two aicraft aren't getting "vectored onto the same point in space", as you insist. In recent memory, the only ATC-generated midair involving two aircraft under it's positive control didn't happen in the U.S., and those Swiss-control controllers couldn't even claim being busy.

Perhaps your mate and you aren't aware that for the Cherokee to be cleared into and fly in Class B airspace it's equipped with a working Mode C transponder and assigned specific altitudes/headings just like IFR traffic. Given his slow speed, altitude deviations (a misset altimeter, perhaps) would be noticed at the protected airspace boundary long before your mate arrived, and entry to the Cherokee would have been denied.

The terminal-area threat of misset altimeters is mitigated by U.S. airspace having FL180/18,000' TL/TAs, unlike the UK and Europe where fiddling around with altimeter settings is done at low altitude by arriving and departing aircraft. Doing so only adds to workload, and is as unnecessary and archaic as "reporting established" in a radar environment and feeding me unwanted and uneeded track mile information.

If he had trouble finding the nav and anticollision lights of an aircraft as close as you say from below due to "thousands of city lights", then your mate was flying inverted. If he can't discern the difference between the colored nav and anti-collision lights from the stars, then he needs glasses. Or perhaps he wasn't looking out the window at all, because it's far, far easier to spot traffic at night when it's clear (now it's my turn to return the favor and question whether you're a pilot if you don't know this) especially when they are above you.

Also, please inform him to brush up on his regs and apportionment of cockpit duties to remain in compliance, because in U.S. airpspace (even while under IFR rules) while in VFR conditions "see and avoid" still applies. Since Cherokees don't overtake heavies, on a clear night your mate should have seen him visually (and on TCAS of course) long before it squawked and seen there was no threat despite an electronic hiccup.

ATC probably even advised him of the traffic, yet he took umbrage that a pesky little Cherokee was demanding his attention. In fact, you keep highlighting the "light-aircraft" so often (wide-body/heavy and light-single/cherokee) that it's clear you seem to think that this disparity in size is relevant in some way. It isn't relevant. Why do you insist on thinking it is?

You do realize, don't you, that in the U.S., 500' vertical separation is the standard between IFR and VFR traffic all the way up to 17,500', and that outside Class B in VMC the VFR traffic might not be talking to anyone?...or even on a flight plan? Horrors!

(Tell your mate to keep his eyes peeled down in Indian Country)

Lastly....following an R/A will not "likely" require and climb or descent....executing one requires a climb or descent every time. It's also not considered an "altitude bust" to follow one, and any subsequent conflicts with other aircraft are resolved in turn. The new, required software also will reverse an initial R/A command. And if following an R/A injures pax or crew, they're not doing it right. But since there was no danger of a collision in your mate's case....and if he'd been paying attention and looking for traffic, he'd have determined that long before he received it, confirming to himself something the controller already knew.

It was legal, it was safe, there was no incident or loss of separation. Thus, no feedback to your mate or is company required. No doubt his equipment sensed a transitory condition like an slight bump in altitude where the software predicted a trend (where there was no actual trend). Just as a too-swiftly climbing/descending aircraft just prior to level-off can produce a momentary R/A with proximate aircraft (hence, the advisories to limit the rate in this regime), you're friend's was undoubtedly one of these momentary events. It probably disappeared faster than he could react. We've all experienced these, but hardly make a federal case out of it, as he (and you) seem to want to.

[Final 3 Greens]

Well AMF, I'm a Brit PPL and I have driven a PA28 through class C in the LAX basin and had the crew of a 727 get very concerned because they couldn't see me against the ground clutter, even with all the nav, strobe and landing lights turned on.

The separation was 500 ft vertical and I had every sympathy for the 727 crew, since I certainly could see them.

So I think that you should be a little fairer in your comments.

BTW, I am not implying that the US system is unsafe, but it seems to me that many heavy drivers are concerned with seeing and avoiding light aircraft ... perhaps the C172/PSA incident at San Diego is still fresh in many memories.

[Suggs]

AMF

I rarely feel the need to post a reply to some of the rubbish that is plastered all over this website. However your posts take the biscuit. You quite clearly have no appreciation of aviation and the mechanisms that are put in place to prevent incidents turning into accidents. Flying to JFK I have witnessed some of the most scandalous controlling in the world. They are dangerous. I don't care how busy they are, they should never compromise safety.

The last two approaches I've done there I've had to break off and be re-vectored off the localiser because ATC have another a/c turning on ahead of me. It don't matter if your IMC or VMC. It's just stupid was at the speed they requested. I was spatially aware, I did try to help them out. I wasn't cheeky. They were gash.

The UK has the most congested airspace in the world but consequently has the talent on the ground to (just) cope with it.

Often the US doesn’t.

I'm off to Newark tonight, who knows what they'll try to do to me there.

[Leftit2L8]

Should they not be "concerned with seeing and avoiding light aircraft" ?

[Final 3 Greens]

28 LEFT

If your question is aimed at me, I think that they should be. My take on AMFs post is that he was suggesting that Maxlalt's mate was being a prima donna, where as I read that he was concerned about not seeing the PA28.

Thus I was trying to point out that I was involved personally in a situation where a US pilot was concerned that he could not see (and therefore was not in a position to avoid) and this was perfectly reasonable behaviour in keeping his 727 safe and not at all prima donna in nature - the PSA/172 crash shows why vigilance is important.

[tobzalp]

It didn't matter anyhow because (as we both know) this crazy situation is perfectly LEGAL in the US.

This is why your mate heard nothing. The investigation would have been classed as a nuisance RA. A standard is a standard is a standard.

Obviously the worlds best system. Thay should introduce it in Australia.

[Eff Oh]

I really don't think that allowing a VFR aircraft to fly 500ft above IFR traffic on the ILS is the safest course of action!! What would have happened had the Cherokee had an engine failure just before he flew over the ILS traffic? At best seperation would have been lost, at worst..... Anyone familiar with PSA 182 in San Diego?

[vector4fun]

Some months later he asked the Chief Pilot for feedback on the event.
He was told nothing had been heard back, and that it is common to have no response from the US to such reports.

Why so?


I'm sure your company heard nothing back because the situation you described is perfectly legal in the U.S.; it probably happens a few hundred times per day over here, and it most certainly doesn't always result in an RA every time. The only requirement for such an operation is that traffic info be exchanged.

If procedures were followed, then your report of an RA on the radio should have generated a QAR, (quality assurance review), and the tapes were reviewed in house to insure the controller had 500' and traffic was exchanged. If those conditions existed, no further action was warranted by U.S. regs. Let me stress that a QAR would result from your verbal report of an RA alone.

And, quite frankly, while I'm sure most crews get a bit peeved about having to respond to an RA, I almost never hear a U.S. crew get testy about 500' verticle separation VFR/IFR so long as I issue traffic to avoid a surprise. It's quite common over here.

[farsouth]

AMF You say "Following an R/A will not "likely" require and climb or descent....executing one requires a climb or descent every time."

Not necessarily - Preventive RA's such as "Monitor Vertical Speed", or "Maintain Vertical Speed, Maintain" (as opposed to Corrective RA's), are "resolution advisories that advise the pilot to avoid certain deviations from the current vertical rate but do not require any change to be made to that rate"
So if level, this would not require a climb or descent.

[FLCH]

I'm off to Newark tonight, who knows what they'll try to do to me there

Nice Suggs...is your dramatic contribution, in addition to the rubbish plastered all over the website ? If you do as the controllers say and fly your airplane properly you shouldn't be worried. If you are that concerned, then don't bid US layovers, it's as simple as that. The NYC area contollers do a great job in the worst of circumstances. I do agree, however the UK controllers do an excellent job, by the way I'm flying into EGCC next month... should I be worried ??

[Scott Voigt]

MaxAlt;

In your senario, there would be nothing to report. Standard separation was being applied and no separation was lost at any time. I know that many in Europe feel uncomfortable with our style of operation, so be it. It has been amusing to hear of one British Operator in and out of Sanford in Florida who choose to go into a small class D airport due to cost and they seem terrified of all of the wee folks flying around <G>...

As to the comparisons with the PSA and the Cessna many years back. That is apples and oranges as far as separation was concerned. It was not Class B (There were no such things back then.) and the 727 had reported the Cessna in sight and cleared for the visual approach to visually miss the Cessna. The crew either misidentified the Cessna or lost sight of it, that was never clearly determined.

regards

Scott

[Jerricho]

Ahhh, it started over in Rumours and News, now it has come here........with very similar bull****. Haven't heard mention of "bring your A game" yet.

I will ask drivers a simple question. At the end of a long flight, do you want an approach that doesn't spring any surprises on you, that is going to give you an intercept to final approach that isn't going to leave you high or fast with a TCAS bluttering at you about vertical speed and low level VFR traffic in you vicinity, with a runway change sprung on you at the last minute, all the while with the guy on the other end of the r/t trying his best to break the "words per minute" record?

I've got a funny feeling I know what reply I'm going to get......but I'll wait

[Dr. Evil]

the only ATC-generated midair involving two aircraft under it's positive control didn't happen in the U.S., and those Swiss-control controllers couldn't even claim being busy.

AMF! F**K YOU!!!! Nothing to do with the topic and a controller was killed subsequently. You son of a b**** who do you think you are? First of all read the final investigation report from Ueberlingen, secondly you have to learn you own aviation history, here is a few examples from God's own land of crap:

49 years ago today, on June 30, 1956, a TWA L-1049 Super Constellation collided with a United Airlines DC-7 over Grand Canyon, Arizona. All 128 passengers and crew aboard both aircraft were killed.

1960: two aircraft over NYC collied in a holding pattern

that's the early days!

1991: remember LAX USAir B737 and the Metroliner?
The aircraft was cleared to land on runway 24L at LAX. The controller had also cleared a Skywest Metroliner to taxi into position and hold midpoint down the runway, with the intention of clearing it for takeoff before the USAir jet landed. The controller never cleared the Metroliner for takeoff, and at night, it was virtually invisible to the USAir crew. As the 737 touched down, the crew noticed the aircraft on the runway and attempted to avoid it. The 737 was travelling 140 knots, however, and was unable to veer off the runway in time. ATC separation error.

And what about all the incidents, which luckily never went totally wrong???

I feel sorry for the people involved and the innocent lives killed, so AMF stop the bull****, you are not better than anyone else, we're in the same boat whether its Africa, Asia or Alabama. ATC is here to do our best, we're after all human (unlike your posts).

9/11 was a disaster and so was the security and the alerting system to scramble F15s etc. What did ATC/NORAD do? Sleep? Hello! 4 aircraft were in a similar situation but nothing happened, well we all saw the pictures on CNN....

To ALL US controllers (read: only the John Wayne cowboys)

Have you introduced "AVIATION SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM" into your ATM yet??? Have you also heard about "hot spots"? Basically try to avoid unnecessary conflicts!!

And have you tried to follow ICAOs recommendations like the rest of the world?

Enough said :*

[vector4fun]

Not to answer for AMF, but...

49 years ago today, on June 30, 1956, a TWA L-1049 Super Constellation collided with a United Airlines DC-7 over Grand Canyon, Arizona. All 128 passengers and crew aboard both aircraft were killed.

I don't see what that has to do with anything, as I recall, the aircraft were operating under VFR flight rules and no separation was being provided. All quite "normal" for the times.


1991: remember LAX USAir B737 and the Metroliner?

I remember, and while you seem quite indignant about the memory of the controller who was stabbed to death, I assume you didn't know there was a California controller killed in the Metro, did you?

I feel sorry for the people involved and the innocent lives killed, I'm sure most of us do.


9/11 was a disaster and so was the security and the alerting system to scramble F15s etc. What did ATC/NORAD do? Sleep?

Now I think you've crossed the line a step or two further than AMF. U.S. controllers did not "sleep" during 9/11, and in fact, all North American ATC was praised for the work we did that day in handling a situation not even remotely considered possible before that day.

To ALL US controllers (read: only the John Wayne cowboys)

Have you introduced "AVIATION SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM" into your ATM yet??? Have you also heard about "hot spots"? Basically try to avoid unnecessary conflicts!!

And have you tried to follow ICAOs recommendations like the rest of the world?

I have no idea whether I qualify as a "John Wayne cowboy" in your view, (though I did grow up on a small cattle ranch in Texas!) However, to answer your question directly, I'll read the ICAO handbook when my employer sets it in front of me and says "Learn this". Until then, I have quite enough stuff to learn and read at work to keep me busy, thank you. Darn stuff leaks out about as fast as I can pour it back in lately... :\

But feel free to call Marion and suggest the U.S. change over to strict ICAO procedures. I'm sure she's as anxious to hear your views as she is mine... :yuk:

I will ask drivers a simple question. At the end of a long flight, do you want an approach that doesn\'t spring any surprises on you, that is going to give you an intercept to final approach that isn\'t going to leave you high or fast with a TCAS bluttering at you about vertical speed and low level VFR traffic in you vicinity, with a runway change sprung on you at the last minute, all the while with the guy on the other end of the r/t trying his best to break the "words per minute" record?


Jerricho,

I dunno, but if I ask some SWA pilot friends, they\'d probably reply they wouldn\'t feel at home any other way!
:} :E

[Jerricho]

Ahhh, I didn't factor in those submissive type pilots out there ;)

"Yes mistress.....I'm a bad pilot!! Yell at me some more.....cancel my approach clearance. Oooooooo!"

[topcat450]

I'm sure your company heard nothing back because the situation you described is perfectly legal in the U.S

Still, in the interest of good communication and flight safety - perhaps a note back to the company saying words to the effect of 'we do not think this warrants investigation' would've been a good thing to do?

Just to have the incident disappear into a black hole neither educates the company concerned into US Ops nor solves any potential safety issues arising from it.

[RRAAMJET]

I'm very concerned about MaxAlt's statement " ...any RA....lead to injuries...".

How on earth do they teach you, old chap? What software version are you using? Surely you don't fly your RA responses so aggressively that you injure people? I always stress smoothness and follow the commands. Nothing more. Anything else could lead to far greater problems, such as loss of control.

I'm not happy with the VFR traffic situation in class B, but as posted earlier, its legal. It's just different from the UK, where light aircraft flying has been all but neutered. In the US, it's a powerful lobby. In addition, terrain constraints affect many areas in the US most populous areas, such as SOCAL, where some form of VFR north-south solution had to be found.

I find it strange your mate didn't get a mental picture of the Cherokee's intentions and whereabouts from a listening watch on the radio. I do believe the PA-28 would be on the same freq in the same part of the class B, thus giving one a mental 'heads-up'.

A good lookout is still a potential lifesaver, something I think many of us have let slip in the modern age.

[Carnage Matey!]

In some parts of the USA the R/T is like an international rap contest. At places like LAX you can find yourself vectored to any one of four parallel runways from 25+ miles out, positioned high and fast, with closing heavy traffic in close proximity whilst trying to reprogram the FMC after a runway change and configure and decellerate the aircraft, all after an 11 hour flight at 4am on the body clock time. Trying to pick out a small light aircraft on the overloaded R/T or visually acquire some fairly low intensity strobe lighting against a busy city background adds a whole lot of workload at an already busy phase of flight. It's an unnnecessary distraction that could lead to a major, and wholly avoidable incident.

[West Coast]

"I will ask drivers a simple question"


Would I prefer am approach with severe clear wx, no conflicting traffic, long runway served by an ILS. Everyonce in awhile I do manage to get that. Other times I as a professional pilot have to deal with a busy approach in a busy terminal area. Sometimes you do need your A game, sometimes you don't. Its part of the challenge of flying professionally in the busiest airspace in the world.

[Jerricho]

You nearly got me there, you sly dog Westie ;)

You didn't answer my question.

[West Coast]

Apologies.

If your looking for a response to the scenario, no of course I'd like to pass. Just not an option in the busier terminal environments however. Planes are not going to stop flying because I want a nice straight in to a 10,000 ft runway with no challenges.

[Jerricho]

Ah, but mate it is an option. Heathrow can achieve a landing rate of 43+ arrivals per hour using one arrival runway with a mix of heavy and medium traffic, everything being vectored to the ILS (no visual sight and follows) in that stupid little chunk of airspace they have, and that is exactly the service every single approaching aircraft is given. Not sure of the exact movement rate, but Gatwick is exactly the same.

Not trying to stir sh*t, just stating a fact.

[West Coast]

Differing approach, no pun intended.

The closest thing off the top of my head to LHR is PHX, until recently it had two runways, a baotload of GA of differing categories and is a hub for two major airlines. It was a breeze to go in and out of. Little hassle from the controllers. Of course the WX is usually better. As busy as it is, its nothing as compared to the hyper busy airports that are at the end of every other leg (hub and spoke). The fixes you seem to hint at are waaay above our paygrade. We control and fly, not allocate money for new airports, new equipment, massive changes to airline schedules.
Bear in mind places like ORD and ATL are pushing a million takeoffs and landings a year. Would I love to see ORD as a couple of parallel runways, sure but it isn't going to happen. Winds shift frequently and the need for crossing runways exists.
GA exists in a huge way here and is essential. People have to meet connecting flights within the bank, etc.

As a very average line pilot with average skills who flies into the busiest of the busiest airports, I enjoy the challenge.

Your argument comes down to holding up LHR as the model airport for comparison to all others, no matter others being a helluva lot busier and complex. When I do compare airports that are roughly as busy, I find them pleasant and easy to operate at.

[Jerricho]

Um, you're putting word in my mouth a little there Westy.

Your argument comes down to holding up LHR as the model airport for comparison to all others

No, no I'm not. I am saying as a place that shifts a great deal of traffic, it provides a service as I have described.....BUT as I have mentioned on that "other" thread, core aircraft movements are NOT an indication as to how busy or complex an airfield or airspace is, (remember, the UK is just a small island, and you run out of room to play in VERY easily, both approach and enroute specialities) combined with noise abatement, curfews and the mix of traffic . And that is exactly why I pay very little creedence to stats regarding "passengers per year" and "movements per year".

As I also said elsewhere, Mr ATC sitting in his tower in Bumfuk, Nowhere with a circuit humming with first timers, zone crossers, joiners and alike could be a great deal busier that ANYONE sitting in a TRACON or Terminal unit anywhere else in the world, and trying to give the best damn service he can. And it is at this point I would like to draw a line for anybody who wishes to disparage ANY controller anywhere in the world.

(And as to using LHR as a model for anything, it would be how not to develop a country's major international airport)

[West Coast]

Fair enough.
I don't believe I've dissed anyone else's system. Just don't believe US ATC to be some 3rd world system because its not the same as what's in use in Europe. Not aimed at you.

[vector4fun]

No, no I'm not. I am saying as a place that shifts a great deal of traffic, it provides a service as I have described.....BUT as I have mentioned on that "other" thread, core aircraft movements are NOT an indication as to how busy or complex an airfield or airspace is

Jerricho,

I agree completely. Many of the folks posting drivel here really have only half an idea of what they're talking about. I have no idea what LHR's airspace looks like, or what their traffic mix is, or what other constraints may exist, so I'd be a fool to claim they don't do a good job.

If I can point out just one example of some of the significant differences, (I think) between U.S. and European airspace. I'm somewhat familiar with DFW's operation because I fly through the area several times a year. Now some here would poo-poo DFW's operation because they have so many runways, but on the other hand, DFW approach also works traffic in and out of:

Dallas Love
Addison
Mckinney
Executive (Redbird)
Grand Prairie
Spinks
Ft. Worth NAS
Meacham
Alliance
Denton

Those are just the airports with Control Towers. There's more than two dozen other public airports in their approach airspace without Towers, and countless private strips. It's just my opinion from reading some of the posts that some of the posters here have no idea what kind of a traffic mix exists in much of the U.S. I doubt there's a controller anywhere that wouldn't consider DFW's airspace quite crowded and the operation challenging were they sitting at one of DFW's radar scopes.

[Dr. Evil]

Now I think you've crossed the line a step or two further than AMF. U.S. controllers did not "sleep" during 9/11, and in fact, all North American ATC was praised for the work we did that day in handling a situation not even remotely considered possible before that day.

Yes I did, sorry! But who is to blame then? Why wasn't they scrambled in time. I read many books/reports about 9/11 and funny enough I don't believe the whole truth coming from the officiel side (Bush admin.)

I don't see what that has to do with anything, as I recall, the aircraft were operating under VFR flight rules and no separation was being provided. All quite "normal" for the times.

You're right, nothing to do with the topic but just to fire back at AMF

I'll read the ICAO handbook when my employer sets it in front of me and says "Learn this".

US is a member of ICAO right? So why don't you follow the rules laid down by ICAO like everyone else around the globe? I still don't get it. Americans (pilot and controllers) RTF are sluppy and at times dangerous. What wrong with a standard RTF? And procedures?

[vector4fun]

Yes I did, sorry! But who is to blame then? Why wasn't they scrambled in time. I read many books/reports about 9/11 and funny enough I don't believe the whole truth coming from the officiel side (Bush admin.)


My personal opinion, there's a little bit of blame to attach to a dozen different organizations and perhaps a hundred individuals. And so much spin involved that none of us will ever really know the truth, except that some madmen did something unthinkable.

US is a member of ICAO right? So why don't you follow the rules laid down by ICAO like everyone else around the globe? I still don't get it. Americans (pilot and controllers) RTF are sluppy and at times dangerous. What wrong with a standard RTF? And procedures?

I'm afraid you're asking the wrong person here. I'm not even familiar enough with the ICAO handbook to make an educated guess about what those changes might do to our system. All I'm saying is that my employer demands that I follow the U.S. 7110.65, and a few other 7000 series manuals, nothing else. To change that, you'll have to convince the FAA, ALPA, AOPA, EAA, ATA, NBAA, and dozen or so other lobby groups. There's still a few folks over here grousing about METARS...:hmm:

[Jerricho]

you'll have to convince the FAA, ALPA, AOPA, EAA, ATA, NBAA

I'm on days off......... you got phone numbers? ;)

[av8boy]

I'm on days off......... you got phone numbers?

Give, give, give. You never tire of serving others, do you buddy? The world’s a better place for having you in it. I'll make those calls. You've done enough this week.


Dave
:ok:

[fleigle]

Gentlemen,
FYI here is an address for you to inspect and hear about the life of an ATC controller at ATL Center (Centre).
It is very interesting and informative.
Enjoy.
www.avweb.com/news/columns/182633-1.html

That should get you to his first column of a few years ago, if it does not work you can get to his titled column, called Say Again

[RRAAMJET]

Dr Evil - why don't we Brits drive on the right? Ahhh, how dull life would be if we weren't flexible....

"...American (pilots...)...dangerous". Hmm. I manage perfectly safely over here with their system, flexibility once again. I do have the added luxury (?!) of having flown for RAF, BMA, CX, blah blah before coming over here, so am able to switch to Euro-mode with no problem when I fly trans-Atlantic, and I try to coach my fellow crew to do same, if nothing else than for their own dignity.

One possible point of discussion: there has been a massive shuffle of pilots in the US majors resulting from downsizing. A side-result is that there are many crew doing international as FO who were domestic Capts for years, etc. I know many 777 Capts who are locking-in their pension flying the most senior jet who have never done any international before, even as FO (and our Int. Course is just a paper excercise by UK standards). It's hard to learn new tricks as you get more senior. The average age of the senior line holders has shot up by over a decade in my airline alone. Wonder if this is a factor in any way? Not trying to bash the old folks, BTW (they got this far safely enough). Discuss, please....

[Dr. Evil]

"...American (pilots...)...dangerous". Hmm. I manage perfectly safely over here with their system, flexibility once again.

I'm sure not ALL pilots are the same whether it be Yanks/Brits. But as ATC if the pilot replies a required readback with "roger" that's not f**king flexible, that's stupid and annoying and very very unprofessional. I've had so many US airlines replying with a roger that I feel I should report the guy. Just do it! (that saying is from Seattle, US right?)

[av8boy]

Beaverton, Oregon. More like Portland than Seattle. On the other hand, Boeing is closer to Seattle...

I had something humorous in mind when I started writing this but now it's slipped away.... :ugh:

[Scott Voigt]

Dr. Evil;

First be careful of your facts when you spew about the US being the only one who doesn't comply with ICAO. Take a look at how many exceptions to ICAO that the UK has. Then look at the rest of the world. We are not the only ones who have exceptions, nor do we have any other issues with it due to most of our pilots being native english speakers. That being said, I too would like to see our pilots tighten up thier phraseology it is getting horendous.

For all you US pilots out there, please use a call sign, we are getting about 10% now who like to shorten up with no call sign as if they are on the telephone... We aren't. Also when issuing an altitude or heading or speed. I would really like more then just the three numbers I have issued. I don't know if you are reading back a speed heading or altitude. Then when I clarify, most pilots have been getting huffy or condecending. We need to get a bit more professional in our radio work...

regards

Scott H. Voigt
NATCA Southwest Region
Safety and Technology Chairman

[Dr. Evil]

First be careful of your facts when you spew about the US being the only one who doesn't comply with ICAO. Take a look at how many exceptions to ICAO that the UK has.

Well you're correct. My research lacks. Don't care about the UK exceptions though. Point is, if member of ICAO, follow it as much as possible. RTF should at least be standard worldwide, even though I heard UK got some exceptions here too. Probably a language thing like "oh my, in England we say this and this", "We yanks use this and this" and "downunder we say it like this mate..".

ICAOs recommended "English Language Proficiency" assessment on all controllers is more than welcome too, or? I think from January 2006?