What does ATC do that 'irks' you?

[ConwayB]

Hello everyone,

I posted a new thread on the ATC forum asking air traffic controllers to list the things that pilots do that makes their blood boil.

The reason is that I am a CRM facilitator and was wanting to gather information to pass onto fellow aviators to aid in understanding our relative roles.

There was some great stuff there - check out the thread on the ATC forum called "What do pilots do that irk you".

Then one of them suggested that they could learn from pilots as well and invited me to start a thread... so here it is.

So feel free to write your gripes here... and hopefully we can all learn, adjust the way we do things... and make all our lives easier and flying more efficient.

I'll get the ball rolling...

The scene is Townsville airport. I am captain of a Chinook helicopter and we taxi out to taxiway bravo where we are abeam the threshold of the main runway and with a clear view of the approaches to it and the second runway. There is no visible traffic and no radio traffic either. The airspace is quiet. We are keen to depart for we have to make a specific timing. It's a local flight to within 10 miles of the CTR, so coordination with Approach should not be necessary.

Us: "Townsville Tower, Chinook One Zero Four, Ready, Taxiway Bravo, departure to the east."

Response: "Chinook One Zero Four, Hold."

No reason why... which is OK... It's their perogative... but we have a time-on-target and every second is precious so we get a little frustrated. The delay goes on...

Us: "Townsville tower, can you give us the expected delay?"

Response: "Chinook One Zero Four, Stand by. Will call you when you are cleared for departure."

Now we're frustrated... and pissed off!

Whilst an explanation is not necessary, it certainly is a nice to have.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth... but I've learnt to breathe deeply and go to my happy place.

[triadic]

They (ATC) seem to be much better in some other countries at advising why you are being held /delayed/jinked about etc. Even some places that are far far busier than Oz.

If you are going to be screwed about, it's always nice to know why etc... (and in advance) it keeps the frustration levels down.

Traffic advice both enroute and in the TMA is something that I believe could be done a little better, especially when there is a chance of TCAS alerts etc. Trouble is that the controllers that do it say that some pilots just don't know what to do with the advice, so do nothing and some ATC supervisors say its a waste of time and not SOPS. Give me traffic any day and its appreciated, even when there is not a sep problem. I recall a 737 going around behind a dash8, because he was overtaking him on final. It would not have been all that hard to provide timely traffic to the dash (he would keep his speed up) and the 73 would have had the chance to slow down. But it didn't happen and the GA was assured.

ASA recently put out a memo to operators about the problems on the ground at SYD. Talk about telling pilots how to suck eggs! It seems to blame the pilots and operators for all the problems at SYD and goes to great lengths to explain the coord requirements of the controllers. Interesting point is that the same pilots / operators go elsewhere and there is no problem, so the issue is very much a SYD problem. About time someone in ASA thought outside the box in an effort to solve the issues there. Some more resources in the tower for a start, maybe an extra coord or perhaps a 3rd SMC. See what the FAA do at SFO - might learn something??

my 2c worth!!:ok:

[remoak]

What does ATC do that irks you?Exist?

Seriously, though... when operating London-Edinburgh a few years back, we would often get turned 20 degrees off track to accommodate a BA 757 shuttle (we were in a 146). The shuttle wasn't going that much quicker than we were, and always wanted to be positioned for a 14 mile final, from which point it would slow down to 140 kts (visual or not) and take an eternity to get to the runway. We were more than happy to accept a five mile final (on a visual day), and keep our speed up to 250 kts until about 7 miles out. In other words, if radar had kept us inside the 757, we would never have slowed the shuttle down, but the shuttle ALWAYS extended our flight time by 3-4 minutes. For some arcane procedural reason that ATC could never satisfactorily explain, they refused to alter their "order of arrival". The friendly controllers that did help us out, apparently got bollocked for it.

BTW our crews made it a practice to visit with the tower and approach radar guys at least once a month, and they used to come jumpseating with us. Great way to learn each other's worlds.

[D'pirate]

In Australia -the seeming lack of ability to use radar to good effect, especially for track shortning. From Sydney, Brisbane and Perth (DONT get me started on Darwin!:mad: ) I have wasted vast amounts of fuel over the years following SIDS and STARS to their full extent whilst being in a "Radar Enviroment". Having regularly flown in and out of cities on every continent except Antartica my experience has been that Australia is the only place where this is apparently the norm. Also a lack of understanding of relative performance abilities of different aircraft types, it is a delight to work with controllers who can understand the different capabilities of aircraft and make us all "dance" in harmony. How many times do we have to "Make your descent at 230 Kts For Sequencing" to then end up ten miles behind the preceding aircraft (same weight category or less)!
Perhaps Aussie ATC should be sent to spend time with Maastricht, Rhien, Chicago, LA, Miami, London etc. to see what can be done (and with a lot more traffic!). Radar should not be there just to "watch" pilots do their thing. As the debate grows about aviation's influence on "Global Warming" we should at least start from a position of not being wasteful of resources.
Useful information like wind direction and speed with take off and landing clearances would be appreciated (Perth are quite good at that-thanks!)
OCTA is a crock but we all know that except for the pollys. Maybe MEL and BNE centres should use the same procedures, however?
I believe that ATC wants to do a great job but we need to join the 21st century folks!

[Capt Claret]

Darwin

Receive a STAR that adds 30-40 TRK miles then be offered direct to a 5nm final once on approach. The only way to accept is to either catch the cabin or up the rate, while deploying speed brakes to gain the ROD.

Have speed restrictions below A100 canceled when passing F140ish, thus stuffing the descent profile yet again.

BN CTR/CNS App

Get speed reductions at or just before TOPD, to lose 2 or 3 mins by BIB with only 8 mins to run to BIB.

Or, get the cross BIB time early enough, just, to comply by reducing to min crz, only to be told to resume desired speed or make best speed.

BN CTR

One controller, only, who insists that "when ready leave control area on descent" is a mandatory readback. It's not a level assignment therefore it is my interpretation that it is not a readback requirement.

Perth (Though not ATC's fault).

STARS and SIDs that make one turn off track, to shortly thereafter turn the opposite direction to return to the original WPT. It's a wonder that more people aren't airsick.

[triadic]

Capt C

One controller, only, who insists that "when ready leave control area on descent" is a mandatory readback. It's not a level assignment therefore it is my interpretation that it is not a readback requirement.

You are correct - it is indeed the cancellation of a requirement (to maintain a level in CTA) and the cancellation of requirements do not require a readback - visual approach used to be the same till they amended the requirment to readback type of approach (!)

It's 10 years now since the changes in readbacks were introduced in Oz and both pilots and controllers still cant get it standardised! Blame CASA for the failure to provide appropriate education I say!! Those that don't understand or don't care default to reading it all back regardless and that was never the intention!:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Quokka]

Capt Claret,

Perth SID/STAR/Route structure can no longer accomodate the increase in movements into, and out of, the Perth/Pearce/Jandakot Terminal Area. New SID/STAR have been proposed as an interim measure until a review of Western Australian airspace has been completed.

In 2003 an internal report of Breakdown of Separation in Australian airspace was published by Airservices Australia, called the BOS Review. Recommendation 14 of the review was to review Perth airspace and in particular, a collision risk associated with aircraft subject to a STAR clearance overshooting the turns at PEPPA and JENNA.

All recommendations of the BOS Review were required to have been implemented by the end of 2004.

It is now 2007 and the collision risk associated with Recommendation 14 still exists.

[Clive]

For me it is the simple fact that many of their number often forget that they are providing a service and we are their customers.

If the customer is an idiot then the service provider needs to adjust the delivery style to ensure the continuity of good service. The really good service providers around the world are aware of this, do just that, and the result is high customer satisfaction and a strong business. It is normally the monopolies that falter here.

On the whole our Aussie guys and gals are some of the best and I love working with them. The worst offenders have to be the Yanks. Check out the Runway Chart in the Jepps for Nashville Tennessee. They actually have the balls to print a "penalty box" within the taxiway system. I'm really hoping they try that on me one day so I can really tell them what I think. I actually have a pretty long fuse but that concept would shorten it very quickly. You see, I see no such penalty box for poor performers within their ranks.

Reading through my flight plan from Amsterdam to Bangkok a few weeks back I noticed details of the Air Services charges (why that was on my flight plan I'll never know). For that one leg the total cost across the various service providers was just a tad over $10,000 US dollars. I know I'm not footing the bill directly, but I sure would expect decent service for such fees.

Good luck with your CRM research project Sir.

[haughtney1]

Seriously, though... when operating London-Edinburgh a few years back, we would often get turned 20 degrees off track to accommodate a BA 757 shuttle (we were in a 146). The shuttle wasn't going that much quicker than we were, and always wanted to be positioned for a 14 mile final, from which point it would slow down to 140 kts (visual or not) and take an eternity to get to the runway.

Remoak old son........you and I both KNOW...Nigel needs 14 miles to eat his cheese board:E

For my money the worst thing ATC ever does is to keeeeeeep you high, and then expect a highspeed high energy descent, with no track miles to slow down (in a T/Prop no problems but in a jet its a FCUKEN nightmare) then try to vector you onto the ILS at 9 miles while you doin 240 knots with every drag creating device hung out...including the cabin crew:sad:

[No Further Requirements]

G'day all,

First of all, great thread (and the one in ATC Issues) from which I hope EVERYONE can learn something. I hope, Conway, you can get what you need from this, and perhaps share some of your findings with us?

From an ATC's perspective, I wonder how many of these problems can be sorted by a formal cross-workplace 'work experience' program, like in the good old days? I loved getting up the pointy end and discussing problems from an ATC and pilot's perspective, and on the flip side, I enjoy having pilots plug in and watch me work. Now days, with cost and resource cutting (and security issues....), there is little opportunity for either camp to step into the other person's shoes (unless you do it in your time off....). I hope this changes.

Cheers all,

NFR.

[F/O Bloggs]

It appears that ATC have little regard or understanding of how slowing a jet down effects the descent profile, or how most modern jets have some form of FMC that needs programming and monitoring.

Eg. It used to annoy me when I would put the star into the box, with a descent speed of say 300kts standard. This would have the box compute a descent pt of x miles. We go down at x, then atc say slow to 240kts. This totally screws with the profile and as you slow to best lift/drag you need a sh.t ton of drag to get down. :ugh:

On the 717 it was doable, on the 330,man , it is an ass puckerer.

If you (ATC) know it is going to occur (speed reductions) let us know early when you give us the star.

On a another note (for Alice Springs)

Changing circuits, ht reqments, radial intercepts and even runways below 5000ft is a recipe for pain, as one has to have ones head in to program the box. It is not as flexible as when flying a cessna.:sad:

[pakeha-boy]

Personally think most controllers do an absolutely great job......my irk times mainly involve controller hand-offs where it is obvious those doing the hand off dont relay information pertanent to "their" sector to the other controller(s)....mainly involving speeds and approach types......after setting the box up .....slam dunk decents...and expecting us to go down and slow down...

In all fairness it actually makes the day quite interesting in dealing with those situations and most controllers know that once they have pushed you into a corner will do all they can to help you out...all about communication really.....


...only time Ive ever been bitten, was trying to make a fool out of the controller :ugh: .........that has a way of coming around and biting you in the arsephalt...PB

NB....Clive...mate,I want to be around when you give the yanks a piece of your mind about the "penalty box"....and then well see how much time you spend in it.........

[ConwayB]

Hi everyone, keep 'em coming. This stuff is gold!

Triadic -

Excellent point regarding readback. It's frustrating to hear the airwaves clogged up with superfluous readback. I'll reinforce that in my CRM courses.

Quokka -

Thanks for the feedback regarding WA issues. Knowing that you have an ATC background helps in educating us on the issues and the proposed solutions and the glacier-like speed the powers that be move to fix them. Cheers.


Clive -

For the uninitiated, can you elaborate on the 'Penalty Box'? I'm assuming it's when an aviator makes a transgression he/she loses their sequence and others are allowed to pass? Is it for ground handling or is it some airspace set aside for that?


F/O Bloggs -

Great point about having to have your head inside at (relatively) low altitude to change FMS whilst flying a heavy due to some ATC instructions. Low level, higher traffic area requires eyes and ears outside. ATC may not be aware of the intricacies of flying automated aircraft and the cockpit mayhem that occurs when changes are made too late in the approach.

Safe flying... and keep communicating!

[Jenna Talia]

1. Although already covered by Conway B, a simple explanation as to why other aircraft are being cleared for takeoff before you after your 'ready' call was first or at least just advise your number in the t/o sequence when this occurs. A few seconds of courtesy costs nothing and alleviates frustration.

2. The ignorant pig (only one) in SY tower/ground who gets his rocks off in belittling flight crew when assistance is asked or it does'nt go his way.

3. PRM approaches into YSSY. It must cost airlines tens of thousands, if not millions a year to operate into YSSY during the mornings when this system is in operation. Although, I appreciate this is not the fault of individual ATCers as it is more an ASA issue. I understand that Oz is one of the very few countries in the world to use this crap, inefficient system.

JT

[Jenna Talia]

Triadic,

Does 'cleared visual approach' now require a readback?

JT

[iss7002]

Sydney has close spaced runways which operate in mixed mode (as opposed to dedicated mode). This is a highly efficient system and one that others are moving too. The flaw in Sydney is that not all aircraft are allowed to use the short runway and due to the constraints in spacing the approach paths are not independent.

This requires a number of odd procedures to allow independent approaches IVA's in VMC allow the airport to accept at about 50/hour (should be more but as we know there is a cap). This falls to 34 / hour in IMC and can be lower.

From an ATC point of view we would like you to report Visual when you are VMC and in addition to advise when the runway is in sight ( AIP refers ). The ammount of time ATC spend extracting visual calls is a joke.

In IMC we use PRM to increase the acceptance rate in IMC to 42 (16//) 44 (34//). The penalty from the pilots point is the PRM circuits but at the moment we are stuck with it but as you can see the savings for the airlines are massive.

As an aside last week 16 IMC with no PRM acceptance rate CTMS at 34 resulted in airborne holding of 30 minutes. Due to the number of acft that can't accept the short runway in the morning peak.

There are no composite VMC / PRM procedures (probably should be). But to stop PRM and commence IVA's requires a certainty of visual reports.

Annecdotaly we have stories of "I didn't report vis. because I wanted an instrument approach" etc. etc.

[ConwayB]

Hello everyone,

I posted a new thread on the ATC forum asking air traffic controllers to list the things that pilots do that makes their blood boil.

The reason is that I am a CRM facilitator and was wanting to gather information to pass onto fellow aviators to aid in understanding our relative roles.

There was some great stuff there - check out the thread on the ATC forum called "What do pilots do that irk you".

Then one of them suggested that they could learn from pilots as well and invited me to start a thread... so I did so on the D and G Reporting Points forum... but I thought the GA sector has a lot of stories as well. (There's similar threads on the Rotorhead forum and one for the Engineers to vent about pilots on the Engineer's forum).

So feel free to write your gripes here... and hopefully we can all learn, adjust the way we do things... and make all our lives easier and flying more efficient.

I'll get the ball rolling...
The scene is Townsville airport. I am captain of a Chinook helicopter and we taxi out to taxiway bravo where we are abeam the threshold of the main runway and with a clear view of the approaches to it and the second runway. There is no visible traffic and no radio traffic either. The airspace is quiet. We are keen to depart for we have to make a specific timing. It's a local flight to within 10 miles of the CTR, so coordination with Approach should not be necessary.

Us: "Townsville Tower, Chinook One Zero Four, Ready, Taxiway Bravo, departure to the east."

Response: "Chinook One Zero Four, Hold."

No reason why... which is OK... It's their perogative... but we have a time-on-target and every second is precious so we get a little frustrated.

The delay goes on...
Us: "Townsville tower, can you give us the expected delay?"

Response: "Chinook One Zero Four, Stand by. Will call you when you are cleared for departure."

Now we're frustrated... and pissed off!

Whilst an explanation is not necessary, it certainly is a nice to have.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth... but I've learnt to breathe deeply and go to my happy place.

[GaryGnu]

In General
Assign changes in the arrival speed, including cancelation of restrictions, for sequencing or any other reason after top of descent. It is not unmanageable but just plain inefficient.
ADL
Requesting a readback of the taxiway to enter the apron by. I believe it is in excess of AIP readback requirements. If ATC think it should be read back to ensure the inbound and outbound a/c don't conflict then can a local procedure be published to save on R/T traffic?
SYD
Assigning RWY 07/25 when there is a 15-20 knot southerly blowing and then holding a/c because of delays due to single RWY ops.
I know that they are just doing the bidding of the politicians via the LTOP but it still irks me.
By the way, in the above scenario, if one was to require RWY 16 (L/R) what would be the consequences in the ATC system? Does AsA have a reporting system that captures such instances that gets back to the operators?

[Spodman]

One controller, only, who insists that "when ready leave control area on descent" is a mandatory readback. It's not a level assignment therefore it is my interpretation that it is not a readback requirement.You are right, he is wrong, and it is a gaping cheese hole (Reason) in the way we assign levels. An aircraft at FL350 who is to be cleared to FL330 needs to have his intentions confirmed with a readback, yet the same aircraft cleared through every level below him in controlled airspace doesn't...

I have heard one (& one only) controller get around this (in the above example) by the following:

"Fuddpucker123, when ready descend to FL190."
"FL190, Fuddpucker123."

"Fudpucker123, left FL350."
"Fudpucker123, leave control area descending, Traffic blah blah blah..."
"Fudpucker123."

[Hawk777]

I believe they do this over east. When on a SID out of Perth and told to cancel and maintain a heading due to inbound traffic, a simple instruction such as "we're looking for height not distance" or vice a versa "we're looking for distance not height" would be great. We probably have in excess of 60 knots to play with which we could use at speed ranges of 140kts to 200kts which would make quite a difference to our rate of climb or ground speed depending on what your after. Therefore everyone wins as we'd clear the traffic alot sooner.

Cheers

[remoak]

Hmmm I responded to this yesterday... it seems that my (and at least one other) reply has disappeared. How odd.

[triadic]

Duplicate thread - look on D&G Reporting Points !:confused:

[Jet_A_Knight]

Sometimes I find the processing into BN at night between the late night arriving jets and the freight TP's is a bit irksome.

But then again, I can't pretend to know the big picture.

[flyingins]

iss7002,
I agree and when absolutely no doubt exists that I will be VMC all the way to the field I do advise approach that I am "Visual, runway in sight".

The problems are as follows;

1) On some days although you are VMC and can initially see the field, a STAR will take you through an area of cloud and put you back into IMC. Also, cloud base is difficult to judge when descending into it (even BKN or SCT) and personally I don't want to say "Visual, runway in sight" assuming that I will be shortly, only to find out another layer of cloud was hiding behind or below the first one!

2) Being familiar with some airports, it is a fact that as soon as you report "Visual, runway in sight", ATC will clear you for a visual approach and direct you to track to a point closer to the field to join final (ML & BN often do this). Believe me if I can achieve this I will (time/fuel saver!) and it is appreciated, but sometimes things are just too high/hot/heavy to actually get the aircraft in without breaching our company stable approach & speed limit criteria. An A320 at 250 knots IDEALLY needs 5000 feet and 20 track miles for a comfortable approach. It can be done from 6000 feet and 18 track miles - BUT IT IS VERY TIGHT!

3) "The amount of time ATC spend extracting visual calls is a joke." The number of times I report visual only to be asked 5 minutes later "Confirm you're visual" is also a joke. It works both ways!

Overall though, I have nothing but respect for how ATC manage the flow at all Aussie airports. Great job, guys!

[Jenna Talia]

iss7002,

Thanks for the detailed explanation as I have a better understanding of the PRM system.

You are right, it is the PRM circuits after being told to reduce to min speed as far south as Wagga that is so frustrating. From this perspective, it is difficult to see the massive savings for airlines.

This also brings about another subject of being issued with a CTMS delay time. What is the point of that when we are delayed way beyond the allocated time once airborne? We may as well ignore the CTMS and depart anyway.

JT

[ConwayB]

Hi guys,

Yep, this thread has been duplicated on the following threads to get a greater audience:

ATC
Rotorheads
Engineers
D and G Reporting Points
D and G General Aviation.

Thanks for your interest and responses.

Conway B

[Fatter Bastard]

Sydney director, when i say "visual" and they immediately say "confirm you have the threshold 34R in sight?". :D

What i want to say in return - "Yes mate, when i say 'visual' it means i can see the f*^king airport!" :ugh:

[yarrayarra]

When ATC has vectored you the controller has taken responsibility for your terrain clearance and navigation. On termination of vectoring it is a requirement to either - give instructions for intercepting a track or tracking to an aid or waypoint, or before issuing a visual approach, to ascertain that the pilot is visual and has the field/runway in sight. If you were on your own nav ie DME arrival to become visual then a report of "visual" is good enough to issue the visual approach. Just because you know what you mean doesn't necessarily mean ATC know what you mean or need to authorise the VSA.
"It's not the message sent that's important it's the message received!""

[Fatter Bastard]

Um no offence intended to any of our ATC chaps/dolls as I am sure they are just following their own (sometimes misguided) procedures in this case but, I would have thought if the controller doesn't know what i mean when i say "visual" he/she should maybe go back and read a few books...

when i say 'visual' it means i can see the f*^king airport!

While i am whingeing and bleating like a pom at the cricket, the familiar "hurry up" and then 5 minutes later "now slow down" on descent is a bit annoying. I know ATC is trying to be helpful in giving us high speed descents as often as possible, but when they cancel speed after top of descent the whole profile changes and extra fuel is wasted regaining the new high speed profile i.e. to make a high speed descent as efficient as possible it needs to be given prior to top of descent. Having said that though, if it is combined with track shortening it can often work out that extra thrust is not needed. To further complicate the issue, track shortening is generally always welcome, but i am reluctant to accept a lot of track shortening close to the airport in less than good VMC e.g. after a 9 hour back-of-the-clock flight getting NEFER direct Rockdale at HORUS coming in to Rwy 16 in melbourne with even, say, scattered @ 2500 is something i will generally refuse.

[SM4 Pirate]

By the way, in the above scenario, if one was to require RWY 16 (L/R) what would be the consequences in the ATC system? Does AsA have a reporting system that captures such instances that gets back to the operators? In fact if 3 aircraft require a change, we can go back to parallels... We do not "ask why" you require a change, just confirm it's a requirement not a request. If you don't do paperwork, and we don't do paperwork, "require away", please.... LTOP just fair dinkum sucks we hate it with a passion... Then there is the movement cap; we could move 110+ an hour in good conditions, but we are limited by politicians to 80 regardless of conditions...
This also brings about another subject of being issued with a CTMS delay time. What is the point of that when we are delayed way beyond the allocated time once airborne? We may as well ignore the CTMS and depart anyway. Well usually it's because that is exactly what has happened... You get delayed after a CTMS delay because there are birds up there stealing 'your slot' ignoring the times; an audit recently caught out a consistent 'CTMS breaker'. CTMS is not accurate enough to achieve 'tactical sequencing' but often is noticed the most when a CTMS rate of 40 (due to forecast conditions) is programmed but we land 50+ (cause the cloud base was much higher than expected, or RWY25 only forecast but we maintain 34s etc.)

Re speeds during descent; it's the nature of the beast; the sequence 'isn't mine' it a shared thing, ie traffic arrives at SY from 3 points; I'm just doing one of them... If BN East gets it wrong, it impacts on ML and BN North traffic (and vice versa etc.); you can't just let them run, right? MED1s, VIPs, low cloud moving across final etc all impacts on the acceptance rate and can just ruin the whole sequence too (don't mention CBs). We get it, but we can't change it unless we program 4 minute arrivals and only tighten up when it's all good; but that would create severe inefficiency. (we get it, don't presume we don't please; we don't do it for fun... Although when you whinge I smile, like I have “real control", I’m just a cog) Also re speed thing; try running a 767, 747, A330, SF34, DHC8A, C, D in the same sequence; we apply our best knowledge always but hey you all fly these things different; even within the same company and type. A 747 coming in from PKS to RIVET behaves very differently to a B737 depart CB via CULIN to RIVET etc; accelerating aircraft vs decelerating one (can anyone tell me how much space I need at 120NM to touch for a sequenced arrival?) If I put you tight behid the B747 expecting it to work and it doesn't I slow you down; if need to tighten it up I should etc. it would be worse for all, not just you if we didn't tighten things up; but equally so if we didn't keep gaps (for separation, wake etc. not just a landing order).

We are bringing back the 'morning burst flow' at the end of March, so long haul flights should get a reserved slot about 1.5 hours from touch down; but that will effect the 0600 domestic departures for SY...

[SM4 Pirate]

when i say 'visual' it means i can see the f*^king airport! I suggest the problem is that we've nearly all been caught by an aircraft declaring 'visual' and then going into cloud... (I meant visual on top...)

[Fatter Bastard]

sm4 - yes point taken. I guess it is not easy, especially with say, a MEL-SYD a/c up high descending out of a 90TW at maybe FL390 to a 20HW at FL260 - not unusual - and therefore groundspeed changing quite markedly on the way, mixed in with other traffic, jumbos, saabs etc etc.

Personally, I am happy to get a high speed descent at almost any stage as it is not my VISA card being given to the refuelling truck and I often have a flight with a tight connection to catch home (another story ;) ).

I guess another common gripe would be never landing into wind in Sydney :{ , but i guess that is a totally different can of worms. Before anyone accuses me of ATC-bashing on this one, I totally understand the powers-that-be have dictated this whole noise sharing bollocks and ATC is merely the ham in the sandwich. And yes, I often "require" a more-into-wind runway if i think the runway selection is taking the piss.

One more (again not ATC's fault) whinge - SODPROPS :* - what the f&*king hell is with this sorry excuse for a way of doing things? Who the :mad: came up with this bollocks? :D Yes, let's have an aircraft taking off as another one is landing in the opposite direction - Real smart one people :ugh: . My best experience with this one: Coming in to Sydney from Auckland on a slow sunday morning, not much traffic about. Wind, light and variable, CAVOK. 34L for arrivals, 16L for departures. Result for us - one holding pattern in the flight levels, overflew field at 6000 feet, vectored half way to wollongong before landing on 34L. Probably cost about a ton of gas (again care factor -20 as I don't pay for it). On the plus side it was a lovely day and I think the passengers loved the scenic!

[leg man]

Tracking into Mackay from the west under the IFR,lets say from Emerald on W472,still at 30nm and octa.
Response to the inbound call is normally "descend to 4500 not below the dme steps report at 10 dme"

In response to the 10 dme report "descend to 2500 not below the dme steps"

Irk #1 At 30 nm I am still octa and can descend/track as I like. Controllers appear to be controlling octa.

Irk #2 At 10 nm no mention is made of a clearance to enter controlled airspace. Am I cleared to enter controlled airspace? Is this an inferred clearance? Am I going to be told to remain octa at 10nm?

I believe the response to the 30 nm call should be "cleared to Mackay on descent to 4500 report at 10nm". This lets me descend as I see fit and confirms that I have a clearance to enter controlled airspace. This has never happened but could this become a grey area in the event of a loss of separation and a review of the tapes reveals that no clearance has been specifically issued?

[fixa24]

leg man;
You didn't say how high you were coming into MK. If you are coming in high level, still in class E at 30nm MK (which is A085), then brisbane ctr will assign you A060 on descent, with a "clear to leave and re-enter on descent".
If your lower than this..... well, what kind of level do you want to be given in IMC? we can't issue a level below the LSALT/MSA (A050 and A047 within 25nm respectively) in this case, yes, the controller should say "cleared direct MK".

And just to be picky, EML is the 193 MK radial, which is more south than west.:ok:

[rmcdonal]

At Syd being held at 6000' on downwind for 34R after requesting decent 50 miles previous and then told to expedite descent to land. Some of us fly pistons that are not pressurised, a 1500ftpm decent is not only to steep for comfortable flight it also brings the aircraft into speed near or in the yellow arc.
Throttles at idle punching through turbulence in the yellow only to have to try and figure out how to slow down and get the gear out is not a very nice way to finish a flight. And I have been told to expedite decent from 1500fpm before!
The excuse I normally get is that you cant descend due outbound traffic. Given that most outbound traffic is jet I would be surprised if they where still below 8000 at 50 miles.

[gas-chamber]

Going back to F/O Bloggs' post. Why would any ATC clearance require any pilot in any airplane to be heads down at 5000 feet reprogramming the box?
I have not flown any of the scarebus family, but no other airplane I ever flew needed more than good old heading select and vertical speed or worst case a touch of hand flying when it all suddenly changed in the last few miles.

[iss7002]

Basically if you are established on the extended centreline and are visual (no need to have the runway in sight) you have satisfied the criteria from SY ATC perspective for the independent approach.
If you are on a circuit we need to also have a runway in sight report to put you on a 30 degree cut join with the other approach.
If you have the runway in sight and are satisfied that it will remain so, reporting "visual runway in sight" is what we want.
Controllers have been suspended etc when they have failed to get the required confirmation despite the fact there is no cloud etc.
In haze etc just report visual, the controllers are well aware of the current conditions as each pilot makes a report patterns start to build which indicate the true conditions.

CTMS due to the 15 minute window on the issued time is not really a slot in normal ATM terms, it should be seen as a right to access the airport which is why it is issued by ACA not ATC (despite the fact we do their job for late notice bookings they get the money).

[ITCZ]

What i want to say in return - "Yes mate, when i say 'visual' it means i can see the f*^king airport!"
No it doesn't.

"Visual" = Within 30nm, vis 5k+, clear of cloud, in sight of ground or water, can maintain and nav to the field at altitude not less than reqd for vfr.

Nothing about field in sight.

Thats why you have to tell Director, 'field in sight' and that is why he will bug you unless you say so.

Going back to F/O Bloggs' post. Why would any ATC clearance require any pilot in any airplane to be heads down at 5000 feet reprogramming the box?
I have not flown any of the scarebus family, but no other airplane I ever flew needed more than good old heading select and vertical speed or worst case a touch of hand flying when it all suddenly changed in the last few miles.
Good point.

Some enlightened operators of automated aeroplanes actually discuss 'automation airmanship.' There are levels of automation available, ie,

Full Automation (FMS speed, LNAV, VNAV)
Part Automation, Part GCP (eg FMS NAV and SPD, pilot selected V/S)
Guidance Control Panel (pilot selected SPD, TRK/HDG, V/S or FPA)
Hand Fly to FMS speed, nav and vnav.
Hand Fly to GCP selections
Hand Fly Raw Data.

Fo Bloggs and I have seen firsthand the reaction of pilots transitioning from previous generation aircraft to automation. Some guys click out the AP as soon as things get out of shape and 'stick and rudder it' to touchdown with a flight director that is pointing anywhere but where they intend to go.

At the other end of the scale, there are boys and girls that can program the box at lightning speed and will DIR TO/INTC and LAT REV and VERT REV below the MDA.

What is lacking is an awareness of the fact that firstly, there are different levels of automation you can use to fly the aeroplane. Once you know that, you can then develop 'automation airmanship' which leads you to use an appropriate level of automation for the phase of flight.

Arriving YSSY via Director and arriving/departing YBAS with amended instructions due traffic is a hell of a good time to abandon full automation and fly GCP.

Discussing levels of automation and the tactical use of different levels of automation for flight path management should be part of your CRM course, for both pilots and ATC. PM me if you want some resources. :ok:

[leg man]

fixa24
Why do you need to asign me a level when I am still octa? Your only concern is when I get to 6nm. Also been told to descent to 2500 not below the steps which is below the LSALT and 25 nm msa.Tell me what altitude you want me to enter your airspace at.

I can't ever remember being cleared to leave and re-enter if I have been in E airspace.

The radio phraseology does not change if I am entering from octa or from probo. From probo center clears me to Mackay and I am in your airspace. Octa I am not in your airspace but phaseology is still the same so therefore sounds like you are giving me a control service when you are not. Maybe this is why the cleaered to Mackay is sometimes ommitted?

You should clear me to Mackay but the word "cleared" is rearly used this is what irks me.

[Keg]

I asked the skipper to call 'visual 34R' in sight recently (downwind on a Rivet in serious 8/8 blue all the way to FL670). He said he wouldn't because it was now behind us and he couldn't see it and therefore it wasn't in sight! :eek: :rolleyes:

The examples highlighted by ITCZ are an interesting insight into fellow aviators. :eek: :E :ok:

[Cost Index]

Not so much an Irk but an amusement...

From Controller to Pilot in a piston aircraft whilst cruising and a long time away from descent: "request max speed"

Um... He is going max speed! :}

Q: Can someone please post the reference re: field in sight?

[No Further Requirements]

Cost Index: We'd love to know the max speed of all aircraft we ever speak to, but that's a little far fetched.....different aircraft, different operators, different experience levels, different winds & turbulance - makes it hard to judge!

Also, max speed can also be translated as 'don't slow down too early if possible please.' If you are going flat knacker, keep on doing it (safely of course)!

Leg Man: Regards 2500 not below the steps, are you getting the CTA steps confused with the DME steps? Looking at the sector D DME arrival, you can get to 1320ft at 8DME. I stand to be corrected if I'm barking up the wrong tree. And I agree, somewhere there should be an airwarys clearance issued.

Cheers,

NFR.

[pakeha-boy]

ConwayB..
The "penalty box" is nothing other than a spot,similar to a holding bay,on the Airport where A/C are put ,out of the way to keep the normal flow of traffic moving....

Reasons you get to hibernate in the PB are"
Missed flow times
Late taxi times
No Clearance
No #,s from company through uploading (ACARS)
Centre requests for spacing,and many others

.....and last of all, for w@nk@r pilots who like to give ATC a piece of their peanut minds .....

It like most things in aviation is a managment tool,and for those of us who fly in Major busy Airports worldwide understand fullly,their design and use.....

...that why I have "Brake Release fuel" #,s...PB

Not the Controllers fault

[Duff Man]

Participating in an IVA at YSSY?

Call "runway [rwy] in sight" if you have/had it in sight and expect to keep it in sight on a normal circuit. That way you can be on a 30deg join onto final and avoid delaying yourself and aircraft on the parallel final, and keep director happy.

Call "visual" if you really can't see the runway but will comply with the rules for "visual" flight mentioned above. You won't get the <30deg cut but could still have traffic next to you on final. Director will have to work a bit harder. Foreign registered and QF 747s at night are treated this way in all cases.

Calling "runway was in sight but behind us" - well, yes of course dummy, it usually is on downwind. Director will cuss!

Call "34R and L in sight" to hint that you're OK to accept last-minute change.

[ConwayB]

Pakeha Boy, thanks for the info re PB. I'll use that in my course. Very interesting.

ITCZ's reply reinforces my understanding of the rules. Reporting "Visual" always meant to me to mean the conditions in which I was flying. (As opposed to "in cloud" "VMC on top", "on top of broken" etc.

"Field in Sight" meant that I can see the field and can track to it visually.

I welcome any comments further illuminating or correcting my understanding.

As another aside with regard to ATC personnel understanding the capabilities of helicopters, I have been asked whilst conducting an ILS if I could reduce my speed from 120 knots due to traffic ahead that was slower than anticipated.

"I can go backwards back up the glide slope if you'd like or hover at the check height over the Outer marker," came my cheery reply.

"That won't be necessary", was the response. "Just a 20 knot reduction if possible."

"Wilco"

Obviously, some helicopters will have speed restrictions especially if heavy or if in OEI configuration. And I'm sure he was being considerate in case I needed to be flying at 120 knots for some 'pilot' reason. But it was amusing to hear it.

All in all, the ATC pers I have been involved with and interacted with have been tremendous and go out of their way to assist. (Except that one time when I was a RPPL at YSBK. B*stard!)

[fixa24]

Leg Man;
possibly a reason for the intermediate level was that there was a restriction for your descent, therefore you were being stepped down on top of this aircraft. Say you call @30nm, ATC has traffic @A035, youre given clearance direct (i know, separate argument) an descent to A045 not below steps. you then call @ 10nm, that traffic has cleared but may be other traffic, etc, so you are given A025 not below the steps. How could they possibly know when you call @30nm the levels of the aircraft when you enter the airspace @6nm? They can guess pretty well, but they need to have a proven standard to exist at all times.

quote{Also been told to descent to 2500 not below the steps which is below the LSALT and 25 nm msa}
And thats exactly why you were given not below the steps!

I totally agree. if coming from class G airspace, and have not been cleared to leave and re-enter, then you should recieve a clearance from the tower. If in any doubt, ask!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:ok:

[WynSock]

What irks me?

Was inbound 45mins to run and centre gets on the radio. "Thunderstorm where you're headed, whats your alternate and when are you going there?"

Hello? We have 60 holding for destination as per the TAF, we hadn't considered diverting. But with a diversion, no fuel left for holding.

Anyway, diverted after much prompting then 15 mins later "The weather has cleared a bit, getting in now, no worries"

I wish they would give us the facts, let us concentrate on our job and avoid hassling us on the radio.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Those ATC bastards hey Wynsock! Next time they should say nothing allow you to hold for 60 minutes, weather still doesn't clear, and then what? Or not say anything, allow you to hold till your latest divert time, only for you to ask to divert to your alternate, to find the non-irksome ATC who has left you alone up till now tells you your alternate is a no go as well, either due to weather or no parking space, and you don't have fuel to get to your second alternate. As ATC'ers we will always try and plan ahead and provide a service. That will involve asking for your latest divert time and your alternate. Bottom line is prompting or not, the decision to divert is always up to you as the pilot, we just try and provide you with the best service available. You are the first pilot I have heard complain about it.

[Aerodynamisist]

since you asked

Nothing major for the most part atc are a great help and have helped me out of some dicey spots in the past.

However I do find I get more respect and better service when I'm in a twin compared to private flying in a c152

also I have been annoyed in the past at unfamiliar airports when asking for taxi guidance and not getting it, yes I carry an ersa but taxiing a taildrager at an unfamiliar aerodrome while trying to read is tricky.
I also got held at low level at marochy once and told "you can climb outside the steps" I monitored the frequency for some time after wards and there was very little traffic none of it conflicting, I chalked it up to a sheer laziness on the controllers part just wanting to get me out of his airspace, if I ask for a level and it's clear of traffic I expect to get it or a plausible reason why I can't have it.

[Spaghetti Monster]

OK, seeing as visual approaches are coming in for a bit of discussion can I add this:
We know that in YSSY, when spacing is predicated on independent visual approaches once established on final, it can really make ATC's life a misery when we won't call visual.

But - please appreciate that we all read AIP and understand what 'visual' means in the context of a visual approach. Well most of us do.:rolleyes: :ugh:

Please appreciate that the sightline from the top of the tower to us on final, is quite different to the sightline from us to the 34R threshold, and we might not be as visual as you think we are...

Please appreciate that while you might be able to clearly see our 34-million-candlepower landing lights from 10 miles away, various combinations of haze, mist, sun, and low cloud may mean that we're not as visual as we think we are...

Please appreciate that we may be on promotional training or a route check, and if we call 'visual', get cleared for a visual approach, and then fly into cloud, bad things will probably happen to us...

And finally, please appreciate that at the end of a long day when we're heading down final with a gusty crosswind and we can see that we're probably going to fly into a thin bank of low cloud which is moving across the approach path at 1000', we can really do without a patronising little lecture on what 'visual' means!

Other than that I reckon ATC do a much better job than we give them credit for, and the main thing that irks me is that when it comes to disagreements, they're more often than not right while we're wrong. :ok:

[F/O Bloggs]

GAS CHAMBER,

Sorry, am away on a trip so couldnt reply straight away.

I don't know what type of FMS aircraft you have flown, so I apologise if I am telling you stuff you know. I have flown the 146 and it is a different mode of flying when flying the later generation managed approach jets. Yes you can always go into manual modes, or even disconnect, but that is not the philosophy of how are supposed to fly these days. When ATC give you a runway change or cct entry change at low level, the box has a lot of info about missed-app, auto throttle control for speed control, descent profiles, nav aids etc, so it is more than just a heading change thing.

I am not saying it is undoable, but rather pointing out "What Irks me" as per this thread. The thing i was saying is, let us know early if major changes are going to occur to the approach, not when you are entering the circuit area.

[Defenestrator]

Townsville ATC can be bloody painfull to say the least, but can also be very good. Does my head in some times with the delays experienced when inbound. Friends in the RAAF tell me that it's a "training" field for new ATCers and I'm good with that. What gets up my nose though is that at times it seems no-one is looking over the shoulder of the newbies. Give them more than 3 aircraft and it's a deadset loss. Drives me mad. I've been asked for speed reductions at 100 miles out (which have been refused) and offered alternatives to the radar controller which have been accepted and no delays experienced by anyone. Again, if the lads/lasses are cutting their teeth with the traffic flow someone should be there to advise accordingly. Delays, aka inefficiency, cost money to the operator be it GA or the airlines.
On the other hand, when conducting training exercises, which are always advised by phone, they are absolutely awesome. Cannot be more professional and helpful. They are ALWAYS very considerate of last minute changes to the program and facilitate ALWAYS. Can't fault them. In saying that I try to stay aware of the commercial ops at the time so as not to delay any departures/arrivals with last minute requests.
Spose all I'm saying is that there is room for improvement WRT commercial ops. Noted that the military guys are equally frustrated.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Spaghetti Monster

Almost all of these issues here are a lack of understanding of each others jobs - 50:50 split.

For example, Approach don't give a hoot if the Tower can see you. Tower are not involved in setting you up on the approach - it is the Approach controller who is sitting in a room bereft of a view.

Reading this thread one can see annoyance at not getting track shortening and in the next breath being taken off profile. Bad things happen to controllers when track shortening goes bad. Do it a couple of times and expect to be shown the door. Controllers are told that airlines do not want track shortening - so if you think that is crap why not bring it up with your chief pilot?

We understand that you want to let the plane fly itself on a Runway linked STAR from TD without being touched - and we like doing that too. But, hey, in the 20-25 minutes from TD to TCHD a lot of things can change - weather, missed approaches, runway changes, Medical priority traffic, and the most common one - inconsistent descent profiles from the aircraft in front of you backing the whole thing up. We don't know which ECON Descent you have chosen today, or what your LDG WT is. These are the variables we deal with every minute - and we work it out for 10-15 aircraft at a time - not just the one you are flying. It is not always pretty, but we are working to the same aim - safely maximising the limited strips of concrete left in Australia.

Sometimes we get it wrong - sorry - $hit happens sometimes. I would hazard a guess that you will remember the times you get royally screwed a lot more than the times you get untouched or maybe have to lose or gain a minute in the cruise. And my bet is that more often than not you get a clear run - you just don't remember the smooth stuff!

We can do stuff better - and so can the crews - the waffling on the frequencies seems to have reduced a bit lately. Departure calls are not the time to be requesting high-speed climb and DCT to somewhere because 'we are running behind schedule'. A tip: ATC will endeavour to get you where you are going as quickly as possible regardless of whether your company publishes an impossible schedule / block time that you inevitably fail to meet as the day progresses. No need to ask, because there is nothing in the AIP to afford you priority anyway.

[go around 121]

Conway B. Just reference your initial post, unfortunately TWR does not own any airspace and therefore MUST coordinated all moves before launching you. As you sit in your cockpit you may not be aware of the BIG PICTURE, separation, sequencing, segregation etc. As a HEAVY you also create wake turb. If you had a ROLL TIME then advise the ATCers and I am sure they will endeavour to make it happen.

Granted that they reply to your query on delay sounds a little harsh.

As a local squadron, perhapse you should just drive across the airfield and have a talk to them?

[DirtyPierre]

Aerodynamisist,

On behalf of all controllers that work "regional airspace", I apologise for any delays bestowed upon thee. But to give you a reason for your delay;

- a C152 or other bugsmasher stooging along the CTA steps at a place like MC or CH or TW, etc is one of the biggest pains in the controllers ar$e if he has to get away jet or high performance turbos from the airfield. You are in the way for a long time, and stay in the way for a long time.

- although you can't hear anything on the radio, does this mean the controller is not busy? NO! Controllers talk on intercoms, telephones as well as radios. The reason for your delay could very well be that the controller had an emergency or an equipment failure that reduced the traffic/workload that he/she could handle. You won't know about this by listening on the radio.

- a VFR aircraft that has no plan in the system creates increased workload for a controller when they request a clearance. It means the controller has to enter the details manually into the system. This takes the controller away from their primary task eg. separation, coordination, IFER, sequencing, etc. Having a plan in the system helps a long way into getting a clearance into CTA. The controller may also not have time to give a long winded reason for the denial of clearance.

Hope this helps with your future flying.

[Spaghetti Monster]

Thanks for the reply ****su - I don't really have much of a problem with most of the issues you mention, and don't really think we get royally screwed all that much without good reason either. Most of my post just stemmed from a recent bit of aggro we copped in YSSY which was somewhat out of order (but also thankfully quite out of character).

Interesting to hear that 'Controllers are told that airlines do not want track shortening' - I certainly wasn't aware of that and find it hard to believe, particularly with all the pressure on us to save fuel.

Just a question on things we do which irk ATC - there seems to be quite a trend to read back just about everything the controller says, sometimes to a ridiculous degree. (Presumably this is just because people aren't quite sure of the readback requirements and want to make sure all the bases are covered.) For example, my understanding is that we're required to read back runways, holding points etc, but not something like 'taxy via L, B and B2' - yet 80% of pilots seem to read back the whole lot. Now is this a pain in the @rse for you guys, or are you quite happy and reassured to have everything read back?

[Binoculars]

All good stuff from both sides of the story. As an old dinosaur about to exit the door of ATC, I'll just suggest a couple of reasons why the question has to be asked at all.

1. A pilot's view of a good controller is one who gets him off the runway in the shortest possible time and gives him direct tracking to wherever he wants to go. Unfortunately our employer does not share this view, and we operate under a set of standards, any broaching of which means trouble for us.

2. Pilots tend to think they have the total picture based purely on what they can hear on the radio. This is almost never the case. Similarly, we have no clue about any abnormal happpenings in the cockpit or, in a lot of cases, the detailed knowledge of aircraft performance limitations required to know why just asking for something we think might help our aim in making it all work is utterly impractical from the pilot's pov. Ideally we would all know that, but we don't. Perhaps that is something the powers that be could take note of.

and finally, the overwhelming cause of all the problems, as already alluded to;

3. Flow control is a VERY imprecise art. The difference between a beautifully flowed sequence and a total cockup backing way up the line is less than thirty seconds, and I'm afraid calculations aren't that accurate from 60 miles. When I see the different profile speeds adopted by same type aircraft on the same approach I'm often amazed just how well the system does work.

Everyone on both sides can relate what they perceive as horror stories where the tendency is to blame incompetence on the other side. Last year I asked a 737 to reduce speed when he called me inbound from the south for a left circuit; I told him he would be following a Dash 8 who was about six miles further from the field but tracking straight in from the north. This should have been a routine sequence, but the 737 did not reduce speed at all, entered downwind doing 270kt GS and complained bitterly about having to go to 8 miles on downwind. Duh. No doubt he spread the story of the incompetent ATC at Mackay to anybody who would listen.

Bear in mind that decisions are made about landing order well ahead of the actual time and once those decisions are made, and it becomes apparent that it ain't gonna work, somebody, perhaps more than one, will be royally stuffed around through no fault of their own. Until the computer boffins come up with a flow control system that really works that will continue to be the case. We KNOW how painful it is to be asked for max speed followed by a change of mind, and it's always embarrassing to have to do it.

We often hear what the American controllers manage with far greater workloads, but without the rider that you had better do exactly as you are told to do over there or you're gonna get yelled at big time. "HEY YOU! Who told you you could lose ten knots sonny Jim?" The situation I quoted earlier wouldn't be allowed to happen over there.

Legman, I suggest that the best thing you can do is come up and see us in the tower to get an appreciation of how we have to do things and how the combination of class G airspace to six miles and a high descent profile on the DME steps leads to complications. All you have to do is ask and we'll get the safety officer to drop you to the door. You will walk away knowing more than when you walked in.

All in all though I think this has been an excellent thread with nowhere near the ranting I was fearing when I read the topic! Keep it up, none of us ever stops learning. :ok:



And Spaghetti Monster, the answer is that everything to do with the readback system is a pain in the arse for everybody concerned. I'm getting readbacks of time checks fer chrissakes!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Conversation with TL ATC a few years ago!

TL APP - XXX turn right heading 270 for separation from opposite direction traffic
XXX - Ah, confirm you want me to turn right into the side of that hill over there?

(Pregnant pause)

TL APP (different voice) - XXX maintain present heading, confirm 180
XXX - heading 180
TL APP - YYY turn right heading 090

Was visual at the time. If in IMC (pre moving map displays and terrain aviodance) I would have made the turn. Hopefully the "other voice" would have saved me!!

FTDC:cool:

[Defenestrator]

And Pilot Error
Actual exchanges between pilots and control towers
Tower: "Delta 351, you have traffic at 10 o'clock, 6 miles!"
Delta 351: "Give us another hint! We have digital watches!"
************************************************************ ************
Tower: "TWA 2341, for noise abatement turn right 45 Degrees."
TWA 2341: "Center, we are at 35,000 feet.
How much noise can we make up here?"
Tower: "Sir, have you ever heard the noise a 747 makes when it hits a 727?"
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue:
"I'm f...ing bored!"
Ground Traffic Control:
"Last aircraft transmitting, identify yourself immediately! "
Unknown aircraft: "I said I was f...ing bored, not f...ing stupid!"
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
O'Hare Approach Control to a 747: "United 329 heavy, your traffic is a
Fokker, one o'clock, three miles, Eastbound."
United 329: "Approach, I've always wanted to say this..
I've got the little Fokker in sight."
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
A student became lost during a solo cross-country flight. While attempting to locate the aircraft on radar, ATC asked, "What was your last known position?"
Student: "When I was number one for takeoff."
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
A DC-10 had come in a little hot and thus had an exceedingly long roll
out after touching down.
San Jose Tower Noted: "American 751, make a hard right turn at the end
of the runway, if you are able.
If you are not able, take the Guadeloupe exit off Highway 101, make a
right at the lights and return to the airport."
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
A Pan Am 727 flight, waiting for start clearance in Munich , overheard
the following:
Lufthansa (in German):
" Ground, what is our start clearance time?"
Ground (in English):
"If you want an answer you must speak in English."
Lufthansa (in English):
"I am a German, flying a German airplane, in Germany .
Why must I speak English?"
Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent):
"Because you lost the bloody war!"
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
Tower: "Eastern 702, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure on frequency 124.7"
Eastern 702: "Tower, Eastern 702 switching to Departure.
By the way,after we lifted off we saw some kind of dead animal on the far end of the runway."
Tower: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff behind Eastern 702, contact Departure on frequency 124.7.
Did you copy that report from Eastern 702?"
BR Continental 635: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, roger;
and yes, we copied Eastern...we've already notified our caterers."
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********
One day the pilot of a Cherokee 180 was told by the tower to hold
short of the active runway while a DC-8 landed. The DC-8 landed, rolled out, turned around, and taxied back past the Cherokee.
Some quick-witted comedian in the DC-8 crew got on the radio and said,
"What a cute little plane. Did you make it all by yourself?"
The Cherokee pilot, not about to let the insult go by, came back with
a real zinger:
"I made it out of DC-8 parts. Another landing like yours and I'll have enough parts for another one."
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
The German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are renowned as a short-tempered lot. They not only expect one to know one's gate parking location, but how to get there without any assistance from them. So it
was with some amusement that we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747, call sign Speedbird 206 .
Speedbird 206: " Frankfurt , Speedbird 206! clear of active runway."
Ground: "Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven."
The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop.
Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?"
Speedbird 206: "Stand by, Ground, I'm looking up our gate location now."
G round (with quite arrogant impatience):
"Speedbird 206, have you not been to Frankfurt before?"
Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark, - And I didn't land."
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *********
While taxiing at London 's Gatwick Airport , the crew of a US Air
flight departing for Ft. Lauderdale made a wrong turn and came nose to nose with a United 727. An irate female ground controller lashed out at the US Air crew, screaming:
"US Air 2771, where the hell are you going? I told you to turn right onto
Charlie taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there. I know
it's difficult for you to tell the difference between C and D, but get it right!"
Continuing her rage to the embarrassed crew, she was now shouting
hysterically: "God! Now you've screwed everything up! It'll take forever to
sort this out! You stay right there and don't move till I tell you to!
You can expect progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour, and I
want you to go exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I tell you! You got that, US Air 2771?"
"Yes, ma'am," the humbled crew responded.
Naturally, the ground control communications frequency fell terribly
silent after the verbal bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to chance
engaging the irate ground controller in her current state of mind. Tension in every cockpit out around Gatwick was definitely running high. Just then an unknown pilot broke the silence and keyed his microphone, asking: "Wasn't I married to you once?"
Just for fun.....:}

[Binoculars]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Anyone heard the one about the tech log entries?

[Bedder believeit]

Having been a controller is Oz (22years), Dubai (5 years) and Hong Kong (12 years) I guess I have seen and heard a bit. Sometimes some of the things that I hear from flight crew absolutely amazes me. There is this misconception by some individuals that fly jets, that inside 30 miles they can beat anyone (non jet). Well, I've got news for you boys, the only time you will stay ahead of a Dash 8 (F-27 in my days in Oz) were if you were already in front of the turboprop. To try and overtake a turbo prop and to get a reasonable distance ahead when you are both within about 40 miles is almost impossible - bar severe radar vectoring. Also here in HK I often get Cathay pilots that are on 777's or 400's say, "why don't you let us overtake A340's", I just can't believe that some individuals can have such little understanding of relative speeds over the ground, and what is needed to get one aircraft that is behind another to be successfully in front of that aircraft. When I was riding the train home from work the other day I was amazed when a Cathay driver said to me "It's time you people started to weed out the non heavy jets from HK (we had been discussing wake turbulence issues)". I should have pointed out that it is the hundreds of 737 and A320 flights that feed pax into his big fat aeroplane that helps to make Cx as financially bouyant as it is, and able to pay him his big fat salary. And before people jump on me about the "big fat salary" remark, well, I do ok, but I bloody well earn it!

[Capt Claret]

****su, Binos, et al,

Why would landing times not work? Once I know the tracking in the 717, the whiz-box provides an extremely accurate estimate of landing time.

[Keg]

Am I being over sensitive on this one?

.....and able to pay him his big fat salary. And before people jump on me about the "big fat salary" remark, well, I do ok, but I bloody well earn it!

The implication seems to be that the pilot with the big fat salary does not in fact 'earn it'. :confused:

PS: I reckon the HKG controllers do a fantastic job considering the crappy airspace situation you have with China to the north, Macau, etc, etc. :ok: :D

[Bedder believeit]

Hi Keg, well who earns what? Is the CX guy driving an A330 any more or any less pushed than the China Eastern guy also flying the same equipment for one tenth the salary. But then I earn 10 times what a controller in nearby Shenzen earns. I think it has generally been considered over the years that CX/Dragonair guys (and HK ATC's) have done pretty well. Sure, they have their A and B scale issues and both sides (Pilots and controllers) here have taken pretty savage pay cuts over the last few years. I am not taking a swing at his "earning" of salary, just the attitude. I say again, it is the large number of narrow bodies that now flood into this place that helps to pay his, and for that matter my salary. Would I ever be stupid enough to complain about the result of this increasingly difficult traffic mix? Unlikely. Thanks for the sentiments re airspace in HK, the whole place is groaning at the seams...and it won't improve. Macau (and we do just about all of their arrivals and departures) are looking to increase movements to 30 an hour. So at times we will be servicing upwards of 100 movements an hour through our little corner here! Another huge problem is all the time restrictions that we get trying to load aircraft into an increasingly busy China...but that's another story!

[SM4 Pirate]

Why would landing times not work? Once I know the tracking in the 717, the whiz-box provides an extremely accurate estimate of landing time. My favourite.... Because you will hit each other well before the threashold...

An example:
Pilot A get's landing time of 12 (sh!t a 6 minute delay); pilot B get's a landing time of 15 (sh!t a 8 minute delay)... So A is 1 minute ahead (could be 5 seconds but let's suppose it's the full minute). You both have 300NM or so to touch.

Pilot A puts in the box LT 12 (or however you do it.) The box says, bewdy M.05 reduction 292K econ descent; based on the Cost index; etc.

Pilot B puts in the box LT 15; the box says bewdy; .03 reduction on cruise; 265K on descent; based on a slightly different Cost index and perhaps a slightly wider cct, etc.

Pilot B get's in front of Pilot A (in about 10 minutes); Pilot A is going to go faster on descent. You die about 100NM from touch... extreme yes, but reality of time only control; ie the reason why we don't always just issue times when using MAESTRO (SY,ML,BN)

Ever left a holding pattern 30 seconds early/late? Pilot A lands at 12+30 seconds; pilot B tries to land at 14+30 to find A hasn't yet vacated the big bit of concrete and goes round; in a less extreme case.... Imagine being earlier or later than 30 seconds.... "I was given 12 and I was on time; well I was given 15 and I was on time", so why wasn't there a 3 minute gap?

Then there is the issue of the time actually needed was for B was 14 and 20 seconds (the rate for arrival in this circumstance could have been 140 not 180 seconds); as mentioned above difference between a good sequence and a bad one can be 30 seconds which compounds (between slots, or just into every slot).

Add into the complexities of different types etc. and you can see why times alone just don't work. I've seen 60Kts closing on same IAS with similar levels (or is one just not really doing the speed) different types.

I've said before that there's more to a sequence than landing slots; that pesky thing called separation has to be considered, goddang it; oh and more than two aircraft in the sequence... Let's also hope circumstances whatever they may be don't "force" a change in the times.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

"Clearance not available"...you're doing a flight test and realise the poor stude is going to have to do come back and do another test to get CTA on thier licence whcih in some cases means they will have to return to the country later in the year :mad: :mad:

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Why would landing times not work? Once I know the tracking in the 717, the whiz-box provides an extremely accurate estimate of landing time.

It's a good question, and whilst I would hate to see this (really good)thread degenerate by ATC coming with excuses for the 'irk-some', it is worth addressing. To some extent SM4 Pirate has answered part of it.

In theory it would work if the following was true all the time:

1. The winds aloft in your FMS were dynamically (I am talking every 30 seconds or so) updated from auto PIREPS uploaded constantly via ACARS or whatever and shared automatically to all aircraft who are ACARS/FMS equipped.

2. All the other aircraft in the sequence ahead and behind of you were also equipped with this equipment and information.

3. Descent profiles were the same (even if only we could get the same aircraft types in the same company doing it!)

4. The other factors mentioned in my last post didn't occur.

Believe it or not I have actually tried it during a quiet period one day. I asked the aircraft (way in advance of TD) to cruise, descend at desired speed to meet a landing time of (lets say) 00:05. Aircraft was not touched in way - no intermediate altitudes or speed control. It landed at 00:06:15. Not bad - but 1.25 minutes is a big deal when running a 2, 2.5 or even 3 minute sequence - think cumulative flow on effect.

One of the big problems is really in the wind data - it just is not accurate enough because it is not shared with MET, ANSP or other carriers. For example, we will often hear aircraft given an instruction to cross a point 100nm ahead one minute later than their current GS is indicating - and the reply will be that they cannot even make the original crossing time as the FMS says they could not go that fast! Even though the raw data is showing different.

Descent profiles - I don't know what more can be said about that - the one positive I have observed of late is the new RNP approaches that the QF 738's are flying - they are very accurate. Unfortunately they appear to be definitely slower than the approaches we are used to seeing - by about 1 minute from 40-50nm - which is significant.

RNP aside, it is not uncommon to see two aircraft - same type - same company with 40KT-60KT speed difference at the same point in the profile. This closes up very quickly and ruins all that you beaut planning. The only way to fix it is with speed control early - and for everyone which eliminates all those power off descent savings. Ever wondered why busy European airports appear to move a lot more traffic - have a look at the speeds they are required to 20, 30, 40, 70 nm away from TCHD and the lengths of the downwinds and finals! And they are usually all jets.

We don't have that neccessity in Australia - yet. So we let aircraft do their own thing to a greater extent.

Basically you can't have everything. Just like the design of an aeroplane, with the design of an airspace system everything is a compromise.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I would just like it if on first contact with tower they didn't say "Continue approach":ok:

[Bedder believeit]

I agree with ****su. When I worked Approach radar in Australia in the 70's and 80's, we were not allowed to slow jet aircraft below 170 knots until they were within 15NM from touchdown. What a bunch of wusses. I then went to Dubai for 5 years and it was like the wild West. Then Hong Kong (Kai Tak) and I couldn't believe it. Aircraft were back to 170 or below with 40 or 50 miles to run for the IGS on runway 13, and I never heard one bleat. It was always "Well son, we're headin' inta Hong Kong where we gotta do this crazy turn to git this bird on tha groun' and you do everythin' those ATC boys say now...". It just goes to show how different environments can create entirely different situations. When I think back, it never ceases to amaze me just how much the two domestic airlines (plus your East West's etc) were so molly-coddled by the system in those days. Don't know if it has changed or not!

[Chimbu chuckles]

Bb when I flew F28s into Cairns we used to have all the ATC chaps and chapesses sitting on the edge of their seats apparently...330 indicated to 9nm finals and then the lights on as we lowered the gear at about 5...I think they used ta call us stealthly fokkers:E or some such.

"Sydney Tower, good morning, Brunei 69er established 34 Left"

"Brunei 69er continue approach"

"Brunei 69er"...but thinking to myself..."as opposed to what?":E

[Bedder believeit]

CC, sure they didn't think you were a "Mudder Fokker".

As far as "Continue Approach" is concerned, I guess it's a feel good phrase. I'm happy to use it where I make a living, because if I don't say something to China Eastern, they are just as likely to make a missed approach on you. The North Americans tend to spit out "you're number four", but what the hell does that mean (apart from the obvious that there are possibly three aeroplanes in front of you).

By the way, stressed tower Controller's tend to stand, rarely do they sit on the edge of their seats. Maybe it is one aspect of human nature that pilot's miss in their sedentary environment.

[Aussie]

How is ATC suppose to know one is conducting a flight test and how are they at fault when they cant give you clearance.... its a safety issue if they cant give you one!

[Quokka]

Conway,

Your thoughts on the meaning of the word VISUAL are correct when asked the question REPORT INFLIGHT CONDITIONS by ATC.

This is a question that may be asked prior to the application of Visual Separation by a controller. The controller is required to make an assessment of the viability of applying Visual Separation prior to it's use. Obviously, a controller sitting in Brisbane at a TAAATS workstation cannot see the inflight conditions that a pilot might be encountering and must rely upon the subsequent advice of the pilot in all circumstances.

Some controllers will not ask the question but instead will apply the separation and wait for the pilot to advise that they are unable to comply with the instruction to MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION or FOLLOW.

VISUAL, VISUAL ON TOP, OVERCAST BENEATH, IN CLOUD will be sufficient information for the controller to make the assessment.

One point to remember though, the controller is seeking more than just a snap-shot of the conditions you're encountering, project ahead and advise the controller if there will be a point at which the conditions will change such that Visual Separation can no longer be applied.

It doesn't give the controller a warm & fuzzy feeling when half-way through a Sight & Follow on descent, the following aircraft reports "IN CLOUD" or "I've lost sight of the aircraft".

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

As BedderBelieveit said, if you think speed restrictions on descent are bad in Australia try flying elsewhere in the world. It seems the less often a pilot is used to being delayed the more they complain about it when they are. I had more complaints in Australia from pilots about not getting direct tracking and high speed all the way on the STARS than I have ever got here in Dubai where we reduce guys regularly to 230 KTs from 70 NM to run and hold for god knows how long every night purely due to traffic congestion. Yet these guys flying for Emirates, Gulf Air and Qatari (a lot of whom are ex-QANTAS/ANSETT guys) don't complain at all and take whatever we throw at them on the chin. Even though they are flying A330's and A340's and have trouble getting the height off when given speed reductions after having started descent, they understand that given the insane levels of traffic here these days for one runway, they get the job done and get the aircraft down safely. One thing the A330 guys do do, is they start their descent early to allow for any speed reductions they may (at certain times almost certainly will) recieve from us, and that allows them to not get too high on their profile.

Another thing we will do to "help" them out is if they say they are high on profile and can't take any more speed reductions and still meet the A130 height restriction on the STAR, is we allow them to speed up to lose the height and give them a dogleg to get the extra miles that way. Would you guys complaining about getting the speed reductions prefer a vector or 2 to achieve the required spacing rather than have your speed messed with?

[zkdli]

At the risk of butting in, this thread is great. We have exactly the same conflicts of interest in the UK that I read here in Oz:) I know exactly what Air services is saying. We get alot of ex Dunnunda pilots here in the LTMA and they never complain about what we do. I think it is because they think we are busy!
We used to get complaints when Stansted went from a sleepy hollow to one of the busiest airports. I think it was because everyone thought that they could do what they had always done when the traffic wasn't so busy. As it grew people didn't realise that they had to fly the procedures or they ended up being even more delayed. A few nasty experiences for ATC and aircrew stopped that:)
An example was this moring - i was working the Lambourne hold and was speed controlling aircraft (including Qantas) from about 100nm from touchdown. This included 220kts at about 50nm and descents etc but no one held. If they had not been speed controlled we would have been holding at Lamborne upto FL170 and holding out beyond that. Delays would have ben about 20 minutes. So I guess what I am trying to say is that If we speed control or dogleg it is because we are trying to give you the best service when taking in to account the traffic and the runway occupancy etc:)

[topdrop]

.. I flew F28s into Cairns we used to have all the ATC chaps and chapesses sitting on the edge of their seats apparently...330 indicated to 9nm finals and then the lights on as we lowered the gear at about 5...I think they used ta call us stealthly fokkers:E or some such.

Wish we still had the F28s rolling into town. Great pilots used to make that aircraft play to the sheet music. If you needed it, they'd stay high and go flat out to 5NM, open the barn doors and just drop in. Had one at BENJI, A045, doing 330 GS, washed the speed and height off in no time. :D:D:D
The F100s don't perform like the F28s, or perhaps they could do it, but new SOPs don't allow it.



"Brunei 69er continue approach"

"Brunei 69er"...but thinking to myself..."as opposed to what?"
Go round! :ok:

[TLAW]

I think the thread is about what does ATC do that irks you. Not suggest possible reasons why ATC have done whatever they have done which has irked you. Yes, a reasonable and intelligent person would be quite aware that whatever has been done that inconvenienced you was done for a valid reason. But you in the cockpit are often not privy to that reason, and hence it sometimes seems that ATC have only done it out of spite, because you once backed into the controllers car in the car park. You have your own priorities, your own mission, your own tasks to complete, they have theirs. When they conflict, there is frustration, hair pulling, gnashing of teeth, calling of names, etc.

What irks me is when ATC call to give me my departure clearance, with amendments and require a readback, then get impatient because I've held in the run up bay to have a look at the chart and plan the new departure they've given me.

[Quokka]

zkdli... delete Standsted and insert Perth... welcome to the mining boom in Australia...

More planes + less Air Traffic Controllers + old route structure + lack of forethought = :{

...and some people still don't get it :ugh:

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

I never said ATC were "at fault" but answered the question about what irks me. It irks the stude more that they will have to pay for another flight to complete that part of the test. Me I get paid by the hour so it's no skin off my nose, but I'm the one the stude grumbles to, not ATC.

I'm not a controller, so don't know their reasons for not issuing clearances (even though the flight plan has been in the system for hours) but I am quite sure it isn't out of "spite"!

(HOWEVER I do know of one ATC person years ago who tended to give a lot of "join upwinds" :* to one of my staff who had been out with him then dumped him (rather publicly)!)

[TLAW]

I'm not a controller, so don't know their reasons for not issuing clearances (even though the flight plan has been in the system for hours) but I am quite sure it isn't out of "spite"!


This is exactly what I meant. Apologies for being unclear.

[TIMMEEEE]

But what about ground handling???

It seems that in Australia the tower controllers have a "park brake light indicator".

In other words, whenever they line you up (with nobody in sight or on TCAS), after a protracted period of waiting as soon as the park brake is set you are cleared for take-off without fail!

Maybe I'm just suspicious or the boys in the tower have a sense of humour!

In the air my favourite is Brisbane Centre.
On SYD-BNE sectors you may be 80 track miles to run to CG and the controllers ask you to reduce speed in order to lose about 8 minutes over an 80 mile distance!!!!
Do the math fellas!
My favourite is coming straight back at them telling them "unable, what are your intentions?"

The reply."oh.....standby"

[Big Dog 2]

While on decent in CTA and you are cleared say 7000, atc
give you a clearance " from 30 dme decend to 3000 "
for exaple. We dont have any where to put the next cleared level.
We leave 7000 so the A/C wont decend below the cleared level
and then have to remember 3000' or write it down.In a busy part of the flight.
This then gives rise to confusion ie was it 50 d decend to 3000'
This then requires us to recheck cleared level. Using up radio time.
It also leves the CTA step clearnce in the lap of the crew. Instead of being a joint concern.

Thanks Big D

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Big Dog 2,

In a radar environment that scenario (normally) should not happen - most controllers these days realise there is no way of 'programming' conditional ALT/FL on to the MCP - hey, some time for famil flights might help those who still don't.

In a non-radar environment, naturally it has to happen as there is no other way of knowing unless ATC ask for reports every minute or two.

I know that some (french) aircrarft just love to ride the steps and are always pushing for lower - I think that has lead to conditional altitudes being used - personally I prefer to issue an expectation - if I get busy with other things I will then get reminded.

There are still some times when it is needed however. e.g. descend 2000, when established in the circling area cleared VSA - what would you put in the cleared altitude in that case out of interest?

[Capt Fathom]

I asked the skipper to call 'visual 34R' in sight recently (downwind on a Rivet in serious 8/8 blue all the way to FL670). He said he wouldn't because it was now behind us and he couldn't see it and therefore it wasn't in sight! :eek: :rolleyes:
Keg. When you're a captain, you may apreciate the reasons behind that decision!

[DirtyPierre]

CFI,

A quickcall to the offending tower by phone could possibly solve future irksome "clearance not available" situations. Or maybe you could ask the controller how long for the delay and come back later in the flight, or maybe you could ring the tower before the flight and check on delays into CTA prior to taxying?

Just a thought.

[Keg]

Geez Fathom it was CAVOK and we were a little wider than normal. Every skipper I've flown with on the 767 never had a drama with it. Most other skippers on the 744 have done it too. Years ago I was chided by a Captain for being too conservative for applying that logic in the same circumstances. After saying that I didn't think I could comply with the requirements we went back into the books to check what the wording was. The result on this day was an extra 10 track miles by my reckoning. So much for fuel conservation! :{

PS: You can take your patronising tone and shove that too! :E :suspect: :}

[Not_Another_Pot]

Just one irks me.... Singapore Sally in Perth:eek: :eek:

Carrier wave 5, modulation 1!

[triadic]

Communication is the name of the game!

If you are going to be screwed about for whatever reason it only takes a few words to let you know why, and increase your SA. Doing so, certainly keeps the blood pressure down in the cockpit.

On the other hand I know of some good controllers that try and keep the customers in the loop that have been castigated at checks for providing too much info!! (er - not following sops) geez!! (try changing the sops I say!!):ugh: :ugh:

In this business such info is better to have than not have.:ok: :ok:

[TrafficTraffic]

Quokka you joke - Perth is no way like Stanstead and to even compare them in the same sentence shows a distinct lack of awareness.


TT

[Quokka]

Traffic... this was the post from zkdli that I was responding to:

"We used to get complaints when Stansted went from a sleepy hollow to one of the busiest airports. I think it was because everyone thought that they could do what they had always done when the traffic wasn't so busy."

Are you suggesting that this doesn't apply to Perth?

[Aerodynamisist]

Thanks DirtyPierre
Thats exactly the attitude within atc I wanted to point out
A: your in a "bug smasher" so your not important enough to recieve any service
and B: we have more important things to do
For the record On the day in question I did have a plan in the system.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

I'm not a controller, so don't know their reasons for not issuing clearances (even though the flight plan has been in the system for hours)

Well, you will always be issued a clearance - eventually.

How long your FPL has been in the system doesn't mean anything - that applies whether you are a light twin doing training or a 747. Remember, ATC don't delay aircraft - other aircraft delay aircraft.

The basic rules are - first to use the airspace gets it, unless there is priority traffic (see AIP for Assessment of priorities), or (lastly)
an aircraft can be delayed where significant economic benefit can be achieved by avoiding delay to other aircraft
(or however it is phrased these days).

Thats basically it. No favourites played - because we dont have any. But hey, if an airline wanted to start providing cheap flights I am sure we could come to an arrangement! (just kidding - no airline will provide cheap flights to us :{ )

[TrafficTraffic]

Quokka - what I am saying is.
Comparing Perth Airport to Stanstead Airport is like comparing the City of London to the City of Sydney.
You cant.
Saying that the awakening of the sleeping movement beast that is Perth is the same as Stanstead is a little bit of a long bow to draw.......I would be interested to see what sort if increase there has been - but not so much I can be bothered doing the figures for that.

EGSS 2005
Movements TTL = 179,845
Pax = 21,991,733

YPPH 2005/2006
Movements = 55,882
Pax = 7,134,880

(12months)

Source http://www.perthairport.com/Default.aspx?MenuID=116#148
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/2005Annual/Table_02_2_Summary_of_Activity_at_UK_Airports.pdf

TT

[Keg]

Strewth Traffic, he's not comparing PH to Stanstead in terms of movements, he's talking about the situation of an airport going from a sleepy hollow to busy and people not being used to it and struggling to adapt!

It's a similar situation in terms of increasing movements over a short period of time and definitely NOT a direct comparison of movements. He could have used any other airport on the planet whose movements had sky rocketed but someone had already thought up Stanstead.

Clear as mud? :ugh: :eek: :E

[Bedder believeit]

Tiny Tim, your imagination is as high as the falsetto voiced ukele player that assaulted our senses many years ago. Whilst I haven't worked in ATC in Australia for many a long year, I reckon I cough up some 20 odd legs (as a pax) a year, either domestically, or internationaly and it is my experience, that as soon as the runway becomes available, then we are on our uninterrupted way. After all you do use the rather strong suggestion "without fail". Anyway, what has your "nobody in sight or nothing on the TCAS" got to do with it. I work an environment where there are many different aspects that can cause delays, that me (with the big picture) and you (with only a very localised idea of what is going on) will ever get to share.
To try and suggest and expect people to seriously accept your pronouncements on losing 8 minutes in 80 miles...well pull the other one. It may have happened once (in error..training maybe??) but to suggest that this is a regular occurence....
As for your "oh...standby" I get stacks of those every day, but the other way round: "ABC 123, can you get the ground crew to push you a little further back?" "Standby". "ABC123 are you able to reach FL 9600metres by SIERA?" "STANDBY"...should I go on?
I realise that this thread was started to allow people to get the wood off their chests and at times individuals have a reasonable axe to grind, and lot's of good stuff has been discussed. I would imagine that any half useful controller would easily be able to deal with your "Unable..advise intentions?", and to then reply "my intentions are....." I think it's called "My Ace beats your King".

[putytat]

Timmeeee,
That is not so challenging to an experienced ATC. Responses to “unable, what are your intentions” can be easily and quickly answered with:
Continue current speed, hold at CG, maintain the outbound leg til advised, when ready descend to FL150, requirement reach FL150 by turning outbound.
Most ATCs’ practice this for responses such as yours.

[nomorecatering]

ATC is usually good but most annoyig thing is the chatter that comes over the frequency from inside the radar room, and quite often its people socialising. Sometimes, its so loud its hard to hear the contoller.

[sumtingwong]

Ah yes, Singapore Sally when on Hong Kong...sorry I mean Perth Approach!

Stand by....call you back!!:ugh:

[VVS Laxman]

Sounds like the "trainer" or "familer" were live in the B side for them to drown out the ATC.

I have had to tell people around me to shut up every so often. Reminds me of the You tube video from Scotish ATC...

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"No favourites played - because we dont have any" - yeah, right!

FTDK:cool:

[Shitsu_Tonka]

ATC is usually good but most annoyig thing is the chatter that comes over the frequency from inside the radar room, and quite often its people socialising. Sometimes, its so loud its hard to hear the contoller.

Tell me about it!

You get pretty good at tuning out the 'white noise' from those who don't have any traffic at the time.

Then when you get a quiet bit, you become the one causing the commotion!

It's a good point however - and partly related to the microphones on our headsets - they are a bit too 'wide area' on their pickups. I have noticed when I am flying and talking to ATC I can hear the STCA alarm going in the background - at least it improves may scan outside the cockpit all of a sudden!

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Yes that is right.

Although I profess to not liking ignorant dickheads very much.

[olderairhead]

Bedder believeit

By the way, stressed tower Controller's tend to stand, rarely do they sit on the edge of their seats.

Is this because if they did they would have to sit on their walletts? :} :} :}

[Bedder believeit]

What's a "wallett" airhead? Some part of the anatomy?

[Bedder believeit]

Actually OAH, I'm on a night shift break at the moment. Probably spoken to about 30 to 40 odd aircraft since I started work a couple of hours ago. I do know that between 3 and 4 this morning (HK) time, I will barely have time to scratch myself with freighters coming and going, only one runway in use and various taxyways closed. Maybe if I sit on my "wallet" it might make things a bit more comfortable. What will you be doing at 3.30am? Regards BB

[NOtimTAMs]

I've had to fly GNSS RNAV approaches SPIFR in scuzzy weathr into Archerfield on several occasions. And I've got say that I prefer flying them OCTA. Once at the IAF, instead of clearing you for descent "in accordance with the <insert name here> approach" you get a running set of "descend to xxxx feet" which you have acknowledge in addition to flying the acft,cross checking the intermediate heights & next WPTand trying to maintain a stable 3 degree app in gusty weather. Several times the clearances have kept me above profile so much that it has bbeen difficult to dive to the MDA by the MAPt. It adds to a high workload, and unnecessarily so.

Why guys? There's no VFR traffic below on these days, I'm too low to bother the BN jet traffic - and the approach has been surveyed as clear of obstructions. Why not clear me for descent in accordance with the approach let me fly it and offer advice when you want me to switch to Tower or if I'm deviating vertically or horizontally?



Just curious

[olderairhead]

Obviously a poor attempt at humour. Sorry if it offended. That was not my intention.

And at 3.30am I am sometimes airborne, depending on the day.

[SM4 Pirate]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MeI154gaWL4

Here is the youtube link to above mentioned video; assuming this is what you meant.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Notimtams

All the instrument approaches in to YBAF cross CTA, including the missed approaches.

If you have done a few, I am sure you have noticed that you are in the same bit of airspace as the landing aircraft 01 in to Brisbane, and have to be practically included in the sequence.

So, your basic answer as to why....it's where they put the damn airport! (BN RWY 01 IAF)

The procedure we use has a lot of legalese included in it, because radar lowest safe altitudes are being used that are sometimes in and sometimes out of controlleed airspace.

I have often argued for a 'corridor' aligned with the approaches/departure tracks for AF that is class G to allow no requirments for ATC to get involved when AF TWR go home at 1800. The process to achieve that is beyond mere mortals like me.

FYI our lowest assignable level in the AF CTR is 1900' - so that is generally why an aircraft leaving CTA for AF CTAF(R) is going to remain in CTA until established in the circling area and (reported) left/main 1500 or left 1500 in the IAL - a lot of frequency juggling and workload as you say.

BTW the only instrument aproach that does not require ATC involvement is the 28RNAV, as all the NDB APCH are RADAR-NDB's.

[NOtimTAMs]

****su

Read my post - I am talking about the 28RNAV, which can clip the 2000 CTA step :rolleyes: If you are held at 4000 for some time along the first leg as happens, then you will have to clip the CTA steps.

From the south via EC or EB, join procedure at not below 3400 and minimum alt at that point is 1900, thence by the time you're anywhere near 4NM from GLENN/AF (where theBN 01 ILS is at 3000' and well above you) , you should be 1500-1600' on a 3o approach anyway.

The procedure has the minimums clearly marked, clearances and radar lower safe info (not clearances unless clipping the steps) should not be required if descending in accordance with an IAL - after all if you can get a "cleared for the xxVOR approach not below the DME steps" without micromanagement of descent along the approach, why not the same for the AF 28R RNAV? For parts of the procedure OCTA perhaps the radar lower safe advisories (with the subsequnt obligation to respond) are thought of being helpful ......

This is not a one off observation - it has happened on several occasions and we're talking proper IMC with SFA traffic in/out of AF as a result. As I have said in my original post, once cleared for descent in accordance with the approach, if you're not going to hold me at an intermediate point along the approach, then keep radio contact to the minimum. A GNSS RNAV IAL flown SPIFR is safe, but its busy enough without unnecessary distraction.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Yes mate, I did read your post.

I think we are in agreement generally.

However, Radar lowest safes will not be shown on any (civil) approach plate.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/dap/BAFGN01-101.pdf

you should be 1500-1600' on a 3o approach anyway.


We don't work on 'should be's' - we have to apply 'actuals', and with radar observed altitude data tolerances, actually leaving 1500 (clear of the 01 ILS) means 1100FT radar observed, or a pilot report on the Radar Freq - when you really want to be on the CTAF (goes back to workload you mentioned). And how do I know you are visual? Basically I don't until you tell me - so my IAL to 01ILS from FLYNN is blocked - as is a separation standard with the 01ILS generally, and any other traffic waiting to descend below your MAPCH CLB ( 3800FT! - and how on earth did we get that Missed Approach direction!).

It's why it is called Air Traffic Control, not Air Traffic Advisory.

I totally agree, that once cleared for the approach we don't need to talk to you unneccessarily - but we do have an obligation to provide you with an approach monitoring service whilst in control area, as well as uphold our duty of care generally, including pop-up traffic. In IMC, AF is basically one in one out. Remember we have to 'protect' the airspace for your missed approach. This impacts significantly on 01 IMC ARR to BN, as well as 19 SIDS. On 01 you might even get some vectoring or holding to allow 01 traffic in to Brisbane. And we may well be delaying departures on the CORAL SID off 19 to facilitate your approach.

It's the big picture we look at - not just your airplane.

Quite honestly - that is usually the point of difference between ATC and Pilots views on airspace.

[NOtimTAMs]

****su -

The big picture story you describe so artistically doesn't account for this irk...

as you know well, the 01 ILS starts overhead AF (GLENN) at 3000'. How can I be in conflict with that at BAFEF unless I'm at 2000' or above (and I'd only be at that height if I get held up there for some as yet unknown reason)??

I realise there are delays to be had if airspace on the MAPCH is not clear (would be held at BAFEC usually) - but that should not affect clearance to descend. In any case, AF is able to give a good indication to BN APP/RAD of the cloud minima at AF...

When I'm following an IAL and on course, I really don't give a tinker's cuss about Radar Lowest safe, just the heights on the approach plate and altimeter in front of me. Approach monitoring is great and I do appreciate the service - if I stray - but I just don't need it if I'm on track an on course. Just like you don't give me a running commentary on check heights vs DME on the BN19ILS!

[Shitsu_Tonka]

I was mainly referring to AF being off duty - but you are correct about AF giving a WX OBS and likelihood of getting VIS by the Minima. But the Missed Apch still has to be protected - i.e. what if you make a missed approach for a non-wx related problem?

It is not possible to fly any of the IAL in to AF OCTA anyway - as far as I can tell. (In fact, I don't think you can legally comply with LSALT and get in NVFR without a clearance.)

Generally 01 ILS traffic is assigned 2500FT for the approach - but it can be assigned 3000 or even vectored (shhh, don't tell the noise lobby!) for a slighly shorter final to facilitate the AF IAL.

Profile is fine - and of you can consistently fly it - well done. You are amongst the 20-25% who do.

It is not that often the 28RNAV gets flown anyhow - I am quite surprised you have had any issues. Usually we see the Radar NDB APP('s). Let's not talk about profile there.

I only mentioned RLSALT because you brought it up - BTW legally we can not use them anyhow for OCTA traffic under NORMAL OPS.

What was the irk again?

[NOtimTAMs]

1. The irk - (to me) unnecessary successive descent clearances (no preceding IFR traffic, nothing legally lower otherwise) and/or successive advisories of RLSALT (however helpful this may be perceived to be) when on the AF 28R RNAV approach. Minimise distraction, that's all I'm asking. I've had or requested the RNAV approach more times than the RAD/NDB. Interestingly enough at Bankstown and Morrabbin, they leave you alone to fly the plane.

2. Night VFR - you can legally get down to 1500' on GAAP entry and remain OCTA if you can confirm visually clear of whatever significant obstacle on either side of track would keep it above 1500'.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

I agree on the 1st point (RLSALT doesn't come in to it on an IAL).

I question that the 2nd point is achievable in to AF at night from any direction.

[Binoculars]

Utterly irrelevant to what I thought was a good thread, but why was it moved from Reporting Points to GA? Doesn't it apply once you move out of GA?

Just curious you understand, don't want to get banned or anything. :uhoh:

[DirtyPierre]

SM4 Pirate,

Just one thing wrong with the video. We don't wear ties.

Everything else looks so realistic.

[bigsis]

One controller, only, who insists that "when ready leave control area on descent" is a mandatory readback. It's not a level assignment therefore it is my interpretation that it is not a readback requirement.


I believe that I am the controller referred to in the above instance and must disagree with Capt Claret and friends.

AIP actually states that a "level instruction" not "level assignment" as quoted shall be readback. Clearing an aircraft to "leave control area descending" is an instruction which refers to a level change and should therefore be readback.

I have spoken to numerous controllers with lots of experience (I have 15yrs) and they all agree that it is a clearance that changes a level and should therefore be readback. I find it interesting that the regional airlines have been descending OCTA for years and we have never had this problem and now all of a sudden the big boys start flying OCTA and it becomes an issue.

I am aware that some of us ATCs can get slack in regard to getting this readback but I personally will continue to ask for a readback and keep going til I get it... until proven otherwise.

[maxgrad]

For what it's worth I agree, a clearance to leave controlled airspace on descent...it doesn't matter if you are leaving a controlled area or not, the clearance is the descent instruction.

[papi on]

Leave control area on descent makes no mention of a level therefore one could interpret that no readback is required. Then again to do that one has to change level to achieve this. Individual interpretation will naturally differ and we have people on both sides of the fence.

How about raise the issue with standardisation peoples, get a ruling, post the result and then everyone can do the same thing!

[Binoculars]

Edited for alcohol-fuelled frustration.

I haven't changed my mind at all but there was no reason to get personal and I apologise for that.

I just have difficulty coming to grips with the belief that, for example, if an instruction is made to line up behind an aircraft on final, it is read back as such and some idiot lines up in front, then saying behind that aircraft line up behind is going to make the blindest bit of difference. What if another idiot does it now? Are we going to have to say line up behind behind I say again behind and then get a readback of that?

The whole question of readbacks has become a massive issue because of the size of the sledgehammer used to crack the original nut and, as usual, it comes down to arse covering.

My apologies once again to the initial controller involved.

[papi on]

More thought makes me think if ATC assign a level it must be due other traffic or CTA steps so they need a readback to confirm that the pilot has copied it right. If giving leave CTA on descent then there would be no one in the way so who cares if the pilot copied it right! I say no readback required.

Binos

May be time for a Bex and a lay down. I think you may still be a little worked up about what Mr Fiennes is getting and your not!

Regards

Papi

[Duff Man]

Leave CTA descending .... you want a scenario it's required?

If the ATC instruction was misheard by the pilot, there is no cross-confirmation by ATC that the pilot has made an error. Example, ATC has conflicting traffic underneath and for planning asks pilot to report "top of descent", pilots discussing next EBA, both think they heard "leave on descent" and quickly read back callsign only, set the level bug to lowest safe. Frequency chokes up as said aircraft start descent and only after passing the next two levels report descent to ATC.... get the picture? What happens at ATC's end - immediate stand-down of controller(s) involved pending investigation of level bust.

And here's another required readback:
CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH

same reason!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Give you clearance - that puts you 20 nm from land - in a SINGLE ENGINE aeroplane.

BN Centre: XXX, amended clearance - from present position track via PEWEE, BARIA, UPOLO.

Hey guys! A BE35 only has one engine!

Dr:cool:

PS: Can anyone in here get me a good deal on a life raft? I gotta go back to Cairns next week.

[Awol57]

Tell them you can't accept that. Happened to me once on a night flight, I was radar vectored off the coast over Fremantle in WA, once we started getting a fair way up I piped up with request an easterly heading back over land due no life jackets and they spun us around pretty quick.

Given its an amended clearance I would say something, it might give them a short term headache but I wouldn't want to have to swim that far!

[J430]

Hey Doc

Get yourself one of these! Self inflate after leaving the aircraft:}

http://www.styrox.co.uk/product_images/Paddling%20Pool%20New%202.jpg

J:E

[maxgrad]

Does it come with the yummy mummy?
OK I'll go now

[morno]

Hmmmm, self inflating breasts, I'm sold, :}

[topdrop]

Give you clearance - that puts you 20 nm from land - in a SINGLE ENGINE aeroplane.

BN Centre: XXX, amended clearance - from present position track via PEWEE, BARIA, UPOLO.

Hey guys! A BE35 only has one engine!

FTDK
Try planning TL IFL UPOLO CS
Not sure what TL App will give you, probably depends on inbounds from SPARO. You only have to ask BN Centre for IFL UPOLO due single engine and you will get it. IFL UPOLO will put you only a couple of miles over water til Cape Grafton. You may get a few more miles over water from there depending on departures from 15. Hope that helps.
Flowed a V Tail yesterday - gave him dct UPOLO, doing 160 Groundspeed in the cruise, on descent he got to 200 - not bad for a single :ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Awol57

Yes, I realise I could have refused the clearance, but I would argue that they should not have given it to me in the first place.

The details submitted clearly give the type as a BE35. I would have thought people involved with giving clearances would have a knowledge of aircraft types. Yes, I know it is quick and they often call it a Baron, and they did have to ask me to slow down cause I was over taking a Dash 8, but .......

I had flightplanned TL-SPARO-IFL-CS, which is actually in the opposite direction to the airway, in order to stay with in safe gliding distance of land. I don't know why its a uni-direction airway when I can fly TL-IFL direct, and if I plan IFL-CS direct they deal with me without sending me 20 nm out to sea. Why not send me via Biboorah.

I never go to Cairns without a life jacket because I have been sent out to sea before and even the left hand DME arc onto the 15 ILS has you well off the coast. However 20 miles is getting beyond life jacket territory into life raft country.

J430 - now that is just what I need, with selected accessories? ... and NO, I don't mean the little yellow duckie!

Dr:cool:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Topdrop

"Flowed a V Tail yesterday - gave him dct UPOLO, doing 160 Groundspeed in the cruise, on descent he got to 200 - not bad for a single"

I suspect that had to be me. I was well out to sea on track to BARIA when given "track direct to UPOLO".

Yes, it (V35B) does go a bit, doesn't it! I had it on 2300/21" indicating 160 (top of the green) down hill.

Cheers

Dr:cool:

PS: Why can't I just plan TL-IFL-CS and then at IFL be given the Upolo One Arrival and "track present position direct Upolo"?

[J430]

Go VFR......if you can, I know you had fun with ATC then too......

J:E

[No Further Requirements]

FTDK,

I understand what you are saying. However, I believe it is up to the pilot in command to refuse a clearance which either he deems unsafe or outside the legal operation of the aircraft. Would you accept speed control that was 10kts faster than VNE or slower than stall speed? Pipe up and say "unable".

If I remember correctly, you have to be within gliding distance of land in a single??? Although I could probably give a pretty rough guess, I'd be hard pressed to do the maths for every type of single in Oz including allowances for wind etc. If you can't do it, say no. Please.

Cheers,

NFR.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

NFR

I doubt that there is a SE aeroplane built that can glide to land from 10000 ft at BARIA.

Dr:cool:

[No Further Requirements]

FTDK,
Not familiar with the reporting point, but I gather it's 20NM or so off shore? Yep, maybe there aren't too many that can glide that distance. Maybe there are a few? Which ones? Which ones have a raft? So many questions. Yep, granted the clearance may not have been great, but it is still ultimately the pilot in command's responsibility to reject it if it is unsafe. Not having a go, but as ATC that is what I would expect from pilots I am talking to.
Cheers,
NFR.

[J430]

Maybe the FTDK can't:uhoh: ........But I can!:E

But I would rather not have to.....at all.

J:ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

NFR

You are indeed correct, but I have dealt with ATC into Cairns before. I was in a hurry and did not want to make life difficult for myself.

If I had "bounced" the clearance, past experience would suggest that I would have been slowed down to maybe 100 kts and/or vectored all over the sky.

So just stuck the EPIRB in my pocket and clutched the life jacket to my bossum and charged on!

Mind you, I spent 2 hours directing traffic around a truck broken down about half way up the Gilles range and as a result had to fly back to TL in the dark. I suspect the risk involved in flying at night in a single enroute CS to TL is greater than being 20 miles out to sea.

Maybe its all in the mind really, isn't it. On the one hand I question being sent 20 miles out to sea, but on the other hand think nothing of launching into IMC for a couple of hours.

Dr:cool:

[Jenna Talia]

And here's another required readback:
CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH

Duff Man or any other ATCer,

When did this readback become a requirement?

JT

[No Further Requirements]

FTDK: I understand what you are saying and agree. 'Tis a tricky one which should be considered ob both sides of the microphone. ATC doensn't know everything, but common sense should be used by both parties.

Jenna: The readback for visual approach changed in June 2006. AIP GEN 3.4-12 para 4.4.1 'Readback requirements' subpara e. states "Any approach clearance". Don't have a Jepps reference, sorry. There's no grey area in that now - all approach clearances are to be read back.

Cheers

NFR.

[YesTAM]

Actually ATC doesn't annoy me at all - because they are way ahead of me....

[peuce]

FTDK,

I propose that the word "bossum" (or, as it is correctly spelt "bosom") not be used in this forum again.

It's just wrong!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Figure of speech (albeit a mis-spelt one) my dear Peuce, figure of speech; as in:

"[n] a person's breast or chest"

rather than

"[n] either of two soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman"

To what part of my anatomy would you suggest I clutch something to, should I feel a need to do so again?

Dr:cool:

PS: Do I assume from your post that pilot's shirts do not have breast pockets?

[Jenna Talia]

NFR,

Thanks for the info and the reference :ok:

[Philthy]

Yes, I realise I could have refused the clearance, but I would argue that they should not have given it to me in the first place.

Mate, with the number of singles that plan over-water, way, way out from land, how are we to know whether it's acceptable to you or not? If you don't like what you're given, tell us you require something different...

Cheers,

Philthy

[Track Coastal]

ERSA GEN-FPR-6...


Cairns Arrivals - Arriving from South East

From TL or o/TL RNAV: PEWEE-BARIA-UPOLO-CS

non-RNAV: BARIA-CS (expect Radar Vectors)

All other routes: On Track


Their is no 'single' caveat on that page. The Bris controller gave the correct route as published. If the published procedure is not satisfactory plan via BIB.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Track Coastal

Point taken, but how is TL-BIB-CS any better than TL-UPOLO-CS?

Dr:cool:

[Led Zep]

Dunno if it has been mentioned but...
"Alpha Bravo Charlie remain outside controlled area, standby I call you back."

The old Hong Kong approach into Perth.:ugh: :E I've been told to "standby" so do I not reply? :p

[Track Coastal]

Point taken, but how is TL-BIB-CS any better than TL-UPOLO-CS?

Its all over land.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Thanks for all the posts - really interesting.

TC

Not bothered about being over land the whole way cause I generally go up at 10k, just get a bit edgy about being 20 mile off the coast.

I'm back to YBCS next week. Intend to plan TL-SPARO-UPOLO-CS, and see what happens.

Dr:cool:

[Track Coastal]

Try TL-UPO-CS if you get cleared via BARIA due compliance with GEN-FPR-6, tell them your 'overwater' story and request direct UPO. If still no, ask for TL-BIB-CS.

If its the arvo CS may be on RWY33 if the seabreeze is in so it'll be straight in.

"Life is like a box of chocolates" ;)

[topdrop]

FTDK,
TL SPARO UPOLO CS is fine for singles as far as CS APP are concerned. However, SPARO TL is the inbound route to TL, so the RAAFies may not like it. If they send you to PEWEE, tell them you want dct SPARO asap due being single engine - pretty hard to refuse that request.
That Dash8 you ended up following for left base the other day was supposed to be a long way in front - you surprised a few of us with that turn of speed.

Anytime you have a problem into CS, give Approach a ring, we're only too happy to listen. We occasionally have a reason why things were done a certain way - sometimes ****s are trumps ;)
Cheers,
topdrop

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Thanx for the info TopDrop.

According to the GPS I topped out at 209 kts. Wasn't really trying - indicating 160 kts - top of the green arc.

Was going to make a smart arse remark about having to slow down for the slower traffic preceding. Had something similar happen with a 737 into TL last year. Had to slow down to let the big fella go first!

Dr:cool:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

So who was the PPRuNer in the YBCS tower yesterday (Friday 31/8 about 1300 local)?

"Hello Doctor" - or words to that effect.

Dr :cool:

[mjg]

I heard that, was gonna ask if he was a real doctor and could do airways consultaion. Last time I went to a doctor I got my nose sliced to pieces and charged my entire savings for the privalge.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

"was gonna ask if he was a real doctor and could do airways consultation"

mjg - trust me, you don't wanna know!

Dr :cool:

[Jabawocky]

There is no hiding Doc!:cool:

J

[ScottyDoo]

Time for a new beef:

Why is it on climb-out from capital city airports - definitely YMML and YSSY and I'm pretty sure it happens at others too - DEP always call at 10,000ft to transfer to Centre?

As you know, 10,000ft is the Transition Alt. A procedure takes place there as well as (in many cases) a checklist. Like the Park Brake indicator light, ATC seem to know just when you're going to call for a checklist or to re-set the altimeters. ie 10,000ft.

Seems to happen at FL110 descending too...

[Bullethead]

So why can't the frequency change instruction be along the lines of,

"XYZ Approaching 9000' call centre on 125.0" ,

and let the drivers do it when they're not busy?

Regards,
BH.

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

Interesting calls result also.

"...passing, um, FL103, climbing FL200."

Then the next one...

"...passing, um, one zero thousand three hundred, climbing FL200."

Depending how you read the document, either call is right. We should do it like the Septics.

Most ATC aren't all that flexible with the time we get you to call because of the nature of the software we use. This is anorak stuff, but I'll persevere. Stop reading if your eyes glaze over.

The mechanicals are that when I don't want to talk to you anymore I press a button which makes your radar symbol flash on the next sector's screen. It keeps flashing until they push a button to 'accept' it, it is now 'their' aircraft. When they press accept your symbol flashes on my screen to tell me to tell you to call the next sector. It only flashes for a few seconds then changes to the 'somebody-else's-aeroplane' color - i.e. disappears...

If I notice you are approaching the transition altitude/level and decide to delay the transfer a likely result is you never get it until you start grizzling for more climb/descent or the next sector starts whining that you haven't called.

This is called progress.

My pet hate when flying?

:mad: A frequency transfer when leveling off. Both my hands and my brain is busy and I don't trust my memory when distracted. I try to avoid it when Air Trafficking also.

[ScottyDoo]

Thanks for the explanation on the handover process!

From memory, I think we are usually cleared pretty much all the way to high 20s, at least, by the time we reach 10,000ft.

Could the flashing-symbol business not be carried out above FL115 or so?

At ten-grand there is for some types a checklist to be carried out and for all types a bit of to and fro with pilot-**** ref setting and cross-checking 1013mb on the altimeters.

[tobzalp]

Expect this all to get worse. ATC is administered by F wits with no idea so what hope do the guys at the coal face have. Couple that with any person only being taught 80% of what their instructor knows and you will see the quality of current service decrease even further.... if that is possible:ugh::rolleyes: 80% of 80% of 80% of 80% etc.....

Love Plazbot

[ScottyDoo]

Why do the instructors only teach 80% of what they know...

[jumpuFOKKERjump]

Why do the instructors only teach 80% of what they know...Coz we train for a rating, and the learning doesn't stop when you get a rating, the curve is still going up. You can't train for perfection, coz you have to let them go solo sometime & we don't have a Cessna 150 console to send the trainees up for a circuit.

[AlJassmi]

We also need to consider the very limited availability of famil flights. When you never get to see the other person's workplace one may tend to forget that some things can make the other's job easier.

[MrApproach]

This thread must have kicked off a complaint culture! I thought I was back in the seventies when pilot last week apologised to passengers for late departure because "they had to comply with ATC on the way in and they cost us ten minutes".

How that accounted for a thirty minute late departure he didn't bother to tell us, neither did he volunteer a well done for ATC when he skited about reaching the destination "right back on schedule"!

I thought this kind of unintelligent nonsense was a thing of the past.

[SM4 Pirate]

Then there are those in ATC who are peddling so hard that they couldn't give a toss about your job, or the next ATC units; they must get their tasks complete or it all goes up the creek. This is particularly so of newbies under training, dinosaurs under training positioning elsewhere, newly rated, (most) part-timers and then there are those who just make it above the bar and don't get very far above it; safe enough, but not stars.

Once the system used to 'check' ability to proceed "beyond" initial ratings, now days we is so desperate for staff any old hack will do; well sort of.