Assertive controllers - what do you expect?

[ATCOJ30]

The thread on a number of recent potential CFIT incidents on this Forum leads me to ask pilots reading this a fairly important question: how far should a Controller go in exercising his/her judgement to prevent such events? I was part of the team which investigated one such incident (from the ATC aspects only) and we considered that the controller should not have sanctioned an orbit on final approach; should have denied the pilot's request for this and should have instructed him to execute a missed approach.

This leads me to a wider issue: how do you guys (sorry, not being sexist but generic to all pilots) feel about this course of action being taken by an ATCO? For example, I often ask a pilot if the track miles I'm giving will be enough to lose height/speed for an approach. Not infrequently, I get the reply "err...we should be okay". That immediately makes me think that either the crew or the aeroplane are being asked to do something with which neither is entirely happy. Potential result - egg on face/hassle for us both if a late missed approach has to be made or an unstable approach. On more than one occasion I've watched the Mode C unwind slowly on the radar and dediced that this is possibly going to be a GS capture from above or that unstable approach will ensue. And I've then felt I've had to take the initiative and tell the crew that I am going to reposition them.

My concerns are these: there's apparently been an upward cycle of pilot recruiting in the airline industry in recent years and I have certainly been made aware, on occasion, of a reduction in experience/airmanship in both left and right hand seats. Add to that the huge variation in nationalities working together on flight decks, whereby at least one pilot may not have English as their first language. The self improver route to "going commercial" has long gone and I guess the number of ex-military pilots coming onto the civil job market has reduced as the services cut back their aircrew numbers. Additionally, many UK ATCOs now are very inexperienced (no self-studying route for us now; Cadets being sent to units after less than 1 year at Colleges; lack of job-appeal to many youngsters; hugely expensive to self-fund; retirement bulge with us). So - assertive ATCOs: good thing/bad thing or just tell me your views, in order that maybe I can pass them on to others at my unit, especially the "newbies". Thanks to all.

[bomarc]

you are right, there is a loss of experience and that is on both sides of the world...pilots and controllers.

AS a controller you have the right to ask anything you want. AS a pilot I have the right to say no.

AND if things conflict, I declare an emergency and tell you to go to hell. BUT that is way too much paperwork! ;-)


OF course we both want to avoid this. knowledge of capabilities is vital.

I have been told by a controller that I should increase my rate of climb to 3,500 fpm. I've told them it was impossible...and they said: we have a book here that says you can, so do it!


I told them that on a HOT DAY with a full load of fuel and passengers I was lucky to give him 1500fpm.


On a cold day with a half full airplane, I might have been able to help.


And as to getting down...10,000 feet, 30 miles out is normal...

if you forget to clear me for an approach and I am 5 miles out at 3000', I will shake up everyone in back if I have to get down that fast...so avoid the request for an "orbit" by being ahead of the game.

so think ahead...the glideslope is the perfect reference...and you are not supposed to vector us on to the approach ABOVE the glideslope...some autopilots have to be forced to capture from above and not below.


I learned this stuff along time ago and believe me, I will be jumping up and down asking for lower...but the new guys might not

[brain fade]

ATCO

It's not always clear that it either will or will not be ok.

After another minute or two tho, the likely outcome will be that much clearer.

Therefore, if a crew respond as you suggest (err....should be ok) and then say nothing further- I suggest you leave them to get on with it.

If it becomes clear to the crew that more track miles are needed- they will soon speak up.

What is a teensy bit annoying is just as you've got it sorted out, bit of speed brake or whatever, the controller suddenly starts to vector you.

I suggest that if you are still concerned, you ask the question again before vectoring in extra track miles.

[A310driver]

Not sure what prompted the start of this thread but I am somewhat puzzled by some of the underlying assumptions with regard to statements implying the role of ATC.

It seems to me that the first job of ATC is to provide separation between aircraft. Once that has been accomplished, it is to provide for the efficient use of the airspace (spacing,sequencing, flow, etc). When vectoring aircraft(off published routes/procedures) to achieve these goals, it must do so in a manner which provides appropriate terrain/obstruction clearances. If it observes an aircraft departing (course or altitude) from published or cleared/assigned parameters it must advise/question immediately particularly if separation or terrain clearances may be compromised with continued deviation.

Statements like "should have denied request for an orbit" and "instructed him to execute a missed approach" and "to take the initiatve to reposition(because current rate of descent appears to indicate that aircraft will intercept glidepath from above)" indicate to me a crossing of the line by ATC.
In these instances should it not be " sir, it appears to me that your requested orbit will place you in an area of high terrain to the west of the localizer(or whatever)..please advise of intentions" (denial of a request for orbit beacause of the proximity of following traffic in-trail would of course be legitimate followed by " if unable to continue published approach execute missed approach procedure ....or.......")? It seems that instructing a missed approach should only be done when aircraft is no longer clear(ed) to land( such as preceding aircraft not clearing runway or separation lost. Likewise, in the second case. "sir, you appear to be high at your present position ..confirm you will be able to cross (final approach fix) X miles ahead at (GSIA) if not, I can vector you for re-sequencing". These decisions belong in the cockpit.

[West Coast]

Just as I don't have the big picture because I now have TCAS, please remember controllers don't have the entire picture because you have radar. As others have said, the pilots will speak up if required.
As to the "err...we should be okay" comments, ATC will ask on occasion ask for things that I may not like (such as a high descent rate) to do, but are capable of.
Glad you're asking the questions though.

[London Mil]

I think it is a dangerous path to follow. We have a entirely workable system where, from a safety perspective, ATC stop aircraft bumping into each other, nothing much else. To try and be the 'third pilot' may lead to confusion etc. By all means, contribute towards the pilot's situational awareness and even tell him you believe he is doing something dangerous. But to instruct him to do something (barring the collision bit), hmmm......

[PPRuNe Radar]

Controllers are there to assist pilots so they can conduct a safe flight.

Part of that is providing separation from other aircraft in the air, part of it is assisting in collision prevention on the ground.

Anything else is advisory and the final decision should be left to the flight deck. By all means point out the fact there is terrain close by, or that you are not happy that the aircraft will meet a safe profile, but don't try and fly it for them. Give them the information and then let them make the decision.

If you have done so and there is a still a smoking hole in the ground afterwards, you've done all you can under duty of care since you can't possibly know that any instruction you might have wanted to pass to the pilot could be complied with safely. Indeed, you may have forced an inexperienced crew to step out of their knowledge and ability level so making it more dangerous.

[buffalowing]

I don't think ATCO's are only there "to stop aircraft bumping into each other, nothing much else".

They are there for safety.
So,
Assertive ATCO's: very good.
Anytime you think something is unsafe speak up and be assertive!

Everyone knows the final reponsibility/decision rests in the cockpit's left seat.

[Loose rivets]

"err...we should be okay". Is just a noise that leaks out of the brain...when its workload suddenly increased exponentially. As suggested above, wait a moment or two and then ask again.



Despite my initial reaction, there was a time when I really could have done with some decisive input from ATC.

After a very long break, I found myself in the left seat of a sizable turbo-prop--with about 10 hours PIC on type (not counting line-check time). For some obscure reason, my F/O was taken out of the loop on long finals. There was a lot of stratus about, and some of it was filled with hills. It usually takes me a couple of hundred hours before I can take a new aircraft by the b@lls and still keep a passenger standard of smoothness, so being high, I asked for an orbit. (This was fairly common at this airfield)

About 90 degrees into the turn I was asked if I was in VMC. I said I was still IMC, and there were all sorts of non-decisive noises as a reply. I took very decisive action to get my but out of the granite filled level and prepared myself for tea and bikkies.

[Anotherflapoperator]

I would like to think the ATC I work with do have a good idea of what I'm ale to do, but occasionally I'm shown to be wrong.

Manchester have a habit of slowing us (146) down in the WAL area on approach to IOM to sequence us with far slower J31s and the like. I do wish they'd fan us out and let nature take it's course instead. This last few months, this initiative has seen us arrive at KELLY far too high, above and in front of the preceeding traffic, despite slowing right down.

It's just one instance, but shows that the awareness of what we do is lacking in some controllers regarding the relationship of TAS to IAS and MACH. I am often asked on quieter apps to LGW if X miles is enough, but for a 146 a 2:1 is easily manageable with little discomfort down back.

Unfortunately, all we can do to attempt a CDA approach is refer to the booklet that was sent out as we have no VNAV data available and it's purely seat of the pants. A second or third range check would help here, as would not sending us on a tour of deepest Kent.

Generally, I have no complaints, and as I once learned from an Ex Police Advanced Driving Instructor, the important thing is that one of you takes the decision, more than who it actually is. ( the subject was overtaking a parked car in oncoming traffic BTW)

If the crew are uncertain in their reply is the distance is enough, then make the decision and give them another two or three miles anyway. If they want to orbit in hilly terrain, rmember you mum might be down the back and by all means tell them to do a missed approach. Better if you can offer a vectored circuit to reposition though, time and workload allowing.

It's uncertainty, misheard communication and indecision that frequently forms the chain of events in accident investigations.

Positive control where it is obvious has saved many a life. Dithering has caused many a death. If I as a pilot am unsure, and you the controller are not, them be decisive and make the safe decision for me. We can always chat on the phone later if need be.

[tribekey]

AS an ATCO with quite a few years experience i have noticed a decline in standards in some areas of aviation. Now, i'll grant you that this is extremely difficult to quantify but i'd be interested in opinions on the following few points;

ATCO training course has been gradually shortened to the point where new area controllers no longer do the aerodrome course as they used to do- surely this can only lead to a deterioration in the appreciation of how the whole atc system works?

R/t , particularly amongst g/a pilots has deteriorated, readbacks often have to be prompted a few times and understanding of the difference between FIS/RIS and RAS seems to be occasionally lacking. Again it's fairly subjective but noticeable.

Unfortunately the appreciation of why knowledge about other parts of the industry is important seems to be ebbing away and an attitude that each person only needs to know his or her little bit is prevailing (which of course is driven by and drives cost).

opinions?

[issi noho]

Just a small point, generally, the person who says ' errr should be OK' is not the person manipulating the controls, I would expect that the handling pilot having heard those words was doing one of a number of things;

1 punching the idiot who uttered them - as there was no need to be anything less than positive as everything was under control and now we're going to get extra miles because the controller thinks we're useless

2 giving the idiot who uttered them a really hard stare - CRM friendly - because everything was under control etc

3 calling the idiot who uttered them a twxt whilst preparing to demonstrate they're incredible piloting skills because we were obviously high and now we have to get to cleared level way before the glide in the extra miles given because the controller thinks we're useless, thus regaining the moral high ground that the success of the approach was never in doubt. (when they could have just asked for a suitable number of miles)

unfortunately there is no stock 413 phrase for the question you ask so you get off the cuff replies which there may be a number of interpretation to.

[M609]

Only have 5 years on the clock as a controller, but I've seen sitiations that made me uncomfortable. A/C coming in very hot and high on visuals due several things, and on ILS/LLZ due over correction due temp and/or wind on a tailwind (on req) approach.

I've spoken up a couple of times, in the polite "..you are 10nm from THR, are you able to make it straight in..." while at 5500ft on the ILS kind of way.
Some elected to go arround, some pressed on, and used all 2.5km to get it stopped.

A collauge in Sweden (many moons ago) had a Spanair MD80 do a 360 on final in sh**e weather to loose hight. It lost ground reference and performed a missed approach way offset from CL and bottomed out below the treeline in the vicinity.
He beat himself up for not refusing the orbit.

It's difficult to know when to speak I think. I got a bol***ing from a pilot because I pointed out that mode C indicated that he was not correcting for temprature and/or had the wrong pressure setting. (-28C at the time)
I was told to mind my own etc.....

[West Coast]

"..you are 10nm from THR, are you able to make it straight in..."

From this pilots perspective, you've met any obligation you might think you have with this question. The rest is up to the crew.

[Willit Run]

Pilots and controllers need to check their ego's at the front door of the house.
Above all, we are all human and we ALL make mistakes. We as pilots may be paired up with a un-cooperative mate, an inexperienced mate, or be really tired from an all nighter/multiple timezone changes. We may just be having a bad day. I appreciate the help and prodding from ATCO's.You are part of the CRM we use daily. But, Don't ask us to produce miracles or be magicians. Please be polite, please!
I fly cargo now, we can do alot and not have to worry about upsetting the pax. But, we may have cows, or horses or whales on board or hazmat. We like to make smooth approaches too.

ATCO's, try and get some Fam rides on various types, or try and have some one on one chats with pilots to ask about their performance parameters. Your little book that says what we can do, i think is kinda flawed.
Some of the requests we get in various parts of europe for instance, make us start laughing or shaking our heads in disbelief. Do you really think we are climbing at 300 feet a minute because we want to? Asking us to increase our climb to 1500 fpm or more is laughable.

Please be helpful! Please be polite. When ATCO's are nasty, we tend to not want to be helpful. That goes both ways too, I know!

ATCO's are here to help the pilots. We must all work together.

Going into Newark, we are asked regularly to maintain 180 knots until 4 dme. To be configured and on speed and stable, well that ain't happenin! We try to compromise as best we can, but we can't do all that and stand on one foot and juggle too. When you ask alot of us, you are basically asking us to break our SOP's.

747 approach speeds can vary as much as 40 knots. Trying to lose 40 knots in a short distance can be tough if your light.

Anyway, yes, I like it when your pro-active! Keep up the good work!

[A310driver]

Right(spot) on Radar!

[calypso]

When you hear "Errrrrr......" that normally corresponds to the non handling pilot looking at the handling pilot for confirmation that he/she is happy to proceed. "it will be OK" comes after the non handling pilot has received that confirmation.

[ZeBedie]

ATCOJ30, I think your concerns are valid. We have F/O 's with 200 hours, captains with less broad experience and less total experience than in the past. I also think it's a shame that NATS stopped providing flying experience for controllers. When I started flying, a lot of controllers were ex military crew or ATC.

Don't authorise what you're not happy with, if you have concerns, state them, bluntly. I'm less enthusiastic about, for example, a controller ordering a go-around because he thinks the approach is unstable. Again, I'd rather just have it pointed out to me.

[Earthmover]

Well, I for one thought that there was no choice in this matter in the UK: to quote MATS part 1:

"A landing aircraft, which is considered by a controller to be dangerously positioned on final approach shall be instructed (my italics) to carry out a missed approach. An aircraft can be considered as 'dangerously positioned' when it is poorly placed either laterally or vertically for the landing runway"

This authority has been used recently (source: AAIB bulletins) at Aldergrove and Bristol, when aircraft were respectively instructed to " climb immediately" when it was evident it was going to land at the wrong airport, and in the other incident, to go around after a mis-placed orbit.

Seems a reasonable piece of legislation to me. If I ever do something like this then please be as assertive as you like.

[Willit Run]

I-FORD

Absolutely not!

The controlers have vast experience looking at radar and they can tell if someone is high/fast/low/ slow/right or left. They see the same aircraft all day most every day. They see the data, they can tell if its normal or not!
In the interest of safety, i would grant them the right to do so. WE as pilots are not always having a good day!

[West Coast]

Willit
I can be on a 10 mile final significantly higher than I'd like (nominal 3 to 1) and still be stabilized by 1000 AAE. Yes, the controller can certainly recognize an aircraft when its outside its normal parameters from experience, the best option is a "hey, you gonna make it down?" call. I don't want the controller crawling in the cockpit with me, just the same I don't want the pilot trying to control the big picture.

[F4F]

PPRuNe Radar Controllers are there to assist pilots so they can conduct a safe flight

Could'nt agree more!
Thing is, as already stated in different forms above, each aircraft has its flight characteristics and each pilot its flying style :)

Regarding final approach everybody agrees, we have to establish on the more or less standard 3° approach path of the glide:

First question, how to join this path? Most of the folks I fly with go for the conservative (fuel guzzling and noisy but nerve saving) method intercept from below. Second group (I sure try to be in those...) trying to get a simultaneous GS/LOC capture (star) while accomplishing a constant descent initial approach. The last group (to which I sometimes admit being part of) coming, as a result of some mis-calculation, from above the glide, then having to get all the tricks out of the box to save the day, all the while still staying withing FDM limits.
Question "track miles xx, can you make it?". The question could also sometimes be "do you want to make it". Considerations of pitch down attitude, use of speed brakes/air brakes, and again limits of FDM are factors which are weighed by the pilot before answering, and here goes the "eerr". I guess good pilots should be ready for a yes or no answer at all times during the approach.

Second question, when to start the initial descent. Modern FMS permits normal jet descent, e.g. open/profile or level change descent. Despite the fact that the actual jet aircraft has been designed for this kind of descent, I see most F/Os calculating a 3° descent slope for the whole descent...
On the aircraft I fly, approaching MAN and being instructed "descent at discretion FL200 to be level 25NM before TNT" means prompting the AFCAS for an automatic descent, then approaching the profile give it some ROD as to increase pax comfort for a gentle start of the descent. Again, I would not argue this is THE BEST way, only a matter of individual style.

Finally the best safety argument is to exercise caution in the pilot / ATCO interaction. Both groups have been observed to screw up at one time or another :cool:

[calypso]

Well lets flip the omelete. How would you feel as an ATCO if a pilot on short finals asked another traffic not to line up on the runway as it judged the separation to be compromised. I can conceive a situation where it could be justified and it may prevent an incident or worse but.... it would be an extremely rear event and only justified in extremis.
If I am about to hit something by all means scream (anything!) at me but regarding the profile other factors that ATCOS cannot tell come into play (weight, wind, temperature, anti-ice...).

[Rananim]

Interesting thread.
Assertive ATCO's are a blessing IMHO.Take some examples:
-Everglades crash.An assertive ATCO would have prevented that crash by issuing a direct command to the EAL crew to climb immediately to 2000 feet.Instead he asked "How are things going?" when he noticed the altitude readout dangerously low.
-A320 crash BAhrain.The controller authorized an orbital maneuver when the pilot was hot and high first time round.When the pilot screwed it up again,an assertive ATCO would have said "Fly the published Missed approach" followed by "Cleared for the procedural".The pilot was obviously incapable of flying a visual approach and an assertive ATCO would have tired of his incompetence and took command of the situation.
-Lexington just recently.Theres no doubt an assertive ATCO,or lets just say a competent ATCO,would have prevented this woeful tragedy.
-Tenerife,the most infamous disaster of them all.An assertive ATCO would have undoubtedly helped prevent it.
-Cali.This is a tricky one because just like Tenerife,language problems complicate the matter considerably.Sometimes its difficult for an ATCO to be assertive in his/her second language.They havent the confidence in their command of English to say what they want exactly.If the feedback from the pilots isnt immediate and explicit,they mustnt be afraid to get assertive and do what is required(ie.Approach clearance cancelled,climb immediately to MSA,enter the hold at Cali,report entering).His mindset just became"Look guys,you cant even give me your correct position,I dont have radar and I'm getting nervous about this,so to hell with the straight-in,you can damn well fly the full procedure."

All of the above accidents were caused by pilot error.However,an alert and assertive ATCO would have prevented each and every one.It comes down to the difference between a competent ATCO and a great ATCO.Admittedly,theres a bit of hindsight bias in all I say,but I still stand by it.

We have no shortage of assertive ATCO's in the States and I think its what makes the system work so well.You couldnt handle the traffic we have if they werent so intolerant.

[Dream Land]

Assertive is good, it's a pleasure listening to a good approach controller doing his job, along the same lines, most experienced ATCO's can tell by response time, RT phraseology etc. whether or not a pilot is experienced or not and will take that into consideration. An assertive controller will get better cooperation from pilot's IMHO. I once worked with an assertive controller that saved the day years ago when she noticed a faint target behind the a/c on a PAR approach, she immediately checked the flight schedule and confirmed it was the banner tow aircraft with 2000 ft of banner, great save!

[ATC Watcher]

To be assertive when you are right is a good thing . To be assertive when you are not so sure is where it becomes difficult.
I do not mind anybody (and that includes my wife !) to be assertive once in a while if in the end he/she is proved right.

As to controllers telling pilots what to do when they do not feel at ease with what they see ( the original question basically) this also depends a lot on the controller education and his position in the social ladder in his country. The UK and US might be fine , but the examples taken earlier of Cali, Teneriffe (in 1977) , Bahrain , etc..are prime examples where controllers did not have the training, nor the authority to be assertive to Pilots.
If one take Brazil , and the recent accident there, the Brasilia ACC controllers involved were all military with rank sargeant at most.

But in the present and certainly in the future, not acting as a controller when you spot something wrong will get you most probably in jail if it ends in twisted metal.
. I very recently followed a legal seminar on this subject, and everyone present , the judges, the Barristers and the Aviation States prosecutors ( they were a few of them including the UK one ) all said the same thing : Controllers can no longer hide behind books not to execrcise their " duty of care " . In other words , controllers in case of accidents will be judged ( and sentenced ) for what they have not done rather than for their direct actions.

Now, when I fly and when I get ( very seldomly because I am so good :E ) a " direction " or a " correction " by a fellow controller, I follow it first and eventually, if I am not happy with it, discuss it later in the bar.:ok:

[FullWings]

To be assertive when you are right is a good thing . To be assertive when you are not so sure is where it becomes difficult.
I do not mind anybody (and that includes my wife !) to be assertive once in a while if in the end he/she is proved right.

I would even argue that in this instance, it doesn't matter whether ATC are right or wrong about whether an aircraft can complete an approach from a particular position. They are moving the whole operation in the direction of increased safety.

I'm not sure why pilots have a problem with this - when ATC tell you "turn left heading 200 degrees" or "descend altitude 4000 feet" or even "GO AROUND, I SAY AGAIN, GO AROUND, follow standard missed approach procedure" do you immediately prepare a counter-argument or start frothing at the mouth with the indignity of it all? :rolleyes:

I am all for assertive ATC, I mean it's supposed to be a CONTROLLED environment isn't it? It's good to know that there are still some ATC'ers left who will try and stop a dangerous situation developing by timely intervention, rather than waiting for the "whoop-whoop" (or the crash :ouch:).

You don't have to look back far in aviation history to see what happens when you combine pilots having a bad day with wishy-washy controlling. I don't know when my next bad day will be; I hope it never comes but if it does I'd like ATC to speak up with their concerns sooner rather than later...

[Bedder believeit]

I have been a controller in Australia, Dubai and Hong Kong for some 36 years, and basically I spend my whole time training locals (in HK). It just about drives me nuts when I have to try and force people to be a bit assertive when it is culturally difficult for them. Of course I also try and keep my students from "hopping into the cockpit". The basic problem here, and no doubt in most other places, is that many of the young student controllers recruited these days, have little or no base interest in aviation. Well, that is certainly the case in Hong Kong. I often ask new arrivals as to why they are with me in the tower, and 90% of the time the answer is: "I saw the advertisement in the paper". Obviously this doesn't neccessarily apply to places like the UK etc, but it is what I am seeing. As to the observations on comments such as "Do you think you will be able to make a successful approach from where you are?" and some of the responses from pilots, well just remember that we are trying to be a part of the picture also, and if we can anticipate the likely hood of a missed approach (particularly in IMC)..the earlier the better. We have our issues and jobs to do to ensure separation with parallel departures, so we are not just sitting in the tower/Approach radar sipping tea and twiddling our thumbs. There is an interesting air/ground clip doing the rounds on the internet at the moment with the Kennedy (NY) ground controller having fun with a number of aircraft, both US and foreign, well that guy is being assertive, as one would expect from that neck of the woods, but he sure aint achieving much! So I guess the bottom line as I see it, is to have the right amount of assertiveness to be useful!

[West Coast]

I guess we need to define terms. If asking if you're going to make it down because the controller see's the acft is high on final is asseretive, then I'm all for it. If the controller decides that he or she is going to issue a go around because of the exact same situation, then I have a problem.

[rab-k]

this doesn't neccessarily apply to places like the UK etc,

Sadly, you'd better believe it - it does apply in the UK and I suspect given the current changes to the training regime that this situation will become the norm here also.

One useful piece of advice I found particularly amusing as a trainee was that "Pilots are like dogs - if they sense fear in your voice, you've had it!"

Don't quite know how to put that principle to effect via CPDLC however :}

[aviosaurus]

OK, based on almost thirty years working in ATC and ten more for an airline (and nearly 2,000 hours private flying), it's a situation based on a combination of experience and confidance.

When operational, if I was unconfortable with a particular situation, I would ask if (my) intended flight path for that particular aircraft was aceptable.

When (rarely, thank god) I found my sphincter muscle bouncing between sixpence and half-a-crown I would give an instruction - occasionally in fairly forcefull terms - to resolve the situation.
I offer no apologies for these actions - I would much farther be criticised by the pilot afterwards than receive an "invitation" to their funeral.

Les.