Pilot 'owns' the runway after landing clearance

[Final 3 Greens]

Hi Guys

Would someone care to comment on post #101 on the thread below? Responding to a post on the previous page.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=283737&page=6

I've always understood that ATC can send someone around at any stage, over to you......

[Singe]

The runway belongs to ATC who can change instructions as and when neccessary

[Single Spey]

And a pilot can ignore ATC instructions if in following them he believes that the safety of his aircraft or its occupants will be compromised. ;)

[opnot]

Single Spey
I clear you to land , the runway is clear.
I send you around ,the runway is occupied which would prevent a safe landing.
Where does your posting fit in between the above statements

[Single Spey]

I clear you to land , the runway is clear.


But I'm going too fast to stop in the available distance/ there is a sudden gust/crosswind which I am unable to cope with, so it would be unsafe for me to continue without hazarding the aircraft or pax. My call.

I send you around ,the runway is occupied which would prevent a safe landing.

If by going around I would be putting the aircraft into flight conditions which I cannot accept or which the aircraft is not cleared for - and my judgement is that I can land safely without hazarding the aircraft in front. It is still my call as I am responsible for the safety of my flight.

You as an ATCO are responsible for providing separation - I am responsible for the safety of the aircraft, its passengers, third parties and for collision avoidance. ;)

[flower]

And a pilot can ignore ATC instructions if in following them he believes that the safety of his aircraft or its occupants will be compromised.
Because of course ATCOs love giving instructions which compromise a pilots safety :hmm::rolleyes:

[Barnaby the Bear]

I would like to think a pilot wouldn't just ignore an instruction, but at the very least query it. :=
I the case mentioned, I agree with Single Spey that ultimately the pilot is responsible for the safety of his/her aircraft. However be prepared to back up you reasons when the subsequent forms are filed.
There is usally a very good reason why an ATCo will send you around aircraft which may not just include other a i.e the vehicle that has been seen passing the hold.... the deer spotted about to leg it across the runway :ok:

[Spitoon]

Sad to see a lot of 'us and them' posts going on at the moment - so I'll try to avoid doing it myself.

To answer the original post, the comment made in #101 in the other thread is incorrect. Period.

There are a multitude of subtleties and nuances in the rules about how ATC is done - the interpretation of some fundamental points differs between countries. A couple of principles can normally be assumed. First that ATC will have a reason for taking any particular decision or issuing any particular instruction. It won't always be the decision that suits everybody best because we don't live in an ideal world but it will be made with safety in mind (i.e. controllers do not normally issue a clearance that will not result in a safe outcome). Remember, too, that no pilot will have all of the information that the controller has and so it is not possible for a pilot to second guess the reason for a decision. Unfortunately it is not possible to explain all of the factors that affect an controller's decision making process in a Pprune post - that's why it takes a while to train to be a controller.

The second principle is that the pilot is responsible for the safety of his/her aircraft and that may mean that, in extremis, the pilot does something contrary to the rules or an ATC instruction. In this case, just as a controller will have to do if rules are broken, the pilot will have to have a darned good justification.




Oh, what the hell................. I like to think that I'm a fairly easy-going sort but I do get a little riled when an idiot who - if his/her profile is true - has the experience level of PPL and nothing more than a C172 under their control comes out with tripe like #101. Not only is it out and out wrong but is plants ridiculous ideas into other people's minds.

[chiglet]

singke spey...
But I'm going too fast to stop in the available distance/ there is a sudden gust/crosswind which I am unable to cope with, so it would be unsafe for me to continue without hazarding the aircraft or pax. My call.
Question 1....Why are you going too fast?
Question 2....Did you not get "wind checks" on finals
I have seen go arounds at 3 miles......:D and in the flare :ok:
One was due to RVR and 'tother a Snow squall.
But they were Professional [ Pilots :E
watp,iktch

[Single Spey]

chiglet
Question 1....Why are you going too fast?


To get away from the Piper who is gaining on me because ATC scr**ed up the integration of joining and circuit traffic.:p

[megaphone25]

I think single spey is pretty spot on.He can override atc's instructions as long as he has the justification and the kahona's to back it up in the aftermath.

I've seen it before in fog where a pilot was cleared for take off when there was an aircraft lost on the airfield. The pilot refused until the said aircraft was found. Atc got angry and lost rag!. Turned out lost aircraft was sat on runway, would have been big boo boo!

In the end they are on the plane and i'm not, I think if they feel that it's not safe then it probably isn't.

[Single Spey]

Spitoon

Fully agree with your points, from the controllers point of view.


Remember, too, that no pilot will have all of the information that the controller has and so it is not possible for a pilot to second guess the reason for a decision.


However also remember that no controller will have all of the information that the pilot has and so it is not possible for a controller to second guess the reason for a pilots course of action. :ok:

[Riverboat]

Yes, too many us and thems. Both the ATCO and the commander of the aircraft concerned are obviously trying to ensure a safe operation, and actually they are working in a complementary manner. Both need to do a good job to ensure safety.

But, and this is no slight whatsoever on the ATCO, it is patently the aircraft commander's job to ensure his aircraft's safety, and he can legally override any ATC instruction in that endeavour.

Yes, there'll be an MOR and the whole matter will be looked into if he or she does defy an ATCO's instuction, but the pilot is the person in the aicrraft and it is logical that that person has to make the final decision. This final decision is, of course, nearly always to follow the ATCO's instruction, as the Commander knows that the ATCO is probably in a better position to make a decision on most relevant issues.

But not weather. If the Commander decides he must land off the approach and the ATCO says "go around" due weather (which should not happen in Britain), the Commander can exercise his prerogative knowing he is legally able to. Whether he was right to do so is a different matter, and this will be determined subsequently.

If I may make one comment about some of the aggressive ATCO responses (I assume they come from ATCOs, but they may not). Get that chip off your shoulder! You do a brilliant job and should be proud to be a part of a successful business, but pilots also do a pretty decent job over all, and both professions work as a team. Same comment to those snotty pilots who think they are God's gift to aviation.

[Spitoon]

However also remember that no controller will have all of the information that the pilot has and so it is not possible for a controller to second guess the reason for a pilots course of action.
True, but in normal operations (i.e. not an emergency situation for the aircraft), the controller is very likely to have the better overall understanding. No argument in an emergency but at other times the controller will simply be doing his/her job. If that entails instructing an aircraft to go around so be it. Of course, good practise would suggest that the pilot should be told why but a pilot who assumes that once cleared to land means the runway is theirs despite instructions to the contrary - the original question - is both wrong and foolish.

[Bearcat]

with respect to ATCO's and I deal with you ever day of my working life, I depend on you and like wise you depend on us to not f it up........but single spey has some very valid points that will erk you. Bottom line is no matter what side of the fence you are on, there will be occassions when stong calls are made on both sides to make it happen...courts of enquiries are there to facilitate when issues arise. HR leave it with the smart reply.:=

[Point Seven]

I'm an ATCO and here is my spin on it:

You instruct an aircraft to go around for whatever reason. There are only 2 people who truly know the exact status of the flight that you have sent around - one is in the left hand seat, the other in the right.

Now, should there be some overpowering reason for them to land the aircraft and they are fully aware of the situation, if they elect to land it is their call - ANO states that the final responsibility for a flight rests with the commander of the flight blah, blah, blah. If they subsequently weld it into something (God forbid) THEY will have to a/. justify their decision and b/. live with the consequences.

ATCOs play a vital part but sometimes, just sometimes, we get a little carried away with our own importance. So let's cut these guys with 100 million quid planes under their control a little bit of slack.

P7

[5milesbaby]

I think the diplomatic answer is that the Airport Authority owns the runway at all times so if a pilot decides to land without the appropriate clearance then they will have to have a damn good reason for doing so, likewise if a controller uses the runway inappropriately they they have answers to give too. End of.

[PPRuNe Radar]

ATCOs play a vital part but sometimes, just sometimes, we get a little carried away with our own importance. So let's cut these guys with 100 million quid planes under their control a little bit of slack.

Any slack for those of us who pilot craft under £100M in value ?? :}

[172driver]

Oh, what the hell................. I like to think that I'm a fairly easy-going sort but I do get a little riled when an idiot who - if his/her profile is true - has the experience level of PPL and nothing more than a C172 under their control comes out with tripe like #101. Not only is it out and out wrong but is plants ridiculous ideas into other people's minds.

Spitoon, I am the idiot you are referring to and my public profile is correct (usually fly something slightly bigger, but definitely below the 100 million Pound mark ;))

It would have been good if you had read the posts I was replying to and my subsequent ones. Almost all my flying is done in CAS with ATC and I know very well that you can send me around at any time. However, please read the previous posts on the other thread (assuming they are correct), have a think, and then reply again.

[flower]

I am sat here watching posts by a few individuals whom I would describe as armchair critics, trying their very best to undermine ATCOs and belittle the work they do, bringing into question their professionalism and training standards.
Let me say now that it takes a very particular type of person to become an ATCO, look at all the threads on here by wannabees who sadly didn't even get past the selection phase or who fall by the wayside during training. To get to a point where you hold your own licence and can sit their on your own controlling is a hugely difficult process and it has taken a long time and in that time they have learnt a far more comprehensive air law than the PPL.
We are well aware that ultimate responsibility for the aircraft lies with the commander but we have a huge knowledge behind us to ensure we assist that commander to the nth degree , we are there not just to separate IFR aircraft but to provide as service to all aircraft.
Safety is at the forefront of every ATCOs brain, it comes before everything. We will not knowingly place an aircraft into a dangerous situation.

Flying VFR we rely on pilots to assist us with weather reporting, our radars don't tell us where the weather is hence the normal clearance includes "maintain VMC" in crossing clearances, we expect you to advise us if you cannot maintain VMC. It is a partnership of trust.
Most of the time in the UK we get it very right occasionally of course we don't but having sat for more years than I care to remember working LARS I can assure you many GA pilots don't get it right, infact they can be very scary but we sit there and we do our best for them.

It is frustrating beyond belief to come to a forum to have a few individuals who believe they have knowledge because they fly a bit to hear them attempt to belittle ATC I note it is almost always PPLs and not the guys with more qualifications who do this , in responding to those comments we are described as arrogant or have a chip on our shoulders. We seem to be the one profession in aviation that everyone else thinks they know and thinks they can do and we have to sit here week in week out whilst people deride us.

I would say to anyone who thinks they know it all to go and sit for a day in an OPS room listening to what happens both on and off mike you will then maybe realise that there is one hell of a lot more to ATC than a few instructions.
Most of my colleagues here will be careful in how they respond as they are well aware they have careers to consider, I don't any longer so I shall speak up for my colleagues to say give it a rest , by all means question we enjoy answering genuine questions but stop the needling criticism and read what they write, all you are doing at the moment is creating a them and us scenario but I think that is actually what you want.

[pbrookes]

Nicely put Flower.

I am a microlight PPL and have the highest respect for ATCOs 'cos I know that you guys would never knowingly put me in danger, and if I get myself in difficulties you guys will do your utmost to help.

Unfortunately, accidents will happen, but if we trust one another, they will be fewer and further between!

[opnot]

single spey
it you wish to overide my instructions thats your perogative as the commander of the acft.
if you go around, for what ever reason ,after been given landing clearance thats your decision. which I dont have a problem with, seen it happen on many occasions.
If I send you around because the rwy is occupied by acft. vehicle, animal human.etc etc how could you overide that instruction, continue to land, therefore endangering your acft and occupants

[mm_flynn]

Well said opnot. As a pilot, I struggle to see any valid reason (excepting an emergency) for not complying with a go around instruction issued while still in the air.

[AFA]

Opnot,

Years ago my old man had severe smoke & fumes in the flightdeck which was getting worse. He was ordered to go-around due to a light aircraft which had infringed the runway at an intersection. He made the decision that he had enough r/w to land and even if he didn't, clipping the piper in his Tristar would still be worth the risk rather than burning up in the subsequent circuit. So, as it was his arse strapped to the aeroplane he made the call, landed safely and was fully supported by the company and the authorities in the later investigation.
Just an example i know of where a legitimate go-around instruction was overridden for good reason in the interests of the aircraft and it's passengers.
We would never normally dream of disregarding or even questioning an instruction from you guys but ultimately, if after an incident you as the captain are questioned on your actions, answering "i did it because ATC told me to" just isn't going to cut it.
Keep up the great work, still such a relief to be back under London control after 13hrs flying!

Cheers

[bookworm]

True, but in normal operations (i.e. not an emergency situation for the aircraft), the controller is very likely to have the better overall understanding.

At the risk of fanning the flames here, I can't let this go unchallenged. Risk management is more than just a binary state of emergency or not-emergency. It's never as clear cut as that.

A controller is likely to have a more complete picture as regards collision risk. But collision risk is a rather small part of the overall risk management picture in aviation -- what proportion of fatal accidents are the result of collisions? The other risks to an aircraft can often only be appreciated by those sitting in the cockpit.

Those controllers and pilots both have incomplete understanding of the entire picture -- different views of the same picture. Most of the time, that doesn't matter, as the actions required are consistent with both risk management views. In cases where the views conflict, mutual understanding is required. Too many controllers out there obsessed with separation for separation's sake, too many pilots obsessed with the needs of their own aircraft.

[mm_flynn]

It is useful to remember the context of the original question

An aircraft on very short final and cleared to land is suddenly given a go around instruction - Pilot A claims "After I am cleared to land I 'own' the runway and can just land anyhow" - Question, Is Pilot A right?

There is no aircraft emergency just the normal issue of configuration change from approach to departure. I would love to hear of some aircraft or environment where one can not safely execute this manoeuvre. As such I believe the answer to the question is - "Pilot A you are incorrect"

We seem a bit stuck in the 'who has the better picture box' and what about in an emergency (which of course allows the pilot to do whatever is necessary to achieve a safe outcome). As bookworm said - each party has a better picture of some of the elements of risk.

It all works best if we work together.

[Spitoon]

bookworm, the example that prompted this thread is about landing clearances - and the issue of a landing clearance is largely determined by the risk of a collision on the runway. However, I have specifically talked only of principles and, as principles, the can be applied generally.

At no point have I intended to suggest that a controller can take on the decision-making related to many aspects of the safety of the aircraft but, on the contrary, I have tried to balance my comments with the non-normal situation in which a pilot can quite correctly act in a different manner than would be expected in response to an ATC instruction. I did not consider risk management issues because the thread was about the 'legality' of landing when a landing clearance had been cancelled (although for various reasons I could disappear along that particular tangent for hours if you really want!) .

As you rightly point out, neither pilot or controller will have the full picture but I stand by my statement that in normal operations, in the context of whether or not a landing clearance can be issued, the controller is likely to have the better understanding of the determining factors.

I agree that the application of 'separation for separation's sake' is not appropriate or desirable but I would argue that in many situations that is the primary role of a controller so you can hardly blame him or her for treating it as important. Of course, there are times when traffic is over-controlled and I would support you completely if you are suggesting that standard separation is sometimes unnecessarily applied when far less distance between aircraft would far better facilitate the safe and orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic.

Finally, having said all that about separation, I would also respectfully suggest that the role of an aerodrome controller is about far more than simply avoiding collisions.



172driver, you are quite correct that before my earlier post I only skimmed through the other thread. As you advocated, I have now read the thread carefully. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I find nothing that inclines me to change my view.

Your statement that 'Once cleared, the rwy is yours, period.' is incorrect. I will reiterate my concerns that making the statement can cause much harm by planting a fundamentally incorrect idea into minds that have not previously questioned the point.

In your later post on the other thread you ask 'Some of the ATCOs here care to comment ?'. I have done just that. And I'll repeat it once again - your assertion that ''Once cleared, the rwy is yours' is wrong. The way in which landing clearances are issued in different parts of the world do differ (particularly in respect of the application of ICAO SARPs on anticipated landing clearance), however, I would be interested to know what rules you believe support your assertion (and just to play fair, I'm happy to enter debate about international or UK rules).

[bookworm]

As you rightly point out, neither pilot or controller will have the full picture but I stand by my statement that in normal operations, in the context of whether or not a landing clearance can be issued, the controller is likely to have the better understanding of the determining factors.

I wholeheartedly agree with that, just thought the general points were worth making. The key, I reckon, is for both parties to be constantly aware that they may not have complete information.

[DFC]

Once cleared to land the runway is yours.

If that clearance is cancelled the runway is no longer yours.

Issuing a new clearance cancels the previous.

Simple.

If ATC issue a clearance to land and then have to send you round because of a vehicle on the runway, ATC have an MOR to write so taking Captains Authority and landing anyway will just add to the number of words on the form but could change the investigation from incident to accident.

Regards,

DFC

[low n' slow]

Indeed a very interesting thread. I started thinking in broader terms. Would any ATCO call a go around once an aircraft has actually landed, in the terms of forcing them to do a balked landing?

/LnS

[172driver]

Spitoon, I'm pleased to see that this moves to a civilized debate. I should have probably worded my comment on the other thread differently, agreed. I certainly do not claim to be perfect, hence also my comment 'Would any ATCOs care to comment', which you and others have.

I would, however, point out, that my original comment was made excluding emergency situations or conditional clearances. You ask which rules I believe to give rise to my thinking - FAA is the answer. Comments ?

In a way I guess DFC has really summed it up nicely and I - probably - stand corrected.

All that said, my original post was made in reply to this post (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3415243&postcount=97) by someone who was asked to orbit from a short final position. Comments invited.

[opnot]

172 driver
when I trained to becombe a controller we were taught to fly (ppl license) therefore I knew the limitations of light acft.
I was then posted to a unit with 4 flying clubs and was able to apply these limitations when integrating light acft with their heavier bretheren
Nowdays you could be at a unit with minimal GA movements and no Ga experience and there this is where you get told to orbit on final approach rather than go around

[Dysonsphere]

Dont really see the problem if ATC tell you to go around and you carry on to land its up to you to justfy why you did ,you might have a valid reason if so the inquiry will show this if not its yout head.

[West Coast]

The priorities of the PIC and that of the controller are not always the same at any given time.

[Spitoon]

LnS, in extreme circumstances it's possible but is a good example of when I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if the pilot totally ignored the controller. It's a very similar case to cancelling a take-off clearance when an aircraft has started to roll - a couple of years ago I recall seeing some guidance from the CAA to help controllers when faced with circumstances where they might feel the need to do this.

The problem is that cancelling a take-off clearance after the aircraft rolls, as is often the case when instructing an aircraft to go-around, there is very little time available to make the decision and transmit the instruction. An ideal might be for the controller to explain the problem to the pilot (giving both a better underdstanding of the situation) and agreeing a course of action. In the real world, of course, all this has to happen in a split second and so the controller should assess the risks and do the best thing that their professional judgement determines.

The vast majority of the time all of the things we are talking about on this thread are done efficiently and safely by the pilots and controllers involved. Unfortunately we only tend to debate it on the relatively rare occasion when it doesn't go well. If I recall correctly the guidance on cancelling take-off clearances was issued because, despite years of sensible use of the procedure where appropriate, a couple of controllers made poor judgement calls within a matter of weeks.

172driver, I'm always civilised - if slightly tongue in cheek at times. I'm not famiar with the detailed FAA rules (hence my offer to debate UK or ICAO rules only) but I believe they are very close to the ICAO SARPs. However I would offer the following thoughts - and maybe an FAA controller may care to comment or correct me. An aircraft can be given an anticiapted landing clearance if, amongst other conditions, there is a reasonable assurance that the runway will be clear by the time the aircraft gets to the threshold. As with any clearance, if circumstances change and the clearance is no longer valid then the controller will cancel or amend it. An anticipated landing clearance is still a landing clearance and if for some reason the controller no longer has assurance that the runway will be clear when the aircraft gets there, I would expect the clearance to be cancelled.

In essence any clearance is valid until it's 'used up', cancelled or amended.

As to the situation in the post you refer to, it's impossible to comment without more details but as I mentioned in an earlier post, good practise would suggest that the pilot should be told why he or she is being sent around simply to avoid the pilot feeling the way he/she obviously does to have made the post.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I would like to think a pilot wouldn't just ignore an instruction, but at the very least query it.
Depends on circumstances, eg how much time there was. One might

(1) negotiate, or:
(2) query, or:
(3) refuse, or:
(4) just get on with staying alive.

In all cases it would of course be polite to actually say something to ATC ... subject always to Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

(Most recently when I wasn't too keen on an ATC instruction I received I negotiated and got what I wanted. In this particular case I had plenty of time, and was prepared to do what I was told if the negotiation failed, but it's not always like that.)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Of course, there are many pilots who "know better". I was on the flight deck of a 747 landing at Heathrow sometime ago. After leaving the runway GMC told us to take the second intersection ahead (using the old block numbers). The captain said to the first officer "Oh , I think we'll take the first; it's an easier turn". I said: "And how do you know that a broken light fitting has not just been reported at that intersection athat might rip your tyres?" They took the 2nd intersection.

Of course no one person has the overall picture, same as no pilot or controller "owns" any part of the airfield but ATC has a far, far better idea of what's happening on the ground that the pilot. The pilot who ignores an ATC instruction to go-around without good reason is mighty foolish.

[Riverboat]

Heathrow Director: your last sentence is perfectly reasonable, of course. But there might be a time when the Commander HAS a good reason, and that is when he or she really needs to feel that they can and should make the final decision. Pretty rare these days, I admit.

However, only yesterday I saw and heard a controller giving take off clearance to an aircraft when there was another aircraft backtracking the runway. The pilot of the first aircraft didn't take-off! ATCOs, like anyone else, can err in judgement: no one is perfect all the time.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<But there might be a time when the Commander HAS a good reason>>

I believe that's what, in essence, I said.

[Carnage Matey!]

I was once instructed to hold half way round a bend at LHR and the controller was having none of it when I told her we couldn't stop there. It was only when I pointed out that our body gear was making disturbing sounds and we were quite likely to end up stuck there for some time if we didn't move pronto that she saw our side of things.:hmm:

[dash6]

I believe that this thread stems in part from the Southend Disaster. I know you might think the word "Disaster" is a bit strong,but it is disasterous ,in my view.
Trust has been lost.
I am an ex instructor,and presently commercial pilot. Ther seems to be a confusion in the industry about who is in charge of the operation.
With the deepest respect,to all "controllers" I'm in charge!
Perhaps we could help aviation safety and training by re-naming ATCOs Facilitators? That way,no young aviator would feel under such enormous pressure to obey instructions that may not be appropriate,or correctly phrased? (By the way,Before you all start,20,000hrs,and been dropped in it by ATC as often as they have dug me out;But it seems that skills and responsibility are being lost on both sides.

[Dont tell um pike]

your attitude would appear to be part of the problem not the solution :=

[anotherthing]

Perhaps we could help aviation safety and training by re-naming ATCOs Facilitators?

tosh, tosh, tosh, tosh, tosh!

As far as spatial awareness and an idea of the 'bigger picture' with regards to the traffic situation, no pilot has a better grasp than the ATCO.

With regards to the flight profile of the a/c at any given point and what will be a safe and reasonable manoeuvre, no ATCO has a better grasp of the situation than the pilot(s).

To even suggest calling ATCOs 'facilitators' will be the first step down a dangerous path. As time progressed, flight crews would become more and more convinced that they could argue the toss on any instruction.

In CAS , you obey the ATCO, unless you believe that the instruction places you in danger. Reports will be written and you will be either villified or vindicated.

Pilots and ATCOs must work as a team, neither could work without the other (notwithstanding UAVs). Together, they possess the whole picture. everyone makes mistakes, ATCOs and pilots alike. If time permits, a gentle nudge will probably sort the situation, if time is short, you do what you think is best and must be prepared to justify it.

Trying to second guess each other is not the way to safely achieve the inevitable increase in movements in the same sized airspace.

[Tarq57]

Indeed a very interesting thread. I started thinking in broader terms. Would any ATCO call a go around once an aircraft has actually landed, in the terms of forcing them to do a balked landing?

/LnS

I've thought about this a bit, and the sort of event that would cause a controller to even contemplate this territory is the sort of thing you generally only see in movies. Quite unlikely. Can't actually imagine a credible scenario that would cause me to command a go-round from after touchdown.
Far more likely that, in the event of a sudden unexpected "event" at that point, say, an imminent runway incursion, that a very direct warning would be issued to the crew, and let them decide what the safest thing to do is. That might be an overshoot, or a swerve, or maximum braking.

[flower]

In 16 years of controlling the only time i have ever had a pilot question my instructions and ask for an alternative was when weather was involved. We can't of course see weather on our radars ( well occasionally) and on those occasions you ask the pilot what they can take.
I think some are making a mountain out of a molehill out of what is I think a successful partnership between pilots and ATCOs.

As for calling us anything other than ATCOs well that shows a lack of understanding of the profession, but then we don't get many pilots visiting more is the pity. More Fam flights and more Pilot visits please.