Cathay Jackwagon

[bugg smasher]

So there we were, dozens of airplanes westbound over the Midwest, Kansas controller sends a Cathay bomber down 2000 feet as opposed to sending two Airbus aircraft down due traffic conflict. Ten minutes max at lower altitude, but Cathay pilot, Oz by the sound of it, bitches like the stuck pig he is, long rangers must have priority over the US transcons, or didn't ya know?.

WTF, over? Since when does Jardine Swire, of late, and the RAAF own the skies over America?

[Loose rivets]

Indignation rules. C'mon Bug Smasher, when all is said and done, controlling is all about pure logistical reasoning. Ah, knew there'd be a flaw in my argument.:rolleyes:

[Old Fella]

Bugg Smasher. Seems to me you have made a few assumptions there. Firstly, are you sure the CX guy was an Aussie? Secondly, how would you know whether or not he was an ex-RAAF pilot? Did he really "bitch like the stuck pig he really is"? or did he simply request an expedicious climb back to a higher level to get back to planned fuel burn. He was likely Hong Kong bound and wanting to avoid the fuel penalty of remaining below optimum level. Don't know what you fly but it is a bloody long way from the USA west-coast to HK and being kept low down can mean the difference between flying direct or having a diversion for fuel.

[INDPEN]

cathay rules all...didn't you know that?

[SKS777FLYER]

Bugsmasher....not to worry. Have you ever tried to taxi out of ...say.. Las Vegas if you are not Southwest Air?? Good luck getting onto taxiways until even the ones who won't call until 5 minutes after you call.

[411A]

ATC could well have handled the malcontent CX flight the way Tehran handled Speedbird one night a few years ago...when complaining about the lower level and needing possibly to refuel, Tehran ATC issued the THR weather and the contract fuel price, issued descent clearance (when ready) and further stated...y'alls welcome, we can offer a quick turn...Speedbird clammed up.
Gotta put 'em in their place.
The Brits and the Aussies are 'complainers'...in
the extreme.
Having said this, the CX boys and girls are trying to squeeze more dough out of Swire and Company (they'll be lucky)...and are quite militant at the present time.
Actually, I wish the CX guys (and gals) good fortune, as CX is making millions (billions) presently.
IE: pay up or...else.

[Old Fella]

411A What a surprise to read your recent post. My first thought on reading the post from Bugg Smasher was that you had been cloned. Why don't you get a life and find someone else besides Brits, Aussies or anyone with anything to do with CX to bag? Many of my friends are your fellow countrymen and I am sure they would share my view of your attitude to anyone who does not share your view. A phone box would look empty if you held a party in it and invited your friends, I suspect.

[411A]

...and find someone else besides Brits, Aussies or anyone with anything to do with CX to bag?
Because, Old Fella...the brits and aussies are such e-a-s-y targets.
Many of my comments are tongue in cheek...read between the lines.:E

[Koan]

At NRT I once heard a CX flight get some taxi delay when inbound to the stand. The response was the most arrogant and unprofessional outburst I ever heard on the radio starting with something about fuel cost and concluded with "I demand to know what's going on here". (Didn't help them to get to the gate any faster). You'd think the Skipper had to pay for the gas himself. :ugh:

[SloppyJoe]

Westbound over Midwest USA, he was not going to HKG. Atlanta -ANC, Miami - ANC is all I can think of as don't know what the freighters do but for sure don't fly over midwest US to HKG.

[Old Fella]

Koan, he was in a sense. CX have a "profit share" scheme as an incentive to save fuel as well as minimize other costs. That said, your story would be the exception rather than the rule and is not restricted to CX crews. Sloppy Joe, Bugg Smasher said "There we were". Maybe CX was crossing or opposite direction, I don't know nor do you. CX do operate JFK-HKG pax flights direct, but I am not sure of the route. They also fly JFK-YVR-HKG pax services. 411A, wish I could believe your comments are "tongue in cheek".

[Koan]

Koan, he was in a sense. CX have a "profit share" scheme as an incentive to save fuel as well as minimize other costs.

I'm also sure it was an exception. We of course have profit share and the same professional obligation to operate efficiently as well, and our fair share of wackos, but this was really outrageous. Absolutely laughed our aXXes of in the cockpit thinking what a drag it would be to fly with such a tosser. And yelling at the Japanese in particular is a very poor way to motivate them:O.

[weido_salt]

"The response was the most arrogant and unprofessional outburst I ever heard on the radio......"

He was possibly unsuited to live or operate outside his native surroundings.

I thought all the hoops etc., CX are renowned for, were supposed to weed out the sort of person who may exhibited this sort of tantrum. The crew are representing an employer. Would this behaviour be representative of company culture, one may indeed ask?

[SloppyJoe]

Old Fella,

OK my US geography may not be as good as your but how can a CX aircraft be over the midwest, going in ANY direction ,on its way to or from HKG. JFK to HKG goes pretty close to the north pole. JFK to YVR maybe had to go round a lot of weather? Yes I don't know but you know even less apparently. May have been a freighter that had fuel as its freight but other than that I doubt he was going to or from HKG.

[bugg smasher]

Old Fella,

He was instructed to descend 2000 feet for traffic conflict. He demanded to know the reason, the controller politely explained the options; either CX would have to descend, or two other aircraft would.

The CX pilot then demanded to know what the other two aircraft types were. On being told Airbus, he then asked their destinations, US west coast, and then gave the controller a mini-lecture on 'big' aircraft vs 'little' aircraft fuel burrns.

Arrogant and condescending in the extreme.

As informed, he was brought back up to his original level ten minutes later.

[The Wraith]

Jeez! Who cares where it was going? So the guy got pissed off on the radio....yeah, unprofessional. Whoopy doo. It happens, and Cathay don't have a monopoly on it. Never heard US pilots get pissed? Or the usual suspects, KLM?
Can't believe this non event has already generated such a long and pointless thread!:ugh:

[Traffic]

Trouble is everyone sounds like a stuck pig over US airspace these days. Must be the new scrotum squeezers deployed in Atlanta or Dallas who squeezed the residual good humour out of the boys on CX091:uhoh:

[act700]

bugsmasher,

I kinda have to agree with the CX crew--Airbi should always have to make way for Boeings...........:E

Old Fella,

my geography of the US is pretty good, and I can tell you, that "the middle of Kansas" is nowhere near being on the way to HKG.
unless of course your departing from the middle of Kansas!!

[FR8R H8R]

Haven't y'all heard about the big boom in asian freight? Must have been the new Wichita-HKG route for the -8 they were testing out. :rolleyes:

[FR8R H8R]

By the way, what the hell is a "jackwagon"? Please elaborate for those of us who don't speak american.

[4 driver]

And American ATC are "the most professional".......(that's tongue in cheek for those of you who have trouble)

[Old Fella]

act700 Atlanta-HKG via ANC would likely route over Kansas I think. CX091 is Atlanta-ANC-HKG three times a week. My geographic knowledge of the USA is restricted I know. The real point is it was easy for Bugg Smasher to label the crew of CX091 as "the stuck pig that he really is". I wonder if he would be so forthcoming "face-to-face"? I doubt it. We all have an "off" day from time to time.

[VforVENDETTA]

It's a cathay epidemic disease. I've lost count of how many times I've been sitting next to one like this tool you described crying on the radio and attempting to lecture ATC only to end up getting a new butthole manufactured for him by the controller and showing how little situational awareness he has and how out of his comfort zone he is. This is equally true of Aussie, Brit, and even the Canadians. They think they're the center of the universe and all should make way for them. What's professionalism? Not having a clue about the airspace procedures of the country you're flying over is certainly lack of it. This is true of very senior checkers and managers just the same. Clueless about how things work in the congested, busy and complicated airspace over the US is an understatement. They get their a$$es handed to them for acting like self centered children after making requests and demands that only proves how clueless they are about their surroundings and how the system works, ALL THE TIME. They're used to being able to demand special treatment and get their way with Manila control etc... and don't realize that coming across as feeling more special than others in the US will only get you harsh treatment, to be fair. You can't call the US ATC unprofessional if you don't know how the system works by making it obvious with your irrelevant and stupid demands and making their job harder as a result having to explain how it is to you over the radio.

Example:

If you don't know how much you increase a controller's workload by refusing to call traffic or airport in sight and accept a visual approach in very visual conditions when everyone else is doing it, and then not realize why you're treated not so good and calling the controller rude... you're clueless about your surroundings. You wouldn't like it if someone made your work harder either.

If you're asking Vancouver control to change your filed arrival clearance into Anchorage and can't understand why that's a stupid request to make and keep insisting and force the controller to treat you like a clueless amateur, you can't call him unprofessional or rude.

If you think that as a pilot you have the big picture on what's going on at a place like Chicago, Dallas, LA, JFK during busy arrival times and try to second guess the controller such as attempting to vnav descent according to your fantasy picture in your head and cause problems for the approach controller and get your ass handed to you, don't complain, you deserve it.

Oh yeah, and learn to talk and hear fast. Multiple instructions in one transmission and reading them back just as fast. Try harder chap, you can do it. Slow and inflexible doesn't cut it here. United flies the same big iron as you do and they keep up just fine.

[Bograt]

Here (http://onlineslangdictionary.com/definition+of/jackwagon)

:yuk:

[Mooseflyer]

Good post V. I do, however, think the Canadians are very clued in to US flying. I'd like to hear comments from some of the guys flying into ATL on a regular basis (we don't seem to hear from them often on this forum). While the ATL airport is much better than JFK from an operations standpoint (rwy layout, approaches, etc), it also has higher traffic volume. In addtion, the summer weather can create quite a $hitstorm in short order in light of that traffic volume.

PS - JFK-YVR also crosses what is known as the American midwest - the northern states such as Michigan, Minnesota, etc.

[The Standard]

The guys were just damn lucky to get a word in between all the F#*%ING ride reports
:}:}

[SloppyJoe]

Listen fast and talk fast, India must be more professional than the US when it comes to ATC.

[Steve the Pirate]

I recall a US carrier in Seoul a few years ago, having received the clearance (which we all understood because we’d been there countless times) say, “OK, now I know how fast you can say it, let’s see how clearly you can say it”. I wonder what would have happened in JFK had a Korean pilot had the temerity to question the delivery of an ATC clearance? It was funny though.

True story.

STP

[BusyB]

V,
Flying throughout the States I have heard more FU's from US pilots and controllers than from other nationalities. Statistically I should, of course, but a vast number of these were due to slack, amateur RT procedure.

Traditionally you don't stand in glass houses and throw stones!

[VforVENDETTA]

What are you talking about?? Talking fast isn't an accent. Yanks don't have an accent anyway! ;) The southerners and hillbillies aren't considered Yanks! Call one a Yank and tell us about the reaction you get. ;)
Anyway, the main subject here wasn't accents.

Among US pilots there are many many who have very poor RT. You'll never hear me defend them. The ATC's RT standard on the other hand is very good. Read the US AIM or the US AIP, the ICAO document which is exactly the copy of the AIM. Specifically Air Traffic Control tab, section 4-2-1 and on. Then see how often you can catch US ATC not speaking exactly as that. You will find a few but not often at all. Unless you've read that, you don't know what "Standard Phraseology" in the US is and you can't seriously critisize it. To be ICAO standard, a nation has to submit it's standards/procedures to the ICAO body so it's known to all. They don't have to copy CAA, JAA, CAD etc... standards to be ICAO compliant. They're not non-standard just because they don't do it the way you're comfortable with.

If you're flying in US airspace and are given this clearance "Bumble Jet 123, climb and maintain one five thousand" and you don't repeat exactly as that... YOU are the one who's NON-STANDARD. That using the word 'Altitude' which is your company's thing to do, is NOT standard in the US.

If you're unaware that when ATC issues a "traffic at xx o'clock" call during climb/descent/cruise whatever, and having seen the traffic you're unaware that now you're required to respond with "... traffic in sight", YOU are the one who's NON-STANDARD for not knowing the standards.

I find it amusing that some cathay pilots use the word Altitude with regards to altitude clearances with ATC (as company policy says), yet HK ATC doesn't use that format and doesn't use the word Altitude. Someone is NON-STANDARD here! Which one?? Does HK CAA even have the substantial documentation like the British or the US versions to cover it's acceptable RT? It's called 'Standard Phraseology' in the US by the way. They won't know what you're talking about if you say RT.

[Nullaman]

VforViciouslyVile

Think you ought to get out more?

Idiot
:ugh:

[Capt Toss Parker]

I have ops put a special notice on the flight plan ...

#-TE TOSS EQUIPPED

That way, when I start unleashing my delusional jihad on foreign controllers they know to cut me a bit of slack.

:ugh:

[Lord Spandex Masher]

If you don't know how much you increase a controller's workload by refusing to call traffic or airport in sight and accept a visual approach in very visual conditions when everyone else is doing it, and then not realize why you're treated not so good and calling the controller rude... you're clueless about your surroundings. You wouldn't like it if someone made your work harder either

What?! You think I should ask for, or accept, a visual approach just because everyone else is doing it?

I think you meant to say 'don't you realise that you aren't reducing a controllers workload by not doing what everyone else is doing because you reasonably expect radar vectors from ATC and can obviously make your own mind up'.

[Steve the Pirate]

In your original post you make a reference to “talking and hearing fast”. The following is an extract from an article entitled "Pilots and Memory: A Study of a Fallible Human System" by Robert Baron of The Aviation Consulting Group and written with reference to much academic research including both NASA and the FAA:

When ATC reads a clearance, and the pilot reads it back, many errors are noticeable, based on the delivery speed of the clearance. It is this author's estimate that clearances that are delivered at the highest speeds have as much as a 80% readback error rate, whereas clearances that are delivered at conversational speeds may only have a 10%-20% readback error rate.

Air Traffic Controllers do have a manual that provides tips on communication with pilots (FAA, 1999). Under chapter two in the manual entitled "Human Factors for Air Traffic Control Specialists: A User's Manual for Your Brain," the limitations of human memory are elucidated to remind controllers that human memory is fallible, and practical techniques should be used to offset these limitations. Highlights of the chapter include:

Speaking slowly and distinctly gives any listener a better chance of correctly hearing what was said.

Give pilots no more than three pieces of information in a single transmission. Studies have shown that cramming too much information in a single transmission can cause problems.So, it's long been recognized that transfer of information is dependent on a number of factors, not just speed. Speed doesn’t necessarily equate to efficiency as you’ve no doubt found when you’ve operated into India or some ports in SE Asia - I assume you have, or do you only operate into North America?

This from the the supplement to UK CAP 413:

For level changes and reports, TO shall only be used in connection with altitude or height, e.g. DESCEND TO ALTITUDE 3000 FEET. It is not used when describing Flight Levels, e.g. CLIMB FLIGHT LEVEL 250I guess this came in because someone might misinterpret (and readback) an instruction such as "Descend two four zero zero feet" as meaning "Descend to four zero zero feet" - think Flying Tigers Kuala Lumpur. So, I assume that when you fly to UK airspace you not only follow company procedures (if you work for CX that is) but also national procedures as to do otherwise you would have to ask yourself the following question:

What's professionalism? Not having a clue about the airspace procedures of the country you're flying over is certainly lack of it.No-one’s perfect in this job and I’m staggered that this trivial event has sparked such a response, most of which was inconsequential until safety issues were touched on by your original post. Lord Spandex has highlighted one, i.e. visual approaches and I'm now highlighting the other.

Surely, a flexible approach to national idiosyncrasies might reduce the number of incidents in our incident-prone industry. However, going by his thread I doubt it very much (anyway, everyone knows Aussie ATC is the best..)

STP

[raven11]

VforVendetta

Thirty-five years ago, controllers were far more deferential and, not to mention, even polite. They made no bones about the fact that they were there to make a pilot's job easier. This attitude was reciprocated, and the tone and language on the frequency was calm and respectful.

But then over the past thirty-five years something happened. Today controllers feel it's OK to demand that pilots yank and bank a 747, like it had the inertia of a kingair, to make their job easier. Controllers now feel comfortable berating and insulting pilots. Their arrogance has become astounding! SFO ATC had the temerity to lecture our Manager Line Ops when he questioned the high number of RA's our flights have been getting in SFO.

V are you kidding me? You think that's something for you to be proud of? You hold this system up as some kind of gold standard and disparage Brits, Ausies, and Canadians for questioning this. The jackwagon that inspired this thread may indeed have been a d#$khead, but that's no justification for you to go on a shooting rampage. Shame on you.

I am a Canadian, BTW, and I hold three ATPL's...one of which is American. I have been flying in the US for all of my 35 years as a pilot, so please don't lecture me on US TERPS, the AIM, or the AIP. Your forefather's would not have put up with the current system in the States. Not for one second! Maybe you need to ask yourself why you feel that you must.

I obviously take issue with your comments. The American system is strained to the bursting point and, although many controllers remain ladies and gentleman, many of the controllers have become boors.

I don't need to be made to feel as if I've just had a full body pat down every time I fly into SFO, LAX, or JFK.

[On the beach]

By definition, of course, half the pilots now flying are below average and half the controllers now controlling are above average. You can see where the problem lies.

Hat, coat, exit :)

[411A]

Jackwagon YouTube - GEICO - Sarge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaFy0x_Uixo)

[VforVENDETTA]

I said nothing about accepting visual approaches or not. I said calling traffic in sight once it is. I tried to be specific by saying during climb/descent/cruise. I left the approach phase out intentionally. Yes I'm fully aware of the visual approach acceptance vs. not doing so. It's a differrent subject.

I'll stop now before my forefathers become any more the subject of this exchange.;)

[iMad]

V, this is what you said on 24th Nov 2010:

I said nothing about accepting visual approaches or not. I said calling traffic in sight once it is. I tried to be specific by saying during climb/descent/cruise. I left the approach phase out intentionally....

1 day ago on the 23rd Nov 2010:

If you don't know how much you increase a controller's workload by refusing to call traffic or airport in sight and accept a visual approach in very visual conditions when everyone else is doing it, and then not realize why you're treated not so good and calling the controller rude... you're clueless about your surroundings. You wouldn't like it if someone made your work harder either.


Prease expain to me, my Engrish not feli good....

[VforVENDETTA]

Yep, by all means don't accept visual approaches at all. There's nothing wrong with that. But DO know WHY the controller is ticked off at you. Know why you're getting the treatment. Most don't know why they're being treated that way. That's my point here, nothing else.

Bye

[main_dog]

But DO know WHY the controller is ticked off at you.

Perhaps said controller has forgotten that his/her job is to assist us and not the other way around? ;)

With all due respect to ATCOs who overwhelmingly do a good job 99% of the time :ok:

[routetuner]

What are you on?

[nitpicker330]

You guys really do need to get a life.

There are Dick heads everywhere on both sides of the mic.

We've all heard some pretty crappy RT calls from Aussie/Kiwi/Brit/Yank/Canuk crews all over the world on possibly a daily basis BUT maybe the person giving the crap has had a bad "hair day" So cut them some slack, frown if you have to and move on..................


Only yesterday over the Brisbane FIR Speedbird XX requested climb to FL380. ( currently FL 350 restricted to Mach .82 behind Thai )
He was given FL380 and about 15 mins later ATC climbed Thai and then once again speed restricted Speedbird to .82!!

Old Nigel quite rightly had more than a few words to the poor ATC fellow telling him in no uncertain terms that he wouldn't have climbed if they were going to do that as he wanted to resume normal speed and get back on schedule.
ATC were a bit sheepish, later they gave him a direct to and removed the speed restriction.

My point is that sometimes you do have to question ATC, they do and can make errors like this one.

So get down of your high horses, sometimes there can be a need to speak up.

[positionalpor]

TELL ME IT ISN'T SO! OUR BRIT COUSINS ARE BECOMING MORE LIKE US EVERY DAY

When I was Training on the Airbus A310, the manuals were written by the
French, Translated into English by a German,who was schooled in England
and then Printed for us by a Spanish Printer.This sounds like it was the same
people doing this!

Thought you would like to see the notice that British Airways sent to its
pilots explaining what we in the US refer to as the "monitored approach"
method where on an approach to very low visibility and ceiling one pilot
flies the approach on instruments, and when the other pilot sees the
runway he takes the plane and lands by visual reference.

This removes the problem of the pilot having to make the transition from
flying instruments and at the last minute looking outside and "getting
his bearings" as the other pilot is already "outside". If the pilot not
flying says nothing by the time they reach "minimums", the pilot flying
automatically starts the "go-around" procedure as he is still on the
instruments.

Now try this actual explanation of this procedure from the British
Airways manual:




*** British Airways Flight Operations Department Notice ***

There appears to be some confusion over the new pilot role titles. This
notice will hopefully clear up any misunderstandings. The titles P1, P2,
and Co-Pilot will now cease to have any meaning, within the BA operations
manuals. They are to be replaced by:

Handling Pilot, Non-handling Pilot, Handling Landing Pilot, Non-Handling
Landing Pilot, Handling Non-Landing Pilot, and Non Handling Non-Landing
Pilot.

The Landing Pilot, is initially the Handling Pilot and will handle the
take-off and landing except in role reversal when he is the Non-Handling
Pilot for taxi until the Handling Non-Landing Pilot, hands the handling
to the Landing Pilot at eighty knots. The Non-Landing (Non-Handling, since
the Landing Pilot is handling) Pilot reads the checklist to the HandlingPilot
until after Before Descent Checklist completion, when the Handling
Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot who then
becomes the Handling Non-Landing Pilot.

The Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "decision altitude"
call, when the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the
Non-Handling Landing Pilot, unless the latter calls "go-around", in which
case the Handling Non-Landing Pilot, continues Handling and the
Non-Handling Landing Pilot continues non-handling until the next call of "land" or
"go-around", as appropriate.

In view of the recent confusion over these rules, it was deemed necessary
to restate them clearly.

[BusyB]

I hope you don't believe that is really an official NTC.

I remember it being written for entertainment purposes in the 70's:)

[Jn14:6]

Just goes to show how gullible our transatlantic cousins are then BB !