ATCO remonstrates with pilot over good airmanship?
Guest
Posts: n/a
ATCO remonstrates with pilot over good airmanship?
A few days ago my colleague felt obliged to put out a radio call to prevent what he saw was a potential mid-air collision. For his trouble he was berated by ATC by r/t. The debate continued on the ground by telephone.
Anyone care to pass professional comment? (No names, no pack drill, and I do NOT wish to start an "us versus them" debate).
------------------
The circumstances were as follows.
We were cruise flight, open UK FIR, VMC, but under radar info. The airspace was "busy", as the weather was good.
We were clear above but on a similar, but gently converging track, to a light aircraft ** off our stbd side. We had been visual with ** for some time. We had listened to his r/t for about ten minutes or so as he called the previous airfield ahead of us. We were certain we knew his callsign and had a positive ID on him from his position reports etc.
Both aircraft then changed to the agency in question in close succession. It became obvious from his R/T that he was going to turn left under us, no problem with our good height separation; we were both in level flight.
As we caught up with **, my colleague, who was the handling pilot and captain, continued to keep an eye on him below us and off to our right.
As I began to lose sight of ** beneath us, I spotted a TCAS target off to our 1 o'clock, converging quickly. We quickly got a visual ident on a light single. It was below and not an immediate threat to us; however it WAS an obvious threat to ** because it looked to be at the same altitude as he.
My colleague watched them rapidly converge, saying to me "that is going to be close!"
A few seconds later, as neither aircraft had apparently seen the other, and no advice was given by ATC to **, he put out an R/T call to the effect of: "** - look in your twelve o'clock, there is conficting traffic".
Seconds later both aircraft rolled on quite a lot of bank to avoid each other, passing very close.
ATC then berated my colleague who was just thinking he had done the correct thing. He was told in no uncertain terms that giving an ATC service was not on and potentially dangerous. The 2-way was became a little unprofessional and ATCO asked my colleague to telephone after we landed, which he did.
In the circumstances I fully support my colleague; but he and the ATCO had to "agree to disagree".
While I understand where the ATCO was coming from about pilots not trying to "provide an ATC service", as he put it, it just ain't possible to watch fellow pilots going to their possible doom and say nowt.
NO avoiding action was offered, just a call to get his (**'s) eyes out of the cockpit.
Orderly debate only please.
ShyT
Anyone care to pass professional comment? (No names, no pack drill, and I do NOT wish to start an "us versus them" debate).
------------------
The circumstances were as follows.
We were cruise flight, open UK FIR, VMC, but under radar info. The airspace was "busy", as the weather was good.
We were clear above but on a similar, but gently converging track, to a light aircraft ** off our stbd side. We had been visual with ** for some time. We had listened to his r/t for about ten minutes or so as he called the previous airfield ahead of us. We were certain we knew his callsign and had a positive ID on him from his position reports etc.
Both aircraft then changed to the agency in question in close succession. It became obvious from his R/T that he was going to turn left under us, no problem with our good height separation; we were both in level flight.
As we caught up with **, my colleague, who was the handling pilot and captain, continued to keep an eye on him below us and off to our right.
As I began to lose sight of ** beneath us, I spotted a TCAS target off to our 1 o'clock, converging quickly. We quickly got a visual ident on a light single. It was below and not an immediate threat to us; however it WAS an obvious threat to ** because it looked to be at the same altitude as he.
My colleague watched them rapidly converge, saying to me "that is going to be close!"
A few seconds later, as neither aircraft had apparently seen the other, and no advice was given by ATC to **, he put out an R/T call to the effect of: "** - look in your twelve o'clock, there is conficting traffic".
Seconds later both aircraft rolled on quite a lot of bank to avoid each other, passing very close.
ATC then berated my colleague who was just thinking he had done the correct thing. He was told in no uncertain terms that giving an ATC service was not on and potentially dangerous. The 2-way was became a little unprofessional and ATCO asked my colleague to telephone after we landed, which he did.
In the circumstances I fully support my colleague; but he and the ATCO had to "agree to disagree".
While I understand where the ATCO was coming from about pilots not trying to "provide an ATC service", as he put it, it just ain't possible to watch fellow pilots going to their possible doom and say nowt.
NO avoiding action was offered, just a call to get his (**'s) eyes out of the cockpit.
Orderly debate only please.
ShyT
Guest
Posts: n/a
From what you say, you were clearly correct to pass the warning when you perceived a danger. To do nothing would have been irresponsible.
I think you should pursue this officially and I'm sorry you've had this experience ; just hope it's not one of my colleagues
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shame on that ATCO!Only two things really annoy me when I'm controlling - people who talk too much and people who talk when they don't know what they're talking about.
Under these circumstances, it would appear that the pilot had the better overview of things, and he definately did the right thing.
As for berating and arguing over the R/T - what a prat! Any professional should know that if you have a point to make, it's better made over the 'phone where others cannot hear you. (If people think you're stupid, don't open your mouth and prove it).
Sadly, there are a few atcos (and pilots I suppose), who will launch into a diatribe without thinking first, they're usually the ones who know a great deal about very little.
------------------
It wasn't me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
ShyTorque..
A sobering tale and I (for one) am glad that you put your tuppence in.
Arguing over the RTF is unprofessional and probably a threat to safety in itself. Pilots need to be able to devote their mind to Aviating, controllers to Controling. Arguements are at best a distraction...
This is really the stuff of an MOR and I can only urge you to report it officially.(You can do this confidentially, as you will know).
Can I as (without revealing the location) was this a Full ATC unit or were to talking to an AFISO? (e.g. XXXX Information?). Either way it still needs reporting.
Best of luck
Rgds
BEX
A sobering tale and I (for one) am glad that you put your tuppence in.
Arguing over the RTF is unprofessional and probably a threat to safety in itself. Pilots need to be able to devote their mind to Aviating, controllers to Controling. Arguements are at best a distraction...
This is really the stuff of an MOR and I can only urge you to report it officially.(You can do this confidentially, as you will know).
Can I as (without revealing the location) was this a Full ATC unit or were to talking to an AFISO? (e.g. XXXX Information?). Either way it still needs reporting.
Best of luck
Rgds
BEX
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bex, Spoon etc,
HERE HERE!!
I am amazed that someone got arsey about such an input. EVEN if they were both FISing, had Traffic Info and one was visual it is still good to see a decent standard of what is simply AIRMANSHIP being displayed.
Without defending the ATCO, maybe the other aircraft had called visual with the one you could see but even still, your call was not unjust.
Still, we all have off days don't we!
(BTW - were you under an APP or LARS service at the time?)
HERE HERE!!
I am amazed that someone got arsey about such an input. EVEN if they were both FISing, had Traffic Info and one was visual it is still good to see a decent standard of what is simply AIRMANSHIP being displayed.
Without defending the ATCO, maybe the other aircraft had called visual with the one you could see but even still, your call was not unjust.
Still, we all have off days don't we!
(BTW - were you under an APP or LARS service at the time?)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Even if your colleague had done something questionable (which he did not), the ONLY response from ATC should have been a quiet "call me after landing". This sort of exchange on the air is appalling.
------------------
Regards
4711
"The bulk of mankind is as well equipped for flying as thinking." — Jonathon Swift
------------------
Regards
4711
"The bulk of mankind is as well equipped for flying as thinking." — Jonathon Swift
Guest
Posts: n/a
Your colleague did the right thing. Better to speak up than to die wondering. A professional would be happy that you have drawn there attention to a dangerous situation. Even if I had sorted the problem out previously and you mentioned it, I would be glad that someone is taking an interest and politely tell you it has been fixed, thanks for your attention.
If in doubt? Speak Out!
If in doubt? Speak Out!
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's a duff ATCO who berates someone for preventing a nasty! What ever happened to the safe part of, "safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic"?
I know from personal experience that it can be very annoying when pilots hijack your frequency, but in this case that hardly applies. I think you have every right to feel agrieved - hope it wasn't from my unit!
I know from personal experience that it can be very annoying when pilots hijack your frequency, but in this case that hardly applies. I think you have every right to feel agrieved - hope it wasn't from my unit!
Guest
Posts: n/a
As an ATCO I work as part of a team although when in position I have a specific area of responsibility.
Similar scenarios to the one in this thread occur where a controller (or ATSA) working an adjacent sector may notice a possible "situation" but is 99% per cent sure you are dealing with it but for comforts sake will say "have you turned XXX" or "He's still descending" - you get the idea (I hope). We may feel awkward about possibly overstepping a boundary and annoying our colleague/s when they have the situation fully in hand but what happens when there was a genuine oversight (yes - we're all human)? Even if risking an irritated rebuke, for safety's sake - say something! - it saves having to deal with the subsequent board of enquiry. I would hope that the ATCO concerned later thought about what had occurred and realised that your reaction on the R/t was not a slight - merely concern.
It's always better and safer to check than sit fat dumb and happy until the accident happens! We're all human!
Similar scenarios to the one in this thread occur where a controller (or ATSA) working an adjacent sector may notice a possible "situation" but is 99% per cent sure you are dealing with it but for comforts sake will say "have you turned XXX" or "He's still descending" - you get the idea (I hope). We may feel awkward about possibly overstepping a boundary and annoying our colleague/s when they have the situation fully in hand but what happens when there was a genuine oversight (yes - we're all human)? Even if risking an irritated rebuke, for safety's sake - say something! - it saves having to deal with the subsequent board of enquiry. I would hope that the ATCO concerned later thought about what had occurred and realised that your reaction on the R/t was not a slight - merely concern.
It's always better and safer to check than sit fat dumb and happy until the accident happens! We're all human!
Guest
Posts: n/a
A fellow ATCO at my unit had a similar experience recently. However in his case the pilot only had visual contact on one a/c and not the possible conflictor. He did however have said conflictor on TCAS, so he transposed relative a/c positions visually to his TCAS and advised other pilot 'Traffic on TCAS shows....etc'. My colleague cautioned the airbourne 'radar' controller that he must be careful about issuing traffic info in such circumstances. When the pilot expressed a desire to debate the issue a polite 'call me later' request was made. As my colleague was providing a FIS only on a VFR 'see and avoid day' this could not have been the same incident, COULD IT?
I believe that the inappropriate use of TCAS in this way is already dealt with in the appropriate documentation, for very practical reasons. I don't deny that safety is paramount but in this case there were inherent dangers in the use of TCAS to provide a radar svs to an a/c in flight from another airbourne a/c and my colleague wanted to bring this to the pilots attention. The CAA made us all undertake an appropriate course of instruction and long MER before allowing us to control a/c, yet nowhere in my licence does it say I am qualified to undertake the duties of a pilot. I think we must assume that the pilots licence is likewise limited.
My point is this there are two sides to every story and we as professionals do ourselves no credit by not ensuring we have the full facts before we 'pass sentence'in this forum.
I believe that an MOR or CHIRP report in this case would have been more appropriate than this forum (horses for courses) as all the facts would come to light and a considered view reached, not the sort of 'lynch mob' mentality displayed in some of the comments.
Well I've bored you all to death for to long, will make my next entry a witty one....
------------------
'Where d go?'- 'Where d who go!'
[This message has been edited by Black-Art (edited 29 June 2001).]
I believe that the inappropriate use of TCAS in this way is already dealt with in the appropriate documentation, for very practical reasons. I don't deny that safety is paramount but in this case there were inherent dangers in the use of TCAS to provide a radar svs to an a/c in flight from another airbourne a/c and my colleague wanted to bring this to the pilots attention. The CAA made us all undertake an appropriate course of instruction and long MER before allowing us to control a/c, yet nowhere in my licence does it say I am qualified to undertake the duties of a pilot. I think we must assume that the pilots licence is likewise limited.
My point is this there are two sides to every story and we as professionals do ourselves no credit by not ensuring we have the full facts before we 'pass sentence'in this forum.
I believe that an MOR or CHIRP report in this case would have been more appropriate than this forum (horses for courses) as all the facts would come to light and a considered view reached, not the sort of 'lynch mob' mentality displayed in some of the comments.
Well I've bored you all to death for to long, will make my next entry a witty one....
------------------
'Where d go?'- 'Where d who go!'
[This message has been edited by Black-Art (edited 29 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
*****hawk er sorry ShyTalk; at the end of the day we are all pros (pilots and ATCOs), trained and well practised in judgement and decision making. If your colleague judged the call to be appropriate, then it was. As my old dad used to say - rules are for the blind obeyance of fools and the guidance of wise men. Air Traffic is sometimes a classic example and it's taken me over 30 years to become wise.
------------------
Pint of middle please George.
------------------
Pint of middle please George.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Black-Art
In the case I am talking about both pilots had BOTH aircraft visual so it is probably not the same incident. As I said, I am not going to identify it for exactly the same reasons that CHIRP does not.
I don't think the situation comes under the parameters of an MOR and CHIRP is optional. Of course your colleague is perfectly able to use either if he sees it appropriate to his situation.
In our case ATC did not give a warning call as he seemed to be unaware of the second, conflicting aircraft, rapidly closing on the first one that he was providing a service to.
If he HAD issued a timely warning then there would have been absolutely no cause for concern on our part and no radio call would have been made from our aircraft, which was merely a pilot's genuine effort to prevent a mid-air collision between two other aircraft that he could see in danger, not an attempt to be a "TCAS smarta$$" or an ATCO. No avoiding action was offered, just a piece of highly relevant safety information.
I certainly agree (and so would my colleague) that TCAS should not be used in the manner you have described. In my experience over the past couple of years (on three different aircraft types) it is not actually very reliable, even against aircraft correctly using a transponder, which is why pilots must continue to look out on a "see and be seen" basis. In addition, I agree it isn't a pilot's job to be an ATCO but it IS his responsibility to look out for fellow aviators if possible and also to help out ATC, if possible (ideally without stepping on toes) so that we all benefit from a safer aviation environment.
After all, we are part of the same team, aren't we? Which is why we were surprised by this ATCO's remonstration on the R/T and hence this thread.
Edited because I thought of a bit more to say!
ShyT
[This message has been edited by ShyTorque (edited 29 June 2001).]
In the case I am talking about both pilots had BOTH aircraft visual so it is probably not the same incident. As I said, I am not going to identify it for exactly the same reasons that CHIRP does not.
I don't think the situation comes under the parameters of an MOR and CHIRP is optional. Of course your colleague is perfectly able to use either if he sees it appropriate to his situation.
In our case ATC did not give a warning call as he seemed to be unaware of the second, conflicting aircraft, rapidly closing on the first one that he was providing a service to.
If he HAD issued a timely warning then there would have been absolutely no cause for concern on our part and no radio call would have been made from our aircraft, which was merely a pilot's genuine effort to prevent a mid-air collision between two other aircraft that he could see in danger, not an attempt to be a "TCAS smarta$$" or an ATCO. No avoiding action was offered, just a piece of highly relevant safety information.
I certainly agree (and so would my colleague) that TCAS should not be used in the manner you have described. In my experience over the past couple of years (on three different aircraft types) it is not actually very reliable, even against aircraft correctly using a transponder, which is why pilots must continue to look out on a "see and be seen" basis. In addition, I agree it isn't a pilot's job to be an ATCO but it IS his responsibility to look out for fellow aviators if possible and also to help out ATC, if possible (ideally without stepping on toes) so that we all benefit from a safer aviation environment.
After all, we are part of the same team, aren't we? Which is why we were surprised by this ATCO's remonstration on the R/T and hence this thread.
Edited because I thought of a bit more to say!
ShyT
[This message has been edited by ShyTorque (edited 29 June 2001).]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: WWW
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with 80% of the above ...
Bottom line as the fellow above said ...we're all under the same big "professional blanket" ...before the dear lord made us ATC's or pilots he made us human ...if you slip up and someone on the other side of the speaker notices...and is kindenough to help ...swallow the pride and in the phone call afterwards ...offer a "thank you" ....
If you not able to humble yourself in this way at times you do not deserve to be sheltered under said "professional blanket"...
Bottom line as the fellow above said ...we're all under the same big "professional blanket" ...before the dear lord made us ATC's or pilots he made us human ...if you slip up and someone on the other side of the speaker notices...and is kindenough to help ...swallow the pride and in the phone call afterwards ...offer a "thank you" ....
If you not able to humble yourself in this way at times you do not deserve to be sheltered under said "professional blanket"...
de minimus non curat lex
I wonder whether ATCOs would benefit from attending the CRM days with pilots?
I wonder whether the ATCO in question does any flying? On balance I doubt it.
Giving the "heads up" on the potential conflict was merely exercising a duty of care.
How would the pilot have felt if by keeping silent something far worse had arisen? He did exactly the right thing.
The ATCO was saved having to complete all the papaerwpork. He could be grateful !!
I wonder whether the ATCO in question does any flying? On balance I doubt it.
Giving the "heads up" on the potential conflict was merely exercising a duty of care.
How would the pilot have felt if by keeping silent something far worse had arisen? He did exactly the right thing.
The ATCO was saved having to complete all the papaerwpork. He could be grateful !!
