My ATC's better (spit & scratchfest)
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A while ago, flying into JFK, a mate had a light a/c vectored right across him when he was on the ILS. He got a TCAS RA.
He filed an airmiss report and an incident signal - as his company require.
Some months later he asked the Chief Pilot for feedback on the event.
He was told nothing had been heard back, and that it is common to have no response from the US to such reports.
Why so?
He filed an airmiss report and an incident signal - as his company require.
Some months later he asked the Chief Pilot for feedback on the event.
He was told nothing had been heard back, and that it is common to have no response from the US to such reports.
Why so?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maxalt,
Your mate and Company probably didn't get any feedback because it's pointless for ATC to spend the time doing so, even when they review it. Perhaps the review found that your mate wasn't at an assigned speed. Maybe your mate expects an apology because maybe he thinks he's operationally perfect. But maybe your mate helped create the conflict in the first place. Maybe, your story is nonsense.
Next time London ATC drops the ball with me, I'll be sure to demand a full-blown investigation and follow-up written report, delivered by hand via courier service to my doorstep. If I don't receive it, it can only mean there's an ongoing cover-up. After all, what happens to me is just that important, and I'm sure they have nothing better to do.
Your mate and Company probably didn't get any feedback because it's pointless for ATC to spend the time doing so, even when they review it. Perhaps the review found that your mate wasn't at an assigned speed. Maybe your mate expects an apology because maybe he thinks he's operationally perfect. But maybe your mate helped create the conflict in the first place. Maybe, your story is nonsense.
Next time London ATC drops the ball with me, I'll be sure to demand a full-blown investigation and follow-up written report, delivered by hand via courier service to my doorstep. If I don't receive it, it can only mean there's an ongoing cover-up. After all, what happens to me is just that important, and I'm sure they have nothing better to do.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ooooooh.....touchy-touchy AMF!
In the UK there is a committee called the UK Airprox Board convened under the UK CAA.
When an airprox is reported it is investigated and they produce a report and make recomendations where necessary.
I don't think my mate expects a hand written apology - he was curious as to why it happened. He was the only a/c on approach at the time and was baffled by JFK ATC's decision to vector a Piper Cherokee directly through his approach 500' above him. Apparently its legal - but still, stupid under the circumstances, I'm sure you'd agree.
The fact is that in the UK (and in most of european airspace) this incident would have been investigated and a report produced, possibly improving future safety awareness for all. You might even have been told about the outcome by your Chief Pilot.
That is - if you are a pilot.
I doubt it given your enthusiasm to blame my mate for his incident - even when you had no details.
In the UK there is a committee called the UK Airprox Board convened under the UK CAA.
When an airprox is reported it is investigated and they produce a report and make recomendations where necessary.
I don't think my mate expects a hand written apology - he was curious as to why it happened. He was the only a/c on approach at the time and was baffled by JFK ATC's decision to vector a Piper Cherokee directly through his approach 500' above him. Apparently its legal - but still, stupid under the circumstances, I'm sure you'd agree.
The fact is that in the UK (and in most of european airspace) this incident would have been investigated and a report produced, possibly improving future safety awareness for all. You might even have been told about the outcome by your Chief Pilot.
That is - if you are a pilot.
I doubt it given your enthusiasm to blame my mate for his incident - even when you had no details.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MaxAlt
You've missed the point entirely...again. The fact is, if your mate responded to an RA and had to abandon the approach, no doubt an review was done. If he had the other aicraft visually and there was no conflict or in fact only got a TA, then it sounds like he's just upset he didn't have the entire sky to himself. In Class B airspace, the Cherokee was under positive control with a verified VFR assigned altitude 500' above your mate who in turn was established on an ILS, then what's the problem except for his nervousness?
Perhaps he flies into the U.S. with the same pre-concieved notions fostered by the "enlightened" armchair controllers in the UK as how to handle heavy volumes of traffic they have no experience with, or ever will? As you say, it was legal, and I dismiss your assertion that it was stupid. I have too much experience operating into and out of JFK, BOS, EWR, LGA, ORD, ATL and the like to worry about such trifling things.
As mentioned before. The FAA, NTSB, and OIG investigate incidents that are safety concerns, not to mention whistleblower follow-ups. They always have. Those sounding on this board sounds like they've just discovered something new, that "needs to be investitgated". A call to action for the U.S. to investigate these things! Never have I seen so many straw men mowed down just for people to flog away at something they don't understand or know how it operates with checks reviews, let alone use with any great frequency.
Oh, and I didn't "blame your mate for his incident" although it's convenient for you to assign me that in order for you to question my qualifications as a pilot. Actually, his whole "big, scary" situation sounds like an non-incident to me. He's just not used to busy airspace. Funny though, that this reveals you think pilots should automatically blame someone else....stick together if you will. If they don't...well, then they're obviously not a pilot!
What rot. About as much rot as your mate being the only one on an approach at JFK. Funny, that's never happened to me.
You've missed the point entirely...again. The fact is, if your mate responded to an RA and had to abandon the approach, no doubt an review was done. If he had the other aicraft visually and there was no conflict or in fact only got a TA, then it sounds like he's just upset he didn't have the entire sky to himself. In Class B airspace, the Cherokee was under positive control with a verified VFR assigned altitude 500' above your mate who in turn was established on an ILS, then what's the problem except for his nervousness?
Perhaps he flies into the U.S. with the same pre-concieved notions fostered by the "enlightened" armchair controllers in the UK as how to handle heavy volumes of traffic they have no experience with, or ever will? As you say, it was legal, and I dismiss your assertion that it was stupid. I have too much experience operating into and out of JFK, BOS, EWR, LGA, ORD, ATL and the like to worry about such trifling things.
As mentioned before. The FAA, NTSB, and OIG investigate incidents that are safety concerns, not to mention whistleblower follow-ups. They always have. Those sounding on this board sounds like they've just discovered something new, that "needs to be investitgated". A call to action for the U.S. to investigate these things! Never have I seen so many straw men mowed down just for people to flog away at something they don't understand or know how it operates with checks reviews, let alone use with any great frequency.
Oh, and I didn't "blame your mate for his incident" although it's convenient for you to assign me that in order for you to question my qualifications as a pilot. Actually, his whole "big, scary" situation sounds like an non-incident to me. He's just not used to busy airspace. Funny though, that this reveals you think pilots should automatically blame someone else....stick together if you will. If they don't...well, then they're obviously not a pilot!
What rot. About as much rot as your mate being the only one on an approach at JFK. Funny, that's never happened to me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STU Bigzorst - if only phraseology was all this was about!
AMF says
He seems unable or unwilling to grasp the danger in a system that allows a light-single to be vectored directly onto the same point in space as a wide-body heavy, with only a 500' vertical separation. This was at night - and with thousands of city lights cluttering the picture, no clear visual contact was possible. It didn't matter anyhow because (as we both know) this crazy situation is perfectly LEGAL in the US.
The problem is, even if a visual contact is made, it will not prevent the inevitable RA (not TA, AMF - RA!) which will occur in this situation. So this is a 100% guarenteed 'evasive action mandated' scenario that is 100% legal and therefore will continue to happen again and again and again.
All it would take is a mis-set altimeter to put these a/c together.
Any RA executed to avoid collision is also likely to require climb or descent - an 'altitude bust' which might lead to another more serious conflict, not to mention injuries to crew or pax.
AMF prefers to reduce the issue to another 'battle of the balls' - a case of mere disgruntlement by the heavy driver who had to share his airspace with a Cherokee.
Thats pretty feeble.
AMF says
In Class B airspace, the Cherokee was under positive control with a verified VFR assigned altitude 500' above your mate who in turn was established on an ILS, then what's the problem except for his nervousness?
The problem is, even if a visual contact is made, it will not prevent the inevitable RA (not TA, AMF - RA!) which will occur in this situation. So this is a 100% guarenteed 'evasive action mandated' scenario that is 100% legal and therefore will continue to happen again and again and again.
All it would take is a mis-set altimeter to put these a/c together.
Any RA executed to avoid collision is also likely to require climb or descent - an 'altitude bust' which might lead to another more serious conflict, not to mention injuries to crew or pax.
AMF prefers to reduce the issue to another 'battle of the balls' - a case of mere disgruntlement by the heavy driver who had to share his airspace with a Cherokee.
Thats pretty feeble.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KSA
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MaxAlt,
You contradict yourself and have nothing to support your premise that what your mate experienced was dangerous, let alone the situation "crazy". If there is (as you admit) 500' vertical separation with your mate below, then those two aicraft aren't getting "vectored onto the same point in space", as you insist. In recent memory, the only ATC-generated midair involving two aircraft under it's positive control didn't happen in the U.S., and those Swiss-control controllers couldn't even claim being busy.
Perhaps your mate and you aren't aware that for the Cherokee to be cleared into and fly in Class B airspace it's equipped with a working Mode C transponder and assigned specific altitudes/headings just like IFR traffic. Given his slow speed, altitude deviations (a misset altimeter, perhaps) would be noticed at the protected airspace boundary long before your mate arrived, and entry to the Cherokee would have been denied.
The terminal-area threat of misset altimeters is mitigated by U.S. airspace having FL180/18,000' TL/TAs, unlike the UK and Europe where fiddling around with altimeter settings is done at low altitude by arriving and departing aircraft. Doing so only adds to workload, and is as unnecessary and archaic as "reporting established" in a radar environment and feeding me unwanted and uneeded track mile information.
If he had trouble finding the nav and anticollision lights of an aircraft as close as you say from below due to "thousands of city lights", then your mate was flying inverted. If he can't discern the difference between the colored nav and anti-collision lights from the stars, then he needs glasses. Or perhaps he wasn't looking out the window at all, because it's far, far easier to spot traffic at night when it's clear (now it's my turn to return the favor and question whether you're a pilot if you don't know this) especially when they are above you.
Also, please inform him to brush up on his regs and apportionment of cockpit duties to remain in compliance, because in U.S. airpspace (even while under IFR rules) while in VFR conditions "see and avoid" still applies. Since Cherokees don't overtake heavies, on a clear night your mate should have seen him visually (and on TCAS of course) long before it squawked and seen there was no threat despite an electronic hiccup.
ATC probably even advised him of the traffic, yet he took umbrage that a pesky little Cherokee was demanding his attention. In fact, you keep highlighting the "light-aircraft" so often (wide-body/heavy and light-single/cherokee) that it's clear you seem to think that this disparity in size is relevant in some way. It isn't relevant. Why do you insist on thinking it is?
You do realize, don't you, that in the U.S., 500' vertical separation is the standard between IFR and VFR traffic all the way up to 17,500', and that outside Class B in VMC the VFR traffic might not be talking to anyone?...or even on a flight plan? Horrors!
(Tell your mate to keep his eyes peeled down in Indian Country)
Lastly....following an R/A will not "likely" require and climb or descent....executing one requires a climb or descent every time. It's also not considered an "altitude bust" to follow one, and any subsequent conflicts with other aircraft are resolved in turn. The new, required software also will reverse an initial R/A command. And if following an R/A injures pax or crew, they're not doing it right. But since there was no danger of a collision in your mate's case....and if he'd been paying attention and looking for traffic, he'd have determined that long before he received it, confirming to himself something the controller already knew.
It was legal, it was safe, there was no incident or loss of separation. Thus, no feedback to your mate or is company required. No doubt his equipment sensed a transitory condition like an slight bump in altitude where the software predicted a trend (where there was no actual trend). Just as a too-swiftly climbing/descending aircraft just prior to level-off can produce a momentary R/A with proximate aircraft (hence, the advisories to limit the rate in this regime), you're friend's was undoubtedly one of these momentary events. It probably disappeared faster than he could react. We've all experienced these, but hardly make a federal case out of it, as he (and you) seem to want to.
You contradict yourself and have nothing to support your premise that what your mate experienced was dangerous, let alone the situation "crazy". If there is (as you admit) 500' vertical separation with your mate below, then those two aicraft aren't getting "vectored onto the same point in space", as you insist. In recent memory, the only ATC-generated midair involving two aircraft under it's positive control didn't happen in the U.S., and those Swiss-control controllers couldn't even claim being busy.
Perhaps your mate and you aren't aware that for the Cherokee to be cleared into and fly in Class B airspace it's equipped with a working Mode C transponder and assigned specific altitudes/headings just like IFR traffic. Given his slow speed, altitude deviations (a misset altimeter, perhaps) would be noticed at the protected airspace boundary long before your mate arrived, and entry to the Cherokee would have been denied.
The terminal-area threat of misset altimeters is mitigated by U.S. airspace having FL180/18,000' TL/TAs, unlike the UK and Europe where fiddling around with altimeter settings is done at low altitude by arriving and departing aircraft. Doing so only adds to workload, and is as unnecessary and archaic as "reporting established" in a radar environment and feeding me unwanted and uneeded track mile information.
If he had trouble finding the nav and anticollision lights of an aircraft as close as you say from below due to "thousands of city lights", then your mate was flying inverted. If he can't discern the difference between the colored nav and anti-collision lights from the stars, then he needs glasses. Or perhaps he wasn't looking out the window at all, because it's far, far easier to spot traffic at night when it's clear (now it's my turn to return the favor and question whether you're a pilot if you don't know this) especially when they are above you.
Also, please inform him to brush up on his regs and apportionment of cockpit duties to remain in compliance, because in U.S. airpspace (even while under IFR rules) while in VFR conditions "see and avoid" still applies. Since Cherokees don't overtake heavies, on a clear night your mate should have seen him visually (and on TCAS of course) long before it squawked and seen there was no threat despite an electronic hiccup.
ATC probably even advised him of the traffic, yet he took umbrage that a pesky little Cherokee was demanding his attention. In fact, you keep highlighting the "light-aircraft" so often (wide-body/heavy and light-single/cherokee) that it's clear you seem to think that this disparity in size is relevant in some way. It isn't relevant. Why do you insist on thinking it is?
You do realize, don't you, that in the U.S., 500' vertical separation is the standard between IFR and VFR traffic all the way up to 17,500', and that outside Class B in VMC the VFR traffic might not be talking to anyone?...or even on a flight plan? Horrors!
(Tell your mate to keep his eyes peeled down in Indian Country)
Lastly....following an R/A will not "likely" require and climb or descent....executing one requires a climb or descent every time. It's also not considered an "altitude bust" to follow one, and any subsequent conflicts with other aircraft are resolved in turn. The new, required software also will reverse an initial R/A command. And if following an R/A injures pax or crew, they're not doing it right. But since there was no danger of a collision in your mate's case....and if he'd been paying attention and looking for traffic, he'd have determined that long before he received it, confirming to himself something the controller already knew.
It was legal, it was safe, there was no incident or loss of separation. Thus, no feedback to your mate or is company required. No doubt his equipment sensed a transitory condition like an slight bump in altitude where the software predicted a trend (where there was no actual trend). Just as a too-swiftly climbing/descending aircraft just prior to level-off can produce a momentary R/A with proximate aircraft (hence, the advisories to limit the rate in this regime), you're friend's was undoubtedly one of these momentary events. It probably disappeared faster than he could react. We've all experienced these, but hardly make a federal case out of it, as he (and you) seem to want to.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well AMF, I'm a Brit PPL and I have driven a PA28 through class C in the LAX basin and had the crew of a 727 get very concerned because they couldn't see me against the ground clutter, even with all the nav, strobe and landing lights turned on.
The separation was 500 ft vertical and I had every sympathy for the 727 crew, since I certainly could see them.
So I think that you should be a little fairer in your comments.
BTW, I am not implying that the US system is unsafe, but it seems to me that many heavy drivers are concerned with seeing and avoiding light aircraft ... perhaps the C172/PSA incident at San Diego is still fresh in many memories.
The separation was 500 ft vertical and I had every sympathy for the 727 crew, since I certainly could see them.
So I think that you should be a little fairer in your comments.
BTW, I am not implying that the US system is unsafe, but it seems to me that many heavy drivers are concerned with seeing and avoiding light aircraft ... perhaps the C172/PSA incident at San Diego is still fresh in many memories.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMF
I rarely feel the need to post a reply to some of the rubbish that is plastered all over this website. However your posts take the biscuit. You quite clearly have no appreciation of aviation and the mechanisms that are put in place to prevent incidents turning into accidents. Flying to JFK I have witnessed some of the most scandalous controlling in the world. They are dangerous. I don't care how busy they are, they should never compromise safety.
The last two approaches I've done there I've had to break off and be re-vectored off the localiser because ATC have another a/c turning on ahead of me. It don't matter if your IMC or VMC. It's just stupid was at the speed they requested. I was spatially aware, I did try to help them out. I wasn't cheeky. They were gash.
The UK has the most congested airspace in the world but consequently has the talent on the ground to (just) cope with it.
Often the US doesn’t.
I'm off to Newark tonight, who knows what they'll try to do to me there.
I rarely feel the need to post a reply to some of the rubbish that is plastered all over this website. However your posts take the biscuit. You quite clearly have no appreciation of aviation and the mechanisms that are put in place to prevent incidents turning into accidents. Flying to JFK I have witnessed some of the most scandalous controlling in the world. They are dangerous. I don't care how busy they are, they should never compromise safety.
The last two approaches I've done there I've had to break off and be re-vectored off the localiser because ATC have another a/c turning on ahead of me. It don't matter if your IMC or VMC. It's just stupid was at the speed they requested. I was spatially aware, I did try to help them out. I wasn't cheeky. They were gash.
The UK has the most congested airspace in the world but consequently has the talent on the ground to (just) cope with it.
Often the US doesn’t.
I'm off to Newark tonight, who knows what they'll try to do to me there.
Guest
Posts: n/a
28 LEFT
If your question is aimed at me, I think that they should be. My take on AMFs post is that he was suggesting that Maxlalt's mate was being a prima donna, where as I read that he was concerned about not seeing the PA28.
Thus I was trying to point out that I was involved personally in a situation where a US pilot was concerned that he could not see (and therefore was not in a position to avoid) and this was perfectly reasonable behaviour in keeping his 727 safe and not at all prima donna in nature - the PSA/172 crash shows why vigilance is important.
If your question is aimed at me, I think that they should be. My take on AMFs post is that he was suggesting that Maxlalt's mate was being a prima donna, where as I read that he was concerned about not seeing the PA28.
Thus I was trying to point out that I was involved personally in a situation where a US pilot was concerned that he could not see (and therefore was not in a position to avoid) and this was perfectly reasonable behaviour in keeping his 727 safe and not at all prima donna in nature - the PSA/172 crash shows why vigilance is important.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It didn't matter anyhow because (as we both know) this crazy situation is perfectly LEGAL in the US.
Obviously the worlds best system. Thay should introduce it in Australia.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Middle East / UK
Age: 45
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't think that allowing a VFR aircraft to fly 500ft above IFR traffic on the ILS is the safest course of action!! What would have happened had the Cherokee had an engine failure just before he flew over the ILS traffic? At best seperation would have been lost, at worst..... Anyone familiar with PSA 182 in San Diego?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some months later he asked the Chief Pilot for feedback on the event.
He was told nothing had been heard back, and that it is common to have no response from the US to such reports.
Why so?
He was told nothing had been heard back, and that it is common to have no response from the US to such reports.
Why so?
I'm sure your company heard nothing back because the situation you described is perfectly legal in the U.S.; it probably happens a few hundred times per day over here, and it most certainly doesn't always result in an RA every time. The only requirement for such an operation is that traffic info be exchanged.
If procedures were followed, then your report of an RA on the radio should have generated a QAR, (quality assurance review), and the tapes were reviewed in house to insure the controller had 500' and traffic was exchanged. If those conditions existed, no further action was warranted by U.S. regs. Let me stress that a QAR would result from your verbal report of an RA alone.
And, quite frankly, while I'm sure most crews get a bit peeved about having to respond to an RA, I almost never hear a U.S. crew get testy about 500' verticle separation VFR/IFR so long as I issue traffic to avoid a surprise. It's quite common over here.
AMF You say "Following an R/A will not "likely" require and climb or descent....executing one requires a climb or descent every time."
Not necessarily - Preventive RA's such as "Monitor Vertical Speed", or "Maintain Vertical Speed, Maintain" (as opposed to Corrective RA's), are "resolution advisories that advise the pilot to avoid certain deviations from the current vertical rate but do not require any change to be made to that rate"
So if level, this would not require a climb or descent.
Not necessarily - Preventive RA's such as "Monitor Vertical Speed", or "Maintain Vertical Speed, Maintain" (as opposed to Corrective RA's), are "resolution advisories that advise the pilot to avoid certain deviations from the current vertical rate but do not require any change to be made to that rate"
So if level, this would not require a climb or descent.
Buttonpusher
I'm off to Newark tonight, who knows what they'll try to do to me there
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MaxAlt;
In your senario, there would be nothing to report. Standard separation was being applied and no separation was lost at any time. I know that many in Europe feel uncomfortable with our style of operation, so be it. It has been amusing to hear of one British Operator in and out of Sanford in Florida who choose to go into a small class D airport due to cost and they seem terrified of all of the wee folks flying around <G>...
As to the comparisons with the PSA and the Cessna many years back. That is apples and oranges as far as separation was concerned. It was not Class B (There were no such things back then.) and the 727 had reported the Cessna in sight and cleared for the visual approach to visually miss the Cessna. The crew either misidentified the Cessna or lost sight of it, that was never clearly determined.
regards
Scott
In your senario, there would be nothing to report. Standard separation was being applied and no separation was lost at any time. I know that many in Europe feel uncomfortable with our style of operation, so be it. It has been amusing to hear of one British Operator in and out of Sanford in Florida who choose to go into a small class D airport due to cost and they seem terrified of all of the wee folks flying around <G>...
As to the comparisons with the PSA and the Cessna many years back. That is apples and oranges as far as separation was concerned. It was not Class B (There were no such things back then.) and the 727 had reported the Cessna in sight and cleared for the visual approach to visually miss the Cessna. The crew either misidentified the Cessna or lost sight of it, that was never clearly determined.
regards
Scott
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh, it started over in Rumours and News, now it has come here........with very similar bull****. Haven't heard mention of "bring your A game" yet.
I will ask drivers a simple question. At the end of a long flight, do you want an approach that doesn't spring any surprises on you, that is going to give you an intercept to final approach that isn't going to leave you high or fast with a TCAS bluttering at you about vertical speed and low level VFR traffic in you vicinity, with a runway change sprung on you at the last minute, all the while with the guy on the other end of the r/t trying his best to break the "words per minute" record?
I've got a funny feeling I know what reply I'm going to get......but I'll wait
I will ask drivers a simple question. At the end of a long flight, do you want an approach that doesn't spring any surprises on you, that is going to give you an intercept to final approach that isn't going to leave you high or fast with a TCAS bluttering at you about vertical speed and low level VFR traffic in you vicinity, with a runway change sprung on you at the last minute, all the while with the guy on the other end of the r/t trying his best to break the "words per minute" record?
I've got a funny feeling I know what reply I'm going to get......but I'll wait
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Willy Cum Valley
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the only ATC-generated midair involving two aircraft under it's positive control didn't happen in the U.S., and those Swiss-control controllers couldn't even claim being busy.
49 years ago today, on June 30, 1956, a TWA L-1049 Super Constellation collided with a United Airlines DC-7 over Grand Canyon, Arizona. All 128 passengers and crew aboard both aircraft were killed.
1960: two aircraft over NYC collied in a holding pattern
that's the early days!
1991: remember LAX USAir B737 and the Metroliner?
The aircraft was cleared to land on runway 24L at LAX. The controller had also cleared a Skywest Metroliner to taxi into position and hold midpoint down the runway, with the intention of clearing it for takeoff before the USAir jet landed. The controller never cleared the Metroliner for takeoff, and at night, it was virtually invisible to the USAir crew. As the 737 touched down, the crew noticed the aircraft on the runway and attempted to avoid it. The 737 was travelling 140 knots, however, and was unable to veer off the runway in time. ATC separation error.
And what about all the incidents, which luckily never went totally wrong???
I feel sorry for the people involved and the innocent lives killed, so AMF stop the bull****, you are not better than anyone else, we're in the same boat whether its Africa, Asia or Alabama. ATC is here to do our best, we're after all human (unlike your posts).
9/11 was a disaster and so was the security and the alerting system to scramble F15s etc. What did ATC/NORAD do? Sleep? Hello! 4 aircraft were in a similar situation but nothing happened, well we all saw the pictures on CNN....
To ALL US controllers (read: only the John Wayne cowboys)
Have you introduced "AVIATION SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM" into your ATM yet??? Have you also heard about "hot spots"? Basically try to avoid unnecessary conflicts!!
And have you tried to follow ICAOs recommendations like the rest of the world?
Enough said
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to answer for AMF, but...
I don't see what that has to do with anything, as I recall, the aircraft were operating under VFR flight rules and no separation was being provided. All quite "normal" for the times.
I remember, and while you seem quite indignant about the memory of the controller who was stabbed to death, I assume you didn't know there was a California controller killed in the Metro, did you?
I'm sure most of us do.
Now I think you've crossed the line a step or two further than AMF. U.S. controllers did not "sleep" during 9/11, and in fact, all North American ATC was praised for the work we did that day in handling a situation not even remotely considered possible before that day.
I have no idea whether I qualify as a "John Wayne cowboy" in your view, (though I did grow up on a small cattle ranch in Texas!) However, to answer your question directly, I'll read the ICAO handbook when my employer sets it in front of me and says "Learn this". Until then, I have quite enough stuff to learn and read at work to keep me busy, thank you. Darn stuff leaks out about as fast as I can pour it back in lately... 
But feel free to call Marion and suggest the U.S. change over to strict ICAO procedures. I'm sure she's as anxious to hear your views as she is mine...
Jerricho,
I dunno, but if I ask some SWA pilot friends, they\'d probably reply they wouldn\'t feel at home any other way!
49 years ago today, on June 30, 1956, a TWA L-1049 Super Constellation collided with a United Airlines DC-7 over Grand Canyon, Arizona. All 128 passengers and crew aboard both aircraft were killed.
1991: remember LAX USAir B737 and the Metroliner?
I feel sorry for the people involved and the innocent lives killed,
9/11 was a disaster and so was the security and the alerting system to scramble F15s etc. What did ATC/NORAD do? Sleep?
To ALL US controllers (read: only the John Wayne cowboys)
Have you introduced "AVIATION SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM" into your ATM yet??? Have you also heard about "hot spots"? Basically try to avoid unnecessary conflicts!!
And have you tried to follow ICAOs recommendations like the rest of the world?
Have you introduced "AVIATION SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM" into your ATM yet??? Have you also heard about "hot spots"? Basically try to avoid unnecessary conflicts!!
And have you tried to follow ICAOs recommendations like the rest of the world?
But feel free to call Marion and suggest the U.S. change over to strict ICAO procedures. I'm sure she's as anxious to hear your views as she is mine...
I will ask drivers a simple question. At the end of a long flight, do you want an approach that doesn\'t spring any surprises on you, that is going to give you an intercept to final approach that isn\'t going to leave you high or fast with a TCAS bluttering at you about vertical speed and low level VFR traffic in you vicinity, with a runway change sprung on you at the last minute, all the while with the guy on the other end of the r/t trying his best to break the "words per minute" record?
Jerricho,
I dunno, but if I ask some SWA pilot friends, they\'d probably reply they wouldn\'t feel at home any other way!
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh, I didn't factor in those submissive type pilots out there 
"Yes mistress.....I'm a bad pilot!! Yell at me some more.....cancel my approach clearance. Oooooooo!"
"Yes mistress.....I'm a bad pilot!! Yell at me some more.....cancel my approach clearance. Oooooooo!"