What do pilots do that 'irk' you?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi! Good thread this. Helps to get some frustration out 
Have just one thing to add.
TCAS is NOT a radar, and is also not to be used to "reduce slowly" on final because you see a target 5-6NM ahead and think for yourself U have to make 3NM!
I work in Oslo (ENGM) APP. And we have a LOT of problems with pilots f
ing up the final...thinking they can do a better job making final space with TCAS. (How is it with this other places in the world??)
Normally we use 3NM on final, but depending on equipment status, runway conditions, Low vis. ,departure gaps, wake turbulence...and so on..it can be bigger spacing sometimes. So that means: we sometimes have to use more than 3NM.
So if I put you 6NM behind at 160kts, it means that I will for some reason need 5NM on touchdown. (You will normally "loose" 1NM in the short final phase).
I am so tired of pilots then using the TCAS to "get closer" than I need them with sloooooow speed reduction (or simply not reducing too).
You know...we do see the speed readout on our screens and know U cheating too.
SO when I then send you around and put you in the back of the line, dont come crying after landing
Have just one thing to add.
TCAS is NOT a radar, and is also not to be used to "reduce slowly" on final because you see a target 5-6NM ahead and think for yourself U have to make 3NM!
I work in Oslo (ENGM) APP. And we have a LOT of problems with pilots f
ing up the final...thinking they can do a better job making final space with TCAS. (How is it with this other places in the world??)Normally we use 3NM on final, but depending on equipment status, runway conditions, Low vis. ,departure gaps, wake turbulence...and so on..it can be bigger spacing sometimes. So that means: we sometimes have to use more than 3NM.
So if I put you 6NM behind at 160kts, it means that I will for some reason need 5NM on touchdown. (You will normally "loose" 1NM in the short final phase).
I am so tired of pilots then using the TCAS to "get closer" than I need them with sloooooow speed reduction (or simply not reducing too).
You know...we do see the speed readout on our screens and know U cheating too.
SO when I then send you around and put you in the back of the line, dont come crying after landing
Join Date: May 2004
Location: In the bush
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DP,
I knew who you were before you played the OS card........ and I still don't agree with you.
When you have a number of aircraft all avoiding the same cell, surely you don't want them all to tell you where the cell is and where they'll be going? Any reasonable controller should be able to figure out where the cell is and it would also be a reasonable assumption to expect that they'll all be roughly on the same track trying to avoid it?
I knew who you were before you played the OS card........ and I still don't agree with you.
When you have a number of aircraft all avoiding the same cell, surely you don't want them all to tell you where the cell is and where they'll be going? Any reasonable controller should be able to figure out where the cell is and it would also be a reasonable assumption to expect that they'll all be roughly on the same track trying to avoid it?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NuckingFuts (good movie!),
Here is a controversial opnion - if the last two asked to go that way, just put the followers on the same heading. How often do you see 5 out of 6 aircraft go to the left of the build up, and then one of them goes the other way for 40-50 miles before doing a 180 back again - getting in the way of everyone inbound usually!
One of the considerations of Radar Vectoring is issuing headings clear of known weather - and at the same time controllers are not supposed to use RAPIC when vectoring aircraft for wx avoidance (or however it is phrased). Therefor playing follow the leader effectively covers all bases and makes liefe easy - and RT minimal. Lets face it - if the pilot doesn't like it - they will soon speak up.
Here is a controversial opnion - if the last two asked to go that way, just put the followers on the same heading. How often do you see 5 out of 6 aircraft go to the left of the build up, and then one of them goes the other way for 40-50 miles before doing a 180 back again - getting in the way of everyone inbound usually!
One of the considerations of Radar Vectoring is issuing headings clear of known weather - and at the same time controllers are not supposed to use RAPIC when vectoring aircraft for wx avoidance (or however it is phrased). Therefor playing follow the leader effectively covers all bases and makes liefe easy - and RT minimal. Lets face it - if the pilot doesn't like it - they will soon speak up.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This part of the world we would never think of vectoring traffic around weather. They tell us what heading they need to fly and we tell them if they can or not. If due to military restricted airspace (lots of it here thanks to having the Iranians as our northern neighbors) we can't accomodate that heading we tell them what they can have and we work it out. All done quickly and without much fuss and unless we really need to know how long they will be on the heading we just tell them to tell us when they are clear and can resume track. Of course our airspace is full radar, and I do remember my former life doing Sector 1/5 in Melbourne (Urrgghhh as the shiver runs down my spine) and the details of the diversion, ie. how far left, for how long etc. are very pertinent when all your routes are laterally separated as long as everyone stays on track. Weather diversions on the Aussie bite and it's liable to turn into playing multiball on a pinball machine. So I can see both sides of the argument. Bottom line is for the pilots to keep it concise and quick, and if ATC needs more info they will ask for it.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here.....there.......
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an Engineers point of view....on company freq. inbound to night stop base, calling up 'no defects'......engineer meets aircraft, pilot wanders off saying 'yep, no defects', engineer starts doing Daily Insp. knowing not too much of a rush, as no defects. A while later goes to Tech Log to sign for 'Daily' to find numerous defect entries! Grrr. 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you have a number of aircraft all avoiding the same cell, surely you don't want them all to tell you where the cell is and where they'll be going? Any reasonable controller should be able to figure out where the cell is and it would also be a reasonable assumption to expect that they'll all be roughly on the same track trying to avoid it?
Also, since when did a storm cell stay stationary for any length of time. The 14,000ft wind lets you know where they generally are heading, but not the speed.
So I say again, I like the pilot to let me know how long for, just keep it short and concise.
Meanwhile back on thread. The most irksome thing I have with our GA colleagues is when a VFR aircraft calls up about 10nm from the boundary and asks for a clearance. Big deal? It is when they then give you their details because there is none in the system(no flight plan) and I have to enter it manually. Cumbersome at times, and takes me away from my other responsibilities, like separation, coordination, etc.
Please, if you're VFR and you need a clearance, give us plenty of warning, or put in a plan. You're more likely to get a clearance.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't honestly think having weather on the ATCOs primary radar display would help that much - there is such a disparity between different airlines etc about what severity of weather needs to be avoided etc, that second guessing a pilots decision would, to my mind, cause a greater overall workrate.
In the LTMA, where it is very densely packed traffic with a multitude of crossing tracks, we put a flow rate on if weather avoiding is taking place; everything becomes non standard anyways, I'd rather we managed the situation as it comes, rather than trying to be smart and outguess the aircrew.
Even if we had weather radar capability on each console, we would still need to introduce MDIs etc - therefore it would not save much in the way of workrate.
There is often the instance of pilots from the same company taking different courses of action - some will fly through certain cells, whilst a minute earlier, a colleague has requested avoiding headings. Either way, you can't win!!
In the LTMA, where it is very densely packed traffic with a multitude of crossing tracks, we put a flow rate on if weather avoiding is taking place; everything becomes non standard anyways, I'd rather we managed the situation as it comes, rather than trying to be smart and outguess the aircrew.
Even if we had weather radar capability on each console, we would still need to introduce MDIs etc - therefore it would not save much in the way of workrate.
There is often the instance of pilots from the same company taking different courses of action - some will fly through certain cells, whilst a minute earlier, a colleague has requested avoiding headings. Either way, you can't win!!
speed controll and decent restrictions
I would like to point out that speed is a variable that an aircraft some times has no control over, by that I mean that if we set say 280kts the aircraft may do 285kts or 270kts. Some aircraft are better than others in this respect, the B757 is especially poor.
Also slowing down, aircraft will respond to changing the speed in various ways depending on weight and aircraft type and how close it is to the level set in the MCP. Also the air density and weather a turn is commanded during the speed reduction can be factors, use of engine anti-ice is another factor. We do our best but the auto pilots are set up for pax comfort and fuel economy, and slowing from 300kts to say 250kts in the decent can take up to 30nms depending on the factors above, and the speed in level flight can fluctuate by up to 10kts.
Decent restrictions (my pet hate!)
Where the hell are some of these published? the MATS part1? when was the last time a pilot saw a copy of that? For example: where are the decent restrictions published for EMA? because thy dont appear anywhere on our plates or in any of the paper work on the flight deck. Coming in to EMA from MALUD, where is that restriction published? And BHX is just as bad. I know its not your fault and that these restrictions are published somewhere, but just be aware we may not have access to them, and a heads up helps in decent planning.
Having worked as an ACPO for a few years I have seen what kind of pressure you guys are under, and you do a fantastic job. But please beware that we may not know or be able to control everything you think we can. And everything in the decent is a trade off.
Also slowing down, aircraft will respond to changing the speed in various ways depending on weight and aircraft type and how close it is to the level set in the MCP. Also the air density and weather a turn is commanded during the speed reduction can be factors, use of engine anti-ice is another factor. We do our best but the auto pilots are set up for pax comfort and fuel economy, and slowing from 300kts to say 250kts in the decent can take up to 30nms depending on the factors above, and the speed in level flight can fluctuate by up to 10kts.
Decent restrictions (my pet hate!)
Where the hell are some of these published? the MATS part1? when was the last time a pilot saw a copy of that? For example: where are the decent restrictions published for EMA? because thy dont appear anywhere on our plates or in any of the paper work on the flight deck. Coming in to EMA from MALUD, where is that restriction published? And BHX is just as bad. I know its not your fault and that these restrictions are published somewhere, but just be aware we may not have access to them, and a heads up helps in decent planning.
Having worked as an ACPO for a few years I have seen what kind of pressure you guys are under, and you do a fantastic job. But please beware that we may not know or be able to control everything you think we can. And everything in the decent is a trade off.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: EU
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do i start!!!!
......On initial contact, being assigned a code, then not listening out for your onwards clearance
......Answering "Roger" to said clearance, then being asked for a mandatory readback to be asked to say it all again
......Asking for descent, being given a "descend now FL..." clearance, and then going no where - plan is based on now, not when you feel like it
......Not saying thanks when we go out of our way to organise shortcuts
......Jumping in on initial contact, not waiting to see how busy it is
......Routing to a final approach fix when told to go to VOR and replying we are - we have a radar we can see you
I could go on but i wont, Rant over!!!!
......On initial contact, being assigned a code, then not listening out for your onwards clearance
......Answering "Roger" to said clearance, then being asked for a mandatory readback to be asked to say it all again
......Asking for descent, being given a "descend now FL..." clearance, and then going no where - plan is based on now, not when you feel like it
......Not saying thanks when we go out of our way to organise shortcuts
......Jumping in on initial contact, not waiting to see how busy it is
......Routing to a final approach fix when told to go to VOR and replying we are - we have a radar we can see you
I could go on but i wont, Rant over!!!!
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Decent restrictions (my pet hate!)
Where the hell are some of these published? the MATS part1? when was the last time a pilot saw a copy of that? For example: where are the decent restrictions published for EMA? because thy dont appear anywhere on our plates or in any of the paper work on the flight deck. Coming in to EMA from MALUD, where is that restriction published? And BHX is just as bad. I know its not your fault and that these restrictions are published somewhere, but just be aware we may not have access to them, and a heads up helps in decent planning.
Where the hell are some of these published? the MATS part1? when was the last time a pilot saw a copy of that? For example: where are the decent restrictions published for EMA? because thy dont appear anywhere on our plates or in any of the paper work on the flight deck. Coming in to EMA from MALUD, where is that restriction published? And BHX is just as bad. I know its not your fault and that these restrictions are published somewhere, but just be aware we may not have access to them, and a heads up helps in decent planning.
The UK AIP publishes FL200 25Nm before CREWE and FL80 by ROKUP.
Not having the correct information on board is preventable and the information is (usually) out there in formal CAA documentation which pilots are supposed to use to brief themselves with ..... light a fire under your Ops department if they are not giving you the tools to do your job.
