ATC Bias
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg
"A half a or dozen or so instances or so" in how many approaches you have done to Singapore. I would hazard a guess that you have done hundreds if not thousands. That is not a bad %age. I can't begin to speculate at why you were made no 2 on these occasssions but i think some days you should just accept being the statue becauase you will never have the full picture.
"A half a or dozen or so instances or so" in how many approaches you have done to Singapore. I would hazard a guess that you have done hundreds if not thousands. That is not a bad %age. I can't begin to speculate at why you were made no 2 on these occasssions but i think some days you should just accept being the statue becauase you will never have the full picture.
Last edited by willadvise; 24th Sep 2005 at 12:49.
Nunc est bibendum
will, i'm a 767 driver.....I've only been to WSSS a half a dozen or so times in the last eight years! 
(Last time I flew in there was January this year and we had a win! High speed approach (as much as QF SOPs allow and direct tracking.....no one else in the sky though! 
)
Seriously though, I've copped it often enough to know when something is amiss. By the way, I think you'll find a bunch of 744 drivers would attest to the same thing and they fly in there a lot more often than I do!
(Last time I flew in there was January this year and we had a win! High speed approach (as much as QF SOPs allow and direct tracking.....no one else in the sky though! )Seriously though, I've copped it often enough to know when something is amiss. By the way, I think you'll find a bunch of 744 drivers would attest to the same thing and they fly in there a lot more often than I do!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 36 Sqn
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with Keg on WSSS.
The problem there has got worse since GOD decided to rub Lee Kwan Kew's nose in it by starting up the endless money pit otherwise known as JQ asia.
Perth is a disgrace. STARS that dont join up to air routes. Ambivilent (at best) controlling, rubbish CTA steps and ATCO's clearing you for visual approaches in IMC or outside the criteria (esp at night).
I understand that one of the reasons that international carriers such as EK always arrive there carrying an altn is due to the fact that the controlling is so bad that they consider a go-around is probably going to happen one out of three approaches or so.
The problem there has got worse since GOD decided to rub Lee Kwan Kew's nose in it by starting up the endless money pit otherwise known as JQ asia.
Perth is a disgrace. STARS that dont join up to air routes. Ambivilent (at best) controlling, rubbish CTA steps and ATCO's clearing you for visual approaches in IMC or outside the criteria (esp at night).
I understand that one of the reasons that international carriers such as EK always arrive there carrying an altn is due to the fact that the controlling is so bad that they consider a go-around is probably going to happen one out of three approaches or so.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caligula - yes I think you are right. I am sure there is a section in the EK Ops Supp that says when flying to PH ensure ALTN carried due "Caligula reckons the controlling is **** at PH".
Where would the ALTN for PH be by the way when traveling from the sandpit? And why would you carry an ALTN instead of just fuel for another approach?
If you want an understanding of the myriad of STARS around PH , look no further than the RAAF. I have never worked there but believe this is the main problem.
That and NAP.
NAP is the main reason that the quite sensible suggestion by ferris is spot on. STAR linked IAL that have no legs are a crock when traffic levels get above anything sedate. All flexibility goes out the window when all the APP controller has left is speed control - and speed control is getting to be impractical with all the accountant descents - unless everyone wants to do 210K from 30NM. Having a downwind and base turn determined by the APP controller gives the most efficient runway utilisation EVERY TIME. It's just that the NIMBYS preclude it - abley assisted by our spineless politicians.
Look at just about any busy aerodrome in the US and they run downwind legs or long finals with the APP person slotting them in - and it works. Because it is easy, and simple. Try doing the same amount fo traffic with all different intersecting angle tracks to a common point on a 6-10nm final, with different aircraft types (JET / PISTON) and it quickly becomes inefficient - but that it what we have allowed to develop in Australia.
Rant Over.
Where would the ALTN for PH be by the way when traveling from the sandpit? And why would you carry an ALTN instead of just fuel for another approach?
If you want an understanding of the myriad of STARS around PH , look no further than the RAAF. I have never worked there but believe this is the main problem.
That and NAP.
NAP is the main reason that the quite sensible suggestion by ferris is spot on. STAR linked IAL that have no legs are a crock when traffic levels get above anything sedate. All flexibility goes out the window when all the APP controller has left is speed control - and speed control is getting to be impractical with all the accountant descents - unless everyone wants to do 210K from 30NM. Having a downwind and base turn determined by the APP controller gives the most efficient runway utilisation EVERY TIME. It's just that the NIMBYS preclude it - abley assisted by our spineless politicians.
Look at just about any busy aerodrome in the US and they run downwind legs or long finals with the APP person slotting them in - and it works. Because it is easy, and simple. Try doing the same amount fo traffic with all different intersecting angle tracks to a common point on a 6-10nm final, with different aircraft types (JET / PISTON) and it quickly becomes inefficient - but that it what we have allowed to develop in Australia.
Rant Over.
A river to my people
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No fixed abode, No 29a
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again the poor but honest Flow is, rightly or wrongly, being maligned.
Flow control in CS is a bit of a black art, given the terrain, runway and taxiway restrictions, mix of traffic and often arcane company requirements.
For anyone, apart from the person who flowed the sequence in question, to try and explain it is probably futile.
For the benefit of those who may not have seen them posted before, here are general rules of Flow as it applies in Cairns and everywhere else.
Rules for successful flow control
1. Don’t trust pilots
2. Don’t trust sector controllers
3. Don’t trust tower controllers
4. Don’t trust anyone else
5. Develop a thick skin
6. Never back a Twin Otter to beat anything, even another Twin Otter
7. Never worry about departures, they are the tower's problem
8. Pray that the management pilots have good FOs
9. Computer Derived Threshold Times will be accurate only if the captain throws the computer out the storm window as he overflies the threshold in the go-round after being too intimate with the aircraft in front
10. All pilots think that they should be Number 1
11. Cardboard Bandeirantes can be used to hide unexplained gaps in the sequence
12. Unless they build more runways the maximum number of aircraft that can land at an airport in a given time will remain the same, despite the wetdreams of airline schedulers
13. Have faith in your own ability, no-one else does
14. Same money, right or wrong
15. If you believe the tower controller who says that the runway works will be finished prior to the start of the next sequence, you deserve all you get
16. Your are only as good as your last sequence
17. If your last sequence was not good, see above
18. Keep slipping the odd joke to the approach controllers, it keeps their mind off what is coming up
19. One day you will get a trainee who merely triples your workload
20. Never sit in approach and work your own sequence
21. Always keep a false nose or wig in the car, an angry mob waiting outside the carpark is not a pretty sight
22. The flow is never wrong, The flow is merely acting on information that may now be superseded.
sep
Flow control in CS is a bit of a black art, given the terrain, runway and taxiway restrictions, mix of traffic and often arcane company requirements.
For anyone, apart from the person who flowed the sequence in question, to try and explain it is probably futile.
For the benefit of those who may not have seen them posted before, here are general rules of Flow as it applies in Cairns and everywhere else.
Rules for successful flow control
1. Don’t trust pilots
2. Don’t trust sector controllers
3. Don’t trust tower controllers
4. Don’t trust anyone else
5. Develop a thick skin
6. Never back a Twin Otter to beat anything, even another Twin Otter
7. Never worry about departures, they are the tower's problem
8. Pray that the management pilots have good FOs
9. Computer Derived Threshold Times will be accurate only if the captain throws the computer out the storm window as he overflies the threshold in the go-round after being too intimate with the aircraft in front
10. All pilots think that they should be Number 1
11. Cardboard Bandeirantes can be used to hide unexplained gaps in the sequence
12. Unless they build more runways the maximum number of aircraft that can land at an airport in a given time will remain the same, despite the wetdreams of airline schedulers
13. Have faith in your own ability, no-one else does
14. Same money, right or wrong
15. If you believe the tower controller who says that the runway works will be finished prior to the start of the next sequence, you deserve all you get
16. Your are only as good as your last sequence
17. If your last sequence was not good, see above
18. Keep slipping the odd joke to the approach controllers, it keeps their mind off what is coming up
19. One day you will get a trainee who merely triples your workload
20. Never sit in approach and work your own sequence
21. Always keep a false nose or wig in the car, an angry mob waiting outside the carpark is not a pretty sight
22. The flow is never wrong, The flow is merely acting on information that may now be superseded.
sep
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Harbour
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Europe
In Europe you get duped everywhere you go! The local carriers get an insane amout of "favarouble" controling. When you return to the uk the forigin carriers get pref treatment so the UK guys don't look like they are helping the uk folks out....
Result.... Stiffed everywhere you go....
Sweet.....
Result.... Stiffed everywhere you go....
Sweet.....
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: cell block H
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The local carriers get an insane amout of "favarouble" controling.
Nothing can be as beneficial as foc club memberships, annual flights, etc.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are unfortunately, on at least one point, correct, Illadvised.
In the good old days the shiny jet with 150 odd pax got priority over the small charter A/c.
Now all you get is to pay a truckload more in airspace charges than the smaller brother and receive crap controlling into the bargain.
I don't expect anything other than for you to come up with excuses, and I am not going to waste valuable web space going into the 100s of examples of great controlling I had into perth over 10 years.
Quote: " lose at least 5 minutes " .....exactly my point, 5 minutes at 7 miles a min is 35nm, and thats about how good you guys are, 3 A/C inside 30 nm.
You give us 4 speed reductions starting at 160nm and the last at about 30nm, totalling 160IAS, and you think thats normal ???????
Now that I fly into Airports where 3 A/C in VMC is not considered a busy demanding task, my blood pressure is alot better.
To quote an anon yank departing PH :
" you know, you guys are the second best controllers in the world "
" Really?, who are the best "
" ...............everyone else "
In the good old days the shiny jet with 150 odd pax got priority over the small charter A/c.
Now all you get is to pay a truckload more in airspace charges than the smaller brother and receive crap controlling into the bargain.
I don't expect anything other than for you to come up with excuses, and I am not going to waste valuable web space going into the 100s of examples of great controlling I had into perth over 10 years.
Quote: " lose at least 5 minutes " .....exactly my point, 5 minutes at 7 miles a min is 35nm, and thats about how good you guys are, 3 A/C inside 30 nm.
You give us 4 speed reductions starting at 160nm and the last at about 30nm, totalling 160IAS, and you think thats normal ???????
Now that I fly into Airports where 3 A/C in VMC is not considered a busy demanding task, my blood pressure is alot better.
To quote an anon yank departing PH :
" you know, you guys are the second best controllers in the world "
" Really?, who are the best "
" ...............everyone else "
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Europe you get duped everywhere you go! The local carriers get an insane amout of "favarouble" controling. When you return to the uk the forigin carriers get pref treatment so the UK guys don't look like they are helping the uk folks out....
Not get involved in silly power games. We take the cards we are dealt and then get on with it.To keep the Dunnunda stuff on track, I've copied the European/UK slant as a new topic which can be debated in the ATC Forum.
ATC Bias UK/Europe
I've heard this story a few times (so it must be true!!).
Back in the 80's when we had a true 2 airline policy (TAA and Ansett), Sydney Manager gets the local reps from each airline into his office, says to each rep, he's the pile of complaints of favourtism, here's your half and he's the other half.
My guess that is breaks even in the long run unless we are talking about Compass Mark 1!!
Back in the 80's when we had a true 2 airline policy (TAA and Ansett), Sydney Manager gets the local reps from each airline into his office, says to each rep, he's the pile of complaints of favourtism, here's your half and he's the other half.
My guess that is breaks even in the long run unless we are talking about Compass Mark 1!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg and I have had the discussion about Singapore ATC before, yet I doubt if Keg has even yet done as I suggested and visited SIN ATC at work to see for himself that, if anything, they would prefer to disadvantage an SQ aircraft than a visitor. By Kegs own admission he only goes to SIN very rarely. Willadvise makes the very good point that at Changi you can expect a whole lot more SQ than anything else, I got very irate once about being, as I thought, 'stuffed' by another SQ that I thought was both behind and above me, turned out the callsign was only different by virtue of the same digits in a different order e.g. '826' and '862', very pleased my sharp eared FO spotted it in time that the 'traffic' was, in fact, ahead and below.
Keg, I wouldn't bother asking those QF captains if I were you! When I was there many of them had taken their 'super' and gone to SIA, no complaints at all about SIN ATC, had visited the operation and fully understood the workings, found it to be totally fair and, if anything, biased against SQ and I would urge all of you who visit Singapore to take the time to visit ATC, they would welcome you and be pleased to show you how it all works, they are a very professional bunch, much better than my experience of Sydney, for example.
Finally, Keg, you can reasonably expect a .86 747 to be put ahead of a .80 767, or even if you are in a 747, when ATC are trying to put you on the runway nearest to your terminal and SQ on the runway nearest to theirs.
Keg, I wouldn't bother asking those QF captains if I were you! When I was there many of them had taken their 'super' and gone to SIA, no complaints at all about SIN ATC, had visited the operation and fully understood the workings, found it to be totally fair and, if anything, biased against SQ and I would urge all of you who visit Singapore to take the time to visit ATC, they would welcome you and be pleased to show you how it all works, they are a very professional bunch, much better than my experience of Sydney, for example.
Finally, Keg, you can reasonably expect a .86 747 to be put ahead of a .80 767, or even if you are in a 747, when ATC are trying to put you on the runway nearest to your terminal and SQ on the runway nearest to theirs.
Nunc est bibendum
G'day Blue,
I did ask once. They were unable to accommodate me that day. The other day they suggested I wasn't in SIN so no good. Given that I don't go to SIN all that often, wouldn't you think that it would make the perception of bias even more apparent? It seems to happen almost every time I go there!
I will ask again when I resume longer slips in SIN though.
I will admit to not being as up to speed on SIN ops as some of my 744 bretheren (although I'm looking forward to that changing next year) however if I'm complaining, please give me credit for 1. working out that the call sign of the aircraft behind me is now being vectored in front of me and 2. that he is being vectored for the same runway as me. If I was including the times I'd been vectored or slowed down for an SQ (or other carrier) on the other runway then I'd be bitching about a few dozen more occasions than 'half a dozen'!
I did ask once. They were unable to accommodate me that day. The other day they suggested I wasn't in SIN so no good. Given that I don't go to SIN all that often, wouldn't you think that it would make the perception of bias even more apparent? It seems to happen almost every time I go there!
I will ask again when I resume longer slips in SIN though.I will admit to not being as up to speed on SIN ops as some of my 744 bretheren (although I'm looking forward to that changing next year) however if I'm complaining, please give me credit for 1. working out that the call sign of the aircraft behind me is now being vectored in front of me and 2. that he is being vectored for the same runway as me. If I was including the times I'd been vectored or slowed down for an SQ (or other carrier) on the other runway then I'd be bitching about a few dozen more occasions than 'half a dozen'!
Funny people pilots...they get paid by the minute, but want to go everywhere as fast as they can.
Question for any ATCers at Sydney. When doing the RIC1 departure, is it the distance to RIC or the altitude that allows a turn to the east (crawley for example), disregarding traffic of course?
Also, with these PLTs being passed now, is it better to be a bit early, or on time? Do the arriving aircraft seem to be following the PLT given? If we are aiming to make the PLT, and the TAS has been reduced/increased, does the ADS report you get update this, or do we need to keep you updated, or is the PLT enough?
Thanks.
Don
Question for any ATCers at Sydney. When doing the RIC1 departure, is it the distance to RIC or the altitude that allows a turn to the east (crawley for example), disregarding traffic of course?
Also, with these PLTs being passed now, is it better to be a bit early, or on time? Do the arriving aircraft seem to be following the PLT given? If we are aiming to make the PLT, and the TAS has been reduced/increased, does the ADS report you get update this, or do we need to keep you updated, or is the PLT enough?
Thanks.
Don
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Near a star named Rivet
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can only help with your first question, Don, after asking the same one myself, and the answer is both. Out to 12DME SY (from memory) for "noise abatement", but beyond that the crucial thing is height as you generally have to be above ten thousand to cross back over the inbound tracks.
On a related topic, that visit helped me understand a whole lot about YSSY ops. Relaxed but on the whole, I would have said pretty professional. What did they do to you, BlueEagle?
On a related topic, that visit helped me understand a whole lot about YSSY ops. Relaxed but on the whole, I would have said pretty professional. What did they do to you, BlueEagle?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don,
Sosij is absolutely right re the SID.
On the PLTs, let us know verbally if you change speed by m.01 or more (I think I read that somewhere).
On the first day someone changed by M.07 without advising us. This lead to a BOS or near BOS as aircraft behind tried to catch up due to normal speed... imagine that.
The PLTs seem to work most days, but I have seen two days that were horrible.
Further on the Bias, I was 'growled at' by a 767 driver because I gave them 250K today and the following VB Max;
he "why are we being made number two to VB?"
me "You're not, you'll win"
he "we've just been slowed and VB has max?"
me "You are sixty miles ahead, he can't catch you, but you can catch the preceding slowed 737".
Big picture people, it's very important.
Sosij is absolutely right re the SID.
On the PLTs, let us know verbally if you change speed by m.01 or more (I think I read that somewhere).
On the first day someone changed by M.07 without advising us. This lead to a BOS or near BOS as aircraft behind tried to catch up due to normal speed... imagine that.
The PLTs seem to work most days, but I have seen two days that were horrible.
Further on the Bias, I was 'growled at' by a 767 driver because I gave them 250K today and the following VB Max;
he "why are we being made number two to VB?"
me "You're not, you'll win"
he "we've just been slowed and VB has max?"
me "You are sixty miles ahead, he can't catch you, but you can catch the preceding slowed 737".
Big picture people, it's very important.
Thanks for that fellas.
Don
Don
This has been a very informative thread and I thank the ATCO's for all their input.
I appreciate that the majority of ATCO's throughout the world are too busy doing their job for BIAS to even be considered however, I have just done an arrival into SIN whereby two SQ aircraft that were behind us (one was 35NM behind) were vectored into the sequence ahead of us - the only excuse that I can imagine Singapore ATC using as a defence would be that they (SQ) were vectored for landing on the "departure" runway and therefore did not affect the flow of the arriving aircraft. In theory that might have substance but as SIN does not have systems and procedures (that SYD has) in respect of close parallel runway operations then the aircraft on the arrivals runway have to be slowed down to achieve the required approach separation. We did two 180 degree heading changes on long final to achieve the required separation costing us 6 minutes - the worst that I have experienced into SIN was in excess of 30mins which might be acceptable at airports which have large volumes of movements but Changi isn't one of them. I have also experienced being at the holding point on the "departure" runway and having to wait in excess of 10 minutes for SQ aircraft to land (SIN ATC won't give a departure clearance if an arriving aircraft is 2000' or below). If they are not going to use the runways such as 20C for departure and 20R for arrivals then why nominate them as such on the ATIS and in their documented procedures? Compared to the rest of the world their procedures are very conservative and thus makes it easy to for them to look after the government owned carrier.
Earlier this year, I was taxiing in MEL for SIN and the SQ flight was immediately ahead in the taxy sequence for Rwy 16 (duty departure Rwy 27 but because of our weight Rwy 16 was operationally required.) I suspected that the SQ flight would not be "ready" at the holding point so we advised ATC that we could accept a "C" intersection departure. ATC then enquired of SQ whether they would be ready at the holding point Rwy 16. They replied in the affirmative. ATC then cleared them to "line up" and, after a domestic flight departed off Rwy 27, they were cleared for takeoff. Their response was that they were not ready and needed 1 more minute. We had of course followed them to the holding point so the option of the "C" intersection departure was no longer available to us and we had to just wait while SQ took 5 minutes on the runway to be "ready". I was impressed with how polite the ATC personel remained because I know that if the situation was reversed in SIN then ATC would have ordered us to taxy off the runway and then take over an hour to "negotiate" a new ATC clearance.
I understand that we as pilots don't have all the information that ATC has in the arrival sequence but when you have been flying for 12 hours from Europe and know the relative position and altitude of all conflicting traffic on the same and parallel air routes then you know when you are being "shafted". TCAS also gives us further insight as to what is happening during approach sequencing.
I'm not encouraging AUS ATC to do anything to "balance" this problem but simply be aware that this manipulation is going on. GB
I appreciate that the majority of ATCO's throughout the world are too busy doing their job for BIAS to even be considered however, I have just done an arrival into SIN whereby two SQ aircraft that were behind us (one was 35NM behind) were vectored into the sequence ahead of us - the only excuse that I can imagine Singapore ATC using as a defence would be that they (SQ) were vectored for landing on the "departure" runway and therefore did not affect the flow of the arriving aircraft. In theory that might have substance but as SIN does not have systems and procedures (that SYD has) in respect of close parallel runway operations then the aircraft on the arrivals runway have to be slowed down to achieve the required approach separation. We did two 180 degree heading changes on long final to achieve the required separation costing us 6 minutes - the worst that I have experienced into SIN was in excess of 30mins which might be acceptable at airports which have large volumes of movements but Changi isn't one of them. I have also experienced being at the holding point on the "departure" runway and having to wait in excess of 10 minutes for SQ aircraft to land (SIN ATC won't give a departure clearance if an arriving aircraft is 2000' or below). If they are not going to use the runways such as 20C for departure and 20R for arrivals then why nominate them as such on the ATIS and in their documented procedures? Compared to the rest of the world their procedures are very conservative and thus makes it easy to for them to look after the government owned carrier.
Earlier this year, I was taxiing in MEL for SIN and the SQ flight was immediately ahead in the taxy sequence for Rwy 16 (duty departure Rwy 27 but because of our weight Rwy 16 was operationally required.) I suspected that the SQ flight would not be "ready" at the holding point so we advised ATC that we could accept a "C" intersection departure. ATC then enquired of SQ whether they would be ready at the holding point Rwy 16. They replied in the affirmative. ATC then cleared them to "line up" and, after a domestic flight departed off Rwy 27, they were cleared for takeoff. Their response was that they were not ready and needed 1 more minute. We had of course followed them to the holding point so the option of the "C" intersection departure was no longer available to us and we had to just wait while SQ took 5 minutes on the runway to be "ready". I was impressed with how polite the ATC personel remained because I know that if the situation was reversed in SIN then ATC would have ordered us to taxy off the runway and then take over an hour to "negotiate" a new ATC clearance.
I understand that we as pilots don't have all the information that ATC has in the arrival sequence but when you have been flying for 12 hours from Europe and know the relative position and altitude of all conflicting traffic on the same and parallel air routes then you know when you are being "shafted". TCAS also gives us further insight as to what is happening during approach sequencing.
I'm not encouraging AUS ATC to do anything to "balance" this problem but simply be aware that this manipulation is going on. GB
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
common sense/ITCZ......sort of wonder whether you 2 fly and work in the "real" aviation world....I am not familiar with this situation...but let me give you a couple to ponder......KPHX and Southwest Airlines....Pittsburgh KPIT and USAirways.....MMEX,Mexico city and Air Mexicana,KDEN Denver and United Airlines....Minneapolis KMSP and Northwest Airlines...to name a few...Dont tell me there isnt a bias!!! you are wrong,this in most instances is not intentional but still a bias...whats in it for them you ask...how obvious can it be??? These airlines ,at these airports,mostly base airports,pay landing fees etc etc....shorter landing sequences mean shorter fuel burns, da da da da daaaaaaaa......Nobody in their right bloody mind would openly admit to a preferential landing sequence,unless of course an emergency.....I have an ATC mate who will tells me in strict confidence that bias does occur,if you dont believe they do ...you are fools.....My advice to those who get delayed vectors,put out of sequence...GET OVER IT,be the professional you are...or declare the Emergency...you will be on time....possibly even early 