Cathay Jackwagon
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mid-West
act700 Atlanta-HKG via ANC would likely route over Kansas I think. CX091 is Atlanta-ANC-HKG three times a week. My geographic knowledge of the USA is restricted I know. The real point is it was easy for Bugg Smasher to label the crew of CX091 as "the stuck pig that he really is". I wonder if he would be so forthcoming "face-to-face"? I doubt it. We all have an "off" day from time to time.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: On a few nerves apparently
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a cathay epidemic disease. I've lost count of how many times I've been sitting next to one like this tool you described crying on the radio and attempting to lecture ATC only to end up getting a new butthole manufactured for him by the controller and showing how little situational awareness he has and how out of his comfort zone he is. This is equally true of Aussie, Brit, and even the Canadians. They think they're the center of the universe and all should make way for them. What's professionalism? Not having a clue about the airspace procedures of the country you're flying over is certainly lack of it. This is true of very senior checkers and managers just the same. Clueless about how things work in the congested, busy and complicated airspace over the US is an understatement. They get their a$$es handed to them for acting like self centered children after making requests and demands that only proves how clueless they are about their surroundings and how the system works, ALL THE TIME. They're used to being able to demand special treatment and get their way with Manila control etc... and don't realize that coming across as feeling more special than others in the US will only get you harsh treatment, to be fair. You can't call the US ATC unprofessional if you don't know how the system works by making it obvious with your irrelevant and stupid demands and making their job harder as a result having to explain how it is to you over the radio.
Example:
If you don't know how much you increase a controller's workload by refusing to call traffic or airport in sight and accept a visual approach in very visual conditions when everyone else is doing it, and then not realize why you're treated not so good and calling the controller rude... you're clueless about your surroundings. You wouldn't like it if someone made your work harder either.
If you're asking Vancouver control to change your filed arrival clearance into Anchorage and can't understand why that's a stupid request to make and keep insisting and force the controller to treat you like a clueless amateur, you can't call him unprofessional or rude.
If you think that as a pilot you have the big picture on what's going on at a place like Chicago, Dallas, LA, JFK during busy arrival times and try to second guess the controller such as attempting to vnav descent according to your fantasy picture in your head and cause problems for the approach controller and get your ass handed to you, don't complain, you deserve it.
Oh yeah, and learn to talk and hear fast. Multiple instructions in one transmission and reading them back just as fast. Try harder chap, you can do it. Slow and inflexible doesn't cut it here. United flies the same big iron as you do and they keep up just fine.
Example:
If you don't know how much you increase a controller's workload by refusing to call traffic or airport in sight and accept a visual approach in very visual conditions when everyone else is doing it, and then not realize why you're treated not so good and calling the controller rude... you're clueless about your surroundings. You wouldn't like it if someone made your work harder either.
If you're asking Vancouver control to change your filed arrival clearance into Anchorage and can't understand why that's a stupid request to make and keep insisting and force the controller to treat you like a clueless amateur, you can't call him unprofessional or rude.
If you think that as a pilot you have the big picture on what's going on at a place like Chicago, Dallas, LA, JFK during busy arrival times and try to second guess the controller such as attempting to vnav descent according to your fantasy picture in your head and cause problems for the approach controller and get your ass handed to you, don't complain, you deserve it.
Oh yeah, and learn to talk and hear fast. Multiple instructions in one transmission and reading them back just as fast. Try harder chap, you can do it. Slow and inflexible doesn't cut it here. United flies the same big iron as you do and they keep up just fine.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: N. America
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post V. I do, however, think the Canadians are very clued in to US flying. I'd like to hear comments from some of the guys flying into ATL on a regular basis (we don't seem to hear from them often on this forum). While the ATL airport is much better than JFK from an operations standpoint (rwy layout, approaches, etc), it also has higher traffic volume. In addtion, the summer weather can create quite a $hitstorm in short order in light of that traffic volume.
PS - JFK-YVR also crosses what is known as the American midwest - the northern states such as Michigan, Minnesota, etc.
PS - JFK-YVR also crosses what is known as the American midwest - the northern states such as Michigan, Minnesota, etc.
Last edited by Mooseflyer; 23rd Nov 2010 at 04:10.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speedy delivery
I recall a US carrier in Seoul a few years ago, having received the clearance (which we all understood because we’d been there countless times) say, “OK, now I know how fast you can say it, let’s see how clearly you can say it”. I wonder what would have happened in JFK had a Korean pilot had the temerity to question the delivery of an ATC clearance? It was funny though.
True story.
STP
True story.
STP
V,
Flying throughout the States I have heard more FU's from US pilots and controllers than from other nationalities. Statistically I should, of course, but a vast number of these were due to slack, amateur RT procedure.
Traditionally you don't stand in glass houses and throw stones!
Flying throughout the States I have heard more FU's from US pilots and controllers than from other nationalities. Statistically I should, of course, but a vast number of these were due to slack, amateur RT procedure.
Traditionally you don't stand in glass houses and throw stones!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: On a few nerves apparently
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are you talking about?? Talking fast isn't an accent. Yanks don't have an accent anyway! 
The southerners and hillbillies aren't considered Yanks! Call one a Yank and tell us about the reaction you get.
Anyway, the main subject here wasn't accents.
Among US pilots there are many many who have very poor RT. You'll never hear me defend them. The ATC's RT standard on the other hand is very good. Read the US AIM or the US AIP, the ICAO document which is exactly the copy of the AIM. Specifically Air Traffic Control tab, section 4-2-1 and on. Then see how often you can catch US ATC not speaking exactly as that. You will find a few but not often at all. Unless you've read that, you don't know what "Standard Phraseology" in the US is and you can't seriously critisize it. To be ICAO standard, a nation has to submit it's standards/procedures to the ICAO body so it's known to all. They don't have to copy CAA, JAA, CAD etc... standards to be ICAO compliant. They're not non-standard just because they don't do it the way you're comfortable with.
If you're flying in US airspace and are given this clearance "Bumble Jet 123, climb and maintain one five thousand" and you don't repeat exactly as that... YOU are the one who's NON-STANDARD. That using the word 'Altitude' which is your company's thing to do, is NOT standard in the US.
If you're unaware that when ATC issues a "traffic at xx o'clock" call during climb/descent/cruise whatever, and having seen the traffic you're unaware that now you're required to respond with "... traffic in sight", YOU are the one who's NON-STANDARD for not knowing the standards.
I find it amusing that some cathay pilots use the word Altitude with regards to altitude clearances with ATC (as company policy says), yet HK ATC doesn't use that format and doesn't use the word Altitude. Someone is NON-STANDARD here! Which one?? Does HK CAA even have the substantial documentation like the British or the US versions to cover it's acceptable RT? It's called 'Standard Phraseology' in the US by the way. They won't know what you're talking about if you say RT.
The southerners and hillbillies aren't considered Yanks! Call one a Yank and tell us about the reaction you get. Anyway, the main subject here wasn't accents.
Among US pilots there are many many who have very poor RT. You'll never hear me defend them. The ATC's RT standard on the other hand is very good. Read the US AIM or the US AIP, the ICAO document which is exactly the copy of the AIM. Specifically Air Traffic Control tab, section 4-2-1 and on. Then see how often you can catch US ATC not speaking exactly as that. You will find a few but not often at all. Unless you've read that, you don't know what "Standard Phraseology" in the US is and you can't seriously critisize it. To be ICAO standard, a nation has to submit it's standards/procedures to the ICAO body so it's known to all. They don't have to copy CAA, JAA, CAD etc... standards to be ICAO compliant. They're not non-standard just because they don't do it the way you're comfortable with.
If you're flying in US airspace and are given this clearance "Bumble Jet 123, climb and maintain one five thousand" and you don't repeat exactly as that... YOU are the one who's NON-STANDARD. That using the word 'Altitude' which is your company's thing to do, is NOT standard in the US.
If you're unaware that when ATC issues a "traffic at xx o'clock" call during climb/descent/cruise whatever, and having seen the traffic you're unaware that now you're required to respond with "... traffic in sight", YOU are the one who's NON-STANDARD for not knowing the standards.
I find it amusing that some cathay pilots use the word Altitude with regards to altitude clearances with ATC (as company policy says), yet HK ATC doesn't use that format and doesn't use the word Altitude. Someone is NON-STANDARD here! Which one?? Does HK CAA even have the substantial documentation like the British or the US versions to cover it's acceptable RT? It's called 'Standard Phraseology' in the US by the way. They won't know what you're talking about if you say RT.
Last edited by VforVENDETTA; 23rd Nov 2010 at 08:20.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Miffed at being an online internet comedy ....
Age: 69
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have ops put a special notice on the flight plan ...
#-TE TOSS EQUIPPED
That way, when I start unleashing my delusional jihad on foreign controllers they know to cut me a bit of slack.
#-TE TOSS EQUIPPED
That way, when I start unleashing my delusional jihad on foreign controllers they know to cut me a bit of slack.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't know how much you increase a controller's workload by refusing to call traffic or airport in sight and accept a visual approach in very visual conditions when everyone else is doing it, and then not realize why you're treated not so good and calling the controller rude... you're clueless about your surroundings. You wouldn't like it if someone made your work harder either
I think you meant to say 'don't you realise that you aren't reducing a controllers workload by not doing what everyone else is doing because you reasonably expect radar vectors from ATC and can obviously make your own mind up'.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vfor
In your original post you make a reference to “talking and hearing fast”. The following is an extract from an article entitled "Pilots and Memory: A Study of a Fallible Human System" by Robert Baron of The Aviation Consulting Group and written with reference to much academic research including both NASA and the FAA:
So, it's long been recognized that transfer of information is dependent on a number of factors, not just speed. Speed doesn’t necessarily equate to efficiency as you’ve no doubt found when you’ve operated into India or some ports in SE Asia - I assume you have, or do you only operate into North America?
This from the the supplement to UK CAP 413:
I guess this came in because someone might misinterpret (and readback) an instruction such as "Descend two four zero zero feet" as meaning "Descend to four zero zero feet" - think Flying Tigers Kuala Lumpur. So, I assume that when you fly to UK airspace you not only follow company procedures (if you work for CX that is) but also national procedures as to do otherwise you would have to ask yourself the following question:
No-one’s perfect in this job and I’m staggered that this trivial event has sparked such a response, most of which was inconsequential until safety issues were touched on by your original post. Lord Spandex has highlighted one, i.e. visual approaches and I'm now highlighting the other.
Surely, a flexible approach to national idiosyncrasies might reduce the number of incidents in our incident-prone industry. However, going by his thread I doubt it very much (anyway, everyone knows Aussie ATC is the best..)
STP
When ATC reads a clearance, and the pilot reads it back, many errors are noticeable, based on the delivery speed of the clearance. It is this author's estimate that clearances that are delivered at the highest speeds have as much as a 80% readback error rate, whereas clearances that are delivered at conversational speeds may only have a 10%-20% readback error rate.
Air Traffic Controllers do have a manual that provides tips on communication with pilots (FAA, 1999). Under chapter two in the manual entitled "Human Factors for Air Traffic Control Specialists: A User's Manual for Your Brain," the limitations of human memory are elucidated to remind controllers that human memory is fallible, and practical techniques should be used to offset these limitations. Highlights of the chapter include:
Speaking slowly and distinctly gives any listener a better chance of correctly hearing what was said.
Give pilots no more than three pieces of information in a single transmission. Studies have shown that cramming too much information in a single transmission can cause problems.
Air Traffic Controllers do have a manual that provides tips on communication with pilots (FAA, 1999). Under chapter two in the manual entitled "Human Factors for Air Traffic Control Specialists: A User's Manual for Your Brain," the limitations of human memory are elucidated to remind controllers that human memory is fallible, and practical techniques should be used to offset these limitations. Highlights of the chapter include:
Speaking slowly and distinctly gives any listener a better chance of correctly hearing what was said.
Give pilots no more than three pieces of information in a single transmission. Studies have shown that cramming too much information in a single transmission can cause problems.
This from the the supplement to UK CAP 413:
For level changes and reports, TO shall only be used in connection with altitude or height, e.g. DESCEND TO ALTITUDE 3000 FEET. It is not used when describing Flight Levels, e.g. CLIMB FLIGHT LEVEL 250
What's professionalism? Not having a clue about the airspace procedures of the country you're flying over is certainly lack of it.
Surely, a flexible approach to national idiosyncrasies might reduce the number of incidents in our incident-prone industry. However, going by his thread I doubt it very much (anyway, everyone knows Aussie ATC is the best..)
STP
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VforVendetta
Thirty-five years ago, controllers were far more deferential and, not to mention, even polite. They made no bones about the fact that they were there to make a pilot's job easier. This attitude was reciprocated, and the tone and language on the frequency was calm and respectful.
But then over the past thirty-five years something happened. Today controllers feel it's OK to demand that pilots yank and bank a 747, like it had the inertia of a kingair, to make their job easier. Controllers now feel comfortable berating and insulting pilots. Their arrogance has become astounding! SFO ATC had the temerity to lecture our Manager Line Ops when he questioned the high number of RA's our flights have been getting in SFO.
V are you kidding me? You think that's something for you to be proud of? You hold this system up as some kind of gold standard and disparage Brits, Ausies, and Canadians for questioning this. The jackwagon that inspired this thread may indeed have been a d#$khead, but that's no justification for you to go on a shooting rampage. Shame on you.
I am a Canadian, BTW, and I hold three ATPL's...one of which is American. I have been flying in the US for all of my 35 years as a pilot, so please don't lecture me on US TERPS, the AIM, or the AIP. Your forefather's would not have put up with the current system in the States. Not for one second! Maybe you need to ask yourself why you feel that you must.
I obviously take issue with your comments. The American system is strained to the bursting point and, although many controllers remain ladies and gentleman, many of the controllers have become boors.
I don't need to be made to feel as if I've just had a full body pat down every time I fly into SFO, LAX, or JFK.
Thirty-five years ago, controllers were far more deferential and, not to mention, even polite. They made no bones about the fact that they were there to make a pilot's job easier. This attitude was reciprocated, and the tone and language on the frequency was calm and respectful.
But then over the past thirty-five years something happened. Today controllers feel it's OK to demand that pilots yank and bank a 747, like it had the inertia of a kingair, to make their job easier. Controllers now feel comfortable berating and insulting pilots. Their arrogance has become astounding! SFO ATC had the temerity to lecture our Manager Line Ops when he questioned the high number of RA's our flights have been getting in SFO.
V are you kidding me? You think that's something for you to be proud of? You hold this system up as some kind of gold standard and disparage Brits, Ausies, and Canadians for questioning this. The jackwagon that inspired this thread may indeed have been a d#$khead, but that's no justification for you to go on a shooting rampage. Shame on you.
I am a Canadian, BTW, and I hold three ATPL's...one of which is American. I have been flying in the US for all of my 35 years as a pilot, so please don't lecture me on US TERPS, the AIM, or the AIP. Your forefather's would not have put up with the current system in the States. Not for one second! Maybe you need to ask yourself why you feel that you must.
I obviously take issue with your comments. The American system is strained to the bursting point and, although many controllers remain ladies and gentleman, many of the controllers have become boors.
I don't need to be made to feel as if I've just had a full body pat down every time I fly into SFO, LAX, or JFK.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On a foreign shore trying a new wine diet. So far, I've lost 3days!
Age: 75
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By definition, of course, half the pilots now flying are below average and half the controllers now controlling are above average. You can see where the problem lies.
Hat, coat, exit
Hat, coat, exit
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackwagon YouTube - GEICO - Sarge
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: On a few nerves apparently
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I said nothing about accepting visual approaches or not. I said calling traffic in sight once it is. I tried to be specific by saying during climb/descent/cruise. I left the approach phase out intentionally. Yes I'm fully aware of the visual approach acceptance vs. not doing so. It's a differrent subject.
I'll stop now before my forefathers become any more the subject of this exchange.
I'll stop now before my forefathers become any more the subject of this exchange.
Last edited by VforVENDETTA; 24th Nov 2010 at 03:23.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Somewhere out there..
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V, this is what you said on 24th Nov 2010:
1 day ago on the 23rd Nov 2010:
Prease expain to me, my Engrish not feli good....
I said nothing about accepting visual approaches or not. I said calling traffic in sight once it is. I tried to be specific by saying during climb/descent/cruise. I left the approach phase out intentionally....
If you don't know how much you increase a controller's workload by refusing to call traffic or airport in sight and accept a visual approach in very visual conditions when everyone else is doing it, and then not realize why you're treated not so good and calling the controller rude... you're clueless about your surroundings. You wouldn't like it if someone made your work harder either.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: On a few nerves apparently
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, by all means don't accept visual approaches at all. There's nothing wrong with that. But DO know WHY the controller is ticked off at you. Know why you're getting the treatment. Most don't know why they're being treated that way. That's my point here, nothing else.
Bye
Bye