Assertive controllers - what do you expect?
Willit
I can be on a 10 mile final significantly higher than I'd like (nominal 3 to 1) and still be stabilized by 1000 AAE. Yes, the controller can certainly recognize an aircraft when its outside its normal parameters from experience, the best option is a "hey, you gonna make it down?" call. I don't want the controller crawling in the cockpit with me, just the same I don't want the pilot trying to control the big picture.
I can be on a 10 mile final significantly higher than I'd like (nominal 3 to 1) and still be stabilized by 1000 AAE. Yes, the controller can certainly recognize an aircraft when its outside its normal parameters from experience, the best option is a "hey, you gonna make it down?" call. I don't want the controller crawling in the cockpit with me, just the same I don't want the pilot trying to control the big picture.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the Blue Planet
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Radar
Could'nt agree more!
Thing is, as already stated in different forms above, each aircraft has its flight characteristics and each pilot its flying style
Regarding final approach everybody agrees, we have to establish on the more or less standard 3° approach path of the glide:
First question, how to join this path? Most of the folks I fly with go for the conservative (fuel guzzling and noisy but nerve saving) method intercept from below. Second group (I sure try to be in those...) trying to get a simultaneous GS/LOC capture (star) while accomplishing a constant descent initial approach. The last group (to which I sometimes admit being part of) coming, as a result of some mis-calculation, from above the glide, then having to get all the tricks out of the box to save the day, all the while still staying withing FDM limits.
Question "track miles xx, can you make it?". The question could also sometimes be "do you want to make it". Considerations of pitch down attitude, use of speed brakes/air brakes, and again limits of FDM are factors which are weighed by the pilot before answering, and here goes the "eerr". I guess good pilots should be ready for a yes or no answer at all times during the approach.
Second question, when to start the initial descent. Modern FMS permits normal jet descent, e.g. open/profile or level change descent. Despite the fact that the actual jet aircraft has been designed for this kind of descent, I see most F/Os calculating a 3° descent slope for the whole descent...
On the aircraft I fly, approaching MAN and being instructed "descent at discretion FL200 to be level 25NM before TNT" means prompting the AFCAS for an automatic descent, then approaching the profile give it some ROD as to increase pax comfort for a gentle start of the descent. Again, I would not argue this is THE BEST way, only a matter of individual style.
Finally the best safety argument is to exercise caution in the pilot / ATCO interaction. Both groups have been observed to screw up at one time or another
Controllers are there to assist pilots so they can conduct a safe flight
Thing is, as already stated in different forms above, each aircraft has its flight characteristics and each pilot its flying style
Regarding final approach everybody agrees, we have to establish on the more or less standard 3° approach path of the glide:
First question, how to join this path? Most of the folks I fly with go for the conservative (fuel guzzling and noisy but nerve saving) method intercept from below. Second group (I sure try to be in those...) trying to get a simultaneous GS/LOC capture (star) while accomplishing a constant descent initial approach. The last group (to which I sometimes admit being part of) coming, as a result of some mis-calculation, from above the glide, then having to get all the tricks out of the box to save the day, all the while still staying withing FDM limits.
Question "track miles xx, can you make it?". The question could also sometimes be "do you want to make it". Considerations of pitch down attitude, use of speed brakes/air brakes, and again limits of FDM are factors which are weighed by the pilot before answering, and here goes the "eerr". I guess good pilots should be ready for a yes or no answer at all times during the approach.
Second question, when to start the initial descent. Modern FMS permits normal jet descent, e.g. open/profile or level change descent. Despite the fact that the actual jet aircraft has been designed for this kind of descent, I see most F/Os calculating a 3° descent slope for the whole descent...
On the aircraft I fly, approaching MAN and being instructed "descent at discretion FL200 to be level 25NM before TNT" means prompting the AFCAS for an automatic descent, then approaching the profile give it some ROD as to increase pax comfort for a gentle start of the descent. Again, I would not argue this is THE BEST way, only a matter of individual style.
Finally the best safety argument is to exercise caution in the pilot / ATCO interaction. Both groups have been observed to screw up at one time or another
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SV Marie Celeste
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well lets flip the omelete. How would you feel as an ATCO if a pilot on short finals asked another traffic not to line up on the runway as it judged the separation to be compromised. I can conceive a situation where it could be justified and it may prevent an incident or worse but.... it would be an extremely rear event and only justified in extremis.
If I am about to hit something by all means scream (anything!) at me but regarding the profile other factors that ATCOS cannot tell come into play (weight, wind, temperature, anti-ice...).
If I am about to hit something by all means scream (anything!) at me but regarding the profile other factors that ATCOS cannot tell come into play (weight, wind, temperature, anti-ice...).
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread.
Assertive ATCO's are a blessing IMHO.Take some examples:
-Everglades crash.An assertive ATCO would have prevented that crash by issuing a direct command to the EAL crew to climb immediately to 2000 feet.Instead he asked "How are things going?" when he noticed the altitude readout dangerously low.
-A320 crash BAhrain.The controller authorized an orbital maneuver when the pilot was hot and high first time round.When the pilot screwed it up again,an assertive ATCO would have said "Fly the published Missed approach" followed by "Cleared for the procedural".The pilot was obviously incapable of flying a visual approach and an assertive ATCO would have tired of his incompetence and took command of the situation.
-Lexington just recently.Theres no doubt an assertive ATCO,or lets just say a competent ATCO,would have prevented this woeful tragedy.
-Tenerife,the most infamous disaster of them all.An assertive ATCO would have undoubtedly helped prevent it.
-Cali.This is a tricky one because just like Tenerife,language problems complicate the matter considerably.Sometimes its difficult for an ATCO to be assertive in his/her second language.They havent the confidence in their command of English to say what they want exactly.If the feedback from the pilots isnt immediate and explicit,they mustnt be afraid to get assertive and do what is required(ie.Approach clearance cancelled,climb immediately to MSA,enter the hold at Cali,report entering).His mindset just became"Look guys,you cant even give me your correct position,I dont have radar and I'm getting nervous about this,so to hell with the straight-in,you can damn well fly the full procedure."
All of the above accidents were caused by pilot error.However,an alert and assertive ATCO would have prevented each and every one.It comes down to the difference between a competent ATCO and a great ATCO.Admittedly,theres a bit of hindsight bias in all I say,but I still stand by it.
We have no shortage of assertive ATCO's in the States and I think its what makes the system work so well.You couldnt handle the traffic we have if they werent so intolerant.
Assertive ATCO's are a blessing IMHO.Take some examples:
-Everglades crash.An assertive ATCO would have prevented that crash by issuing a direct command to the EAL crew to climb immediately to 2000 feet.Instead he asked "How are things going?" when he noticed the altitude readout dangerously low.
-A320 crash BAhrain.The controller authorized an orbital maneuver when the pilot was hot and high first time round.When the pilot screwed it up again,an assertive ATCO would have said "Fly the published Missed approach" followed by "Cleared for the procedural".The pilot was obviously incapable of flying a visual approach and an assertive ATCO would have tired of his incompetence and took command of the situation.
-Lexington just recently.Theres no doubt an assertive ATCO,or lets just say a competent ATCO,would have prevented this woeful tragedy.
-Tenerife,the most infamous disaster of them all.An assertive ATCO would have undoubtedly helped prevent it.
-Cali.This is a tricky one because just like Tenerife,language problems complicate the matter considerably.Sometimes its difficult for an ATCO to be assertive in his/her second language.They havent the confidence in their command of English to say what they want exactly.If the feedback from the pilots isnt immediate and explicit,they mustnt be afraid to get assertive and do what is required(ie.Approach clearance cancelled,climb immediately to MSA,enter the hold at Cali,report entering).His mindset just became"Look guys,you cant even give me your correct position,I dont have radar and I'm getting nervous about this,so to hell with the straight-in,you can damn well fly the full procedure."
All of the above accidents were caused by pilot error.However,an alert and assertive ATCO would have prevented each and every one.It comes down to the difference between a competent ATCO and a great ATCO.Admittedly,theres a bit of hindsight bias in all I say,but I still stand by it.
We have no shortage of assertive ATCO's in the States and I think its what makes the system work so well.You couldnt handle the traffic we have if they werent so intolerant.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assertive is good, it's a pleasure listening to a good approach controller doing his job, along the same lines, most experienced ATCO's can tell by response time, RT phraseology etc. whether or not a pilot is experienced or not and will take that into consideration. An assertive controller will get better cooperation from pilot's IMHO. I once worked with an assertive controller that saved the day years ago when she noticed a faint target behind the a/c on a PAR approach, she immediately checked the flight schedule and confirmed it was the banner tow aircraft with 2000 ft of banner, great save!
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be assertive when you are right is a good thing . To be assertive when you are not so sure is where it becomes difficult.
I do not mind anybody (and that includes my wife !) to be assertive once in a while if in the end he/she is proved right.
As to controllers telling pilots what to do when they do not feel at ease with what they see ( the original question basically) this also depends a lot on the controller education and his position in the social ladder in his country. The UK and US might be fine , but the examples taken earlier of Cali, Teneriffe (in 1977) , Bahrain , etc..are prime examples where controllers did not have the training, nor the authority to be assertive to Pilots.
If one take Brazil , and the recent accident there, the Brasilia ACC controllers involved were all military with rank sargeant at most.
But in the present and certainly in the future, not acting as a controller when you spot something wrong will get you most probably in jail if it ends in twisted metal.
. I very recently followed a legal seminar on this subject, and everyone present , the judges, the Barristers and the Aviation States prosecutors ( they were a few of them including the UK one ) all said the same thing : Controllers can no longer hide behind books not to execrcise their " duty of care " . In other words , controllers in case of accidents will be judged ( and sentenced ) for what they have not done rather than for their direct actions.
Now, when I fly and when I get ( very seldomly because I am so good
) a " direction " or a " correction " by a fellow controller, I follow it first and eventually, if I am not happy with it, discuss it later in the bar.
I do not mind anybody (and that includes my wife !) to be assertive once in a while if in the end he/she is proved right.
As to controllers telling pilots what to do when they do not feel at ease with what they see ( the original question basically) this also depends a lot on the controller education and his position in the social ladder in his country. The UK and US might be fine , but the examples taken earlier of Cali, Teneriffe (in 1977) , Bahrain , etc..are prime examples where controllers did not have the training, nor the authority to be assertive to Pilots.
If one take Brazil , and the recent accident there, the Brasilia ACC controllers involved were all military with rank sargeant at most.
But in the present and certainly in the future, not acting as a controller when you spot something wrong will get you most probably in jail if it ends in twisted metal.
. I very recently followed a legal seminar on this subject, and everyone present , the judges, the Barristers and the Aviation States prosecutors ( they were a few of them including the UK one ) all said the same thing : Controllers can no longer hide behind books not to execrcise their " duty of care " . In other words , controllers in case of accidents will be judged ( and sentenced ) for what they have not done rather than for their direct actions.
Now, when I fly and when I get ( very seldomly because I am so good
) a " direction " or a " correction " by a fellow controller, I follow it first and eventually, if I am not happy with it, discuss it later in the bar.
To be assertive when you are right is a good thing . To be assertive when you are not so sure is where it becomes difficult.
I do not mind anybody (and that includes my wife !) to be assertive once in a while if in the end he/she is proved right.
I do not mind anybody (and that includes my wife !) to be assertive once in a while if in the end he/she is proved right.
I'm not sure why pilots have a problem with this - when ATC tell you "turn left heading 200 degrees" or "descend altitude 4000 feet" or even "GO AROUND, I SAY AGAIN, GO AROUND, follow standard missed approach procedure" do you immediately prepare a counter-argument or start frothing at the mouth with the indignity of it all?
I am all for assertive ATC, I mean it's supposed to be a CONTROLLED environment isn't it? It's good to know that there are still some ATC'ers left who will try and stop a dangerous situation developing by timely intervention, rather than waiting for the "whoop-whoop" (or the crash
).You don't have to look back far in aviation history to see what happens when you combine pilots having a bad day with wishy-washy controlling. I don't know when my next bad day will be; I hope it never comes but if it does I'd like ATC to speak up with their concerns sooner rather than later...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: No longer in Hong kong
Age: 75
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been a controller in Australia, Dubai and Hong Kong for some 36 years, and basically I spend my whole time training locals (in HK). It just about drives me nuts when I have to try and force people to be a bit assertive when it is culturally difficult for them. Of course I also try and keep my students from "hopping into the cockpit". The basic problem here, and no doubt in most other places, is that many of the young student controllers recruited these days, have little or no base interest in aviation. Well, that is certainly the case in Hong Kong. I often ask new arrivals as to why they are with me in the tower, and 90% of the time the answer is: "I saw the advertisement in the paper". Obviously this doesn't neccessarily apply to places like the UK etc, but it is what I am seeing. As to the observations on comments such as "Do you think you will be able to make a successful approach from where you are?" and some of the responses from pilots, well just remember that we are trying to be a part of the picture also, and if we can anticipate the likely hood of a missed approach (particularly in IMC)..the earlier the better. We have our issues and jobs to do to ensure separation with parallel departures, so we are not just sitting in the tower/Approach radar sipping tea and twiddling our thumbs. There is an interesting air/ground clip doing the rounds on the internet at the moment with the Kennedy (NY) ground controller having fun with a number of aircraft, both US and foreign, well that guy is being assertive, as one would expect from that neck of the woods, but he sure aint achieving much! So I guess the bottom line as I see it, is to have the right amount of assertiveness to be useful!
I guess we need to define terms. If asking if you're going to make it down because the controller see's the acft is high on final is asseretive, then I'm all for it. If the controller decides that he or she is going to issue a go around because of the exact same situation, then I have a problem.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bedder believeit
this doesn't neccessarily apply to places like the UK etc,
One useful piece of advice I found particularly amusing as a trainee was that "Pilots are like dogs - if they sense fear in your voice, you've had it!"
Don't quite know how to put that principle to effect via CPDLC however
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: belgium
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, based on almost thirty years working in ATC and ten more for an airline (and nearly 2,000 hours private flying), it's a situation based on a combination of experience and confidance.
When operational, if I was unconfortable with a particular situation, I would ask if (my) intended flight path for that particular aircraft was aceptable.
When (rarely, thank god) I found my sphincter muscle bouncing between sixpence and half-a-crown I would give an instruction - occasionally in fairly forcefull terms - to resolve the situation.
I offer no apologies for these actions - I would much farther be criticised by the pilot afterwards than receive an "invitation" to their funeral.
Les.
When operational, if I was unconfortable with a particular situation, I would ask if (my) intended flight path for that particular aircraft was aceptable.
When (rarely, thank god) I found my sphincter muscle bouncing between sixpence and half-a-crown I would give an instruction - occasionally in fairly forcefull terms - to resolve the situation.
I offer no apologies for these actions - I would much farther be criticised by the pilot afterwards than receive an "invitation" to their funeral.
Les.
Last edited by aviosaurus; 5th Feb 2007 at 20:01. Reason: typing in English on an AZERTY keyboard
