Assertive controllers - what do you expect?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SW UK
Age: 68
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assertive controllers - what do you expect?
The thread on a number of recent potential CFIT incidents on this Forum leads me to ask pilots reading this a fairly important question: how far should a Controller go in exercising his/her judgement to prevent such events? I was part of the team which investigated one such incident (from the ATC aspects only) and we considered that the controller should not have sanctioned an orbit on final approach; should have denied the pilot's request for this and should have instructed him to execute a missed approach.
This leads me to a wider issue: how do you guys (sorry, not being sexist but generic to all pilots) feel about this course of action being taken by an ATCO? For example, I often ask a pilot if the track miles I'm giving will be enough to lose height/speed for an approach. Not infrequently, I get the reply "err...we should be okay". That immediately makes me think that either the crew or the aeroplane are being asked to do something with which neither is entirely happy. Potential result - egg on face/hassle for us both if a late missed approach has to be made or an unstable approach. On more than one occasion I've watched the Mode C unwind slowly on the radar and dediced that this is possibly going to be a GS capture from above or that unstable approach will ensue. And I've then felt I've had to take the initiative and tell the crew that I am going to reposition them.
My concerns are these: there's apparently been an upward cycle of pilot recruiting in the airline industry in recent years and I have certainly been made aware, on occasion, of a reduction in experience/airmanship in both left and right hand seats. Add to that the huge variation in nationalities working together on flight decks, whereby at least one pilot may not have English as their first language. The self improver route to "going commercial" has long gone and I guess the number of ex-military pilots coming onto the civil job market has reduced as the services cut back their aircrew numbers. Additionally, many UK ATCOs now are very inexperienced (no self-studying route for us now; Cadets being sent to units after less than 1 year at Colleges; lack of job-appeal to many youngsters; hugely expensive to self-fund; retirement bulge with us). So - assertive ATCOs: good thing/bad thing or just tell me your views, in order that maybe I can pass them on to others at my unit, especially the "newbies". Thanks to all.
This leads me to a wider issue: how do you guys (sorry, not being sexist but generic to all pilots) feel about this course of action being taken by an ATCO? For example, I often ask a pilot if the track miles I'm giving will be enough to lose height/speed for an approach. Not infrequently, I get the reply "err...we should be okay". That immediately makes me think that either the crew or the aeroplane are being asked to do something with which neither is entirely happy. Potential result - egg on face/hassle for us both if a late missed approach has to be made or an unstable approach. On more than one occasion I've watched the Mode C unwind slowly on the radar and dediced that this is possibly going to be a GS capture from above or that unstable approach will ensue. And I've then felt I've had to take the initiative and tell the crew that I am going to reposition them.
My concerns are these: there's apparently been an upward cycle of pilot recruiting in the airline industry in recent years and I have certainly been made aware, on occasion, of a reduction in experience/airmanship in both left and right hand seats. Add to that the huge variation in nationalities working together on flight decks, whereby at least one pilot may not have English as their first language. The self improver route to "going commercial" has long gone and I guess the number of ex-military pilots coming onto the civil job market has reduced as the services cut back their aircrew numbers. Additionally, many UK ATCOs now are very inexperienced (no self-studying route for us now; Cadets being sent to units after less than 1 year at Colleges; lack of job-appeal to many youngsters; hugely expensive to self-fund; retirement bulge with us). So - assertive ATCOs: good thing/bad thing or just tell me your views, in order that maybe I can pass them on to others at my unit, especially the "newbies". Thanks to all.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: washington,dc
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you are right, there is a loss of experience and that is on both sides of the world...pilots and controllers.
AS a controller you have the right to ask anything you want. AS a pilot I have the right to say no.
AND if things conflict, I declare an emergency and tell you to go to hell. BUT that is way too much paperwork! ;-)
OF course we both want to avoid this. knowledge of capabilities is vital.
I have been told by a controller that I should increase my rate of climb to 3,500 fpm. I've told them it was impossible...and they said: we have a book here that says you can, so do it!
I told them that on a HOT DAY with a full load of fuel and passengers I was lucky to give him 1500fpm.
On a cold day with a half full airplane, I might have been able to help.
And as to getting down...10,000 feet, 30 miles out is normal...
if you forget to clear me for an approach and I am 5 miles out at 3000', I will shake up everyone in back if I have to get down that fast...so avoid the request for an "orbit" by being ahead of the game.
so think ahead...the glideslope is the perfect reference...and you are not supposed to vector us on to the approach ABOVE the glideslope...some autopilots have to be forced to capture from above and not below.
I learned this stuff along time ago and believe me, I will be jumping up and down asking for lower...but the new guys might not
AS a controller you have the right to ask anything you want. AS a pilot I have the right to say no.
AND if things conflict, I declare an emergency and tell you to go to hell. BUT that is way too much paperwork! ;-)
OF course we both want to avoid this. knowledge of capabilities is vital.
I have been told by a controller that I should increase my rate of climb to 3,500 fpm. I've told them it was impossible...and they said: we have a book here that says you can, so do it!
I told them that on a HOT DAY with a full load of fuel and passengers I was lucky to give him 1500fpm.
On a cold day with a half full airplane, I might have been able to help.
And as to getting down...10,000 feet, 30 miles out is normal...
if you forget to clear me for an approach and I am 5 miles out at 3000', I will shake up everyone in back if I have to get down that fast...so avoid the request for an "orbit" by being ahead of the game.
so think ahead...the glideslope is the perfect reference...and you are not supposed to vector us on to the approach ABOVE the glideslope...some autopilots have to be forced to capture from above and not below.
I learned this stuff along time ago and believe me, I will be jumping up and down asking for lower...but the new guys might not
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATCO
It's not always clear that it either will or will not be ok.
After another minute or two tho, the likely outcome will be that much clearer.
Therefore, if a crew respond as you suggest (err....should be ok) and then say nothing further- I suggest you leave them to get on with it.
If it becomes clear to the crew that more track miles are needed- they will soon speak up.
What is a teensy bit annoying is just as you've got it sorted out, bit of speed brake or whatever, the controller suddenly starts to vector you.
I suggest that if you are still concerned, you ask the question again before vectoring in extra track miles.
It's not always clear that it either will or will not be ok.
After another minute or two tho, the likely outcome will be that much clearer.
Therefore, if a crew respond as you suggest (err....should be ok) and then say nothing further- I suggest you leave them to get on with it.
If it becomes clear to the crew that more track miles are needed- they will soon speak up.
What is a teensy bit annoying is just as you've got it sorted out, bit of speed brake or whatever, the controller suddenly starts to vector you.
I suggest that if you are still concerned, you ask the question again before vectoring in extra track miles.
foxtrot xray
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATCO
Not sure what prompted the start of this thread but I am somewhat puzzled by some of the underlying assumptions with regard to statements implying the role of ATC.
It seems to me that the first job of ATC is to provide separation between aircraft. Once that has been accomplished, it is to provide for the efficient use of the airspace (spacing,sequencing, flow, etc). When vectoring aircraft(off published routes/procedures) to achieve these goals, it must do so in a manner which provides appropriate terrain/obstruction clearances. If it observes an aircraft departing (course or altitude) from published or cleared/assigned parameters it must advise/question immediately particularly if separation or terrain clearances may be compromised with continued deviation.
Statements like "should have denied request for an orbit" and "instructed him to execute a missed approach" and "to take the initiatve to reposition(because current rate of descent appears to indicate that aircraft will intercept glidepath from above)" indicate to me a crossing of the line by ATC.
In these instances should it not be " sir, it appears to me that your requested orbit will place you in an area of high terrain to the west of the localizer(or whatever)..please advise of intentions" (denial of a request for orbit beacause of the proximity of following traffic in-trail would of course be legitimate followed by " if unable to continue published approach execute missed approach procedure ....or.......")? It seems that instructing a missed approach should only be done when aircraft is no longer clear(ed) to land( such as preceding aircraft not clearing runway or separation lost. Likewise, in the second case. "sir, you appear to be high at your present position ..confirm you will be able to cross (final approach fix) X miles ahead at (GSIA) if not, I can vector you for re-sequencing". These decisions belong in the cockpit.
It seems to me that the first job of ATC is to provide separation between aircraft. Once that has been accomplished, it is to provide for the efficient use of the airspace (spacing,sequencing, flow, etc). When vectoring aircraft(off published routes/procedures) to achieve these goals, it must do so in a manner which provides appropriate terrain/obstruction clearances. If it observes an aircraft departing (course or altitude) from published or cleared/assigned parameters it must advise/question immediately particularly if separation or terrain clearances may be compromised with continued deviation.
Statements like "should have denied request for an orbit" and "instructed him to execute a missed approach" and "to take the initiatve to reposition(because current rate of descent appears to indicate that aircraft will intercept glidepath from above)" indicate to me a crossing of the line by ATC.
In these instances should it not be " sir, it appears to me that your requested orbit will place you in an area of high terrain to the west of the localizer(or whatever)..please advise of intentions" (denial of a request for orbit beacause of the proximity of following traffic in-trail would of course be legitimate followed by " if unable to continue published approach execute missed approach procedure ....or.......")? It seems that instructing a missed approach should only be done when aircraft is no longer clear(ed) to land( such as preceding aircraft not clearing runway or separation lost. Likewise, in the second case. "sir, you appear to be high at your present position ..confirm you will be able to cross (final approach fix) X miles ahead at (GSIA) if not, I can vector you for re-sequencing". These decisions belong in the cockpit.
Just as I don't have the big picture because I now have TCAS, please remember controllers don't have the entire picture because you have radar. As others have said, the pilots will speak up if required.
As to the "err...we should be okay" comments, ATC will ask on occasion ask for things that I may not like (such as a high descent rate) to do, but are capable of.
Glad you're asking the questions though.
As to the "err...we should be okay" comments, ATC will ask on occasion ask for things that I may not like (such as a high descent rate) to do, but are capable of.
Glad you're asking the questions though.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think it is a dangerous path to follow. We have a entirely workable system where, from a safety perspective, ATC stop aircraft bumping into each other, nothing much else. To try and be the 'third pilot' may lead to confusion etc. By all means, contribute towards the pilot's situational awareness and even tell him you believe he is doing something dangerous. But to instruct him to do something (barring the collision bit), hmmm......
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controllers are there to assist pilots so they can conduct a safe flight.
Part of that is providing separation from other aircraft in the air, part of it is assisting in collision prevention on the ground.
Anything else is advisory and the final decision should be left to the flight deck. By all means point out the fact there is terrain close by, or that you are not happy that the aircraft will meet a safe profile, but don't try and fly it for them. Give them the information and then let them make the decision.
If you have done so and there is a still a smoking hole in the ground afterwards, you've done all you can under duty of care since you can't possibly know that any instruction you might have wanted to pass to the pilot could be complied with safely. Indeed, you may have forced an inexperienced crew to step out of their knowledge and ability level so making it more dangerous.
Part of that is providing separation from other aircraft in the air, part of it is assisting in collision prevention on the ground.
Anything else is advisory and the final decision should be left to the flight deck. By all means point out the fact there is terrain close by, or that you are not happy that the aircraft will meet a safe profile, but don't try and fly it for them. Give them the information and then let them make the decision.
If you have done so and there is a still a smoking hole in the ground afterwards, you've done all you can under duty of care since you can't possibly know that any instruction you might have wanted to pass to the pilot could be complied with safely. Indeed, you may have forced an inexperienced crew to step out of their knowledge and ability level so making it more dangerous.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: x
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think ATCO's are only there "to stop aircraft bumping into each other, nothing much else".
They are there for safety.
So,
Assertive ATCO's: very good.
Anytime you think something is unsafe speak up and be assertive!
Everyone knows the final reponsibility/decision rests in the cockpit's left seat.
They are there for safety.
So,
Assertive ATCO's: very good.
Anytime you think something is unsafe speak up and be assertive!
Everyone knows the final reponsibility/decision rests in the cockpit's left seat.
Psychophysiological entity
"err...we should be okay". Is just a noise that leaks out of the brain...when its workload suddenly increased exponentially. As suggested above, wait a moment or two and then ask again.
Despite my initial reaction, there was a time when I really could have done with some decisive input from ATC.
After a very long break, I found myself in the left seat of a sizable turbo-prop--with about 10 hours PIC on type (not counting line-check time). For some obscure reason, my F/O was taken out of the loop on long finals. There was a lot of stratus about, and some of it was filled with hills. It usually takes me a couple of hundred hours before I can take a new aircraft by the b@lls and still keep a passenger standard of smoothness, so being high, I asked for an orbit. (This was fairly common at this airfield)
About 90 degrees into the turn I was asked if I was in VMC. I said I was still IMC, and there were all sorts of non-decisive noises as a reply. I took very decisive action to get my but out of the granite filled level and prepared myself for tea and bikkies.
Despite my initial reaction, there was a time when I really could have done with some decisive input from ATC.
After a very long break, I found myself in the left seat of a sizable turbo-prop--with about 10 hours PIC on type (not counting line-check time). For some obscure reason, my F/O was taken out of the loop on long finals. There was a lot of stratus about, and some of it was filled with hills. It usually takes me a couple of hundred hours before I can take a new aircraft by the b@lls and still keep a passenger standard of smoothness, so being high, I asked for an orbit. (This was fairly common at this airfield)
About 90 degrees into the turn I was asked if I was in VMC. I said I was still IMC, and there were all sorts of non-decisive noises as a reply. I took very decisive action to get my but out of the granite filled level and prepared myself for tea and bikkies.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would like to think the ATC I work with do have a good idea of what I'm ale to do, but occasionally I'm shown to be wrong.
Manchester have a habit of slowing us (146) down in the WAL area on approach to IOM to sequence us with far slower J31s and the like. I do wish they'd fan us out and let nature take it's course instead. This last few months, this initiative has seen us arrive at KELLY far too high, above and in front of the preceeding traffic, despite slowing right down.
It's just one instance, but shows that the awareness of what we do is lacking in some controllers regarding the relationship of TAS to IAS and MACH. I am often asked on quieter apps to LGW if X miles is enough, but for a 146 a 2:1 is easily manageable with little discomfort down back.
Unfortunately, all we can do to attempt a CDA approach is refer to the booklet that was sent out as we have no VNAV data available and it's purely seat of the pants. A second or third range check would help here, as would not sending us on a tour of deepest Kent.
Generally, I have no complaints, and as I once learned from an Ex Police Advanced Driving Instructor, the important thing is that one of you takes the decision, more than who it actually is. ( the subject was overtaking a parked car in oncoming traffic BTW)
If the crew are uncertain in their reply is the distance is enough, then make the decision and give them another two or three miles anyway. If they want to orbit in hilly terrain, rmember you mum might be down the back and by all means tell them to do a missed approach. Better if you can offer a vectored circuit to reposition though, time and workload allowing.
It's uncertainty, misheard communication and indecision that frequently forms the chain of events in accident investigations.
Positive control where it is obvious has saved many a life. Dithering has caused many a death. If I as a pilot am unsure, and you the controller are not, them be decisive and make the safe decision for me. We can always chat on the phone later if need be.
Manchester have a habit of slowing us (146) down in the WAL area on approach to IOM to sequence us with far slower J31s and the like. I do wish they'd fan us out and let nature take it's course instead. This last few months, this initiative has seen us arrive at KELLY far too high, above and in front of the preceeding traffic, despite slowing right down.
It's just one instance, but shows that the awareness of what we do is lacking in some controllers regarding the relationship of TAS to IAS and MACH. I am often asked on quieter apps to LGW if X miles is enough, but for a 146 a 2:1 is easily manageable with little discomfort down back.
Unfortunately, all we can do to attempt a CDA approach is refer to the booklet that was sent out as we have no VNAV data available and it's purely seat of the pants. A second or third range check would help here, as would not sending us on a tour of deepest Kent.
Generally, I have no complaints, and as I once learned from an Ex Police Advanced Driving Instructor, the important thing is that one of you takes the decision, more than who it actually is. ( the subject was overtaking a parked car in oncoming traffic BTW)
If the crew are uncertain in their reply is the distance is enough, then make the decision and give them another two or three miles anyway. If they want to orbit in hilly terrain, rmember you mum might be down the back and by all means tell them to do a missed approach. Better if you can offer a vectored circuit to reposition though, time and workload allowing.
It's uncertainty, misheard communication and indecision that frequently forms the chain of events in accident investigations.
Positive control where it is obvious has saved many a life. Dithering has caused many a death. If I as a pilot am unsure, and you the controller are not, them be decisive and make the safe decision for me. We can always chat on the phone later if need be.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: dorset
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AS an ATCO with quite a few years experience i have noticed a decline in standards in some areas of aviation. Now, i'll grant you that this is extremely difficult to quantify but i'd be interested in opinions on the following few points;
ATCO training course has been gradually shortened to the point where new area controllers no longer do the aerodrome course as they used to do- surely this can only lead to a deterioration in the appreciation of how the whole atc system works?
R/t , particularly amongst g/a pilots has deteriorated, readbacks often have to be prompted a few times and understanding of the difference between FIS/RIS and RAS seems to be occasionally lacking. Again it's fairly subjective but noticeable.
Unfortunately the appreciation of why knowledge about other parts of the industry is important seems to be ebbing away and an attitude that each person only needs to know his or her little bit is prevailing (which of course is driven by and drives cost).
opinions?
ATCO training course has been gradually shortened to the point where new area controllers no longer do the aerodrome course as they used to do- surely this can only lead to a deterioration in the appreciation of how the whole atc system works?
R/t , particularly amongst g/a pilots has deteriorated, readbacks often have to be prompted a few times and understanding of the difference between FIS/RIS and RAS seems to be occasionally lacking. Again it's fairly subjective but noticeable.
Unfortunately the appreciation of why knowledge about other parts of the industry is important seems to be ebbing away and an attitude that each person only needs to know his or her little bit is prevailing (which of course is driven by and drives cost).
opinions?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a small point, generally, the person who says ' errr should be OK' is not the person manipulating the controls, I would expect that the handling pilot having heard those words was doing one of a number of things;
1 punching the idiot who uttered them - as there was no need to be anything less than positive as everything was under control and now we're going to get extra miles because the controller thinks we're useless
2 giving the idiot who uttered them a really hard stare - CRM friendly - because everything was under control etc
3 calling the idiot who uttered them a twxt whilst preparing to demonstrate they're incredible piloting skills because we were obviously high and now we have to get to cleared level way before the glide in the extra miles given because the controller thinks we're useless, thus regaining the moral high ground that the success of the approach was never in doubt. (when they could have just asked for a suitable number of miles)
unfortunately there is no stock 413 phrase for the question you ask so you get off the cuff replies which there may be a number of interpretation to.
1 punching the idiot who uttered them - as there was no need to be anything less than positive as everything was under control and now we're going to get extra miles because the controller thinks we're useless
2 giving the idiot who uttered them a really hard stare - CRM friendly - because everything was under control etc
3 calling the idiot who uttered them a twxt whilst preparing to demonstrate they're incredible piloting skills because we were obviously high and now we have to get to cleared level way before the glide in the extra miles given because the controller thinks we're useless, thus regaining the moral high ground that the success of the approach was never in doubt. (when they could have just asked for a suitable number of miles)
unfortunately there is no stock 413 phrase for the question you ask so you get off the cuff replies which there may be a number of interpretation to.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only have 5 years on the clock as a controller, but I've seen sitiations that made me uncomfortable. A/C coming in very hot and high on visuals due several things, and on ILS/LLZ due over correction due temp and/or wind on a tailwind (on req) approach.
I've spoken up a couple of times, in the polite "..you are 10nm from THR, are you able to make it straight in..." while at 5500ft on the ILS kind of way.
Some elected to go arround, some pressed on, and used all 2.5km to get it stopped.
A collauge in Sweden (many moons ago) had a Spanair MD80 do a 360 on final in sh**e weather to loose hight. It lost ground reference and performed a missed approach way offset from CL and bottomed out below the treeline in the vicinity.
He beat himself up for not refusing the orbit.
It's difficult to know when to speak I think. I got a bol***ing from a pilot because I pointed out that mode C indicated that he was not correcting for temprature and/or had the wrong pressure setting. (-28C at the time)
I was told to mind my own etc.....
I've spoken up a couple of times, in the polite "..you are 10nm from THR, are you able to make it straight in..." while at 5500ft on the ILS kind of way.
Some elected to go arround, some pressed on, and used all 2.5km to get it stopped.
A collauge in Sweden (many moons ago) had a Spanair MD80 do a 360 on final in sh**e weather to loose hight. It lost ground reference and performed a missed approach way offset from CL and bottomed out below the treeline in the vicinity.
He beat himself up for not refusing the orbit.
It's difficult to know when to speak I think. I got a bol***ing from a pilot because I pointed out that mode C indicated that he was not correcting for temprature and/or had the wrong pressure setting. (-28C at the time)
I was told to mind my own etc.....
"..you are 10nm from THR, are you able to make it straight in..."
From this pilots perspective, you've met any obligation you might think you have with this question. The rest is up to the crew.
From this pilots perspective, you've met any obligation you might think you have with this question. The rest is up to the crew.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 62
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots and controllers need to check their ego's at the front door of the house.
Above all, we are all human and we ALL make mistakes. We as pilots may be paired up with a un-cooperative mate, an inexperienced mate, or be really tired from an all nighter/multiple timezone changes. We may just be having a bad day. I appreciate the help and prodding from ATCO's.You are part of the CRM we use daily. But, Don't ask us to produce miracles or be magicians. Please be polite, please!
I fly cargo now, we can do alot and not have to worry about upsetting the pax. But, we may have cows, or horses or whales on board or hazmat. We like to make smooth approaches too.
ATCO's, try and get some Fam rides on various types, or try and have some one on one chats with pilots to ask about their performance parameters. Your little book that says what we can do, i think is kinda flawed.
Some of the requests we get in various parts of europe for instance, make us start laughing or shaking our heads in disbelief. Do you really think we are climbing at 300 feet a minute because we want to? Asking us to increase our climb to 1500 fpm or more is laughable.
Please be helpful! Please be polite. When ATCO's are nasty, we tend to not want to be helpful. That goes both ways too, I know!
ATCO's are here to help the pilots. We must all work together.
Going into Newark, we are asked regularly to maintain 180 knots until 4 dme. To be configured and on speed and stable, well that ain't happenin! We try to compromise as best we can, but we can't do all that and stand on one foot and juggle too. When you ask alot of us, you are basically asking us to break our SOP's.
747 approach speeds can vary as much as 40 knots. Trying to lose 40 knots in a short distance can be tough if your light.
Anyway, yes, I like it when your pro-active! Keep up the good work!
Above all, we are all human and we ALL make mistakes. We as pilots may be paired up with a un-cooperative mate, an inexperienced mate, or be really tired from an all nighter/multiple timezone changes. We may just be having a bad day. I appreciate the help and prodding from ATCO's.You are part of the CRM we use daily. But, Don't ask us to produce miracles or be magicians. Please be polite, please!
I fly cargo now, we can do alot and not have to worry about upsetting the pax. But, we may have cows, or horses or whales on board or hazmat. We like to make smooth approaches too.
ATCO's, try and get some Fam rides on various types, or try and have some one on one chats with pilots to ask about their performance parameters. Your little book that says what we can do, i think is kinda flawed.
Some of the requests we get in various parts of europe for instance, make us start laughing or shaking our heads in disbelief. Do you really think we are climbing at 300 feet a minute because we want to? Asking us to increase our climb to 1500 fpm or more is laughable.
Please be helpful! Please be polite. When ATCO's are nasty, we tend to not want to be helpful. That goes both ways too, I know!
ATCO's are here to help the pilots. We must all work together.
Going into Newark, we are asked regularly to maintain 180 knots until 4 dme. To be configured and on speed and stable, well that ain't happenin! We try to compromise as best we can, but we can't do all that and stand on one foot and juggle too. When you ask alot of us, you are basically asking us to break our SOP's.
747 approach speeds can vary as much as 40 knots. Trying to lose 40 knots in a short distance can be tough if your light.
Anyway, yes, I like it when your pro-active! Keep up the good work!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SV Marie Celeste
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you hear "Errrrrr......" that normally corresponds to the non handling pilot looking at the handling pilot for confirmation that he/she is happy to proceed. "it will be OK" comes after the non handling pilot has received that confirmation.
ATCOJ30, I think your concerns are valid. We have F/O 's with 200 hours, captains with less broad experience and less total experience than in the past. I also think it's a shame that NATS stopped providing flying experience for controllers. When I started flying, a lot of controllers were ex military crew or ATC.
Don't authorise what you're not happy with, if you have concerns, state them, bluntly. I'm less enthusiastic about, for example, a controller ordering a go-around because he thinks the approach is unstable. Again, I'd rather just have it pointed out to me.
Don't authorise what you're not happy with, if you have concerns, state them, bluntly. I'm less enthusiastic about, for example, a controller ordering a go-around because he thinks the approach is unstable. Again, I'd rather just have it pointed out to me.
Humus Motor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: A little place called Samsonite
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I for one thought that there was no choice in this matter in the UK: to quote MATS part 1:
"A landing aircraft, which is considered by a controller to be dangerously positioned on final approach shall be instructed (my italics) to carry out a missed approach. An aircraft can be considered as 'dangerously positioned' when it is poorly placed either laterally or vertically for the landing runway"
This authority has been used recently (source: AAIB bulletins) at Aldergrove and Bristol, when aircraft were respectively instructed to " climb immediately" when it was evident it was going to land at the wrong airport, and in the other incident, to go around after a mis-placed orbit.
Seems a reasonable piece of legislation to me. If I ever do something like this then please be as assertive as you like.
"A landing aircraft, which is considered by a controller to be dangerously positioned on final approach shall be instructed (my italics) to carry out a missed approach. An aircraft can be considered as 'dangerously positioned' when it is poorly placed either laterally or vertically for the landing runway"
This authority has been used recently (source: AAIB bulletins) at Aldergrove and Bristol, when aircraft were respectively instructed to " climb immediately" when it was evident it was going to land at the wrong airport, and in the other incident, to go around after a mis-placed orbit.
Seems a reasonable piece of legislation to me. If I ever do something like this then please be as assertive as you like.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 62
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I-FORD
Absolutely not!
The controlers have vast experience looking at radar and they can tell if someone is high/fast/low/ slow/right or left. They see the same aircraft all day most every day. They see the data, they can tell if its normal or not!
In the interest of safety, i would grant them the right to do so. WE as pilots are not always having a good day!
Absolutely not!
The controlers have vast experience looking at radar and they can tell if someone is high/fast/low/ slow/right or left. They see the same aircraft all day most every day. They see the data, they can tell if its normal or not!
In the interest of safety, i would grant them the right to do so. WE as pilots are not always having a good day!