atc and wx avoidance
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ??-ask crewing
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
atc and wx avoidance
It seems to me that increasingly these days, (or particularly nights), when theres a good peppering of CBs around, crews are calling eg 'we're taking a left 30 for wx' without so much as by your leave to ATC.
Am I alone in thinking that this smacks of poor planning and airmanship?
Am I alone in thinking that this smacks of poor planning and airmanship?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have made such a call, "We are going 30 left of track to avoid etc" BUT that is after having been given permission by the previous sector and I am just telling the new sector, on initial contact, to be certain they know.
Maybe that sort of thing is what you have been hearing?
Maybe that sort of thing is what you have been hearing?
Moderator
Keep in mind that the radar penetration of weather, as displayed, is dependent on the frequency band of the equipment.
The standard systems are subject to lots of attenuation and, while the experienced pilot is aware of this and makes conservative allowance, the situation can arise where a cell hidden behind something closer suddenly pops up on the screen to cause a problem ....
The standard systems are subject to lots of attenuation and, while the experienced pilot is aware of this and makes conservative allowance, the situation can arise where a cell hidden behind something closer suddenly pops up on the screen to cause a problem ....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ??-ask crewing
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure these guys were'nt just transfered from a previous sector.
On the first of two consecutive evenings someone pipes up 'we're gonna go left 30 for weather' and Reims says 'approved'. The next night someone else does the same and the reply from ATC is 'no you're not - you can have right 60' or words to that effect. OK there are very occasional circumstances when there is no alternative to a particular course change but the CBs were pretty weedy and topped at ~290; and the calls had the air of this is what were doing - you'll just have to work round us, with no warning to ATC that they may be getting themselves into a bit of a hole. If I was the controller I would have been a bit cheesed off.
On the first of two consecutive evenings someone pipes up 'we're gonna go left 30 for weather' and Reims says 'approved'. The next night someone else does the same and the reply from ATC is 'no you're not - you can have right 60' or words to that effect. OK there are very occasional circumstances when there is no alternative to a particular course change but the CBs were pretty weedy and topped at ~290; and the calls had the air of this is what were doing - you'll just have to work round us, with no warning to ATC that they may be getting themselves into a bit of a hole. If I was the controller I would have been a bit cheesed off.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controllers have every right to be cheesed off when pilots tell them what they're doing without advance warning or clearance.
However, and unfortunately, the beancounters have it so that the norm can be perfectly well caterer-for. Anything beyond that is extra, so when loads are heavy on the R/T, it is difficult to get a word in edgeways. When weather is bad, there is little enough space to manoeuvre. When you really need a direct routing, the controllers are that p****ed off with aircraft asking for it that they refuse it.
Our political masters are using airspace in the same way as they use everything else. They play it to the max, and hope that they will not be caught out. Sadly, it seems that the were caught out above Germany last week.
High time that aviation demanded that politicians stood up for their promises, that we demand they do more than make empty promises about the politics of the expedient, and that they look further than the bottom line on the balance sheet.
It's time that they stood for a SAFE system, for a system that will provide space for expansion into the years to come, that will provide a support system for future prosperity and growth. Time to do more than put off the problem until the next government has to handle it.
However, and unfortunately, the beancounters have it so that the norm can be perfectly well caterer-for. Anything beyond that is extra, so when loads are heavy on the R/T, it is difficult to get a word in edgeways. When weather is bad, there is little enough space to manoeuvre. When you really need a direct routing, the controllers are that p****ed off with aircraft asking for it that they refuse it.
Our political masters are using airspace in the same way as they use everything else. They play it to the max, and hope that they will not be caught out. Sadly, it seems that the were caught out above Germany last week.
High time that aviation demanded that politicians stood up for their promises, that we demand they do more than make empty promises about the politics of the expedient, and that they look further than the bottom line on the balance sheet.
It's time that they stood for a SAFE system, for a system that will provide space for expansion into the years to come, that will provide a support system for future prosperity and growth. Time to do more than put off the problem until the next government has to handle it.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diversions to Wx
There's hardly a day goes by here that we don't need 5 to 25 miles off track to avoid buildups. For the most part, ATC is aware of this and prepared for it.
The way traffic flows work out here, it usually isn't too much of a problem either. But, for all of that, most of us are polite enough to either request clearance in advance of the necessity, or to "require" it if something unexpected happens to jump out from behind the bushes, so to speak.
The way traffic flows work out here, it usually isn't too much of a problem either. But, for all of that, most of us are polite enough to either request clearance in advance of the necessity, or to "require" it if something unexpected happens to jump out from behind the bushes, so to speak.
PPRuNe's favourite BABE!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under the duvet!!!!
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to say that for the most part pilots ask me before changing headings. Very rarely have they came on the r/t and said they are changing heading without requesting the change first.
Maybe I only get the nice pilots, but I doubt that very much!!
Maybe I only get the nice pilots, but I doubt that very much!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: atc and wx avoidance
Deviations for weather is nearly an everyday event, most pilots simply request to deviate around wx and it is usually granted. The only time that I can see a controller saying no is because of traffic.
At my facility we have ASR-9 digital radar with 6 level weather so I see all the weather that pilots want to go around with the exception of build ups.
Mike
FWA
At my facility we have ASR-9 digital radar with 6 level weather so I see all the weather that pilots want to go around with the exception of build ups.
Mike
FWA
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeh I agree with Ozex. Use the word "require" and not "request". Around here, "request" is used all the time. I even heard an A-310 "request diversion to XXXX and request descent to FLXXX" after he lost an engine!
What annoys me in this part of the world is when diversions are required due to wx, ATC comes back and says "negative due traffic". On analysis, the other aircraft only needs to turn another 10 or 20 degrees further into clearer air to accommadate our diversion. I dont know if its just ATC lazyness or pure lack of intelligance.
Worst ATC for wx diversions are BKK, RGN (Rangoon), HAN (Ha bloodey Noi), most places in China. In many cases youd swear I asked him if I could bed his missus!
What annoys me in this part of the world is when diversions are required due to wx, ATC comes back and says "negative due traffic". On analysis, the other aircraft only needs to turn another 10 or 20 degrees further into clearer air to accommadate our diversion. I dont know if its just ATC lazyness or pure lack of intelligance.
Worst ATC for wx diversions are BKK, RGN (Rangoon), HAN (Ha bloodey Noi), most places in China. In many cases youd swear I asked him if I could bed his missus!
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh, Srash mate! That's aviation Ingrisch at its best! 
Chances are that what you said to ATC got lost during the interpretation and it ended sounding like you actually DO want to "bed his missus"!
Chances are that what you said to ATC got lost during the interpretation and it ended sounding like you actually DO want to "bed his missus"!
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<-- Taking copious notes from G.Khan's post
Thank you ever so much, Danny and Co, for starting this forum. I've just learned something that's SURE to keep me safe!
Thank you ever so much, Danny and Co, for starting this forum. I've just learned something that's SURE to keep me safe!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure OzEx wouldn't do that - would he?
I do, however, find myself wondering what a right 360 is... Probably grounds for divorce with all legal costs paid, loads of alimony, the house, both cars and custody of the dog.
I do, however, find myself wondering what a right 360 is... Probably grounds for divorce with all legal costs paid, loads of alimony, the house, both cars and custody of the dog.
