Blocked!!!

[Beetle007]

Is it true that you ONLY have to read back the squak code when getting the departure clearance?

I know some airports want that, but my captain says you can only read back the squak at ALL airports.

 

[BoilerUP]

Is it true that you ONLY have to read back the squak code when getting the departure clearance?

I know some airports want that, but my captain says you can only read back the squak at ALL airports.

If you don't specify the departure radial at DCA or the departure climb at LGA they tend to get a little aggravated by that...

 

[wmuflyguy]

In the grand scheme of things you are always responsible for collision avoidance (you aren't going to watch an airplane run into you, right), but in the technical sense there really is no reason for a controller to point out traffic other than they are bored or don't want you asking for another altitude. Once above 18,000' the controller is responsible for separation just as if you were in IMC. It's beside the point that you can see another airplane, because you can't legally accept a clearance to visually avoid it.

There's a similar situation when accepting a visual approach. Sometimes it's possible to see an airport a very long way out and there is no one in front of you. You can call the field in sight if you'd like but don't expect to get the clearance until you are within 30 nm of the airport, because the controller can't give you a visual approach outside of 30 miles.

Why I don't necessarily disagree with you, I much rather the guy point out the traffic so I know he is there. Things like hitting the guys wake can be avoided if you know where he is at. (example, Holding at FL200 on an arrival to JFK and they hold a 757, 1000' above us, we worked out a lower altitude because his wake posed a hazard, had the controller not called the traffic, we may not have known he was there)

As for the visual, I'm pretty sure the ops spec says I can't except a visual until within 30nm anyway.

 

[DrewBlows]

Why I don't necessarily disagree with you, I much rather the guy point out the traffic so I know he is there. Things like hitting the guys wake can be avoided if you know where he is at. (example, Holding at FL200 on an arrival to JFK and they hold a 757, 1000' above us, we worked out a lower altitude because his wake posed a hazard, had the controller not called the traffic, we may not have known he was there)

Good example.

As for the visual, I'm pretty sure the ops spec says I can't except a visual until within 30nm anyway.

Lol, if you didn't know this, the controller would.

 

[SELCAL checks]

Controllers are required to point out merging targets that are provided minimum separation on a workload permitting basis.

You can respond with, 'Roger".

 

[wmuflyguy]

Good example.



Lol, if you didn't know this, the controller would.

Yea I didn't know if ATC had a similar rule or not.

 

[38tango]

If you don't specify the departure radial at DCA or the departure climb at LGA they tend to get a little aggravated by that...

This is a case of using your better judgement. Obviously all airport aren't the same. Use your EXPERIENCE to decide if you should read it all back. A place like LGA or DCA which has several aircraft on the same departure from the same runway but with different transitions needs to hear you got the right one. In hindsight take a place like Huntsville, where the worst thing you could do wrong is lose and engine and aim for the Saturn 5 sitting near the space center.....you can probably just read the squawk back to them. In fact, to cover their own @ss, a controller will often say "squawk readback correct" and he's off the hook...at that point you said without saying that you understood the clearance and they will come after YOU if you fly it wrong.

 

[Mach 80]

Controllers call out traffic above FL180 simply so you won't be alarmed and do some sort of evasive manuever thinking he is at your altitude. No need to later clog up the frequency reporting the traffic in sight because he really doesn't care.

Another thing.....you do not need to tell controllers that you are "with you". They know this because you are talking to them It is the most stupid and redundant phrase any pilot can say and makes you sound like a bozo student pilot. As I said elsewhere....especially painful to hear the "you" in "with you" emphasized as if telling the controller something he didn't know.

 

[wms]

Controllers call out traffic above FL180 simply so you won't be alarmed and do some sort of evasive manuever thinking he is at your altitude. No need to later clog up the frequency reporting the traffic in sight because he really doesn't care.

Another thing.....you do not need to tell controllers that you are "with you". They know this because you are talking to them It is the most stupid and redundant phrase any pilot can say and makes you sound like a bozo student pilot. As I said elsewhere....especially painful to hear the "you" in "with you" emphasized as if telling the controller something he didn't know.

I'm with you.

 

[DrewBlows]

Yea I didn't know if ATC had a similar rule or not.

I found out about the rule by calling the airport "in sight" outside 30 nm on some ridiculous ferry flight in the middle of the night. In fact I didn't know it was an ops spec until you mentioned it. I must have been asleep when it was covered in ground school.

 

[flyer172r]

Evaluate statement. Realize you are stupid. Have another beer

Miss my point, insult my intelligence, have another beer.

My point was you single out FOs for constantly doing this, while I was trying to say that I fly with a lot of captains who do this same thing. Don't assume it's only the FOs doing this.

 

[acaTerry]

giving a five minute explaination about where the storms are on his "fish finder"

Everyone knows the radar is called the TV!!!!!!

 

[38tango]

Miss my point, insult my intelligence, have another beer.

My point was you single out FOs for constantly doing this, while I was trying to say that I fly with a lot of captains who do this same thing. Don't assume it's only the FOs doing this.

I don't have to insult your intelligence, you did it yourself by being a cubs fan!!!
At least the sim instructors always know why "maybe you'll get it right next time" hehee

GO CARDINALS 2006 WORLD CHAMPS!!!!!

 

[finnjl]

actually I think age has nothing to do with this bad habit....I have seen retired airline guys, military pilots, freight dogs (do it the least), corporate pilots with this habit. So experience is not a factor.

 

[Metro752]

cubs suck

 

[siucavflight]

cubs suck

You suck!

 

[38tango]

You suck!

Is that really the best you can do?! haha spoken like a true cubs fan!
love your avatar though, especially that bottom she's barely got on

 

[siucavflight]

Is that really the best you can do?! haha spoken like a true cubs fan!
love your avatar though, especially that bottom she's barely got on

Three games out of first, best record in baseball since June 1st, whos your team?

 

[flyer172r]

Three games out of first, best record in baseball since June 1st, whos your team?

Don't try to use facts with Cardinals fans, like the fact that the Cubs have won the season series between the two teams the last two years, and probably this year as well. They think they're the best and you'll never convince them otherwise.

Man, this could be the first time an avatar of something other than a scantily clad woman has caused a thread hijack.

 

[38tango]

Don't try to use facts with Cardinals fans, like the fact that the Cubs have won the season series between the two teams the last two years, and probably this year as well. They think they're the best and you'll never convince them otherwise.

Man, this could be the first time an avatar of something other than a scantily clad woman has caused a thread hijack.

First, I started the thread, so I can't hijack myself. Second, win all the individual series you want, but when's the last time you won the World Series. 'nuff said. By the way, you can start another thread if you want to argue baseball, don't hijack mine