Pet peeves from the ATC folks

[81Horse]

Try, "May I have your operating initials, please?"

 

[GVFlyer]

Hold, Why does the "turn the slow aircraft" rule only apply when the slow aircraft is non-airline?? When the overtaking aircraft is corporate, ATC turns or delays the corp aircraft instead if the "slow" airliner. Why the double standard?

I agree with NJA Capt. ATC's goal should be efficiency and maximum traffic flow. I got eight low altitude 120 - 180 degree S-turns to keep me behind airliners coming out of New York last week! Once they cleared me to altitude my normal cruise speed caused me to pass them anyway.

Let me climb and get out of your way. I never file for anything less than FL450 unless it's a very short flight.

And consider speeding me up rather than slowing me down to get the spacing you need for lower slower traffic. I don't mind being assigned, "Max forward speed, please."

GV

 

[h25b]

I agree with NJA Capt. ATC's goal should be efficiency and maximum traffic flow. I got eight low altitude 120 - 180 degree S-turns to keep me behind airliners coming out of New York last week! Once they cleared me to altitude my normal cruise speed caused me to pass them anyway.

Let me climb and get out of your way. I never file for anything less than FL450 unless it's a very short flight.

And consider speeding me up rather than slowing me down to get the spacing you need for lower slower traffic. I don't mind being assigned, "Max forward speed, please."

GV

I think you're seeing my point about the D-RVSM BS... Am I the only one that has witnessed zero benefit to RVSM. It seems to have made no difference in optimum cruise altitude availability as far as I can tell. The bottle neck in the national airspace system has never been enroute, it's been in a simple lack of pavement at the airports. All D-RVSM has accomplished is to effectively increase the capacity to throw more aircraft at the same existing bottle neck that was there all of the time. Then you throw in these little "letter of agreements" the various centers have with each other to collude in a conspiracy to inflate traffic counts and you have a recipe for nothing in terms of efficiency. I used to love getting dropped down just low enough to have to check in through Springfield Approach on our way in to Rogers, AR. What the heck is that all about ???

 

[Stealthh21]

Try, "May I have your operating initials, please?"

All because the controller turned you off the airway? How about, after he hears that he will be pissed off and violate some hard working pilot right behind you for not turning fast enough.

Pick your battles.

 

[81Horse]

All because the controller turned you off the airway? How about, after he hears that he will be pissed off and violate some hard working pilot right behind you for not turning fast enough.

Pick your battles.

Yes, pick your battles. I didn't ask the original question -- somebody else did. Guess I should have used the little winkything I thought about using, but didn't.

Also, controllers don't "violate" pilots. At least not in the legal sense. <winkything again>

 

[Say Again Over]

Slowing down might be a big problem for some, no big deal really, glad to help ATC out, I do scratch my head though when a local controller (usually, but not always, at a small airport) asks me to "square my base to final" after I am on base leg, lol.:laugh:

 

[Stealthh21]

Yes, pick your battles. I didn't ask the original question -- somebody else did. Guess I should have used the little winkything I thought about using, but didn't.

Also, controllers don't "violate" pilots. At least not in the legal sense. <winkything again>

They sure do get the ball rolling don't they.

 

[threegreen]

All because the controller turned you off the airway? How about, after he hears that he will be pissed off and violate some hard working pilot right behind you for not turning fast enough.

No, for not giving a reason for vectors even after being asked repeadetly; then having the controller badger me as the pilot for asking. Radios do fail (and it HAS happened to me)...

 

[gkrangers]

I agree with NJA Capt. ATC's goal should be efficiency and maximum traffic flow. I got eight low altitude 120 - 180 degree S-turns to keep me behind airliners coming out of New York last week! Once they cleared me to altitude my normal cruise speed caused me to pass them anyway.

Let me climb and get out of your way. I never file for anything less than FL450 unless it's a very short flight.

And consider speeding me up rather than slowing me down to get the spacing you need for lower slower traffic. I don't mind being assigned, "Max forward speed, please."

GV

Safe, Orderly, and Expeditious.

 

[GEXDriver]

Safe, Orderly, and Expeditious.

How does that apply here?

What's safe about keeping an airplane down in the high density airspace longer than necessary? What's expeditious about repeatedly heading an airplane North, then South, then North again 8 times when say, the pilot's trying to head West? And, I bet it doesn't look too orderly to the passengers in the back looking at the Airshow.

 

[gkrangers]

How does that apply here?

What's safe about keeping an airplane down in the high density airspace longer than necessary? What's expeditious about repeatedly heading an airplane North, then South, then North again 8 times when say, the pilot's trying to head West? And, I bet it doesn't look too orderly to the passengers in the back looking at the Airshow.

I never said they stuck to it, but thats the mantra.

 

[Hold West]

Try, "May I have your operating initials, please?"

This one always makes me laugh. If you're ever talking to me... JS, there ya go.

Every position in every air traffic facility run by the FAA has a position log, where we sign on when we accept the position. When I go, the next guy signs on, or I show where I combined the position to. The requirement, for those warped individuals inclined to look, is in para. 4-6-6 of this document.

So, if you want to complain to the boss, all you have to do is say, "I was talking to SpeedBump approach on 119.3 on the 13th at 1457 UTC" and the powers can pinpoint exactly who was working there. Kind of like when they want to talk to you about a potential violation, I don't have to ask your name on frequency, it's filed in your flight plan (assuming you're IFR).

So ask all you want, I'll just say "Juliet Sierra... and turn another 30 degrees left there, willya?" :laugh: <----smiley face, I'm only kiddiing on that last one!

As an intimidation move, it's a flop, though.

 

[Cavpilot]

I think you're seeing my point about the D-RVSM BS... Am I the only one that has witnessed zero benefit to RVSM.

That makes two of us. Enroute has never been much of a problem. It is the terminal areas that are AFU.

 

[FL420]

From the pilot-controller glossary:

Have Numbers. Used by pilots to inform ATC that they have received runway, wind, and altimeter information only.

At the risk of dating myself, here is a little background on this practice which is a holdover from the days before recorded airport information on dedicated radio frequencies(ATIS.) In single or two seat tactical aircraft there was usually just one UHF radio and a TACAN. Some Navy aircraft had a UHF ADF receiver which could receive voice(as a backup.) It was seldom used for anything except NORDO but some Navy bases had a UHF NDB and a published approach.

When inbound to a Naval Air Station for landing, the pilot, upon being given a frequency change from Center to Approach would momentarily switch to the Ground Control frequency(to avoid disrupting communications on the presumed busier Tower frequency) of the destination airport. He would say something like "Miramar landing." He would receive a reply from a controller at NKX saying something like "Miramar landing Runway 24, 2000 broken, wind calm, altimeter 29.92." Short and sweet.

The pilot would then check-in on Approach Control frequency ending his transmission with something like "with the numbers." In the absence of that statement, the Approach controller would be required to read the latest weather received in the RAPCON which may or may not be up-to-date.

If the pilot thought the weather might be marginal VFR or less he would ask Center for permission to leave the frequency for a moment to "get the numbers." This way he could get the information at altitude further out to give him time for planning the approach.

I suspect the current practice might stem from an old accepted practice that is slow to die as it is perpetuated by newer folks who like the sound of it.

 

[Hold West]

from controllers: omitting the company part of the callsign.

Yeah, I'll buy that one. You know what happens? It's not that we are conciously omitting the company name, it's that when we get busy, real busy, it's easy to start talking as you push the transmit button, rather than waiting half a beat to insure the whole transmission goes out. In the enroute environment I'm keying transmitters a hundred or two hundred miles away, it takes a second for the whole chain to catch up. I have to beat trainees up over that all the time, and even myself, when I realize I'm talking as I key, not just a bit after.

From your perspective, I don't know that I'd accept a clearance with just a number and no company. There's too many similar callsigns running around out there. Just a "verify that was for JunqueJet 666?" a few times might get the message across that the controller's clipping the callsigns.

 

[Hold West]

The bottle neck in the national airspace system has never been enroute, it's been in a simple lack of pavement at the airports.

We told you so:

John Carr, President of the National Air Traffic Controllers' Association, testifying before Congress, April 24, 2001:

"Fifty miles of concrete poured at our nation’s 25 busiest airports will solve most of our aviation delays."

 

[Hold West]

I understand all of the above, and you have a point. It's the really egregious examples that get me. The guys who come sailing onto a midfield downwind at 10,000' and 300 kts gs, (when they were assigned 3000' 20 miles back), at a measely 1500 fpm descent, and then start chippin for the visual. "We got the field in sight" Yeah, I heard you the first time, and when you get that puppy down to about 4000' and slowed up to about 210 kts, and I know approximately what county you're going to be able to turn base leg in, I'll figure out who you're gonna follow.

The other problem I have is, since we don't exclude many of the GA overflights, I've got them from 6000' to 12,000, and also piston and turboprop arrivals to neighboring facilities descending through parts of my airspace. It helps if I can hustle you down through all that. The longer you're above around 6000', the longer you're a potential conflict with all that traffic not even landing at this airport. You're a conflict with the overs and the departures climbing and crossing. It would be nice to segregate all that traffic, but we can't do that without a lot more airspace.

Vector4Fun, thanks for chiming in. I'm happy to have someone else's viewpoint here, too!

 

[Vector4fun]

OK, one more;

Look, you're motoring down final in your C172 at 100 kts at the "big" airport, trying to mesh with the other traffic. There's a couple folks waiting at the hold short line, and another two or so on final behind ya. The first turnoff is about 2200' down, the second is 3400' from the threshold, and the third is 5400'. If you can't chop the throttle and start feeding in flaps at a mile, and make at least the second turnoff, 3400' from the threshold, in a freakin Skyhawk, with a 10 to 20 kt headwind... $@#&&**#*&$#!!!

It ain't hard folks, I can always make the first turnoff. For crying out loud, 2200' is more runway than I had to solo on. You are the blue-haired little old lady doing 40mph in the left lane with the stuck turn signal. You're a freaking road block. Every time you loaf the whole mile to the third turnoff, I loose two departure slots. Get off the freakin runway!




Have a nice day......

 

[charter dog]

It ain't hard folks, I can always make the first turnoff.

Betcha my podunk country airstrip where I learned was shorter than yours! With higher obstacles at both ends and less predictable winds to boot!

All kidding aside, it is less common to see Skyhawk pilots execute the "high-speed chop & drop, make the first turnoff" successfully. CFIs are understandably reluctant to teach their students to do this, even if they can do it themselves. Landing incidents/accidents related to marginal aircraft handling skills are an ongoing problem which plagues GA. It's not just flat spotted tires either, read the daily prelim data at FAA.gov. Like all tower controllers, i'm sure you've witnessed your share of landing accidents/incidents.

Personally, i'd like to see a greater emphasis placed on aircraft handling and maneuvering in flight training. However, the modern trend is in the opposite direction IMHO.

I don't know if it helps at your tower, but at the airport where I am based, the controllers often advise "Cleared to land runway 16R, plan minimum time on the runway for following traffic" or words to that effect. It's quite a mouthfull, but it seems to help a little if given at the right time. The way that they take care of us, i'll do anything in my power to help them. I'd put our tower controllers up against any I've dealt with in the USA, but then maybe I'm biased! Their crisp professionalism and cooperative attitude seems to bring out the best in all of us. With the mix of props, jets and flingwings, it does get interesting at times.

Thanks for sharing this pet peeve. Hopefully, some will take notice of what you said, and give it some consideration next time.

Best,

 

[gkrangers]

Well I wouldn't say it is something that should be taught...BUT, as a pilot, you learn what the airplane can and cannot do, how it handles, etc...

Most pilots should be able to put it on the threshold and get off at the first taxiway, whether is is a normal approach, or steep, or high, or both...in a Skyhawk anyway.

"Mastery of the aircraft", right?