Pet peeves from the ATC folks

[Hold West]

the disruption will always be less in the larger picture to turn the slower aircraft being overtaken.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Av8rPHX]

Someone stated earlier than "Skypest" as he put it... always uses PD... Whats wrong with that. I think PD saves on radio time more than "Discretion to 7".. instead I use "PD 7000". JMHO

 

[charter dog]

Golly, I never thought of that.

Perfect!

Hold West:

Bring some of your contoller buddies over to the board and we might get a good scrum going! Grumpy or not, thanks for your insights. This a good discussion.

My question to you:

Do you expect a "traffic in sight" or "negative contact" reply from pilots when you issue a traffic advisory to high altitude aircraft? (class A airspace) Or since visual separation cannot be applied, is a simple "junkjet 309" more appropriate since we are under positive control? Just curious.

Best,

 

[MyRadarIsOut]

Someone once told me:

As Pilots we talk to Controllers and are dealing with one personality at a time,
As a Controller, we talk to Pilots and are dealing with 50 personalities at one time.

 

[jackotron]

What's with pilots that say "I have the numbers?" No, obviously you don't or you would say which ATIS (Victor, Bravo, etc..) you have.

From the pilot-controller glossary:

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

 

[Hold West]

Do you expect a "traffic in sight" or "negative contact" reply from pilots when you issue a traffic advisory to high altitude aircraft? (class A airspace) Or since visual separation cannot be applied, is a simple "junkjet 309" more appropriate since we are under positive control? Just curious.

No, I don't care if you ever report the other aircraft in sight or not - a simple acknowledgement is all I need.

This type of traffic call is called a "merging target procedure" and the only reason we do it is to keep someone from freaking out when an aircraft appears visually, boring in at a combined closing speed of 900 knots.

The traffic call is just to make you aware the other aircraft will be passing by at minimum vertical separation.

 

[jackotron]

Someone stated earlier than "Skypest" as he put it... always uses PD... Whats wrong with that. I think PD saves on radio time more than "Discretion to 7".. instead I use "PD 7000". JMHO

When I worked on the ramp for SkyWest, I caught hell from a captain for giving him the "hang-loose" sign for "chocks-in" (this was a pretty common hand jesture among S.W. pilots and Ramp agents. His reasoning was, "That jesture it's not standard. We both need to know what each is saying so that we don't f- up, lose our jobs, or even worse, kill someone."

I think that same reasoning applies here don't you?

Not that I have a problem with what you said, but I think that it doesn't matter what I think. What's right is right, what is correct is correct, standard phraseology is imparitive.

Now, just because the AIM doesn't say to say "thank you," "So long," "good morning," etc. doesn't mean that that is wrong in the way I see it. Saying "PD" is altering a readback on an instruction, saying "Good morning" is just good for the soul.

 

[Hold West]

When you call us the wrong flight number, don't get pissed just because I don't reply to your call even though I'm pretty certain it's for us. I realize that you have a ton of data blocks starring you in the face but we have to cover our butts as well. Taking someone else's call could be very bad.

Guilty as charged. Sometimes I'm looking at a scope with 20+ aircraft on it, and I'm thinking about two clearances ahead of where my mouth is. My eye is looking at Dogjet 366, but my mouth is trying to say Bluejob 498, and what comes out is a mishmash of the two, or maybe a complete transposition of the two callsigns. Thank you for being alert and catching my occasional error.

Here's a crossing restriction pet peave: Clearance goes something like this: Indebt 1234, pilot's descretion to maintain flight level 240, then cross 30 north of XYZ at 13000. Can't you just clear us for the one altitude restriction instead of adding a layer of complexity to the situation?? With jet fuel over $2 bucks a gallon, I'm not going to start descending to 240 or 13000 until you make me.

First, that clearance doesn't make much sense, in that an altitude crossing restriction is by definition a PD descent.

EXAMPLE-
4. "United Four Seventeen, cross Lakeview V-O-R at six thousand, maintain six thousand."​

NOTE-
4. The pilot is authorized to conduct descent at pilot's discretion, however, must comply with the clearance provision to cross the Lakeview VOR at 6,000 feet.
​

​

More likely you are getting a clearance to descend through a given altitude, then a crossing restriction:
​

​

EXAMPLE-
5. "United Four Seventeen, descend now to Flight Level two seven zero, cross Lakeview V-O-R at or below one zero thousand, descend and maintain six thousand."​

NOTE-
5. The pilot is expected to promptly execute and complete descent to FL 270 upon receipt of the clearance. After reaching FL 270 the pilot is authorized to descend "at pilot's discretion" until reaching Lakeview VOR. The pilot must comply with the clearance provision to cross Lakeview VOR at or below 10,000 feet. After Lakeview VOR the pilot is expected to descend at the suggested rates until reaching 6,000 feet.
​

I issue clearances like that all the time. I issue them all at once to:
​

1. save me time
2. give you the maximum freedom I can within the bounds of my separation responsibility.
​

I don't know where and when you want to start down, or what you have to do to meet a crossing restriction. So I issue the part I need for separation, perhaps "Descend now through FL280" and the part that gives you the freedom to descend further when and how you like: "then at pilot's discretion mantain 7,000".
​

Notice up topic there's one guy complaining that his aircraft doesn't climb or descend very fast; others are complaining that they have to level off at intermediate altitudes. By giving it to you all at once, and making as much as I can at pilot's discretion, I'm trying to give you as much latitude as I can.
​

When you're trying to get me to see the aircraft ahead of us on the visual approach, again don't get pissed when I can't see the little bugger. Depending on time of day, weather condtions, terrrain features, etc. 10 miles vis reported on the ATIS doesn't mean we can really see 10 miles.

Before 9/11, we had a fam program where we could jumpseat with the air carriers, and that's where a lot of us got some real world experience in what you speak of. Now we are having a new generation of controllers check out who've not had that experience, and it shows. I try to explain, and point out that, for example, United has that nice grey top, and it's going to be real hard to see from above, in the haze, from 15 miles away! There's no substitute for experience though. FAA won't put us into CASS, so I don't think we'll ever get that experience back.

 

[Hold West]

Controller gives you a crossing restriction - Ex 'Cross JHAUN at 12000'. It's a slammer and I'm working hard to get down - out of about 15000 the controller now says 'turn 15 degrees right for traffic'. When do I have to be level at 12? Abeam JHAUN? or just when the mood strikes me (normal descent)?

Depends. If I'm planning on reclearing you direct JHAUN once clear of traffic, and there's room for you to get back over JHAUN, I expect you to cross JHAUN at 12,000 as cleared. After all, I just gave you a bit of an s-turn, which gives you more miles to get down, right?

If I'm not planning, or don't have enough room, to get you back over JHAUN, I should amend your clearance. If you don't think you are going to get back over JHAUN, ask for an amended clearance.

Prior to taxi, your clearance is 'cleared as filed'. You get to the end and get a plain vanilla 'cleared for takeoff' with no mention of hdg or where to go. I have been barked at for turning on course, and I have been barked at for flying runway heading. I always ask now, but what are the rules when cleared 'as filed' with no guidance in the takeoff clearance?

AFAIK, with a simple "cleared as filed" and "cleared for takeoff", just proceed on course. You have received a clearance, I'd just go ahead and fly the filed route. I don't know of any reason to do anything else. I don't know why anyone would bark at you for that.

 

[Hold West]

[FONT=&quot]Here's a pet peeve of mine when it comes to controllers. Clearing me to things that aren't on the charts especially when I am IFR. You know, hotels (The Stratosphere in LAS comes to mind), dumps (Mt. Trashmore, Key West), roads (L.A.) and the like. Also, try not to get mad at me if I have no idea what you are talking about when you send me flying at something weird. I'm all for helping you guys out but if I don't know what the heck you are talking about just give me a vector and smile. [/FONT]

I feel your pain, but I'm going to turn it around on you. Please don't sit up there in cruise flight playing with your WhizKid nav system until you find some obscure fix that I've never heard of, then ask to go direct there. Since they've named every obscure point on every STAR, DP and approach in the NAS, there's tons of 'em I've never heard of.

You promise not to play stump the controller, and I promise not to play stump the pilot.

 

[PC800]

Approach controls response was that they couldn't clear me for the visual as long as the reported visibility was less than 3 miles.

That's true, since it's the official observation that's controlling, and that hasn't changed yet, he can't. Only a certified observer (sometimes located in the tower, but often someplace else on the field) can do that. My point was only that it's the offiicial observation that's controlling, not what's on the ATIS.

Years ago, at FNT, I had to tell an air carrier that the visibility was 1/4 mile-- despite the fact that the fog had lifted very quickly and, standing in the tower, I could see him circling at the outer marker six miles away. The official observation had to be taken by the NWS guy across the field, which at that time of the morning was staffed by one guy. I could see him, too-- he was outside launching a weather balloon, and having some trouble doing it.

I'm working approach control in the tower, I can see 10 miles-- but I wasn't the certified observer, so I couldn't change the visibility. The captain and I became deadlocked over our respective CYA positions--I was willing to clear him for the approach, despite the fact that we were officially below minimums, because minimums were his problem, not mine. Of course, he was willing to accept the clearance only if I broadcast an official weather sequence showing visibility above minimums, which I couldn't do, since the official observation hadn't changed.

We stayed in stalemate for about fifteen minutes until the weather guy got his balloon untangled and went back inside, scratched "Vis 10+" on the telewriter, and made us both legal. The captain called me on the phone after landing-- and I must say I was much more understanding of his position on the matter, than he was of mine.

 

[kf4amu]

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182651-1.html

Don Brown is a center controller for ATL, and I've been an avid reader of his columns for a few years now. It's helped me tremendously...especially the excess verbage I've learned by listening to other "seasoned" pilots on the air.

-Will

 

[Hold West]

One annoying thing...whenever my school's students fly DA20-C1s we get mistaken as either the Diamond Twin Star, Katana (thats not a big deal, basically the same), Falcon 20, or even the Diamond Jet.

What are you filing as your aircraft type? The Eclipse is a DV20, if you are filing DA20, that's wrong. I might even bite on that one for a sec, confusing it with the Falcon 20 (FA20).

If it's a radio thing, what are you giving as your aircraft type? Diamond? Diamond Eclipse? DA20-C1 (shudder)? Curious about this. I would call it a Diamond Eclipse (Make/model) I think, but just Eclipse should get the idea across.

 

[Hold West]

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182651-1.html

Don Brown is a center controller for ATL, and I've been an avid reader of his columns for a few years now. It's helped me tremendously...especially the excess verbage I've learned by listening to other "seasoned" pilots on the air.

-Will

Don Brown is The Man - he's my Gordon Baxter.

 

[HS125]

That's true, since it's the official observation that's controlling, and that hasn't changed yet, he can't. Only a certified observer (sometimes located in the tower, but often someplace else on the field) can do that. My point was only that it's the offiicial observation that's controlling, not what's on the ATIS.

Years ago, at FNT, I had to tell an air carrier that the visibility was 1/4 mile-- despite the fact that the fog had lifted very quickly and, standing in the tower, I could see him circling at the outer marker six miles away. The official observation had to be taken by the NWS guy across the field, which at that time of the morning was staffed by one guy. I could see him, too-- he was outside launching a weather balloon, and having some trouble doing it.

I'm working approach control in the tower, I can see 10 miles-- but I wasn't the certified observer, so I couldn't change the visibility. The captain and I became deadlocked over our respective CYA positions--I was willing to clear him for the approach, despite the fact that we were officially below minimums, because minimums were his problem, not mine. Of course, he was willing to accept the clearance only if I broadcast an official weather sequence showing visibility above minimums, which I couldn't do, since the official observation hadn't changed.

We stayed in stalemate for about fifteen minutes until the weather guy got his balloon untangled and went back inside, scratched "Vis 10+" on the telewriter, and made us both legal. The captain called me on the phone after landing-- and I must say I was much more understanding of his position on the matter, than he was of mine.

FNT was one of the airports where I was denied. So that must have been you that I was talking to (but not in the case you laid out above, I'm not that big of a D.H.). Nice to finally meet you.:laugh: