Question for ATC

[EagleRJ]

You guys who fly in and out of there see it more then anyone ... is it really that bad there ??? When you land are you waiting 30 minutes for a gate to open ???

I think ORD is especially hard hit by heavy flow due to their runway layout. They use numerous intersecting runways in their two primary configurations ("Wierd" and "Strange", I think they're called), so losing LAHSO hit them hard. I don't know if they have any waivers now.

Congestion on the ground is also a problem, due to the narrow alleys between the concourses, and complicated by incompetence in the ramp towers. There's no room at all inside the runways to wait for your gate for any length of time without blocking everything up, which is why they will send you to the penalty box even for 90 seconds.

I don't see where another runway is going to help things, since movement on the ground and intersecting-runway issues are the limiting factors.
United and American have already de-peaked at ORD, so they've done all they can at the current level. Introducing slots is an option, but it would have a massive impact on us and UA system-wide.

 

[A Squared]

Lrjtcaptain,

One would think that as an Air Traffic Controller, at a minimum, you'd be familliar with FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control. That's the document that specifies how you do your job (or at least how you're *supposed* to do your job)

Here's what 7110.65P has to say:

from Chapter 2, section 1 2-1-1:

NOTE-
Pilots are required to abide by CFRs or other applicable regulations regardless
of the application of any procedure or minima in this order.

So, lets add the ATC handbook to the long list of FAA documents which say you're wrong.

Incidentally. The Operations Inspectors Handbooks (8400.1 AIr Transportation and 8700.1 General Aviation) each have an entire section which outlines the regulatory chain through which an individual inspector gets his authority. If you had ever opened the ATC handbook, you would have noticed no such section .... because controllers don't have that authority.

 

[ATCER]

I think ORD is especially hard hit by heavy flow due to their runway layout. They use numerous intersecting runways in their two primary configurations ("Wierd" and "Strange", I think they're called), so losing LAHSO hit them hard. I don't know if they have any waivers now.

Congestion on the ground is also a problem, due to the narrow alleys between the concourses, and complicated by incompetence in the ramp towers. There's no room at all inside the runways to wait for your gate for any length of time without blocking everything up, which is why they will send you to the penalty box even for 90 seconds.

I don't see where another runway is going to help things, since movement on the ground and intersecting-runway issues are the limiting factors.
United and American have already de-peaked at ORD, so they've done all they can at the current level. Introducing slots is an option, but it would have a massive impact on us and UA system-wide.

So basically it's a larger version of LGA... I have a friend in the Agency who is working on the runway team for ORD... he says it is VERY POLITICAL. Off the record he'll tell you that it is a waste of $$$. Go figure...

Well EagleRJ, I'm sure I don't have to tell you this has not been a good summer, especially the last 2-3 weeks, they have seemed really bad. All I read on this site, the news, word of mouth, is how the airlines are hurting, guys are getting furloughed... and meanwhile I'm working more traffic then ever. No matter what sector I sit at I get my A$$ kicked. ATL is ground stopped all the time along with IAD, PHL, ORD... MIT's for ATL traffic departing NY Metro ???

Why did they stop LAHSO ??? Was it us (the controllers) or pilots ??? I'm out of the loop on this sort of stuff. Did you perform LAHSO there ??? If you don't mind answering... what did you think about it ??? I know from word of mouth LAHSO had mixed opinons at LGA...

 

[EagleRJ]

AFAIK, LAHSO is still officially on the books, but safety concerns and limitations imposed on the pilots by the company (and suggested by the union) make it too awkward to use in everyday operation. I think the controllers don't want to have to ask everyone if they can do it or not, so they just don't bother anymore. I haven't been given a hold short in about a year.

When it was used regularly, it worked well. At some airports like DFW, it was just a formality (11,000' available, LAHSO 10,500'), but it really moved things along at places like ORD, LGA, BWI etc. The trouble was, some of the approved LAHSO points (LGA) were on the snug side, and half the pilots would refuse it even when they were allowed per the FOM.

I don't doubt that another runway in ORD is a political matter. I don't know if the Emperor of Chicago is for or against it, but I'm sure he's making the process as difficult as possible for the FAA!

 

[Vector4fun]

Just my own opinion about the congestion problem.

The FAA certifies airports, the FAA funds airports, but the FAA doesn't normally *build* airports or runways. Cities/Counties/States do. All this crap about capacity boils down to the fact that everyone wants something for "nothing". Airlines want more capacity, airport operators want more gate fees and competition, passangers want cheaper fares and therefore more competition, but almost NO ONE wants to pay for, or face the political resistance to expanding airports and infrastructure. So everybody wants the FAA or Raytheon or somebody to invent some "magic" technology to make five pounds of crap fit in a three pound bag. Nice dream, but it ain't happening.

If I were "King", I'd put a limited number of slots per hour on every congested airport, and it would be a *realistic* number. Lots of folks would scream, and b*tch, but here's what would happen.

Limited capacity means ticket prices would rise. Fare margins would rise. Red-eye flights would become more common. When the local population got tired of paying $300 to fly 200 miles, I'd tell them I'd be happy to allow more competition just as soon as they get off their addled, indiferent asses and build some more taxiways and runways and gates. If you're going to let the "activists" hold you airport hostage via politics, you deserve to pay high ticket prices.

I think, in the long run, it would benefit the airlines as well. I like the idea of RJs going more point to point between secondary airports, rather than serving as "shuttles" to the Hubs.

 

[NuGuy]

Why did they stop LAHSO ??? Was it us (the controllers) or pilots ??? I'm out of the loop on this sort of stuff. Did you perform LAHSO there ??? If you don't mind answering... what did you think about it ??? I know from word of mouth LAHSO had mixed opinons at LGA...

Hi ATCER,
There were lots of little reasons, but the big reason was the "uncontrolled go-around" aspect.

Say your running visual approaches to 27R in PHL, and at the same time, you're running LASHO approaches to 17 (they intersect), holding short of 27R. Since they're visual approaches, there are NO defined missed approach procedures.

Airplane 1 on the visual for 27R goes around due to some reason, but lets say the guy in front of him misses the high speed exit. Airplane 2 on the LASHO for 17 goes around at the same time because he doesn't think he can make the LASHO restriction. Now you have two AC zeroing in on the same spot, with no idea what the other is going to do. Best case is you have an airshow, with maybe some soiled underwear (both airplanes, plus some in the tower) and worst case you have an "aluminum shower".

Although not a LASHO issue (it was a ops on intersecting runway issue), I saw the exact thing happen in PHL between a 737 and a DHC-8.

Another issue is the "unqualified participant" issue. Sure, we're all pros, nail the touchdown zone everytime and smoothly make the highspeed, but what about Joe Cessna and his first visit to Big City Metro Airport, or the foriegn carriers where english might be the 2nd language (or 3rd)?

Some of the LAHSHO ops were no brainers, like 9R and 13/31 in MIA, but others were accidents waiting to happen.

JMHO...
Nu

 

[Flibmeister]

Hi ATCER,
There were lots of little reasons, but the big reason was the "uncontrolled go-around" aspect.

...

Another issue is the "unqualified participant" issue. Sure, we're all pros, nail the touchdown zone everytime and smoothly make the highspeed, but what about Joe Cessna and his first visit to Big City Metro Airport, or the foriegn carriers where english might be the 2nd language (or 3rd)?
Nu

Go-arounds and non-qualified particpants are, indeed, the reasons cited by ALPA for their opposition to LAHSO.

Of course, they disregard the fact that if simultaneous go-arounds on LAHSO runways are a problem, then simultaneous go-arounds on ANY pair of converging runways are a problem-- for instance, if a 17 go-around at PHL is dangerous with traffic on the go off 27R, then that same 17 go-around would be even more dangerous with a go-around on 26, since it's closer and there'll be less time available to deal with the situation. Yet nobody seems to think the 17/26 operation is a problem!

Why not? Because it isn't-- and neither are simultaneous go-arounds on 17 and 27R. To a controller, a go-around is simply a "surprise!" departure-- and separating a go-around from another go-around is no different than separating a go-around from a departure off a conflicting runway (which happens all the time and nobody seems to get upset about it). It's just a non-issue, since go-arounds are always initiated at least a mile (and usually more) from the runway where the conflicting traffic is operating.

As for nonqualified participants, frankly, that's never been a problem either. Before there was LAHSO, there was SOIR (same thing), which has been used with pilots from the student level on up, for almost 40 years-- and a search of the NTSB archives don't find a single accident associated with either LAHSO or SOIR.

There are some legitimate reasons some pilots may dislike LAHSO-- for instance, if insufficient runway is available, or ops are being conducted with unfriendly wind conditions, or the intersection to hold short of is difficult to identify. But the "go-around" and "nonqualified participants" arguments don't hold water-- there's simply no history to back up those claims.

And for those times when a pilot really does have a legitimate gripe, there was always the Nancy Reagan approach-- just say no. Nobody's holding a gun to your head-- if you're uncomfortable with a specific LAHSO operation, then decline it, on a case-by-case basis.

Airports like O'Hare are being strangled by the new LAHSO restrictions-- and for fallacious reasons.

 

[EagleRJ]

Speaking of airspace congestion, is everyone ready for Nightmare '05 when DRVSM is implemented?

It's going to be REALLY crowded below FL290 with all the procrastinators who didn't get their planes fixed in time!

 

[SELCAL checks]

I get paid by the hour, so I don't ever exceed 250 below 10k domestically (intentionally). I have been instructed twice in the last 10 or so years by a controller to deviate from the rule. One included the instruction with the qualifier "tower just released somebody inadvertantly and we're going to have a separation problem." I have always been under the assumption that an emergency condition would have to exist for a controller to issue that instruction. I can declare an emergency, my dispatcher can declare an emergency, ATC can, my wife can probably call up the FAA and declare an emergency for me after she realized that I left on a 4-day trip with only 2 days of underwear in my bag. Every time I've declared an emergency with ATC, the situation has usually existed for a minute or two before I decided to share the problem with the rest of the world (running checklists, etc). Keeping that in mind, if the controller is experiencing an emergency (like a loss or potential loss of separation), I'm going to comply with his/her (most likely her) instructions and ask questions later. I don't know if a controller actually has to inform me if he's declaring an emergency - and during an actual emergency probably wouldn't be the best time to start having a debate. I've never been a controller before, and I honestly can't think of many immediate situations that a speed increase would solve. Seems like a speed increase would only help with in-trail requirements with same direction traffic. Never-the-less, I don't know what is transpiring in that radar room, could be an emergency developing on the poor SOBs scope, so I'll comply - then I'll mail in a NASA report, and I'll never lose a bit of sleep over it.

I used to drive around with the airspeed needle pointed right at 250, as time has gone on, I get more ballpark (but still within 10 knots). Sometimes I'll be busy, with remedial FMS training for either the 500-hour wonder in the right seat or the old grandpa who has no idea that Windows aren't just installed in the sides of homes and office buildings, as we descend through 10k while headed into busy airspace and I'll look up and see that I'm still doing 350. We've all been there. No big deal cuz you can look at the TCAS and see if you need to pull the boards to make sure the controller isn't going to lose his 5,7, or 10 miles in-trail. I always say I'm at 250. If the freq's not busy I'll say "two hundered and fourty-seven knots".

RVSM, been flying in that airspace for quite some time. Really no big deal, except I've had some intense jolts from wake turbulence with 1000 ft separation. I've found that wake at low altitudes and speeds seems to roll you, and at altitude it seems to just beat the crud out of you. I always thought heavy, clean, and slow was the threat. Trust me, running through a 767's wake at FL390 can beat the sh&t out of you - felt like the airplane hit a brick wall last time it happened. I think the biggest problem with RVSM will be the close(r) calls with the scum-bag operators who pencil-whip their requirements and operate their POS airplanes with old, worn out ADC's in RVSM airspace, and the amateurs who buy these million dollar Cessna jets and are tooling around in the higher flight levels while experimenting with their new glass cockpit. Also, there's no freakin way they're going to be able to use RVSM with much regularity over the Rockies with all the dang mountain wave out there.

I've already seen some RVSM action domestically. While over land in the US, I've crossed 1000 above or below other traffic in the Boston, New York, and Washington Centers after both my aircraft and the other traffic were queried about RVSM equipment and qualification. This has been happening for several months. Guess it depends on what sector you're in, and whether the controller has been trained and the equipment has been updated.

 

[de727ups]

Rsvm

I've flown RSVM in Europe and it seems to work great. I think it's going to be a great thing once it gets going. Seems like there have been a lot of times lately where ATC doesn't want us to deviate due to weather where RSVM would made twice as many altitudes available. I agree, 1000 feet doesn't look like much as far as seperation is concerned, but 2000 feet doesn't always look all that great, either....

 

[ATCER]

I've already seen some RVSM action domestically. While over land in the US, I've crossed 1000 above or below other traffic in the Boston, New York, and Washington Centers after both my aircraft and the other traffic were queried about RVSM equipment and qualification. This has been happening for several months. Guess it depends on what sector you're in, and whether the controller has been trained and the equipment has been updated.

DRVSM should be interesting... we have been using RVSM in Oceanic Airspace for some time, I think since 2000, maybe 2001. Not sure on the exact date... what's amazing is that when we started using it you thought, hey... I have twice as many altitudes... now a few years later we are out of altitudes over the ocean on busy days and ya say ... "how did I do this without RVSM ???" LOL...

Radar sectors that border Oceanic airspace have waivers to operate RVSM, they transition the traffic to and from oceanic. This covers all the centers on the east coast (ZBW, ZNY, ZDC, ZJX, ZMA). They also run traffic on the AR routes, VS routes, etc RVSM. The offshore radar routes are also RVSM, if any of you guys have been rerouted out over AZEZU (from NY metro) during swap to get to points south, that is all RVSM airspace, you must be /W or /Q to fly out there.

I think 01/20/2005 is the date to start DRVSM, that is just from memory... don't quote me on that.

Also, there's no freakin way they're going to be able to use RVSM with much regularity over the Rockies with all the dang mountain wave out there.

Maybe not... in Oceanic if there is a report of Mod Tub then RVSM is suspended on that route UFN...

 

[ATCER]

Speaking of airspace congestion, is everyone ready for Nightmare '05 when DRVSM is implemented?

It's going to be REALLY crowded below FL290 with all the procrastinators who didn't get their planes fixed in time!

Yea... I think the smaller guys will be hit the hardest. Have the RJ's in your fleet been updated ??? I see that a lot of the big boys (mainline) stuff has been updated, during swap when they go offshore they are all RVSM.

 

[EagleRJ]

I have no idea if the RJs are being upgraded now. This company isn't exactly known for its communicAAtion skills with labor groups. The avionics are new enough that it shouldn't be too difficult or expensive to do.

The last DRVSM news I read about upgrading the GA fleet was that avionics shops aren't seeing very many planes coming in to be upgraded, and they no longer have the capacity to do the remaining planes before 1/20/05. There are bound to be some some unhappy owners with high fuel flows and bumpy rides in the spring!