Question for ATC

[atcloser]

lets just make every other day "be nice to ATC day", and the alternating days will be "be nice to pilots day"

 

[jobear]

Question for all the controllers out there. Do you see alot of backup whiplashing thru the system because of delays into and out of ORD/MDW?
Main reason I ask is it seems to becoming a hot topic in aviation news lately. I fly out of MKE and it seems everytime a squirrel farts over western Kansas it causes ground stops/flow restrictions into and out of MDW/ORD; meanwhile I get to hear all the inbounds into ORD getting spun into the holds. Is the relief more runways as has been suggested or airlines reducing flights; I know that one won't work because Main lines have reduced the numbers and pumped up the Regional jets.

It feels like,as Jean Luke Picard wouls say " Were caught in some kind of temporal coarsality loop"

Jobear

 

[ATCER]

Question for all the controllers out there. Do you see alot of backup whiplashing thru the system because of delays into and out of ORD/MDW?

Jobear

I don't work any traffic over western departure gates... so I don't see it directly. We are surrounded by computer screens that give us flow information, airport delays, all in pretty colors... (Green is good, Yellow is not so good, and Red means you're F***ed) And you thought the FAA was wasting your tax money ???

ORD/MDW is always look like this ~> ORD / MDW

There seems to be an eternal MIT restriction posted for traffic landing there and at least once a day (usually more) I see this on the screens...

ALL THRAFFIC DESTINED ORD/MDW - GROUND STOP UFN - EXPECT UPDATE @ 1810Z

I look at the clock and it's like 1300Z ...

This must be you sitting on the ground looking up at clear skies ~>

Sorry man... hang in there, at least we have the colors !!!

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

here is some food for thought on the exceed 250 kt deal.


A FSDO inspector ramp checks some guy on the ramp and asks to see his pilots liscence and medical and all that other crap. A pilot says screw you. The regs say something like "a pilot must show his/her liscence and medical to the administrator or his/her representitive. Does that mean the FSDO has to file a notam? Or did the admin give the FSDO authority.

Now lets take the 250kt rule here. ATC has responsibilty for moving traffic through the sky. The same sort of sentence in the regs says, No one may operate an A/C below 10,000 feet and exceed 250 kts unless requested by the admin or his/her representitive. Who the hell is the rep in this case? Just answer me that!

 

[SKC]

On the ORD topic....

Does anyone think that reinstituting slots into ORD would help the flow problem? They would just have to be fairly restrictive in the number of slots allotted, etc.

 

[de727ups]

FAR interpretation...

It's very confusing. Some regs just make sense and others leave you in a grey area. Think an FSDO inspectors word is golden? Think again. You can ask two different inspectors a question and get two different answers. Who's right? You have to go to the FAA lawyers in DC and see what they have to say....or have said in the past. That's what it boils down too.

You can look up the defination of Administrator in FAR 1. It seems pretty wide open to me and I can understand why it seems to apply to ATC, but it doesn't. Does it apply to a FSDO inspector? I don't think so. FSDO inspectors don't set policy....though I think some would like to think they do. Again, you have to go to the top of the FAA legal system to get those answers....and those answers are hard to find.

Personally, I think the system sucks....

 

[A Squared]

LRJTcaptain,

You just won't let it go, will you?

OK, if you really don't understand the difference:

An inspector *has* been delegated some of the administrator's authority. An inspector can approve an air carrier's operations specifications on behalf of the administrator. An inspector is in fact authorized to issue waivers of certain regulations on behalf of the administrator. Not all FAA employees are delegated the authority of hte administrator. You as an ATC specialist have not been deegated the administrators authority. If you, as an air traffic controller, walk up to my airplane and ask to see my certificate, I am perfectly justified in ignoring your request. Not so with an inspector.

Examples of persons who have been delegated certain portions of the anministrator's authority.

FAA legal counsel has been given the authority to interpret the regulations and the authority to pursue enforcements before the NTSB on behalf of the administrator.

Inspectors have been given the authority to approve operations specifications, issue operating certificates issue airman's certificates and issue waivers.

Examiner designees. Even though they are not FAA employees, they have been given the authority of the administrator to examine airmen and issue certificates.

Notice that I said certain portions of the administrator's authority. The Chief Counsel cannot issue an operating certificate. An ops inspector cannot issue an official legal interepretation, an examiner designee cannot prosecute an enforcement. They each have specific, limited powers of the administrator delegated to them.

Examples of persons who do not have the authority of discretion of the administrator:

An electronics technician in Airways and facilities. His job is to maintain electronics in accordance with the guidelines and standards set for his position. He does not have the administrators authority to (for example) ammend the specifications for an ILS installation.

ATC controllers. Your job is to seperate air traffic in accordance with the regulations, procedures and standards established for traffic seperation. You do not have the authority to hand out waivers to those regulations.

Take or example, the regulation about minimum altitudes. An inspector at the FSDO can give a banner tow operator a waiver to those regulations. An air traffic controller on other hand, cannot relieve a pilot from complying with that regulation, merely by clearing him to do so.


>>>>>>"The same sort of sentence in the regs says, No one may operate an A/C below 10,000 feet and exceed 250 kts unless requested by the admin or his/her representitive."

Uhhh, no, that is *not* what is says. You have the deplorable habit of making up crap and inserting it into "quotes" from the regulations to try to make it sound like it's supporting your case. In one of your earlier posts you added: "Air Traffic Controllers have been delegated the authority by the admin." to the Part 1 definition of "administrator" wnen in fact it is *not* part of hte definition. Look, pal, we all have copies of the regulations, and we can all read. It just makes you look very stupid to attempt to misrepresent what the regulations say.

Here's what the reg about 250 knots *actually* says:

"unless authorized by the administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots."

It does not say "requested", it does not say "his/her representative". It says "authorized by the administrator" The administrator authorized (for a period of time) deviations to that rule in Houston. That is an example of what "authorized by the administrator" means. There may be operators who have specific waivers to that rule authorized by the administrator.

Why don't you actually read 91.117? Take a look at it and read it carefully. read the entire section. Notice that in paragraph (a) which prohibits 250 kt below 10,000 it says "authorized by the administrator" while in paragraph (b) which prohibits 200 kt below 2500 ft of the surface says "authorized or required by ATC"

Now, you explain to me, why, if ATC and "the administrator" are one and the same, do thay specify "the administrator" in one paragraph, and ATC in the very next paragraph? I'll give you a hint, they *say* "the administrator" when they *mean* the administrator, and they *say* "ATC", when they *mean* ATC, and the two are not the same.

OK, let's summarize:

We have the actual text of the regulation which shows that ATC does not have the authority to waive the 250/10K rule (like they do the 200/2500' rule)

We have a Docket from the Federal Register which states in no uncertain terms that FAA does not intend for ATC to be allowed to waive the 250/10k rule.

and we have an excerpt from the AIM which states that ATC does not have the authority to allow a pilot to deviate from regulations in general.


All official sources, all pointing to exactly the same conclusion. On the other hand, you have nothing, zip, Nada. You haven't offered us *anything* official which suggests that you are right. All you've done at this point is the intellectual equivalant of shouting "yes I can, yes I can" louder and louder.

Until you can present persuasive arguments on why the Federal register is wrong, the regulation is wrong and the AIM is wrong, I would reccommend that you just remain silent on this issue. You're starting to look like a fool.

 

[ATCER]

On the ORD topic....

Does anyone think that reinstituting slots into ORD would help the flow problem? They would just have to be fairly restrictive in the number of slots allotted, etc.

I dunno...

I don't know a lot about ORD. The last 2-3 months it seems they are ground stopped every day. My $.02 ... (this is opinion only folks) is that yea, there is a problem with volume but I think a lot of what is in the news is about politics and the new runway the FAA wants to install. There is a lot of opposition to it and this may be just another piece of the political puzzle. Would slots help... maybe but when they had em' there was still flow restrictions.

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 ???

 

[Flibmeister]

On the ORD topic....

Does anyone think that reinstituting slots into ORD would help the flow problem? They would just have to be fairly restrictive in the number of slots allotted, etc.

The increased delays at O'Hare are directly attributable to the gutting of LAHSO-- and reinstituting LAHSO (which have a 30-year track record of being both safe and efficient at O'Hare) is the surest way to decrease delays.

Absent that, reducing flights (either "voluntarily" or by reinstituting a slot program) is the only near-term solution.

 

[nosehair]

Or did the admin give the FSDO authority.

Exactly! An Aviation Safety Inspector is appointed as a representative of the Administrator. He is trained to be exactly that. It is in writing in his FAA Orders.
Not so with the ATC guy. Give it up.