Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Things I wish Pilots Knew about ATC

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Thank you vector.
I'll definately tune in for the future threads.
 
I just don't know why we don't have to learn more about how the ATC does it. If you think about it there is barely something related to communications and ATC procedures compared to the trillion wx charts of which you will end up using a few only.
 
Originally posted by NJA Capt


Hard to see in a jet (at an unfamiliar airport) at 600' 2 miles from the airport. Some aircraft like the C750 are very restricted in crosswinds (less than 4 degrees bank at times), that's why we ask on short final. Some airports don't locate windsocks anywhere near the landing threshold.


I understand. If you need to ask, do so. I just want you to understand what you're getting. What I give you may be 30 deg and 10 kts different than what the wind actually is at the threshold at the moment. ;)



Why is it when we are vectored "for traffic" it is always toward the ONLY TCAS targets? Or even better.....We are told of passing traffic 15nm away (don't care), and are given no warning of the 767 that passes 2000' over my window (DO care!!)?



Two part answer. First, one of the first techniques we learn in radar is that's it's almost always easier to vector you to miss behind the other target. Trying to zoom you in front of another target is very difficult, unless the speed differences are really great. So, what do they teach everyone in the acadamy? If two aircraft are on crossing courses, and speeds are similar, turn one right at the second, and they miss with minimum safe distance. I know, sounds nuts, but works. :D

Second part of answer lies in Controller's Handbook, Chap 5, merging target procedures:


5-1-8. MERGING TARGET PROCEDURES

a. Except while they are established in a holding pattern, apply merging target procedures to all radar identified:

1. Aircraft at 10,000 feet and above.

2. Turbojet aircraft regardless of altitude.

3. Presidential aircraft regardless of altitude.

b. Issue traffic information to those aircraft listed in subpara a whose targets appear likely to merge unless the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical separation minima.

EXAMPLE-
"Traffic twelve o'clock, seven miles, eastbound, MD-80, at one seven thousand."

"United Sixteen and American Twenty-five, traffic twelve o'clock, one zero miles, opposite direction, eastbound seven twenty seven at flight level three three zero, westbound MD-Eighty at flight level three one zero."

c. If the pilot requests, vector his/her aircraft to avoid merging with the target of previously issued traffic.

NOTE-
Aircraft closure rates are so rapid that when applying merging target procedures, controller issuance of traffic must be commenced in ample time for the pilot to decide if a vector is necessary.

d. If unable to provide vector service, inform the pilot.



So in the case you mentioned. If it's a VFR target say twelve miles away, with an un-verified Mode C altitude, I cannot assume you are separated by "more than the appropriate vertical separation minima. " So you're at 140, descending to 100, and I call traffic "Eleven O'Clock, twelve miles, altitude indicates three thousand five hundred." Seems silly, but God only knows what the target's actuall alttude is. And I'm supposed to issue it it time for you to decide if you'd like a vector around it. In the second case, I know the B767 is separated by more than the appropriate minima, (1000') so I need not issue it.

I think it actually gets pretty silly and confusing to pilots at times. Controllers too. We got guys saying "TCAS Traffic, eleven o'clock, four miles....." I'm not sure what "TCAS Traffic" is supposed to be, except we're differentiating between "Sit up and pay attention" traffic, and Gee Whiz info...





TCAS RAs are inhibited at approx 1200' AGL and shouldn't give RAs. 95% of GA traffic and half of the corporate world have no idea what we are talking about (TCAS). There is no FAA guidance to maintain "TCAS" separation.


I know, I was just trying to remind the folks that don't know, that they should give the TCAS equipped traffic a little extra room. We have a dozen TCAS RAs a year between aircraft that were legally visually separated. I've told folks to maintain visual separation, and then had the targets completely merge at nearly the same altitude. Some folks figure 200' is as good as two miles; and it often was before TCAS...

Hope that helped!



:)
 
Great post, Vector4fun. Thanks. I learned some things.

Now, some things controllers ought to know...I routinely used to have controllers tell me to maintain 280 or greater in the climb leaving SNA. A CJ (CE525) will not go faster than 263 indicated unless I want to blast off the beer horn. My point...not all Citations are the same.

Thanks for the informative post!
 
Re: Re: Things I wish Pilots Knew about ATC

Typhoon1244 said:
I'm glad somebody said that. I'm trying to break some F/O's of the habit.

Great info, by the way! (I didn't know tower wind data was an average.)

Now, on the flip side, something (some) controllers don't know: when I'm in my fully loaded CRJ struggling through 250, and you ask me if I can be at 330 in three minutes or less...the answer is always no! :D



She's purrty, but she ain't sexy:D
 
Vector4fun said:
I know, I was just trying to remind the folks that don't know, that they should give the TCAS equipped traffic a little extra room. We have a dozen TCAS RAs a year between aircraft that were legally visually separated.

Thanks for all the insight from a controllers perspective. Just a couple weeks ago, I was headed into LGA, talking to New York App. We were at 10,000', then cleared to descend to 9,000'. We had been watching a target on TCAS that was at 9600', crossing right to left, directly under us. We spotted him when he was about 3-4 miles away, and watched him. We were cleared to descend when he was approximately 1 mile from us, prior to crossing paths. We asked the controller if he was talking to said traffic, and he said no. He apparently did not see him on radar until we were cleared to descend(well outside of the Class B, but talking to NYC approach, and the controller said he "just popped up on radar"). We were in and out of IMC at 10,000, with bases at 9500'(based on our descent). I was absolutely pissed that this pilot was IMC(or, at the very least, not VFR legal by any means) and passed DIRECTLY under us. When we were on downwind still talking to approach, I was asked to call the Approach supervisor after landing(and given a phone number). When I talked to him, he asked me if I wanted to "file charges against the controller for a near miss"....WTF? I knew the controller was not at fault(the other pilot was), but the supervisor said he would have to review the tapes with the controller and discipline him/her because a "loss of separation" alarm went off. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Of course I don't want to file charges against a controller for something not his fault! If it had been 2 IFR aircraft, it would have been a different story...but we saw the VFR aircraft(during the short time we were not IMC), and told ATC we would delay the descent for a few miles due to the traffic. We didn't expect anything more out of it, but apparently the supervisor was required to do something(according to him during our conversation) due to the "loss of separation". I hope that controller doesn't get in any trouble over the incident...it was definitely not his fault....but it makes me seriously doubt the integrity of the system(based on the supervisors "required" action).
 
Hmmm, yesterday I was flying into SAT from AUS VFR at 3000 feet (2500 AGL) and the controller told me he needed me at 3500 feet.

I was wondering why at the time, since there didn't seem to be any other traffic around, but reading this explained it...
 
Thanks

Vector4fun,
Thank you very much for taking the time to answer our questions. It's not always appropriate to ask on the radio, and we have short attention spans on the ground.

TCAS is a wonderful thing that at times scares the you know what out of ya. (NY metro area below 5000' and the whole state of FL below 10,000'. If you have Mode C, please turn it on. Those little blue diamonds on our screen look better with your altitude beside it. (And our front windows aren't as large as yours :rolleyes: )

Zoom climbs in the Skyhawk and Cherokees make TCAS go crazy in busy arrival areas. (Caldwell and Morristown, NJ.....South FL ;) )

By the way here is a link for the TCAS-RA altitudes. Bottom of page 3.

http://www.faa.gov/AVR/AFS/FSAW/FSW0102A.DOC
 
how often does this happen

I was flying through class b orlando airspace on ifr I see this mooney cross in front of me in a climb within a mile. I asked controller if he has him and he says no a couple of minutes he poppes up on this screen.
I was wondering do you think was this guy climbing/cutting through Class b with his transponder off then switched it on
 
This is a great thread. I wish we have more informative posts like this on these boards. Great stuff. I'll definitely keep it tucked away in my knowledge bank from now on.

The TCAS stuff is particularly good. Anyone ever had an RA that told you to fly towards the target since the transponder in that aircraft was indicating an altitude which was 300 or more feet off? Had that happen once, and boy were we pissed.
 
here is a very simple one for pilots to follow.

Know the ground and tower frequency before you fire up your airplane. "Ah, ground, what is tower freq" "Ah, tower, i couldn't get a hold of ground on 121.7 so im taxing anyways" --thats cause ground is .9

Opposite direction.

Ill run it workload permiting.
#1 If your on a practice ILS to a runway opposite direction to what I am running at the time, dont necessarily think your taking it to minimums or even if your full stop your taking it to circling minimums. Ill work it as far as I can but when i say start your circle or go missed, don't bitch and continue to fly the ils for another 30 seconds. Everything I do is for saftey reasons. I don't want a GV starting his turn below 200agl to avoid a C172 on the ILS cause he doesn't understand the Start your missed call.

If for some reason you just have to takeoff on an opposite direction runway and tower approves it, when you take off offset right or left of centerline. There are more aircraft out there besides you!

Dont talk to your buddy on my radio! The radio is not for you to say hey man, hows it going. You got a cell phone, call them. A few times ive had to issue go arounds, but got stepped on by locals saying hi to the guy they were just sitting at the FBO with. My radios do have overwrite power but sometimes i still get stepped on.

As for the TCAS stuff, MY TCAS is bigger, has pretty colors and has a neat little compas and I can zoom it out to 60 miles if i want to. Your tcas is worthless to me, if i call traffic, you see him or you dont....seeing him on TCAS isn't seeing him.

As for the guys busting through airspace without clearence. Happens all the time and i always find out who they are. Just so you all know, if you don't have a xpdr turned on, i can still see a primary target out there. The radar will still pick you up. Then I just quote traffic, grab the binoc's and start looking. Yesterday I had a guy come in with his mode c on, came within about a mile from the airport, when i asked him to id himself he turned around and flew north bound, landed at an airport 10 miles north. I tuned in the Unicom and i know exactly who it was.
 
Last edited:
FracCapt,

They'll do a Quality Assurance Review (QAR) on the tapes, and if it's true that the target wasn't plain some time before the incident, then likely not much will happen to the controller. If the target was there, and the controller just missed it, and didn't have something else really pressing going on, then he'll get dinged for the merging target rule I just quoted. Most Supes are reasonable about it. Sometimes there's just not time to call all the traffic and do everything else.

About a year ago, I had an IFR BE90 at 5000, and a VFR twin descending outta 8500. It's plain they're gonna pass real close, but I'm not too worried because it's mostly good VFR WX. About the second time I issue the traffic, (10 o'clock, 3 miles), the KA says "We're IMC". I said something to the twin, and he says "Were in and out". WTF??:eek:
I kinda lost it on freq.:confused: :rolleyes:



Typhoon, English,

There's so many different model Citations and RJs running around nowadays, I can barely keep a basic idea of what most models are capable of, and I'm a pilot. I'm not surprised the non-pilot controllers can't seem to differentiate. All the 500 series climb relatively slowly (IAS), but some will still hum right down final. The 650s are right about even with the Boeings, and the 750's just seem eat everything else up not wearing stars and bars.

Most RJs aren't bad in cool weather, but some are pigs when it's hot. Keep in mind, I'm only watching aircraft below about 15,000'.

Alchemy SAT can see you at 3000' if you're east of I-35. When you get over around Canyon Lake, you need to be up around 3500 for us to make a handoff in a timely manner. The hills block radar.;)
 
Excellent Post.

I lean something everytime I read one of these.

There are however some things I wish ATC knew about pilots, the aircraft they fly and the operations and limitations imposed.

1. Speed and descent reductions. Some aircraft the
B737 and A321 and B757 in praticular, cannot slow down and come down at the same time. It just aint possible. Don't ask me why but it's just the way it is. The best one I ever heard was a 757 guy say to ATC "If you shot this thing down with a SAM the wreckage wouldn't make 30 out at 10 and 250"

2. Runway and arrival changes in the era of computerized air craft are a pain in the A%&. It was easy in the DC-9 just aim at a different piece of pavement. The A320 series gets all upset over this kind of stuff and if you change the runway in the computer all the previous restricions on the arrival drop out and require reprogramming. To this end there is an unoffical agreement on the STARS into LAX that allow only one change in runway assingment. This hampers ATC flow but it becomes a safety issue to automated aircraft to have everyone heads down and reprogramming while trying to fly a profile descent.

3. Our company is now on everyones back to increase single engine taxi. ATC needs to understand that runway crossings from a dead stop will take longer. We are limited in static thrust settings on one engine so as not to damage aircraft in line behind. The aircraft will be slower to cross in between traffic.
Additionally when we get to the congested end of the Runway, PHL, LGA, BOS, we need to know our sequence because the other engine requires a warm up period. This always seems to cause ATC some grief. A periodic mention of the sequence for the next 5 or ten aircraft would allow everyone to save fuel and still meet operational requirements.

4. Clearing the runway for traffic behind. I don't see the need to burn up my companies brakes to maintain a flow rate that is too optimistic to begin with. I don't spend more time on the runway than necessary but getting the first available turnoff needs to be balanced against the cost of new brakes. The carbon brakes on the Airbus are expensive.


These are just my rants and the rants of others I work with. "Please don't get made and leave in a huff. Stay for a minute and if your still mad you can leave in a minute and a huff."
 
Groucho said:
The A320 series gets all upset over this kind of stuff and if you change the runway in the computer all the previous restricions on the arrival drop out and require reprogramming.
Doesn't sound like a very user-friendly FMS to me. :(
 
Great stuff Vector4Fun! I often wonder what the other end of the radio thinks about some of the things we do.


Wind Check". I hear this request all the time. Here's what you should know. I have a wind display in the tower cab. It's a computer calculated two minute average of the center field surface wind. Nowhere in the Tower Cab do I have a direct reading, real time display of the wind, either at center field, or at the thresholds.

This is good information, but you'll probably hear wind check requests most often when there is a large difference in speed/direction between the surface and final approach. I DO have an instantaneous readout of wind direction/speed in front of me, so that doesn't concern me. I also have an Engineer who's more than willing to give continuous real-time wind calls all the way to touchdown. What concerns me is seeing winds of 180/99 at 3000', and the ATIS says 350/10. Sumpthin's gonna happen 'tween here and there...


Now for MY pet peeve (you brought this on yourself, Vector, so suck it up...). Why is it such a big deal to get across a runway after landing? Many, many airports use the outboard runway for landing, and the inboard for takeoff. It seems to take an act of Congress to get clearance to cross after landing, even if the taxiways on the other side are clear, my gate's open, etc. For example, I can't count the number of times a controller will clear a plane holding at "x" intersection to cross, but not the plane holding at "y" intersection on the same runway. If the runway is safe for "x" to cross, why not send "y" at the same time? Nope, wait for three more departures...AARRGGHHHHH!!!!


Anyway, great stuff....keep it up.
 
Now for MY pet peeve (you brought this on yourself, Vector, so suck it up...). Why is it such a big deal to get across a runway after landing? Many, many airports use the outboard runway for landing, and the inboard for takeoff. It seems to take an act of Congress to get clearance to cross after landing, even if the taxiways on the other side are clear, my gate's open, etc. For example, I can't count the number of times a controller will clear a plane holding at "x" intersection to cross, but not the plane holding at "y" intersection on the same runway. If the runway is safe for "x" to cross, why not send "y" at the same time? Nope, wait for three more departures...AARRGGHHHHH!!!!


well, in our case, its because local is too busy sometimes to coordinate with, you get the first crossing ealier, and when you need the second you dont have time to get it from him or her. So, like our SOP's read, if you don't have permission to cross them, dont cross them. Its just the way it is.
 
Groucho said:
I don't see the need to burn up my companies brakes to maintain a flow rate that is too optimistic to begin with. I don't spend more time on the runway than necessary but getting the first available turnoff needs to be balanced against the cost of new brakes. The carbon brakes on the Airbus are expensive.
How many exactly have you had to buy???? :p

I don't care how much the brakes cost. It's the people in the back of the tube that matter. They tend to get PO'd when you slam their face into the back of the seat in front of them. Which do you think the CEO would prefer, buy new brakes or have the pax switch to "the other carrier in town?"

Then you have the guys that like to role out to the end of the runway to save the brakes. Those of us riding in the back want off the _________ airplane!!!!! Thanks for the extra :10 minute taxi.

Or another favorite...."Folks, we have arrived :20 minutes early so we'll have to sit here until our gate opens up......(in :20 min)"
20 open gates and we have to wait for "ours" to open up.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top