readytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 2596 posts, RR: 3 Posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8334 times:
Does it happen worldwide?
If a crew think that another craft is getting better treatment/advantage at a location,do they make it known, or sit quiet and take note? Does it happen? Does every country offer an even playing field?
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
ARFFdude From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 138 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8161 times:
Sure pilots will complain to ATC about various things (and vice versa), but not usually with any positive benefits.
Unless you think an honest mistake has been made, like the tower has forgotten you're sitting there, it's probably best just to keep your mutterings to yourself.
I remember when I was doing ramp control in ATL, a coworker was really getting into it with some CRJ pilot, to the point where the pilot was saying he wanted directions to the ramp control tower because he was coming up there to have it out with my coworker once he blocked in.
26point2 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 666 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8009 times:
"Advise ready to copy holding instructions" or the ever popular "This will be a delay vector". ATC holds the trump card.
DashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1314 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7978 times:
Quoting 26point2 (Reply 2): "Advise ready to copy holding instructions" or the ever popular "This will be a delay vector". ATC holds the trump card.
jgarrido From Guam, joined Mar 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 7882 times:
Quoting DashTrash (Reply 3): Quoting 26point2 (Reply 2):
"Advise ready to copy holding instructions" or the ever popular "This will be a delay vector". ATC holds the trump card.
Goldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5445 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7745 times:
Quoting AF1624 (Reply 6): Hum... what's the E-bomb ?
Emergency.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4723 posts, RR: 25 Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7620 times:
It does happen, I find it mbarrasing at times when ATC delays everyone, and even include it on the ATIS. Iwas at an airport last year where they put all departures on ground hold, it was clearly stated on the ATIS, had some folks from a couple of North American carriers that thought they were being singled out, when in fact everyone else just called ready and were given their sequence number.
I think complaining at times can be caused by the crew not knowing some of the local procedures
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
26point2 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 666 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7571 times:
Of course. However, most commercial pilots dont make a habit of declaring "minimum fuel" or "emergency". Either of these tactics will give the pilot advantages but not to be used lightly. One must be careful.
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7520 times:
Quoting 26point2 (Reply 10): Of course. However, most commercial pilots dont make a habit of declaring "minimum fuel" or "emergency". Either of these tactics will give the pilot advantages but not to be used lightly. One must be careful.
Yes, and many of the anecdotes where this has been used are often far from the truth, although it happens of course.
In my company, if any pilot declared 'minimum fuel', or 'emergency', and it was found to deliberately false, they would be severely disciplined.
.. and yes, we are all human, but to have any extended 'argument' between ATC and pilots on an active frequency, is not only extremely unprofessional, but also potentially a safety issue. Best to leave it to the landline after the fact. But, yes, it happens!
Jimbo
[Edited 2012-03-15 09:41:20]
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
DashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1314 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7460 times:
Quoting 26point2 (Reply 10): Of course. However, most commercial pilots dont make a habit of declaring "minimum fuel" or "emergency". Either of these tactics will give the pilot advantages but not to be used lightly. One must be careful.
Bingo. I've called min fuel one time, and we really were. There had been a thunderstorm over the NYC area and most of the local airports were getting saturated. The storm had moved east so going to BDL or HVN wouldn't have worked, we couldn't get much further out of the area, and the min fuel call was the right way to go. Any more delaying vectors and we'd have been declaring an emergency.
For the original question, yeah, it happens. Works in the other direction too. Both sides are almost always professional enough to pull stupid actions like ATC putting you in a hold because they're pissed. Pilots don't usually slow down, or speed up to screw over a controller either.
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2516 posts, RR: 45 Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7342 times:
I have heard it, and I have seen egregious favoritism from ATC towards certain operators at various airports; one in particular comes to mind. Having said that I have heard pilots complain and it never resolves anything. If I have an issue I will openly and politely ask for a phone number to call the ATC facility in question on when my flight is complete. I have done so on several occasions and have privately voiced my opinion out of public earshot. I have also brought up a problem with a long and recurring history to airline management who pressed the issue with our ATC liaison.
sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5092 posts, RR: 28 Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7109 times:
I have only been severely mistreated by ATC once, and it was not a case of purposeful abuse; it was just one thing leading to another, leading to... a 57-minute-long aerial tour of the Houston area. Couple of controllers were simply saturated, and some whining pilots trying to get in when there was no capacity for them did not help matters. A controller I called "the big dog" stepped in, got things going real well. Fixed it up right.
---
Every time I have heard a pilot truly complain (as opposed to giving notice of a mistaken instruction or the like), the conversation has worked its way around to that magic phrase, "Advise ready to copy a telephone number to call when on ground."
The system relies upon mutual respect and honesty - either breaks down, and things go poorly.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
aklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 691 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7103 times:
A few years ago I was on a United flight heading west out of DEN on a hot, humid afternoon with thunderstorms and turbulence everywhere. Our pilot announced he would try to stay low to avoid the turbulence every other flight was reporting.
As I listened in on Channel 9 the pilot resisted every instruction from ATC to climb higher. I don't think it was an outright refusal, but more a negotiation that resulted in the same thing. The controller's voice sounded more and more annoyed, and the pilot seemed to be getting more resolute that we weren't heading up to flight level 33 or 35 where we normally would have been. I think we maxed out around 23,000.
The final word from ATC (I think it was Denver departure) was a curt "radar service terminated."
We had a very nice flight with minimal turbulence and some nice views out the windows of the Rockies not very far below.
tower From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 107 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 6527 times:
Quoting aklrno (Reply 15): The final word from ATC (I think it was Denver departure) was a curt "radar service terminated."
ATC isn't going to terminate radar service on an IFR flight such as a commercial carrier. Radar contact may have been lost at a certain point, then they would switch to non-radar seperation. But radar service wouldn't be terminated. That would mean that your flight would have become VFR. And an airline is not going to go flying around squawking 1200.
jgarrido From Guam, joined Mar 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6412 times:
Quoting tower (Reply 16): ATC isn't going to terminate radar service on an IFR flight such as a commercial carrier. Radar contact may have been lost at a certain point, then they would switch to non-radar seperation. But radar service wouldn't be terminated. That would mean that your flight would have become VFR. And an airline is not going to go flying around squawking 1200.
Not really true and several levels. If ATC isn't able to provide radar service they should tell the aircraft such. It doesn't matter if they are VFR or IFR, commercial or ga. Also radar service terminated does not equal VFR.
26point2 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 666 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6343 times:
"Radar service terminated" is heard when one leaves the radar service area. We hear it about 200 miles off shore and headed to Hawaii. Still IFR though.
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4723 posts, RR: 25 Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5964 times:
Quoting tower (Reply 16): ATC isn't going to terminate radar service on an IFR flight such as a commercial carrier. Radar contact may have been lost at a certain point, then they would switch to non-radar seperation. But radar service wouldn't be terminated. That would mean that your flight would have become VFR. And an airline is not going to go flying around squawking 1200.
Don't confuse "RADAR service terminated" with "IFR cancellation", and that appears what you may be doing. RADAR service is terminated anytime you do not have the aircraft in RADAR contact such as behind a mountain or over an ocean where there simply is no RADAR coverage. It has absolutely nothing to do with cancelling an IFR flight plan.
Quoting jgarrido (Reply 18): Not really true and several levels. If ATC isn't able to provide radar service they should tell the aircraft such. It doesn't matter if they are VFR or IFR, commercial or ga. Also radar service terminated does not equal VFR.
Well put Sir!!!
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
woodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 890 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5906 times:
Going west out of Denver, there are minimum altitudes that center has control over. I think FL210 is the minimum going westbound. Otherwise center has to coordinate with Aspen approach and then hand you off to Aspen approach - which doesn't have primary radar right now. So that's why center is interested in climbing you westbound out of Denver.
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from surviving bad judgement.
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5932 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5841 times:
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 13): Never key the mic in anger.
Funny, I've had controllers do that to me on a few occassions.
Two that come to mind:
first time: my first landing (with an instructor) at a towered airport while getting my PPL. I was intently listening to my instructor, in controlled airspace. Apparently, we missed a couple of calls, and when I acknowledged them, I got a rude "finally" back from the controller, and promptly issued a "Say again?" Dead air was the response...
Second time: with a fresh instrument ticket, I was going up with a friend as a safety pilot for a little IFR profeciency. I had filed a (relatively local) flight plan with the comment "Multiple Approaches en-route." Once I got airborne, the approach controller asked me "How can you do multiple approaches to airport XYZ?" (my filed destination, which only has one approach). I promptly replied back "I believe the comment was multipe approaches en-route ." The snippity controller became less so at that point...
By and large, though, I find ATC to be mostly helpful and appreciate the job the controllers do for us
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
tower From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 107 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5777 times:
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 20): Don't confuse "RADAR service terminated" with "IFR cancellation", and that appears what you may be doing. RADAR service is terminated anytime you do not have the aircraft in RADAR contact such as behind a mountain or over an ocean where there simply is no RADAR coverage. It has absolutely nothing to do with cancelling an IFR flight plan.
This is exactly what I did. I'm an idiot. I admit my mistake. lol Thanks to everyone for the corrections of a brain fart.
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4723 posts, RR: 25 Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5763 times:
Quoting tower (Reply 23): Thanks to everyone for the corrections of a brain fart
Probably the very first time anyone has ever had a brain fart........NOT!
It is confusing to attempt to figure out what the heck ATC is doing anyway, no worries!!!
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
25 CX Flyboy: ATC can be quite different in many parts of the world. In North America, talking back to ATC or querying them can definately get you thrown in the pen
26 tower: I just started training in radar recently actually. I admit my dumb a**ery. Going to be brushing up on chapter 5 tonight now thanks to me realizing m
27 bond007: Regardless, it's highly unlikely that the 'radar service terminated' call was because ATC was pi$%ed off with the pilot. Again, if it was, the contro
28 runner13: I understand it's your first landing, but if your going to be landing at a towererd airport in controlled airspace, you or your instructor should be
29 IAHFLYR: It is very frustrating for the controller as well as other pilots however, after 4-5 calls just stick a radio failure tag on the data block and leave
30 PGNCS: Did you like it? Point made. Then you and your instructor shouldn't have been there. I can't fault the student (you) but if your IP wasn't up to the
31 flyhossd: I had those same experiences "back in the day," too. It happened in Japan on occasion and nearly every time we went to Kimpo. At Seoul, it was common
32 LONGisland89: Pray tell! What facility/ carrier?
33 jetblueguy22: I've found moaning to ATC just hurts what you're aiming to do. If you just make a request and they can facilitate it all parties are happy. They're no
34 PGNCS: Sorry, no. There is zero reason to get into details here. See my original posting:
35 jrfspa320: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qlj4OK3V14 This is a nice example
36 readytotaxi: Just found this clip from a moment at JFK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F8I0IQq-6o&feature=related Around 1:10 the pilot requests that the cont
37 Speedbird128: And be ready to back that up after an INCREP has been filed. If they dipstick you and one has been fudging the low-fuel situation, it might get messy
38 blueflyer: I've heard many British pilots swear every single flight in the entire Iberia network gets their clearance before they do whenever they try and fly ou
39 Mir: I wouldn't be declaring minimum fuel if I weren't at minimum fuel, so no worries on that account. And if I do declare minimum fuel, I'm serious about
40 Speedbird128: Thats good to know I have experienced the opposite before.
41 cyeg66: Pointless to "have a go" at ATC. Touchy situation declaring min fuel, etc, for reasons already discussed above. Glad you guys realize that that could
42 mmedford: And why does the controller have to ask 3 times for a simple taxiway?
43 cyeg66: Are you under the impression the pilot was yanking his chain? Just maybe he didn't understand what was being asked of him. Just maybe... New York con
44 readytotaxi: Wow. That's a different turn of phrase.
45 mmedford: JFK goes through controller trainees, like charlie sheen and hookers. Trainees fail out on ground control; left and right. Sure their attitudes aren'
46 cyeg66: No doubt they're some of the best, but must they be devoid of any capacity to empathize with pilots that may not be 100% familiar with the airport lay
48 Speedbird128: Every big busy airport have some of the best controllers in the world... As do big busy en-route centres... etc etc[Edited 2012-03-31 12:46:40]
49 PGNCS: Pretty much sums up why JFK is my most-loathed airport in the US. Clearly the pilot is not a native English speaker, and the question was not asked c
50 readytotaxi: Curious late night question, do you fly international? Do you have a favorite apt?
51 planejamie: Whilst I haven't "moaned" at ATC directly, I (and my instructor) have off-mic... there's one bloke at a certain airport that always messes up any requ
52 PGNCS: I did for years but now mostly fly transcons. Favorite airport? Hmmm...well I love CLT, SMF, CVG, PIT, CMH, and a lot of other mid-sized airports. I
54 SandroZRH: Not just in Asia. Try flying into/out of Spain not being Iberia, good luck..
55 fghtngsiouxatc: I'm curious as to why you hate MDW? I visited them this past December and everyone there was great. Obviously I didn't meet all the controllers, but
56 tommytoyz: While on a UA flight departing LHR for LAX, I had the interesting opportunity to compare two female controllers by listening in. LHR departure had a v
57 bond007: I'm generalizing, I know, but IMO it's hard to beat the professionalism of UK controllers. Generally calm, and almost always using the correct phrase
58 n92r03: I had a similar experience on UA last summer departing HKG for ORD, the female ATC had a great voice, very British, very pleasant but very efficient.
59 thenoflyzone: Which is exactly why most planes arriving at LHR have to hold....LOL no seriously, The Brits do have a good reputation, but why are they so different
60 readytotaxi: Come on, You know you love us to bits.
61 bond007: I would say the country that was most different in terms of ATC phraseology is the USA! Standard perhaps Agree on that one, but they're with the USA
62 PGNCS: They are extremely nonstandard in their phraseology (although it's a given they have a terrible airport layout to work with,) they expect you to know
63 readytotaxi: [quote=PGNCS,reply=62] with an FAA Inspector on my jumpseat.[/quote Did you let them know who was on the jump seat afterwards?
64 thenoflyzone: For 1965, maybe....but for 2012....come on ! Was or is? Either way, they are the descendants of the Brits, so i'm not surprised Thenoflyzone
65 bond007: Well, an FAA standard transmission would be for example, "maintain 2000 feet until established on the localizer.. cleared for the ILS 33 approach" So
66 Flight152: You must have missed 91.130(e). Perfectly legal. (e) Deviations. An operator may deviate from any provision of this section under the provisions of a
67 thenoflyzone: Again, not required most of the time. FAA ORDER JO 7110.65U Effective Date: February 9, 2012 Section 8. Approach Clearance Procedures 4-8-5. SPECIFYI
68 IAHFLYR: I promise you, it would surprise many if there are 10 U.S. air traffic controllers who know that rule, and the same number of aviators who would know
69 Mir: The speed reg is 91.117, not 91.130. 91.130(e) applies only to the rest of 91.130, which never mentions airspeed. And while 91.117(b) does allow for
70 bond007: Sure, and that's how it should be Let's not complain about ATC or pilots using the correct phraseology ... Regardless, this thread is about pilots co
71 PGNCS: I fly under 121. The FARs and our Ops Specs do not allow us to operate at greater than 200 KIAS under Class B airspace.
72 Flight152: I'm quite aware of 91.117, thanks. "This section" refers to all of part 91.
73 Mir: 91 is a part, not a section. If what you were saying is correct, it would give ATC the ability to authorize any deviation from any reg in Part 91, bu
74 PGNCS: Your contentention that speeds in excess of 200 KIAS are allowed underneath Class B airspace is incorrect. Here is the reg: Sec. 91.117 Aircraft spee
75 IAHFLYR: You may want to check out the .65, Paragraph 4-8-1,b....."For aircraft operating on unpublished routes", which is what is happening most of the time
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 2596 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 138 posts, 
From Guam, joined Mar 2007, 335 posts, 
From France, joined Jul 2006, 572 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
