Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pilots Overriding ATC  
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1533 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7844 times:

Given the abundance of lame-to-incompetent ATC recordings on the internet, how straightforward a proposition is it for pilots to ignore, change or go against ATC instructions?

Is there automatically a presumption of pilot fault attached to such actions which becomes the pilot's burden to disprove? Are both the captain and co-pilot treated in the same way in such a proceeding, if the co-pilot was the one in command at the time of the ATC incident?


Faro


The chalice not my son
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16991 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7819 times:

Simply put, the only time you can ignore instructions is during an emergency. In that case you may (and should) do whatever you need to do for the safety of the aircraft.

In case there is no emergency, prepare for everything from gentle prod to tongue-lashing to investigation. Note also that most violations are inadvertent, due to misunderstanding or incompetence.

A lot depends on what actually happened and if you endangered anyone and/or how much you disrupted traffic flow. If you are flying a Cessna 172, the pattern is completely empty and through inattention to your take-off clearance you take off and turn to your (reciprocal) on course heading with a left instead of a right turn, these things (though bad) happen. If you busted Class B in the same Cessna 172 and disrupted the JFK arrivals corridor, ATC will be more "insistent" (heh...). If you busted Class B in that way and kept going despite repeated calls from ATC, you will certainly get "a number to call once you land".

With regards to getting a clearance changed, there is a simple procedure: Ask the controller. They are typically happy to help if they can.

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Is there automatically a presumption of pilot fault attached to such actions which becomes the pilot's burden to disprove? Are both the captain and co-pilot treated in the same way in such a proceeding, if the co-pilot was the one in command at the time of the ATC incident?

The Captain is always in command, even when he is PNF (Pilot Not Flying). Ultimately, the Captain is responsible, though I suppose if he is not in the cockpit when the violation occurs whoever is senior in the cockpit would be in the hot seat.

In any case it would depend on the particular circumstances.

[Edited 2012-11-23 04:35:45]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7784 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
The Captain is always in command, even when he is PNF (Pilot Not Flying). Ultimately, the Captain is responsible, though I suppose if he is not in the cockpit when the violation occurs whoever is senior in the cockpit would be in the hot seat.

And legally, the onus is on whom? The flight crew to prove the necessity of their non-compliance or ATC to prove the well-foundedness of their instructions? Or are they both treated on an equal footing?


Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7780 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Simply put, the only time you can ignore instructions is during an emergency. In that case you may (and should) do whatever you need to do for the safety of the aircraft.

Not true, pilot can always say "unable XXX"

Quoting faro (Reply 2):
And legally, the onus is on whom?

The crew has the final responsibility that the aircraft does not run into another aircraft or terrain.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16991 posts, RR: 67
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7773 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 2):

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
The Captain is always in command, even when he is PNF (Pilot Not Flying). Ultimately, the Captain is responsible, though I suppose if he is not in the cockpit when the violation occurs whoever is senior in the cockpit would be in the hot seat.

And legally, the onus is on whom? The flight crew to prove the necessity of their non-compliance or ATC to prove the well-foundedness of their instructions? Or are they both treated on an equal footing?

In the US, AIM 5-5-1 paragraph b. states "The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the inal authority as to the safe operation of that aircraft. In an emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot-in-command may deviate from any rule in the General Subpart A and Flight Rules Subpart B in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.3"

Other countries may vary.

So I the pilot in command is always legally responsible. However, I would assume if the Captain is, say, asleep in the rest area while the First Officer (acting in command) violates procedure, the authorities would make the First Officer answer. On a case by case basis of course. Conveniently, all this stuff is recorded on the radio and, in the case of larger airliners, in the DFDR and the CVR.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16991 posts, RR: 67
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7767 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 3):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Simply put, the only time you can ignore instructions is during an emergency. In that case you may (and should) do whatever you need to do for the safety of the aircraft.

Not true, pilot can always say "unable XXX"

Oops. Of course you are correct. ***bangs head on table*** This would fall under "The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to the safe operation of that aircraft."

However if you bust Class B because you were "unable" you'd better have a good explanation.

[Edited 2012-11-23 05:17:29]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7692 times:

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Given the abundance of lame-to-incompetent ATC recordings on the internet

One issue I have with a simple recording is that the entire scenario including other tasks are not shown along with that. It might sound like a ballsup, and might have been a ballsup, however its usually a little more complicated that "lame" or "incompetent" ATC. I'm not saying that we are perfect, we do make messes. Its how we resolve it afterwards!! But to listen to an liveatc clip and determine that the atc was lame-to-incompetent is not quite fair.

It would be like saying that every pilot inn a CFIT accident was a moron. Not true, circumstances play a big part, and its that part the public realm don't get to see.

Quoting zeke (Reply 3):
Not true, pilot can always say "unable XXX"

Most definitely correct! - If its a silly speed, or a heading that puts and aircraft into a storm, or a level assignment with there is something coming head on etc etc, that is most acceptable. I encourage it - because it makes a controller aware that they are giving an unrealistic instruction.

I have had in recent times a rash of deliberate ignoring speed instructions. 280 is not 210. Saying sorry after the wild vector doesn't help, and if you have an issue with a speed *please* speak up when its issued so we can slow the traffic behind and/or re-vector somebody. Whatever the reason, whether it be company policy, fuel conservation, or you just don't like it or feel comfortable or crew are training, just say so early!!! When you're spacing to be exactly 3.0nm apart at touchdown there is not a lot of tolerance for us...

And as has come out in another thread, with the advent of Mode-S Enhanced Surveillance, we can see very quickly who's 'forgotten' about a speed, or 'fudged' a heading etc etc...



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlinestarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16991 posts, RR: 67
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7668 times:

In my admittedly limited experience, pilots screw up way more often than ATC.

If ATC screws up, the first alternative is not to ignore them and do your own thing. Ask for clarification, say unable and suggest an alternative, etc...



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7659 times:

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
how straightforward a proposition is it for pilots to ignore, change or go against ATC instructions?

The procedure to ignore/change is very straighforward. It's the justification afterward that's a problem.

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Is there automatically a presumption of pilot fault attached to such actions which becomes the pilot's burden to disprove?

It's not a presumption of pilot fault; the pilot is in command at all times. However, there is a presumption that ATC instructions will be complied with as issued unless the pilot is unable to safety do so. So there is a burden on the pilot to show that it would have been unsafe to comply. That doesn't mean the pilot was at fault, but it does mean the pilot has to have a legitimate reason.

Quoting faro (Reply 2):
And legally, the onus is on whom? The flight crew to prove the necessity of their non-compliance or ATC to prove the well-foundedness of their instructions?

It's on the flight crew. ATC instructions don't have to be well-founded (try pissing off a controller some time and see how well-founded their vectors will become), they just have to be complied with unless it would be unsafe to do so. Pilots can *never* escape the obligation to maintain safe operation of the aircraft.

Tom.


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7595 times:

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 6):
One issue I have with a simple recording is that the entire scenario including other tasks are not shown along with that. It might sound like a ballsup, and might have been a ballsup, however its usually a little more complicated that "lame" or "incompetent" ATC. I'm not saying that we are perfect, we do make messes. Its how we resolve it afterwards!! But to listen to an liveatc clip and determine that the atc was lame-to-incompetent is not quite fair.

It would be like saying that every pilot inn a CFIT accident was a moron. Not true, circumstances play a big part, and its that part the public realm don't get to see.

Agree 100%, there are in fact even more examples of pilot messups on those recordings. The present thread is simply based on the premise that ATC has a central co-ordination role vs that of pilots; they are the nominal arbiter. And to be fair, linguistic misperceptions seem to account for a large chunk of both of the aforementioned messups.


Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinetb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1575 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7592 times:

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Given the abundance of lame-to-incompetent ATC recordings on the internet, how straightforward a proposition is it for pilots to ignore, change or go against ATC instructions?

Being a pilot and able to admit this on behalf of all of us, I know there a lot more lame to incompetent pilot actions going on out there versus ATC as a whole, they just aren't always recorded or seen by the public 

I've heard this from a few guys that if the pilot screws up, the pilot dies. If ATC screws up, the pilot still dies.

But that being said, I don't think I have ever really been in a situation where I absolutely felt I had to override ATC's instructions. I have questioned some and maybe hinted at something I would rather have done, sometimes getting my way and sometimes not but that is mostly with routing.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8):
It's not a presumption of pilot fault; the pilot is in command at all times. However, there is a presumption that ATC instructions will be complied with as issued unless the pilot is unable to safety do so. So there is a burden on the pilot to show that it would have been unsafe to comply. That doesn't mean the pilot was at fault, but it does mean the pilot has to have a legitimate reason.

Exactly.

I do think as PIC, I would have to follow the aviate, navigate, then communicate "rule" if I was ever in doubt and I better have a darn good reason if I do go off and do my own thing.



Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24796 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7458 times:

Item from the Transport Canada daily occurrence reports a day or two ago below, which seems somewhat related to the subject:

The WestJet Boeing 737-700 (operating as flight WJA325) was ready to depart on a scheduled IFR flight from Toronto (CYYZ) to Edmonton (CYEG). The American Airlines Boeing 737-800 (operating as flight AAL1586) was concluding a scheduled IFR flight from Los Angeles (KLAX) to Toronto. NAV CANADA staff at Toronto Tower reported that the WJA325 flight crew was asked by the Tower Controller if they were able to conduct an immediate take-off with AAL1586 approximately five (5)NM final. The WJA325 flight crew said that they were able, however, when cleared for an immediate take-off, they were very slow to comply. A reduced power take-off by WJA325 resulted in AAL1586 being instructed to overshoot.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21508 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7378 times:

Quoting faro (Thread starter):
Given the abundance of lame-to-incompetent ATC recordings on the internet

I'm not aware of this abundance. I know there are a lot of recordings out there where the controllers aren't able to convey what they want to convey, but I have heard very few recordings that would lead me to believe that the controller does not have a firm idea of how he or she wants to work the traffic flow and maintain separation, which is about the only time a pilot would be justified in disregarding instructions (on safety grounds, of course).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7222 times:

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 6):

I have had in recent times a rash of deliberate ignoring speed instructions. 280 is not 210.

Don't worry, this annoys me too, what annoys me more is that ATC often do not vector these people around to join the sequence later, they make people behind pay for it. I was following someone recently they were asked to maintain 300 or greater, we were asked to maintain 290 or less, they slowed to 250. ATC spun them 90 degrees off track, increased our speed, let 4 aircraft through and then let them join back in. They got they message.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7169 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 13):
ATC spun them 90 degrees off track, increased our speed, let 4 aircraft through and then let them join back in. They got they message



Perfect, and that is exactly what should happen IMHO.

In the for what it's worth department, in over 32 years of being a controller I can only think of once when a pilot even attempted to override what the clearance was that I issued and that was in the very early days of TCAS. This particularly bright MD80 crew flying from LAX to HOU thought they had the plan when I had turned then base leg for the approach. The figured out due to TCAS that the airplane they were following would be to close to them so they didn't turn nor told me they were not turning. Since the wind was 50 knots or so on their tail it was necessary to turn them early to fill the hole on final and when they didn't turn the got to see the very far northeast side of HOU for an extended period of time.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8):
ATC instructions don't have to be well-founded (try pissing off a controller some time and see how well-founded their vectors will become)



Oh so true!  



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21508 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7161 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 14):
Perfect, and that is exactly what should happen IMHO.

So just out of curiosity, what should happen when ATC gives you a vector to join a different approach from the one you were told to expect, and then when you say you're unable to fly it (don't have the appropriate equipment and certification), they give you a fifteen minute tour of the west side of Chicago? Because that was rather frustrating.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7157 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
So just out of curiosity, what should happen when ATC gives you a vector to join a different approach from the one you were told to expect, and then when you say you're unable to fly it (don't have the appropriate equipment and certification)



Curious what approach you were told to expect and what may have been advertised on the ATIS if the airport was equipped with one?

Where I have worked you'd be assigned the advertised approach on the ATIS, if anything different which from time to time you could be told to expect maybe an RNAV (GPS) or RNAV (RNP) if not advertised would be inserted into the data block for the final controller to know that is what was assigned. So in my mind there should not be any tour of any place, unless the crew didn't inform the controller they couldn't accept the assigned approach then I can't tell ya other than you're going back in the conga line.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21508 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7129 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 16):
Curious what approach you were told to expect and what may have been advertised on the ATIS if the airport was equipped with one?

ATIS advised the ILS and RNP to 13C in use (at MDW). Was told to expect the ILS by the first approach controller we talked to, the second controller tried to put us on the RNP.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 16):
unless the crew didn't inform the controller they couldn't accept the assigned approach

It's true that I didn't say that we couldn't accept the RNP approach (until we were given clearance for it, that is), but if we had been told to expect it I certainly would have.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7077 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 13):
Don't worry, this annoys me too, what annoys me more is that ATC often do not vector these people around to join the sequence later, they make people behind pay for it.

Hi Zeke,

Yes, I am sure that is annoying. However, one thing to consider with this, is that when we operate really close to the minimum separation (where I am 3nm on final), it becomes tricky to break out the offender without a loss of separation. I am not permitted to use visual separation during this sort of maneouvre, so it ties my hands unfortunately...

What I refer to as an "Educational Vector", it is - as you rightfully say - deserved by the non-complying aircraft...But once they are below you and ahead of you on the GS, and they throw the anchors out, its hard for us to break them out without a flashing red set of radar targets, and tea later with the boss...



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7054 times:

Unless its an emergency & same action is conveyed to ATC......Other cases there is always the right to counter the Instructiions & convince ATC if things are not accurate.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days ago) and read 7018 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
ATIS advised the ILS and RNP to 13C in use (at MDW). Was told to expect the ILS by the first approach controller we talked to, the second controller tried to put us on the RNP.



If RNAV (RNP) 13C and the ILS are overlays (I haven't looked at them) with the same lateral/vertical paths then I would not have a problem changing the approach clearance, take all of about 5 seconds or less. It shouldn't make a difference what you flew in that case unless the weather was such you needed a lower min.....but my guess is they are not overlays.

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
It's true that I didn't say that we couldn't accept the RNP approach (until we were given clearance for it, that is), but if we had been told to expect it I certainly would have.



Somebody has to keep ya guessing.  



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days ago) and read 7019 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

I had this case yesterday during approach. We were instructed to reduce speed to 300 knots and descent to 10,000 feet to reach at a specific point. This was simply impossible unless the 744 changed to a flying piano.
So we told the controller: either 300 knots or 10,000. So he picked the 10,000 feet and we did our best to get as close as possible to that target altitude.
So it is basically a working together here. The controller does his best and we try our best to obey and follow the instructions, but if we cannot, we simply are unable to follow and let him know early enough so that he can plan for Plan B.
We should work together and not against each other.

Same for the approach. They said plane for ILS 27L (which is rather short). I requested runway 28 and he said: "Expect ILS 28." Simple as that.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days ago) and read 7011 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 21):
We should work together and not against each other



Exactly, and I believe we do in 99.99% of the situations.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days ago) and read 7002 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 22):
Exactly, and I believe we do in 99.99% of the situations.

Yes, I 100% agree.

The best support I received from ATC was during a medical emergency. The work of ATC was just excellent. They supported us as much as they could, held the airspace free for us and we could land right away, right to our parking spot where the paramedics were waiting. Was for sure a great job by ATC.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinemusapapaya From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1075 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days ago) and read 6999 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 13):
Don't worry, this annoys me too, what annoys me more is that ATC often do not vector these people around to join the sequence later, they make people behind pay for it. I was following someone recently they were asked to maintain 300 or greater, we were asked to maintain 290 or less, they slowed to 250. ATC spun them 90 degrees off track, increased our speed, let 4 aircraft through and then let them join back in. They got they message.

lol Zeke, thanks for the insight, who was that aircraft? i will try to avoid flying on such an airline, 300 or greater and 250 is QUITE different!

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 21):
I had this case yesterday during approach. We were instructed to reduce speed to 300 knots and descent to 10,000 feet to reach at a specific point. This was simply impossible unless the 744 changed to a flying piano.
So we told the controller: either 300 knots or 10,000. So he picked the 10,000 feet and we did our best to get as close as possible to that target altitude.

Where is this Wilco? back at your homebase I hope not?



Lufthansa Group of Airlines
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days ago) and read 7344 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting musapapaya (Reply 24):
Where is this Wilco? back at your homebase I hope not?

No, the guys in FRA are pretty good. It was in ORD. They kept us high for quite some time and then wanted us to descent like a piano...

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7267 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 21):
We should work together and not against each other.

Most definitely agree 100%. My aim is to get everybody in and out as fast as possible within the safety margins.

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 21):
We were instructed to reduce speed to 300 knots and descent to 10,000 feet to reach at a specific point.

I drum it into my students never to ask for a simultaneous expedited descent and speed reduction... It's the easiest way to lead a crew into an unstable approach... I have found that some crews will try, and respond with "we'll do our best". But I have seen it all come undone at some later point, which ultimately led to a more complex solution than just turning somebody out earlier... I realise that the decision whether you can comply is sometimes hard to assess and decide within seconds, but if you're in doubt just let us know and we'll make another plan. I just know that if traffic is above 100 at 25nm and you want a speed reduction then give the crew a heading for another 5 or 10 miles, and when on profile turn them back in.

I know the heavies have a lot of inertia compared to an A319 for instance... and i always tried get the students to understand what that four letter aircraft code on the radar tag means to him/her.

But it doesn't help with non-compliance or silent deviation from a clearance... I don't understand why speeds are seen as "flexible"...



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7368 times:

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 21):
We were instructed to reduce speed to 300 knots and descent to 10,000 feet to reach at a specific point.

I don't know if this holds true for every FMS but in the -11 it will honor the alt first and airspeed second so to do both requires some pilot input.

FOR IAHFLYER, I curious if you guys understand the confusion this eg. creates? "cross XXXX at 10,000'." now well into the descent we get "slow to 250kts". From what I've seen, making airspeed changes in a "profile" descent will certainly confuse the FMS for a bit until it's reset on the new airspeed. It can result in a failure to meet the restriction.


User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8967 posts, RR: 76
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7318 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 26):
I drum it into my students never to ask for a simultaneous expedited descent and speed reduction...

Very good. Thanks for that  
Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 26):
But it doesn't help with non-compliance or silent deviation from a clearance... I don't understand why speeds are seen as "flexible"...

Neither do I. Of course it takes a while to reduce from 360 knots to minimum clean, but I comply with the clearance. If not, I'll let the controller know.

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 27):
I don't know if this holds true for every FMS but in the -11 it will honor the alt first and airspeed second so to do both requires some pilot input.

Yes, same for the 744. It complains and let us know 'DRAG REQUIRED", telling us that with the clean airplane and idle the path cannot be followed.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7304 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 27):
It can result in a failure to meet the restriction.

Yup it sure can confuse the FMC. However, unless your crossing restriction is specifically cancelled, it still holds true. Yes slowing down results in reduced sink rate, then let ATC know ASAP that the level restriction will not be able to be met.

Out here the tendency is to have everybody start their descent early, as it gives us a more manageable speed to absorb any delays without having to resort to holding... As our airspace is so fragmented - its not possible for anybody to know where in the sequence the traffic is that they are handling... And so we have standard levels inbound and then we push/pull the sequencing with speed control and some vectors...



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7253 times:

We are encouraged to stay on prof. and not start down early due to extra fuel used but it can get busy if an airspeed change is given and the FMS says "let me think about this for a minute or two". Of course there are numerous places where the FMS can be fooled easily and pilot modifications are required like V/S or level change. Essex radar in the UK are known for giving you vectors left and right of the STAR route but still give "cross abeam xxxx at FL150. I wonder if they consider that the further off course I am the less accurate the altitude will be abeam the fix.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7235 times:

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 26):
I drum it into my students never to ask for a simultaneous expedited descent and speed reduction... It's the easiest way to lead a crew into an unstable approach... I have found that some crews will try, and respond with "we'll do our best".

We got into that situation on a Boeing Field approach before (they wanted to keep us under SeaTac's traffic). Fortunately, we'd been out testing emergency descent rates all day. ATC said they'd take altitude over speed. So out came the gear and boards, throttle to idle, dropped like a rock. Got a polite inquiry from ATC shortly thereafter about our actual descent rate because they weren't totally buying what their radar was telling them. Not having to keep passengers happy does have its advantages.

Tom.


User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7192 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 31):
We got into that situation on a Boeing Field approach before (they wanted to keep us under SeaTac's traffic). Fortunately, we'd been out testing emergency descent rates all day. ATC said they'd take altitude over speed. So out came the gear and boards, throttle to idle, dropped like a rock. Got a polite inquiry from ATC shortly thereafter about our actual descent rate because they weren't totally buying what their radar was telling them. Not having to keep passengers happy does have its advantages.

Yes, without the pax it can be fun!

I had the privilege of flying up front with some friends in a 77W, and also, the expedite climb/descent commands were interesting to watch...

FLCH with the 'gear and boards' as you say is very fun for a non-regular!! LOL  

Same as the climb - we were only 5 on board with 50t remaining fuel and got the 'expedite to level 160'... 6500fpm on the way up! very cool to experience...



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21508 posts, RR: 56
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7104 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 20):
If RNAV (RNP) 13C and the ILS are overlays (I haven't looked at them) with the same lateral/vertical paths then I would not have a problem changing the approach clearance, take all of about 5 seconds or less.

It doesn't, though. Even if the points were the same, we'd have to go into the FMS, load the other approach, pull up the chart for the other approach, scan it for differences (minimums, missed approach instructions, etc.), and then brief those differences. You might be able to get all that done in a minute if you hurry and you weren't pre-occupied with something else, but it's certainly not going to get done in 5 seconds.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 20):
but my guess is they are not overlays.

They're not. The RNP approach comes in at a 90 degree angle to the final and then flies a turn (which is the part our FMS can't do) to line up with the runway. The ILS is straight-in, obviously.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2294 posts, RR: 10
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7004 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 31):
So out came the gear and boards, throttle to idle, dropped like a rock.

Did that in a KC-135 going into KGUS one time. For some reason that I've long since forgotten, ATC held us up high over Indy and gave us a late decent into the home drome. I do remember that it felt like I was going to fall out through the windscreen... 



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineMHG From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6854 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 33):
but it's certainly not going to get done in 5 seconds.

He was probably talking about the controllers side ...



I miss the sound of rolls royce darts and speys
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 23 hours ago) and read 6771 times:

Quoting MHG (Reply 35):
He was probably talking about the controllers side ...


No probably, I was!  
Quoting Mir (Reply 33):
Even if the points were the same, we'd have to go into the FMS, load the other approach, pull up the chart for the other approach, scan it for differences (minimums, missed approach instructions, etc.), and then brief those differences.


I was referring to the fact you've loaded and briefed for the approach expected and the controller cleared you for the other it would be a problem to re-clear you for what you had loaded in the box...IF everything was an overlay. You would not be required to re-brief the approach or make changes in the FMC.

My point was strictly from the ATC side, where if the approaches are mirrors, it makes no difference what you fly, the path is the same so a controller could tell you to fly a VOR back-course to the NDB side-step 13C and who cares.....everything goes to the same place.

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 27):
I curious if you guys understand the confusion this eg. creates?


Some do, not working in an ARTCC I can't speak for them however; from both flying and at times receiving the same type clearance as well as talking with guys who fly large metal it appears many don't get the "come down/slow down" issue not working. And I love the "do the best you can"!!!! NOT

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 30):
I wonder if they consider that the further off course I am the less accurate the altitude will be abeam the fix.


Even when using a route offset?



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 19 hours ago) and read 6676 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 36):
IF everything was an overlay. You would not be required to re-brief the approach or make changes in the FMC.

If I understand correctly, yes you would be required to "rebuild" the app and rebrief. For example, the LOC app may have diff. mins from the RNAV to the same runway.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 36):
And I love the "do the best you can"!!!! NOT

right! do your best is not a get out jail free card.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 36):
Even when using a route offset?

these are vectors "turn right 10deg." "turn left 15deg. There is no route offset here.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 6662 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 37):
these are vectors "turn right 10deg." "turn left 15deg. There is no route offset here.


Oh that makes it fun then for sure. And even more fun expect more of those type altitude/speed constraints as those who have a slight understanding of what the capabilities of the FMC are retiring from the controller ranks.

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 37):
If I understand correctly, yes you would be required to "rebuild" the app and rebrief.


Sorry for the confusion Cosmic, I was actually making a poor attempt at saying if the approach was an overlay and you were initially told to expect the ILS 13C and crew briefed that approach then I wouldn't think you'd have to re-brief or make any changes in the FMC as that's what you expected. The controller most likely would not care what you flew as long as the lateral/vertical paths were identical.....so much better if we did have all overlays so we could get to phraseology that was something like "cleared Runway 13C approach" and you fly whatever nav solution (ILS/RNAV/GLS) you want.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 6637 times:

but it is a separate app in the data base. I can pick the ILS or RNAV or LOC therefore you must load what you're cleared for.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 6640 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 39):
but it is a separate app in the data base. I can pick the ILS or RNAV or LOC therefore you must load what you're cleared for.

If you're cleared for the ILS and the RNAV is an overlay (i.e. it's the same physical path in space with the same minimums and requirements) do you actually need to reload? I can understand that might be SOP for a carrier but, offhand, I can't think of any actual FAA requirement to do so.


User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 6638 times:

Good thread.

Over the course of many years, I've said "Unable" a few times and in most cases, that was that.

There were examples of the Controller being offended, though. In the first to-come-to-mind example, we received a reroute that was quite extensive and we just didn't have the fuel for it, so we declined the new route, by saying "Unable." About 5 minutes later, another Controller issued the same reroute. Of course, we had to decline it again - he demanded we accept the revised route or divert!

Attorneys became involved in that one!



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 17 hours ago) and read 6639 times:

After reading all about you big airplane guys, I will throw in my little airplane story.

On approach to PBI, in a C152, I was vectored offshore to pass behind a 737 landing on 27R and I was landing on 27L. I was at 3000 and was heading east off shore, when I realized that I would be soon out of gliding distance to the beach. I asked my instructor what to do. He just told me to tell ATC that I need to turn towards the airport soon. I asked to be turned soon, and the controller turned us right then, she even said that she forgot that we were a C152. She could have landed two more planes before we even got close to the airport.

But also, ATC have asked me to do a 360, even though I was number one to land because there was a faster aircraft behind me(is there a slower one than a C152?) and I said sure, as I'm a student and need all practice I could get. What comes around goes around.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 6562 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 40):
I can understand that might be SOP for a carrier but, offhand, I can't think of any actual FAA requirement to do so.

Well for us I'm sure it's partly not to be so easily lead to think one is the other. If the app is in the data base we're suppose to pick the app we are cleared to fly. Also you must be in NAV & PROF for the RNAV and for the ILS you don't; a possible screw up there. I did just pull up a couple of app here in MEM and found that the ILS to 2 runways have different app altitudes and different mins as well as differently described MA proced. than do the same RNAV apps. There were also notes that were more restrictive for the RNAV that certainly should be briefed.
I don't think I'd want to be getting a line check or worse yet have the FAA on the jet and brief "don't worry it's the same flight path.."


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 6533 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 39):
but it is a separate app in the data base. I can pick the ILS or RNAV or LOC therefore you must load what you're cleared for



I really think you're missing my point. Let me try again because I don't want to confuse anyone, let alone myself!  

Point is, you're told by the feeder controller to expect an ILS, you brief that.....the final controller then clears you for an RNAV to the same runway......but you can't fly that because of certification or lack of it etc. Had both approaches been the same as in lateral/vertical such as what IAH has then the controller really should not care if you fly the RNAV or the ILS because they look the same.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1212/05461IL27.PDF

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1212/05461RRY27.PDF

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1212/05461GLS27.PDF

The controller should come right back and clear you for the ILS rather than what they issued you in the initial approach clearance. Hope that explains it a little better!!

Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 42):
she even said that she forgot that we were a C152



I would have had to ask how can you forget the airplane type when it's on the display you're looking at, let alone our ground speed of something like 110? You're kidding right?

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 41):
Of course, we had to decline it again - he demanded we accept the revised route or divert!



So what place did you divert, or did the idiot finally realize when a pilot says unable they might really be serious?



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21508 posts, RR: 56
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 13 hours ago) and read 6495 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 40):
If you're cleared for the ILS and the RNAV is an overlay (i.e. it's the same physical path in space with the same minimums and requirements) do you actually need to reload?

I'd say so. I don't like flying an approach different from the one I have in the FMS, or the one I've pulled out the chart for.

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 36):
I was referring to the fact you've loaded and briefed for the approach expected and the controller cleared you for the other it would be a problem to re-clear you for what you had loaded in the box...IF everything was an overlay.

If it's an overlay approach (i.e. one that has "or" in the title, such as "VOR or GPS 17" or "ILS or LOC 35"), then there's no need to reload the approach from the pilot end because it is the same approach. You might have to brief different minimums, but the chart will already be out and visible so it's not incredibly difficult. But I don't consider approaches on different charts to be overlay approaches, even if the fixes are the same.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 12 hours ago) and read 6470 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 45):
But I don't consider approaches on different charts to be overlay approaches, even if the fixes are the same.



While I completely respect your opinion, they are totally considered overlays.....everything except maybe the missed approach and respective minimums are the same, everything.

Guys, I am not saying an approach brought up from the database with a different name from another approach does not to be reloaded or briefed as I have no clue to company SOP. All I am telling you is if you're expecting and briefed an ILS and cleared for an RNAV the controller should not have any issue with giving you a new clearance for the ILS since that is what you have in the box and briefed if lateral/vertical paths are the same, period.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5733 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 44):
So what place did you divert, or did the idiot finally realize when a pilot says unable they might really be serious?

No, we didn't divert - we continued to the destination on the original clearance.

But there was a threat of a violation (to be issued against us). As I said, attorneys became involved - quite successfully from my perspective.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlinehighflyer9790 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5596 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Simply put, the only time you can ignore instructions is during an emergency

I think its already been covered, but as long as i have the ability to mouth the words "unable," then i will always make sure whatever ATC is telling me to do i safe, my aircraft can handle it, and it makes sense. ATC usually does a great job, but the one time the mess up, bottom line they are still in a room, i am in an airplane with my crew and passengers.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
The Captain is always in command, even when he is PNF (Pilot Not Flying).

Yes, legally the PIC is always responsible. However, per the orignal posters question, when we are actually flying we defer to the flying pilot when ATC gives us an option. If i am flying and ATC asks if i can accept a circle to a different runway, or a certain preference as to which runway i want, i'll give the captain a thumbs up or let him know what i want to do prior to him calling ATC back. ill do the same when the captain is flying and see what his preference is prior to answering ATCback on a question about what we want. this is how we handle normal everyday ops.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 4):
the pilot in command is always legally responsible.

correct, sleeping or not.

highflyer



121
User currently offlinestarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16991 posts, RR: 67
Reply 49, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5569 times:

Quoting highflyer9790 (Reply 48):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Simply put, the only time you can ignore instructions is during an emergency

I think its already been covered, but as long as i have the ability to mouth the words "unable," then i will always make sure whatever ATC is telling me to do i safe, my aircraft can handle it, and it makes sense. ATC usually does a great job, but the one time the mess up, bottom line they are still in a room, i am in an airplane with my crew and passengers.

Yepp. It was covered. I had a brainfart and totally missed "unable". Duh!



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5397 posts, RR: 8
Reply 50, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5158 times:

Quoting highflyer9790 (Reply 48):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1):
Simply put, the only time you can ignore instructions is during an emergency

I think its already been covered, but as long as i have the ability to mouth the words "unable,"

Yes, although in the context of this thread, Starlionblue is still correct in his statement IMO. Saying "unable" is not the same as ignoring ATC instructions - it's the correct procedure when safety, SOP, or other reasons mean you cannot comply. You'll be given another, different, clearance, or approval (maybe implied) from ATC that it's OK for you to not comply.... you didn't 'ignore' ATC, or just go ahead and do your own thing.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 31):
So out came the gear and boards, throttle to idle, dropped like a rock. Got a polite inquiry from ATC shortly thereafter about our actual descent rate because they weren't totally buying what their radar was telling them.

Yes, when I used to fly out of PWK close to ORD, we would sometimes do practice emergency descents. I would always remember to warn them what we were about to do, just in case they thought the worse!

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 51, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5040 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 50):
we would sometimes do practice emergency descents.

On a scheduled flight.......Can that be done....



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 52, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 5017 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 51):

On a scheduled flight.......Can that be done....

No real reason why one could not, during an emergency descent none of the airframe limits are normally exceeded. When coming into HKG from the NW, it is common to be at a inbound way point called SIERA at around FL190, it is only around 30 nm from the runway. Sometimes during quieter periods (like early morning) with track shortening the use full speedbrake and high speed is needed just to wash off the excess energy. This is no different to the sort of configuration one would be in during an emergency descent.

It would be even easier to do in a turboprop. I have seen ATC use have turboprops downwind at 10,000 ft and jets at 6,000 ft. They have turboprops on higher profiles above jets knowing they have the capability to remove excess height easier and the have lower speeds, while at the same time allowing jets to remain on a lower profile at higher speeds. As the jets configure to land they commence speed reduction, ATC start mixing the turboprop and jets together in the sequence at the same speeds and the turboprops are then able to join the same vertical profile as the jets on base at the same speed.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5397 posts, RR: 8
Reply 53, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4997 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 52):
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 51):

On a scheduled flight.......Can that be done....

No real reason why one could not

Ah, in my case, no pax!


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 54, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4958 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 44):
I would have had to ask how can you forget the airplane type when it's on the display you're looking at, let alone our ground speed of something like 110? You're kidding right?

Not Kidding. I chalk it up to a brain fart more than anything else. It wasn't like we were any where near the approach path or anything. just tooling along out to sea, waiting to be turned. I was just nervous cuz I was a student.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineBE77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4650 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 44):
I would have had to ask how can you forget the airplane type when it's on the display you're looking at, let alone our ground speed of something like 110? You're kidding right?
Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 54):
Not Kidding.

I'll back Sprout on this one - getting forgotten or treated as if I were flying something more capable has happened to me probably every couple of years (going back far too long to admit). I usually sense it starting to happen and chime in a little earlier now, but I've been pointed over big water / asked to navigate to positions I definitely don't have the radios to find, told to expect to circle / wait further clearance in 10 at a landmark that was 15 minutes away, and even asked to expedite clearing the runway by using a turnoff that would be a 4 minute taxi from where I was already touching down on a 12,000 foot runway / 500 foot landing distance...visibility wasn't that bad that day, so he must have been thinking I would need 5000 feet to slow...I just suggested I use the exit beside me which he approved - I guessed that was when he looked out the window

I just write it down to the usual human factors / complacency issues - the last 200 planes have been jets, so the next one is too - I imagine that in busy periods the type identification is one of the first details dropped (unintentionally and without be recognised) from the brain just to reduce the information overload since 99.999% of the time the type doesn't matter at a major jetport - the performance capabilities for ATC purposes are all well within the same range, and procedures are written to treat them all the same anyway. I always figured that the "Heavy" call sign designation by the pilot is actually there just to remind the controller to use the heavy procedures for this very reason.

On the same note - it's usually not an issue for departure, but I pay close attention to wake issues when approaching a larger airport just in case they forget that I'll feel the effects of a CR2, let alone an A330.



Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 56, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4626 times:

Quoting BE77 (Reply 55):
the last 200 planes have been jets, so the next one is too - I imagine that in busy periods the type identification is one of the first details dropped (unintentionally and without be recognised) from the brain just to reduce the information overload since 99.999% of the time the type doesn't matter at a major jetport - the performance capabilities for ATC purposes are all well within the same range, and procedures are written to treat them all the same anyway.



I can't go along with you on that concept, even though I know there are some controllers that have that mind set. It is just way to simple to look at a data block and see the type is a C172 or a BE35 rather than a B788 or MD88. Then if they miss the aircraft type the lack of forward speed is also clearly depicted and in the U.S. the aircraft type and ground speed time share in the same field of the data block. If all else fails, the simple fact the track history is so small due to the speed one should figure it out and if not they should be in another career field!  

All the procedures at high volume airports are different and at most I know of the handling of slower traffic is different than high speed turbo-props/jets.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 57, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4445 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 56):
Then if they miss the aircraft type the lack of forward speed is also clearly depicted and in the U.S. the aircraft type and ground speed time share in the same field of the data block

I dont think it was a speed issue, as there is no way she could have thought I was something else. I think that since I was a student, I was thinking about if my engine quit, vs her thinking about traffic flow. Now that I have a few more hours, I wouldn't be worried about flying 2 to 3 miles offshore at 3000' and wouldn't have said anything. Now that i think about it, that was the flight I made over Lake Okeechobee, and my instructor made me climb to 5,500' (I remember it well as the clouds were broken at 7000 or so except over the lake, not a cloud to be seen, a big hole in the sky) to drive home the point of "over-water flights".

Dan in Jupiter


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pilots Overriding ATC
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pilots To ATC Communications - Questions? posted Tue Sep 23 2003 20:57:59 by Mr Spaceman
For The Pilots, An ATC Question posted Wed Aug 13 2003 05:37:42 by Cancidas
Pilots Moaning To ATC? posted Wed Mar 14 2012 12:56:27 by readytotaxi
I Can Hear ATC, But Not The Pilots, Why? posted Sat Apr 3 2010 10:48:52 by c5load
Pilots Your Vote Pls, Best ATC Country? posted Mon Nov 10 2008 09:53:21 by Readytotaxi
Pilots- What Irritates You About ATC? posted Thu Jan 19 2006 18:36:32 by N766UA
Little Things (ops, ATC) That Annoy Airline Pilots posted Thu Aug 25 2005 15:17:24 by Sabenaboy
To All Airline Pilots, ATC Question posted Thu Oct 21 2004 01:45:01 by ERAUPilotATC
How Do Pilots Talk With ATC And Ground Crew? posted Mon Sep 1 2003 21:51:48 by Bio15
Pilots: Walk Me Through Your Job Seeklng Process? posted Sun Nov 18 2012 16:50:24 by prizeframe
Pilots & ATC.. Again? posted Mon Apr 19 2004 19:52:55 by SolarWind
Pilots To ATC Communications - Questions? posted Tue Sep 23 2003 20:57:59 by Mr Spaceman
For The Pilots, An ATC Question posted Wed Aug 13 2003 05:37:42 by Cancidas
Pilots Moaning To ATC? posted Wed Mar 14 2012 12:56:27 by readytotaxi
I Can Hear ATC, But Not The Pilots, Why? posted Sat Apr 3 2010 10:48:52 by c5load

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format