 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / General / IFR / September 2008Abrupt Controller
Flyers, I'll run this scenario past the group and see what you all think and is if Mr. McNicoll can shed some light as well. First, some quick background. At my airport if you are IFR and are heading, say, southwest (as I was) it's too bad...you're clearance is to send you 22 miles north to a fix and then 15 mile east to another fix and then they will turn you on course. Usually, if asked, you can get direct on course shortly after take-off. If traffic permits they will clear you to go direct to your first filed fix on course. Ok so...I took-off on an IFR flight plan and I had just leveled off at 4000' north bound for their fix. Next they gave me a vector of 090. After a minute or so I asked the controller, "McGuire Approach, Cardinal 07G, any chance direct Smyrna (ENO)?" The response I got was, "07G direct Smyrna unable." Ok...that would be fine if that was what my busy brain heard, but I did not hear it that way...my brain heard, "07G direct Smyrna 'when able'." Shortly after I turned direct for ENO I got a VERY large lecture with unneeded and unnecessary attitude. "07G I TOLD YOU STAY 090. CAN'T YOU LISTEN OR UNDERSTAND ATC INSTRUCTIONS? WHEN I GIVE YOU A VECTOR YOU ARE TO FOLLOW IT EXACTLY AND CAREFULLY!!" When I explained to him that I heard him say, "...direct ENO when able." he became even more belligerent. "I DID *NOT* SAY THAT!! YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO ATC INSTRUCTION MORE CAREFULLY AND FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTION EXACTLY." Whoa! Like I needed to know any of that and like anyone needs to be yelled at over the airwaves with an attitude. This controller was a young military male for what any of that is worth. Granted I heard him wrong and I made a mistake. But I think the controller needs to take some responsibility for using confusing verbiage and surely it was unprofessional to lay me out like that. This reminds me of how a mid-air occurred in LA because a new controller took time to admonish a GA pilot for a couple minutes while a commercial plane and a Piper collided right in front of him on his screen. So my question to Steve McNicoll is...is that standard verbiage to say, "...direct Smyrna 'unable'??. 'cause I'm here to tell ya that, that can be EASILY confused with 'direct Smyrna 'when able'. What's your thoughts on this and did he use proper language or did he just use poor phraseology? Kobra > was unprofessional to lay me out like that. This reminds me of how a > mid-air occurred in LA because a new controller took time to admonish a GA > pilot for a couple minutes while a commercial plane and a Piper collided > right in front of him on his screen. I'll leave the comments about your handling to others, but your characterization of that 1986 tragedy over Cerritos, CA is grossly misleading. The NTSB found no fault with the controller working those aircraft. In fact, he is a highly regarded airspace manager today. The Piper pilot was illegally within the TCA (Class B airspace). >> was unprofessional to lay me out like that. This reminds me of how a >> mid-air occurred in LA because a new controller took time to admonish a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The Piper pilot was illegally within the TCA (Class B airspace). Hello Sam, I did not mean to be misleading and of course I don't have all the facts. Using only the information I do have, I feel it a fact that he spent needless time lecturing a GA pilot who was also illegally in the TCA. It would not be a stretch to infer that this distracted him from his scope. No one can say that it's not *possible* or even likely that if he didn't give his lecture that he may have seen the conflict and warned the airliner about the VFR target's position and direction of flight with the typical "altitude known". Hey, who knows, but I am surprised yet happy that this person came back to the FAA and ATC. The show *Air Emergency* (which is how I learned about this) made it appear that once he came back to work, he immediately decided that ATC was not for him and he never worked for ATC again. I'm happy everything worked out for him. I felt really bad for him when I saw the show. Kobra > I did not mean to be misleading and of course I don't have all the facts. > Using only the information I do have, I feel it a fact that he spent [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > everything worked out for him. I felt really bad for him when I saw the > show. If this is the one, I see no mention of ATC distraction: NTSB Identification: DCA86AA041A. The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 31249. Scheduled 14 CFR Part 129: Foreign AERONAVES DE MEXICO, S.A. Accident occurred Sunday, August 31, 1986 in CERRITOS, CA Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/7/1988 Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32, registration: XAJED Injuries: 82 Fatal, 8 Minor. The Safety Board's full report on this investigation is provided as Aviation Accident Report number AAR-87/07. To obtain a copy of this report, or to view the executive summary online, please see the Web site at http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/publictn.htm AT APRX 1140 PDT, A PIPER PA-28, N4891F, DEPARTED TORRANCE, CA ON A VFR FLT TO BIG BEAR, CA. AFTER TAKEOFF, THE PLT TURNED EASTBOUND TWD THE PARADISE VORTAC WITH HIS X-PONDER SQUAWKING 1200. AT THAT TIME, AEROMEXICO FLT 498 (DC-8, MEX REGISTRY XA-JED) WAS ON ARRIVAL, RCVG NORTHBOUND VECTORS FM LAX APCH CTL (AR-1 CTLR) FOR AN ILS APCH TO THE LAX INTL ARPT. AT 1151:04, THE CTLR ASKED FLT 498 TO RDC SPD TO 190 KTS & DSCND FM 7000' TO 6000'. DRG THIS TIME, THE CTLR WAS CTLG OTR TRAFFIC & PROVIDING RADAR ADVISORIES, BUT DIDN'T SEE A DISPLAY FOR N4891F ON HIS SCOPE. AT 1152:09, N4891F & FLT 498 CONVERGED & COLLIDED AT APRX 6560', THEN FELL TO THE GND. AN INV REVEALED N4891F HAD INADVERTENTLY ENTERED THE LAX TERMINAL CONTROL AREA (TCA) & WASN'T IN RADIO CONTACT WITH ATC. LAX TRACON WASN'T EQUIPPED WITH AN AUTO CONFLICT ALERT SYS & THE ANALOG BEACON RESPONSE FM N4891F'S X-PONDER WASN'T DISPLAYED DUE TO EQUIP CONFIGURATION. N4891F'S PSN WAS DISPLAYED BY AN ALPHANUMERIC TRIANGLE, BUT THE PRIMARY TARGET WASN'T DISPLAYED DUE TO AN ATMOSPHERIC INVERSION. The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: RADAR,APPROACH/DEPARTURE..INADEQUATE PROCEDURE INADEQUATE..FAA(OTHER/ORGANIZATION) Contributing Factors IDENTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT ON RADAR..NOT ATTAINED PROCEDURES/DIRECTIVES..NOT FOLLOWED..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT UNSAFE/HAZARDOUS CONDITION..INADVERTENT..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT VISUAL LOOKOUT..INADEQUATE..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT VISUAL LOOKOUT..INADEQUATE..PILOT IN COMMAND >> I did not mean to be misleading and of course I don't have all the >> facts. Using only the information I do have, I feel it a fact that he [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > VISUAL LOOKOUT..INADEQUATE..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT > VISUAL LOOKOUT..INADEQUATE..PILOT IN COMMAND Nobody cares what you see, you moron. >>>was unprofessional to lay me out like that. This reminds me of how a >>>mid-air occurred in LA because a new controller took time to admonish a [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Kobra You should read the full NTSB report. I found it on-line this morning with a Google search: http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR87-07.pdf The Piper's primary target didn't show because of a weather inversion. Because he was sqawking 1200 his beacon return was rudimentary (which the NTSB did find fault with). The other aircraft that violated the TCA was being worked by the controller. When he determined (no mandatory Mode C at the time) that the aircraft was inside the TCA without a clearance the controller made it clear that he was inside the airspace and that he needed to use his TCA chart more dilgently. It was an appropriate response to the intrustion; not a tirade. Traffic was light for LAX airspace, and there were two controllers on this position. Had they both had their eyes glued on the DC-9 they still couldn't have detected a potential mid-air in the making. The technology at the time was just too crappy. > Ok so...I took-off on an IFR flight plan and I had just leveled off at 4000' > north bound for their fix. Next they gave me a vector of 090. After a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > became even more belligerent. "I DID *NOT* SAY THAT!! YOU NEED TO LISTEN > TO ATC INSTRUCTION MORE CAREFULLY AND FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTION EXACTLY." Where was your readback? > Granted I heard him wrong and I made a mistake. But I think the controller > needs to take some responsibility for using confusing verbiage and surely it > was unprofessional to lay me out like that. Had you read back the instructions, the chances of any confusion would have been greatly reduced. You should always read things back. > This reminds me of how a > mid-air occurred in LA because a new controller took time to admonish a GA > pilot for a couple minutes while a commercial plane and a Piper collided > right in front of him on his screen. When was this? > So my question to Steve McNicoll is...is that standard verbiage to say, > "...direct Smyrna 'unable'??. 'cause I'm here to tell ya that, that can be > EASILY confused with 'direct Smyrna 'when able'. What's your thoughts on > this and did he use proper language or did he just use poor phraseology? If you read back "when able" after he says "unable," he'll probably catch it and correct you. If you don't read anything back, you never know. Anthony, where do you get off telling a real IFR rated pilot about how he should read back instructions, when you have never been at the controls of anything other than a computer game? Do you even remotely think that talking with play controllers in any way mimics the real IFR environment? Get a clue- you don't know anything about flying IFR or in IMC. > Where was your readback? I read it back and just like me he heard what his brain expected to hear: 'unable' when I actually said 'when able' . I wish I thought of that while I was being reprimanded. I was just too busy flying, being embarrassed and head scratching trying to figure out how this whole misunderstanding took place. But as I said before, the big issue with me was the way he snapped. I just think he was a young man, given a little authority, probably a junior trainee controller sitting with him, I'm in charge and fear me attitude and probably having a bad day. Kobra >> Where was your readback? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >head scratching trying to figure out how this whole misunderstanding took >place. I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever. Now, were it me: 1) File an ASRS form, now. 2) WRT the instruction, I would have thought the prefered method would have been "<aircraft>, unable Smyrna." As you mention, "Smyrna unable" is confusing. In fact, if I read the 7110.65 right, he wasn't in compliance with the approved terminology in 2-1-18(c): 2-1-18: Operational requests c. State the word UNABLE and, time permitting, a reason. PHRASEOLOGY- UNABLE (requested operation). and when necessary, (reason and/or additional instructions.) 3) Never get into an on-air discussion. Just shush and go on to the next sector. It's not worth the airtime, regardless of what the guy on the ground is doing. You have better things to be doing, like flying the aircraft. If you want to get into it later after you landed, ask for the controller's initials, note the time, and then call his facility and ask for the supervisor or QA guy. They'll take the information and pull the tapes. > I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting > mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever. Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are correct. That was never changed and never even proposed to be changed. It was widely misreported. Order JO 7110.65S Air Traffic Control Chapter 2. General Control Section 4. Radio and Interphone Communications 2-4-3. PILOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT/READ BACK a. When issuing clearances or instructions ensure acknowledgment by the pilot. NOTE- Pilots may acknowledge clearances, instructions, or other information by using "Wilco," "Roger," "Affirmative," or other words or remarks. REFERENCE- AIM, Para 4-2-3, Contact Procedures. b. If altitude, heading, or other items are read back by the pilot, ensure the read back is correct. If incorrect or incomplete, make corrections as appropriate. >> I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting >> mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever. > >Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are correct. >That was never changed and never even proposed to be changed. It was widely >misreported. Hm, OK, thanks. What I seem to remember is someone who got violated for doing something that they read back incorrectly and used "but the controller didn't fix the readback" as part of the defense and still had the violation upheld as it wasn't ATC's issue if they didn't correct an incorrect readback. Wouldn't be the first time I misremembered somethin tho. >>> I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting >>> mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > correct an incorrect readback. Wouldn't be the first time I > misremembered somethin tho. It happened a little differently. Aircraft A requested a different altitude. ATC assigns different altitude to aircraft A. Aircraft A and aircraft B read back altitude issued to aircraft A. Controller hears only loud squeal, asks aircraft A to say again. Loss of separation occurs between aircraft B and aircraft C. Aircraft B is violated for taking a clearance issued to another aircraft. Aircraft B's defense is the uncorrected readback, a readback that was never heard or acknowledged by ATC because it was blocked by aircraft A's readback. >>>> I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting >>>> mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > never heard or acknowledged by ATC because it was blocked by aircraft A's > readback. I read an ALJ's decision where a pilot got violated even though his readback error was not caught. The controller was charged with an error as well. This is no doubt the exception as usually the controller buys the error exclusively. >I read an ALJ's decision where a pilot got violated Speaking of questionable phraseology. Who is "violating" all these pilots. And what is the manner in which they are "violated". sounds painful >>I read an ALJ's decision where a pilot got violated > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > sounds painful Nobody does for phraseology. > I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting > mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever. If ATC isn't supposed to correct an incorrect readback, why have readbacks? Or is that not what you mean? > But as I said before, the big issue with me was the way he snapped. I just > think he was a young man, given a little authority, probably a junior > trainee controller sitting with him, I'm in charge and fear me attitude and > probably having a bad day. If he reacts that emotionally to something this trivial, perhaps air traffic control is not the best career choice for him. Angry young males make poor air traffic controllers (in fact, they are bad at just about everything except perhaps bar fights). Anthony, there you go again spouting and pontificating about topics where you have absolutely no knowedge or experience other than playing your computer game. > Anthony, there you go again spouting and pontificating about topics > where you have absolutely no knowedge or experience other than playing > your computer game. One has to wonder how Anthony can even manage to play a computer game! > One has to wonder how Anthony can even manage to play a computer game! No one ever said he was any good at it, and he's probably orders of magnitude worse than he thinks he is. > Anthony, there you go again spouting and pontificating about topics where > you have absolutely no knowedge or experience other than playing your > computer game. And, he also plays with himself. >> Where was your readback? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Kobra Yeah, he got the phraseology bass-ackward. Yeah, he gave you a ration you probably didn't have coming. Maybe he was having a bad day. Maybe he just got told he's going to the sandbox for another 13 months; for his second or third time. Maybe he was a trainee trying to impress his trainer with his "control." Maybe a lot of things. If anyone else in the facility heard the exchange he's likely already gotten some wall-to-wall counseling. sh.t happens :-/ Be the adult and drive on. >> Ok so...I took-off on an IFR flight plan and I had just leveled off >> at 4000' north bound for their fix. Next they gave me a vector of [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > catch it and correct you. If you don't read anything back, you never > know. Anthony, you don't know sh.t from Shinola about using an AM radio, you f.cking moron. A total waste of life. > Flyers, > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > your thoughts on this and did he use proper language or did he just > use poor phraseology? Bad phraseology on the part of the controller. When denying a pilot's request the transmission is supposed to begin with "unable". When approving a pilot's request it's supposed to end with "approved" or just "approved as requested". Order JO 7110.65S Air Traffic Control Chapter 2. General Control Section 1. General 2-1-18. OPERATIONAL REQUESTS Respond to a request from another controller, a pilot or vehicle operator by one of the following verbal means: a. Restate the request in complete or abbreviated terms followed by the word "APPROVED." The phraseology "APPROVED AS REQUESTED" may be substituted in lieu of a lengthy readback. PHRASEOLOGY- (Requested operation) APPROVED. or APPROVED AS REQUESTED. b. State restrictions followed by the word "APPROVED." PHRASEOLOGY- (Restriction and/or additional instructions, requested operation) APPROVED. c. State the word "UNABLE" and, time permitting, a reason. PHRASEOLOGY- UNABLE (requested operation). and when necessary, (reason and/or additional instructions.) d. State the words "STAND BY." NOTE- "STAND BY" is not an approval or denial. The controller acknowledges the request and will respond at a later time. REFERENCE- FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-1-21, Traffic Advisories. FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 4-2-5, Route or Altitude Amendments. FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 7-9-3, Methods. > Flyers, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > minute or so I asked the controller, "McGuire Approach, Cardinal 07G, any > chance direct Smyrna (ENO)?" The response I got was, "07G direct Smyrna The usual way to say this is "unable direct" or "unable direct Smyrna". Your readback of the whole instruction should have tipped him off, since there was no real reason to read back what he basically read back to you, but with "unable" at the front. > unable." Ok...that would be fine if that was what my busy brain heard, but > I did not hear it that way...my brain heard, "07G direct Smyrna 'when [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > became even more belligerent. "I DID *NOT* SAY THAT!! YOU NEED TO LISTEN > TO ATC INSTRUCTION MORE CAREFULLY AND FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTION EXACTLY." I have had several controllers go off on me like that, and even went through the motions of complaining, getting the tape read back, etc. Why waste your time and energy. There was a misunderstanding. It wasn't personal. In 5 minutes you will be talking to someone else, and if it is *really* bad (a voilation), you don't want to be recorded as being belligerent. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.