What does ATC do that 'irks' you?

[Bedder believeit]

Having been a controller is Oz (22years), Dubai (5 years) and Hong Kong (12 years) I guess I have seen and heard a bit. Sometimes some of the things that I hear from flight crew absolutely amazes me. There is this misconception by some individuals that fly jets, that inside 30 miles they can beat anyone (non jet). Well, I've got news for you boys, the only time you will stay ahead of a Dash 8 (F-27 in my days in Oz) were if you were already in front of the turboprop. To try and overtake a turbo prop and to get a reasonable distance ahead when you are both within about 40 miles is almost impossible - bar severe radar vectoring. Also here in HK I often get Cathay pilots that are on 777's or 400's say, "why don't you let us overtake A340's", I just can't believe that some individuals can have such little understanding of relative speeds over the ground, and what is needed to get one aircraft that is behind another to be successfully in front of that aircraft. When I was riding the train home from work the other day I was amazed when a Cathay driver said to me "It's time you people started to weed out the non heavy jets from HK (we had been discussing wake turbulence issues)". I should have pointed out that it is the hundreds of 737 and A320 flights that feed pax into his big fat aeroplane that helps to make Cx as financially bouyant as it is, and able to pay him his big fat salary. And before people jump on me about the "big fat salary" remark, well, I do ok, but I bloody well earn it!

[Capt Claret]

****su, Binos, et al,

Why would landing times not work? Once I know the tracking in the 717, the whiz-box provides an extremely accurate estimate of landing time.

[Keg]

Am I being over sensitive on this one?

.....and able to pay him his big fat salary. And before people jump on me about the "big fat salary" remark, well, I do ok, but I bloody well earn it!

The implication seems to be that the pilot with the big fat salary does not in fact 'earn it'.

PS: I reckon the HKG controllers do a fantastic job considering the crappy airspace situation you have with China to the north, Macau, etc, etc.

[Bedder believeit]

Hi Keg, well who earns what? Is the CX guy driving an A330 any more or any less pushed than the China Eastern guy also flying the same equipment for one tenth the salary. But then I earn 10 times what a controller in nearby Shenzen earns. I think it has generally been considered over the years that CX/Dragonair guys (and HK ATC's) have done pretty well. Sure, they have their A and B scale issues and both sides (Pilots and controllers) here have taken pretty savage pay cuts over the last few years. I am not taking a swing at his "earning" of salary, just the attitude. I say again, it is the large number of narrow bodies that now flood into this place that helps to pay his, and for that matter my salary. Would I ever be stupid enough to complain about the result of this increasingly difficult traffic mix? Unlikely. Thanks for the sentiments re airspace in HK, the whole place is groaning at the seams...and it won't improve. Macau (and we do just about all of their arrivals and departures) are looking to increase movements to 30 an hour. So at times we will be servicing upwards of 100 movements an hour through our little corner here! Another huge problem is all the time restrictions that we get trying to load aircraft into an increasingly busy China...but that's another story!

[SM4 Pirate]

Why would landing times not work? Once I know the tracking in the 717, the whiz-box provides an extremely accurate estimate of landing time.

My favourite.... Because you will hit each other well before the threashold...

An example:
Pilot A get's landing time of 12 (sh!t a 6 minute delay); pilot B get's a landing time of 15 (sh!t a 8 minute delay)... So A is 1 minute ahead (could be 5 seconds but let's suppose it's the full minute). You both have 300NM or so to touch.

Pilot A puts in the box LT 12 (or however you do it.) The box says, bewdy M.05 reduction 292K econ descent; based on the Cost index; etc.

Pilot B puts in the box LT 15; the box says bewdy; .03 reduction on cruise; 265K on descent; based on a slightly different Cost index and perhaps a slightly wider cct, etc.

Pilot B get's in front of Pilot A (in about 10 minutes); Pilot A is going to go faster on descent. You die about 100NM from touch... extreme yes, but reality of time only control; ie the reason why we don't always just issue times when using MAESTRO (SY,ML,BN)

Ever left a holding pattern 30 seconds early/late? Pilot A lands at 12+30 seconds; pilot B tries to land at 14+30 to find A hasn't yet vacated the big bit of concrete and goes round; in a less extreme case.... Imagine being earlier or later than 30 seconds.... "I was given 12 and I was on time; well I was given 15 and I was on time", so why wasn't there a 3 minute gap?

Then there is the issue of the time actually needed was for B was 14 and 20 seconds (the rate for arrival in this circumstance could have been 140 not 180 seconds); as mentioned above difference between a good sequence and a bad one can be 30 seconds which compounds (between slots, or just into every slot).

Add into the complexities of different types etc. and you can see why times alone just don't work. I've seen 60Kts closing on same IAS with similar levels (or is one just not really doing the speed) different types.

I've said before that there's more to a sequence than landing slots; that pesky thing called separation has to be considered, goddang it; oh and more than two aircraft in the sequence... Let's also hope circumstances whatever they may be don't "force" a change in the times.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

"Clearance not available"...you're doing a flight test and realise the poor stude is going to have to do come back and do another test to get CTA on thier licence whcih in some cases means they will have to return to the country later in the year

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Why would landing times not work? Once I know the tracking in the 717, the whiz-box provides an extremely accurate estimate of landing time.

It's a good question, and whilst I would hate to see this (really good)thread degenerate by ATC coming with excuses for the 'irk-some', it is worth addressing. To some extent SM4 Pirate has answered part of it.

In theory it would work if the following was true all the time:

1. The winds aloft in your FMS were dynamically (I am talking every 30 seconds or so) updated from auto PIREPS uploaded constantly via ACARS or whatever and shared automatically to all aircraft who are ACARS/FMS equipped.

2. All the other aircraft in the sequence ahead and behind of you were also equipped with this equipment and information.

3. Descent profiles were the same (even if only we could get the same aircraft types in the same company doing it!)

4. The other factors mentioned in my last post didn't occur.

Believe it or not I have actually tried it during a quiet period one day. I asked the aircraft (way in advance of TD) to cruise, descend at desired speed to meet a landing time of (lets say) 00:05. Aircraft was not touched in way - no intermediate altitudes or speed control. It landed at 00:06:15. Not bad - but 1.25 minutes is a big deal when running a 2, 2.5 or even 3 minute sequence - think cumulative flow on effect.

One of the big problems is really in the wind data - it just is not accurate enough because it is not shared with MET, ANSP or other carriers. For example, we will often hear aircraft given an instruction to cross a point 100nm ahead one minute later than their current GS is indicating - and the reply will be that they cannot even make the original crossing time as the FMS says they could not go that fast! Even though the raw data is showing different.

Descent profiles - I don't know what more can be said about that - the one positive I have observed of late is the new RNP approaches that the QF 738's are flying - they are very accurate. Unfortunately they appear to be definitely slower than the approaches we are used to seeing - by about 1 minute from 40-50nm - which is significant.

RNP aside, it is not uncommon to see two aircraft - same type - same company with 40KT-60KT speed difference at the same point in the profile. This closes up very quickly and ruins all that you beaut planning. The only way to fix it is with speed control early - and for everyone which eliminates all those power off descent savings. Ever wondered why busy European airports appear to move a lot more traffic - have a look at the speeds they are required to 20, 30, 40, 70 nm away from TCHD and the lengths of the downwinds and finals! And they are usually all jets.

We don't have that neccessity in Australia - yet. So we let aircraft do their own thing to a greater extent.

Basically you can't have everything. Just like the design of an aeroplane, with the design of an airspace system everything is a compromise.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I would just like it if on first contact with tower they didn't say "Continue approach"

[Bedder believeit]

I agree with ****su. When I worked Approach radar in Australia in the 70's and 80's, we were not allowed to slow jet aircraft below 170 knots until they were within 15NM from touchdown. What a bunch of wusses. I then went to Dubai for 5 years and it was like the wild West. Then Hong Kong (Kai Tak) and I couldn't believe it. Aircraft were back to 170 or below with 40 or 50 miles to run for the IGS on runway 13, and I never heard one bleat. It was always "Well son, we're headin' inta Hong Kong where we gotta do this crazy turn to git this bird on tha groun' and you do everythin' those ATC boys say now...". It just goes to show how different environments can create entirely different situations. When I think back, it never ceases to amaze me just how much the two domestic airlines (plus your East West's etc) were so molly-coddled by the system in those days. Don't know if it has changed or not!

[Chimbu chuckles]

Bb when I flew F28s into Cairns we used to have all the ATC chaps and chapesses sitting on the edge of their seats apparently...330 indicated to 9nm finals and then the lights on as we lowered the gear at about 5...I think they used ta call us stealthly fokkers or some such.

"Sydney Tower, good morning, Brunei 69er established 34 Left"

"Brunei 69er continue approach"

"Brunei 69er"...but thinking to myself..."as opposed to what?"

[Bedder believeit]

CC, sure they didn't think you were a "Mudder Fokker".

As far as "Continue Approach" is concerned, I guess it's a feel good phrase. I'm happy to use it where I make a living, because if I don't say something to China Eastern, they are just as likely to make a missed approach on you. The North Americans tend to spit out "you're number four", but what the hell does that mean (apart from the obvious that there are possibly three aeroplanes in front of you).

By the way, stressed tower Controller's tend to stand, rarely do they sit on the edge of their seats. Maybe it is one aspect of human nature that pilot's miss in their sedentary environment.

[Aussie]

How is ATC suppose to know one is conducting a flight test and how are they at fault when they cant give you clearance.... its a safety issue if they cant give you one!

[Quokka]

Conway,

Your thoughts on the meaning of the word VISUAL are correct when asked the question REPORT INFLIGHT CONDITIONS by ATC.

This is a question that may be asked prior to the application of Visual Separation by a controller. The controller is required to make an assessment of the viability of applying Visual Separation prior to it's use. Obviously, a controller sitting in Brisbane at a TAAATS workstation cannot see the inflight conditions that a pilot might be encountering and must rely upon the subsequent advice of the pilot in all circumstances.

Some controllers will not ask the question but instead will apply the separation and wait for the pilot to advise that they are unable to comply with the instruction to MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION or FOLLOW.

VISUAL, VISUAL ON TOP, OVERCAST BENEATH, IN CLOUD will be sufficient information for the controller to make the assessment.

One point to remember though, the controller is seeking more than just a snap-shot of the conditions you're encountering, project ahead and advise the controller if there will be a point at which the conditions will change such that Visual Separation can no longer be applied.

It doesn't give the controller a warm & fuzzy feeling when half-way through a Sight & Follow on descent, the following aircraft reports "IN CLOUD" or "I've lost sight of the aircraft".

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

As BedderBelieveit said, if you think speed restrictions on descent are bad in Australia try flying elsewhere in the world. It seems the less often a pilot is used to being delayed the more they complain about it when they are. I had more complaints in Australia from pilots about not getting direct tracking and high speed all the way on the STARS than I have ever got here in Dubai where we reduce guys regularly to 230 KTs from 70 NM to run and hold for god knows how long every night purely due to traffic congestion. Yet these guys flying for Emirates, Gulf Air and Qatari (a lot of whom are ex-QANTAS/ANSETT guys) don't complain at all and take whatever we throw at them on the chin. Even though they are flying A330's and A340's and have trouble getting the height off when given speed reductions after having started descent, they understand that given the insane levels of traffic here these days for one runway, they get the job done and get the aircraft down safely. One thing the A330 guys do do, is they start their descent early to allow for any speed reductions they may (at certain times almost certainly will) recieve from us, and that allows them to not get too high on their profile.

Another thing we will do to "help" them out is if they say they are high on profile and can't take any more speed reductions and still meet the A130 height restriction on the STAR, is we allow them to speed up to lose the height and give them a dogleg to get the extra miles that way. Would you guys complaining about getting the speed reductions prefer a vector or 2 to achieve the required spacing rather than have your speed messed with?

[zkdli]

At the risk of butting in, this thread is great. We have exactly the same conflicts of interest in the UK that I read here in Oz I know exactly what Air services is saying. We get alot of ex Dunnunda pilots here in the LTMA and they never complain about what we do. I think it is because they think we are busy!
We used to get complaints when Stansted went from a sleepy hollow to one of the busiest airports. I think it was because everyone thought that they could do what they had always done when the traffic wasn't so busy. As it grew people didn't realise that they had to fly the procedures or they ended up being even more delayed. A few nasty experiences for ATC and aircrew stopped that
An example was this moring - i was working the Lambourne hold and was speed controlling aircraft (including Qantas) from about 100nm from touchdown. This included 220kts at about 50nm and descents etc but no one held. If they had not been speed controlled we would have been holding at Lamborne upto FL170 and holding out beyond that. Delays would have ben about 20 minutes. So I guess what I am trying to say is that If we speed control or dogleg it is because we are trying to give you the best service when taking in to account the traffic and the runway occupancy etc

[topdrop]

Originally Posted by Chimbu Chuckles

.. I flew F28s into Cairns we used to have all the ATC chaps and chapesses sitting on the edge of their seats apparently...330 indicated to 9nm finals and then the lights on as we lowered the gear at about 5...I think they used ta call us stealthly fokkers or some such.

Wish we still had the F28s rolling into town. Great pilots used to make that aircraft play to the sheet music. If you needed it, they'd stay high and go flat out to 5NM, open the barn doors and just drop in. Had one at BENJI, A045, doing 330 GS, washed the speed and height off in no time.
The F100s don't perform like the F28s, or perhaps they could do it, but new SOPs don't allow it.

Originally Posted by Chimbu Chuckles

"Brunei 69er continue approach"

"Brunei 69er"...but thinking to myself..."as opposed to what?"

Go round!

[TLAW]

I think the thread is about what does ATC do that irks you. Not suggest possible reasons why ATC have done whatever they have done which has irked you. Yes, a reasonable and intelligent person would be quite aware that whatever has been done that inconvenienced you was done for a valid reason. But you in the cockpit are often not privy to that reason, and hence it sometimes seems that ATC have only done it out of spite, because you once backed into the controllers car in the car park. You have your own priorities, your own mission, your own tasks to complete, they have theirs. When they conflict, there is frustration, hair pulling, gnashing of teeth, calling of names, etc.

What irks me is when ATC call to give me my departure clearance, with amendments and require a readback, then get impatient because I've held in the run up bay to have a look at the chart and plan the new departure they've given me.

[Quokka]

zkdli... delete Standsted and insert Perth... welcome to the mining boom in Australia...

More planes + less Air Traffic Controllers + old route structure + lack of forethought =

...and some people still don't get it

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

I never said ATC were "at fault" but answered the question about what irks me. It irks the stude more that they will have to pay for another flight to complete that part of the test. Me I get paid by the hour so it's no skin off my nose, but I'm the one the stude grumbles to, not ATC.

I'm not a controller, so don't know their reasons for not issuing clearances (even though the flight plan has been in the system for hours) but I am quite sure it isn't out of "spite"!

(HOWEVER I do know of one ATC person years ago who tended to give a lot of "join upwinds" to one of my staff who had been out with him then dumped him (rather publicly)!)

[TLAW]

I'm not a controller, so don't know their reasons for not issuing clearances (even though the flight plan has been in the system for hours) but I am quite sure it isn't out of "spite"!

This is exactly what I meant. Apologies for being unclear.