![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Chip Jones" wrote in
: long story snipped... Given this traffic scenario, would any of you guys have followed my suggestion to turn to a 180 heading, or was I wasting my breath? I think I would have turned in the direction you gave, since I couldn't see the traffic & presumably you could, at least on radar. You have a much bigger picture than I do. Either he misunderstood you or he's a lot more arrogant than I like to think I am. If he knows he's faster than the converging traffic, a turn away could work, but how could he know that? OTOH, if you really, really want him to turn to a heading, give it as an instruction, not a suggestion. Turning the wrong way & losing that much altitude in the turn suggests a lack of proficiency, but who knows? -- Regards, Stan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Either that or he wasn't really IMC, but didn't want to fess up (in which case
he probably stained his undies too). What the motivation for that would be, I wouldn't know. Stan Gosnell wrote: Turning the wrong way & losing that much altitude in the turn suggests a lack of proficiency, but who knows? -- Regards, Stan -- --Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc. 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Stan Gosnell" wrote in message ... "Chip Jones" wrote in : long story snipped... Given this traffic scenario, would any of you guys have followed my suggestion to turn to a 180 heading, or was I wasting my breath? I think I would have turned in the direction you gave, since I couldn't see the traffic & presumably you could, at least on radar. You have a much bigger picture than I do. Either he misunderstood you or he's a lot more arrogant than I like to think I am. If he knows he's faster than the converging traffic, a turn away could work, but how could he know that? OTOH, if you really, really want him to turn to a heading, give it as an instruction, not a suggestion. The only problem about issuing the 180 heading as an instruction instead of a suggestion is that I do not have separation responsibility between an IFR and a VFR in this class of airspace. Because of that, I have to follow the 7110.65's provisions regarding safety alerts and traffic alerts, and the 7110.65 requires me to make a suggestion instead of taking control with an instruction in this case. In fact, the 7110.65 even instructs me to use the phraseolgy "immediately" if I offer a suggested course of action. Hence, if your best course of action was to hold your present heading, and I suggested this to you, I would actually have to key up and say something as ridiculous as "N123, traffic alert [insert appropriate information here], suggest you fly your present heading immediately for traffic!" Silly, ain't it? The logic is that during an alert, the FAA doesn't want ATC issuing *instructions* to a controlled aircraft that might cause it to collide with an uncontrolled aircraft. Say I instructed a 180 turn just as the unknown VFR made a radical turn to the west to avoid ( know it's very very unlikely). In such a collision, the ATC instruction would likely be identified as the *cause* of the collision and as the controller I'd be hung for not following the book. This was drilled into me a long long time ago when as a young pup I assigned ATC vectors to a VFR aircraft in distress (IFR pilot in VFR-only airplane stuck on top in winter clag looking for a friendly airport). Eventually I vectored the pilot down into an airport safely and then got reamed by facility management for not *suggesting* the vectors instead of assigning them. My chewing for that event went something like this- "Good job Chip. The pilot called to say thanks- he wants to buy you a beer. HOWEVER, assign ATC headings contrary to the 7110 again, you moron, and you will be decertified...you could have killed that guy." Chip, ZTL ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Chip Jones" wrote in
: The only problem about issuing the 180 heading as an instruction instead of a suggestion is that I do not have separation responsibility between an IFR and a VFR in this class of airspace. Because of that, I have to follow the 7110.65's provisions regarding safety alerts and traffic alerts, and the 7110.65 requires me to make a suggestion instead of taking control with an instruction in this case. In fact, the 7110.65 even instructs me to use the phraseolgy "immediately" if I offer a suggested course of action. Hence, if your best course of action was to hold your present heading, and I suggested this to you, I would actually have to key up and say something as ridiculous as "N123, traffic alert [insert appropriate information here], suggest you fly your present heading immediately for traffic!" Silly, ain't it? Any similarity between logic and government regulations is purely coincidental and completely unintended. But if you ever see me heading for another aircraft, please point me somewhere else, whatever phraseology you can come up with that will satisfy 7110.65. If we have a midair, you'll be down there blameless in the FAA's eyes, but I'll come back and haunt you. ;-) -- Regards, Stan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Stan Gosnell wrote in message ...
Any similarity between logic and government regulations is purely coincidental and completely unintended. But if you ever see me heading for another aircraft, please point me somewhere else, whatever phraseology you can come up with that will satisfy 7110.65. If we have a midair, you'll be down there blameless in the FAA's eyes, but I'll come back and haunt you. ;-) Stan, Doesn't this sound like a good title for a thriller? "The Haunted Controller" Best, Sydney |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Snowbird wrote: Doesn't this sound like a good title for a thriller? "The Haunted Controller" While I don't know of any that actually involve ghosts, the concept of "Controller spends the rest of his life thinking about people who died because of something he thinks he did/didn't do" has been done, well, to death. "Airport" had one, "Turbulance" had one, and I'm sure there are lots more... Tina Marie -- Life is like an analogy. http://www.tripacerdriver.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | Military Aviation | 120 | January 27th 04 10:19 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |
Riddle me this, pilots | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 137 | August 30th 03 04:02 AM |