Riddle me this, pilots

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
...
The other day, I had an air traffic situation I wanted to bounce off of
the
group. Those of you who don't know me, I'm a Center controller down here
in


--- snip

I feel very strongly that ATC has an obligation to track these rogue idiots.
Controllers may be a passenger/pilots someday too. You dont have to prove
anything, just get them on the phone and advise them that they may wish to
review the rule book before playing in your backyard. It should get their
attention.

Unless they are really stupid, they will likely stop the behavior after
realizing big brother was watching their stunt.

SK

"Stuart King" wrote in
news
I feel very strongly that ATC has an obligation to track these rogue
idiots.

To what purpose? There is no way to prove the flight conditions were IMC.
Just because one pilot reported being in IMC, especially when everyone else
was VMC, does not prove the pilot in question violated anything.

--
Regards,

Stan

("Capt. Doug" wrote)

(pilots vs. controllers- what a softball game that would be!)

Man on 3rd base....You are not authorized to cross Home plate. Repeat...hold
short of Home plate!

Person holding short of 1st base, you may now taxi back to the dugout -
you're out.

Ahh, a double play in the making, on a ball hit over the centerfielder's
head.

--
Montblack

Roy Smith wrote:

NASA can transmit images from Neptune better than that.

I'm sure that I could build a pretty foolproof mode-C if I had NASA's budget.
Doing it for a few hundred dollars is what's difficult.

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

We don't know that this guy was a rogue idiot, there's no evidence that any
rule was violated.

Sure. So the conversation should go something like "Sir, we tracked you through
our airspace at 6,000'. You might want to have your encoder checked."

George Patterson
Brute force has an elegance all its own.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

Heck, you don't even know if his Mode C was correct.

Yes, as I stated in an earlier message.

I was just remaking your point. "Piling on" so to speak. Sometimes you
are just too darned succinct.

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
...
A couple of years ago we had a guy flying through GRB approach airspace
always had bad Mode C. But it was only bad with GRB approach, no other
facility had a problem with it. He had it checked at an avionics shop
and
they found nothing wrong.

Yep, this kind of Mode C anomoly happens in ZTL airspace too. That's one
reason we always go with pilot reported altitude over Mode C readout.

First time I was called on an inaccurate Mode C by ATL, I took it to the
shop. They said it was OK and serviced it anyway. ATL called me on it
again but it's fine everywhere else, almost....

Anytime I fly from GSO towards CLT, GSO either can't see me, or gets an
incorrect mode C for a short period of time. Can't see why one or the
other. Can't see why there is an anomoly at all. On the other hand, I flew
RDU towards CLT practically every week for 3 or 4 years. GSO never had a
problem seeing me on that route. Just one of those things that awaits
migration to better technology.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:9VQ0b.210033$Ho3.27525@sccrnsc03...


Chip Jones wrote:
Had I known that
these aircraft were going to get so apparently close in the end without
a
visual, I would have vectored the Baron early in the interests of air
safety
(regardless of what the 7110 dictates) to avoid the alert.

That is far and away the better procedure. I have had a few situations
like that and I will never let it get to a safety alert status. The IFR
guy will get vectored. It also saves time.


I totally agree, but it requires that you recognize the situation and have
time to deal with it. In my airspace I simply don't have the time to vector
every IFR around potential VFR traffic because I am too busy slinging IFR's
around IFR's or providing other IFR services. The avoidance of the alert to
begin with is indeed better for all concerned IMO, but it is not always
possible because of workload.

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 =---

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

That's the policy created by a bunch of inward thinking idiots at FAA
Headquarters (ATP).


You are not in a position to make that judgment..

That's your opinion.

Peter Duniho wrote:

wrote in message ...
[...] it
seems that the air traffic procedures folks are primarily fooling
themselves
(so, what's new? ;-) when they don't consider an unknown secondary target
returning Mode C data to be sufficiently radar identified for merging
target
safety action.

Keep in mind that if ATC is not in radio communications with the radar
target, they have no way to verify the Mode C readout. As such, it should
be considered unreliable. Since an ATC instruction could include an
altitude change instead of or in addition to a heading change, the rules
need to account for that.

That is exactly what a TCAS RA does, and it relies on "unverified" Mode C.
But, a merging target vector should not include an altitude change unless the
controller has the altitude available, and then only as a last resort to an
avoidance vector.



My personal opinion is that, generally speaking, the FAA folks who come up
with ATC procedures do have a clue, and the procedures mostly make sense.

Good thing TCAS isn't so strict about what it tags.

I guess that's a matter of debate. A faulty Mode C readout could cause a
TCAS unit to cause an accident, rather than avoid one.

Well, so far it has only prevented accidents. Had it been used properly on the
Swiss border, a lot of folks would still be alive today..