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 |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
"Michelle P" wrote in message link.net... You would be mistaken. The QC dept. is not floor supervisors. The have to look at it. I have made several calls to Potomac TRACON QC and I have seen improvements in their services. I do the same for Leesburg FSS and I have seen changes there as well. One controller got a few days off for being rude and just plain wrong. Michelle If it makes you feel good, go ahead and call. You are wasting your time. I assure you that a call to the QA office of a mac-daddy approach control like Potomac, Southern Cal, Chicago, New York, Atlanta etc, whining about the facility's refusal to work you en route through busy terminal airspace, wouldn't make it out of the QA office. They'd pay you lip service, and then they'd probably laugh about your temerity/stupidity after they hung up the receiver. Little airplanes IFR en route don't have the magical power to fly willy nilly through busy Tracons unless the pilot knows the magic word when he is refused initial clearance. Also, if he uses the magic word, he'd better be prepared to formally defend its use. I can imagine that the controllers and flight service specialists in Maryland and the Old Dominion tremble when they hear your voice on the radio. Chip, ZTL |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
We're back to Monty Python.
No, you're just being Jose. And you're just being Steven. How do you know he doesn't want to divert and wait out the weather? It's not the weather that prompted the exchange, it was Potomac's refusal to accept the flight. Had it been the weather, the pilot would likely have requested the diversion first. Granted, maybe the weather contributes to Potomac's INABILITY to handle the flight, but REFUSAL does not imply INABILITY (though it does imply inconvenience). unless things are so balled up... Now you're catchin' on! "State intentions": "what are you going to do?" (controller has hands-off stance) "State request": "how can I help you?" (controller is offering coordination assistance - which is the controller's reason for being) No, it takes me into Potomac approach. I'm no longer a thruflight Got it. I'd have to know (or suspect) that the reason they are =refusing= to accept me is that they (as a matter of policy) don't take thruflights, and not that they are balled up by the weather, or don't like the position of my wings, or just don't feel like doing whatever it takes to squeeze me through. I would never (prior to this exchange) suspected that "they just don't do thruflights" or "today they aren't doing thruflights". Ok, in the future I'll try gaming the system. Everyone does that, and soon Potomac will refuse to accept incoming. Chicago will follow suit. That is what's happening. The pilots of all those air carrier jets streaming through the airspace you want to use are getting what they want. Traffic flows are dictated by air carrier needs because they're the biggest users. Some time back, in a different thread (about angelflight) you stated that angelflight did not get any priority, and continued to say that aircraft are handled on a first-come first-served basis. Your statement above seems to contradict that (otherwise I could just be scooted in front of the next jet that's not there yet). "Refusing" to accept you is different from "IS UNABLE" to accept you. Not in this case. Yes in this case, if they are "unable" to handle me because of all the jets that haven't gotten there yet. They are unable to handle me =and= give the jets priority. If what you say is operative, they are =unwilling= to not give the jets priority in order to let me through. ARTCC boundaries sometimes change, but they're on the charts. Maybe that's it, but as I recall it also had to do with altitudes, which to my knowledge are not charted in that detail. Then you haven't flown enough. Right. I could fly twice as much and it wouldn't be enough. Jose -- Nothing takes longer than a shortcut. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
"Jose" wrote in message .. . "Unable 13,000. Tell you what, can you give me direct Salisbury VOR for now, and let me go off frequency for a while to talk to Flight Service?" "Unable Salsbury. I already told you Potomac is refusing to accept you." (I'm making up the fact that Salsbury is served by Potomac approach - you as a pilot have no good way to know what is and what isn't. In fact, Salsbury may only be served by Potomac from 3000 to 7000, but you are at 5000 and the controller is being as helpful and forthcoming now as he was originally). Now what? Jose How about "Request routing around Potomac approach"? Chip, ZTL |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
"Jose" wrote in message m... And you're just being Steven. Thank you. It's not the weather that prompted the exchange, it was Potomac's refusal to accept the flight. Weather was his reason for the route through Potomac approach. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
"Jose" wrote in message ... It's not. But "we've revoked your clearance. Say intentions." is. "We've revoked your clearance" boils down to a re-route. No, it boils down to "guess the reroute or go home." It only looks like an offer to let me decide how I would like to be rerouted - to =actually= decide I'd have to know what Potomac's airspace looks like. I don't, and should not be expected to. It's probably just a misunderstanding based on the controllers not being pilots, and the pilots not being controllers (and therefore not knowing what can and cannot be taken for granted), but in this context "say intentions" sounds like "what are you going to do about it?", which makes it seem like the controller is going to be non-helpful when the pilot is depending on the cooperation of the controller. Jose I don't read this situation as "guess the reroute or go home." The Center Controller is going to be issuing Mike ATC instructions to keep him out of Potomac Approach, because Potomac has unabled an IFR handoff. The Center guy is helpfully fishing for Mike's input. He may not have used the best phrasing, but that's what it boils down to. No way in hell the Center controller is going to let Mike procede on course. He can't. If Mike doesn't do anything more at all, the Center is going to at least vector him to stay out of the Tracon. Chip, ZTL |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
How about "Request routing around Potomac approach"?
Sure, as long as that doesn't take me on a three hundred mile tour of the midwest. Jose -- Nothing takes longer than a shortcut. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
"Jose" wrote in message ... How about "Request routing around Potomac approach"? Sure, as long as that doesn't take me on a three hundred mile tour of the midwest. Jose -- Hey, I thought *I* got to be the pilot here!?! :-) Chip, ZTL |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
"Hamish Reid" wrote in message ... In article et, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Howard Nelson" wrote in message m... This thread just gets more interesting. I can just imagine a tape where the following was said: "JAL xxx heavy, Bay Approach refusing to accept you. Say intentions" To what destination would JAL be going that took him through Bay Approach? Erm, 1999? :-) Hamish Got me. 19xx-1999 Bay Approach, 1999-2003 Nor Cal approach (and maybe a couple of others), 2004- present Sierra Approach, 2006-? Western Approach, followed by USA approach to be handled by a synthesized voice sounding like Steven saying "USA approach refusing to handle you. What are your intentions?". Howard |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
"Howard Nelson" wrote in message news "Hamish Reid" wrote in message ... In article et, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Howard Nelson" wrote in message m... This thread just gets more interesting. I can just imagine a tape where the following was said: "JAL xxx heavy, Bay Approach refusing to accept you. Say intentions" To what destination would JAL be going that took him through Bay Approach? Erm, 1999? :-) Hamish Got me. 19xx-1999 Bay Approach, 1999-2003 Nor Cal approach (and maybe a couple of others), 2004- present Sierra Approach, 2006-? Western Approach, followed by USA approach to be handled by a synthesized voice sounding like Steven saying "USA approach refusing to handle you. What are your intentions?". Howard My bad The sequence was Bay to Sierra to NorCal. I can't wait to see what the next consolidation is. Luckily I haven't said Bay Approach (or TCA) in years probably because the correct answer is printed on my charts. Howard |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
"Jose" wrote in message ... Sure, as long as that doesn't take me on a three hundred mile tour of the midwest. Potomac is in the east. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flap handle activated Climb/Cruise switching | Andy Smielkiewicz | Soaring | 5 | March 14th 05 04:54 AM |
You Want Control? You Can't Handle Control! -- Was 140 dead | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | March 2nd 04 08:48 PM |
G103 Acro airbrake handle | Andy Durbin | Soaring | 12 | January 18th 04 11:51 PM |
How do you handle your EFB in the cockpit? | greg | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | November 17th 03 03:47 AM |
Need door handle for 1959 Cessna 175 | Paul Millner | Owning | 0 | July 4th 03 07:36 PM |