What was controller implying??

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
"Chip Jones" wrote in message
link.net...
[snipped]

There are no new security procedures with regards to GA IFR changes of
destination.

Hmmm, I guess that begs the question then: has there always been a
requirement to note a reason for a change in destination?

Nope.


If not, any ideas at all what the ZKC guy was talking about? Could
it be some facility-specific procedure?


Could be, but why such a procedure would exist is beyond me. My guess is
either individual controller misunderstanding of national security
procedures, or else some over-reaching, non-standard local facility or
regional management CYA policy.

Chip, ZTL

Stan Prevost wrote:
"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

There are no new security procedures with regards to GA IFR changes of
destination.



Interesting. We have heard that now from two or three controllers. But we
have also heard from one pilot that he was explicitly told that the
controllers were required to ask for the reason for any change of
destination,

Sounds like a supervisor inventing new rules.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Stan Prevost wrote:
"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

There are no new security procedures with regards to GA IFR changes of
destination.



Interesting. We have heard that now from two or three controllers. But
we
have also heard from one pilot that he was explicitly told that the
controllers were required to ask for the reason for any change of
destination,

Sounds like a supervisor inventing new rules.


Or some self-importanat Regional Manager....

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Stan Prevost wrote:
"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

There are no new security procedures with regards to GA IFR changes of
destination.



Interesting. We have heard that now from two or three controllers.
But
we
have also heard from one pilot that he was explicitly told that the
controllers were required to ask for the reason for any change of
destination,

Sounds like a supervisor inventing new rules.


Or some self-importanat Regional Manager....


Sounds like you may have someone in mind. :-)

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Stan Prevost wrote:
"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

There are no new security procedures with regards to GA IFR changes
of
destination.



Interesting. We have heard that now from two or three controllers.
But
we
have also heard from one pilot that he was explicitly told that the
controllers were required to ask for the reason for any change of
destination,

Sounds like a supervisor inventing new rules.


Or some self-importanat Regional Manager....


Sounds like you may have someone in mind. :-)



I have them *all* in mind. :-) From Miss Management herself all the way
down the chain to local facility leadership, our Agency is suffering from
****-poor leadership. In all echelons above the first level supervisor, our
captains don't have the first idea what FAA air traffic control actually
does, nor why. Think of the most incompetent controller you have ever
encountered on the radio, and realize that it is only a matter of time
before they get promoted into management.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Stan Prevost wrote:
"Chip Jones" wrote in message
ink.net...

There are no new security procedures with regards to GA IFR changes
of
destination.



Interesting. We have heard that now from two or three controllers.
But
we
have also heard from one pilot that he was explicitly told that the
controllers were required to ask for the reason for any change of
destination,

Sounds like a supervisor inventing new rules.


Or some self-importanat Regional Manager....


Sounds like you may have someone in mind. :-)



I have them *all* in mind. :-) From Miss Management herself all the way
down the chain to local facility leadership, our Agency is suffering from
****-poor leadership. In all echelons above the first level supervisor,
our
captains don't have the first idea what FAA air traffic control actually
does, nor why. Think of the most incompetent controller you have ever
encountered on the radio, and realize that it is only a matter of time
before they get promoted into management.


Seems Ok to me. We want the best controllers to stay on the radio. Let the
crap ones go into management then we pilots don't have to worry about then.
All they need to do is to introduce a system where controllers don't have to
go into management to progress in salary etc.

Have good managers manage and good controller control. If we cannot have
that then the next best thing is to have good controllers controlling.

whatever the worst controllers have got to go. I will settle for them going
to management if it means that they don't try and be controllers.

Since this topic came up I've had a couple a/c ask for a change in
destination. Based on the comments here, I asked my supervisor
what is the "official" position on this, of course I got no clear
answer except "ask him the reason". If I sense any stress in the
pilots voice I may ask if he needs any help or if everything is
okay. But this one last night, I asked my supe what words
exactly did he want me to use to ask this guy about the change.
The answer was "state reason for change in destination", which
I found pretty harsh.

Echoing others comments about controllers vs. management, I look
at it like an outhouse - and management are the "floaters" at the top
of the "soup", or put another way, the solid stuff at the top of the
pile. Get it? Not a resounding voice of confidence.

We DO want the best controllers to be on the radio, but these others
who make policy usually were horrid controllers who now make
more $ than us grunts, in a job description which is still an ATCS,
but not doing the ATCS job. Fraud, waste, and abuse at its finest.
These are not trained managers, they are failed controllers in nearly
every case I've seen. They are not doing the job they were hired
on to do, and should be paid, or not paid, accordingly. It's the
one part of this job, probably the only part, I do not like.

Chris
--
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

"CB" wrote in message
...

whatever the worst controllers have got to go.

Where will they go?



I will settle for them going to management if it means that they don't try
and be controllers.

Well, poor controllers make poor managers and managers make policy.

Stan Prevost wrote:

Sounds like a supervisor inventing new rules.


Or some self-importanat Regional Manager....



Sounds like you may have someone in mind. :-)

We all know someone who would qualify.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"CB" wrote in message
...

whatever the worst controllers have got to go.


Where will they go?



I will settle for them going to management if it means that they don't try
and be controllers.


Well, poor controllers make poor managers and managers make policy.



Do good controllers make good managers? I know that good engineers
often don't make good engineering managers.


Matt