Abrupt Controller

Peter Clark wrote:

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.


Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are correct.
That was never changed and never even proposed to be changed. It was widely
misreported.



Order JO 7110.65S Air Traffic Control

Chapter 2. General Control

Section 4. Radio and Interphone Communications

2-4-3. PILOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT/READ BACK

a. When issuing clearances or instructions ensure acknowledgment by the
pilot.

NOTE-
Pilots may acknowledge clearances, instructions, or other information by
using "Wilco," "Roger," "Affirmative," or other words or remarks.

REFERENCE-
AIM, Para 4-2-3, Contact Procedures.

b. If altitude, heading, or other items are read back by the pilot, ensure
the read back is correct. If incorrect or incomplete, make corrections as
appropriate.

Kobra writes:

But as I said before, the big issue with me was the way he snapped. I just
think he was a young man, given a little authority, probably a junior
trainee controller sitting with him, I'm in charge and fear me attitude and
probably having a bad day.

If he reacts that emotionally to something this trivial, perhaps air traffic
control is not the best career choice for him. Angry young males make poor
air traffic controllers (in fact, they are bad at just about everything except
perhaps bar fights).

Peter Clark writes:

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.

If ATC isn't supposed to correct an incorrect readback, why have readbacks?
Or is that not what you mean?

"Kobra" wrote in message
. ..
Where was your readback?


I read it back and just like me he heard what his brain expected to hear:
'unable' when I actually said 'when able' . I wish I thought of that
while I was being reprimanded. I was just too busy flying, being
embarrassed and head scratching trying to figure out how this whole
misunderstanding took place.

But as I said before, the big issue with me was the way he snapped. I
just think he was a young man, given a little authority, probably a junior
trainee controller sitting with him, I'm in charge and fear me attitude
and probably having a bad day.

Kobra

Yeah, he got the phraseology bass-ackward.

Yeah, he gave you a ration you probably didn't have coming.

Maybe he was having a bad day. Maybe he just got told he's going to the
sandbox for another 13 months; for his second or third time. Maybe he was a
trainee trying to impress his trainer with his "control." Maybe a lot of
things.

If anyone else in the facility heard the exchange he's likely already gotten
some wall-to-wall counseling.

**** happens :-/ Be the adult and drive on.

Anthony, there you go again spouting and pontificating about topics where
you have absolutely no knowedge or experience other than playing your
computer game.

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:43:02 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote:

I seem to recall that ATC isn't responsible for not correcting
mis-heard readbacks so don't count on that, ever.


Not so. Controllers are still responsible to insure readbacks are correct.
That was never changed and never even proposed to be changed. It was widely
misreported.

Hm, OK, thanks. What I seem to remember is someone who got violated
for doing something that they read back incorrectly and used "but the
controller didn't fix the readback" as part of the defense and still
had the violation upheld as it wasn't ATC's issue if they didn't
correct an incorrect readback. Wouldn't be the first time I
misremembered somethin tho.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Kobra writes:

I did not mean to be misleading and of course I don't have all the
facts. Using only the information I do have, I feel it a fact that he
spent needless time lecturing a GA pilot who was also illegally in
the TCA. It would not be a stretch to infer that this distracted him
from his scope. No one can say that it's not *possible* or even
likely that if he didn't give his lecture that he may have seen the
conflict and warned the airliner about the VFR target's position and
direction of flight with the typical "altitude known".

Hey, who knows, but I am surprised yet happy that this person came
back to the FAA and ATC. The show *Air Emergency* (which is how I
learned about this) made it appear that once he came back to work, he
immediately decided that ATC was not for him and he never worked for
ATC again. I'm happy everything worked out for him. I felt really
bad for him when I saw the show.

If this is the one, I see no mention of ATC distraction:

NTSB Identification: DCA86AA041A.
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 31249.
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 129: Foreign AERONAVES DE MEXICO, S.A.
Accident occurred Sunday, August 31, 1986 in CERRITOS, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 3/7/1988
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32, registration: XAJED
Injuries: 82 Fatal, 8 Minor.

The Safety Board's full report on this investigation is provided as
Aviation Accident Report number AAR-87/07. To obtain a copy of this
report, or to view the executive summary online, please see the Web
site at http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/publictn.htm


AT APRX 1140 PDT, A PIPER PA-28, N4891F, DEPARTED TORRANCE, CA ON A
VFR FLT TO BIG BEAR, CA. AFTER TAKEOFF, THE PLT TURNED EASTBOUND TWD
THE PARADISE VORTAC WITH HIS X-PONDER SQUAWKING 1200. AT THAT TIME,
AEROMEXICO FLT 498 (DC-8, MEX REGISTRY XA-JED) WAS ON ARRIVAL, RCVG
NORTHBOUND VECTORS FM LAX APCH CTL (AR-1 CTLR) FOR AN ILS APCH TO THE
LAX INTL ARPT. AT 1151:04, THE CTLR ASKED FLT 498 TO RDC SPD TO 190
KTS & DSCND FM 7000' TO 6000'. DRG THIS TIME, THE CTLR WAS CTLG OTR
TRAFFIC & PROVIDING RADAR ADVISORIES, BUT DIDN'T SEE A DISPLAY FOR
N4891F ON HIS SCOPE. AT 1152:09, N4891F & FLT 498 CONVERGED & COLLIDED
AT APRX 6560', THEN FELL TO THE GND. AN INV REVEALED N4891F HAD
INADVERTENTLY ENTERED THE LAX TERMINAL CONTROL AREA (TCA) & WASN'T IN
RADIO CONTACT WITH ATC. LAX TRACON WASN'T EQUIPPED WITH AN AUTO
CONFLICT ALERT SYS & THE ANALOG BEACON RESPONSE FM N4891F'S X-PONDER
WASN'T DISPLAYED DUE TO EQUIP CONFIGURATION. N4891F'S PSN WAS
DISPLAYED BY AN ALPHANUMERIC TRIANGLE, BUT THE PRIMARY TARGET WASN'T
DISPLAYED DUE TO AN ATMOSPHERIC INVERSION.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
RADAR,APPROACH/DEPARTURE..INADEQUATE
PROCEDURE INADEQUATE..FAA(OTHER/ORGANIZATION)


Contributing Factors

IDENTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT ON RADAR..NOT ATTAINED
PROCEDURES/DIRECTIVES..NOT FOLLOWED..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
UNSAFE/HAZARDOUS CONDITION..INADVERTENT..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
VISUAL LOOKOUT..INADEQUATE..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
VISUAL LOOKOUT..INADEQUATE..PILOT IN COMMAND


Nobody cares what you see, you moron.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Kobra writes:

Ok so...I took-off on an IFR flight plan and I had just leveled off
at 4000' north bound for their fix. Next they gave me a vector of
090. After a minute or so I asked the controller, "McGuire Approach,
Cardinal 07G, any chance direct Smyrna (ENO)?" The response I got
was, "07G direct Smyrna unable." Ok...that would be fine if that was
what my busy brain heard, but I did not hear it that way...my brain
heard, "07G direct Smyrna 'when able'." Shortly after I turned
direct for ENO I got a VERY large lecture with unneeded and
unnecessary attitude. "07G I TOLD YOU STAY 090. CAN'T YOU LISTEN OR
UNDERSTAND ATC INSTRUCTIONS? WHEN I GIVE YOU A VECTOR YOU ARE TO
FOLLOW IT EXACTLY AND CAREFULLY!!"

When I explained to him that I heard him say, "...direct ENO when
able." he became even more belligerent. "I DID *NOT* SAY THAT!!
YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO ATC INSTRUCTION MORE CAREFULLY AND FOLLOW MY
INSTRUCTION EXACTLY."

Where was your readback?

Granted I heard him wrong and I made a mistake. But I think the
controller needs to take some responsibility for using confusing
verbiage and surely it was unprofessional to lay me out like that.

Had you read back the instructions, the chances of any confusion would
have been greatly reduced. You should always read things back.

This reminds me of how a
mid-air occurred in LA because a new controller took time to admonish
a GA pilot for a couple minutes while a commercial plane and a Piper
collided right in front of him on his screen.

When was this?

So my question to Steve McNicoll is...is that standard verbiage to
say, "...direct Smyrna 'unable'??. 'cause I'm here to tell ya that,
that can be EASILY confused with 'direct Smyrna 'when able'. What's
your thoughts on this and did he use proper language or did he just
use poor phraseology?

If you read back "when able" after he says "unable," he'll probably
catch it and correct you. If you don't read anything back, you never
know.

Anthony, you don't know **** from Shinola about using an AM radio, you
****ing moron. A total waste of life.

"Viperdoc" wrote in
:

Anthony, there you go again spouting and pontificating about topics
where you have absolutely no knowedge or experience other than playing
your computer game.




One has to wonder how Anthony can even manage to play a computer game!

One has to wonder how Anthony can even manage to play a computer game!

No one ever said he was any good at it, and he's probably orders of
magnitude worse than he thinks he is.