"Cleared Straight-In Runway X; Report Y Miles Final"

Jim,
I'd just drop this, move on, and remember the experience. Did you get
flight following or go IFR to PRC, if so maybe I talked to you NE of
PRC. Anyway, is PRC a contract tower, I don't know, just wondering.
As far as the controller in question, a few things are possible: she
didnt say anything else about it, right? So she probably forgot about
it and moved on to other things, busy or not. If she was truly troubled
by it, but not enough to have you call in, she probably questioned
herself if she was clear enough to you in what she wanted of you.
If it was that big a deal, it'll probably be something she changes
about the clarity of her clearances, and she'll watch out for readbacks
that show the slightest amount of doubt in what's expected of the
pilot.

Personally I read alot in the tone of readbacks, even if theyre correct.
Sure, I could always say later that "hey, he read it back right, it's on
his back", but I dont like answering those kinds of questions, nor do
I like tapes pulled. Resolve it at the time if possible and move on and
do my job.

If you fly enough you know controllers and pilots both screw up. You
also know, as someone else rightly pointed out, that a controller can
be manipulative, unfairly so to make you look bad and them good. I
see it fairly often with certain personality types where I work. It's
almost as if they're setting someone up for failure for their own
kicks. I'm not implying that was the case here, might've been a power
play on her part, she mightve been genuinely surprised or alarmed
to not see you where she expected. But if there was no traffic, why
make a big deal of it. We dont have the tape, we dont know how
she put it. It could've been just her way of talking that seemed rude
to you, but wasn't her intent. If she said nothing else about it, she
didnt consider it a big deal, and neither should you.

At the risk of this post being longwinded, I'll give you a recent
example. It alone will probably flare up this topic again with
people and their opinions and references. For some reason,
this airline we regularly work started changing the way they
operate and comply with clearances out of one of our airports.
In short, they get a VFR climb on an IFR clearance and think
they can deviate 120 degrees from their IFR route, but the
clearance they request, and receive, is VFR climb on course,
which in itself is a questionable clearance in itself IMO, but
that's another story. Anyway, imagine Dept Pt A, first fix
is Pt B about 25nm away is a 200 heading, Pt C is about 100
nm away on a 050 heading. These aircraft would take off
and fly a 130 heading to join the course between B and C, or
just turn direct C. This started hapenning on a daily basis,
several times a day, different crews. Controllers were noticing,
and not particularly caring for it, but not saying anything about
it except amongst themselves. Finally, as tactfully as I could,
I asked what was up. I guess my only real beef is that they ask
for VFR climbs, the airlines I'm talking about here, but they
really only want it to climb on course (no departure procedure)
and dont want the responsibility of separating themselves, which
a VFR climb requires. But I didnt bring it up with these guys (2
different crews), I just said if all of us had the "no harm, no foul"
rule, we'd let it slide if there wasnt traffic. But the ONE time
there is traffic and this turn puts them right in its face, the crew
will have to answer as to how they perceived "as filed" meant
a deviation like this. They apologized and saw the point I was
trying to make, which is basically covering their own butts. I
told them it wouldnt go any further than that, but just ask for the
shortcut, how often is that particular one turned down? Hardly
ever. Luckily, this sector is kind of off by itself and out of the
hearing range of my supervisor. Once they hear something like
this, the "no harm, no foul" rule goes right out the window and
it's nothing but trouble for everyone involved. Phone calls, etc.

Point I'm trying to make (slowly, gradually, sorry) is that I'm
sure theres been times where I may have snipped at a pilot that
messed up, it's hapenned to me as a pilot (sometimes my mistake,
sometimes not). I cant speak for all controllers, but most I know
are over it pretty quickly, whether you stay on freq for just a
few more seconds or an hour. If I notice myself doing that, and
I get the impression the pilot feels as if he's on the verge of having
to call in or get violated, I try to make it clear that is not the case.
I only get in trouble by my conversational tone on freq, which the
supervisors hate, and I hear about regularly. Now you see why
I dont want tapes pulled? Picture hangar flying, that kind of
chit-chat, but on freq. Makes for a more enjoyable and relaxed
experience for all, and that's what I'm shooting for.

One last thought, in reference to your "it is potentially
dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently"
statement, more controllers should be pilots. That wont change
the definitions, but less of an "us against them" mentality that
is out there.

As usual, these are just my observations, experience, and opinions.
You guys that argue just for arguments sake, or flame for kicks, can
pound it sideways, as my main man Phil Hendrie says.
To the rest, happy flying,
Chris

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
link.net...

IOW, the controller's job is to insure spacing. As Jim hasn't mentioned
whether there was other traffic inbound or in the pattern, I'd think that
would be an important factor in whether he was right or wrong to be
off-center. If there was no traffic, there'd be no conflict and the
controller was just being manipulative. If there was traffic, and the
controller didn't call it out, that might be grounds for complaint. After
all is said and done, the FARs make it quite clear who the PIC is, and one
requirement is that they're in the cockpit.


He's wrong whether or not there was other traffic. He did not follow the
controller's instruction.

"Judah" wrote in message
...

I think Steven interprets the parenthetic reference to "final approach
course" as a definition of Final Approach Course as the Extended Runway
Centerline.


Steven did not interpret anything. Steven posted the definition.



Whether that is a valid definition and a true requirement could come into
question,


Why? What's open to question?

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Please enlighten me...

What can happen in five seconds?

That's about as much time as any decent instructor needs to put the plane
into an unusual attitude during instrument flight training. You never know
when you're going to fly through some wind shear that would do the same
thing.

In any case, the idea that a pilot should close their eyes during flight is
just silly, especially when there's nothing useful to be gained from it.

Pete

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
[...]
IOW, the controller's job is to insure spacing.

*At the runway*. Elsewhere, it is up to the pilots in command to
ensure traffic avoidance.

In order to do that, all aircraft in controlled airspace are "controlled".

[...]
And you may be right that the controller should be fired if they
create such a situation, but if you don't follow the controller's
instruction and wind up dead, who do you think is going to feel
worse? You, or the controller? I know I'd rather be fired than dead.

No argument, there.

Whatever else you may think about the situation, it's a serious
problem when a controller issues an instruction that is simply not
even comprehended. In this case, the instruction used a standard
phrase, so the error was the pilot's.

I agree. I'm not defending the decision to fly 30 degrees off-center to
the threshold. But, I do wonder whether we have all the information that
would allow us to reach a conclusion that it was an error, as opposed to a
poor choice? There are more than a few airports where it would be
inadvisable, if not impossible to execute such an instruction by a strict
interpretation of the AIM's descriptions of "Straight in". That may be why
it appears in there and not in the FARs? If it's not in the FARs, it's at
least a point of discussion rather than an infraction.

Neil

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:11:23 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
wrote in
. net::

more controllers should be pilots.

And, the corollary, more pilots should be familiar with Order 7110.65,
is also true.

"AJW" wrote in message

Just a thought, without trying to start anything. You're in cloud at night.
You're about to break out to a vision of some kind of bright light patterns
associated with an ILS, possibly with rabbits.

Why are you concerned with preserving night vision?

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
Perhaps you meant another word. Anything "regulatory" requires
publication in the Federal Register in proposed form for public
comment.

The controller's handbook "regulates" what each and every controller must
do.

As for your claim that "anything 'regulatory' requires publication in the
Federal Register", that's simply false. For example, changes to the
Practical Test Standards are not required to be published, but they are very
much regulatory.

In any case, this particular nit has nothing to do with the core topic at
hand, even if there was a point to it.

Pete

"Newps" wrote in message
...
[...] Now, why
the FAA doesn't just change the class D rules to protect themselves I
can't explain. Seems like after banging your head on the wall for a
while you may want to change some things.

Seems like, I'd agree. Of course, as you and I both know, the US courts
grant incorrect judgments all the time, especially when it comes to
liability issues. I'm not sure making the Class D rules more explicit
would help things.

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message

I agree. I'm not defending the decision to fly 30 degrees off-center
to the threshold. But, I do wonder whether we have all the
information that would allow us to reach a conclusion that it was an
error, as opposed to a poor choice?

Not sure what you mean there. All we can base our observations on is
what Jim has posted. He's specifically said that the controller told
him to be at a position that he never wound up at. That's an error
AND a poor choice.

You're placing the entire responsibility on Jim. Interesting that Steven's
replies do not. Since he stated that he is a tower controller, I think I'd
go with his interpretation of Jim's situation. Of course, the plot only
thickens if you are *both* ATCs. ;-)

Neil