A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Riddle me this, pilots



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old August 19th 03, 05:03 PM
Michael 182
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Martin" wrote in message
om...
Chip youre a good man, many controllers (well the ones I know here in
the northeast at least) tend to just say "f**king pilot" and move on


While we are (at least tangentially) on the subject of good controllers...

I was picking my way through a line of thunderstorms west of Huntsville a
few weeks ago. I have stormscope, but no radar. In and out of IMC, and the
stormscope is starting to look like a video game screen. The controller
(Memphis Center, I believe) was unbelievably helpful. He was working a dozen
or so planes, offering quick deviations left and right, while at the same
time responding to calls for info from pilots like me. I ended up (with his
blessing, of course) descending 10,000 feet in steep turns to avoid a storm
ahead of me, turning 50 degrees north to go under the clouds in a gap he and
I agreed was there, and was past the weather in ten minutes.

If I wanted to commend his work to his supervisor, how would I do so? He did
a great job - every handoff was accompanied by "123.45, Great job today!
Thanks"


Michael



Ads
  #42  
Old August 19th 03, 05:07 PM
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Chip Jones wrote:

"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" wrote in message
...
[snipped]


Note to Chip! Chip, your name rings a bell...didn't you have a rather
elaborate ATC website { I could have the wrong person but your sector
mention after your name [ZTL] rings a bell ... as well as a secondary
website dealing with flight safety [read: crash] investigation issues?


Not me. :-)


Naturally instead of my doing the legwork first and digging it up, I
relied on memory [faulty in this case..] and sure enough, wrong person,
this person was out of Chicago and not the Atlanta region. Besides the
real-deal [and like others here who duly hold FAA tickets, presently or
back when...] I enjoy the flight sims inclusive of ATC sims. My comments
as to the adjunctive value of flight sims to the real deal is fairly
well known and I was/am one of those who tend to get away from the 'it's
a game' theme or mind-set of flight sims and prefer, if you will, the
flight sims as an adjunctive learning tool to the real McCoy...the
limitations [big bucks motion sims] notwithstanding.

It struck me however that not only are flight sims utilized by the
commercial folks and Uncle Sam [et al] to boot in an adjunctive capacity
but for some 12 to 16 weeks of initial professional ATC training, ATC
folks go to Oklahoma City [so I've read anyway] and use Doc Wesson's ATC
'SIMULATION' programs for their initial professional training.

In any event, I emailed this controller and he had an excellent website
tutorial on real-deal ATC and I recall commenting that I personally
would not want that kind of daily pressure cooker responsibility or
nightmares about 'deals' and making instant judgment calls in an often
hectic ['chaotic' atmosphere perhaps at some of the larger airports]
atmosphere that can effect so many lives. I daresay that the ATC
brethren perhaps have a high incidence, inter alia, of stomach ulcers!
Whew! I respect their profession and give them much credit but it's a
profession that I personally would not want to perform. I'll leave the
manipulation(s) of those separation issues and emergency actions or the
proverbial "string of pearls" goal to those professionals who can do it
and do it well. But, bottom line, I'm sure glad they are there!

Doc Tony

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 =---

  #43  
Old August 19th 03, 05:21 PM
Bob Gardner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In a seagoing context (ships are bigger than airplanes), when you turn away
from crossing traffic you present the side of the ship to the
intruder...lots of vulnerability. When you turn toward the crossing traffic
you present a smaller target for a shorter time.

Bob Gardner

"blanche cohen" wrote in message
...
Um....Bob & Chip...could you explain in more detail the reason
for the "turn into traffic"? I'm having problems visualizing
it. And I have the most horrible feeling that someday I'll run
in the same problem and want to understand it.

thanks



  #44  
Old August 19th 03, 05:43 PM
Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" wrote:

Chip Jones wrote:

"Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" wrote in message
...
[snipped]


Note to Chip! Chip, your name rings a bell...didn't you have a rather
elaborate ATC website { I could have the wrong person but your sector
mention after your name [ZTL] rings a bell ... as well as a secondary
website dealing with flight safety [read: crash] investigation issues?


Not me. :-)


Naturally instead of my doing the legwork first and digging it up, I
relied on memory [faulty in this case..] and sure enough, wrong person,
this person was out of Chicago and not the Atlanta region. Besides the
real-deal [and like others here who duly hold FAA tickets, presently or
back when...] I enjoy the flight sims inclusive of ATC sims. My comments
as to the adjunctive value of flight sims to the real deal is fairly
well known and I was/am one of those who tend to get away from the 'it's
a game' theme or mind-set of flight sims and prefer, if you will, the
flight sims as an adjunctive learning tool to the real McCoy...the
limitations [big bucks motion sims] notwithstanding.

It struck me however that not only are flight sims utilized by the
commercial folks and Uncle Sam [et al] to boot in an adjunctive capacity
but for some 12 to 16 weeks of initial professional ATC training, ATC
folks go to Oklahoma City [so I've read anyway] and use Doc Wesson's ATC
'SIMULATION' programs for their initial professional training.

In any event, I emailed this controller and he had an excellent website
tutorial on real-deal ATC and I recall commenting that I personally
would not want that kind of daily pressure cooker responsibility or
nightmares about 'deals' and making instant judgment calls in an often
hectic ['chaotic' atmosphere perhaps at some of the larger airports]
atmosphere that can effect so many lives. I daresay that the ATC
brethren perhaps have a high incidence, inter alia, of stomach ulcers!
Whew! I respect their profession and give them much credit but it's a
profession that I personally would not want to perform. I'll leave the
manipulation(s) of those separation issues and emergency actions or the
proverbial "string of pearls" goal to those professionals who can do it
and do it well. But, bottom line, I'm sure glad they are there!

Doc Tony



ADDENDUM....

I suppose I should add a qualifier here lest I get an email to the tune
of 'Hey, Doc, flying, be it a 152 or a Trip' 7 is 'responsibility',
yes?' and most assuredly true enough but please note that in my comments
about ATC the operative words were 'daily pressure' and that is the part
that I would just as soon do without in terms of such 'daily' pressures
being the means of my livelihood.

Explains too, no doubt, why I'm not a commercial ATP pilot by
profession although I'll say this and recognizing that both carry an
enormous amount of responsibility : If I had the proverbial magic wand
and could wave same and thus have the requisite savvy and experience for
'either' the ATP ticket and gig --versus-- an ATC controller at a
'major' hub, I'd probably choose the ATP ticket because [I'll no doubt
hear about this! :-( ...] given the choice between flight management
monitoring once at cruise altitude with a Triple 7 --versus-- sitting in
the hot seat at 24/7 JFK, LAX, ATL and the other pressure cooker TRACONS
and related ATC heavy traffic get-it-done assignments, I'd take the
flight deck of a Jumbo or Triple 7. I mean you can get 'some' break and
there is the right seat FO to boot! But ATC every day with NO mandated
FAA time-off/no-fly regs [for the ATP], nahhhhh.

Doc Tony


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 =---

  #45  
Old August 19th 03, 05:51 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Chip Jones wrote:



I disagree with you here. I do not use the phraseology "immediately" unless
I am worried about an imminent collision. In 13 years of ATC, I have used
"immediately" probably less than twenty times. In order for the baron to
slip behind the VFR, he did not need to turn 90 degrees, he only needed to
turn 45 to 50 degrees right. I assumed that combining "immediately" with a
suggested 80 degree right turn, there was the highest probability of a
successful outcome for the Baron. In the event, the left turn of 20 or 30
degrees that the Baron pilot executed in the event was insufficient to keep
his target from merging with the intruder.

Chip, ZTL


I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target provisions of
the 7110.65?

  #46  
Old August 19th 03, 07:00 PM
Scott Lowrey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Chip Jones" wrote:
The other day, I had an air traffic situation ...


Sorry to sound like a cheerleader, but this has been a great thread.
Always interesting to hear things from the ATC point of view.

BTW, Chip, do you know Don Brown? I believe he also works ZTL. As a
rookie pilot just venturing into the wide world of ATC, I've learned a
lot from his "Say Again?" columns at AvWeb.

-Scott
  #47  
Old August 19th 03, 07:31 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Capt. Doug" wrote in message
...

While your scenario may be right on the money, let me point out that some
pilots will claim to be IMC even when there isn't a cloud in the sky.

Their
reasoning is that by doing this, it keep the onus of seperation on the
controller. We both know this isn't quite how it works, but then again, a
chimpanzee flew Mercury 7.


A chimpanzee did not fly Mercury 7. The chimpanzee "Ham" flew on
Mercury-Redstone 2 and the chimpanzee "Enos" flew on Mercury-Atlas 5.
Mercury-Atlas 7 was flown by Scott Carpenter.


  #48  
Old August 19th 03, 07:40 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message ...

I guess had he been above 10,000 you could have used the merging target
provisions of the 7110.65?


How so?

Merging target procedures apply to radar identified aircraft.


  #49  
Old August 19th 03, 08:11 PM
Ben Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Snowbird wrote:
If you *believed* that he was really in
the soup, why not just pretend the VFR target was a lost-comms IFR
guy and gotten the Baron out of the way?


Just to point out here, Chip isn't working the "VFR" target, he


I know, but it worries me that just because the VFR-in-IMC guy is
breaking the rules, the controller is left in a position where due
to regulations and habit/mindset he is unable to resolve[*] a traffic
situation that would otherwise be routine. In software this is one
of those "can't happen" cases. You "can't" have a guy in IMC that's
not on an IFR flightplan converging with an IFR plane. So the regs
don't allow for it and anyone evaluating the situation tries to make
it fit into one of the other categories instead.
[*] obviously no metal was bent here, but the Baron used his emergency
authority to deviate from his clearance trying to get out of the way.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/
  #50  
Old August 19th 03, 08:23 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message ...

"5-1-8 Merging Target Procedures
a. Except while they are established in a holding pattern, apply merging
target procedures to all radar identified:

1. Aircraft at 10,000 feet and above.

2. Turbojet aircraft regardless of altitude."


I'm familiar with the paragraph, you haven't answered my question.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. Bush Air Home Built 0 May 25th 04 06:18 AM
Any Pitts S-1 pilots in this group? Kai Glaesner Aerobatics 4 April 12th 04 12:10 AM
Photographer seeking 2 pilots / warbirds for photo shoot Wings Of Fury Aerobatics 0 February 26th 04 06:59 PM
Pilot's Brains Develop Differently Badwater Bill Home Built 3 August 22nd 03 04:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.