Some bad controllers

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

No. I assume the ATC computers know which airports are non-tower.



Why does that make a difference?



For non-tower airports, I'd require the controller or FSS specialist to
close the flight plan when the pilot radios or calls in.



That's what's being done now. You said that was inadequate.



The difference is I'd have the computer flag an alarm if this didn't
happen. Doesn't sound like that is the case now.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

The difference is I'd have the computer flag an alarm if this didn't
happen. Doesn't sound like that is the case now.


You'd shift responsibility from the controller to the computer. Why is that
better?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

What does the controller do with the strip when an airplane lands at a
tower equipped airport?



If it's a satellite facility, he'll drop the strip in the discard pile. If
it's a tower with a colocated radar approach the tower probably won't have a
strip at all. The last strip is printed in the TRACON and the tower gets
it's information from the BRITE.



If he/she discards the strip manually, then
that is taking an action. It isn't an action to close the flight plan,
but nonetheless, it is an action taken upon completion of the flight.



So what action does close the flight plan at a towered field then?

Beats me, I'm not a controller. From what you've said, doesn't sound
like anything does. Nothing needs to though when you can see the
airplane land or crash as the case may be.


It wasn't clear earlier in the thread that ANYTHING was done upon
completion of an IFR flight into a tower equipped airport or a non-tower
airport for that matter.



Well, I explained what was done, you apparently don't buy it. That's okay
with me.

I never saw any comment about having a strip that is thrown away until
I'd commented several times about needing something as a reminder to
ensure the airplane had closed the flight plan.

I saw comments about nothing happening and nothing needing to happen,
but no explanation as to what actually was happening. I never said I
didn't buy having a strip that stays in front of the controller until
the controller manually disposes of it.


Matt

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

So an action is taken. That is all I was asking about from the start.



All the strips end up in the discard pile; arrivals, departures, and
overflights.



As long as the strip is there and must be disposed of manually, then I
wouldn't automate it.



Were you under the impression that they wouls eventually get up and walk
away on their own?

I'm not a controller and haven't visited an ATC facility in probably 20
years. I didn't assume that manual flight strips were still in use, but
knowing the gummint I should have figured that would still be the case.


It sounded from earlier responses you made that
NOTHING was done at the termination of an IFR flight. It is clear that
something is done, and that something is discarding the strip. Works
for me. It was the thought that no action was taken that had me
concerned.



I see. You were under the impression that strips were retained forever,
eventually filling the facility and requiring construction of another.

No, see above. I assumed that technology had progressed at least a tiny
bit since I visited a tower in the late 70s. Obviously, a poor assumption.


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Beats me, I'm not a controller.


Well, I am, and you apparently felt you were in a position to tell me I was
wrong.



From what you've said, doesn't sound
like anything does. Nothing needs to though when you can see the
airplane land or crash as the case may be.


Yeah, I think I said something like that several messages ago.



I never saw any comment about having a strip that is thrown away until
I'd commented several times about needing something as a reminder to
ensure the airplane had closed the flight plan.


Why did you assume there wasn't something as a reminder?



I saw comments about nothing happening and nothing needing to happen,
but no explanation as to what actually was happening. I never said I
didn't buy having a strip that stays in front of the controller until
the controller manually disposes of it.


Okay, so do you now understand that nothing happens and nothing needs to
happen?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

The difference is I'd have the computer flag an alarm if this didn't
happen. Doesn't sound like that is the case now.



You'd shift responsibility from the controller to the computer. Why is that
better?



I've worked for more than 20 years with both computers and people. The
computers are much more reliable at performing routine tasks. There is
simply no comparison. I prefer to have the controllers performing
functions that require higher mental skills.

I've automated many industrial processes that had formerly been operated
by humans. In every single case, the process was more stable and more
reliable when the humans weren't "in the loop."

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Beats me, I'm not a controller.



Well, I am, and you apparently felt you were in a position to tell me I was
wrong.

Go back and read it again. I never said you were wrong. I said the
system had a flaw if it didn't have a means, beyond the memory of a
controller, to ensure that a pilot landing at a non-tower field on an
IFR flight plan closed his flight plan. Once I knew that flight strips
were still in use and in front of the controller until they removed them
(which provides the memory jogger I was after), I agreed that no further
automation was needed. This is an archaic system, but certainly one
that should work.


From what you've said, doesn't sound
like anything does. Nothing needs to though when you can see the
airplane land or crash as the case may be.



Yeah, I think I said something like that several messages ago.

But you didn't say why. Sorry, but I seldom accept "it is right because
I say so" as a viable answer without knowing the why.


I never saw any comment about having a strip that is thrown away until
I'd commented several times about needing something as a reminder to
ensure the airplane had closed the flight plan.



Why did you assume there wasn't something as a reminder?

Because there were replies that suggested that there was nothing.


I saw comments about nothing happening and nothing needing to happen,

but no explanation as to what actually was happening. I never said I

didn't buy having a strip that stays in front of the controller until
the controller manually disposes of it.



Okay, so do you now understand that nothing happens and nothing needs to
happen?

No, I understand that something happens (a flight strip must me manually
removed from in front of the controller), and this something is
sufficient to ensure that an overdue IFR flight is detected in a
reasonable time frame. It was the insistence on your part that nothing
happened and nothing needed to happen that kept this thread going. This
is pretty disengenuous when you knew that something does happen. Then
again, I know from past experience that you love to argue over trivia...
:-)


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

I'm not a controller and haven't visited an ATC facility in probably 20
years. I didn't assume that manual flight strips were still in use, but
knowing the gummint I should have figured that would still be the case.

No, see above. I assumed that technology had progressed at least a tiny
bit since I visited a tower in the late 70s. Obviously, a poor assumption.


Yeah, paper strips have been with us a long time, but that doesn't mean
they're obsolete. If all the flight data is on a screen and the computer
goes down I lose all the flight data. If the flight data is printed on
paper strips and the computer goes down I still have the flight data on
paper strips.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

I've worked for more than 20 years with both computers and people. The
computers are much more reliable at performing routine tasks. There is
simply no comparison. I prefer to have the controllers performing
functions that require higher mental skills.

I've automated many industrial processes that had formerly been operated
by humans. In every single case, the process was more stable and more
reliable when the humans weren't "in the loop."


Please explain how you'd automate the search.

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Go back and read it again. I never said you were wrong.


Okay. I went back and read it again. I said no action is taken by the
controller to close a flight plan. You said if the controller discards the
strip manually, then that is taking an action.



But you didn't say why. Sorry, but I seldom accept "it is right because
I say so" as a viable answer without knowing the why.


But I did say why. Go back and read it again.



Because there were replies that suggested that there was nothing.


Odd that I didn't see them.



No, I understand that something happens (a flight strip must me manually
removed from in front of the controller), and this something is
sufficient to ensure that an overdue IFR flight is detected in a
reasonable time frame.


That happens with departure and overflight strips as well.



It was the insistence on your part that nothing
happened and nothing needed to happen that kept this thread going.


Well, that's the way it is, but you're free to believe whatever you choose.



This is pretty disengenuous when you knew that something does
happen. Then again, I know from past experience that you love to
argue over trivia...
:-)


So how are IFR arrivals differentiated from IFR departures and overflights
if the strips are treated the same?