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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Luke wrote:
"Chip Jones" wrote: Call me "Approach" or "Radio" and I retaliate immediately. There must be bad blood in Atlanta. A couple of times, Center has handed me off to Approach and I've checked in still using "Center." It got me a very frosty reply both times. Controlling is tedious work and you thus have to make your own excitement. :-) Matt |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Dan Luke wrote: "Chip Jones" wrote: Call me "Approach" or "Radio" and I retaliate immediately. There must be bad blood in Atlanta. A couple of times, Center has handed me off to Approach and I've checked in still using "Center." It got me a very frosty reply both times. Controlling is tedious work and you thus have to make your own excitement. :-) BLOCKED! :-) Chip, ZTL |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Chip Jones wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message ... Dan Luke wrote: "Chip Jones" wrote: Call me "Approach" or "Radio" and I retaliate immediately. There must be bad blood in Atlanta. A couple of times, Center has handed me off to Approach and I've checked in still using "Center." It got me a very frosty reply both times. Controlling is tedious work and you thus have to make your own excitement. :-) BLOCKED! :-) Chip, ZTL Oh, no, I think it got through just fine! :-) Matt |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote
Safety first and above all, right? No, not right. If safety was first and above all, we would all ground ourselves and fly the airlines. No matter what we do, we won't ever be able to match the airline safety record - our equipment, training, and experienec are simply not up to it. So the very fact that we fly these little airplanes demonstrates that safety is NOT the most important thing, and that we are willing to trade off safety for what appear to us to be good and sufficient reasons - be they cost, fun, or convenience. You pay him to be correct 100% of the time, every time. Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Nobody is correct 100% of the time. Mistakes are going to be made. Any system that depends on human reliability is unreliable. Further, the more complex you make the system, the more mistakes will be made. If you need consistently correct execution of a complex set of rules some of which are used only rarely, you need a computer, not a human. I think this controller is breaking regs because he doesn't know any better. I agree. The important question to ask is WHY doesn't he know any better? He's not an isolated example. Try asking for an IFR climb while providing own obstacle clearance sometime. In my opinion, the rules are overly complex. The complexity is the result of accidents that have occurred - an attempt is made to have the rules cover every possible situation. First, that's impossible anyway. Second, this results in a complex set of rules some of which are applicable only rarely. This is a situation that encourages an increase in human error. I think at some point you have to simplify the rules, even if this makes them less comprehensive, because the reduction in human error will more than offset the systematic error in rare cases. Michael |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message om... "Chip Jones" wrote Safety first and above all, right? No, not right. If safety was first and above all, we would all ground ourselves and fly the airlines. No matter what we do, we won't ever be able to match the airline safety record - our equipment, training, and experienec are simply not up to it. So the very fact that we fly these little airplanes demonstrates that safety is NOT the most important thing, and that we are willing to trade off safety for what appear to us to be good and sufficient reasons - be they cost, fun, or convenience. I was referring to the controller. Controllers aren't flying those "little airplanes". They're operating an air traffic system where safety is the most important goal, even above efficiency. You pay him to be correct 100% of the time, every time. Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Nobody is correct 100% of the time. I never said anyone was correct 100% of the time. I said the controller is paid to be correct 100% of the time- that is the air safety goal of the FAA, zero errors. Not saying it's achievable, but that is the goal and that is part of why the controller is drawing a salary funded by your tax dollars. Mistakes are going to be made. Any system that depends on human reliability is unreliable. I strongly disagree. Human ATC is not unreliable at all, nor is it inherintly error prone. Further, the more complex you make the system, the more mistakes will be made. If you need consistently correct execution of a complex set of rules some of which are used only rarely, you need a computer, not a human. LOL! What is so complex about issuing a legal Visual Approach Clearance? I think this controller is breaking regs because he doesn't know any better. I agree. The important question to ask is WHY doesn't he know any better? He's not an isolated example. Maybe this controller is the product of the Clinton-era "Train to Succeed" program, in which FAA management deemed that any human being, especially female and minority human beings, could succeed as a full performance level controllers, if only given enough training time, regardless of failing benchmark checkrides. The result is that now we have some weak controllers whom we can't fire because we don't have a replacement pipe-line. In my facility, we don't even have time to do recurrent training anymore. Try asking for an IFR climb while providing own obstacle clearance sometime. What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day. In my opinion, the rules are overly complex. The complexity is the result of accidents that have occurred - an attempt is made to have the rules cover every possible situation. First, that's impossible anyway. Second, this results in a complex set of rules some of which are applicable only rarely. This is a situation that encourages an increase in human error. I think at some point you have to simplify the rules, even if this makes them less comprehensive, because the reduction in human error will more than offset the systematic error in rare cases. Interesting points, but I don't see the rules governing cruise clearances and visual approaches to be overly complex. Chip, ZTL |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message
om... "Chip Jones" wrote Maybe this controller is the product of the Clinton-era "Train to Succeed" Oh, dont get me started on that piece of crapola program. I always called it "Train to Suck". And now they wonder why all these operational errors are popping up, often with these people. Try asking for an IFR climb while providing own obstacle clearance sometime. What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day. My guess of what he may mean here is this ridiculous request for a, and I quote, "VMC Climb" that so many, mostly Air Shuttle (Mesa), pilots keep asking for. What they want is a VFR climb for terrain, but not provide their own separation from traffic. They have been told repeatedly on freq about it, they have been made to call in about it, and their ops have been called about it to knock it off. You want to provide your own terrain separation, great, you want a VFR climb, great. But there's no such clearance as a "VMC Climb" clearance. I ignore it, and just say "climb VFR to and maintain 17,000". If they say, or I ask if they can provide their own terrain and obstacle clearance, it doesn't have to be restated in the clearance, like "cleared to soandso as filed, provide your own terrain and obstruction clearance and climb and..." no way jose. One last point on this IFR climb while providing own terrain clearance, this guy (Mesa again) didnt like it that I wouldnt give him approval to do just that the other day. The problem was he wanted an IFR clearance and provide terrain separation but wanted an altitude 1,000' BELOW my MIA, and the terrain only got higher the further he went. He wouldnt accept an OTP clearance, and sure wouldnt go VFR, and unless someone can find it somewhere, we cant assign an altitude like that in this situation. I know our MIA's are not readily accesible to pilots, but he was also below the MEA of a nearby airway, and even lower than the transition from the VOR to the ILS he was overflying. Out here in the land of 14'rs, we get it all the time from above about assigning an altitude below our MIA's, as someone will go NORDO, go into an area of higher MIA's, and smack. Sometimes the MIA's are higher than MEA's, sometimes lower. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in. Chris |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
We've got Mesa out here now flying the RJ's to Phoenix and Vegas. Haven't
had any goofy requests like that. I'll have to watch that. "SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message nk.net... My guess of what he may mean here is this ridiculous request for a, and I quote, "VMC Climb" that so many, mostly Air Shuttle (Mesa), pilots keep asking for. What they want is a VFR climb for terrain, but not provide their own separation from traffic. They have been told repeatedly on freq about it, they have been made to call in about it, and their ops have been called about it to knock it off. You want to provide your own terrain separation, great, you want a VFR climb, great. But there's no such clearance as a "VMC Climb" clearance. I ignore it, and just say "climb VFR to and maintain 17,000". If they say, or I ask if they can provide their own terrain and obstacle clearance, it doesn't have to be restated in the clearance, like "cleared to soandso as filed, provide your own terrain and obstruction clearance and climb and..." no way jose. One last point on this IFR climb while providing own terrain clearance, this guy (Mesa again) didnt like it that I wouldnt give him approval to do just that the other day. The problem was he wanted an IFR clearance and provide terrain separation but wanted an altitude 1,000' BELOW my MIA, and the terrain only got higher the further he went. He wouldnt accept an OTP clearance, and sure wouldnt go VFR, and unless someone can find it somewhere, we cant assign an altitude like that in this situation. I know our MIA's are not readily accesible to pilots, but he was also below the MEA of a nearby airway, and even lower than the transition from the VOR to the ILS he was overflying. Out here in the land of 14'rs, we get it all the time from above about assigning an altitude below our MIA's, as someone will go NORDO, go into an area of higher MIA's, and smack. Sometimes the MIA's are higher than MEA's, sometimes lower. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in. Chris |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"SeeAndAvoid" wrote
Try asking for an IFR climb while providing own obstacle clearance sometime. What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day. My guess of what he may mean here is this ridiculous request for a, and I quote, "VMC Climb" Nope, not at all. What I mean is this: I have departed VFR under low but legal (say 1500 ft) ceilings, and call to pick up my IFR clearance. I didn't get it on the ground because there is no clearance delivery frequency, and doing it by phone is a pain - and should not be necessary anyway. So I get "Climb VFR to 2000" only of course I can't because of the 1500 ft ceilings. So I say "Unable, but I can provide my own obstruction clearance to 2000 on this heading." Sometimes it works as advertised, but sometimes the controller insists there is no such thing, and either I accept the VFR climb or I can squawk VFR, but he can't issue me a clearance below the MIA. Well, I can get ****ed, or I can land and start over, or I can demand to call the manager, or I can just grit my teeth and climb. that so many, mostly Air Shuttle (Mesa), pilots keep asking for. What they want is a VFR climb for terrain, but not provide their own separation from traffic. Well, that's I want too. I understand I'm below you MIA - I'll provide my own terrain clearance until I get there. All I want is for you to spearate me from other IFR traffic while I do. It's in the book, and it's not unreasonable. One last point on this IFR climb while providing own terrain clearance, this guy (Mesa again) didnt like it that I wouldnt give him approval to do just that the other day. The problem was he wanted an IFR clearance and provide terrain separation but wanted an altitude 1,000' BELOW my MIA, and the terrain only got higher the further he went. He wouldnt accept an OTP clearance, and sure wouldnt go VFR, and unless someone can find it somewhere, we cant assign an altitude like that in this situation. Well, I encountered this practice in Part 121 while studying for my ATP written. See, you're making my point for me. Clearly the rules are too complex - because here's a pilot trying to gain an operational advantage by doing it like it says in the book - probably because his copilot just ran into it studying for ATP written - and you've never heard of it. I know our MIA's are not readily accesible to pilots, but he was also below the MEA of a nearby airway, and even lower than the transition from the VOR to the ILS he was overflying. Out here in the land of 14'rs, we get it all the time from above about assigning an altitude below our MIA's, as someone will go NORDO, go into an area of higher MIA's, and smack. Sometimes the MIA's are higher than MEA's, sometimes lower. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in. Well, actually the rules for taking advantage of that particular twist in the regs require that you have at least 5 miles vis, be at least 1000 ft above any bkn/ovc layers, and any layers above you be at least 1000 ft above MEA. So I don't think smacking into terrain is too likely. Michael |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message om... No, not right. If safety was first and above all, we would all ground ourselves and fly the airlines. Oh, of course, because nobody ever came to harm flying the airlines. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
"Chip Jones" wrote in message link.net...
"Snowbird" wrote in message om... [snipped] One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread (maybe it has been and I missed it) is that a visual approach explicitly has no missed approach segment and IMO the pilot has to consider this carefully when making a decision as to whether or not to accept a visual approach. If one isn't able to complete the visual, instructions are "remain clear of clouds and contact ATC". There are plenty of places we've met where this can put the pilot in a cleft stick, if he accepts the visual and in fact can't make it in -- stuck at an altitude where radio reception is tenuous or where a long wait may be necessary in order to clear the pilot under non-radar rules. Sydney, to me this paragraph of yours illustrates why it is legally important for the pilot to first report sighting the airfield (or aircraft to follow etc) before ATC issues a visual apprach clearance. A remote Visual Approach clearance issued way before you see the airport, followed by lost comm and lost radar as you descend trying to find it, just doesn't sound like positive IFR air traffic control to me. At ZTL, the controller (if caught, which is a big IF) would be credited with an operational error. Sadly, an FAA controller OE investigation would likely come only after the NTSB crash site investigation was completed... too late to do the pilot any good. Chip, excellent points. However, I'm not sure to what extent the legally correct alternative (a 'cruise clearance') provides more positive IFR traffic control in the situation I'm considering (plane flying into rural airport with no IAP, pilot planning to conduct visual approach procedure). In both cases I would assume the prudent controller is going to maintain IFR separation until the flight plan has been cancelled through FSS. In both cases, as far as I can tell, the burden of safe operation really remains with the pilot -- to be jolly darn sure there really is a safe margin to operate in visual conditions at the MIA for the area and to have a good procedure worked out to climb back to the MIA and resume communications with ATC if for any reason the landing can not be made (fog forming over the airport, say). If the pilot crashed, the real operational error IMO would be the pilot's, for using a visual approach as an excuse to operate in marginal conditions and for not flight-planning the "alternative if the flight can not be completed as planned". (I don't want to incite a scud-running vs. IFR debate here, but I think everyone will agree that scud-running is something which requires a much higher degree of planning and situational awareness to conduct with any margin of safety -- not something to blunder into without planning at the end of a flight in the clear-blue over a layer). Best, Sydney |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
Night over water | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 43 | March 4th 04 01:13 AM |
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 45 | November 20th 03 05:20 AM |
Visual Appr. | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 08:36 PM |