|
E4C85D38 posted:In the spirit of being pointlessly nosy, have any of you had or seen a TCAS RA go off? At the two U.S. facilities I've worked at, we had nothing that would display TCAS reports of any kind on our radar displays. We're advised of a flight crew performing a Resolution Advisory (RA) maneuver when they tell us they're doing so over the radio, or when we notice that they're suddenly diving/climbing away from their assigned altitude. I've had one RA happen under my watch as a controller so far in 5 years. This was before I learned my lesson about what air carriers need to comply with when that system issues them commands. I mean, I KNEW they had to comply with TCAS instructions, but I didn't know it was required for some operators even when the crew has the traffic in sight out the window. Minimum vertical separation between an instrument flight rules aircraft (air carriers are almost always this) and a visual flight rules aircraft (often smaller, general aviation planes) in most situations is 500ft. However, if you have a VFR aircraft level at 3,500ft, and you've told the air carrier to descend to 4,000ft and they get close, the TCAS will often issue an RA that the air carrier must comply with. It's annoying, because you've told all traffic about each other, they may even have each other in sight, and you've ensured procedural vertical separation of 500ft....But if that TCAS goes off, the air carrier will maneuver as directed. Now I tend to separate VFR/IFR aircraft vertically by 1,500ft, or make sure I vector to avoid them passing right over/under each other. The extra workload is worth it to avoid the reporting associated with an RA. A resolution advisory is an automatic quality assurance review and mandatory occurrence report, meaning management is going to have to review the radar data and radio logs to make sure nothing dangerous was going on. Your nose is clean if you issued instructions to maintain proper separation, but it's attention you don't want to have, and they'll probably still want to know why you were running them that close in the first place since we all know it pisses TCAS off. Iucounu posted:Got CPC today. Feels good, man. Excellent work, congratulations. When's the party? The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Mar 4, 2014 |
# ? Mar 4, 2014 21:57 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 08:07 |
|
The Ferret King posted:Excellent work, congratulations. When's the party? It actually coincides really well with some leave coming up this weekend. Just gotta buy chow for the facility and hit up the bar. I spent 6 months in training limbo due to the shutdown and academy backlog, I spent a few weeks at RTF and then got sent back to my facility for a month before going back to finish. Pretty frustrating, but it's nice to be done now.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2014 22:03 |
|
That's awesome. Also you're jumping on your checkout party much sooner than any of our recent certified guys. Some of them have been done for 2 months and still haven't thrown a party. We-will-never-forget.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2014 22:05 |
|
The Ferret King posted:That's awesome. Also you're jumping on your checkout party much sooner than any of our recent certified guys. Some of them have been done for 2 months and still haven't thrown a party. We-will-never-forget. I haven't done a party either. I've been blowing all my money on snowboarding, I'm house shopping, and I don't drink. Not exactly in any rush.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2014 22:17 |
|
NATCA issued a comment on the Biographical Questionnaire from the hiring announcement:quote:Biographical Questionnaire on Feb 10 Open Bid for ATCS In other recent news. Air Traffic Controllers at Austin Bergstrom International airport talked down a pilot who got stuck on top of clouds. quote:Cartwright did not have an instrument rating, meaning he was not certified to fly into an airport during bad weather or low visibility, FAA spokesman Lynn Lunsford said. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Mar 4, 2014 |
# ? Mar 4, 2014 22:22 |
|
I talked with the head of my ATC department today and he said that, within his rumor-mill, the FAA is looking at changing how certain questions are scored on the bio-q in order to get a larger pool of candidates.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2014 23:30 |
|
E4C85D38 posted:In the spirit of being pointlessly nosy, have any of you had or seen a TCAS RA go off? The one's I've seen are typically IFR vs. VFR, but I've seen a couple ugly IFR ones, related to both pilot and controller mistakes.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2014 23:48 |
|
Pope Mobile posted:I talked with the head of my ATC department today and he said that, within his rumor-mill, the FAA is looking at changing how certain questions are scored on the bio-q in order to get a larger pool of candidates. There will HAVE TO BE more hiring announcement forthcoming. They simply weeded out too many people this time. JohnClark posted:The one's I've seen are typically IFR vs. VFR, but I've seen a couple ugly IFR ones, related to both pilot and controller mistakes. It really is the last line of defense. Suffice to say, if TCAS saves the day, the controller, or the pilot, has made an egregious error. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Mar 4, 2014 |
# ? Mar 4, 2014 23:52 |
|
The Ferret King posted:There will HAVE TO BE more hiring announcement forthcoming. They simply weeded out too many people this time. I hope you are right, and I speculate it will come down to this. I just noticed this thread has actually gotten some pretty good traction. Five.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2014 00:08 |
|
Finally, I can say I met someone who actually made it through the hiring announcement screen. He's enrolled in a CTI school, and also controls on VATSIM, how about that (flightsim goons who know me, know that I also control on VATSIM, because I have no life.) Don't worry, goons who applied, I'm thinking there will be several more opportunities going forward. Hopefully they let more people in on the next announcement.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2014 03:15 |
|
Hopefully they fix this poo poo before I age out.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2014 04:48 |
|
The Ferret King posted:Finally, I can say I met someone who actually made it through the hiring announcement screen. He's enrolled in a CTI school, and also controls on VATSIM, how about that (flightsim goons who know me, know that I also control on VATSIM, because I have no life.) Where at? I do a pretty routine flight from lax to las every now and then
|
# ? Mar 6, 2014 12:15 |
|
We're both in the virtual Ft Worth Center. I pretty much always miss logging my minimum hours and they send me threatening emails, but I like to stay active to host sim nights for goons every now and then.
|
# ? Mar 6, 2014 13:15 |
|
We had our first successful 24hr ERAM run yesterday. They managed to pair it with the first real weather day of the season, as well. It was good times.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 16:45 |
|
MrYenko posted:We had our first successful 24hr ERAM run yesterday. They managed to pair it with the first real weather day of the season, as well. That would definitely be fun. Nobody's maps set up properly and all that jazz. Talked to our head honcho after a briefing yesterday and he said center consolidation is definitely being discussed. Whole lot of hurdles if it ever moves forward.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 17:27 |
|
fknlo posted:Talked to our head honcho after a briefing yesterday and he said center consolidation is definitely being discussed. Whole lot of hurdles if it ever moves forward. The extremely cloudy rumor I heard was to consolidate ZMA, ZJX, and possibly some of the central Florida approach controls in a giant I could get behind that, if they're using the term Orlando loosely. Halfway between Tampa and Orlando'd be perfect. I wouldn't call the problems with that plan hurdles, so much as giant concrete walls with barbed wire, and the disembodied entrails of a hundred FAA and NATCA negotiators on top. Also, they couldn't even successfully combine Palm Beach and Miami approaches, so I don't see this happening, short of a major initiative, which I also don't see happening in the current budget environment.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 19:26 |
|
I think one of the biggest obstacles of consolidated centers, beyond being a logistical nightmare, is that congressmen are going to be extremely reluctant to allow 300+ high paying jobs to leave their districts and, in many cases, go out of state. This is a couple years old, but it shows some of the ideas that are being explored, like collocating centers with TRACONs. The new Chicago TRACON was supposed to be this and has the room, but for whatever reason they never moved Chicago Center in.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 20:23 |
|
Liar of the Shire posted:I think one of the biggest obstacles of consolidated centers, beyond being a logistical nightmare, is that congressmen are going to be extremely reluctant to allow 300+ high paying jobs to leave their districts and, in many cases, go out of state. Yeah, this was mentioned as one of the biggest hurdles. It's still just in the preliminary discussion stage as far as I know, but it's definitely being looked into.
|
# ? Mar 7, 2014 21:36 |
|
MrYenko posted:I could get behind that, if they're using the term Orlando loosely. Oh please give me the choice of moving anywhere I want.
|
# ? Mar 8, 2014 00:41 |
|
So how hard is it for ATC to recognize aircraft radar returns without a transponder? Malaysian Flight 370 is currently believed to have stopped transponding and did a U-turn, and I'm having a hard time understanding why it took this long to realize that it may have come back and over Malaysia in an area that reportedly has good radar coverage.
|
# ? Mar 11, 2014 20:27 |
|
fordan posted:So how hard is it for ATC to recognize aircraft radar returns without a transponder? Malaysian Flight 370 is currently believed to have stopped transponding and did a U-turn, and I'm having a hard time understanding why it took this long to realize that it may have come back and over Malaysia in an area that reportedly has good radar coverage. They show up quite well on primary radar systems (thanks for reminding me I need to do a breakdown of those ASAP.) I wasn't clear from the news stories whether this particular aircraft was in radar contact with an ATC organization during the time of the crash though. The reports I read made it sound like it was making scheduled check-ins via radio, which is more in line with non-radar forms of control. I know they've found radar plots of the aircraft from places like flightradar24.com and other entities, but I wasn't sure that any of those sources were actually responsible for control of that aircraft. Either way, even with good radar coverage up high, it's likely that coverage disappears entirely at a certain altitude and below, especially over water. I've tried to keep up with the reports periodically, could you link any stories you find regarding the radar data used for that flight so far?
|
# ? Mar 11, 2014 21:04 |
|
The Ferret King posted:I've tried to keep up with the reports periodically, could you link any stories you find regarding the radar data used for that flight so far? I was going off the CNN I had on in the background while working from home where they've been showing the transponder lost point and where the new radar information makes them think the plane went. Then again, during the same reporting the anchor did an appropriate serious face and announced that CNN had learned it is possible for pilots to *turn* *off* the transponder, which as a pilot makes me go
|
# ? Mar 12, 2014 00:26 |
|
After much consternation, most of it my stupid, stupid brains fault, I got certified on my first two D sides today.
|
# ? Mar 12, 2014 02:23 |
|
Great job! Keep up the good work.
|
# ? Mar 12, 2014 02:27 |
|
The Ferret King posted:They show up quite well on primary radar systems (thanks for reminding me I need to do a breakdown of those ASAP.) This has confused me about the distinction between primary and secondary and I haven't seen a clear explanation. Is secondary radar only pinging the transponder and showing the response? Is the popular conception of how radar works and looks only primary radar?
|
# ? Mar 14, 2014 16:18 |
|
dupersaurus posted:This has confused me about the distinction between primary and secondary and I haven't seen a clear explanation. Is secondary radar only pinging the transponder and showing the response? Is the popular conception of how radar works and looks only primary radar? Pretty much. Secondary radar is generally overlaid with the primary radar, so you can see both simultaneously. Also, there are places with secondary radar, and no primary coverage. Over the ocean, in areas with poor infrastructure, and in mountainous areas, ATC is done with non-radar procedures, which is literally a chart, a clock, a pencil, and some paper strips. Non-radar is also common near international boundaries, where the two countries can't or won't justify the expense of making their ATC systems compatible with one another. The incident area is pretty much ALL of these things. It's a clusterfuck.
|
# ? Mar 14, 2014 18:36 |
Question for you ATC folks: If you're taking off on an RNAV departure why do some towers will have you report the preceding aircraft in sight before giving you your clearance while most don't bother? There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it, spacing, WX, and even the departure path doesn't seem to make a difference.
|
|
# ? Mar 15, 2014 03:17 |
|
Are they telling you to maintain visual separation? I'm not familiar with any rule that would require this unless they were trying to apply visual sep.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2014 04:53 |
|
KodiakRS posted:Question for you ATC folks: Spacing and habit. I know KLAS tower does this all the time to get more metal in the air with less than normal IFR separation. They let departure control deal with it until the routes fan out and separation naturally increases. I'm pretty sure that is why you get random kooky altitudes versus the RNAV SID ones.
|
# ? Mar 15, 2014 14:12 |
|
MrYenko posted:Pretty much. Secondary radar is generally overlaid with the primary radar, so you can see both simultaneously. Also, there are places with secondary radar, and no primary coverage. I've been watching that air crash documentary show on Netflix. Apparently in the case of the Gimli Glider, ATC had to jump through hoops (in the dramatization, dragging another console into the room) to get a primary return off the plane once its transponder went out when the engines stopped. That was 30 years ago, but they're probably still using the same equipment.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2014 13:03 |
|
Fun fact: HOST/ERAM keyboards have their numpads flipped upside down. You get used to it pretty quickly, but holy gently caress is it annoying when you try to use a regular one, and find that you are totally incapable.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2014 15:34 |
|
MrYenko posted:Fun fact: HOST/ERAM keyboards have their numpads flipped upside down. You get used to it pretty quickly, but holy gently caress is it annoying when you try to use a regular one, and find that you are totally incapable. So they're phone-style instead of computer-style? Makes sense if you're also phoning from the same console.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2014 16:14 |
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:So they're phone-style instead of computer-style? Makes sense if you're also phoning from the same console. The VCS (Voice Control System) has its own pair of touch screens, as well as a backlit keypad-on-a-cable type of thing that you can move around. Most people put them by their trackball hand.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2014 16:18 |
|
MrYenko posted:The VCS (Voice Control System) has its own pair of touch screens, as well as a backlit keypad-on-a-cable type of thing that you can move around. Most people put them by their trackball hand. Would it have had a keypad in the '70s? As tech improves, there are good reasons to be conservative with interface design. Pardon my lack of jargon knowledge:
|
# ? Mar 16, 2014 16:39 |
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Would it have had a keypad in the '70s? As tech improves, there are good reasons to be conservative with interface design. Almost certainly. Its still disconcerting when you swap between numpad configurations. You expect a phone or voice comm system to use that config. You don't expect it on an otherwise-mostly-normal computer keyboard. Of course, there's always terminal-radar user interface design...
|
# ? Mar 16, 2014 16:45 |
|
Yeah that's our keyboard/trackball layout. We don't edit route/flightplan information from those keyboards though, so the ABC configuration doesn't slow us down too badly. We don't do much actual typing on them, it's mostly single or double character commands followed by slew input from the trackball. The older keyboards I used before had a pressure sensitive, rubber nub slew device instead of a trackball, but the keyboard was almost identical (minus the top two rows of keys) The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Mar 16, 2014 |
# ? Mar 16, 2014 17:02 |
|
MrYenko posted:Almost certainly. Its still disconcerting when you swap between numpad configurations. You expect a phone or voice comm system to use that config. You don't expect it on an otherwise-mostly-normal computer keyboard. Of course, there's always terminal-radar user interface design... That thing is the loving devil. I absolutely loathe it more than any piece of "tech" I've ever had to use. Alphabetical order keyboard? For fucks sake. I can't even contain my language when I look at it and reminisce using that archaic poo poo board.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2014 17:18 |
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:That thing is the loving devil. I absolutely loathe it more than any piece of "tech" I've ever had to use. Alphabetical order keyboard? For fucks sake. I can't even contain my language when I look at it and reminisce using that archaic poo poo board. Oh, and they also demanded that our radar scopes have knobs, despite the fact that you can manipulate every setting through the GUI.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2014 18:11 |
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:So they're phone-style instead of computer-style? Makes sense if you're also phoning from the same console. It was mentioned that it was a different unit, but the two being the same setup is the reasoning I've always heard. I don't get it though, as nobody uses a phone in the same way they use a number pad. I'm used to switching between the two for the most part, but it was not easy to get used to. Every now and then you'll be sitting on sector and none of your inputs are doing anything because your brain randomly reverts to "normal" layout.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2014 22:09 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 08:07 |
|
The Ferret King posted:They show up quite well on primary radar systems (thanks for reminding me I need to do a breakdown of those ASAP.) From the center point of view if its a smaller craft I've had instances where there wasn't any return at all and an IFR aircraft started a TCAS maneuver to miss something that was not on my radar. The larger aircraft in question *should* show up well quite far out depending on terrain obstructing the signal and the altitude of the aircraft. Since most of this is land based the signal goes up but up at an angle so the aircraft has to be higher up to be picked up by the signal the further out it is. Also one of the problems is filters on the radar. Most controllers filter out things they don't have to see in order to keep their scope neat and orderly. I don't have primaries on for any sector that *only contains* airspace FL240 and up.
|
# ? Mar 16, 2014 22:36 |