|
Can confirm that Philly approach won't let you do opp direction anymore at all. Somewhere else (norcal?) wasn't allowing them either, citing a 'new rule' etc. Makes it a pain to get traffic advisories for vfr practice circling approaches which is counter to safety...
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
I work with people that just deny them outright but frankly I think they should be counseled and/or fired.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Yeah I mean like.. we need it for our recurrent. It calls for a circling approach. So we can do it while talking to you or squawking 1200... It's hard to imagine they prefer airplanes coming at the takeoff runway squawking 1200 not talking to them, but whatever floats your boat I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Really if it's at an uncontrolled airport we don't much care. We don't have any jurisdiction over it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Yeah at towered places I'll just call the tower if I need an opposite direction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:Yeah at towered places I'll just call the tower if I need an opposite direction. For the two towered airports in my airspace, we'll call to get the approach approved since that's not what they're advertising, then our supervisor calls them to do the same thing because that's apparently how it has to be done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Department of redundancy department? In government? well i never.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:Can confirm that Philly approach won't let you do opp direction anymore at all. Somewhere else (norcal?) wasn't allowing them either, citing a 'new rule' etc. Makes it a pain to get traffic advisories for vfr practice circling approaches which is counter to safety... I'm kinda ok with more limits. During my private pilot training my instructor & I were just taking off again from a touch and go and at like 100 feet AGL at Northeast Philly when someone doing an opposite direction practice approach flew overhead at around 500 feet. Controller had been trying to raise them for a couple minutes but never changed us to a full-stop landing (or better yet, an immediate 90 degree turn and go around); guessing the other instructor turned the radio down to provide instruction. Controller wasn't happy when they came back on the radio though no phone numbers were given.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I work with people that just deny them outright but frankly I think they should be counseled and/or fired. What the...are you a sup or something? I agree outright denial is weak and bad service (at least make an attempt guys), but thinking career termination for not bothering even contemplating letting a potentially dangerous approach be conducted? Jeez.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Isn't it your job to make sure it can be done where it's not potentially dangerous? What about pilots that break out at circling mins and have to circle to land but they aren't proficient because practicing those approaches is like pulling teeth now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:I agree outright denial is weak and bad service (at least make an attempt guys) Glad we agree The Slaughter posted:Department of redundancy department? In government? well i never. Well the rule is that a supervisor has to call. So I just yell at a supe to come over and call the tower. I could see how, at some places, the controller might want to call ahead first just to see if it was even possible to approve in the first place before messing with a supe, but I don't think that's part of the national order. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:Isn't it your job to make sure it can be done where it's not potentially dangerous? What about pilots that break out at circling mins and have to circle to land but they aren't proficient because practicing those approaches is like pulling teeth now? Absolutely. But there are reasons those approaches are difficult to get done, and honestly, nationwide, always should have been due to potential safety complications. I haven't been in an FAA terminal environment since the changes, but having to get a sup involved seems excessive (then again termninal sups actually work planes so...), but sterilizing the airspace (pretty much what is happening with those mileages) is light years better than the way it was before. Outright denial of the approaches seems a tad much to say the least, and I'm pretty sure a lot of places this is completely unjustified. And some absolutely justified (and they probably wouldn't allow it before). Even the USAF in their infinite wisdom :  : recognized the potential risks of these approaches decades ago. We all learned how to weave them in, but the pilots still knew to expect potential holding waiting for their clearance in and knew to give a big heads up to approach of their intentions. And Ferret, yes, a smart controller would do exactly that. Call ahead for planning purposes. Also (....).....
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:And Ferret, yes, a smart controller would do exactly that. Call ahead for planning purposes. Just having the supe call works fine where I am. It's not a big place, they're usually just a few feet away. EDIT: And it's not like they're doing anything anyway. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Just having the supe call works fine where I am. It's not a big place, they're usually just a few feet away. Legit LOLed. You thinking about ever going somewhere else?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Always and often. Paperwork has been out for over a year. I've bid out once and it's probably not going to work out. In fact I'm refreshing my transfer requests this month because they're timing out. When I do get picked up I'm expecting delays due to our staffing level. For those who don't know, to transfer not only does the receiving facility need to want you, your present facility needs to let you go. My transfer to CRP went so quickly, I figured I'm due for a bit of waiting this time. I've had too easy a ride so far in my career, in so many ways. Some day. Some day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Always and often. Paperwork has been out for over a year. I've bid out once and it's probably not going to work out. In fact I'm refreshing my transfer requests this month because they're timing out. When I do get picked up I'm expecting delays due to our staffing level. For those who don't know, to transfer not only does the receiving facility need to want you, your present facility needs to let you go. Try for a hardship some how. Just remember you can only hardship no higher than three levels higher than your current. Get a doctor's note about the climate or something and say you need X climate in X location instead. Explain the easy ride?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
I don't have a hardship. My easy ride started when I was the proper age and experience to apply to the earlier round of off the street hiring in 2008. I excelled through the academy during a period of relaxed grading standards. I was sent to a low level tower/radar facility when others' careers ended as soon as they started by being sent to the busiest international airports. I trained under incredibly intelligent and invested trainers. And I was able to transfer up to a higher level facility mere months after certifying at my first. Overall it has been a good ride.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Always and often. Paperwork has been out for over a year. I've bid out once and it's probably not going to work out. In fact I'm refreshing my transfer requests this month because they're timing out. When I do get picked up I'm expecting delays due to our staffing level. For those who don't know, to transfer not only does the receiving facility need to want you, your present facility needs to let you go. Getting tired of Corpus already? I can't imagine why
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Ah it's been alright. But this was always going to be a stepping stone to somewhere bigger. Assuming I didn't top out my skill level here. But I think I've got more to give.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
We still have opposite direction, but word is we are about to have to start logging and reviewing every single one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Ah it's been alright. But this was always going to be a stepping stone to somewhere bigger. Assuming I didn't top out my skill level here. But I think I've got more to give. Have you looked at any centers? There's always going to be someone about to wash out who needs a place to go. Do they do swaps of that type? You have radar experience so a center would probably love to have you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Thanks
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
When the flight is a formation, when are you required to say "Flight" when talking to ATC? Background: At work, our regs have gone under several revisions. yhe latest debate is when do you have to add Flight to your callsign. The current debate is "Vandy XX Flight" every time you que the mic like that is your callsign, vice only on initial check in. OR, if your flight plan is filed as a formation, is it implied so you only need to say "Vandy XX" because ATC already knows? xaarman fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
xaarman posted:When the flight is a formation, when are you required to say "Flight" when talking to ATC? I've worked flights for years (even VANDYs at my first location...Hi!) and in a tower environment I never noticed one way or another. En route/radar? It's nice for the initial check in, maybe, but that is about it. We are reading out your strip/information to see what you are. You aren't required to say it. But yeah, initial check in it's NICE, that is about it. I do see it a LOT where F16s out of Shaw are filed single ship, check in as flight, and now we are amending flight plans to properly reflect said information. Declaring who you are MARSA with is much more important, but not every transmission. Wow, I really could have shortened that answer up, eh? ATC already knows, but be nice, and check in with Flight please, in case there is a error between you and the last controller. Not every transmission. You will just annoy the controller after the initial check in. I think VANDY callsign brought back nostalgia. You guys still rocking the BE40s and cruising over to IAB to spice up their tower pattern? Also, don't you guys have a controller/pilot liaison program? I would imagine the controllers there would have some input too, and I'm sure having some on-base controller input would have more pull than some jackass with a giant man fairy avatar that told you on the internet. Tommy 2.0 fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Another one that's extremely helpful to us is if you're being radar identified, and aren't yet, or do not plan to be in a standard formation, please, please tell us. We can make whatever work, but there's a real sinking feeling when you see a couple primaries out behind the F-16 you just radar identified leaving the Restricted area... At initial check-in, be specific, but after that, everything related to your flight SHOULD get passed along.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Do any of you all have a FAR/AIM reference for this? It sounds like all technique which is what we're all going through at work and trying to find clear guidance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
xaarman posted:Do any of you all have a FAR/AIM reference for this? It sounds like all technique which is what we're all going through at work and trying to find clear guidance. Controllers don't work off FAR/AIM. We just look at certain things in there as a means to know what YOU have to adhere to when we issue instructions and what not. If there isn't anything detailing how to handle a thing, we deal with it in the smartest way we know. So yeah, talk to your liaison too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Looks like a TBM lost pressurization and everyone lost consciousness on the way to Florida. So far they've overflown Cuba ATC recording here. Aircraft is N900KN. Checks on, asks for lower shortly after due to and incorrect indication. Gets descended to FL250. Says they need lower, like FL180. Controller calls traffic at FL240. Ends up turning the TBM. Then descends them to FL200 and turns them on course. The pilot responds to this but doesn't take any action. They call him and repeat the clearance a couple of times and the response gets more and more disjointed. Then nothing. Listening to the recording, the pilot didn't declare an emergency but seemed pretty urgent. Me, I'm prodding them for exactly what might be wrong. Maybe they tell me it's a pressurization issue and at that point I'm using big turns to make sure I get them down. Not blaming the controller, but it definitely sounded like something was wrong and it might have required a little more communication with the pilot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
xaarman posted:Do any of you all have a FAR/AIM reference for this? It sounds like all technique which is what we're all going through at work and trying to find clear guidance. I think there is not a reference because it is not a requirement. Easier to prove a rule that exists with references, but it's hard to prove that one doesn't exist. fknlo posted:Listening to the recording, the pilot didn't declare an emergency but seemed pretty urgent. Me, I'm prodding them for exactly what might be wrong. Maybe they tell me it's a pressurization issue and at that point I'm using big turns to make sure I get them down. Not blaming the controller, but it definitely sounded like something was wrong and it might have required a little more communication with the pilot. It may very well have been too late anyhow, but the pilot failing to declare an emergency didn't help their cause. With something like this, the quicker ATC knows they need to make you a priority the better. Conversely, had the pilot realized he was going hypoxic (instead of thinking he was just troubleshooting a caution light or something) he could have began his descent without delay utilizing his pilot-in-command authority. But, it seems he never took the descent to FL200 anyhow (read it back, but didn't begin descending), so maybe it was a matter of that first descent clearance needing to be something like 10,000ft, so at least the pilot would have that punched in to the autpilot prior to losing his mind. I actually didn't sense a whole lot of urgency in the pilots voice on the recording. The slurring becomes noticeable I think when he gets the clearance to Taylor, but it's so subtle. He also starts leaving the push to talk button pressed for longer periods of time after replying to ATC. In hindsight it's obvious, but in the moment I'm not so sure. Anyway, I agree more communication would have helped. I think he was too far gone by the time it was apparent that he needed more special handling. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Came into work with every closed scope watching that guy. He was just off the eastern tip of Jamaica when we lost radar on him. lovely. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I actually didn't sense a whole lot of urgency in the pilots voice on the recording. For me it was just the "We need lower" out of the blue. To me that's not a good thing and my spider sense starts tingling immediately.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Looks like a TBM lost pressurization and everyone lost consciousness on the way to Florida. So far they've overflown Cuba I swear my area is the only one at my facility that deals with this stuff. He went NORDO in our oceanic sector. At those altitudes, radios SUCK out there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
TBM? NORDO?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
squeakygeek posted:TBM? NORDO? The aircraft was a TBM 900. NORDO is an abbreviation for "no radio." Indicating that you have lost or failed to make radio contact. It does not mean that the aircraft itself does not have a radio, just that communications have been lost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
I just watched an E145 make a run through a line of thunderstorms at FL370. It was scary as poo poo - their altitude and heading were all over the place. It must have been a hell of a rollercoaster ride. YZ UUA /OV CYZR /TM 2320 /FL330 /TP E145 /TB SEV 330-390 /RM UNABLE TO MAINTAIN ALT +/- 5000 FT PHN UUA /OV ECK135025/TM 2322/FL370/TP E145/TB SEV/RM +/-2000 FT 30 DEG UNINTENDED TURN NO DMG NO INJ
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Varlock posted:I just watched an E145 make a run through a line of thunderstorms at FL370. It was scary as poo poo - their altitude and heading were all over the place. It must have been a hell of a rollercoaster ride. I'm glad no one was hurt. Here's a decode for folks unfamiliar with pilot reports: Urgent Pilot Report, over Sarnia Airport. At 2320 Zulu time, an Embraer 145 (regional jet) at 33,000ft reported severe turbulence between 33k and 39k ft. Unable to maintain altitude. Gain/loss of 5,000ft. The next one describes a gain/loss of 2000ft of altitude, with an uncommanded turn of 20 degrees. No damage or injuries. Thankfully folks were buckled in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Might have been a little smarter to go around that one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Everyone else sure did. There was one sweep where he showed a descent rate of 8800fpm and at that point I thought he might be done for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Varlock posted:Everyone else sure did. This is the place to put one of those "Nope" gifs, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
I would actually think something like that would warrant an NTSB investigation at the very least as an incident.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 00:09
|
|