|
This is (one) part that certainly led me astray, and looking at the responses, I believe confused others as well.hjp766 posted:we missed the departure gap because the tower guy realised he (delivery) had, as a result cleared us to depart against oncoming traffic Saying you were "cleared to depart against oncoming traffic" strongly implies that you were cleared to depart, for example, 7R when all other aircraft were landing and departing 25L, which is not the case in this scenario. You were participating in the normal flow for the airport (arriving and departing 01s and 25s), you just had to change runways from what you expected, and get a new SID, and were concerned that planes holding for another totally different runway were too close to where you would be mid-roll. I'm still completely confused at your point about not being able to stop in time if takeoff was cancelled to avoid hitting other aircraft holding for 1R. They weren't holding on your runway. If you planned a takeoff without enough space to reject it up to V1, how is that not your fault?
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
I think it has something to do with them making it all the way to the runway with a bad routing for their direction of departure. It got noticed at the last second and then the amendment to the clearance caused them to miss their departure time. I still don't completely understand the 25L/1R conflict but I guess those runway ends are fairly close, there could be a separation issue there. The rest of the stuff about how "centre" is building gaps here or there, or how LAS Tower and LAS Approach handles their traffic, can't possibly be known to hjp to the level of detail he's trying to speak about it, and I'm not going to try to parse all of the confusing statements into a more readable form of what I think happened. Because, frankly, I still don't think I know what happened. You have no idea whether it was the end of the clearance delivery controller's shift or not. If the voice changed it could be because Delivery was given a break. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
aunt jemima posted:
I am only talking here of the engine failure at critical point scenario. In the case of engine failure at v1 which was 158knots, and about 2/3 of the way down the runway the performance at maximum weight becomes exciting. With the loss of thrust that would have resulted, the runway end would have only been cleared by 35 feet, there is no extra power available as already a max thrust take off, and until we can get the gear up the climb rate is shocking (you actually climb less during gear retraction than with gear locked down or up as the gear doors generate extra drag). As it was (and I apologise for my lousy writing, I never was much good at essays) we had two engines, we were at 250 feet going over the 01R threshold (I was checking from the jumpseat). As a final attempt at clarifying why the sid conflicted... the FAA text wall RWY 25L 5.8% to 14000 HDG 255? - at 2690 direct PIRMD - ROPPR - CEASR - FORGE WILLW - TRALR ROPPR between 5900 and 7000 CEASR MNM 8000 WILLW MNM 14000 All the above are left turns. First is 186, then 148, then 076, then 046. Climbing you at the landing traffic doing visual approaches onto 01. Like I say, the main point is the problem got caught before it could happen (which in the end is what we all want). Just one of those things
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
I can't seem to understand how aircraft holding on the taxiway, even for a different, head-on runway can be a factor for departing aircraft. Aren't runway hold bars and ILS critical area bars configured so as to keep all ground traffic out of the path of arriving and departing aircraft? KMIA has multiple hold points, depending on your direction of taxi at the junction of 12/30 and 8R/26L, seemingly for just this reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I can't seem to understand how aircraft holding on the taxiway, even for a different, head-on runway can be a factor for departing aircraft. Aren't runway hold bars and ILS critical area bars configured so as to keep all ground traffic out of the path of arriving and departing aircraft? Well I'm not sure how much of an issue it really was, but here's the flight path for the departure in red, and the possible holding points for aircraft in blue (assuming some were holding in position on the runways):  The bits about a last minute departure procedure change, pushing back on giving the flight crew a runway that's legal for their operation, and any perceived attitude about it, are legitimate gripes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
This...is absolutely amazing. Need to print this out and quietly post this in the walkway for our TMU (the whole control room walks by it going on the floor).
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:This...is absolutely amazing. Need to print this out and quietly post this in the walkway for our TMU (the whole control room walks by it going on the floor). A black and white copy got posted on the back wall of our area, the Sunday after Thanksgiving. I was off that day, but apparently TMU failed to endear themselves to basically anyone in the building.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:A black and white copy got posted on the back wall of our area, the Sunday after Thanksgiving. I was off that day, but apparently TMU failed to endear themselves to basically anyone in the building. Luckily, our TMU is comprised of mostly really good people. They would think it's hilarious. I got to give those guys credit for that. They generally accept that the rest of the facility can't appreciate what they are trying to do behind the scenes and they are OK with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
What, if anything, does ATC do with people calling in to report that they'll be flying model aircraft? When done within 5 miles of an airport the model aircraft pilot is supposed to contact both the airport operator and the tower if one is present under P.L. 112-95, section 336(a). My assumption has been that it might get noted on the ATIS and maybe called out to aircraft approaching from/departing towards the location but generally accepted without pushback if they aren't looking to do something crazy like fly at 1000ft AGL or 0.5nm away from the airport on an extended runway centerline.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
fordan posted:What, if anything, does ATC do with people calling in to report that they'll be flying model aircraft? When done within 5 miles of an airport the model aircraft pilot is supposed to contact both the airport operator and the tower if one is present under P.L. 112-95, section 336(a). My assumption has been that it might get noted on the ATIS and maybe called out to aircraft approaching from/departing towards the location but generally accepted without pushback if they aren't looking to do something crazy like fly at 1000ft AGL or 0.5nm away from the airport on an extended runway centerline. That's basically it. My airport has a standing Letter of Agreement (LOA) and Certificate of Waiver or Authentication (COA) with the local university for what we call a UAS (but falls under the jurisdiction of model aircraft as defined in the reg you posted). We drew up paperwork that gives them an area to work at or below a certain altitude. They call us before they launch and again after they finish operations. We put a broadcast on the automated terminal information service advising of the activity and location. That's about it. In our case, the operation is so low, and far enough away from the airport, that it really never affects anything we're doing. This is a class C airport so radar and air traffic services are provided to all (manned) aircraft within the designated airspace.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Could you land/take off unmanned aircraft from an airport? Would they require transponders? Would you just get laughed at for asking to do this?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Lots of RC clubs hold events at smaller airports. For operations without line of sight to the vehicle, it requires some sterilization of airspace and a lot of coordination and permission from on high. There's a couple of UAVs that depart our local Navy base regularly but they get protected airspace to depart/climb in. They're big aircraft though and actually need to use the runway.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Finished R school today. The skies over central Florida are about to get... Interesting. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Finished R school today. The skies over central Florida are about to get... Interesting. Have fun!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Taking the winter weather ELMS course. In South Florida. In May. This is an efficient use of my time. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Not my doing... Or my photo.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Traffic Management gets all the gripes with none of the glory. Though, I wonder where we'd be without them.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Traffic Management gets all the gripes with none of the glory. Though, I wonder where we'd be without them. If you ever get the chance TFK, go to a center and spend some time with the TMU. I think you would really appreciate it, especially getting to see another side of the coin of ATC. I had the chance to actually see first hand a few weeks of their initial training process and the amount of stuff these guys have to know is pretty lengthy. You are right though, all gripe no glory. You never hear anyone say things bad about TMU until things go bad because the vast majority of the time they are doing their job right.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Hey guys remember the fiasco with everyone wondering what the bloody hell happened last year with the biographical questionnaire with the hiring process? Yeah? Fox News (?!) is wondering the same thing! http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2015/05/20/trouble-in-skies-fox-business-special-investigation/
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
They deserve to have their asses handed to them for their chronically idiotic hiring practices. But in the end it doesn't matter. Even the ones who made it through have to pass training, it doesn't much matter how they got there in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:They deserve to have their asses handed to them for their chronically idiotic hiring practices. Thread title material, right there.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
So I was at an aviation psychology conference a couple weeks ago. The FAA was there and I offhandedly asked them why I didn't pass the BioQ. They were furious. Apparently some upper administrator made a unilateral decision to question the FAA's psychology arm(CAMI) so they shipped off the assessment to a third party with awful results. The FAA pissed off the FAA - amazing isn't it? The first time they got the cut score wrong, the second time something else happened. Can't remember. But it's AWESOME watching FAA researchers tear into others
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
That is just so far beyond brilliant I have no words.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:So I was at an aviation psychology conference a couple weeks ago. The FAA was there and I offhandedly asked them why I didn't pass the BioQ. This actually isn't surprising in the slightest bit. The Ferret King posted:They deserve to have their asses handed to them for their chronically idiotic hiring practices. But in the end it doesn't matter. Even the ones who made it through have to pass training, it doesn't much matter how they got there in the first place. True, BUT, I am sure you have seen people get checked out by abusing the system and being a liability when they should have been removed from the field before their first check ride. Either way, it's bad, people KNEW this happened, but I don't think anyone expected the FAA to catch poo poo for it. Tommy 2.0 fucked around with this message at 01:28 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
So is it good or bad that the FAA is catching poo poo for it?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:So is it good or bad that the FAA is catching poo poo for it? Honestly you can never tell. Their response to anything is a complete body jerk reaction. Could be bad could be horrible.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:Honestly you can never tell. Their response to anything is a complete body jerk reaction. Could be bad could be horrible. *spins wheel* The new requirement will be... sleep studies!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Actually, given events like controllers falling asleep during a shift, sleep studies would actually be more appropriate, I'd think.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
I thought they were already doing sleep studies or did I miss something?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:I thought they were already doing sleep studies or did I miss something? I suspect it was a remark about the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the FAA who suddenly decided "Overweight? Go get a sleep study even if you lack any other symptoms" before they backed down somewhat by actually using more involved medical criteria to decide who needed to be screened for sleep apnea.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
fordan posted:I suspect it was a remark about the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the FAA who suddenly decided "Overweight? Go get a sleep study even if you lack any other symptoms" before they backed down somewhat by actually using more involved medical criteria to decide who needed to be screened for sleep apnea. Is sleep apnea something that they don't allow controllers to have, or is it simply that you need to be properly treated for it (CPAP, etc.)?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Is sleep apnea something that they don't allow controllers to have, or is it simply that you need to be properly treated for it (CPAP, etc.)? It used to be that you would get medically DQed if you had/developed it. Now you if you GET it, you go through a whole bunch of tests and studies, get a cool machine to sleep with, and get back on status. Getting hired with it? No clue. Buddy just went through getting back on status after being diagnosed with sleep apnea so I'm paraphrasing the hell out of it I am sure.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:It used to be that you would get medically DQed if you had/developed it. Now you if you GET it, you go through a whole bunch of tests and studies, get a cool machine to sleep with, and get back on status. Getting hired with it? No clue. Buddy just went through getting back on status after being diagnosed with sleep apnea so I'm paraphrasing the hell out of it I am sure. I was just curious, as my personal experience with sleep apnea is that once is was actually diagnosed and dealt with (that cool machine to sleep with), life is completely normal and like I have no problem at all, so I thought it would be kind of lovely (although very government like) to make a controller lose their job over something that is 100% treatable for many.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Tommy 2.0 posted:It used to be that you would get medically DQed if you had/developed it. Now you if you GET it, you go through a whole bunch of tests and studies, get a cool machine to sleep with, and get back on status. Getting hired with it? No clue. Buddy just went through getting back on status after being diagnosed with sleep apnea so I'm paraphrasing the hell out of it I am sure. Right, but figuring out if you had obstructive sleep apena used to be between you and your doc. Then the FAA Federal Air Surgeon announced out of the blue like a year and a half ago that to get the medical certification that most pilots & controllers need, anyone over a specific BMI (no other symptoms needed) would be required to prove they didn't have OSA via a sleep study or to present documentation about how their OSA treatment is going to get a Special Issuance. I believe this included getting a recording CPAP machine to show how often you use it. Insurance might or might not cover a sleep study if the only criteria used to determine its need was BMI. The FAA had all the advocacy groups yelling at them and legislators starting to introduce bills that'd restrict the FAA's ability to do this so they backed off the initial proposal and came back in January with a calmer one that has a range of symptoms (developed by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine) that need to be met and graduated responses that aren't all "go do a sleep study." Still think it's overkill given how many other more critical flight-affecting health issues aren't part of a flight medical and rely on self-reporting. So spin the wheel and find out what arbitrary new rule or policy the FAA will adopt next!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
It's because the Colgon pilot was fat and therefore had sleep apnea and that's why he stalled a perfectly good Q400 into the ground. Also 5191 was caused by the FO drinking a coke.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It's because the Colgon pilot was fat and therefore had sleep apnea and that's why he stalled a perfectly good Q400 into the ground.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
I meant Pinnacle 3701, got my delta connection crashes crossed.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I meant Pinnacle 3701, got my delta connection crashes crossed. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:That was a Northwest Airlink flight, also I don't think beverages had any causal effect on that flight, just some thermodynamics and stiction SPOILERS AHEAD: I'm like 99% sure that was a joke.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
The FAA prohibits humor and anything resembling "fun"
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:23
|
|