|
Delivery McGee posted:Upon further reflection, I think DFW was #1 in cargo tonnage at the turn of the last century. But any way you put it, that's a fuckton of airplanes. I wish you the best of luck with your pending gig, and will listen to the ATC radio channel next time I fly out of Love Field or DFW to hear your dulcet tones. Look forward to robot ATC in the DFW terminal area beginning Nov 2015.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:00 |
|
|
MrYenko posted:Odd question: for those at centers, do you have a functional cafeteria? Ours has the cafeteria facilities, but no contractor to run them. At ZOA we had one, but no longer. They've installed an automat, a bunch of fridges full of gas station-esque foods and candy and a self check-out, and they seem to be doing good business because they usually sell through the soda and food fridges. Its the same deal at NCT (where I worked previous) after the Elvis Cafe shut down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Look forward to robot ATC in the DFW terminal area beginning Nov 2015. At least an improved chance in DFW that I'll get to be controlled by robot ATC as compared to your previous facility!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Anybody been to OKC lately? I'm starting enroute training in a couple weeks and I'm trying to come up with some stuff to do when I'm not studying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:Anybody been to OKC lately? I'm starting enroute training in a couple weeks and I'm trying to come up with some stuff to do when I'm not studying. !!! Congrats man. Kick its rear end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:!!! Thanks, I'm pretty goddamn excited about this!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
I think I'm the most recent academy grad here, and even that was more than two years ago. If you have any questions specifically about the current curriculum, we have a couple trainees that just got to the area I can bounce questions off of. Also; go to Cowboys. Quarter beers, and live bull riding in the bar. Also, RePublic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I think I'm the most recent academy grad here, and even that was more than two years ago. If you have any questions specifically about the current curriculum, we have a couple trainees that just got to the area I can bounce questions off of. I really don't know what to ask, to be honest. I'll definitely check out RePublic though!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Try to find a regular apartment that will let you sign a short term lease instead of staying at one of the "official" housing providers. You'll save a shitload of money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:Anybody been to OKC lately? I'm starting enroute training in a couple weeks and I'm trying to come up with some stuff to do when I'm not studying. Big truck tacos BIG TRUCK TACOS
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Big truck tacos That looks awesome! fknlo posted:Try to find a regular apartment that will let you sign a short term lease instead of staying at one of the "official" housing providers. You'll save a shitload of money. I'm booked at Kim's Place. I thought about getting an apartment but I'd rather spend the extra money and not have to deal with buying furniture and getting rid of it when I leave. two_beer_bishes fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Oct 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:That looks awesome! I bought an air mattress, a shelf for a tv, a chair, and a computer desk. Set it all by the dumpster before I left and it was all gone in 10 minutes. I paid in the neighborhood of $700/month after utilities for a studio apartment. I went to all the other places and didn't regret my decision at all. You can also find furnished houses like a couple of guys in my class did. I just had an issue with getting completely ripped off on the prices that the official places charged.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I bought an air mattress, a shelf for a tv, a chair, and a computer desk. Set it all by the dumpster before I left and it was all gone in 10 minutes. I paid in the neighborhood of $700/month after utilities for a studio apartment. I went to all the other places and didn't regret my decision at all. You can also find furnished houses like a couple of guys in my class did. My friend stayed at one of the official places solely for the social aspect and he had a good time there apparently because he failed out. He still got picked up and that's the guy I was talking about before who is direct to facility (he just started training). His Madden scores were pretty good while he was there too as I recall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
He failed out as an initial hire and was still placed somewhere? How?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:He failed out as an initial hire and was still placed somewhere? How? This is apparently a thing. And its not just him. A guy I work with failed the school house and got picked up a month ago for Hawaii. He put it off for 6 months and they called him back and said, 'no, you pick something else now. new list.' to which he replies 'no, i dont like new list where else you got'. He didn't get another list but hes still going... somewhere. I asked my boss about it and hes just like 'it happens'. edit: Failed school house in both cases, re-applied and picked up and sent (sending) direct to facility. Oh, both are ex mil controllers... Blackchamber fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Oct 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Quick question. A discussion has just arisen because of KLAS as to when and how often you guys in the U.S. expect us to append heavy to our call sign. Does the FAA do a foreign pilots guide? My UK colleagues who only use it on first contact according to ICAO claim that KLAS don't then give them proper separation for the A330 as if they forget it's a heavy. When I went in with the German arm and we used it in every call we did not have a problem. [They also request a gentle reminder that they cannot go down and slow down, they are too big] Ta PS please don't shoot the messenger
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
hjp766 posted:Quick question. A discussion has just arisen because of KLAS as to when and how often you guys in the U.S. expect us to append heavy to our call sign. Does the FAA do a foreign pilots guide? My UK colleagues who only use it on first contact according to ICAO claim that KLAS don't then give them proper separation for the A330 as if they forget it's a heavy. I'm a little confused by this. Our controllers should not ever reduce separation because the pilot forgot to say heavy. Our Air Force guys never say heavy (I worked a C17 yesterday who never said it) but our controllers are required to append heavy to the callsign every time in the terminal environment. I believe it is optional for controllers in most circumstances in the enroute enviroment. Are they worried that other aircraft are following too closely BEHIND them on final? Or something to do with wake turbulence separation after takeoff? Our radar tags will automatically include an "H" in them to denote the aircraft is a heavy so there is no excuse if proper separation was not applied to aircraft following the heavy. There really aren't any special considerations for heavies following other aircraft, unless a heavy is following another heavy. Zochness fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Appending callsigns with "heavy" is required any time ATC is talking to an aircraft in the terminal environment (basically anywhere below FL180). The only exception is for Air Force 1&2. En Route centers only have to use the word "heavy" in certain circumstances because their separation requirements are generally already equal to or greater than the additional minima required with heavy aircraft. But it's an ATC requirement, not a pilot requirement. And yeah, it doesn't change anything with regards to separation. How does your buddy know that proper separation isn't being applied? I presume they know what the proper separation is at least? I don't know why a pilot would know that unless they went and sought out the information for themselves. Sorry to answer questions with more questions, I know you're relaying from a colleague. ATC Manual reference: quote:7110.65V Air Traffic Control Found this in the AIM but I don't know of any actual regulations stating a requirement for pilots to use the word "heavy." Even in the AIM it's a "should" not a "must." Much of the time, communications content and accuracy is incumbent on the controller, not the pilot. quote:4−2−4. Aircraft Call Signs Not being able to "go down and slow down" is in our book too. quote:
Of course, where I work, arriving airliners are ALWAYS descending. Stopping the descent for a speed reduction leaves them too high to continue into the airport without additional vectors. Vectoring them removes the need for the speed restriction in the first place and makes spacing on the final quite difficult. Sometimes your airliner never levels even when joining the final approach course and they're still doing 260kts+ over the ground. If I need it, I'll throw out the speed restriction anyway (even though they have not leveled off. They will NEVER level off) and see if it'll get me what I need. I've got other options if it doesn't work. I think a lot of these flight crews, absent other restrictions, are flying a kind of optimal descent profile that has some wiggle room. I know it's not possible in all jets, but clearly slowing down is possible in some of them, because I've watched them make continuous descents to the runway and they always manage to get it configured at some point without leveling off completely. Also, it's rare that I have to do any of this. Usually it's the only (or one of 2) air carriers inbound and they're going to be made first to the runway anyhow. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Appending callsigns with "heavy" is required any time ATC is talking to an aircraft in the terminal environment (basically anywhere below FL180). The only exception is for Air Force 1&2. En Route centers only have to use the word "heavy" in certain circumstances because their separation requirements are generally already equal to or greater than the additional minima required with heavy aircraft. As to the scenario I was told I shall try and write it as relayed to me. quote:A330 Inbound LAS (11+ hours airbourne). Cleared approach from 8000 feet. Establishes and follows ILS (both Localiser and Glide Slope) as this is what this phrase means to us Europeans. Not informed of any preceding traffic. Hope that makes some sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Well there are too many variables to say why the flight was handled in such a way. Obviously it was not optimal for anyone involved. But, increased wake turbulence separation is for the aircraft behind the heavy. So inside of 10nm this longitudinal separation may be as low as 2.5nm in some cases. Sounds like initially some confusion on being told to join the localizer, and being cleared for the approach entirely. Somebody wasn't on the same page. Also, you guys fly the glideslope 15+ miles out? You know that can cause you to miss step down fix altitudes under certain atmospheric conditions right? GS guidance should be followed at the GS intercept point. Maybe that really was that far out for the particular approach but I don't know. Usually it's very near the non-precision final approach fix. Anyway, sounds like the sequence wasn't well under control regardless. Too high, too fast, cleared from above glidepath, s turns, increasing the leading aircraft's speed (who was probably told earlier to slow down for someone they were following.) Doesn't sound like anyone was having fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:
Unless we are specifically told not to, or unless the plates say we can't, as soon as we are inside the ils protected ranges according to ICAO we will follow it and altitudes become meaningless except the outer marker. ICAO annex 10 vol 1 3.1.3.3.1 localiser within 25nm Attachment c to annex 10 vol 1 Glide slope Guaranteed within 10nm, accurate to 6000 feet Above threshold. [So we will take the g/s from 6000 AAL when we have checked the height of runway end with the 1:3 rule].
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
You still need to adhere to step down altitudes outside of the glideslope intercept point (FAF). What you're describing is the service volume of the glideslope as a NAVAID, which is generally 10NM unless otherwise noted. What I'm talking about is discussed in this FAA notice:quote:FAA InFO 11009 It's an unusual "gotcha" that I wasn't really aware of until some spergs on the AOPA forums discussed it. Basically, under certain weather conditions, following the glideslope outside of the final approach fix may result in descent below the published minimum crossing altitudes, so caution is needed. Using LAX as a reference, their ILS RWY 25R Approach:  Between FALLT and FOGLA, you're within the 10 mile service volume of a standard glideslope. However, you're still expected to meet those altitude restrictions (at or above 5000, 3700, and 1900ft) until the glideslope intercept point near FOGLA, even if following the glideslope exactly would cause you to dip below them. If the atmospheric pressure is right, not doing so might cause you to lose separation with aircraft being vectored under you on approach to another airport. At and after the final approach fix/glideslope intercept point, you're good to follow the glideslope to the missed approach point without such worries. EDIT: I counted miles on the approach incorrectly, that first underlined fix isn't within 10 miles but you see my my point. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Oct 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
Interesting. No non-us pilot would know that except at a guess Canadians who use your airports all the time. As I say, if an eu pilot.is told cleared ils we will follow the ils from where we are, and once on the glide as according to icao without notes clearance from terrain is assured to 6000 we will follow it. In our book the controller would still be responsible for the aircraft separation and keeping the ils path clear of traffic. The busier the airspace the lower we expect to get cleared ils (Gatwick and Manchester tends to be from 2000 feet only). The controller did his job, just don't think he expected the interpretation. Cant say I blame anyone, all countries are as bad with the number of variations from icao standard! I shall dig out our lax plates when I get home to compare! hjp766 fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Oct 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
In the case of the aforementioned LAX plate, all the altitude restrictions are 'at or above'. The glideslope from the FAF to the runway is actually steeper than the altitude restrictions which are a slightly less than 3 degree path. So it would have to be a pretty weird pressure day to make a difference, on most days because it's a shallower descent path and "at or above" restrictions you'd need a severely unusual pressure to not make one of the restrictions, but something to keep in mind. In practice at LAX they usually dunk you from above anyway and start issuing speed restrictions at the same time which, again, go down and slow down tough in turbojets, it's one or the other. Things can get really interesting with a tailwind. If I'm on an arrival transitioning at 280 kts and I get a descend via, I'm on an optimized 3 degree glideslope all the way to the runway as much as possible complying with the fixes on there. It's not quite idle power, though, at 3 degrees usually, with zero wind 3.7 is idle power but that leaves very little wiggle room. Can go up to 4.3 with a good headwind but the problem is the wind dies down as you get lower and now you're boned. If I'm at 3.7 deg. and I get a weird restriction I'm gonna be either riding the speedbrakes hard or 'unable'. Which is why most people at my company just use 3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Well the FAA issued the notice because separation was being lost due to non compliance with the altitude limitations. Maybe it's rare, but it does happen. You don't need the glideslope prior to the FAF, comply with the altitude restrictions. Simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Well the FAA issued the notice because separation was being lost due to non compliance with the altitude limitations. Maybe it's rare, but it does happen. You don't need the glideslope prior to the FAF, comply with the altitude restrictions. Simple as that. Appreciate the ATC view. All our sops Instruct us that when cleared for the approach we arm it as we have been cleared for it at that point. The aircraft will then fly it as soon as its intercepted. Of note the one country that is crazy specific in transmission is Greece. There ATC always use after passing X cleared approach Y which means you can't arm the autopilot approach until you hit the waypoint specified as you would breach the clearance. The other is the UK where it is still a split call if vertical separation is needed by ATC (regular occurrence due to GA) Here we get a vector coupled with a descent and the instruction to establish localiser, report established. Then a glide clearance will come later. Cleared approach means they expect you to follow both as soon as you intercept, glideslope taking preference over altitude constraints once established within approach limits. I guess we shall have to agree to disagree as our procedures are not able to be made country or airport specific. TLDR if you tell us cleared some thing we hit the button to do it from where we are and configure/hold speeds to keep traffic flow up. There is too much going on in approach to not do it that way so we only look for the check height (normally at 4 miles) and if within 1/2 dot we keep coming down. hjp766 fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Oct 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
I see what you're saying but I don't see how being cleared for an ILS approach authorizes you to descend below a mandatory altitude restriction, whether the glideslope leads you there or not. Missing those restrictions is still a deviation from the published procedure. If your aircraft's automation causes that to happen then you gotta step in and correct it. If you're on a SID/STAR with altitude restrictions, and the wrong altitude is loaded into your FMS, causing you to bust what is printed on the chart, whose fault is that? It's the same situation. Automation causing non compliance with a published procedure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
Sounds like maybe PANS OPS rules for designing approaches stipulate that step down altitudes have to be below the glide slope, in which case European pilots are used to being guaranteed to comply with all step downs no matter how early they intercept the glide slope, and therefore not worry about it. That is of course not the case in the US and if international training for European pilots flying here does not include that difference, that is a huge oversight and needs to be corrected. "The approach" does not just mean the localizer and glide slope, but rather the whole procedure drawn on the approach plate, which may include many segments, the Final (I.e., glide slope) being merely one of them. In a radar environment it's common to be vectored onto a segment partway through the approach (therefore skipping some of the approach) but you're still responsible for flying the correct minimum altitude for the segment you get vectored onto and all subsequent ones. What I remember hearing about LAX is that it used to have stepdowns above the glide slope, leading leading to many busts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
It's just something that's always going to be a possibility when utilizing step-down fixes that are set in MSL with the local altimeter setting, and a glideslope which is a beam that occupies a fixed path through the air regardless of the barometer. That's why the glideslope intercept point is depicted on the FAA charts. If you wait until then to join the GS, you're all good every time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Been a lot of rumors that we'd be getting a 3-4% bump with the locality increase that was coming out since our facility is located in one of the 10 or so wealthiest counties in the nation. Turns out to be less than half of a percent. Thanks guys!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
I'm forseeing some old-bitter-gently caress-anger when I get into work this afternoon... Ours ended up being a quarter of a percent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Well, I wasn't going to bump my own thread. But, since you chuckle heads brought it back to life I'll go ahead and post about my recent ATC activity. I'm currently attending yet another course at the FAA academy in OKC. This course is an advanced radar course designed to build on a terminal approach controller's skills to prepare them to work in a large, busy TRACON like New York, Chicago, Atlanta etc. Basically, it's one day of class then 3 weeks of simulation problems. What I've really enjoyed about this course (over the basic radar course I took 6 years ago) is that they've broken down several approach control functions for repetitive practice. So, for example, they have a problem designed specifically for practicing your timing to get a plane to turn into a gap between two others. It's over half an hour of just "hitting gaps" and then you run that sim multiple times. They gradually bring in additional concepts while occasionally going back to review previous sim problems. We run 6 sims each day, plus a 7th competitive sim where we all see who can land as many planes as possible in a given time. We get scored and someone is the winner and gets bragging rights for the ten minutes remaining in the shift. Anyways, it has already taught me so much. What's great is that the progress is very measurable and noticeable. We're getting our butts kicked, but our scores are consistently improving and I can work these simulated planes into some situations that I never would have felt comfortable with at my previous facilities. You just don't see consistent enough traffic at the lower level places to get this kind of proficiency, so it has been really exciting. To be clear, I'm loving up PLENTY in these sims. We're getting a lot of help from our instructors, running some decent problems, and also completely botching a problem here or there. But I can already tell that I'll be better prepared to begin training at my new facility as a result of this course. Facility training will be more classwork, sims, then 50-100 hours of on the job training for EACH sector, so I'm not expected to be a pro at this just because I spent 3 weeks running sims at the academy. I don't normally drink the FAA kool-aid with regards to a lot of aspects of controller training. But, on day 2 of this course I was able to put a plane in an 8 mile gap between two others when we were aiming for 3-4 miles between each. We're scrutinizing this stuff to the tenth of a mile to try and cram as many airplanes into the airport as possible. It's frustrating at times, but it's pretty loving cool too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Were you able to keep your beard? Does your beard interfere in any way with the console? These are the important questions I want to know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
The beard is alive and well. Though, it's not solely enough to improve my lovely vectoring.
The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Despite the new guidance on Christmas lighting in FAA facilities, some controllers in my area took the initiative to get approval to hang a string of lights on the back wall of the area, very specifically in compliance with the technical order. (The ZAU Fire has set some people on edge, apparently...) The day after they got hung, another controller walks in, plugs in, and LOSES HIS poo poo, saying that he's light sensitive, can't see the scope, and can't work with these lights near him. He ended up taking it up to the supervisor, and then up to the Operations Manager, who took it seriously, but was very obviously amused by the entire situation. Note to any approach controllers in the thread, that while not lit to a typical office brightness, our center, at least, is still not nearly as dark as the terminal radar rooms I've been in. Also, this is not the first time we've had Christmas lights in the area. They're still up, and the "light sensitive" controller now unplugs them with an exasperated huff whenever he walks into the area, and as soon as he leaves, someone plugs them back in, and everyone laughs at him. Moral: controllers will find the most inane, petty bullshit to complain about. It is your duty to use that knowledge to torment them incessantly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
We've had surprisingly little drama with our christmas lights/decorations. My area doing them even got other areas into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I'm currently attending yet another course at the FAA academy in OKC. This Hey cool I'm in OKC too for initial en route training!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:Hey cool I'm in OKC too for initial en route training! You in the en route building already or in the basics building?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:You in the en route building already or in the basics building? En route building, finished basics last week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:00 |
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:En route building, finished basics last week. Cool beans. Basics was tedious but beneficial. I'm sure you've received plenty of unsolicited advice, so I'll keep it short. Don't be playing catch up. You want to be as prepared as possible going into the graded sims so you have a comfortable point cushion and aren't having to scramble on the last problem for a passing grade. I take my lunch in the "international hall" between the basics classrooms and the radar lab building (it's all connected). If you're ever back over there, say hi. I'm the one with the beard. You'll know. I'm done with class on the 15th.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 04:14
|
|