|
The Ferret King posted:U.S. ATC is required to obtain acknowledgement of instructions from the pilot, including their callsign. Acknowledgement can be "roger," "wilco," or other such remarks. IF a pilot reads back an instruction's contents, the controller is responsible for ensuring that the readback is accurate. So, mostly the same as Canada, except that we can acknowledge just by transmitting our callsign, unless a readback is required.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:32 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/MikeDelMoro/status/871407975029669889
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Brevity is the soul of wit, and also of radio communications. I can't describe how little I care about your ride if the word "chop" is involved. If you're getting light turbulence or worse I'm going to do what I can, outside of that I don't want to hear from you, especially since since I've probably told you you're going to get chop when you checked on so I hopefully wouldn't have to hear about it again later. I'm almost always going to say "there's occasional chop" when asked too because if I don't someone will ask about that light ripple they just got. It's not an intentional thing on my part, but my feelings about your chop absolutely comes across on frequency too. I'm also trying to work on not sounding "annoyed" with VFR and other GA traffic because I'm actually not and I don't want anyone to not call me because I sound like I didn't want to talk to them. I'm here to keep those little dudes from killing themselves and more than glad to help. The Ferret King posted:U.S. ATC is required to obtain acknowledgement of instructions from the pilot, including their callsign. Acknowledgement can be "roger," "wilco," or other such remarks. IF a pilot reads back an instruction's contents, the controller is responsible for ensuring that the readback is accurate. So many career pilots are really bad at readbacks, especially when it comes to RNAV arrivals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:My first transmission was to a bonanza on an IFR flight plan, telling him to maintain VFR. (I misheard a callsign.) Hearing the mental "What the gently caress" from SouthWest behind us on Friday when we stick to the ILS 25L in Vegas empty having given heads-up to all you guys that "we're a bit light today, approach speed is 115 so we have to slow early" - in an A330... your lads were well on the ball - but bloody hell it was sporty with everything and the speed brakes out at 10 miles trying to get the drat thing to slow down at all - just made it to within operating limits at 1000 AGL (and as I seem to recall we have some KLAS goons it was the Kestrel from Boston - sorry for loving your sequencing)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:For a more GA-centric reply, I'd much prefer you make me aware that you're out there and looking for something, and let me ask you for the other info I need, instead of keying up with: MrYenko posted:Standing offer to pilot or dispatcher-goons: If you're in the Miami area, I'd be more than happy to give you a center tour. Some of these things make more sense when you see them from the other side of the scope. Time to figure out a Miami layover... hjp766 fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Jun 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:A good controller doesn't get annoyed with this sort of thing, and actually encourages it. Personally, if I'm slow enough, I make it a point to thank pilots that confirm things they think they might have misheard, or clearances that weren't sufficiently clear. It's my responsibility, but anyone on frequency (even an uninvolved third aircraft on frequency!) can step up and break the chain of events that can result in an unsafe situation. A billion times this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Brevity is the soul of wit, and also of radio communications. My instructor has definitely drilled into me to take up as little space on the airwaves as possible, including not saying my whole ID on CTAFs after the first two times or so. That said, I try to take a second or two to thank the controller I'm speaking to, and even at my baby pilot stage I feel like I'm getting good at saying "contactingtower118.7thankyousirskyhawk123" and such. I'm moving to the Fort Lauderdale area soon and probably will be hanging around KFXE a lot, so I might just come down the way and take you up on that offer at some point! hjp766 posted:If it's busy adopt the "Contact Director, Callsign only approach"... Get a gap in transmission. Then just "Director/Centre/Radar XXX123. Shut up and wait to be asked. They know you're listening. Also, what part of "Monitor" and "Standby" do people not understand. I do this a lot with Approach and they haven't gotten mad at me yet, as far as I can tell. Skyhawks move slow as poo poo compared to everything else so it's easy to just stay outside Class C for a bit and wait for them to call me back
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Also never ever ever be afraid to query a clearance... Even with three up front the number of times we hear different things and query it is huge. Just don't say what you think you heard... we are all knackered: XXX123 Confirm cleared XXX - then we all look NB Heard in NYC: Sir - you hear how fast I talk, that's how fast I write. Say again please...
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
I do have to admit, as a personal matter, I hate the callup, "Potomac Approach, November 123"... and then nothing. I find that extremely unhelpful, and ironically, it's substantially less helpful the busier I am. If I'm busy, I have no idea where to slot you into my workflow (since I don't know what you want) and I'm also afraid to get back to you because too many pilots take that as an invitation to dominate the frequency. To me, no matter how busy I am, a useful callup tells me who you are, where you are (in relation to a fix I'm likely to know about) and what you want. For example, "Potomac approach, Skyhawk 123, 5 miles north of Casanova, request flight following to Martinsburg". Boom, now I know exactly what it's going to take to handle you, and I can take care of the things on my end (transponder code, etc) and get back to you when it makes sense with everything else I'm doing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:I do have to admit, as a personal matter, I hate the callup, "Potomac Approach, November 123"... and then nothing. I find that extremely unhelpful, and ironically, it's substantially less helpful the busier I am. If I'm busy, I have no idea where to slot you into my workflow (since I don't know what you want) and I'm also afraid to get back to you because too many pilots take that as an invitation to dominate the frequency. To me, no matter how busy I am, a useful callup tells me who you are, where you are (in relation to a fix I'm likely to know about) and what you want. For example, "Potomac approach, Skyhawk 123, 5 miles north of Casanova, request flight following to Martinsburg". Boom, now I know exactly what it's going to take to handle you, and I can take care of the things on my end (transponder code, etc) and get back to you when it makes sense with everything else I'm doing. Slight expansion. When it's manic we get handed off with "kestrel 2719 Monitor London XXX.XX" 1 step back is "Kestrel 2719 Gatwick Director Callsign only" 50% of the time we get a normal "Contact London" Only wih the instruction contact will we pass anything other than callsign. Except a good morning. Let's face it at FL380 you want me you ask if I'm up. if your too busy to answer initial and I can hear you I will sit here fat dumb and happy till you talk to me... phone calls in London/ anywhere manic to coordinate are amusing I am told NB this is why you have guard on box 2... and why frequency readbacks are not a joke... NB2 Try IATA Inflight broadcast/ self separation over central Africa... whilst being quote unquote "controlled" hjp766 fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
What would this even entail? It's not like he can just privatize everything because he wants to. I mean, the republicans in congress would totally pass a privatization bill and he would most likely sign it, but what are the odds of it happening?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
its all nice on rice posted:What would this even entail? It's not like he can just privatize everything because he wants to. I mean, the republicans in congress would totally pass a privatization bill and he would most likely sign it, but what are the odds of it happening? I think there's a decent chance. The problems they're having passing legislation come from stuff that's controversial within the R caucus. I doubt Trump's staff will be involved except tangentially in the bill's drafting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
its all nice on rice posted:What would this even entail? It's not like he can just privatize everything because he wants to. I mean, the republicans in congress would totally pass a privatization bill and he would most likely sign it, but what are the odds of it happening? Boeing will slip a bill under Paul Ryan's door. Reminder: quote:During his January 17 visit to Trump Tower, Muilenburg was allowed to listen in to part of a call between Trump and Lt. General Christopher Bogdan. Bogdan is responsible for the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The F-35 is made by Lockheed Martin (LMT) and is a competitor of Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet. Boeing somehow getting ATC while Lockmart got flight service would be hilarious. ...until it gets someone killed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:I do have to admit, as a personal matter, I hate the callup, "Potomac Approach, November 123"... and then nothing. I find that extremely unhelpful, and ironically, it's substantially less helpful the busier I am. If I'm busy, I have no idea where to slot you into my workflow (since I don't know what you want) and I'm also afraid to get back to you because too many pilots take that as an invitation to dominate the frequency. To me, no matter how busy I am, a useful callup tells me who you are, where you are (in relation to a fix I'm likely to know about) and what you want. For example, "Potomac approach, Skyhawk 123, 5 miles north of Casanova, request flight following to Martinsburg". Boom, now I know exactly what it's going to take to handle you, and I can take care of the things on my end (transponder code, etc) and get back to you when it makes sense with everything else I'm doing. As a pilot, how I'd hope that open-ended call would be interpreted is "I recognize the frequency is busy, I'm well outside the area where I need to talk to you immediately, but I have to talk to you for some reason eventually so let's do it at a convenient time" -- so, in essence, always lowest priority compared to everything else. But if it's more convenient on your end for us to just make a succinct but full initial call regardless, I could start making a habit of that too. I'm just nervous about taking more of your time when you've more important things to attend to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
hjp766 posted:Slight expansion. Very true. In the US (except for certain airports) "monitor 124.65" is used a lot less frequently, which is annoying when you try to use it and pilots don't get it. I was working a feeder sector and the final guy asked me to start having pilots monitor his frequency when I switched them over. I did, and a half-dozen airplanes later he shouts over "You gonna have these fuckin' guys monitor me or what?!" because none of them had done it, they'd all checked right in  PT6A posted:As a pilot, how I'd hope that open-ended call would be interpreted is "I recognize the frequency is busy, I'm well outside the area where I need to talk to you immediately, but I have to talk to you for some reason eventually so let's do it at a convenient time" -- so, in essence, always lowest priority compared to everything else. But if it's more convenient on your end for us to just make a succinct but full initial call regardless, I could start making a habit of that too. I'm just nervous about taking more of your time when you've more important things to attend to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:Aye, and like I said, this is just me personally. But speaking for myself, I'd always rather have the basics (who where what) than not. Same here. I'd much rather have a quick call with aircraft type, ATIS, altitude, and simple request.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Welp there's the story. It's just him approving of a plan that didn't go anywhere last year. If it's actually something like Canada's system, cool. But this is America...
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
its all nice on rice posted:Welp there's the story. It's just him approving of a plan that didn't go anywhere last year. I know nothing about ATC, but I am vaguely uncomfortable with the idea of control being private since I assume corps will be jackasses about it. How might it benefit us?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Couldn't tell you (I'm no a controller... yet) but organizations can be effectively run by both the private and public sector, it's just a matter of execution. I used to work for BAE and was embedded with public workers. They did their jobs fine and we did ours. The problems came from other contractors trying to take the contract and underbid us or middle management types on both sides creating problems where there weren't any. We shared a contract with Lockheed Martin and dealing with them was the worst and I hated it. E: a problem with government contracts is that they often go to the lowest bidder even though everyone knows their numbers are fudged and unrealistic. They suddenly run out of money six months into the first year, ask for more, and start cutting positions and benefits to save on cost. its all nice on rice fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Here's how to make a good radio call: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDdG42l3uOQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Can I FOIA the time today where I had to tell another controller to say unable to my request? Because 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:Very true. In the US (except for certain airports) "monitor 124.65" is used a lot less frequently, which is annoying when you try to use it and pilots don't get it. I was working a feeder sector and the final guy asked me to start having pilots monitor his frequency when I switched them over. I did, and a half-dozen airplanes later he shouts over "You gonna have these fuckin' guys monitor me or what?!" because none of them had done it, they'd all checked right in Just to make sure I have this right, when controllers say "monitor XXX.xx" we should acknowledge the hand off and then not check in at all on the new frequency until that controller wants to hear from us? Cause that's what I've been doing for the last 3 years or so of my flying career.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
xaarman posted:Here's how to make a good radio call: "fly direct BDA VOR, after crossing the shoreline, descend and maintain negative one-thousand feet"
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:Just to make sure I have this right, when controllers say "monitor XXX.xx" we should acknowledge the hand off and then not check in at all on the new frequency until that controller wants to hear from us? Cause that's what I've been doing for the last 3 years or so of my flying career.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
The other crewmember said "let's just go ahead and give them a courtesy call anyway" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
JerikTelorian posted:How might it benefit us? If you're a GA pilot, particularly a non-NBAA-affiliated pilot, you're hosed. If you happen to be a large part 121 airline with significant lobbying budget, well, you're going to love it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 10:42
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Can I FOIA the time today where I had to tell another controller to say unable to my request? Because STORY TIME!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 10:42
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/twVTPrpF9QM
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:STORY TIME! It's nothing that good, but here you go: I'm working one of our super high sectors(FL350 and up). The sector below me flashes me a guy at FL340 that wants 360. I buy it. Weather is starting to pop up and I realize I have another guy at FL360 that if either of them deviate they're going to fly into each other. I yell at the sector below me that I might not be able to get him up but I'm gonna make a call because they're 5ish minutes out from the next sector. me: Apreq this guy at 350 for traffic D-side trainee: aboabiajaojaoidididkhjohjljlkkjljlaai Trainer: Hold on. Uh, why can't you just leave that guy at 340? me: I'm trying to get him out of 12's(sector below me) airspace and I'm calling you before I climb the guy. Trainer: extended period of hemming and hawing. me: JUST SAY UNABLE  : unableFor real, just say the magic word, especially when you have traffic. I'm not going to cry. I might call you a cocksucker offline, but that was probably going to happen anyway because that's what I do. If the sector below me needs the guy up we'll go from there, but that wasn't the case here. JUST SAY UNABLE
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
The gently caress? I take a perverse, primal pleasure in the few occasions I get to say unable. Dude needs to get his priorities in order. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
It's 24 hours after the Trumpvatization announcement and I'm already loving tired of seeing privatization memes how the world is going to end. If anyone wants to have a serious discussion about it, I know some poo poo and I'm happy to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
TangoFox posted:It's 24 hours after the Trumpvatization announcement and I'm already loving tired of seeing privatization memes how the world is going to end. I'll certainly read it, but I'm in the wrong end of the industry to comment on it properly. What in particular are people screwing up in their analysis?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
So if you read a USAToday opinion article, you'll think that we're going to be giving clearances sponsored by McDonalds. Or you can read the article floating around on reuters by the FAA MA, which has some basis in fact, but it's mostly just garbage. First and foremost, you should read the AIRR Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4441/text from last year to understand the basis of the current proposed idea. Read: For now, it is just that, an idea, as until Chairman Shuster lays out a bill to the committee, this thing is just an idea. However, given he wrote the AIRR Act of 2016, it'll probably be very similar. Expect some language to reiterate that we can't strike (duh). This was just sent out to all members, it clarifies a lot of poo poo. I'm not in favor or against of privatization as an idea or talking point, there are definitely some major issues we'd have to clear up first, but I do see the premise as a foundation for something better. As it currently stands, our current ATC fiefdom is FUBAR - I mean, NEXGEN and METROPLEX are great examples of how lovely and bureaucratic this current system is. Or, look at our procurement process for new equipment. It hovers just above the verge of social security administration slow. ----------------- Dear Brothers and Sisters, Yesterday was an eventful day for our Union and professions. At a large White House event, the President announced his proposal to move the air traffic control system to a not-for-profit, non-governmental corporation. We want to clarify some incorrect reports and misconceptions to help NATCA members understand what happened and what it ultimately means. We also want to emphasize that NATCA will continue to protect the rights and benefits of the workforce that would move to the new entity and those who would remain with the FAA, if any proposed legislation became law. PRESIDENTIAL PROPOSAL: Yesterday, the President signed a letter to Congress that outlines the broad parameters of his plan. He did not sign a formal proposal nor any detailed legislative language. Rather, it was simply a policy statement. Based on the President’s public statements today and the policy document itself, the White House’s ATC reform proposal is similar to H.R. 4441, the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act of 2016 (AIRR Act), which was the ATC reform proposal championed by House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster. NATCA supported the AIRR Act last year because it met our Union’s Four Core Principles for Reform. NATCA POSITION As we have stated in communications, NATCA has not taken a position on any of the discussed ATC reform proposals, including the President’s proposal. The details mean everything with ATC reform. Before we can take a position on any reform proposal, we must see the specifics of that legislation, so we can evaluate whether it satisfies our Union’s principles, including protecting the rights and benefits of the ATC workforce. WHITE HOUSE EVENT The White House event included current and former secretaries of Transportation, FAA administrators, and Members of Congress. NATCA was also invited to attend the event. Like any presidential event, it was well-covered live by the news media. Dialogue about this proposal also has been robust on social media. You can watch a White House video of the event here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/featured-videos/video/2017/06/05/president-trump-announces-air-traffic-control-reform-initiative WAS NATCA THERE? Principal Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders incorrectly stated during the White House daily press briefing that NATCA officials attended the event and support the President’s proposal. NATCA did not attend the President’s announcement at the White House, and we cannot take a position on any reform proposal without reviewing all of the details. MEDIA OUTREACH NATCA issued a proactive media statement about the President’s proposal that was widely picked-up by many of the television, radio, print, and web news sources that covered this announcement. We also corrected incorrect statements and responded to questions from dozens of congressional offices and media representatives. WHAT IS NEXT? The President delivered this proposal to Congress, which already has a very busy agenda. Reform legislation will need to pass both the House and the Senate before the President can sign it into law. As we reported on June 2, much can change during this legislative process, and no one can predict when it might get a Congressional vote or what any final legislation may look like. No matter what occurs during this process, NATCA will continue to fight to protect the National Airspace System (NAS) and the men and women who safeguard it. We have met with White House staff on several occasions to ensure the Administration understands NATCA’s priorities. We also are working closely with the congressional offices engaged in drafting legislation. To get NATCA support, any legislation proposing ATC reform must, at a minimum, meet NATCA’s Four Core Principles for Reform: Protect the men and women who ensure the safety and efficiency of the NAS in their employment relationship, including their rights and benefits; Maintain safety and efficiency as the top priorities; Provide a stable, predictable funding stream that adequately supports air traffic control services, staffing, hiring and training, long-term modernization, preventative maintenance, and ongoing modernization of the physical infrastructure; and Ensure continued service to all segments of our nation’s diverse aviation community. We have advocated for all of the following issues to be included in any change, although some would not be necessary depending on what model, if any, becomes law. NATCA would continue as the exclusive representative of those represented today, with nationwide bargaining units. (If there were a split between operations and safety/regulatory, we would continue to represent units in both areas.) Hybrid Labor Code - FLRA would maintain jurisdiction, but NATCA would have the negotiation rights of a private sector union, to allow NATCA to negotiate those matters covered by statute for the federal workforce but not covered by statute for private sector employees. Dispute Resolution Process – Collective bargaining disputes would be resolved through mediation, followed by binding arbitration for issues at impasse. Protections of FERS/CSRS, TSP, Survivor Annuity, and the ability to negotiate pensions in the case of a model outside of government. Sick leave, annual leave, comp time, and credit hour carry-over. Pay, compensation, and benefits remain in effect, including COLA to locality where occurring, and the ability to negotiate benefits in the case of a model outside of government. Collective Bargaining Agreements, orders, rules, practices remain in effect until renegotiated. Grievances, lawsuits, etc., continue in process. Workers’ Compensation under the Federal employee program (FECA). Whistleblower protections. Liability protection: employee indemnification where acting in the course of their duty. Process for movement between new entity and regulatory FAA. Transitional Agreements to deal with the multitude of issues that would arise during any transition. Unresolved issues would be subject to the binding arbitration, dispute resolution process. Bi-Lateral - Between labor and the new entity Tri-Partite - Between labor, the new entity, and the safety/regulatory entity. Labor seats on the governance board. We will not support—and will aggressively oppose—any bill that does not protect these items, or threatens our ability to exist as a union, negotiate all work rules, pay/benefits, and participate in a fair dispute resolution process. The devil is in the details, and we intend to pore over every detail in the draft bill, when it is finally released. HOW CAN YOU HELP? Many of you have been contacted by members of the media and some congressional offices. We ask that you please continue to forward any such contacts to the National Office. For media inquiries, please forward to Director of Communications Doug Church [Email Redacted] For legislative inquiries, please forward to Director of Government Affairs Jose Ceballos [Email Redacted] We will continue to keep you updated as the debate continues and more details about the ATC reform process unfold. In solidarity, NATCA National Executive Board
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
I'm still new to the FAA but I'm cynical as gently caress when it comes to NATCA and I have no faith that they'll be representing the best interests of the controllers and the NAS. For you guys who have been in NATCA for a while, do you think NATCA will gently caress us?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The gently caress? I take a perverse, primal pleasure in the few occasions I get to say unable. For real. two_beer_bishes posted:I'm still new to the FAA but I'm cynical as gently caress when it comes to NATCA and I have no faith that they'll be representing the best interests of the controllers and the NAS. For you guys who have been in NATCA for a while, do you think NATCA will gently caress us? Natca is hosed if they gently caress us. That's the main reason why they won't do anything too stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:I'm still new to the FAA but I'm cynical as gently caress when it comes to NATCA and I have no faith that they'll be representing the best interests of the controllers and the NAS. For you guys who have been in NATCA for a while, do you think NATCA will gently caress us? There are facilities out there that are inexperienced as facility representatives go, and there are assholes, but by in large, we will fight you for every single time, whether the person is an rear end in a top hat or not really involved, or if they're a model citizen. It doesn't matter. Why? Because one person can set precedence. They fire one person for having a LoSS and then it opens the gate for them to fire other people for the same thing. If we didn't fight for you, people would leave the union, the union would disband, and we'd start another one that would fight for you. All I know is I've seen the colors that management wears, and they will trample you on their way up the ladder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Thanks for the insight, I'll hope for the best!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
What color IS abject incompetence?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:What color IS abject incompetence?  
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:32 |
|
|
When I went flying today I focused on taking y'all's advice with my radio calls and it went great. I think a problem with a lot of pilot training is that, with regards to communications, it focuses on being legal and "good enough." But we're the other side in a very important equation, so honestly we should pay as much attention to improving our communication procedures as the rest of our airmanship. Two questions, though: on approach I got "cleared to descent" with no restriction. I clarified, but in the future should I take that to mean I can descend as required for a straight in approach? Second: on ground, I was given clearance to taxi to an intersecting, inactive runway and pull off to allow opposite direction traffic to pass. I pulled left on the runway, but I get the feeling I should have gone right. No direction was specified; was that my fault, for not being aware of where other traffic was taxiing (which I suppose it was, in any case), should the controller have given me an instruction, or should I have asked for clarification?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 03:16
|
|