LiveATC Discussion Forums
Air Traffic Monitoring => Aviation Audio Clips => Topic started by: SkanknTodd on March 21, 2008, 12:51:02 PM
-
Pretty self-explanatory... Edited slightly for dead air, etc. NY controllers are generally very helpful and friendly if you're nice and professional, but they bite hard if you disrespect them.
Todd
-
What the controller says about assigned speeds of CAMRN and LENDY isn't necessarily correct. I'm not doubting the controller, he knows his airspace better than I do. But the clearances, per the SID, are CAMRN: "Expect to cross at 11,000' and 250kts" and LENDY: "Expect to cross at FL190 and 250kts".
When I fly these arrivals, I get the altitude crossing restriction 100% of the time. But I only get the speed restriction about 75% of the time (I've had them ask me to speed up). Also, as these are "expect" only, we are not required to comply with them. They are just advisory of what to anticipate from the center controller.
If assigned a speed of 310kts, for example, while cruising at 10,000', and then given a clearance to descend to 8,000', that deletes the previous speed restriction as well. But, on the other hand, if given an assigned speed of 250kts at FL190 then given a clearance to descend to 8,000', the speed restriction stays valid.
I guess what I'm saying here is JBU very well could have been given a speed restriction of 250kts over CAMRN. But the previous controller (this would have been given by ZDC) may not have given him the speed restriction. We just don't know the facts. Obviously the controller was expecting him to have the 250kt restriction.
-
It is the "I can give you a number to call..."
Kinda swings the Jetblue
-
also note the voice coming from JetBlue changes towards the end. sounds like the captain doesn't want the FO to get in any deeper than he is...
-
an easily-resolved problem, all the controller had to say is "Jet Blue 852 increase your speed to 230kts, i got traffic behind you comin' in a little faster." Jet blue would've sped up, and that's all she wrote. But no, had to get the new york sarcasm in there and make the situation tense for both sides. Also, when the controller informed the pilots of the speed restrictions, that was fine, it could've been done just before transferring them to tower. It's all about attitude.
-
Jetblue was friendly and asked "what do you need?" He got a sarcastic instruction in return. What if he had followed it? I probably wouldve asked the same question. They are on approach in busy airspace. No reason to be rude on the controllers part at all. Jetblue responded they were assigned that speed and he still gave em a lecture and the "I can give you a number to call" bit.
-
I'd have to side with JBU on this one.
Here's this poor guy, oblivious to the fact that he's being overtaken by a faster aircraft. When the controller queries him he makes it clear he'll do whatever the controller wants. Then he immediately gets a "f--k you" vector with side of sarcasm. He didn't help matters much with his "you wanna play games" comment but obviously there was a breakdown in communication somewhere. Either he was given a speed and didn't follow it or my guess is he wasn't assigned one but the controller thought the arrival assigned him one. And as Cessna157 pointed out, the speeds on the SID are "Expect" instructions, for planning purposes only.
It was obviously not that busy or the controller wouldn't have had time to get into it with the pilot. I think he was just irritated because if it HAD been busy, some clown doing 220kts thirty out could be a deal waiting to happen.
-
Wow, this guy's got some serious attitude... Maybe he didn't get any the night before... If I were the Jeblue pilot, I would've considered calling the TRACON on landing... That was uncalled for...
-
If assigned a speed of 310kts, for example, while cruising at 10,000',
you shouldnt accept that assignment as it is a violation of FAR's.
-
If assigned a speed of 310kts, for example, while cruising at 10,000',
you shouldnt accept that assignment as it is a violation of FAR's.
Below 10,000ft is a violation not at 10,000.
-
If assigned a speed of 310kts, for example, while cruising at 10,000',
you shouldnt accept that assignment as it is a violation of FAR's.
As Kiel pointed out, only below 10,000 feet is there a maximum speed restriction of 250 knots IAS (14 CFR ยง91.117). If a controller issues a descent below 10,000 feet and appends "off-shore rules apply" you can also exceed 250 knots (speed restrictions of 250 knots do not apply to aircraft operating beyond 12 NM from the coastline within the U.S. Flight Information Region, in offshore Class E airspace below 10,000 feet MSL). Such an instructions is common descending into an eastern Florida destination from an over-water route.
-
This controller did the right thing. Pilots flying into JFK ought to know the drill at JFK, and it is rare to find a pilot (especially at JBU) doing this kind of thing anymore. We are working our tails off to get everyone on the ground as safely and efficiently as possible with unrealistic levels of traffic.
The airspace over NY is not designed for someone who wants to pull the speed back without alerting the controller first. Think of it like this. You are in the middle of 15 cars driving in the left lane of the LIE doing 55 MPH, each with just a few feet between them (minimum spacing). The lead car slows to 35 MPH without hitting the brakes. What happens. Everyone behind that lead car gets put in an unsafe situation, while getting delayed, and in turn, creating a traffic jam. JFK is a saturated airport, and if one plane slows when not told to do so, everyone slows, and the holding patterns fill up and last the rest of the day.
Again, the controller was 100% correct. The pilot needed to understand right away that what he did does not work in New York, and if he wanted to slow, then he would be resequenced behind faster traffic that wanted to land. Pilots are issued 250 KTS at CAMRN and LENDY, and I agree with this controller that slowing down from that restriction would be a possible deviation.
-
I COMPLETELY disagree with the last post... Unless you are given a restriction by the pilot NOT to slow down to below X speed until crossing the outer marker, or something to that effect, the pilot is free to slow down at will... If the controller does not want to backlog the guys behind this guy, then he needs to amend the clearance with something to that effect (ie. "JBU XXX cleared ILS approach runway XX, maintain 230 knots or better until the outer marker, traffic 6 nm in trail" etc.) otherwise, the pilot can assume that the traffic behind him is not a concern and start slowing down and retracting flaps, gear, etc. on his own schedule... with no speed restriction issued, the pilot can just assume that there's no one behind him, or that he's far enough ahead that there's no conflict with him slowing down... Air Traffic Controllers are supposed to be proactive, not assume that the pilot is going to do the right thing (because when given the choice, pilots will do what's best for their plane alone... it's up to the controller to think ahead and to think of the big picture... not the pilot...)
-
Again, the controller was 100% correct. The pilot needed to understand right away that what he did does not work in New York, and if he wanted to slow, then he would be resequenced behind faster traffic that wanted to land. Pilots are issued 250 KTS at CAMRN and LENDY, and I agree with this controller that slowing down from that restriction would be a possible deviation.
And in the off chance that the aircraft was never assigned the CAMRN or LENDY speed restriction? There simply are not enough facts to base a solid answer on this one. It is indeed a standard operating practice to issue the 250 knot restriction, but there are cases when that doesn't always happen due to a wide variety of variables. Whether the pilot was right or wrong, it's an excellent opportunity to learn from the situation and to query ATC when given an instruction that deviates from an "EXPECT ____" notation on an assigned flight procedure.
-
Scrapper and Jason,
You both must be right. I am sure your extensive knowledge about the intricacies and daily operational characteristics of the JFK sector at New York TRACON trump my irrelevant REAL-world experience in the aforementioned sector as a certified FAA Air Traffic Control Specialist.
By the way 230 till the marker is not only illegal but painfully wrong. There is no "marker" anymore, and you cannot assign a turbojet aircraft 230 knots till the FAF per FAA Order 7110.65 Chapter 5.
-
You both must be right. I am sure your extensive knowledge about the intricacies and daily operational characteristics of the JFK sector at New York TRACON trump my irrelevant REAL-world experience in the aforementioned sector as a certified FAA Air Traffic Control Specialist.
By the way 230 till the marker is not only illegal but painfully wrong. There is no "marker" anymore, and you cannot assign a turbojet aircraft 230 knots till the FAF per FAA Order 7110.65 Chapter 5.
How about you consider cutting the attitude and use your expert guidance from your professional experience to post something positive? Did I ever say I must be right? I simply said that there are many variables involved, and as a pilot, I know sometimes controllers forget from time to time, just as pilots do too. When I receive a clearance that's different from the norm, I question it to confirm (yes, even in N90). No one is doubting your experience, and we certainly appreciate your insight on the forum. This board mainly consists of folks that are not professional controllers and you have to take that into consideration.
It's hard to prove the pilot was assigned the 250 knot restriction without pulling the tapes. He most likely was, but you can't be sure until you hear the CAMRN or LENDY crossing restriction being given.
-
Scrapper and Jason,
You both must be right. I am sure your extensive knowledge about the intricacies and daily operational characteristics of the JFK sector at New York TRACON trump my irrelevant REAL-world experience in the aforementioned sector as a certified FAA Air Traffic Control Specialist.
By the way 230 till the marker is not only illegal but painfully wrong. There is no "marker" anymore, and you cannot assign a turbojet aircraft 230 knots till the FAF per FAA Order 7110.65 Chapter 5.
I think its my turn to chime in again. As a professional pilot that flies into NY airspace and tougher airspaces around the country (yes, that's right, I don't consider NY airspace to be the worst), I think I might have a little authority on the subject.
Firstly, saying that there is no "marker" anymore is completely true. Except for one funny thing. Just a few days ago I was flying the GPS13L at JFK, coming up over CRI, following an American Eagle over DMYHL, and tower reported I was following an Embraer over the marker. Am I going to argue the fact that the tower was wrong on 2 accounts, or am I just going to understand that I know exactly where they are.
Second, there are absolutely no assumptions in the aviation industry, legally. Stating that a pilot flying into JFK "ought to know the drill" is one of the worst things someone could say about ATC, especially from an ATCS. The American air traffic control system hand feeds just about everything to the pilots, unless it is already written somewhere. If you want EVERY aircraft to maintain 250kts at CAMRN and LENDY, have the STAR changed from "Expect 250kts" to "At 250kts." It definitely would not be the first arrival route to have a hard speed restriction. We're adults, we know that when the STAR says "AT" we'll cross it without any intervention from ATC.
Third, and I know this is going to be taken as flame bait, but I honestly don't want it to be. N90, JFK, and LGA all get away with stuff that is very non-standard (I cannot speak for EWR as I do not fly there on a regular basis). Everyone, including the FAA, turns a blind eye to these non-standard practices. Just the other day, LGA was operating on 1 runway. A Delta 757 had landed on Rwy31 and was turned halfway off of the runway but had to stop due to gridlock on the taxiways. His main gear had stopped exactly on the hold short bar (half of his airplane was still on the runway enviornment). The controller cleared the next guy for takeoff anyway and advised him "use caution for traffic downfield." Now if that was me, I would have refused that clearance for 2 reasons. There was still half of a 757 on my runway not moving, and I have no idea what the clearance of "use caution for traffic downfield" means. Also, N90's frequency changes are very nonstandard. I had an instruction the other day of "Comair twenty four Newark twenty eighty five." Now as an N90 controller, you might know exactly what that means. The captain and I both had no idea what that meant, as we were not flying into/out of Newark at all. The controller got very angry after I asked what he was trying to tell me. On the third try, someone else's voice came on and said "Com24, contact new york approach on one two zero point eight five." That's a bit of a difference between clearances.
Okay, rant over. More to come later I'm sure. Go ahead. Over
-
Also, N90's frequency changes are very nonstandard. I had an instruction the other day of "Comair twenty four Newark twenty eighty five." Now as an N90 controller, you might know exactly what that means. The captain and I both had no idea what that meant, as we were not flying into/out of Newark at all. The controller got very angry after I asked what he was trying to tell me. On the third try, someone else's voice came on and said "Com24, contact new york approach on one two zero point eight five." That's a bit of a difference between clearances.
Where's Don Brown when you need him? :) Imagine if you were a non-US airline pilot receiving that instruction.
Enjoy your posts, Cessna157 - Thanks for offering your experiences.
-
Cessna, I agree with your last post entirely. While I might have been incorrect about the marker thing, the point I was trying to make had nothing to do with the marker. The point I was trying to make is that you can't expect a pilot to know what's going on behind him, unless you tell him... And unless your clearance asks for a specific speed for the approach, the pilot can slow down to whatever his approach speed is, at whatever point he wants. If the STAR has a speed to follow, the pilot will follow it. If not, the pilot will slow down at his own schedule, when he's ready, and the only way to prevent that (and again, perhaps my terminology is wrong, but I'm not going for a radiotelephony test here, I'm trying to make a point) is to restrict his speed by saying something to the effect of "maintain X speed until ... traffic 6nm behind you" (in fact, go ahead and correct my terminology so I know the correct way to say it, but my point is that unless either the STAR or the controller's clearance restricts the pilot in some way, nothing wrong with the pilot slowing down. If you don't want him to slow down, then your clearance has to include that in some way.)
-
If not, the pilot will slow down at his own schedule, when he's ready, and the only way to prevent that (and again, perhaps my terminology is wrong, but I'm not going for a radiotelephony test here, I'm trying to make a point) is to restrict his speed by saying something to the effect of "maintain X speed until ... traffic 6nm behind you" (in fact, go ahead and correct my terminology so I know the correct way to say it, but my point is that unless either the STAR or the controller's clearance restricts the pilot in some way, nothing wrong with the pilot slowing down. If you don't want him to slow down, then your clearance has to include that in some way.)
What you just described is pretty much what usually happens on line, except for the traffic call behind you. Coming into CVG during a busier time, landing on 18L, you can pretty much count on getting "Maintain 170kts (or 180kts) to FRAZE)" or landing 26R in ATL you'll get a clearance like "Maintain 180kts to AJAAY, contact tower at AJAAY."
Generally, when flying into any class B airport, or another busier terminal area, you can expect to get speed assignments. It almost feels wierd sometimes flying in and not getting speed restrictions, because then you find yourself 15 miles out still doing 250kts and thinking to yourself "ya know, I guess I should probably slow up before I fly right past the airport"
Its always funny getting the call from approach saying "Comair, you gonna be able to make it down from there?" My standard response is "Put the flaps, gear, and brakes out and this thing glides like a Maytag!"
-
By the way 230 till the marker is not only illegal but painfully wrong. There is no "marker" anymore, and you cannot assign a turbojet aircraft 230 knots till the FAF per FAA Order 7110.65 Chapter 5.
I'm a little confused as to why you cannot assign a turbojet 230 till the FAF. I could not find anything in the book precluding this instruction. As far as I can tell it is above the minimum recommended speed specified for turbojets in Ch 5, and the application appears to be correct as well. Are you referring to a different spot in the 7110.65?
Section 7. Speed Adjustment
5-7-1. APPLICATION
b. Do not assign speed adjustment to aircraft:
1. At or above FL 390 without pilot consent.
2. Executing a published high altitude instrument approach procedure.
3. In a holding pattern.
4. Inside the final approach fix on final or a point 5 miles from the runway, whichever is closer to the runway.
c. At the time approach clearance is issued, previously issued speed adjustments shall be restated if required.
d. Approach clearances cancel any previously assigned speed adjustment. Pilots are expected to make their own speed adjustments to complete the approach unless the adjustments are restated.
5-7-3. MINIMA
c. To arrival aircraft operating below 10,000 feet:
1. Turbojet aircraft. A speed not less than 210 knots; except when the aircraft is within 20 flying miles of the runway threshold of the airport of intended landing, a speed not less than 170 knots.
-
A sign of a professional controller is to be able to correct conflicts with efficiency and speed. This guy was way out of limits and could have made the situation much worse by inattention to his main job and distracting all parties. From the recording, we have no idea of previous clearances but I think a simple
"increase speed to 230 kts" would have been sufficient.
I once saw a plane literally taxiing in circles while the controller shouted rapid fire commands to a confused pilot including asking him to call the "phone number". The pilot was at fault but the controller only aggravated a serious situation rather than ending it. A calmer voice from another controller quickly solved the problem by asking the plane to stop - now take the first right taxiway Charlie - etc.
-
Yes, to order this pilot to turn off the approach heading (literally to play games and show that he's the "controller") as opposed to simply asking the pilot to increase speed to 230 knots is extremely irresponsible for somebody put in charge of air traffic safety.
-
Firstly, saying that there is no "marker" anymore is completely true.
I don't think this is true. Many markers (IM,MM, and OM) have been decomissioned, but they still exist at some airports. A good example is at BWI (ILS 33L and ILS 15L). Maybe I missunderstood and this was about JFK only.
http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KBWI/IAP/ILS+OR+LOC+RWY+33L (http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KBWI/IAP/ILS+OR+LOC+RWY+33L)
http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KBWI/IAP/ILS+RWY+15L (http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KBWI/IAP/ILS+RWY+15L)
-
I don't think this is true. Many markers (IM,MM, and OM) have been decomissioned, but they still exist at some airports. A good example is at BWI (ILS 33L and ILS 15L). Maybe I missunderstood and this was about JFK only.
Yeah, sorta. There are plenty of OMs out there. But generally the FAF is still known as "the marker" for an ILS. In my double wrong example, DMYHL isn't an OM, nor is it even on an ILS (it's a 90degree offset VOR/GPS approach)
-
I like JPHill's latest response a few posts ago. Whether it's the pilot's fault for ignoring a clearance or the controller's fault for assuming a clearance to maintain a certain speed was given when it was not (and again, if it was not, then the pilot could slow down as much as he wants), a simple "maintain 230 knots" would fix the problem. This controller was just in a bad mood and taking it out on the pilot. Pretty sure it's not meant to be a game of us vs. them but it appears in that part of the country that it always evolves into that for one reason or another... One more reason I like where I am...
-
Pretty sure it's not meant to be a game of us vs. them but it appears in that part of the country that it always evolves into that for one reason or another... One more reason I like where I am...
NY controllers can be as sweet as a Cadbury Cream Egg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadbury's_Creme_Egg). Don't paint with such as broad brush. :)
-
"Scrapper and Jason,
You both must be right. I am sure your extensive knowledge about the intricacies and daily operational characteristics of the JFK sector at New York TRACON trump my irrelevant REAL-world experience in the aforementioned sector as a certified FAA Air Traffic Control Specialist. "
lol.....and there it is........more sarcastic comments...from an NY controller
-
Not ALL JFK controllers 'get mad at you and bite your head off', as one seasoned airline Captain put it.
For example...
-
Well, they are New Yorkers. ;)
-
Man this site is great...just found it today while i was browsing clips from Youtube...ironically enough, the last clip that I saw was this very one.
My opinion, as a controller, is that Jetblue isn't the one playing games, but rather the controller. As others have pointed, all that he had to say was to increase speed due to traffic coming behind him. Instead he goes on a long rant and starts playing "who's got the bigger package". Totally unprofessional, but also not totally unprecedented.
When I was under checkout at my unit (Military ATC), my training officer got angry once, when I called a pilot sir, she told me that they should be calling me sir, hey what do I care. The pilots job is to get somewhere, my job is to help them get there safely. Being polite, in my experience, only helps matters, instead of bitching and complaining.
On the other hand, if my finger were to ever slip between transmissions...well I might have some explaining to do, that iswhen i vent all my frustrations...that way I can be as sweet as sugar when back on the radio. :evil:
Oh an due to our airspace and aerodrome, I deal with civvies quite a lot. Probably more about equal between mil and civ traffic.
-
Hey, welcome! Having a radar-side, actual experienced opinion to add to the discussions is always a good thing.
When I was under checkout at my unit (Military ATC), my training officer got angry once, when I called a pilot sir, she told me that they should be calling me sir, hey what do I care. The pilots job is to get somewhere, my job is to help them get there safely. Being polite, in my experience, only helps matters, instead of bitching and complaining.
Sounds like this officer had quite the inferiority complex. Expressing mutual respect goes a very long way in the pilot/controller relationship, from what I have experienced and witnessed. Both sides have their admirable qualities.
-
Reminds me of a situation in the military, when another tower controller (a buddy of mine) was being hassled by an aircraft commander (a 'bird' Colonel) who said something to the effect - 'this is MY aircraft and I give the orders', to which my buddy (a corporal) replied - 'Sir, this is MY airport and I give the orders around here!'
-
Well, I'd have to side with the Pilot mostly on this one. From listening to this clip; this is my assumption of what happened.
JBU852 crossed CAMRN or LENDY at 250 then slowed to 220. Now, this is where I'd like to point out something the controller said: N90: "... and unless somebody slows you, until you get an approach clearance we wouldn't expect that you're gonna slow."
The pilot is, to my understanding, technically allowed to slow after the fix. But, my guess is that he never really sees pilots want to go slower. What I hear commonly at Orlando when they need a pilot to maintain 250 KTS is: MCO: "... maintain 250 knots until advised."
I think the controller got a little flustered when he saw this and the so called "100 knot" difference (assuming he wasn't being sarcastic). So rather than sort out a mess he felt the pilot caused he penalized the pilot. That's where JBU852 took offence to the delay vector. I don't agree with JBU852's comment, but I can simpathize. The clearance did sound like it had a second "agenda."
I kind of agree with the fact that controllers in N90 go outside the FAA orders when working, but they do a good job. They may be rude sometimes, but they can get stressed I bet and they see so many pilots doing just absurd things (you guys have heard the clips); they react a little harsh when they feel someone makes a mistake. I say feel because in this case I don't believe JBU852 made a mistake. Gotta get both points of view I guess.
P.S. To the best of my knowledge there is no maximum speed you can assign at the FAF to an aircraft. I've heard 210 before at C90 into Midway before. So, according to the 7110.65S, it's whatever the pilot will accept. Common speeds are between 160-180 for turbojets depending on facility SOP. I'm guessing final approach speeds are listed in the facility SOP.
This is just speculation based of my experience. I very well maybe be wrong. Give references if you have corrections. I'm genuinely interested.
-
JBU852 crossed CAMRN or LENDY at 250 then slowed to 220. Now, this is where I'd like to point out something the controller said: N90: "... and unless somebody slows you, until you get an approach clearance we wouldn't expect that you're gonna slow."
The pilot is, to my understanding, technically allowed to slow after the fix. But, my guess is that he never really sees pilots want to go slower. What I hear commonly at Orlando when they need a pilot to maintain 250 KTS is: MCO: "... maintain 250 knots until advised."
Well that sure is an interesting interpretation of the rule. But if you were flying along at 300 kts approaching LENDY, slow to and cross LENDY at 250, then accelerate back to 300, it would completely defeat the purpose of the crossing restriction. You'd have numerous aircraft approaching at various speeds, cross the point at the same speed, then be all at different speeds again, losing their seperation. The crossing restriction puts every aircraft on the same playing field. Everyone flying the same route, at the same altitude, at the same speed.
-
I thought the same thing, but I could not find anything that said otherwise, that's why I'm asking for references or info on the topic. BTW, I completely agree with you cessna.
So, what I'm asking, is my interpretation wrong? Does "Cross fix at and maintain altitude at speed," mean cross the fix/point at and maintain that speed until instructed?
Responses?
-
So, what I'm asking, is my interpretation wrong? Does "Cross fix at and maintain altitude at speed," mean cross the fix/point at and maintain that speed until instructed?
Responses?
Yes, if you get a "Cross LENDY AT FL190 AND 250KTS" you cannot change your altitude or speed until given another clearance.
If you were to get a "cross at 280kts", or "maintain 280 kts" and then get a clearance to descend below 10,000 feet, that speed restriction is deleted, as in conflicts with the FARs.
-
I work the CAMRN inbounds at ZNY at the Dixie sector. Unless you're flying during our midshift, generally midnight - 6:30 am, YOUR ARE ASSIGNED a speed restriction, either 250kts or 210kts. There are no exceptions outside those times. In this scenario you cannot tell if he came through Lendy or Camrn, nor can you tell what time either. However, from the tone(or NY attitude some of you will say) of the controller's voice he was expecting the JBU to be at 250kts. What the general public doesn't understand is that I receive traffic from ZDC at the lowest usable flight level. It is quite common that pilots will beg for decent instructions as soon as possible because the distance from when they enter to my sector to Camrn instersection makes it "entertaining" on days when it's VFR and a million with calm winds to make these restrictions. When there's a big tailwind we have ZDC assign 250kts by the time they enter my airspace so they descend and slow in time. IF this scenario pertained to the Camrn sector then my bet is that the trailing aircraft was issued "Cross Camrn intersection at one one thousand at 250kts, JFK altimeter XX.XX . What this means is that the aircraft has a pilot's discretion to descend at his own discretion AND do whatever speed he wants but must cross Camrn at that altitude and that speed and maintain them until otherwise told. What's missing hear is that the trailing aircraft is coming in high and fast. 250kts at 17000 is faster than 250kts at 11000. All too often I catch pilots assuming things they shouldn't. Everyday I see some pilot that thinks they can deviate from there route of flight without letting the controller know. Or slowing down from an assigned speed because of the rides. Or taking there time when they're issued vectors for intrail restrictions. Or crying for a deviation from weather which will, in effect, give them their shortcut after being denied a shortcut for whatever reason. As a controller I'm counted on to keep planes apart, safely and expeditiously. Nowadays, there's another factor I must consider. Due to our imposed work rules we will lose out on any pay raise and possibly be fired for loss of separation. The NY airspace is the most complex airspace IN THE WORLD. To the person who posted that there's another area that even comes close, you'll need to enlighten me where that is. For the size of our airspace + the volume we move + the number of airports in close proximity to each other, I take exception to your statement. According to the FAA Admistrator's Fact Book we're 2nd in traffic volume, narrowly beat out by ZTL. Combine that with our miniscule amount of airspace and you've got yourself some eventful stories at the day's end. So IF this was JBU fault for not adhering to instructions, I would have done the same as the controller noted here. I don't have the time to wait for JBU to increase his speed. The trailing aircraft shouldn't have to be penalize with vectors to follow this either. It's kind of ironic that pilot can acknowledge complicated instructions with "roger" or "ok" or an abbrviated version of what a controller says and then complain when a controller gets upset when a pilot is being lazy, which I supect is the case here.
And to all those people who think New York attitudes should not be tolerated, work a day where we work and see how long you'll be passive when a pilot doesn't do what he/she is suppose to do. Couple that with our HORRIBLE management and make sure you take out a hefty life insurance policy for your spouse and kids. Now, I'm not saying there aren't any morons that I work with. I'm just saying I need to have that type A personality. YOU need that personality as well. I just got home from work a few hours ago. Weather was all around us tonight. My friend had a BWI arrival make a 120 degree right turn away from weather and refused to go through weather that 40 others went through. He was heading straight for other traffic. Of course the pilot has the final say on what he flies through. But from a controller's viewpoint, how do we handle this situation? You can't compare it to driving a car. Cars can stop behind you if you NEED to stop. And if you do stop, you pull over to the side and lets the others behind you pass you. And this is exactly what I see in this scenario.
-
My friend had a BWI arrival make a 120 degree right turn away from weather and refused to go through weather that 40 others went through. He was heading straight for other traffic. Of course the pilot has the final say on what he flies through. But from a controller's viewpoint, how do we handle this situation?
Hard to accurately respond to this scenario since all of the actual details aren't really known, like was it really 40 aircraft that has passed through the weather previously? If so, of the 40 aircraft that did, what was the time difference between the last one and the deviating aircraft? Is it possible that the precipitation cell intensified during that period? Some of these details are no doubt lost in the passing of this story from person to person.
For forum-based discussion purposes and based on the limited facts presented here I would tend to side with the pilot, though, since there is a very good reason why a pilot's decision to deviate from an ATC clearance for safety reasons is protected by regulation (in the US). A pilot is the only person who can ultimately decide whether the the immediate safety of flight is in question.
There is no doubt that this pilot knew that the act of deviating outside of ATC's clearance would cause chaos to the orderly arrival flow. I would strongly suspect that this pilot had no other agenda than to protect the flight. However, s/he felt strongly enough based on what his/her on-board radar was painting that his/her immediate action was required. It is during these moments that skilled controllers certainly earn their pay and their gray hair, I will give you that, but weather changes quickly enough that there will always be a possibility of rhythmic order turning into momentary chaos.
I was once flying through indicated moderate precipitation when the cell intensified to heavy rain just as I passed through. Had it done so a minute or two earlier I would have definitely deviated one side or the other but in this case I was already in it when it happened. The point is that precipitation intensity levels do change rapidly and what might have appeared benign moments earlier could quickly morph into the ominous. IMO a pilot's response to unfolding weather conditions should never be solely based on the successful actions of previous pilots and a pilot's decision should never be judged based on the actions of previous pilots.
-
A perfectly rational response to the information I gave in my last post. In my guestimation, we had at least 40, if not more travel through this weather. And we had several more behind him that went through. DAL pilots are NOTORIOUS for complaining about the rides and weather deviations. I'm not trying to insult DAL. It's just a plain fact, yet they went through this weather with not a peep. I worked that particular sector and was relieved by my friend when this happened. My point is that if the JBU pilot came through the CAMRN sector at anytime outside the midshift, he was assigned a speed. Even if there's training going on at the sector, and nowadays it's daily, a speed restriction is assigned, without question. If we don't assign a speed the very first thing that happens is we get shut off, period. And the once in a blue moon time that happens is when we're starting up in the morning and approach hasn't told us to use speed restrictions yet. As far as a pilot knowing a deviation or a relaxed turn, or an accidental relief of a speed restriction being ignored... it happens everyday. Literally. I don't know if it's just a lack of training nowadays but pilots tend to not know basic instructions unless it can be plugged into a computer and have the aircraft do it for him. I can't tell you how many times I've vectored an aircraft to join an airway and have the pilot come back to me and tell me they can't do that. This is within 10 miles of them joining the airway that I vectored them off of!
I absolutely respect your post but from my experience pilots today tend to try to bend the rules as much as possible. That's not to say certain controllers don't do the same. I sometimes listen to a few frequencies on this site and cringe at how terrible there phraseology is. I'm known at work at a phraseology nazi. Trainees HATE training with me because they get away with there garbage with other people. It's just a shame that both pilots and controllers today have lost there pride in there profession.
-
Is it just me or did the jb pilot say "its an assigned speed" just prior to the controller saying that he could give him a number to call?
-
The controller went on and on about "what would you do?" and I think JBU's answer was "Assign a speed sir." Either he forgot he had an assigned speed or he never was assigned one is up for debate, as we really don't have all the facts.
-
The controller on this feed retired--today was his last day. An era has ended. He was one of the good ones.
I have no problem with pilots who want to slow I just wish they'd tell me first because a majority of pilots will maintain 250 knots until advised (or they'll ask to slow within 15 or 20 miles of the airport if I want a new speed) and you have one or two here and there that pull the plug and go to 210 or less and pretty drastically (what I mean by that is I look at the tag it's 250 and I complete one scan of the rest of my aircraft and come back to him and it's 200).
Sometimes you have no choice but to resequence. What I like to do is just turn him out 20 degrees so he's still kind of in the flow and he can watch the 2 or 3 planes behind him go in front of him. Then when he gets up to the approach there's a hole for him and everyone else there is matching his speed by then.
-
I'm not sure if it was in effect when this event happened but there is now a NOTAM that pilots can just slow on their own in N90 airspace by more than 20 knots. I've worked elsewhere in the country & it had more aircraft but N90 is certainly much more complex & there's less room for fixing messes. BTW I echo the comments above. The controller in the tape just retired. Now y'all have to find someone new to critique!