LiveATC Discussion Forums
Air Traffic Monitoring => Aviation Audio Clips => Topic started by: bcrosby on March 27, 2008, 01:58:47 PM
-
Went on a x-country flight last night, on the way back I mistook runway 15 for 33..
I realized the mistake 0.5 seconds before tower called up asking if I had the airport in sight. I did, but was already on a right downwind for 15.. whoops.
-
Eh, I've seen it happen to experienced pilots, even saw a PC-12 do it a month or so ago.
Not to nitpick, but one thing I noticed is that you never really readback clearences, just your callsign. Reading back everyting is a good way to encourage situational awareness for you, the controllers, and other pilots. Some controllers I deal with will reapeat the clearence until you read back everything. Granted, if the airspace is busy enough I limit my time on the air, but I at least readback pattern entry instructions and landing clearences.
I can't quote the AIM or anything, but that's just my $.02
-
Technically, on VFR flights, you only need to readback hold short instructions and altitude restrictions.
Buttonville is a pretty busy airport, and there have been times when the controllers would announce to "all vfr aircraft" that full read backs are not required (when its busy).
I was taught (by all three of my instructors) to only acknowledge by using my call sign and to not read back everything.
-
Technically, on VFR flights, you only need to readback hold short instructions and altitude restrictions.
Sorry to add, but since this is coming up I have an opinion to share, too. There's the right way and there's the safe way and sometimes the two aren't necessarily the same.
As you know, reading back headings, landing clearances with runway numbers, and altimeter settings often times reinforces what you just heard and allows your short term memory to retain the information better. This also, as pointed out earlier, provides additional situational awareness to the other pilots and controller on the frequency and potentially could expose a mistake by the controller or pilot before it becomes a problem (and thus, breaking the accident chain).
Consider this: There was an accident several years ago here in the States where two Cessnas were waiting at the approach end for departure when another taxied up to an intersection on the opposite side of the runway, about 1,000 feet down the from the approach end. The controller cleared the Cessna at the end of the runway for takeoff. Just then the Cessna pilot at the intersection called "ready in sequence, Cessna XXX." No location, no runway number, nothing else in his call-up. The controller, thinking this was the pilot at the approach end, instructed him into position and hold, which he did. Seconds later, the Cessna 150 rolling for takeoff came up from behind and slammed into his aircraft, killing all four aboard both aircraft. Actually I think the pilot in aircraft on the takeoff roll saw the Cessna in position and attempted to takeoff early, then stalled the aircraft right on top of the one holding.
The point here is that if the pilot at the intersection included the verbiage that he was at the intersection, it would have most likely broke the chain of events that caused this accident since the controller would have known immediately who made that call.
Edit: Oh, and often the problem with instructors is that a lot of them tend to be time builders looking to get into a commercial airline right seat and have very little real weather, unfamiliar airport, cross country flying experience outside of instructing. Additionally, sometimes the information they pass down to their students has no roots in this kind of valuable experience.
-
there is actually no requirement if you are IFR to read back any instructions if you want to cute and come up with excuses about not reading back clearences/instructions. But what's your real excuse? i hear an airline pilot do it now and again b/c it's gettin crazy on the freq, or b/c it's super slow. the only clearence/instruction that is required to be read back that i'm aware of is hold short clearences, and i don't get to use that in the tracon. KSYR-pjr is right, reading back all instructions is the BEST practice b/c it reaffirms to the controller that you might not just be one of those single engine bug smasher going for a sunday buzz to catch a glimpse and some big jets.
aviation is not the place to be taking short cuts, esp when it comes to your safety or mine.
-
I agree that reading back instructions/clearances will help with retaining items in short term memory.
FYI, for reference CAR 602.31 (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/PART6/602.htm#602_31) outlines requirements in Canada for read backs, specifically:
602.31 (1) Subject to subsection (3), the pilot-in command of an aircraft shall
(a) comply with and acknowledge, to the appropriate air traffic control unit, all of the air traffic control instructions directed to and received by the pilot-in-command; and
(b) comply with all of the air traffic control clearances received and accepted by the pilot-in-command and
(i) subject to subsection (2), in the case of an IFR flight, read back to the appropriate air traffic control unit the text of any air traffic control clearance received, and
(ii) in the case of a VFR flight, read back to the appropriate air traffic control unit the text of any air traffic control clearance received, when so requested by the air traffic control unit.
So yes, you must read back clearances in an IFR flight.
-
It depends on the airport mostly, I think. I know that at Montreal airport, there's a mandatory readback of the SIDs on clearance delivery. There's a message on the ATIS and the clearance controllers are really strict about that. I find it really annoying people who will just say : Alfa bravo charlie roger. The controller doesn't know if you understood everything, you might be missing some stuff and other people on the frequency might not have caught what you said. The only thing I don't read back is the wind and simple instructions on less busy frequencies.
-
my mistake...not familiar with the CARs
-
That was a pretty dumb-assed mistake!
-
That was a pretty dumb-assed mistake!
Just like the one you made by hitting the "reply" and "post" buttons? Please try to contribute something positive on these forums. Negativity is key to losing members.
-
That was a pretty dumb-assed mistake!
Just about all pilots and controllers make mistakes throughout their career- just this morning I heard a jetBlue pilot on frequency make one, so no one is immune.
Most who DO don't laugh; instead we empathize and recall those times when we were less than perfect.
-
Ever since this post, I've been reading back instructions, even though they are not technically needed.
Just this past week on a short flight from YKZ to YSN I was sure to read back instructions from the terminal controller :D
-
Quote
"The point here is that if the pilot at the intersection included the verbiage that he was at the intersection, it would have most likely broke the chain of events that caused this accident since the controller would have known immediately who made that call."
I appreciate the opinion but I dont think that is the point. Yes, it would have helped if the pilot had stated the intersection. Granted people make mistakes, but if the controller doesnt know where the aircraft under his/her responsibility are....is that person in the right job?
On an aerodrome with ATC it is the controllers responsibility to ensure safe seperation.
-
Yes, it would have helped if the pilot had stated the intersection. Granted people make mistakes, but if the controller doesnt know where the aircraft under his/her responsibility are....is that person in the right job?
On an aerodrome with ATC it is the controllers responsibility to ensure safe seperation.
The point here is that a pilot should use every tactic in his/her arsenal, including reading back instructions, to break the chain of events that lead to an accident. Reading back instructions could very well be that one moment that snaps either the pilot or controller back to the entire picture of the unfolding situation.
Whether a person is right for a controller's position is irrelevant in this discussion since controllers are human and, like pilots, do occasionally make mistakes. Additionally, a pilot erring can lead to a controller erring. However, when a controller makes a mistake managing traffic it is the pilot and his/her passengers who have a much higher probability of dying. When the deck is stacked in that manner, you better believe that going beyond the FARs (US regulations) and AIM (US aviation information manual) is the prudent action to take.
-
I'm neither a pilot or controller, just someone who enjoys flying and does it quite often for business.
However, I am the operations manager for a large chemical company and have worked in the Nuclear Power Industry. Industries, which similar to aviation have a dedication to safety and operational discipline including the use of procedures because the risks are too high.
Too that end, I have to agree with KSYR-pjr, read backs are imperative. In the nuclear power industry (especially in the engine room of a Nuclear Powered Submarine), all orders are read back. There are two reasons for that, which have already been touched on. They verify the understanding of the order by the person who is going to perform it, and it allows the person giving the order a chance to hear it rather then say it. that provides an opportunity for that person's brain to process the order rather then give it, allowing a chance to verify that it is really what they wanted to do.
In the operations of large chemical plants we follow the same mantra. In fact, out automated control systems follow it in a way, because the control system will verify key changes by repeating back setpoint changes and asking for an okay. The number of incidents prevented by that sequence cannot even be counted.
-
what, that i don't know the CARs?? So Sorry...an American controller didn't know the Canadian aviation regulations?
I won't take you're opinion to heart though, nor would i from anyone who didn't know the callsign of Air Force One.
Haha that made me laugh. Easy there though, I’m not familiar with the way that this particular board usually words (see my number of posts), but the guy may have been replying to the original clip, although I don’t agree that it was a dumb-assed mistake by any stretch.
Now I know though. I made the original reply about readbacks almost in passing, not realizing it would create a little firestorm. I guess questioning one’s procedure amongst a bunch of aviation nerds such of myself will do that. Anyway, guess I don’t really have anything of substance to add, just random thoughts.
-
Quote
"Whether a person is right for a controller's position is irrelevant in this discussion since controllers are human and, like pilots, do occasionally make mistakes"
I think i already acknowledged that people make mistakes in my original post. But agreed, after reading my post again what I said about the person being in the right job wasnt relevant to the discussion.
-
very true...in reading your comment i will delete the last post...i may have assumed it was directed towards the CAR post.
anyway...back to point and to share...
i was working a GA plane to a busy satellite airport ( 3rd in sequence on a gps app) and sequencing arrival a/c into the main airport, and the pilot in the GA may have read back one of every 10 instructions. very frustrating b/c sometimes he would read back just the callsign, and sometimes just the instruction.
Bad weather here in the northeast...safe flying all
-
I made the original reply about readbacks almost in passing, not realizing it would create a little firestorm. I guess questioning one’s procedure amongst a bunch of aviation nerds such of myself will do that.
I didn't get the impression this was a firestorm. Instead it was simply a discussion where the opportunity to learn something was there for all involved.
-
I apologise if this has already been discussed before.
Whats the read-back requirements in the US? Cos it seems like pilots are very lax about ensuring the controller they have heard and understood certain clearences and instructions. Obviously this might be FAA regulations..but just curious to know more about you guys n gals over the pond.
Casp
-
Whats the read-back requirements in the US? Cos it seems like pilots are very lax about ensuring the controller they have heard and understood certain clearences and instructions.
As a general rule of thumb, US pilots are strongly encouraged to read back assigned headings, altitudes, clearance limits (if IFR), and hold short instructions (when on the ground).
Pilots are actually discouraged from reading back every controller's word verbatim. Roger and wilco do have their place in today's communication, but they shouldn't substitute for the above.
With respect, I am not sure how you reached the conclusion that US pilots are lax about reading back instructions because in my experience of flying into New York and Boston airspaces in the Northeast US (some of the busier airspaces in the US) I have the opinion that many pilots read back too much. which needlessly ties up the frequency.
-
thanks for your reply.
Im not talking about reading back instructions verbatum as such, just for exampple squwak codes. When say a pilot get assigned a squawk and say "roger (callsign)." And then puts the wrong squawk in the transponder. It then requires the controller to reiterate the last transmission, which in turn, as youve stated, redueces available RT time. Where as if the pilot read back squawk 1234 then the controller can hear if this is correct and the short term memory of the pilot registers this number as he/she has said it out loud.
What I was looking for ( youve said xxxx is discouraged ), was if there is an official list of read-backable itemds. ( excuse the rubbish wording ). For example in the UK we have the CAP413 RT manual, Obviously you have something similar that dictates the exact items that are required to be read back.
Just for arguments sake, im not trying to suggest that pilots in the US are rubbish in any way. Every country does things differently so dont take the "lax" comment to heart. I was just pointing out that compared to Europe, the reading back of items doesnt seem to be as...critical...if thats the right word.
Ultimately im trying to learn more about the way things are done in the US. Not trying to debate who is better.
C
-
In my opinion I think it is a bad idea just to read back your tail number. I think it's a good habit to read back all intstructions given by an air traffic controller. If you agress or disagree please respond back.
-
it depends on the local (country) standard obviously but i thnk ( this is only me, and i dont want to start a row) that certain items should be read back and not just the callsign. Mainy so the controller can confirm things and the pilots short term memory registers the instruction
C
-
Im not talking about reading back instructions verbatum as such, just for exampple squwak codes. When say a pilot get assigned a squawk and say "roger (callsign)." And then puts the wrong squawk in the transponder. It then requires the controller to reiterate the last transmission, which in turn, as youve stated, redueces available RT time. Where as if the pilot read back squawk 1234 then the controller can hear if this is correct and the short term memory of the pilot registers this number as he/she has said it out loud.
There is no such list that I am aware of in what is called Part 91 (US General Aviation regulations) flight. There is an official US document called the Airman Information Manual, or AIM, which takes the regulations and weaves them into an aviation "best practices," or where theory and regulations meets reality. However, the AIM is NOT regulatory so recommendations within this document not specifically having to do with regulations are just that, recommendations. Note that any angry FAA official could use the "careless and reckless operation" rule to cite a pilot breaking an AIM recommendation, but that is for another thread.
The specific chapter on communication from the AIM is here:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap4/aim0402.html
The regulation that covers ATC communications for Part 91 flight is titled "Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions" (http://tinyurl.com/5lcbd6) and merely states that a pilot must comply with all ATC instructions, unless an emergency exists. How the pilot acknowledges these instructions is not mandated, at least for Part 91 flight. (Note that airline operation manuals often augment FAA rules for commercial, scheduled operations and the rules specified in these manuals become regulation by the fact that they are in operation manuals, but I defer discussion of Part 121/135 - scheduled flight - for a qualified pilot).
What I was looking for ( youve said xxxx is discouraged ), was if there is an official list of read-backable itemds. ( excuse the rubbish wording ). For example in the UK we have the CAP413 RT manual, Obviously you have something similar that dictates the exact items that are required to be read back.
You aren't going to find an official list. Instead, you will find many authoritative articles written by controllers providing what they want to hear read back. Technically, a pilot could simply read back his/her tail ID to acknowledge a controller's instruction (in all cases but runway hold short instructions - a relatively recent requirement) but in cases of altitude, heading, or speed assignments this won't make the controller believe the instruction was completely understood.
The AIM stresses brevity but doesn't list what is considered crucial. From the many advanced safety articles I have read the theme is that any instruction that could potentially create a loss of separation if not properly executed should be read back. Any "informative" comment by the controller, or any instruction that would not result in a loss of separation can be handled by Tail ID, or Wilco, Tail ID. Fly in busy airspaces and believe me, this is appreciated by all on the frequency.
Consider this example:
Me: "Syracuse Approach, Bonanza XXX, level five thousand, information bravo."
Controller, "Bonanza XXX, Syracuse Approach, altimeter 29.98, turn left 250, descend and maintain 3,000, expect ILS 28 approach. You will be number three for the approach."
Me: "left 250, leaving five thousand descending three thousand, Bonanza XXX."
Note that I did not read back altimeter (since most likely I was ready for it from the ATIS) and did not read back the "expect" part, since that is merely informational and I am already expecting that given the ATIS and weather conditions.
Note also that I have adopted the "do not read back squawk code - instead acknowledge with a tail id" recommendation offered by numerous aviation magazines since I have not yet had a short-term memory issue and know that the controller will see the code appear on the scope. I do understand and agree that if the pilot finds repeating squawk codes or frequencies a memory aid, then by all means do it. Again, though, this is not mandated by any regulation.
Just for arguments sake, im not trying to suggest that pilots in the US are rubbish in any way. Every country does things differently so dont take the "lax" comment to heart. I was just pointing out that compared to Europe, the reading back of items doesnt seem to be as...critical...if thats the right word.
Ultimately im trying to learn more about the way things are done in the US. Not trying to debate who is better.
Hence my use of the words, "with respect." It is my impression that this is a civil discussion.
-
Acknowledgement of some sort is always helpful. sounding as if you understand the clearance even though all you're reading back is your tail number, works also. It's very easy for us to hear, in the pilots voice, confidence and/or understanding, or the lack thereof.
I imagine that pilots can hear the same type of things in controller's voices.
If you squawk the wrong code, it will not 'tag' up a data block with your aircraft, it will just show us that there is an aircraft, on a discreet code on our radar scope.
There are many times that I really need to get a readback, and others when a grunt or 'rog' or something of that nature will do. It all has to do with amount and intensity of traffic at that time.
At one time this winter, the instructions were coming out so fast, that all I really wanted to hear was the abbreviated callsign and that was it, because I needed to go on to the next clearance.
-
talking about read backs and rules in diff countries.
the thing i hate is when American sunday flyer's come up to Canada and don't follow the rules. the 2 things that happen the most are: they check in "VFR" in controlled airspace (IE above 12500) looking for ifr, flight following or weather info. sure i could watch a target that's not been radar identified and doesn't have a verified alt. take a run at a controlled a/c and say "it's not my responsibility", but really if i see a target that has a unverified mode c that looks like he's taking a run at a guy, I'm going to apply common sense separation. i don't wanna watch them hit. the other is when ifr's don't read back anything. i need a readback, whenever i don't get one i know I'm the one that's in trouble if something goes wrong. i shouldn't be hung out to dry cause somebody else doesn't know the rules.
I got nothing against yanks, just happens that part of what i control is northern Ont. and we see a lot of them fly in for fishing and for camping. lots of these are sunday flyer's and i understand that your not going to know all the rules and that's fine. but if i tell you i need a read back and and all you ever read back is "roger" or "wilco", well come on.
-
but if i tell you i need a read back and and all you ever read back is "roger" or "wilco", well come on.
What are some examples of your calls that require a read back?
-
Not for nothing in all of this, but while it is written in the AIM that reading back holding instructions is greatly encouraged, that doesn't square with any of the instructions listed on the AF/D for various airports in the US.
Checking various airports in Class B, C, and D airspaces that are controlled, All of the Airport diagrams have explicitly stated:
READBACK OF ALL RUNWAY HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS IS REQUIRED.
Airports checked:
Class B: KLAS, KLAX, KSAN, KSFO.
Class C: KOMA, KSMF, KOKC, KRNO.
Class D: KVGT, KPSP, KWHP, KSQL.
When I hear pilots on the feeds read back a runway hold short instruction but forget the numbers for the runway:
"Turn right on Alpha and hold short of the right at Alpha Five"
"I need the numbers; hold short of two-five right at alpha five."
the controller tells they need the numbers and to read it back again.
So I'm thinking what's listed in the AF/D trumps the AIM in that regard.
BL.
-
Not for nothing in all of this, but while it is written in the AIM that reading back holding instructions is greatly encouraged, that doesn't square with any of the instructions listed on the AF/D for various airports in the US.
The AF/D is not regulatory. What you are seeing in the comment section there is the result of the FAA's push to decrease the amount of runway incursions by coming up with specific, focused requirements to reduce runway incursions. One of these is the requirement of the pilot to read back all hold short instructions, as well as the requirement of the controller to absolutely ensure that a hold short instruction has been read back. I, too, have heard exchanges on the frequency where the pilot did not read back a hold short instruction, which then turned into a bizarre broken record game of "I NEED YOU TO READ BACK THE HOLD SHORT" followed by "Roger, Cessna XXX."
I am unable to find at the moment where in the US FARs (aviation regulations) this regulation is spelled out - perhaps this regulation is at the controller's end to ensure a hold short read back occurs? All I know is that it must be done verbatim, which may be the only instruction here in the US that absolutely has to be done in this manner.
-
I am unable to find at the moment where in the US FARs (aviation regulations) this regulation is spelled out - perhaps this regulation is at the controller's end to ensure a hold short read back occurs? All I know is that it must be done verbatim, which may be the only instruction here in the US that absolutely has to be done in this manner.
JO 7110.65S 3-7-2(d) which states "d. Request a read back of runway hold short instructions when it is not received from the pilot/vehicle operator."
I'm not aware of any requirement in 14 CFR, but it is spelled out in Advisory Circular 91-73A. If you don't read it back to ATC, they will ask for it, and you then must comply with the request to read back the hold short instruction. As an aside, neither the A/FD or the AIM are regulatory so one cannot necessarily trump the other in a legal sense.
-
JO 7110.65S 3-7-2(d) which states "d. Request a read back of runway hold short instructions when it is not received from the pilot/vehicle operator."
There it is... the requirement starts on the controller's side. Thanks, Jason.
-
but if i tell you i need a read back and and all you ever read back is "roger" or "wilco", well come on.
What are some examples of your calls that require a read back?
any clearance or instruction. basically any control information. it's partly because we run alot of nonradar traffic and standards. reason being, if i give you a clearance and you don't read it back... i got to protect for worst case scenario. my speciality runs just over 45 airports and we have radar to the ground at 3. if your nonradar and don't read something back, i can't look at the screen and see if your level or doing what your told. 6 of those airports have control zones, hence i separate right to the ground(and need down and clear calls in IFR weather) and a bunch more underlay low level controlled airspace. non radar control takes alot of freq time, getting postion reports, proving guys clear and so on. phraseology is key, the more time I'm not on the mic the more time i have to run guys tighter and solve problems the lest restrictive way. with 2 nonradar aircraft on the same track at the same alt. the biggest time standard is 15 min, the smallest is 5 NM. best case for 15min is probably a couple c172's doing 120kits, so that's 30NM between them using 15min. worse case is probably a couple f18's(in Canada our fighters, aka. i guy with a hand gun sticking his head out the window, have old unreliable transponders and it's not uncommon to have them flying in FL's nonradar) doing 500kits. little math will tell you that's 125NM between them. to give a guy the same alt using 15min in trail i can base 15min on my es tamates, to use 5 miles i need postion reports among other things. if I'm chasing readbacks all day, i don't have time to get postion reports and prove everything i need too. ask any low controller that works nonradar daily and he'll probably tell you radar is a crutch. given the choice between radar and DCPC (direct controller to pilot comm) I'd rather talk to them. wonder if the radar controllers see the humour in the crutch. ha ha well hope that helps you understand why we don't like chasing down required info.
-
I'd rather talk to them. wonder if the radar controllers see the humour in the crutch. ha ha well hope that helps you understand why we don't like chasing down required info.
I am in full agreement with you and as an active IFR pilot, my stance has always been to read back anything that could result in a loss of separation if not properly executed, such as headings, altitudes, clearance limits, and in the case of a Bonanza, the very rare speed restriction. It is only the instruction such as "Frequency changed approved, report back when you return," "Bonanza XXX contact departure," or "Bonanza XXX, squawk XXXX" that I shorten the acknowledgment to just a "wilco, Bonanza XXX" or simply, "Bonanza XXX."
-
Speaking of reading back, I feel compelled to share this somewhat scary anecdote that happened to me two weeks ago over NY state en route to White Plains.
I was flying in the clear above a 4,000 foot thick layer of ice laden clouds in the Bonanza when I checked in with Boston Center (who handles aircraft northwest of the NY class B airspace). Knowing the controllers normally like to step me down in increments of 2,000 feet, at check-in I requested to remain at my present altitude until the controller could descend me to 6,000 feet (below the clouds) due to icing concerns. My plan to descend, when given the approval, would be to drop through the clouds at about a 1,500-2,000 foot per minute descent to minimize my exposure to the ice. The controller acknowledged and then perhaps five minutes later, instructed me to descend to 6,000 feet due to traffic.
I read-back, "Leaving one-one thousand, descending six thousand" and then pulled power and prop back to start the 1,500 fpm descent. At about 8,500 feet the controller called me to ask "say altitude," which I thought was because my descent rate was greater than typical of a single engine so I responded with it. At 7,000 he did it again. I was beginning to get concerned about this questioning when he then came back, "Bonanza XXX, you do recall I told you to descend to 7,500 for traffic."
What? I am absolutely positive he originally told me 6,000 feet, but even with a read back he apparently didn't catch what now seemed to be a mistake. I answered by saying, "Sir, you gave me 6,000. Would you like me to stop my descent?" No reply. I again asked but got no reply. So I leveled off at 6,000 feet and the controller called me to contact NY Approach.
After landing I filed my third ASRS (avaition safety reporting system), just in case.
-
ksyr-pjr, just something to think about. as controllers we often talk about our "spidy sense" going off. there is times when you just get a feeling that something is not right, you never know what it is, just that something is wrong. that's when you stop working normal and start doing board scans (going over your flight strips), scan your radar, double check everything and search til you find whats wrong. normally it's just one of many events that need to line up for a accident to happen but it's like the Swiss cheese theory, if one piece doesn't line up there is no problem. If your spidy sense goes off or someones asking you questions that are not normal, question it. it's better to double check and get some smart remark from a controller then take a run at another aircraft because he or you misunderstood something.
-
If your spidy sense goes off or someones asking you questions that are not normal, question it. it's better to double check and get some smart remark from a controller then take a run at another aircraft because he or you misunderstood something.
I honestly wouldn't know what to ask in this situation, given that there were only two inquires about altitude asked well above my descent limit of 6,000. Again, I dismissed the first one to the fact that I started a rather aggressive descent rate for the type of aircraft.
I do agree with you about this "Spidy" sense thing, as it certainly has happened on the yoke side of the mike, too. The key for pilots to develop this, IMO, is to always listen to all radio calls and maintain a good situational awareness picture from the frequency. The best example of that was the US Airways pilot who refused a takeoff clearance at Providence Airport during low fog when the tower controller did not know where the previously landed aircraft was on the field (a topic recently discussed on these boards). For GA pilots, though, this can be more difficult given the distractions from passengers, etc.
-
I read-back, "Leaving one-one thousand, descending six thousand" and then pulled power and prop back to start the 1,500 fpm descent. At about 8,500 feet the controller called me to ask "say altitude," which I thought was because my descent rate was greater than typical of a single engine so I responded with it. At 7,000 he did it again. I was beginning to get concerned about this questioning when he then came back, "Bonanza XXX, you do recall I told you to descend to 7,500 for traffic."
I'm a little confused PJ...it sounds like the controller thought he assigned you a VFR altitude for separation. The only reason I could see a controller assigning an IFR aircraft a non-cardinal altitude is to stay above a minimum vectoring altitude (MVA) or Minimum IFR altitude (MIA), and I'm not aware of any areas that high in NY State.
I will say this about the EnRoute automation system. The Center's computer has planned climb and descent profiles for all aircraft types. If your actual climb or descent rate is outside of the profile for your type, the computer sees the mode-C data as unreliable and displays a XXX in the data block. I'd guess the descent profile for a BE36 is somewhere between 700-1000 fpm. It's probably why he asked you to say altitude twice...because he couldn't see it.
-
ksyr-pjr and davolijj,
first pjr, just something as simple as "center just comfirm we are cleared to 6000?" or "center would you like me to report leaving an alt?". when you requested to not be stepped down cause of ice, as a controller i expect you to descend at a pretty good rate if not your best rate. if you descend at a normal rate, that's fine, i will have planned for a descent anywhere between normal and best rate. I'd plan for both knowing I'm not running any sep. based on your rate of descent. if you give me a heads up something isn't normal, I'll watch you like a hawk and plan for the worst, IE I'd make sure you had alt's open below 6000' in case you need to keep going. your always better to double check if your not sure and there is no such thing as too much info. question for ya, you called yourself a GA pilot, whats GA stand for? i assume your flying something smaller with a "open" cock pit and GA kinda means that or something.
davokjj, not sure how the US system works so this is more of a FYI. our system has profile climbs and descents, but that's just so our system will run est. for us and pass est for us. the system does not use the radar ground speed to run times, it uses the profile for that type of a/c. on a 1 hour flight, if the system gave me 3-4 time updates at dest. I'd call that normal. in regards to mode c readouts, they are what the radar return says, that's it no profile associated. the only time we don't get mode c, besides a equipment failure is if say we have a f-18 coming off the ground and i give him fl280 off the ground and turn him straight over to the high sector for higher. when that happens you'll often see him put it on it's ass and we get read outs til he's doing more than 5000'/min and then the mode c just goes blank cause our system thinks that no a/c will climb that fast. same thing happens on the way down if they are doing a high tacan app and descend from around fl230. the only reason i bring this up is cause if you get a a/c in emergency descent for any reason and he blows his alt. for safety, there is a good chance he's in trouble and is descending as fast as he can which will be outside of the profile. i need those readouts so i can get the rest of my traffic out of the way and give them traffic info. that is accurate. you very well could be right, like i said i don't know the US system, it would just suprise me that that is the way it works for the reason i stated alone. had to read that last sentence about 4 time, hope it makes sense.
-
I'm a little confused PJ...it sounds like the controller thought he assigned you a VFR altitude for separation. The only reason I could see a controller assigning an IFR aircraft a non-cardinal altitude is to stay above a minimum vectoring altitude (MVA) or Minimum IFR altitude (MIA), and I'm not aware of any areas that high in NY State.
Hey, JD, good to see you - it's been awhile. Not being a controller I can only surmise about that rather secretive MVA number (secretive in that there is no published document that pilots can get their hands on to see what MVAs are around the country). This is what I learned by commuting west and south over NY state the last few years (the point follows):
Flying from Buffalo to Syracuse, NY, along a route below the NY State Thruway the MVA is 4,000 until about 20nm out. The trick I learned to get lower if needed is to have the controller vector north of the Thruway, where the MVA drops to 2,100 or so. Flying from Elmira, NY, (southern central NY) up to Syracuse the MVA is 5,000 until about 15nm out and then it drops to 3,600. The point here is that these are routes without any significant mountains, just hills and towers.
Flying from Syracuse down to White Plains the preferred lower IFR route takes one adjacent to the point of the Catskill Mountains where the peaks are around 4,100. Not mountains when compared to out west but toss in a tower and it is very conceivable that the MVA is at least 6,500. If there were an aircraft at that altitude and knowing I wanted to get as low as possible to avoid the ice the controller was thinking 7,500? I can only guess here.
Regarding Boston and NY Approach assigning non-cardinal altitudes, the airspace north and northwest of NY's class B is dedicated to the big jets arriving into Newark, La Guardia, and even JFK airports. From flying down there weekly since February I have concluded that there seem to be a different set of ATC strategies in that airspace than in others, and one is to use non-cardinal altitudes. For example, to fly a lower IFR route northwest out of White Plains an aircraft is always assigned 9,000 feet as an initial altitude (should be 8 or 10 for that direction), despite filing for 4, 6, or 8,000. All that airspace below 9,000 is used to step-down aircraft into the big airports, or as often the case, to hold aircraft. :)
Oh, and my aircraft's designator is a BE35 (V35), not BE36. :) Maybe someday...
Canadian Eh - GA stands for General Aviation and typically it means a pilot who is not flying scheduled air carrier flight. It could be any aircraft from a Citation down to an open-cockpit Stearman. GA also implies a bit more flexibility since the rules are more flexible than the more rigid rules associated with Part 121 (scheduled service) and Part 135. I fly a Bonanza V35 out Monday and back Thursdays to commute between my customers' locations and home.
In terms of querying ATC, if my "Spidy sense" tingles I have no problem doing just that. But in this case, by the time the Spidy sense went off the controller soon thereafter demonstrated the reason for it. Perhaps next time, though, I will add that question to my altitude response upon a controller first asking me to say altitude. Like a lot of aspects of flying IFR, many are not learned until first experienced.
-
ATC - 'say altitude'
Pilot - 'altitude'
ATC - 'SAY ALTITUDE!'
Pilot 'ALTITUDE'
ATC - say 'cancel IFR'
Pilot - 'level at 6000'
(Sorry - an old joke...couldn't resist!)
-
Also, center controllers are now required to get readback on all alt. assignments. I think its a great idea.
-
ksyp-pjr, thanks for the info. got another one for ya or whoever can help me out. we have a system that "talks" to the US system and so I'm not required to pass est.'s to the states. but when i get a flight coming from the states the equipment suffix's are different and i don't know what they mean. IE, D,A,O and so on. i got a live est. from the states on a guy that should have been app req'd, meaning he was lees than the required time of 15min from entering my airspace, that had a clearance to 100' and he was about 15NM from my airspace when this all took place. this happens all the time in my sector and we have learned to live with it. i have to consider the a/c nonradar until i get a verbal handoff from Minni. the problem with this is the departure airport is about 20NM south of my airspace so i gotta protect from the ground up to 100' from departure to dest., 10NM either side of track if gps equipped until i can prove nonradar with any other traffic i have. if he's standard equipped i gotta protect 45NM either side of track which inturn means i gotta keep everybody out of a chuck of airspace 90NM wide and from ground to 100', that pretty much covers my entire airspace. kinda sucks cause the second that strip comes out of my printer, I'm in a loss if i got anybody in that airspace. since Minni rarely app req's we have to go fix the loss (most times just go get radar identification or give a crossing restriction or something) and put a form of sep. in place. so when Minni called to hand the guy off to me, i said "what does slant delta and slant Oscar stand for?". he kinda didn't want to answer cause i think he thought we were in a loss depending on what it meant. he said "Ah you know what, show him as slant Alpha.". and of course i come back and say "roger, what does slant alpha mean also?". basically we beat around the bush and i gave up asking without getting a answer. the only reason i wanted to know is because if i don't know what it means i gotta protect worst case always which means 45NM either side of track and that's not cool.