Renamed: "Rude controllers"/Protected airspace

Pygmie · Post by **Pygmie** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:35 pm

NewtonCentre wrote:If the aircraft is off RADAR, and will be in controlled airspace, I would not (and am not permitted) to give a direct clearance unless the aircraft is /G or /R. I have had aircraft request direct routings "via GPS" in a non-radar environment, and I have to ask if the GPS is IFR certified. In most cases it isn't so I do not approve the direct routing. As cpl_atc stated, i could issue the clearance and protect for 90 miles, but that just isn't going to happen.

I'm curious "it'sme" have you heard of people being cleared direct, using non-ifr gps, in non-radar environments?

Well, I'm not sure which center you're at which doesn't permit non-GPS direct tracks, but where I work we issue them all day. There is one particular airline that files 300+nm direct tracks non-radar, /s, and they must have some sort of GPS since their direct tracks are razor sharp from the point we send them direct. Sure it's a pain protecting 45mn either side of track, but if we can make it work, we do.

tesox2 · Post by **tesox2** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:58 pm

We got a letter recently saying Jazz couldnt shoot the FMS approaches here, and that we werent to permit them....if the pilot asks, I accept that as responsibility for them following the rules...no different if a pilot asks for a high speed descent, I answer that speed is at their discretion...Im not authorized to permit higher speeds, and Im not about to shit on someone who has a strong tailwind!

I personally think some controllers get too involved with the side of operations that they should keep clear of...

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 9:25 pm

I personally think some controllers get too involved with the side of operations that they should keep clear of...

Until something happens and TC, or even a wayward manager comes a callin! Then you can bet your ass, hell your career, its "why did you approve a CARS deviation when you KNOW you are not allowed to".....

All kinds of reasons some parties luv you to accept responsiblity for things you shouldn't - until the shit hits the fan. Then you will be left dangling in the breeze - all alone.

tesox2 · Post by **tesox2** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:25 pm

Well, I stick to MANOPs for my control decisions...whether CARs says something different, thats for the fact finding board to discuss...I dont directly approve things that are in contradiction of my operating regulations and I dont police the operations of airlines. My job is to separate planes, not make sure they have correctly filled out their flight plan, so unless the operation of an aircraft is reckless and infringing on the separation I am responsible for, the issue of equipment codes or airspeed ordinance rarely concerns me. I do my job and its the pilots responsibility to do theirs.

tesox2 · Post by **tesox2** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:31 pm

I would like to add, I have heard controllers instructing aircraft to reduce speed to the appropriate indicated airspeeds...pilots responding, we are, we have a 100kt tailwind. * Dope*

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:09 pm

Best re-read part 1. Can't quote the exact part but it says something about "thou shalt not approve a request that violates CARS" or similar. That might come out in a FFB...sigh.

tesox2 · Post by **tesox2** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:28 am

MANOPS 101
Apply the rules, procedures, and separation
minima contained in this Manual in the control
of air traffic and in the provision of all other air
traffic services. (R)

103.1
Do not approve a deviation from any part of the
Canadian Aviation Regulations by a civil or
military aircraft unless authorized by:
A. Canadian Aviation Regulations; or
B. any other specific written delegation of
authority issued by or on behalf of the
Minister of Transport.

So, you can learn your nine sections of CARs that pertain to every known facet of aviation, or you can learn your couple of sections pertinent to IFR ATC...why fill your head with stuff that doesnt pertain to your job? MANOPs does a great job of condensing the applicable CARs to my job...the rest, as I said before, issuing statements such as "at pilots discretion", "when able", alleviates my need to place unneccasary restrictions that I may or may not be aware of. Who knows if that arrival has a letter from the minister to do something other than what CARs says...I dont know the CARs, and I refuse to waste what remaining brain cells I have on learning them. I expect the pilot to do the flying, and follow the rules that govern his/her particular facet of flying, just as the pilot expects me to do the separating and other control services within the rules that govern me.

I fail to see how my clearances would be translated as an approval to deviate from the CARs?

NewtonCentre · Post by **NewtonCentre** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:45 am

If an aircraft with a non-certified gps is cleared direct, airport to airport, off radar instead of using airways - one must protect 90nm of airspace. This has been said already. I would not clear an aircraft direct under these circumstances because it makes it very difficult to climb/descend aircraft into either of the airports if they are coming/going in the direction of the non-certified gps aircraft. It also creates a headache for the controller who will take over from me in a few minutes and have to deal with the clearance that I just gave.

If the aircraft was cleared nicely on airways, it's more efficient for climbs/descents and for any other aircraft wishing to fly within 90nm of the track of the non-certified aircraft. If I'd cleared a non-certified gps aircraft direct at 160, and then I have an aircraft at FL180 that wants to descend to 140 for some reason - I can't do it without reversing course, or applying omni (IF there's a VOR), or having the aircraft at FL180 fly 50nm off course to be clear of the aircraft that is dead-reckoning... So I just don't clear standard equipped aircraft direct, off radar and potentially screw other pilots or other controllers who will take over after me.

pokaroo · Post by **pokaroo** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:21 am

What's wrong with using uncontrolled airspace to get a guy through another. Or does that not apply in this case? Most non radar sectors are riddled with uncontrolled airspace but for some reason controllers are hesitant to use it.

it'sme · Post by **it'sme** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:52 pm

I'm curious "it'sme" have you heard of people being cleared direct, using non-ifr gps, in non-radar environments?

Newton,

In answer to your question ...yes. Last time was about 3 hours ago. Not only is that particular aircraft non-certified GPS......it is non-GPS. The flightcrew was overheard to advise that they were able direct xxx and they were subsequently cleared for same. Now as cpl_atc points out there is no way of knowing what is actually on the aircraft and what Op Spec they may be operating under (or not).

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 3:04 pm

So, you can learn your nine sections of CARs that pertain to every known facet of aviation, or you can learn your couple of sections pertinent to IFR ATC...why fill your head with stuff that doesnt pertain to your job?

Sigh

ATC are not CARS cops granted, but you are required to know the rules. How are you going to know if you are approving a deviation from the CARS if you don't know what they say? How will you know what is important if you haven't at least read the whole thing? I'm guessing you are very new - in the old days, CARS (aeronautics act etc) were required reading and tested material - now it's just a pulse that seems to suffice. Weak.

That attitude will make for either a very short or very troublsome career.

tesox2 · Post by **tesox2** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 5:16 pm

Dont ever recall any exams based on CARs standards....but hey, Im only new right!

Seriously, your expectation to know the CARs is overstated. If I get a plane asking me to continue IFR flight without a serviceable warning device or vacuum indicator that shows the power available to gyroscopic instruments from each power source Im not going to say, "thats approved", because I dont know if the most recent CARs has said its required or not. I will respond "conduct operations as per IFR certification requirements"...come on....now if an IFR helicopter pilot told me was flying a machine built in October of 2002 and I heard he didnt have a shoulder harness in that machine....well, let me tell you I woud be ringing transport up ASAP!!

Now, the CARs that do pertain to my job are accounted for in MANOP sections that apply to my duties as an IFR controller, those of which I know quite well!!

My attitude towards my professional career is of utmost duty and concern for the safe conduct of air operations while under my care. I fail to see how you translate a troublesome career from the few brief comments Ive made regarding your high expectations to know the CARs.

killer84 · Post by **killer84** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:42 am

It used to be that tower controllers had to say "check gear down", but they stopped doing that because the legal implications if the controller forgot to say it and the pilot landed with no gear.

I can just imagine if we were required to ensure that every piece of a pilots equipment was certified and he was properly trained to use it. Suddenly the onus is on ATC to make sure the pilot isn't an idiot.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:11 am

killer84 wrote:It used to be that tower controllers had to say "check gear down", but they stopped doing that because the legal implications if the controller forgot to say it and the pilot landed with no gear.

I don't understand that. There are a multitude of tasks and/or steps that controllers must follow for each aircraft in order to ensure safe handling of the flight. Why is the controller any more likely to forget including "check gear down" along with a landing clearance vs. forgetting to check if the runway is clear, or clearing an aircraft across a landing runway, or any other critical task? And how does someone try to argue that the gear is the controller's responsibility?

F'ing lawyers...

kevenv · Post by **kevenv** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:04 am

Military controllers still say check gear down as far as I know. Interesting part is that the controller has no legal obligation to verify it when the pilot says it's down. More than one a/c has tried to land with the gear up after saying it is down.

killer84 · Post by **killer84** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:18 am

the_professor wrote:
killer84 wrote:It used to be that tower controllers had to say "check gear down", but they stopped doing that because the legal implications if the controller forgot to say it and the pilot landed with no gear.
I don't understand that. There are a multitude of tasks and/or steps that controllers must follow for each aircraft in order to ensure safe handling of the flight. Why is the controller any more likely to forget including "check gear down" along with a landing clearance vs. forgetting to check if the runway is clear, or clearing an aircraft across a landing runway, or any other critical task? And how does someone try to argue that the gear is the controller's responsibility?

F'ing lawyers...

It's just defining what is a controller's responsibility, and what is a pilot's responsibility. It's a controller's responsibility to make sure the runway is clear, it's the pilots responsibility to ensure the gear is down, his flaps are set correctly, and such.

Just like it should be the pilot's responsibility to make sure he can use the equipment in his cockpit properly, not ATC's.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:24 pm

But, everyone tells me, that it's not the controller's responsibility to look out the window to confirm the aircraft that he's just cleared for take off, is indeed taking off from the assigned runway. Has the appearance of a one way street from where I sit?