why ATC should have a aviation back ground

[FamilyGuy]

Scrambled legs exactly my point only more eloquent.

A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE CAN BE A DANGEROUS THING!!!!

An understanding or appreciation - GREAT, Wonderful, fill your boots. Just don't go thinking ATC can/should save the day!!!

The left turn example is perfect. One may have read somewhere that a particular model off the factory line has a critical engine. Guess what? Just like cars they can be modified - often heavily. A particular model may or may not perform the way the factory made it!!! Who knows, maybe they installed CR props on it and here is ATC (thinking they are helping) vectoring it all over the sky to avoid a turn into the dead engine (which isn't that big of deal above Vmc anyway).

Ask yourself if you could live with killing me because you thought you were being "helpful" when in fact you were providing me with information or DIRECTION that was counter to what I thought I should do but in the heat of the moment thought I must do because ATC suggested it???

[invertedattitude]

God you guys just don't get it.

FamilyGuy, Scrambled, you're obviously reading parsed sentances and implying your own twist on everything, not the first time. Now would you please actually finish reading this post before replying?

Like I said the last post, I never made any suggestion ATC should be suggesting anything to a pilot, now I will say it one more time in plain and simple english for you.

My personal opinion is that a controller having some background knowledge in the operation of an aircraft can help them to expect (key word right there I've been saying over and over) what the pilot is going to do or react. It is not a given by any means. However at the very least it would help the controller truly understand the gravity of the situation.

I also didn't say I thought I was a better controller than my co-workers, I said in my own opinion I thought it made me personally a better controller knowing it, rather than not knowing it.

It's all about having some expectation as to what flight crews and pilots are dealing with is my only point here, if you guys want to rake me over the coals about it go right ahead.

You might take interest in the fact at least at my centre and specialty there is a new training program training controllers for just such occurances, and part of the program teaches controllers what a pilot is going through during an emergency and certain things we can expect from a pilot, and certain things they can expect from us. So obviously I'm hardly the only controller who thinks this is a good idea. While some have resisted the training (as I assume you both would) many have actually gone so far to tell our managers personally what a great idea it was, and they asked for annual recurrent training on the subject.

[Jerricho]

You might take interest in the fact at least at my centre and specialty there is a new training program training controllers for just such occurances, and part of the program teaches controllers what a pilot is going through during an emergency and certain things we can expect from a pilot, and certain things they can expect from us.

Is this extra to your annual Refresher and PERF?

[MELd]

Kafufo - you're being somewhat ignorant with your comments.
As someone else pointed out, just as you (I presume) don't know the first thing about the systems and procedures used by controllers, we cannot expect them to understand the trivialities of a "vacuum failure".
I don't think the link you posted displays anything other than a lack of communication. Yes, the pilot did explain what the problem was, but not in a way that we could reasonably expect a controller to understand (unless of course perhaps they had a pilot's licence).

I also must disagree with your comment that most controllers are only concerned with "moving the dots across the sky". As a pilot, I find 99% of the controllers I encounter to be professional, helpful, and very talented at what they do....even if you end up in Minnesota when approaching Winnipeg from the north.

[MELd]

And even then, "Minnesota" usually means the south Perimeter...on a bad day!

[kevenv]

Is this extra to your annual Refresher and PERF?

This is separate from PERF (for those who get it) and if I am not mistaken, will be called part of refresher. At the center where I work (as well as inverted) in my specialty we have not received sim time dealing with emergencies / unusual situations as part of refresher for the past 2 years. Too busy training in the sim for CAATS. This despite what the books say we need. The training inverted refers to (he is relatively new to the center) is bringing back emergency / unusual situation training that we always received annually as part of refresher training. They changed the name to TRUCE. I can't remember what it stands for, I have yet to receive it.

I admit that I am one of those that inverted thinks is lazy at the job. I know what I am doing, I know how to react in an unusual or emergency situation and I can keep airplanes apart. Outside of that, it is just a fun job with a lot of fun people. When I leave work my time is mine, I leave the work behind. As do, I believe, a lot of my co workers and pilots I work with daily.

[Jerricho]

TRUCE - Training in Unusual Circumstances and Emergencies.

I believe you have NATS to thank for that abbreviation.

As to KAFUFO and MEL........... Ouch baby, very ouch.

[kevenv]

TRUCE - Training in Unusual Circumstances and Emergencies.

I believe you have NATS to thank for that abbreviation.

Crap! I generally don't like learning stuff on my days off! Inverted will think I converted! Seriously though - Thank you!

[Jerricho]

Nurries mate. Go and have a few beers and you'll forget it.

This year we kind of took back ownership of our refresher. Ottawa directed we needed to include loss of separation recovery, but at least in the Terminal sim exercises, they were scenario based, rather than clocks on with aircraft pointing at each other. Some of it was a little goofy, but I received some very good feedback regarding the validity of the simulation, and that we needed much more of it. It is unfortunate we're only afforded 4 hours of sim time, which is certainly at a premium at the moment.

Along the lines of those in ANS with an pilot/aviation background, 2 of our sim staff have pilots licences, with one a previous instructor. They provide excellent input when trying to put together "when sh*t goes wrong" exercises, especially when I need thoughts on what would a pilot be doing if this happened. It's always nice to have supporting information to add to a scenario, and when a controller is of the opinion "Bah, that would never happen" (rare, I know), it adds that extra bit of credence to what we're trying to achieve.

Next year I'm really going to try and get a real, shiny pilot or two (ideally one jet driver and one prop driver) to come in and have a chin-wag with the guys about certain things we see (hydraulics problems, flap problems, passenger problems etc....).

KAF, what you doing next March? I'll even pay for lunch down the Keg.

[kevenv]

I am all for more sim time to practice. Every one of my co-workers feels the same way. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the company has been pinching us on refresher time for a number of years. It's a matter of cost to them. On a more positive note, when are you buying us lunch?

[invertedattitude]

TRUCE - Training in Unusual Circumstances and Emergencies.

I believe you have NATS to thank for that abbreviation.

Yes that's the one.

It was a member of my speciality who came up with using TRUCE, and he did give credit to NATS as part of his presentation, along with the acronym.
and I believe someone is/has issued it to kevenv's specialty as well.

We were given sim time in reference to TRUCE situations, which were far more realistic than the PERF simulations we've had.

That's all I'm talking about is items exactly like TRUCE, I don't think people need to spend lengthy amount of their free time looking into similar items, but I also don't think it should be considered a waste of time either. Any amount of learning is always good in one form or another.

[invertedattitude]

I also wanted to add, and it's something I've addressed in another thread:

That 5 out of the last 6 qualifications in my specialtiy had pilot backgrounds.



That's out of a total of 18 trainees, (12 were CT'd)

That being said there was one trainee who had pilot experience who was CT'd as well to be fair.

It's something that the brass around here has become aware of, and has more than just "noted" it. They were quite pleased to finally have someone qualify who didn't have a pilot ticket... (he was the last checkout in our specialty to date)

It's not just about knowing how to talk on the radio, it's about understanding the entire system, how pilots recieve ATC in the cockpit, it helps accelerate the learning process which is considerably shorter now than in the past.

[Jerricho]

On a more positive note, when are you buying us lunch?

Next time you're in YWG. They have this really nice restaurant called McDonalds. Perhaps you've heard of it.

[Jerricho]

The TRUCEs I did were very well organised. We had the whole Watch there, including Supervisors (LL Approach uses a watch based system, where you are part of a crew that you work with all the time), and it was treated just like we were working in the Ops room. The simulator was the exact equipment we used, in the exact layout with all the buttons/monitors etc in the same place. Sometimes we had Captain Big Airlines or First Officer Wannabe join us for their input. We simulated everything we possible could........incapacitated controller, evacuation of the Centre, loss of separation recovery, zone infringement, loss of one or both runways. The sort of stuff that transpired on the day you probably shouldn't have given up sniffing glue.

[scrambled_legs]

Inverted I get what you are saying but I think you are missing the point. The following is what I take issue with:

I know there's going to be multiple people take this post and chastise it saying "Its not my job to know how airplanes work" No technically its not "our job" but it is our responsibilty morally if not legally to do our jobs to the best of our ability considering the potential consequences of doing it wrong, and making statements like "Its not my job to know" is in my opinion bordering on arrogance and or laziness, while the company should be including this as part of our training, we cannot force them to without considerable time and effort, and even then it may not occur, having an attitude of "I don't care if they won't teach me" might come back to bite you someday when you're trying to get someone on the ground.

Not spending your weekend studying aircraft systems is by no means arrogant or lazy. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. If you believe you know what the pilot is doing and what he needs rather than asking important questions immediately, you can do a lot more harm than good. You say you know the gravity of a vacuum pump failure and know that he needs VMC now. So you start to climb your crossing aircraft in anticipation, so you can descend the aircraft with the vacuum failure. Little did you know that they are flying on the standby venturi vacuum or the electrical backup and want to stay straight and level and get the primary working. Now suddenly your anticipation has boxed you into a corner. Same thing with the lost engine. You are critical of controllers for not knowing which way an aircraft who lost the number one will want to turn. So you're anticipating a left turn and arrange your traffic for it, then they request the right turn. Knowing what questions to ask and how to ask them, is far more valuable than being able to anticipate a request.

The time spent in the sim practicing emergencies is invaluable. It's good to hear that they are training for it. The thing that I think you will find will help you the most is not remembering what the pilot needed 8 years ago in the simulator when his vacuum pumps failed ,but rather what questions were important to ask and how to ask them. How do you get the necessary information with the least amount of transmissions. Having a pilot there to watch over and comment, would be great. Having an understanding of what goes on in the cockpit and to appreciate that and not expect quick answers to transmissions is important. To know that the pilot is going to a venturi vacuum or electrical backup and flying off the airspeed indicator and turn and bank, is not necessary or even valuable. I'd be curious to see how the pilots do in the sim vs. the "arrogant lazy" controllers. I know I've seen emergencies handled far better by the later.

Again, Inverted, I'm not a typical "arrogant lazy" controller. I've got a commercial MIFR licence and a pretty well rounded education on aircraft systems. As far as turbine systems go, I'm clueless. Do I think I'm any less prepared to handle an emergency on a C310 that I know quite well vs. an A310? No. I'll ask the same questions for both. The only thing I can anticipate is that every similar emergency, can be quite different.

[FamilyGuy]

I get exactly some of what you are saying Inverted. Read it again:

Scrambled legs exactly my point only more eloquent.

An understanding or appreciation - GREAT, Wonderful, fill your boots.

Its the other little lines you tag on to what is a good idea that takes it too far and turns a good little knowledge into a very dangerous thing.

This isn't a personal attack on you at all - I'm just trying to make you see this differently and hopefully save you and others alot of anguish. How many REAL emergencies have you had (and not the "precautionary type of declaration")??? How many had a happy ending? Was it because ATC and the pilot worked together or because ATC had a superior knowledge of exactly what a PA42 with a autopilot failure needed??

If ATC has PERF, TRUCE and other emergency training that is a good thing. I'm willing to bet it focusses on what ATC should do and only includes a snipet or two about what pilots are doing for context and "understanding". In NO way however should that be meant to be what ATC should do when the pilot infers this as YOU said you would do if someone told you they lost the left engine.

I agree and think there should be more cross discipline training - expecially for pilots. It should include a unit visit and stress this point:

ATC is there to keep you from hitting other airplanes - they are NOT GODS and DO NOT have all the answers!

In an emergency - TELL THEM WHAT YOU NEED - YOU DO NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING OR ASK FOR PERMISSION TO SAVE YOUR LIFE!!!!! Their job is to get the other airplanes out of the way so you can have a beer with them afterwards.

I seem to recall a particuarily bad accident where if the pilot had told ATC that he was bingo fuel, with a couple serious inop systems, and shooting a tight approach to minimums, and could not miss the approach, ATC might have offered up a PAR approach (ATC's area of expertise that maybe the pilot didn't know existed) - perhaps he would have likely made it on the first try and not crashed on the second attempt when the engines quit.

In that fashion, ATC would have been seen to "save the day" when in fact the pilot would have saved himself - just by simply telling ATC what he needs (Center I've got some serious problems here and must make it on the first try). ( or frankly didn't need - normal service by saying nothing)

This entire debate reminds me of the Avianca DC8 that crashed in New York. The pilots thought they were making their fuel status clear to ATC, but ATC didn't get the "hint".

Now I do beleive that the phrase "minimum fuel" has been clarified. NY ATC shouldn't have had to use their superior understanding of DC8 systems and performance to understand what those pilots were trying to say - the f#$king pilots should have just said it clearly - we need to land now.

[invertedattitude]

Family Guy, Scrambled, I do understand both of your points quite clearly, and I do agree.

At no point should a controllers expertise or knowledge get in the way of what a pilot wants or needs. (In regards to an emergency anyway)

This day and age of CRM, I don't care what ATC says, a modern professional flight crew is going to do whats safe for the aircraft and their passengers regardless of what ATC says anyway, in an emergency our only job is to help the crew with what they need, offer any relevant knowledge the pilot may need (closest runway, useable landing length, weather etc)

Again, the only reason to all of this, is to try and stay a step ahead of the game.

Air traffic control is all about expectations, Kevenv's co-worker wrote a rather good article on this not long ago, we as controllers expect certain things from pilots and aircraft, that's how we control the airspace and separate airplanes.

For example, I expect a 737-700 to climb like a rocket compared to a CRJ. I can't blindly not monitor the situation, but I do expect it to happen, however it's never a guarantee.

The same theory applies to emergencies, if a pilot has smoke in the cockpit, I expect him to want to get on the ground ASAP, if the situation turns out to be different that's fine, but that is my initial expectation.

If a pilot has a catastrophic decompression, I expect him to descend as fast as the airplane can handle. These are quite "Generic" emergencies if there is such a thing, and items all controllers are aware of, but having more knowledge of other types of situations and knowing what to expect can only help a controller, provided that they know that the expectation is not always met.

Aviancas crash in New York as you said is a perfect example for both sides. While it seems idiotic that the pilots didn't eventually outright say "If we don't land we're going to crash" it also was an eye opener on the ATC side of things, as the proper questions were not asked, and the information was not passed on to every controller as the flight progressed, so any chance of a controller giving them priority was lost. All things the system now has checks and balances for, especially the dissemination of information downstream.

[MELd]

TRUCE - Training in Unusual Circumstances and Emergencies.

I believe you have NATS to thank for that abbreviation.

As to KAFUFO and MEL........... Ouch baby, very ouch.

Jerricho,
I was actually giving props (no pun) to you guys with the "south Perimeter" comment.

[Jerricho]

Oh....whoops.

I'll just crawl back under my rock.

[twotterflogger]

Perhaps the French are on to something by requiring that all their ATC personel are PPL holders....


Twotterflogger (stirs the pot)

[invertedattitude]

Perhaps the French are on to something by requiring that all their ATC personel are PPL holders....


Twotterflogger (stirs the pot)

Excuse me? The French? Ou est les French?

There's a reason why I have a territorial flag flying off my deck.

[twotterflogger]

Perhaps the French are on to something by requiring that all their ATC personel are PPL holders....


Twotterflogger (stirs the pot)

Excuse me? The French? Ou est les French?

There's a reason why I have a territorial flag flying off my deck.

[FamilyGuy]

Is this horse dead yet?

Well just in case it ain't there is a really good read in this quarters ASL about ATC/Pilot communication. I let some young computer whiz post the link...

Anyway bottom line it highlights what alot have been saying, (including invertedattitude ) about what resources are available to a pilot who clearly asks for them ( normally via declaring an emergency - that' really clear).

Hope CD don't read this - it was written by a TC guy. (no I don't think they want you to declare so they can investigate you - seriously )

[tesox2]

Good thread, minus the moron who started it.

[KAFUFO]

Good thread, minus the moron who started it.

Careful who you call a moron tesox.

after all your the reason CRAP exists