Radio Proceedure

LostinRotation · Post by **LostinRotation** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:16 pm

SierraPoppa wrote:That's just being a dickhead on a power trip. I'll bet that when those violations get to enforcement most of them end up in file thirteen.

I have no idea who you are, but I like ya already

-=0=LIR=0=-

bigfssguy · Post by **bigfssguy** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:44 pm

Sierra Poppa i have to side with grimey. You can pick and choose your fights but on the FSS side you may be opening a can of worms you don't want opened. I'm not sure what it is like in controller land but if we don't write someone up it will be our butts on the line if TC ever got wind of it not to mention our managers. There has been times where i have not wrote people up after they broke a CAR's rule but i checked with my manager on it and he agreed with me.

So it comes down to us or the pilot, we can get pasted to the wall if we don't write a pilot up when he broke the rules he is obligated to follow. Also i worked with Grimey in thompson and a lot of the rules people are breaking they break over and over and over again so you can let it slide only so many times before it becomes a danger to others. If they didn't want us to act like FSS cops they wouldn't have added it to our duties. I'm sorry to all the pilots i'm sure most don't knowingly break the rules but when you boil it down and both our butts are on the line i gotta watch my own first.

pinkus · Post by **pinkus** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:11 am

I have a couple things to say.

It sometimes helps when someone tells you what freq they called on. Then you know where to call them.

Also, for the guys that are local and know all the malls, lakes and highways, it REALLY helps if you give your relative position to the airport.

"F XXX is six miles north of the (airport) at 5000 feet." or "F XXX is 10 DME SW of the XXX VOR at 5000 ft"

Calling some lake only makes others ask themselves where that lake is...

Also, calling "8 miles back" is a bogus call. Give a direction and altitude.

As for calling on the taxi at an MF on 126.7...this is a pilot being safe and following procedure. You can blame TC for combining the WX Freq with the Uncontrolled airspace Freq not the pilot who makes the call. He may be IFR, planning his departure, making sure that he does not run over other traffic. A jet/turbo prop on departure moves quickly and wants to know what he is getting into. His departure will take him out of the MF in less than two minutes and he is checking to make sure that there is no one else out there...

Pinky

Any conflicts, please advise....

FREEFALL · Post by **FREEFALL** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:34 am

Praise the almighty bigfssguy. The ambassador to my QUAM!

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:54 am

SierraPoppa wrote: Did anyone ever tell you that you were hired as a Flight Service Specialist NOT a cop. There is no way you have to write the pilot up. It is a discretionary call at best. If it causes an incident then you have no choice but to say he admitted to violating CARS therefore I have to write him up is ridiculous.

No, I'm not a cop. But I don't have the option of ignoring an occurance, especially if it's on tape (and can therefore bite me in the ass anytime in the next 30 days). This is according to my manager and team supervisor, my training, and FS MANOPs 151.1.C, and 152.1.A. And since I've had pilots observe a minor occurance (missed final call with no other traffic), and tell me to, in all seriousness, "violate him", it's apparently not just NavCanada employees, either.

If you want to call NC, and ask them to add in "at specialist's discretion", or some other such language to FS MANOPs 152.1, go ahead. It'd make my life easier, and keep me from having to do things I'd rather not. That language isn't there now.

I worked thirty years as a controller and only ever wrote up one person. Did you ever think that instead of being a jerk and writing the pilot up you could mention in a polite way that you require the report five minutes prior to the approach as per CARS.

I don't go looking to write people up. But if it's on tape,and what's on tape clearly indicates a regulatory violation, it's MY ass if i get a tape check and haven't done anything about it. If I can get a guy out of violating cars, I do. If I see a guy on short final, and he hasn't called, I'll tell him I have him on final, and give the winds. Do I think people should get big fines for one time, minor occurances? Hell no. But I don't want one either.

FREEFALL · Post by **FREEFALL** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:04 am

Hey grimey, what are you still doing awake.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:08 am

FREEFALL wrote:Hey grimey, what are you still doing awake.

hoping certain pilots arn't looking to beat the crap out of me for doing my job.

FREEFALL · Post by **FREEFALL** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:42 am

If I were you, I'd worry about aging controllers. They seem to have bigger chips on their shoulders.

zzjayca · Post by **zzjayca** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:17 am

bigfssguy wrote: You can pick and choose your fights but on the FSS side you may be opening a can of worms you don't want opened. I'm not sure what it is like in controller land but if we don't write someone up it will be our butts on the line if TC ever got wind of it not to mention our managers....

So it comes down to us or the pilot,... .
I'm sorry to all the pilots i'm sure most don't knowingly break the rules but when you boil it down and both our butts are on the line i gotta watch my own first.

It works exactly the same in ATC. When we were Transport Canada, we had a little more lee way, but with Nav Canada, there is NO lee way. As bigfssguy said, if it's me or the pilot, sorry but I'm going to look after me.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:29 am

Reading this thread confirms my opinion that I would prefer an airport without an FSS, to an airport with an FSS.

An AWOS runs 24 hours a day, never goes on strike, and will aways give me the altimeter setting, wind and dew point spread, and it won't ever try to take my pilot's licence away from me.

Shut the FSS's down. With friends with attitudes like that, who needs Enforcement?

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:31 am

Hedley wrote:Shut the FSS's down. With friends with attitudes like that, who needs Enforcement?

Or you could just change our MANOPs to allow us to use our discretion.

edit... "you" should read "they", meaning TC and NC.

Ryan Coke · Post by **Ryan Coke** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:05 am

I think we would happily change the manops if we had that ability, but in the meantime we'll just have a chip on our shoulder for the minority of FSSers who feel obligated to try to screw a guy making a mistake. There is no question that most individuals have no interest in getting someone in a jackpot if they can avoid it, whereas others want to act big and tough like the cop they could never be (as indicated by the tone in the first post by grimey).

Why are there certain individuals, in certain bases, who want to find things to write up? YMM has the worst reputation at both the airlines that fly in there for being 'difficult'. I assume it is one person with a bad attitude, and I feel for all the good people that have to work in there.

My problem is that I see controllers make mistakes quite regularly, as they are also human. But I don't try to belittle them and 'get' them when they do. I try to be there to clear things up, and help them out, and all I ask for back is the same. On the other hand, when I get a guy with an attitude, then I am not going to be doing everything I can to cover his ass back. To me, it is all about safety, and working together, and if Navcan is trying to turn you guys into no-judgment enforcement buffoons, then it is a shame.

SierraPoppa · Post by **SierraPoppa** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:06 am

It appears some crow eating is required on my part. As it also appears things have changed very much for the worse since I retired.
I had heard that TC and NavCanada management where being a bunch of pricks these days but I was unaware as to the extent.

My apologies to all concerned.

SP

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:14 am

Ryan Coke wrote:I think we would happily change the manops if we had that ability, but in the meantime we'll just have a chip on our shoulder for the minority of FSSers who feel obligated to try to screw a guy making a mistake. There is no question that most individuals have no interest in getting someone in a jackpot if they can avoid it, whereas others want to act big and tough like the cop they could never be (as indicated by the tone in the first post by grimey).

Excuse me? I think I've made it perfectly clear that I'd rather not write people up for minor violations, or see them fined. With the occurance that I mentioned about the pilot who missed the final call, I hadn't written it up for hours afterwards. I mentioned it to my supervisor when he came on shift. He stated, in no uncertain terms, that I HAD to write it up. If I was looking to "screw" every pilot I could, I wouldn't be telling you how to avoid getting written up.

To me, it is all about safety, and working together, and if Navcan is trying to turn you guys into no-judgment enforcement buffoons, then it is a shame.

Which is how I personally feel too, but until NC and TC get around to changing the wording of MANOPS, I can't do it that way. So in the meantime, make your mandatory calls.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:28 am

" Did anyone ever tell you that you were hired as a Flight Service Specialist NOT a cop. There is no way you have to write the pilot up. It is a discretionary call at best. If it causes an incident then you have no choice but to say he admitted to violating CARS therefore I have to write him up is ridiculous. "

I couldn't agree more with this statement, I just can't believe what aviation has come to, if some power tripping as.hole wrote me up just because he could I would walk into his cubicle and shove the paper right up his ass...now would one of you Gestapo types tell me what part of CAR's you would use to punish me for that action?

After 53 years in this business I am ashamed to admit I work in the industry, it is as.holes like the ones who write up these rules who need to be fired and hire people with some common sense.

As to all you FSS people who claim that it is you or me that is O.K. by me, just do your best because I see you as the enemy to be circumvated at any cost, your poorly thought out rules and policies are only going to make for difficult relations between aircrew and Nav Canada, and pure contempt from us who made the industry you are now screwing up with a police mentality..

..So from me to you, F.ck you friend...

Jeeses what joke aviation has turned into.

Cat.... By the way my license number is AA38841...to save you looking it up...

Unable Due Traffic · Post by **Unable Due Traffic** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:56 am

Cat, Don't paint us all with the same brush......
and don't put the blame solely onto Navcan.
Transport Canada enforcement HAS, in the past, written up and FINED an ACC shift manager for "using his discretion" in not reporting a blown altitude (pilot called and apologized for his action and no risk of collision occured).
On the other hand, if I can justify my actions (read my arse is covered), or lack there of, while running my specialty, I will use my own judgement and NOT play COP.... that IS NOT my job, never has been and never will be. I am paid to move airplanes.

Cheers

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:12 am

Cat Driver wrote:I couldn't agree more with this statement, I just can't believe what aviation has come to, if some power tripping as.hole wrote me up just because he could I would walk into his cubicle and shove the paper right up his ass...now would one of you Gestapo types tell me what part of CAR's you would use to punish me for that action?

Again, it isn't power tripping on my part. I'm not given the option of using my discretion. If you're still pissed at guys like me for writing people up for minor violations, I can't blame you. If some people are willing to risk a fine for themselves to avoid the possiblility of a pilot getting one, that's fine with me. Right now, I'm still on probation (new hire) for another 5 months. Which means it isn't hard at all for NC to dismiss me if they feel I've broken certain rules. All I can say is that I'm not willing to risk my job to save a pilot a fine.

After 53 years in this business I am ashamed to admit I work in the industry, it is as.holes like the ones who write up these rules who need to be fired and hire people with some common sense.

TC and Nav Canada management arn't terribly well respected within ATC or FSS units either.

As to all you FSS people who claim that it is you or me that is O.K. by me, just do your best because I see you as the enemy to be circumvated at any cost, your poorly thought out rules and policies are only going to make for difficult relations between aircrew and Nav Canada, and pure contempt from us who made the industry you are now screwing up with a police mentality..

..So from me to you, F.ck you friend...

Given the shit I understand that you've been through with TC (I still don't think I heard even a tenth of the story), I can't blame you for saying that.

I just hope I don't have the displeasure of having to write you up if you ever get back over to this side of the pond.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:16 am

Unable due traffic....

...Hi..

Please go back and read my post closely and you will note it is not the grunts who work as FSS specialists that my frustration is directed at, it is the f.cking morons in TC that are piling more and more rules and stupid policies on this industry...

...So to make peace with my good friends in ATC and FSS I would walk the paper into TC and if I could find the moron who thinks up these policies I would shove the paper so far up his ass he would need an anal scanner to read it....

...and I would take a camcorder record of the insertion and send a copy to every ATC and FSS office in Canada so you all could grin and clap your hands in admiration of my dedication to the industry.

How's that?

Cat

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:21 am

Cat Driver wrote: ...and I would take a camcorder record of the insertion and send a copy to every ATC and FSS office in Canada so you all could grin and clap your hands in admiration of my dedication to the industry.

Could you get Birddog a copy to use as his sig?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:45 am

Grimey:

Sure, no problem, we could get Hazatude to retreive it for Birddog...

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:38 am

Cat Driver wrote:Grimey:

Sure, no problem, we could get Hazatude to retreive it for Birddog...

No, the video, not the paper.

Unable Due Traffic · Post by **Unable Due Traffic** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:36 pm

Cat.... TOO FUNNY!

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:48 pm

zzjayca wrote:
It works exactly the same in ATC. When we were Transport Canada, we had a little more lee way, but with Nav Canada, there is NO lee way. As bigfssguy said, if it's me or the pilot, sorry but I'm going to look after me.

Fine, time for us to start reporting you guys... seems fair...

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:53 pm

"Conflicting advise" is retarded, IMO though.

The entire point of this call is so when you have 30 pilots in a 100 mile radius you only get the idiots who are in CONFLICT w/ YOU. Same height and same vicinity.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:45 pm

Flying into an airport with a Manditory Frequency is not rocket science. As a pilot speaking, if some guy is stupid enough to give a 4 minute estimate, on tape no less, he deserves a violation, or at least a dumb ass award!

So you forgot, give a 5 minute estimate for the tape and land in 4, or if you are really worried, revise your estimate.

I do sympathise with FSS people working under a set of rules that bear no common sense and why should he/she put his/her licence on the line for a pilot? Would a pilot do the same?