Unprofessional ATC controller

[Mach7]

I was sitting in the line up on Hotel for 05 departure CYYZ the other day, and noted the tower controller telling the Pilot (AC) to "line up and wait" on the active, and "start pushing the power up and be ready to go when I clear you".

There is no reply from the flight crew as I do not believe they were going to engage in his request.

In this situation there was a Sunwing flight on final, a heavy 340 was just on the takeoff roll, and Air Canada was just moving to position.

The Captain questioned the wake separation, and the tower ensured him he would have it.....

The F/O and I are watching this unfold and it was very evident to us that, even as AC was going into position this was not going to work very well.

Almost immediately, the tower cleared AC for takeoff, there was a bit of a hesitation before he began to roll as I am sure there was some discussion in the cockpit as to whether or not they had adequete separation from the heavy, (which in our opinion they did not), however they rolled anyway as I am sure they were painfully aware of the Sunwing on short final.

As AC began to move, the Sunwing flight was ordered to'pull up and go around"

After Sunwings miss was sorted out, the tower controller advised AC to "contact departure XXX.XX, you are at least 7 miles in trail of the heavy, Thanks for the help"...anyway...something to that effect, regardless it was saturated in sarcasim.

This is the second time I have seen this particular controller do this.

[flying4dollars]

I was sitting in the line up on Hotel for 05 departure CYYZ the other day, and noted the tower controller telling the Pilot (AC) to "line up and wait" on the active, and "start pushing the power up and be ready to go when I clear you".

There is no reply from the flight crew as I do not believe they were going to engage in his request.

In this situation there was a Sunwing flight on final, a heavy 340 was just on the takeoff roll, and Air Canada was just moving to position.

The Captain questioned the wake separation, and the tower ensured him he would have it.....

The F/O and I are watching this unfold and it was very evident to us that, even as AC was going into position this was not going to work very well.

Almost immediately, the tower cleared AC for takeoff, there was a bit of a hesitation before he began to roll as I am sure there was some discussion in the cockpit as to whether or not they had adequete separation from the heavy, (which in our opinion they did not), however they rolled anyway as I am sure they were painfully aware of the Sunwing on short final.

As AC began to move, the Sunwing flight was ordered to'pull up and go around"

After Sunwings miss was sorted out, the tower controller advised AC to "contact departure XXX.XX, you are at least 7 miles in trail of the heavy, Thanks for the help"...anyway...something to that effect, regardless it was saturated in sarcasim.

This is the second time I have seen this particular controller do this.

Seen this and been asked to do this quite a few times in Calgary. Personally, if I don't feel like it's safe for me to do what's being asked, I'll speak up and say unable, or that we need a couple minutes. If there's no issue and my f/o and I are comfortable with what's being asked, we will happily comply. I don't think the AC crew of this particular flight would have complied if they felt it was not safe.

[Mach7]

@Flying4dollars

I agree, however the crew was already turning in position when the controller told him to bring the power up...(not a request in my mind). I am sure they would have declined the position and hold clearance if they felt this scenario was going to play out the way they did.

What the controller should have asked is if they could wave separation and take an immediate.

By instructing the crew to 'push the power up and be ready to go', as they are already lining up on the runway seems to be going (in our case) BELOW there pay grade.

In hindsight I believe the controller was calculating his separation based on 'distance' when it should have been on 'time'...for departures anyway.

Which ever way you slice it, the crew was blamed for the Sunwing miss, and IMO falls into the category of bad ATC controlling.

[leftoftrack]

@Flying4dollars

I agree, however the crew was already turning in position when the controller told him to bring the power up...(not a request in my mind). I am sure they would have declined the position and hold clearance if they felt this scenario was going to play out the way they did.

What the controller should have asked is if they could wave separation and take an immediate.

By instructing the crew to 'push the power up and be ready to go', as they are already lining up on the runway seems to be going (in our case) BELOW there pay grade.

In hindsight I believe the controller was calculating his separation based on 'distance' when it should have been on 'time'...for departures anyway.

Which ever way you slice it, the crew was blamed for the Sunwing miss, and IMO falls into the category of bad ATC controlling.

Efficient controllers are a good thing, but sometimes efficient controllers can make mistakes. I don't think that falls on the crews shoulders at all.

[Canoehead]

No controller should ever tell a crew to "bring up the power" or "keep the power up".
That's crossing a line IMO.

Tell me to be "ready an immediate...", I can get the 'urgency' from that, thanks.

Besides, in YYZ, all operations are HIRO unless stated otherwise. Runway occupancy time is always expected to be a minimum. Nobody operating in/out of YYZ should need to be told how to achieve minimum occupancy time.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Most of the time if a controller is being crabby it just best to say Roger and move on. The few times I have been very unhappy with controllers actions and/or very rude comments from them I have phoned the tower supervisor and explained what the issue was. The response has always been very professional and in one particular case very educational to both of us as the real issue was a procedure that was understood in different ways by ATC and local pilots.

BTW if you are abused by tower on the arrival and really pissed and want a bit of instant satisfaction, demand the tower supervisors phone number from ground when you are taxi in. That tends to get noticed .................although I would suggest you want to make damn sure you are in the right and the offense was really egregious.

[Stinky]

No controller should ever tell a crew to "bring up the power" or "keep the power up".
That's crossing a line IMO.

That's very common terminology in Laguardia

[Legacy]

@Flying4dollars


What the controller should have asked is if they could wave separation and take an immediate

I believe you can only waive a light behind a medium.

[Go Guns]

Tell me to be "ready an immediate...

+1 That is all it would take for me. If they want to tell me to spool em up though, it would mean the same thing in my mind.

[TheStig]

I heard/watched this exchange as well. The spacing was tight, what can you say, sometimes Go arounds happen. I didn't actually think the EMJ took long to get rolling, but it certainly didn't roll immediately. I'm sure the pilots were concerned about the cross wind pushing the wingtip vortices of the A340-600 over the runway, but I wouldn't suggest they intentionally delayed their roll.

I always appreciate controllers who do their best to move airplanes, most pilots do. For the ATCs that read this forum, just a couple of points with respect to these types of situations:

-There is a risk that the auto thrust system will take over and set take-off thrust inadvertently which is obviously frowned upon without take off clearance, so pilot are hesitant to bring the power up.

-In cross wind conditions Aircraft Operating Manuals specify that rolling takeoffs are preferred to applying thrust with the brakes set due to the risk of compressor stalls as the engine is forced to suck air across the engine inlet barrel causing disrupted airflow.

Blaming others for these events is not constructive, they happen, I can sympathize with the towers frustration as I'm sure he was doing his best to move airplanes, but please spare everyone the remarks, they aren't helpful. We're all in this business together, and I'd like to thank the controllers in YYZ they have been a pleasure to work with and extremely accommodating with any requests.

[Canoehead]

No controller should ever tell a crew to "bring up the power" or "keep the power up".
That's crossing a line IMO.

That's very common terminology in Laguardia

Yeah I realize that, but it doesn't make it right. There are ways to appropriately convey that time is critical that do not involve telling me how to operate my airplane.

I agree that the controllers in YYZ do pretty good work at moving airplanes.
Now if we could only get them to stop the silliness of the 121.9 --> 121.65 --> 122.27 switching

[rxl]

In the CRJ 900 series standing takeoffs are prohibited in strong crosswind conditions.

[I WAS Birddog]

No controller should ever tell a crew to "bring up the power" or "keep the power up".
That's crossing a line IMO.

That's very common terminology in Laguardia

...what he said.

+ more pull-ups ATC ordered pull-ups at KLGA than I've done in 24 years...ever...ever.

"Don't blame the player...blame the game" -Robin Williams...or Biggie Smalls? (one of those dead guys)

[leftoftrack]

"Don't blame the player...blame the game" -Robin Williams...or Biggie Smalls? (one of those dead guys)

Too soon?

[Bede]

I'd rather have the odd GA because a controller is moving traffic than having to hold short because a lander is 4 miles final which happens at certain airports which will be left unnamed*.

* Edmonton and Calgary

[Gino Under]

The return of sanity to aviation is very likely to NOT happen any time soon.

But, in the old days, there was a time when controllers were actually allowed on the flight deck to share our working environment which actually fostered a better understanding and appreciation of each other's role in the system.
It used to be great fun in the early days of profile descents into Toronto. Never quite as much fun though as actually having an arrival controller from YYZ ATC in the jumpseat. Now THAT was good fun.
Today? That's all gone to hell in a handcart.

Speaking of go-arounds. I don't believe there are any discounts on the landing fees if you make the first exit or high speed turn off. If the guy behind me has to overshoot it sounds like an ATC problem cause the landing fee charged should have given you the full length. I'd caution any ATCO not to assume early exits for all landing traffic but to always expect the full length. Murphy's Law is ever present and not just for landings.

In fact, the same full length expectation should be SOP for every takeoff. At some point, whether taking off or landing when considering 'minimum runway occupancy time', like 'minimum loss of altitude' for a stall recovery, should never reach a ridiculous stretch of interpretation and crews would be well advised to bear that in mind.

Gino Under

[Joe Blow Schmo]

I'd rather have the odd GA because a controller is moving traffic than having to hold short because a lander is 4 miles final which happens at certain airports which will be left unnamed*.

* Edmonton and Calgary

4 miles? Try a good chunk of Asia. You'll be lucky if they let you out with 7 or 8 miles spacing.

[118.7]

Speaking of go-arounds. I don't believe there are any discounts on the landing fees if you make the first exit or high speed turn off. If the guy behind me has to overshoot it sounds like an ATC problem cause the landing fee charged should have given you the full length. I'd caution any ATCO not to assume early exits for all landing traffic but to always expect the full length. Murphy's Law is ever present and not just for landings.
Gino Under

The landing clearance gives you the full length. If the guy behind you has to overshoot because you feel the need to roll to the end to get full value for your landing fee, it's not an ATC problem...it's our job. The overshoot will get vectored back onto approach likely filling what would have been a departure hole, burning more fuel and time. The departures waiting to go then get delayed because of the lost departure slot, burning more fuel and time. The major tenants at YYZ account for the majority of the movements, so it follows that they will account for the majority of the overshoots and departure delays.........extra fuel and time (money) burned. Kind of a self policing thing in the end.

As for your caution for ATC to expect all landing traffic always using the full length.... ......despite your best ten thousand foot efforts...never gonna happen.

[justwork]

Speaking of go-arounds. I don't believe there are any discounts on the landing fees if you make the first exit or high speed turn off. If the guy behind me has to overshoot it sounds like an ATC problem cause the landing fee charged should have given you the full length. I'd caution any ATCO not to assume early exits for all landing traffic but to always expect the full length. Murphy's Law is ever present and not just for landings.

Gino Under

I usually agree with most of your points Gino but this one makes me shake my head. Busy airports keep traffic tight period, they have too. At some airports (EWR, LGA, ORD) it is often common to be on final approach 2.5-3 NM behind landing traffic. If the guy I'm following feels it necessary to roll it out to the end I'm going around. If he could have safely made the first high speed but decided that the runway is his and he's going to roll it out to the second or third, and I go around, that's bad airmanship. IMHO.

[parrot_head]

I'd rather have the odd GA because a controller is moving traffic than having to hold short because a lander is 4 miles final which happens at certain airports which will be left unnamed*.

* Edmonton and Calgary

In Edmonton if you are departing 30, in addition to the 30 arrivals, the tower controller will also need to space you with arrivals on 02 or departures off 20. If you are departing 20, there are similar issues with the 12 arrivals and 30 departures.

There are no true high speed exits available in EG so the ROT can sometime be a little longer than desired.

I am not making excuses, just pointing out a few more factors that need to be considered in addition to the aircraft 4 mile final.

[conehead]

The return of sanity to aviation is very likely to NOT happen any time soon.

But, in the old days, there was a time when controllers were actually allowed on the flight deck to share our working environment which actually fostered a better understanding and appreciation of each other's role in the system.
It used to be great fun in the early days of profile descents into Toronto. Never quite as much fun though as actually having an arrival controller from YYZ ATC in the jumpseat. Now THAT was good fun.
Today? That's all gone to hell in a handcart.

Speaking of go-arounds. I don't believe there are any discounts on the landing fees if you make the first exit or high speed turn off. If the guy behind me has to overshoot it sounds like an ATC problem cause the landing fee charged should have given you the full length. I'd caution any ATCO not to assume early exits for all landing traffic but to always expect the full length. Murphy's Law is ever present and not just for landings.

In fact, the same full length expectation should be SOP for every takeoff. At some point, whether taking off or landing when considering 'minimum runway occupancy time', like 'minimum loss of altitude' for a stall recovery, should never reach a ridiculous stretch of interpretation and crews would be well advised to bear that in mind.

Gino Under

[thenoflyzone]

What the controller should have asked is if they could wave separation and take an immediate.

A controller doesn't have the right to initiate a wake turbulence waiver. It has to come from the pilot.

@Flying4dollars


What the controller should have asked is if they could wave separation and take an immediate

I believe you can only waive a light behind a medium.

No, you can also waive a light/medium behind a heavy, except if:

1. it will take off behind an A380;
2. it will take off behind a heavy aircraft from an
intersection or a point significantly further
along the runway in the direction of take off;
3. a heavy aircraft or A380 is doing a low or missed
approach in the same direction on the same
runway;
or
4. a heavy aircraft or A380 is taking off or doing a
low or missed approach in the opposite direction
on the same runway.

I'm sure the pilots were concerned about the cross wind pushing the wingtip vortices of the A340-600 over the runway, but I wouldn't suggest they intentionally delayed their roll.

Of course the pilot is in the best position to make an assessment of the need for wake turbulence separation. However, it is worth mentioning that in certain situations, such as with a steady crosswind, the full wake turb separation minima might not be required. (straight from p. 218 of the AIM) So from what i understand, a crosswind, especially one that is stronger than just a few knots, might have a positive effect on the dissipation of wake turbulence on the runway.

The return of sanity to aviation is very likely to NOT happen any time soon.

But, in the old days, there was a time when controllers were actually allowed on the flight deck to share our working environment which actually fostered a better understanding and appreciation of each other's role in the system.
It used to be great fun in the early days of profile descents into Toronto. Never quite as much fun though as actually having an arrival controller from YYZ ATC in the jumpseat. Now THAT was good fun.
Today? That's all gone to hell in a handcart.

Gino Under

The opposite will also be useful....pilots coming up to the cab or the ACC to see what us tin pushers have to deal with on a day to day basis....

Thenoflyzone