AC 602-008

[DHC-1 Jockey]

As a controller, how would you react if an aircraft on final would check in with information D, but F is active by now? Would this not create *more* radio chatter for something that just doesn't matter anymore at that time?

Despite my better judgement, I'll bite and try to answer this question with a scenario that happened just last week:

An ATIS is produced at 1200Z as information Alpha. This weather is CAVOK and the ATIS states the runways are 100% bare and wet, with a temperature of +1, but the temperature has been falling rapidly in a flash-freeze event.

An inbound VFR student pilot on a cross-country picks up this ATIS at 1240Z, and the conditions are still advertised as 100% bare and wet. But, at the same time the pilot is getting this ATIS, a runway inspection is being performed. After a few minutes, a new RSC report comes out stating the runways are now 40% ice patches. The controller then records a new ATIS at 1245Z with the updated RSC and calls it information Bravo.

At 1255Z the pilot checks in with tower and advises that they have information Alpha (remember, Bravo is now current). With this simple transmission of the ATIS code, the controller now knows that the pilot is operating with expired information and is completely unaware that the runways are ice covered. The controller then relays that information to the pilot. The pilot decides that the safest course of action is to not do their touch-and-go at the airport and instead decides to return to their home base.

I use this example because it's one that happened on my last cycle working at the tower. In my experience, student pilots usually pick up the ATIS 20-30 miles out from the airport to give them time to listen once or twice and copy down the information, and then listen to tower frequency for a little bit before checking in about 5-10 miles from the field. At 120 kts, that's 10-15 minutes where conditions can change rapidly. By checking in with the ATIS code, I know which information they have, and more importantly what information they don't have. If they checked in with Bravo (the new ATIS) and still requested the touch-and-go, I assume that the runway conditions are acceptable to them and issue the clearance accordingly.

If we consider the majority of the flights at ATIS airports, which are likely IFR commercial operations, then the majority of flights will deal with center and arrival before contacting the tower.

Maybe this is your fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. The majority of flights at ATIS airport's aren't IFR commercial operations. Most towers with an ATIS are VFR-majority towers. Think of the YYZ FIR. There's YAM, YQG, YXU, YFK, YHM, YOO, YTZ and YYZ. Aside from YYZ and YTZ, the other towers are mostly VFR movements. At my tower, we are 95% VFR flight-school and GA traffic. Yes, the 10-15 IFR aircraft we get each day are talking to the center and will be told the ATIS, but the hundreds of daily VFR movements coming and going from the practice area or arriving on cross-countries aren't talking to the center.

For most small VFR towers, the first time an ATIS code is mentioned is when the inbound VFR pilot checks in on tower frequency. If they forgot to listen to the ATIS, or listened to an expired one, as a controller I want to know that so I can figure out which information to pass along to make it safer for you.

As a controller, how would you react if an aircraft on final would check in with information D, but F is active by now? Would this not create *more* radio chatter for something that just doesn't matter anymore at that time?

This also might be your misunderstanding because you're only concerned with the operation of your own aircraft. You have no idea what does and doesn't matter to another pilot of a higher or lower skill than yourself or is operating an aircraft with greater or fewer capabilities. What might not matter to a 737 might matter a lot to a tail-dragger. It's not just about you out there, and currently the majority of pilots check in with the ATIS code. The new rule is to make it so that the few that don't now have to, so you're really complaining about a new rule that 95% of the pilots follow anyways, and is meant to assist the 5% that don't, all in the name of safety.

[‘Bob’]

But a readback isn’t making it safer. Especially if it’s just done by rote by either copying someone else’s homework or having it on in the background listening to extraneous or irrelevant information like bird activity. I’ve had clearances missed because the PM was listening to the ATIS while on the STAR. Single student pilot? How much worse.

Maybe runway condition should be passed on like winds by tower on final. They already pass on braking action reports.

[7ECA]

DHC-1 Jockey, out of curiosity then, once it becomes mandatory to read back things like ATIS identifiers, or hold-short instructions (which were already required... but not "mandatory") will ATC then begin filing CADORS reports on pilots who do not?

I mean, if it's a violation of CARS subpart 602, then it's a finable offence, right? All that for a read back of which ATIS you have on initial contact, or not reading back a hold short.

Is this more of a revenue generating change via fines, versus a harmonization of regulations scheme?

As noted, the majority of pilots already read back what will soon be (or already is) a mandatory read back item. So what's really being accomplished here, besides TC having something else to ding pilots for - I mean, I thought 602.01 was already there for a Catch-22 regulatory situation.

[digits_]

I use this example because it's one that happened on my last cycle working at the tower. In my experience, student pilots usually pick up the ATIS 20-30 miles out from the airport to give them time to listen once or twice and copy down the information, and then listen to tower frequency for a little bit before checking in about 5-10 miles from the field. At 120 kts, that's 10-15 minutes where conditions can change rapidly. By checking in with the ATIS code, I know which information they have, and more importantly what information they don't have. If they checked in with Bravo (the new ATIS) and still requested the touch-and-go, I assume that the runway conditions are acceptable to them and issue the clearance accordingly.

Thank you, I did not consider that. It makes sense in retrospect but I was missing that piece of the puzzle.

If we consider the majority of the flights at ATIS airports, which are likely IFR commercial operations, then the majority of flights will deal with center and arrival before contacting the tower.

Maybe this is your fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. The majority of flights at ATIS airport's aren't IFR commercial operations. Most towers with an ATIS are VFR-majority towers. Think of the YYZ FIR. There's YAM, YQG, YXU, YFK, YHM, YOO, YTZ and YYZ. Aside from YYZ and YTZ, the other towers are mostly VFR movements. At my tower, we are 95% VFR flight-school and GA traffic. Yes, the 10-15 IFR aircraft we get each day are talking to the center and will be told the ATIS, but the hundreds of daily VFR movements coming and going from the practice area or arriving on cross-countries aren't talking to the center.

I didn't know that, good to know.

But since the rules don't differentiate between big and small airports. Would YYZ expect every aircraft to report the ATIS on the tower frequency? Internationally and nationally it's already very common to do this on arrival, but I don't think I have ever heard this on a tower frequency. (For the bigger IFR traffic)

As a controller, how would you react if an aircraft on final would check in with information D, but F is active by now? Would this not create *more* radio chatter for something that just doesn't matter anymore at that time?

This also might be your misunderstanding because you're only concerned with the operation of your own aircraft. You have no idea what does and doesn't matter to another pilot of a higher or lower skill than yourself or is operating an aircraft with greater or fewer capabilities.

Nope, I have flown small stuff and jets and a variety of different sizes in between but have never felt the ATIS to be of major importance But your last message is changing that!

[Red_Comet]

DHC-1 Jockey, out of curiosity then, once it becomes mandatory to read back things like ATIS identifiers, or hold-short instructions (which were already required... but not "mandatory") will ATC then begin filing CADORS reports on pilots who do not?

I mean, if it's a violation of CARS subpart 602, then it's a finable offence, right? All that for a read back of which ATIS you have on initial contact, or not reading back a hold short.

Is this more of a revenue generating change via fines, versus a harmonization of regulations scheme?

As noted, the majority of pilots already read back what will soon be (or already is) a mandatory read back item. So what's really being accomplished here, besides TC having something else to ding pilots for - I mean, I thought 602.01 was already there for a Catch-22 regulatory situation.

Guaranteed this will be an early Christmas for grumpy controllers. FTUs will be racking up a dozen CADOORs a day as students forget the ATIS on departure/arrival, and forget to read back the alt setting.

Out of curiosity, I don't know of anything ever happening after one of these useless CADOORs is filed. Is there any teeth to these, or is it just to give controllers something to do?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

DHC-1 Jockey, out of curiosity then, once it becomes mandatory to read back things like ATIS identifiers, or hold-short instructions (which were already required... but not "mandatory") will ATC then begin filing CADORS reports on pilots who do not?

First, controller's don't file CADORS. We file Aviation Occurrence Reports (AOR's). I believe these then get reviewed by the safety or QA department and then if deemed appropriate, they get sent to Transport who are the ones that create the CADORS. I'd estimate of the AOR's I've filed in my career, less than 50% get published as a CADORS on the TC website, so who knows what happens to that other 50%. It's above my paygrade, but I assume safety and QA still use them for statistical tracking of emerging trends or issues.

I'd say as a general rule, controllers don't like filing AOR's. It's extra paperwork we don't want to do. Technically, we can file an AOR for every time a pilot doesn't follow an instruction. At a busy VFR flight training airport, that would be dozens of AOR's per day where an aircraft turns the wrong way, busts an altitude, does a touch-and-go when they were cleared for a stop-and-go, etc. At my unit, we don't file an AOR for any of these occurrences unless it has a safety impact, such as turning the wrong crosswind direction creates a conflict with another aircraft. If we filed every possible AOR scenario, it would probably crash the TC CADORS website. There are AOR's that we HAVE to file, such as an IFR aircraft going missed for reasons other than weather, an aircraft equipment issue or emergency, etc. We don't have any leeway to decide not to file those ones.

So to answer your question, if a pilot checks in with "the numbers" or "the ATIS" or doesn't say any of that at all, all I would do is say "Runway 01, wind 010 @ 10, altimeter 30.01. Verify you have ATIS Alpha?" No need to CADORS that.

I use this example because it's one that happened on my last cycle working at the tower. In my experience, student pilots usually pick up the ATIS 20-30 miles out from the airport to give them time to listen once or twice and copy down the information, and then listen to tower frequency for a little bit before checking in about 5-10 miles from the field. At 120 kts, that's 10-15 minutes where conditions can change rapidly. By checking in with the ATIS code, I know which information they have, and more importantly what information they don't have. If they checked in with Bravo (the new ATIS) and still requested the touch-and-go, I assume that the runway conditions are acceptable to them and issue the clearance accordingly.

Thank you, I did not consider that. It makes sense in retrospect but I was missing that piece of the puzzle.

If we consider the majority of the flights at ATIS airports, which are likely IFR commercial operations, then the majority of flights will deal with center and arrival before contacting the tower.

Maybe this is your fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. The majority of flights at ATIS airport's aren't IFR commercial operations. Most towers with an ATIS are VFR-majority towers. Think of the YYZ FIR. There's YAM, YQG, YXU, YFK, YHM, YOO, YTZ and YYZ. Aside from YYZ and YTZ, the other towers are mostly VFR movements. At my tower, we are 95% VFR flight-school and GA traffic. Yes, the 10-15 IFR aircraft we get each day are talking to the center and will be told the ATIS, but the hundreds of daily VFR movements coming and going from the practice area or arriving on cross-countries aren't talking to the center.

I didn't know that, good to know.

But since the rules don't differentiate between big and small airports. Would YYZ expect every aircraft to report the ATIS on the tower frequency? Internationally and nationally it's already very common to do this on arrival, but I don't think I have ever heard this on a tower frequency. (For the bigger IFR traffic)

As a controller, how would you react if an aircraft on final would check in with information D, but F is active by now? Would this not create *more* radio chatter for something that just doesn't matter anymore at that time?

This also might be your misunderstanding because you're only concerned with the operation of your own aircraft. You have no idea what does and doesn't matter to another pilot of a higher or lower skill than yourself or is operating an aircraft with greater or fewer capabilities.

Nope, I have flown small stuff and jets and a variety of different sizes in between but have never felt the ATIS to be of major importance But your last message is changing that!

I'm glad that cleared some things up. These types of discussions are great to have with pilots when they visit the tower, as opposed to back and forth on a forum. If you've never done it, I'd encourage you to reach out to your local tower and ask for a tour. Both controller and pilots alike can benefit from discussing different scenarios and examples so that controllers have a better understanding of what pilots deal with, and vice versa.

For your YYZ question, they may be able to get an exemption since all inbound aircraft are already talking to center and terminal. The tower already has many exemptions and procedures that us smaller towers aren't allowed to do, such as issue multiple landing clearances.

Guaranteed this will be an early Christmas for grumpy controllers. FTUs will be racking up a dozen CADOORs a day as students forget the ATIS on departure/arrival, and forget to read back the alt setting.

Out of curiosity, I don't know of anything ever happening after one of these useless CADOORs is filed. Is there any teeth to these, or is it just to give controllers something to do?

Again, I don't think a controller will write this up unless it's a safety issue. Controller's don't want to write dozens of reports per day.

I have no idea what happens once a CADORS is filed. Maybe it's used for TC enforcement action. Maybe it's used for trend monitoring. I know at one airport there was one particular intersection where pilots kept blowing past the hold short line. TC saw that trend, published that intersection as a hot-spot on the charts and the airport operator re-painted the hold-short line there. So, there are some positives that come from them. Also ,keep in mind ANYONE can file a CADORS, not just controllers. Airport operators and pilots alike can file them too.

The long story-short is that controllers don't want to file AOR's any more than pilots want to get CADOR-zed. We're all here working together in a symbiotic relationship and we're all just trying to play by the rules as they're prescribed to us. You might disagree with them because you don't know the why of the rule because maybe it's never applied to you. But, it might apply to someone else and a controller has to treat that rule the same whether it's a pilot on their first solo or an AC 777.

[LeftRudder]

Also ,keep in mind ANYONE can file a CADORS, not just controllers. Airport operators and pilots alike can file them too.

Really? How does a pilot make a CADORs entry?

[7ECA]

Really? How does a pilot make a CADORs entry?

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/aviati ... -reporting

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Also ,keep in mind ANYONE can file a CADORS, not just controllers. Airport operators and pilots alike can file them too.

Really? How does a pilot make a CADORs entry?

Remember, no one "Files a CADORS" directly, so I may have used incorrect phraseology. CADORS is just the term for the amalgamation of all of the reports received from ATS units, the TSB, pilots, etc. So, a pilot can file a report, which may then become a CADORS.

Here are the links to file a report:

As a pilot https://www.bst.gc.ca/eng/incidents-occ ... index.html

As an airport operator: https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/operat ... ome-safety

Controllers submit reports through our own internal system, which then goes to Transport which may then ultimately become a CADORS. And don't think of CADOR's as solely a "negative" thing. Controllers are supposed to report things like suspected bird strikes, even if a strike didn't happen and no bird remains are found. I'd bet that suspected bird strikes make up one of the largest single portions of the total CADORS, and there's no enforcement or negative impact with that report. It just simply is something that needs to be reported.

[bobcaygeon]

Also ,keep in mind ANYONE can file a CADORS, not just controllers. Airport operators and pilots alike can file them too.

Really? How does a pilot make a CADORs entry?

Remember, no one "Files a CADORS" directly, so I may have used incorrect phraseology. CADORS is just the term for the amalgamation of all of the reports received from ATS units, the TSB, pilots, etc. So, a pilot can file a report, which may then become a CADORS.

Here are the links to file a report:

As a pilot https://www.bst.gc.ca/eng/incidents-occ ... index.html

As an airport operator: https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/operat ... ome-safety

Controllers submit reports through our own internal system, which then goes to Transport which may then ultimately become a CADORS. And don't think of CADOR's as solely a "negative" thing. Controllers are supposed to report things like suspected bird strikes, even if a strike didn't happen and no bird remains are found. I'd bet that suspected bird strikes make up one of the largest single portions of the total CADORS, and there's no enforcement or negative impact with that report. It just simply is something that needs to be reported.

There shouldn't be for bird strikes but TC does what they want and has asked operators for a pilot sms and journey logs to ensure a suspected bird strike (no dead bird found) inspection was completed by crew.

[LeftRudder]

Here are the links to file a report:

As a pilot https://www.bst.gc.ca/eng/incidents-occ ... index.html

That's a link to the Transportation Safety Board, to report an "incident" as defined by statute. That's not the place to report a safety concern or a ATCO who f'cked up.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Here are the links to file a report:

As a pilot https://www.bst.gc.ca/eng/incidents-occ ... index.html

That's not the place to report a safety concern or a ATCO who f'cked up.

Follow the other links within the link I posted. It specifically says that a pilot can report:
9. A collision or risk of collision with any other aircraft or with any vehicle, terrain or obstacle occurs, including a collision or risk of collision that may be related to air traffic control procedures or equipment failures,
10. The aircraft receives a Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) Resolution Advisory

And under the other link:
x. a collision, a risk of collision or a loss of separation occurs

So, there is in fact a place to "File a CADORS" if you have a complaint about your handling by ATC.

And if you want more information on how the CADOR's system works behind the scenes, here is a handy link: https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/public ... tem-cadors

Hope this answers all of your questions.

[Red_Comet]

I really envy the airport you work at DHC, you seem like a very competent and professional controller. I've noticed a trend that generally the bigger the airport, the more professional and competent the controllers. Unfortunately, there are many of your colleagues who don't make the cut to work at a busy tower and get sent to little airports where they take out their frustrations on students/instructors/GA pilots. I was not exaggerating when I said we have a local controller who is infamous for filing a dozen reports a day, most of which do indeed become CADOORs. These are things like not calling exactly 5 min prior to entering the CZ (on training flights which last less than an hour).

Since you're a pilot, you understand that we are pretty busy in the aircraft during a training flight. I've found that non-pilots generally lack this sense, and can only see things from their limited perspective. Which results in them acting like utter shits. f.

[digits_]

These are things like not calling exactly 5 min prior to entering the CZ (on training flights which last less than an hour).

"CGABC leaving the zone, we will be re-entering the zone in 45 minutes". Would this solve that issue? I don't believe there's a maximum time specified in the AIM for the initial call

[DHC-1 Jockey]

I really envy the airport you work at DHC, you seem like a very competent and professional controller. I've noticed a trend that generally the bigger the airport, the more professional and competent the controllers. Unfortunately, there are many of your colleagues who don't make the cut to work at a busy tower and get sent to little airports where they take out their frustrations on students/instructors/GA pilots.

I actually work at one of the smaller towers in the country.

When I flew for a living, I never remembered the 99% good controllers out there, but definitely remembered the other 1%. That's just the nature of selective memory. I think all of the controllers at my unit are professional and always try to go the extra mile to help out pilots.

But I think this topic has gone as far as it can go, and I hope I cleared some things up along the way.

[pelmet]

Regarding letting the tower know that you have the ATIS......I see this written in the memo: " On initial contact with the appropriate ATS unit, the pilot must state the identification of the ATIS they have received, in accordance with Subpart 602 of the CARs".

For me, the appropriate ATS unit when arriving IFR into a place like YYZ is YYZ arrival(not tower). Tower is for VFR aircraft.