Thompson FSS....wtf...over

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:20 am

Funny thing, this post being about YTH FSS..the only people I've ever had problems with. It was a few years back, but they tried to violate me for moving the 748 on the Air Man parking spot to load freight! And they did seem a little heavy handed on some instances.
And this taking position behind a lande aircraft! When and why is this an issue? YTH always asked me if its alright to position an aircraft behind me when I've landed.....who cares? Unless the Hawker goes into an uncontrolable mad dash in reverse, I mean, I've already used that part of the runway...right?
And this boy-girl thing.....dont even go there girlfriend!
And when did this whole us vs them thing with FSS and ATC begin? Are they getting a bonus for every pilot they manage to violate? Sure seems that way sometimes. Use to be, you'd ask for a clearance, and they'd give you one...kind of like asking the waiter for a glass of water.
And if anyone wants to buy me a $500 hand bag to go with my little black straplesss number....I could really use one.

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:59 am

It's not an us vs them thing doc. FSS and ATC no longer have the authority to decide whether or not to violate us. They are expected to know the rules and to fill in the report if we break them, or they will get written up for it themselves. And don't forget that team of lawyers i mentioned.

A friend of mine got violated for landing before the runway was clear by our own little fss sister on the west coast who is our good friend and wanted very much not to. But her paycheck gets signed by navcanada and they get to specify whatever inanities they want.

They no longer have a choice.

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:19 am

"I'm just following orders"

What a wonderful excuse for any unethical behaviour. It excuses all sins and it was used after My Lai in Vietnam:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/tr ... mylai.html

and by Germans after WWII:

http://www.wsg-hist.uni-linz.ac.at/Ausc ... em-KZ.html

Go Guns · Post by **Go Guns** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:35 am

I'm having a hard time seeing the similarities in the Ethical and Moral dilemas of being a Flight Service Specialist ordered to report violations of the CAR's and a Nazi being ordered to terminate the lives of innocent people?

If you were flying along, radar identified, IFR, did something stupid and broke a reg, wouldn't you almost expect to be violated? Would you be mad @ Center if you were? If not, how you expect Flight Services to act any different. In an age where Millions of dollars are spent on lawsuits to fix blame, can you be upset with FSS for wanting to cover their ass?

And I really don't see the problem with them asking you to report 10 miles back? It's just a simple matter of you helping the FSS do their job so they can help you do yours. This whole argument is stupid.

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:51 am

Never did like the "I'm just following orders" excuse. IMHO kinda cowardly. I prefer this "excuse" much better....

This ain't high school!! We are all supposed to be professionals doing a very important and potentially life-threatening job (think pax - not pilots)! If you don't follow the rules you bloody well DESERVE to be reported. YOU will then have your day in court to explain yourself wherein you can make all the arguements that have been posted here and see how it goes. If you can't/won't handle working in a highly regulated industry such as ours, like my buddy YYZ always says - QUIT and go do something else.

One of my very first instructors stated it quite well and matter of factly. "If you see someone breaking the rules, how many times has he done it before and gotten away with it? How many times will he do it again before something really bad happens? You have a responsibility here - he can defend/explain himself later."

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:20 am

I couldn't agree more - the key to safety is found only in the CARs. Or is the (different) FARs? Or the (yet different again) JARs?

Everyone knows that if you obey the rules, you are guaranteed a safe flight - nothing can possibly go wrong.

For example, with smoke in the cockpit, every good airline pilot knows that an immediate overweight landing is not an option because the regulations do not allow for it.

Go Guns · Post by **Go Guns** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:34 am

What an arrogant post. Unless you happened to be on the flight deck when the smoke started pouring in, any statement you have is ill-informed.

Another part of being a professional pilot is to be able to think for yourself and make split-second life saving decisions. If all we had to do was follow SOP's and REG's any jackass from the street could do our job. However, we're paid to know when to follow those SOP's, those regulations, and when to use our common sense and good judgement to deviate from them. On the front page of our SOPs it says " Although the SOPs are to be complied with the extent practical, there may be situations were compliance with some parts is inadvisable."

The rules and regulations are black and white, but are not perfect, nor are they written in stone. If you find yourself in a situation were the sum of all your experiance and knowledge advises breaking a rule or a reg, then do so. When it's reported, you'll have your day to explain why you acted the way you did, and perhaps your experiance will change the way we do things in order to make flying safer for everyone.

With respect to breaking rules and regulations, it's not up to Air Traffic Services to decide whether your decision was the right one, It's their job to report what happened and nothing more.

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:04 pm

Doc said:

And when did this whole us vs them thing with FSS and ATC begin? Are they getting a bonus for every pilot they manage to violate? Sure seems that way sometimes. Use to be, you'd ask for a clearance, and they'd give you one...kind of like asking the waiter for a glass of water.

The date was...November 1996, when we ceased to be employed by the Federal Government, and became individually liable for our actions, rather than protected, as civil servants, under the governmental umbrella. (And the company became liable as well, but I'm more concerned about me, to tell the truth.)

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:31 pm

That is a good point. One more reason to try to put the yahoos who brought us NavCanada in their place.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:01 pm

Did somebody actually say they wouldn't land overweight with smoke in the cockpit???? Please tell me I didn't see that in print! How stupid are you? Got smoke? LAND!!! Any questions???

Methinks I got sucked in! Good one! Of course the sign of a good pilot is knowing when to throw the SOP's out the window...assuming we aint pressurized that is.

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:45 pm

Sissair Flight 111, read the report. The pilots followed SOP's to the letter, until it disintegrated.

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:47 pm

Doc: don't worry, if the pilot gig doesn't work out, you can always find work as a snowmobile mechanic in LA

... · Post by **...** » Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:08 pm

ahramin wrote: "busier than a two peckered donkey"

how would that work?

rotorfloat · Post by **rotorfloat** » Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:02 am

Speaking of smoke in the cockpit, a Georgian 1900 made an emergency landing at CYYB yesterday for said reason. Anyone have an idea what happened?

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 6:59 am

Cap'n S&J... You're a dick for posting that PM here.... you're a dick for being so harsh with the guy after he apologized... and you're a dick for continuing to believe (WRONGLY!) that AME's work for you!.... I can tell you for damed sure that if I ever found myself working on an aircraft that I knew you were about to fly, I'd drop everything and walk away until you retracted those words, just to prove the point. (and I recognize that I may be being a dick for saying all that :S )

You might be a fine pilot.... you might have absolutely impeccable "airmanship" skills.... but I'm getting the distinct impression that your people skills absolutely rot... Maybe you should be flying ice blocks and snowmobile parts north of Thompson for ever....

To the FSS fella who sent you that PM, Good on ya lad... Well done!

Mario · Post by **Mario** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 8:54 am

ok...by no means do I intend to start anything big here, and I have nothing but respect for AME's, FSS and ATC and the work they do. But let's just hop on S&J's train of thought for a second.....that these positions work for him, as a pilot. Griffon, you said

I can tell you for damed sure that if I ever found myself working on an aircraft that I knew you were about to fly, I'd drop everything and walk away until you retracted those words, just to prove the point.

Assuming we all have one job, (meaning we aren't pilot/AME's) let's also say the company really needs that aircraft worked on... would the aircraft not get worked on anyway...by you or otherwise? We could also flip that coin and say if no AME would work on the aircraft then the pilot would be on a long, long coffee break.
I think my point is, perhaps we all work together... without the other, sure the job may get done, but all positions are valuable complements to each other. Griffion- I think it's fabulous that you are an AME and love what you do...but you've got such a hard-on for AME's that you aren't getting the full picture. If no one ever uses an aircraft...you have no need to fix it. It is now nothing more than a rather expensive lawn ornament.

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Sun Jun 20, 2004 7:12 pm

cpt sweet'njuicy wrote:
Avatar sent me this privately and I'm not sure why, so just to keep this in the open..here it is..good letter..why hide it.
First of all, before I apologize for the airmanship comment (which I will) I think we need to straighten out a few facts.... You were given the advisory and responded that you would hold short, not taxi alpha to hold short, but hold short. That means all maneuvering areas. I called for your clearance and when I looked up you were on alpha. While not a runway incursion it is still a reportable incident (though I chose not to report it) as you proceded onto a moveuvering area without stating your intentions. As a result the C402 had to taxi 14 & Bravo rather than Alpha which he would easily have made had you not been blocking his path.

Anyway, despite your many hostile comments at myself and FSS I do want to apologize for the airmanship comment. The professional thing to do would have been to advise you that I was writing an infraction report for the reasons mention above. Sometimes I have pilots come up to 122.6 so that we can discuss issues more privately rather than over the MF, I find this more useful than writing up reports all the time for TC and I think that I should have done that in this instance as well.

Despite some postings regarding FSS grudges I assure you that I will not hold one nor will I look forward to an opportunity to write you up for an infraction in the future. I am sure we are both better men than that and can put this incident behind us.

Capt S n' J's response

Airmanship...to me.....is between airmen(women) it is the courteous interaction between pilots that can be the morter that holds a dicey situation together, or make things run smoothly, or, as I love to use it...to show Skyward, Comair, or any other company that comes into contact with me, that our company is not full of egomaniacle assholes. ( feel free to disagree in this case ) It is not a term I take for granted...I think often about airmanship and its usage...I also note when others either forget to include, or choose to not include it in their flight. I do not need a lesson from a Flight Service Specialist on its definition, its usage or its percieved lack of usage. I have never been accused before your comment, of lacking airmanship. It is very important to me. There is no way you could have known this..but you know now.

...... Im not sure exactly what you mean when you state that we did not state our intentions before manoevering. I think we did..and we did what we said we would do. If you mean that we did not include the taxiway on which we would hold short then please show me where I can read this for myself and I will consider myself schooled on the matter.

Next...as for filing a complaint about your behavior..I know I have grounds...your comment was rude, uncalled for, unnessesary, inflamatory and was delivered to anger the recipient...me...and it worked..this brief interaction between us left me upset and distracted from the very important job of operating that aircraft.

....As for me spending time to try to "get " you or have you dealt with...its not yet worth my time..I am not that vindictive..really. But you should do your job..if you think that its required to submit your paperwork to TC..then thats what you should do. I will deal with it in the same manner I did all the other times. However I would hope that you would show no one else leniency in the law as well , all the non standard circuit entries would have to be investigated because it is also a violation of aviation law. Every left base onto 23 or right base onto 05 VFR inside 5 nm is illegal and from what I have seen, you people would be very busy with paperwork. All in the spirit of safety of course. Fair is fair...whats not fair is to hold this threat over someones head fir the sake of a power struggle. What ever they fine me was earned by the time I got home anyway.

.....I accept your apology for the comment you made and I offer an apology if I was inaccurate in not making the correct radio transmission to state our intentions more clearly. In other words, it was always my intention to hold short of 05 on alpha.

As for the blonde..and the tour of the cab...neither is required. From the moment the rubber hits the runway in YTH I am dreaming of setting full power and climbing away from YTH at 3 miles a minute.

Clearly, you may understand the technical definition of airmanship. But you still don't seem to get how to apply it. You said you would hold short, but not where, & inconvenienced another crew into the bargain. When called on it, instead of phoning the guy later, you make it into a big deal on the forum instead.... And mention the dreaded "I think" in your rebuttal.

The guy apologizes, and you still mutter away about dealing with it, like all the other times

Since you imply a lot of other times, here's something you might wish to write down for next time:

Wingwobble 489 LaRonge, what are you doing?
LaRonge, 489, holding short as advised.
489, that wasn't very good airmanship, next time you take a taxiway, please advise us.
LaRonge, 489, sorry, I wasn't aware of the requirement to state where I was holding short... would taxing to Alpha to hold short have been the thing to say?Yes 489 thanks, it wouldn't have been a problem most times, but the concorde landing was having manoeverability/ engine/ passenger problems, which you probably missed as you were starting up.[/b]
Okay, no worries LaRonge, next time we'll be all over it, and we'll advise our company drivers about this as well. 489 rolling, good day.

It's not theoretical physics. You do something contrary to his SOPs, he has to call you on it. Was he Harsh? Maybe. You say you're sorry, next time you'll do it different. He lets the whole thing slide. The next time you land in YTH drag your ass over to the cab to explain your reasoning, & he explains his. You both will likely learn something.

Not everyone is out to get you.

If 300,000 Flames fans on the Red Mile can get over Tampa's win, maybe you could get on with your life too.

In the aviation community, I believe there are three groups, much like any other community. There are the hackers who do it for various reasons, who are mostly competent and can demonstrate some skill. Like any bell curve, this group is a minority. The second group is the largest. The ones who want to improve and who have more than basic skills, but like the local artist and Leonardo, there is a huge chasm between the talents and abilities. The final group, smaller than the hacker's group, is made up of the aerial artists. They are able to blend science, ability, discipline, skill, and myriad other components into a work of art. Those who see them perform know they have been in the presence of greatness. The hacker's are intimidated. The second group is inspired and awed. The artists view it with astonishment and wonderment, knowing the effort it takes to excel.

— John Wiley

Why not actively let all these personal vendettas go, and pursue the goal of becoming one of the third group. You'll live longer without all the stress

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:26 am

cpt sweet'njuicy wrote:...also griffon...its disconcerting to know you will refuse to work on a plane because a certain pilot will be flying it....makes me think you are capable of much more, will your dislike of certain pilots allow you to do a less than complete job on the planes you work on...thats what i get from your post...not great...just do your job and leave your personality out.

A- I don't have any dislike of certain pilots. I disagree with your attitude that I work "for you".

B- I didn't say I'd refuse to work on certain planes... I said if I knew you were about to fly one I was working on, I'd prove to you that I did not work for you by dropping everything and walking away. You then would not have an airplane to fly. (a situation that won't happen any time soon btw, since I work on large transport aircraft and you fly little puddle hopping, weed whackers)

C- a "less than complete job" would mean the airplane is unserviceable... therefore I would not sign it out... therefore it would not fly... therefore you'd be looking for another airplane... therefore you could see I wasn't working for you. (are you really that thick that you don't get that yet?)

D- this comment: " just do your job and leave your personality out." , combined with what you said earlier to the Flight Service Specialist: "this brief interaction between us left me upset and distracted from the very important job of operating that aircraft." is somewhat ironic don't you think?... do you consider your own advice?

Might be time to eat some humble pie and quietly work on continuing to improve your airmanship skills... Maybe then one day you can climb off a big bird and tell me what a dick I was for pissing you off all those years ago? In spite of all the appearances of glory, ego can be a dangerous thing in the cockpit. You're just another cog in the wheel... just like us AME's.

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 6:01 am

Ya just know that someday soon, cpt s&j is going to be flying for the majors

Flybabe · Post by **Flybabe** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:04 am

All I want to know is... SIS... how can ya turn down an offer like THAT???

LMFAO

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:27 am

Well, Flybabe, I did say it was ALMOST irresistible. Must have been the 60+ hours I worked last week...too tired for even 2.3 minutes!

Flybabe · Post by **Flybabe** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:32 pm

LMAO

56BY111 · Post by **56BY111** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:21 pm

Cpt S&J

You must realize by now that by posting the FSS's letter on the forum you have made yourself to look like an incredible ass and your rant about airmanship has lost it's lift in the wake of your reaction. FSS are not at liberty to make assumptions (. . . CYYF!! . . .). They make decisions based on what you tell them and , (as you have said of yourself), this puts them in an incredible possition of "trusting you", just like you must trust them.
I have personally witnessed 3 incidents - near misses requiring evasive action - as a result of pilots not stating their intentions clearly or else deviating from their stated intentions. I have plugged in with YEG TML, YEG YMM SECTOR, YEG TWR, YCD FSS and visited YPK TWR, YXD TWR, and many others. What we hear on our end is about 1/4 of the activity that takes place on the other side of the radio. In FSS's situation, they interact with the ATC and vehicles nearly as much as with the pilots - all of which is invisible from our end of the radio.

I commend you though - it is obvious you care deeply about your job and strive to do well. If you did not, the FSS comments would not have angered you as much as they did. There is one point on which I dissagree with you completely, entirely, and absolutely:

You stated:
"however my comment stands..you work for a company who's existance was created to help me do my job, ergo you work for me or rather NavCan, TC, AME's, managers, dispatchers, cargo...everyone works for me..everyone...whether you get beyond thinking that this comment is based in arrogance and ego, is up to you."

Everyone works for you, is one way of looking at it. But what makes you think the buck stops there? You are not the top of the food chain but a mere link. The company YOU fly for has it's existence BECAUSE it works for someone - the person, persons or company who PAID your company to provide a SERVICE. That's who PILOTS work for, indirectly. That's who FSS, ATC, AMES work for, indirectly. Airlines don't make money without passengers or cargo. Pilots don't fly without passengers / cargo. Why is it you think you're the end of the line? Because you make life-saving decisions? So do the rest of the people who work in aviation. Just because you're the front-man of the band doesn't mean you can play all of the instruments yourself or that the guitar player works for you. Without the fans you're just another joe struming a guitar.

And one last aside. The LEFT CCT / RIGHT CCT issue created by TC was reactionary. I am not defending TC. But realize the origins: last year two aircraft in YBL nearly collided because one was on a non-standard CCT. TC is a reactionary entity. Their reaction was to issue a directive, nationwide, restricting non-standard or CFS specified CCTS. This was not a problem in the ATC world because ATC can designate non-standard CCTS. FSS cannot. TC obviously did not consider that the YBL near-miss was a communication problem, not a CCT problem.

55BY111

control_man · Post by **control_man** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:44 am

Cpt. S'n'J
I really don't understand how you can make the comment that basically everyone works for you. Why don't you take it a step further then and say that in reality (our yours) your boss even works for you?!? Your the "pilot", the top dog, end of the food chain, bow to your existence, I am a mere peasant in your presence, pilot god. You yourself even called your line of work "glorified bus driving" to paraphrase. So why the aileron up your ass attitude then? I am sorry but airmanship extends well beyond pilot to pilot interaction. Now before you go on and on about how I might not understand the difficulty and stress, split decision making etc, of your job, I was there doing it for years before ATC. All I can tell you is from the tone I gather from your posts at times I would not want to be in a multi-crew environment with you let me tell you.
You know I don't think I have worked a single day in the IFR ATC world where I haven't been thanked at least once daily by pilots with a hell of alot more ego than you for the work (service) being provided. Come to think of it I don't think I have worked a day without thanking a pilot for there help whether it be because I had to slow them down for spacing by reducing Mach numbers, vectoring, step climb, metering because of flow restrictions etc. Why do you think this is? Its called mutual respect. We all have one goal in mind safety. Everyone fucks up from time to time. You learn from your mistakes but most importantly you at the very least thank and acknowledge respect for the person (pilot,atc,fss,ame, boss,etc), who corrected you and basically allowed you to earn a paycheque that day! Get over it. Until you learn that everyone in aviation shares an equal responsibilty when it comes to overall safety, your arrogance will shine through your airmanship. Risk management is everyones responsibilty.

CONTROL_MAN

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:35 am

Control man: Your notion of "equal responsibility" sounds good, and sure is wonderfully egalitarian, but the fact remains that when something goes terribly wrong, the pilot always pays the ultimate price and the people on the ground, whom always seem well-protected by their unions, get a couple weeks "stress" vacation and a visit or two to the "grief counselor" to talk about their "feelings".

Cases in point: the recent Swiss ATC screwup, causing a mid-air collision, and the Alaska Air MD-80 jackscrew off the coast of California (inadequate maintenance).

I don't much like s&j's attitude either, but just because I personally might not like the guy, doesn't mean he's totally wrong about everything.