"Give me a number and your ID please."

[KSYR-pjr]

KSYR-pjr, wonder if you can also add the following into the [nice] clip you have produced [for me]..

OK, here you go, but unfortunately there were so many other transmissions that blocked the feed scanner from receiving this conversation that a big piece of it is missing (as you alluded to in your post).

--------------  amended clip ------------------------------------

Here is the same clip with some additional Center audio tacked onto the end.  Apparently the pilot did receive a sympathetic ear from the next controller down the line who was only doing her job as well as another pilot on the frequency (who most likely did not hear his initial exchange on the departure frequency).

Unfortunately the first few exchanges are only partial snippets, due to other activity on the feed scanner blocking them.  I have editted out the other, blocking activity as it is not relevant to this exchange.

[KSYR-pjr]

I would hate to have to sit next to a jackass like that. I'm sure it was a very long ride for the F/O to have to listen to this guy the rest of the day.  Also sounds like he should be paying more attention to his ATC clearance than worrying about pulling tapes and getting Id's.  Guy can't even read back the proper heading.  There is a time and place for discussion like that.  On 128.8 is not the time or doing 7 miles/minute in high density airspace is not the place.  This guy needs to pull his head out of his ass.

I am in complete agreement with you.  A true professional would have the skill to dial down his emotions for the safety of those in the back.  When he jumbled the readback it was apparent that he could not do that.

[flyer_d]

I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.  When I listen to the clip, I hear a professional pilot, making appropriate requests, being polite ("I don't see the whole picture"), and in a mutual effort to find a solution (the controller says "appreciate the offer though").  And then in the middle of this, the controller comes back with "ok that's enough," which is both rude and nonstandard.  Admittedly, a big factor in whether the pilot was being reasonable is how long he has held with the speed restriction.

[Skeptic_All]

I liked the rather sarcastic comment by ACA1006 towards the end of the tape when after receiving his frequency change instructions, told the controller, "good luck".

Personally, there was nothing that pissed me off more than a pilot who wanted to provide helpful hints for the sole reason of getting him higher, faster, or shorter, not having a clue as to what was going on around him.  After receiving the reason for the first restriction, he should have just left it alone.  Oh, and asking the controller to "pull the tapes" made him sound like an idiot.  Supervisory personnel might "mark" the tape with a time stamp for review at a later time but they're not going to remove a tape from service (hell, not sure anyone even uses them anymore) simply because of a non-safety related issue like a controller-pilot pissing contest.  As was previously suggested, I would have given him my initials and told him my number was in the book!

Even though we all knew it wasn't!

[KSYR-pjr]

Admittedly, a big factor in whether the pilot was being reasonable is how long he has held with the speed restriction.

The aircraft had just checked in with departure and the controller had issued the speed restriction as part of the check-in, literally 10 seconds before the "ENOUGH."  

While I agree with you that the controller's comment was non-standard and perhaps unprofessional, the issue I have is with the pilot's continued querying  of the controller.   That served no purpose other than to tie up a busy frequency and distract the controller.  A distracted controller in a busy sector can be a dangerous controller.

For proof of this, look to the mid-air accident over Germany between the DHL 757 and the Russian passenger aircraft a few years ago.

[Fra]

For proof of this, look to the mid-air accident over Germany between the DHL 757 and the Russian passenger aircraft a few years ago.

Well he was working on two different radars (busy EU route and app on a small german airport) didn't have a phone line and the radar didn't function properly (the collision vector warning). So If he had the phone and the radar, I don't think that would have happen.

[canuck101]

Just another day at YYZ...this one is kinda pale compared to much of the crap pilots have to suffer. Although I will say it isn't entirely NavCan's fault - the GTAA is just as ludicrous.

Perhaps this was the same ZYZ controller who missed a Cargojet 727 because he was busy chatting on freq about coffee.....at 1AM?
Maybe NC can take some lessons from any other major airport outside Canada and see how real ATC works.

[flyer_d]

Well he was working on two different radars (busy EU route and app on a small german airport) didn't have a phone line and the radar didn't function properly (the collision vector warning). So If he had the phone and the radar, I don't think that would have happen.

FYI, a great write up of the factors in that accident, from a controller's perspective, is here:

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191072-1.html

[RatOmeter]

IMO, the both the controller and the pilot were a bit more pissy to each other than necessary.   As an outsider, it sounded like a little ego battle going on 'twixt the two.  From my perspective, I can't fathom any harm done by the pilot following that controller's instructions.  I absolutely see the value of questioning a controller if you believe there may be a true (and potentially dangerous) error in the their instructions, but that was obviously not the case here.  Further, a battle of wills should not be played out over the air between a controller who should be controlling and a pilot who should be piloting.

I bet the pilot, though he probably wouldn't admit it, would have agreed with me... as soon as he sobered up.  That little mix-up on the air regarding the heading instructions were (IMO) because he (a) has difficulty controlling his temper on a regular basis or (b) he was at least a wee bit drunk.  If (b), then (a) often follows like a bad smell.

[Tomato]

It sounds like to me that both sides were at fault.  The Controller could have given his ID/initials without problem.  Somebody mentioned earlier that the pilot could have looked up the phone number himself.  As for pulling the tapes, etc... that was unncessary.  Likewise, the controller can't be blamed - CYYZ is a very busy airport and controllers don't have time to deal with small things like that.

The pilot, I think was just trying to be nice... and then after whether it's ego or not I don't know.  It's frustrating to be ignored on frequency and was probably rightful to ask for his ID... but at the same time, sometimes it's better just to walk away.

I think if the two met in person, they'd shake hands and just walk away.  It's easy to get caught up in the moment when things are busy/etc... just hope they don't hold any grudges!  

[Fra]

Well, what I got from hearing this interesting thing is this. I think the controller missunderstood the idea of the pilot, prob he wanted to get away quick, and that was the only reason why he said the second request and to the controller sounded like he was being a smartass and doing his job, but listening to the pilot's voice, he sounded like a nice guy. I don't think there was arrogance and mocking in his tone. Of course, when you are flying couple of planes and keepin an eye of them, prob you dont have the time to percept the tone and the way the pilot says some things. It's either you make it, or you don't (quote from pushing tin, when bb thornton gives 100$ bet to cusack for shooting a 3 point).

I guess if the next night they got together would have a laugh over this. And couple of beers ofcourse.  

[Tomato]

heh... yeah, no kidding huh?  It's too bad this sort of miscommunication goes on.  I guess that's what makes life interesting..?

I was reading an article a couple of months back saying how IM (MSN/ICQ/etc) communications are misunderstood as often as 50%.  That's a LOT!  It's like every second sentence is misinterpreted.  I'm sure it's not as back with voice and on the air, but still...  

[Fra]

FYI, a great write up of the factors in that accident, from a controller's perspective, is here:

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/191072-1.html

That's a great column. But it was exacly what I said. Wouldn't you agree?

[hopskip]

Ok, sounds like 2 aircraft going to the same place have ended up within 10 miles of each other or so. Thus the controller has him climb to 6000ft and maintain 220 knots, The ACA pilot suggests he would like to speed up, and is happy to stay at 6000ft but the Controller notes theyre going to the same place, so he actually needs to increase the distance between them. The ACA pilot then suggests he can change his final cruise altitude if he wants so they can get their speed up.

ATC then sais "Enough" I suspect he misunderstood that they were saying the same thing again... perhaps a better choise of words would have been "Standby"... this means to the pilot that ATC is 'working out weather that's acceptable', even if he's just sticking to the same plan and nothing has changed at the ATC end. This would likley keep the pilot happy that something was 'about to' happen. and means ATC can just go ahead and do what he was going to do anyway

This is ceartainly not a saftey issue at this point... it is when the ACA pilot spends upwards of 30 seconds asking for the tapes, ID and phone number. in at least 4 transmissions.

The only thing the controller did wrong was say "Ok that's enough" instead of "Standby". There were no seperation issue, indeed the reason there was not a problem with seperation was BECAUSE the controller held the ACA at 220 knots.

the only saftey related problems here seemed to be ACA spending so much time trying to get the information to report the non-existant incident. (that is to say "that's enough" used in place of "Standby")

[flyer_d]

That's a great column. But it was exacly what I said. Wouldn't you agree?

Funny, this thread is an example of the problem being discussed!  

Yes, Fra, I agree.  My point was "you're right, here's a write up that supports what you said."

But as we're discussing, communicating is an inexact science.