Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2016, 11:58:32 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: Check out: FlightSimCon 2016 June 11-12, 2016


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  "Give me a number and your ID please."
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: "Give me a number and your ID please."  (Read 56445 times)
Fra
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #25 on: April 29, 2006, 12:34:53 AM »

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.  shocked
Logged
Tomato
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 277


« Reply #26 on: April 29, 2006, 12:46:27 AM »

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...  Smiley
Logged

Serving you with CYVR... =)
Fra
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #27 on: April 29, 2006, 10:07:18 PM »

Quote from: flyer_d

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?
Logged
hopskip
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #28 on: April 29, 2006, 10:09:55 PM »

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 Tongue

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")
Logged
flyer_d
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2006, 09:39:54 AM »

Quote from: Fra
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!   cheesy

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.
Logged
PropwashYKZ
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2006, 10:28:17 PM »

What does he mean "Pull the tapes?"
Logged
PHL Approach
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743



« Reply #31 on: September 26, 2006, 10:30:26 PM »

What does he mean "Pull the tapes?"

To pull the recordings of ATC from the facility.
Logged
PropwashYKZ
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #32 on: September 26, 2006, 10:43:55 PM »

Why? What good would that do? Is it like a black box that records over itself every hour or something?
Logged
PHL Approach
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743



« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2006, 11:08:30 PM »

Why? What good would that do? Is it like a black box that records over itself every hour or something?

No it records 24/7 for many months. If you didn't have this and some sort of dispute came up, say an operational error. One person saying that they said "maintain visual separation" while another saying "no you didn't" wouldnt go very far without something to go back to and listen to.
Logged
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #34 on: September 27, 2006, 04:12:45 PM »

My understanding is that actual tape is no longer used. The recordings are digital, and can be listened to while recording continues. The digital media is physically changed on a daily basis, and held for 45 days, in case it should become necessary to check on something that may have been recorded. Past that time, the recordings should no longer exist. (If a pilot or controller says something on frequency or a recorded phone line that they later have second thoughts about, they need to worry for 45 days whether anyone will hear it--past that, they should be able to relax.)

If there is an accident or incident of some sort, the actual digital media is considered as "evidence", and must be handled in the same way as any other evidence that may come into play in legal procedings. (Worst case scenario--an ATC recording could be the "smoking gun" that proves wrongdoing and ties it to a specific individual.)
Logged
penguin44
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #35 on: September 29, 2006, 03:13:41 PM »

I'll give you a good example of this. On Tuesday September 26,2006 at 13:24 I was flying out of Buttonville CYKZ. NAVCAN was screwing with the NDB and VOR for testing and making everyone use different runways etc. Very confusing day. I took off from runway 21 and my instructor was next to me. I was instructed to taxi into position and hold. I did. Then was cleared for takeoff and proceeded to do just that. I was going north and was expecting the "you are cleared for a right turn" call. It came just after takeoff when I was at about 1100ft or so. I turned to heading 330 and continued my climb. Then the snappy controller came on and said, "GIKW I told you to maintain runway heading until at 2000ft." We didn't argue about it then. We swung back to 210 just intime to see the NAVCAN Dash 8 at our 3 o'clock right below us. When we returned we spoke to the control supervisor and he listened to the 'tape' and we were infact never given the 'maintain runway heading' call and the 'cleared right turn' call was there. I know I wasn't hearing things.

Just goes to show things tend to get screwy when NAVCAN shows up and congests the airspace. I am surprised they didn't just say 'can you guys close the airport while we test?" I mean they had guys holding all over the place and then made most of us land on 03 with a 10kt tailwind! They finally pulled the plug on student flights becuase noone could do a complete circut.
Logged
canuck101
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2006, 12:20:35 AM »

Just goes to show things tend to get screwy when NAVCAN shows up

Even this partial quotation is accurate.
Logged
CrashJG
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5



« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2006, 01:16:47 PM »

flyer_d: It is not mormal practice or a requirement for a controller to give his or her initials out on the frequency. If a pilot has a problem their company has the phone number to the facility. They call and explain the situation with the date and time of the complaint. The facility then reviews the tape and takes it from their. As a controller for 21 yrs the pilot was wrong here. This controller may have seemed short with the pilot but he was busy. The pilot needs to get a clue.

Jerry
NHZ/PHL/P50
Logged
flyer_d
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2006, 02:30:25 PM »

flyer_d: It is not mormal practice or a requirement for a controller to give his or her initials out on the frequency. If a pilot has a problem their company has the phone number to the facility. They call and explain the situation with the date and time of the complaint. The facility then reviews the tape and takes it from their. As a controller for 21 yrs the pilot was wrong here. This controller may have seemed short with the pilot but he was busy. The pilot needs to get a clue.

Jerry
NHZ/PHL/P50

Hi Jerry, and welcome!

What I wrote was my understanding from my area controllers (ZDC/Potomac), but maybe it's not the same at all facilities, or maybe DC is special because of all the flight rules.  I appreciate your insights.  As you of course know, but I say for the benefit of others, controllers use their initials all the time on interphones.  I have heard these initials being given to pilots when a pilot wants to follow up an in-flight communication (and not necessarily a complaint either).  When I have followed up a communication, I have used the date/time/freq method you describe.

As for who is wrong, I think I have pretty much set out my reasons above (and noted that a lot of it depends on how much time and other conversations were edited out of the clip as posted).  But even if the controller were busy and the pilot clueless, "Enough!" should have unquestionably been "Unable!"

After listening to so many of these clips, it is clear that, more often than not, non-standard phraseology is the root of most miscommunications.  (See the JFK ground post for more.)

Logged
vac2143
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #39 on: October 26, 2006, 06:03:38 AM »

Funny though. When the ACA pilot switched frequencies and started chatting with another pilot about who to complain to and which supervisor to contact. It turned out that the two pilots who were chatting / discussing the appropriated action to take clogged up the frequency and the ATC could not contact her aircraft. Thus both the ACA and the other pilot were fined. Note this comes though the grape vine from a ATC controller, who knows a controller who knows another controller type thing.. so take it with a grain of salt.

Guess they sould have saved their comments untill they were on the ground..
Logged
twinker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #40 on: October 27, 2006, 08:22:14 PM »

I heard a few days ago Boston John give the number for the tower to a pilot, after John
told one of the pilots not to call him I think while he was talking, so he could be heard.
Then one of the pilots didn't do or say anything, and John asked him something, and the pilot was like, Well you told me to shut up, and John was like No I didn't. And the pilot asked for the tower phone number.
I think that is what drew my attention to Boston John. hehe.
Logged
kkjlai
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 80


« Reply #41 on: September 01, 2007, 10:07:14 AM »

Murray,

Welcome to the forum!  I was actually listening to this particular converasation in my car that day and when I went back home I re-listened to it again.   From my vague memory, I think actually saw the plane in question in the sky from a distance

Looking back at this forum and posts after nearly a year or so, looks like most people in here would think that the pilot can handle the situation better than this.  However, I think, if the press/media got an interest in this, they would have different opinion (we all know how press/media write a story).

Again my opinion, as a local Torontoian, I think the YYZ controllers are GREAT.  I am always amazed on how they (you) can sometimes talk non-stop for a few minutes without even a one-second break in the air and keeping cool, and how orderly the planes flow in and out of the busiest airport (and it's satellites) in Canada.  Good work!

kkjlai



Hi everybody...
I was the actual controller involved in this incident.  What you don't realize, is that your own monitoring system only "grabs" certain transmissions  from specific frequencies, in a rotational manner.  That means it drops some transmissions from other frequencies.  With respect to this incident, what was missing is the major instances of the Air Canada pilot "blocking", or stepping on the transmissions of at least three different flight crews.  That is, a crew checking on, or at least trying to check on, but getting blocked by the Air Canada knob.  After the third freq. block, I decided that I would tell the the ACA pilot "enough".  If you want a further explaination, specifically regarding the ACA 330 who wouldnt speed up to help his buddy, then PM me.  I'll be happy to explain this [mod-keep it clean please] behaviour.
Logged
Yegger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 201



« Reply #42 on: September 02, 2007, 12:16:22 AM »

Murray I've seen your name on other forums and you're awesome man...all the Pearson controllers do a great job...we have a heck of a lot of respect for you guys. It's always great to have controllers here on the forum. Sometimes these clips end up on the forum and important transmissions are missing or they're taken out of context or whatever the case might be. I side with you with regards to this instance that it is completely inappropriate for a pilot to hold up the frequency by requesting a phone number...
Logged
Panop
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #43 on: September 02, 2007, 12:37:02 PM »

Bottom line is that a busy ATC frequency is not a 'chat line' or a debating chamber.  Unless it is an immediate safety issue there is no place on air for complaints and disagreements.  A real professional just wouldn't do it.  There are adequate resources in any well run system for an official complaint later and subsequent investigation at an appropriate time if the pilot (or, conversely, the controller) thinks such a complaint is called for in the cold light of day.  That time is not while flying an aircraft - and, thereby, distracting himself, the controller and other aircrew.  I think we can assume it was the captain working the radio and not the F/O.  It is not unknown for 'captains' (not good ones though!) to possess such egos.  "My name is Captain Bignote but you can call me Sir!"
Logged
MURRAY
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #44 on: September 03, 2007, 02:15:30 AM »

ty all.  much appreciated...
Logged
kea001
Guest
« Reply #45 on: September 04, 2007, 04:05:31 PM »

  ... That is, a crew checking on, or at least trying to check on, but getting blocked by the Air Canada knob.  After the third freq. block, I decided that I would tell the the ACA pilot "enough". 

Is that a physical knob: i.e. piece of equipment or just a term of endearment?
Logged
Panop
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2007, 01:29:48 PM »

I don't think there was too much 'endearment' either way!  As for the term used by Murray the AC pilot was sure doing his best to be one!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!