Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 12:50:17 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  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 [3] 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: "Give me a number and your ID please."  (Read 42447 times)
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: 3



« 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
Adrian8
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 198



« 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
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!