airtraffic

Author Topic: Any ATC recordings of the KMRY controller that has a pilot petition against him?  (Read 14444 times)

Offline JTS97Z28

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Stumbled upon this link where there is an actual pilot petition to have a tower controller at KMRY removed. Supposedly this is guy is absolutely terrible! Based on the link his initials are IB. I assume those are his operating initials.
Just wondering if there are any examples of this guy working.

http://r22r44.com/



Offline flyboy944

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
If you look underneath the signature box in the link you provided you will see a 23:00 recording of him.

Offline Fryy/Avocadoflight

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
    • CalAggieFlyers
That is pretty ridiculous imo. Fast forward to 17:00...

http://r22r44.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/IB4.ogg

Offline davolijj

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 559
  • MMAC ARSR OKC
Sounds to me like a controller with too much time and not enough airplanes.  Just so everyone here knows what standard controllers are held to, here is an excerpt from the 7110.65V Air Traffic Control Manual.  Note the note.

Quote from: 7110.65V Chapter 2, Section 4
2−4−3. PILOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT/READ BACK
Ensure pilots acknowledge all Air Traffic Clearances and ATC Instructions. When a pilot reads back an Air Traffic Clearance or ATC Instruction:
a. Ensure that items read back are correct.
b. Ensure the read back of hold short instructions, whether a part of taxi instructions or a LAHSO clearance.
c. Ensure pilots use call signs and/or registration numbers in any read back acknowledging an Air Traffic Clearance or ATC Instruction.
NOTE−
1. ATC Clearance/Instruction Read Back guidance for pilots in the AIM states:
a. Although pilots should read back the “numbers,” unless otherwise required by procedure or controller request,
pilots may acknowledge clearances, control instructions, or other information by using “Wilco,” “Roger,” “Affirmative,” or other words or remarks with their aircraft identification.
b. Altitudes contained in charted procedures, such as departure procedures, instrument approaches, etc., need not be read back unless they are specifically stated by the controller.
c. Initial read back of a taxi, departure or landing clearance should include the runway assignment, including left, right, center, etc. if applicable.
2. Until a pilot acknowledges a controller’s clearance or instruction, a controller cannot know if a pilot will comply with the clearance or remain as previously cleared.
EXAMPLE−
“Climbing to Flight Level three three zero, United Twelve” or “November Five Charlie Tango, roger, cleared to land runway four left.”

and

Quote from: 7110.65V Chapter 2, Section 4
2−4−9. ABBREVIATED TRANSMISSIONS
Transmissions may be abbreviated as follows:
a. Use the identification prefix and the last 3 digits or letters of the aircraft identification after communications have been established. Do not abbreviate similar sounding aircraft identifications or the identification of an air carrier or other civil aircraft having an FAA authorized call sign.
b. Omit the facility identification after communi- cation has been established.
c. Transmit the message immediately after the callup (without waiting for the aircraft’s reply) when the message is short and receipt is generally assured.
d. Omit the word “over” if the message obviously requires a reply.

Offline jdflyer

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 31
WOW OMG I feel for anyone going there.

Offline adanto6840

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Maybe he was just having a bad day?  I don't know... 

The clip is pretty outrageous, it's almost hard for me to believe -- is he really consistently of a similar mindset & attitude?  It's disgusting...  :-\ 

Offline frcabot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Hardly his fault that the IFR clearance timed out. Is this the evidence? He sounded apologetic and polite to me. Is there some specific portion of the recording I should be listening to? And he's verifying that the pilot copied the IFR clearance correctly. Nothing wrong with that and avoids accidents. If the pilot reads back some but not all, he's being cautious by verifying that the pilot also copied the rest. What's the problem there?

Ok, I went to 17min I heard the ridiculous fox/foxtrot argument. That was truly unbelievable.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2015, 02:46:55 AM by frcabot »

Offline jb8622

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Somebody needs to forward the link of this petition to the MRY Air Traffic Manager... I'm sure he'd be very interested to see this:

William.Fleischer@faa.gov

Offline keith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 286
    • KS Flight Log
That was tough to listen to.  Pilot files to FAT (Fresno Air Terminal). ATC issues clearance with the full airport name. Pilot reads back "Cleared to Fresno..." and of course ATC has to correct him on his clearance limit. There isn't a VOR there with a conflicting name (unlike LAX, SFO, etc), so it was  a pointless correction.

I get what he's doing regarding making sure that pilots use their callsign, but if you're only working one plane that could possibly be responding to a call, given the context, and the voice matches the one that did use that callsign less than 3 seconds before...it's a little stiff making them use their callsign again where, once again, there is no ambiguity.

Worse still, if you want them to say their callsign, then just come out and say it, "sorry, but I do need the callsigns on each call." Instead, he goes the passive aggressive route, repeating entire sets of instructions (multiple times in some cases) to prove his point, acting as though he has NO idea of who just called, and NO idea what they just said.

Calling for the radio check on SKW, that was just bizarre. Over.