Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 07:06:07 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)
| | |-+  JetBlue wants to play games
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: JetBlue wants to play games  (Read 30498 times)
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2008, 07:07:51 AM »

You both must be right.  I am sure your extensive knowledge about the intricacies and daily operational characteristics of the JFK sector at New York TRACON trump my irrelevant REAL-world experience in the aforementioned sector as a certified FAA Air Traffic Control Specialist. 

By the way 230 till the marker is not only illegal but painfully wrong.  There is no "marker" anymore, and you cannot assign a turbojet aircraft 230 knots till the FAF per FAA Order 7110.65 Chapter 5.

How about you consider cutting the attitude and use your expert guidance from your professional experience to post something positive?  Did I ever say I must be right?  I simply said that there are many variables involved, and as a pilot, I know sometimes controllers forget from time to time, just as pilots do too.  When I receive a clearance that's different from the norm, I question it to confirm (yes, even in N90).  No one is doubting your experience, and we certainly appreciate your insight on the forum.  This board mainly consists of folks that are not professional controllers and you have to take that into consideration.

It's hard to prove the pilot was assigned the 250 knot restriction without pulling the tapes.  He most likely was, but you can't be sure until you hear the CAMRN or LENDY crossing restriction being given.
Logged
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2008, 08:17:09 AM »

Scrapper and Jason,
You both must be right.  I am sure your extensive knowledge about the intricacies and daily operational characteristics of the JFK sector at New York TRACON trump my irrelevant REAL-world experience in the aforementioned sector as a certified FAA Air Traffic Control Specialist. 
By the way 230 till the marker is not only illegal but painfully wrong.  There is no "marker" anymore, and you cannot assign a turbojet aircraft 230 knots till the FAF per FAA Order 7110.65 Chapter 5.

I think its my turn to chime in again.  As a professional pilot that flies into NY airspace and tougher airspaces around the country (yes, that's right, I don't consider NY airspace to be the worst), I think I might have a little authority on the subject.

Firstly, saying that there is no "marker" anymore is completely true.  Except for one funny thing.  Just a few days ago I was flying the GPS13L at JFK, coming up over CRI, following an American Eagle over DMYHL, and tower reported I was following an Embraer over the marker.  Am I going to argue the fact that the tower was wrong on 2 accounts, or am I just going to understand that I know exactly where they are.

Second, there are absolutely no assumptions in the aviation industry, legally.  Stating that a pilot flying into JFK "ought to know the drill" is one of the worst things someone could say about ATC, especially from an ATCS.  The American air traffic control system hand feeds just about everything to the pilots, unless it is already written somewhere.  If you want EVERY aircraft to maintain 250kts at CAMRN and LENDY, have the STAR changed from "Expect 250kts" to "At 250kts."  It definitely would not be the first arrival route to have a hard speed restriction.  We're adults, we know that when the STAR says "AT" we'll cross it without any intervention from ATC.

Third, and I know this is going to be taken as flame bait, but I honestly don't want it to be.  N90, JFK, and LGA all get away with stuff that is very non-standard (I cannot speak for EWR as I do not fly there on a regular basis).  Everyone, including the FAA, turns a blind eye to these non-standard practices.  Just the other day, LGA was operating on 1 runway.  A Delta 757 had landed on Rwy31 and was turned halfway off of the runway but had to stop due to gridlock on the taxiways.  His main gear had stopped exactly on the hold short bar (half of his airplane was still on the runway enviornment).  The controller cleared the next guy for takeoff anyway and advised him "use caution for traffic downfield."  Now if that was me, I would have refused that clearance for 2 reasons.  There was still half of a 757 on my runway not moving, and I have no idea what the clearance of "use caution for traffic downfield" means.  Also, N90's frequency changes are very nonstandard.  I had an instruction the other day of "Comair twenty four Newark twenty eighty five."  Now as an N90 controller, you might know exactly what that means.  The captain and I both had no idea what that meant, as we were not flying into/out of Newark at all.  The controller got very angry after I asked what he was trying to tell me.  On the third try, someone else's voice came on and said "Com24, contact new york approach on one two zero point eight five."  That's a bit of a difference between clearances.

Okay, rant over.  More to come later I'm sure.  Go ahead.  Over
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2008, 08:48:41 AM »

Also, N90's frequency changes are very nonstandard.  I had an instruction the other day of "Comair twenty four Newark twenty eighty five."  Now as an N90 controller, you might know exactly what that means.  The captain and I both had no idea what that meant, as we were not flying into/out of Newark at all.  The controller got very angry after I asked what he was trying to tell me.  On the third try, someone else's voice came on and said "Com24, contact new york approach on one two zero point eight five."  That's a bit of a difference between clearances.

Where's Don Brown when you need him?  Smiley  Imagine if you were a non-US airline pilot receiving that instruction. 

Enjoy your posts, Cessna157 - Thanks for offering your experiences.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Scrapper
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2008, 10:12:40 PM »

Cessna, I agree with your last post entirely. While I might have been incorrect about the marker thing, the point I was trying to make had nothing to do with the marker. The point I was trying to make is that you can't expect a pilot to know what's going on behind him, unless you tell him... And unless your clearance asks for a specific speed for the approach, the pilot can slow down to whatever his approach speed is, at whatever point he wants. If the STAR has a speed to follow, the pilot will follow it. If not, the pilot will slow down at his own schedule, when he's ready, and the only way to prevent that (and again, perhaps my terminology is wrong, but I'm not going for a radiotelephony test here, I'm trying to make a point) is to restrict his speed by saying something to the effect of "maintain X speed until ... traffic 6nm behind you" (in fact, go ahead and correct my terminology so I know the correct way to say it, but my point is that unless either the STAR or the controller's clearance restricts the pilot in some way, nothing wrong with the pilot slowing down. If you don't want him to slow down, then your clearance has to include that in some way.)
Logged
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2008, 10:25:06 PM »

If not, the pilot will slow down at his own schedule, when he's ready, and the only way to prevent that (and again, perhaps my terminology is wrong, but I'm not going for a radiotelephony test here, I'm trying to make a point) is to restrict his speed by saying something to the effect of "maintain X speed until ... traffic 6nm behind you" (in fact, go ahead and correct my terminology so I know the correct way to say it, but my point is that unless either the STAR or the controller's clearance restricts the pilot in some way, nothing wrong with the pilot slowing down. If you don't want him to slow down, then your clearance has to include that in some way.)

What you just described is pretty much what usually happens on line, except for the traffic call behind you.  Coming into CVG during a busier time, landing on 18L, you can pretty much count on getting "Maintain 170kts (or 180kts) to FRAZE)" or landing 26R in ATL you'll get a clearance like "Maintain 180kts to AJAAY, contact tower at AJAAY."
Generally, when flying into any class B airport, or another busier terminal area, you can expect to get speed assignments.  It almost feels wierd sometimes flying in and not getting speed restrictions, because then you find yourself 15 miles out still doing 250kts and thinking to yourself "ya know, I guess I should probably slow up before I fly right past the airport"

Its always funny getting the call from approach saying "Comair, you gonna be able to make it down from there?"  My standard response is "Put the flaps, gear, and brakes out and this thing glides like a Maytag!"
« Last Edit: March 27, 2008, 10:30:20 PM by cessna157 » Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 548


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2008, 11:07:02 AM »

By the way 230 till the marker is not only illegal but painfully wrong.  There is no "marker" anymore, and you cannot assign a turbojet aircraft 230 knots till the FAF per FAA Order 7110.65 Chapter 5.

I'm a little confused as to why you cannot assign a turbojet 230 till the FAF.  I could not find anything in the book precluding this instruction.  As far as I can tell it is above the minimum recommended speed specified for turbojets in Ch 5, and the application appears to be correct as well.  Are you referring to a different spot in the 7110.65?

Quote from: 7110.65  Chapter 5, Section 7
Section 7. Speed Adjustment

5-7-1. APPLICATION
b.
Do not assign speed adjustment to aircraft:

1. At or above FL 390 without pilot consent.

2. Executing a published high altitude instrument approach procedure.

3. In a holding pattern.

4. Inside the final approach fix on final or a point 5 miles from the runway, whichever is closer to the runway.

c. At the time approach clearance is issued, previously issued speed adjustments shall be restated if required.

d. Approach clearances cancel any previously assigned speed adjustment. Pilots are expected to make their own speed adjustments to complete the approach unless the adjustments are restated.

5-7-3. MINIMA
c.
To arrival aircraft operating below 10,000 feet:

1. Turbojet aircraft. A speed not less than 210 knots; except when the aircraft is within 20 flying miles of the runway threshold of the airport of intended landing, a speed not less than 170 knots.


Logged

Regards
JD
jphil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2008, 03:55:16 PM »

A sign of a professional controller is to be able to correct conflicts with efficiency and speed.   This guy was way out of limits and could have made the situation much worse by inattention to his main job and distracting all parties.   From the recording, we have no idea of previous clearances but I think a simple

"increase speed to 230 kts"  would have been sufficient.

I once saw a plane literally taxiing in circles while the controller shouted rapid fire commands to a confused pilot including asking him to call the "phone number".  The pilot was at fault but the controller only aggravated a serious situation  rather than ending it.  A calmer voice from another controller quickly solved the problem by asking the plane to stop - now take the first right taxiway Charlie - etc.
Logged

jphil
davisdog
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2008, 06:32:36 PM »

Yes, to order this pilot to turn off the approach heading (literally to play games and show that he's the  "controller") as opposed to simply asking the pilot to increase speed to 230 knots is extremely irresponsible for somebody put in charge of air traffic safety.
Logged
rpd
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 145


« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2008, 10:52:55 PM »

Quote
Firstly, saying that there is no "marker" anymore is completely true. 

I don't think this is true.  Many markers (IM,MM, and OM) have been decomissioned, but they still exist at some airports.  A good example is at BWI (ILS 33L and ILS 15L).  Maybe I missunderstood and this was about JFK only.

http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KBWI/IAP/ILS+OR+LOC+RWY+33L

http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KBWI/IAP/ILS+RWY+15L
« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 10:55:41 PM by rpd » Logged
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2008, 05:02:54 PM »

I don't think this is true.  Many markers (IM,MM, and OM) have been decomissioned, but they still exist at some airports.  A good example is at BWI (ILS 33L and ILS 15L).  Maybe I missunderstood and this was about JFK only.

Yeah, sorta.  There are plenty of OMs out there.  But generally the FAF is still known as  "the marker" for an ILS.  In my double wrong example, DMYHL isn't an OM, nor is it even on an ILS (it's a 90degree offset VOR/GPS approach)
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
Scrapper
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2008, 02:55:26 AM »

I like JPHill's latest response a few posts ago. Whether it's the pilot's fault for ignoring a clearance or the controller's fault for assuming a clearance to maintain a certain speed was given when it was not (and again, if it was not, then the pilot could slow down as much as he wants), a simple "maintain 230 knots" would fix the problem. This controller was just in a bad mood and taking it out on the pilot. Pretty sure it's not meant to be a game of us vs. them but it appears in that part of the country that it always evolves into that for one reason or another... One more reason I like where I am...
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2008, 11:23:08 AM »

Pretty sure it's not meant to be a game of us vs. them but it appears in that part of the country that it always evolves into that for one reason or another... One more reason I like where I am...

NY controllers can be as sweet as a Cadbury Cream Egg.  Don't paint with such as broad brush.  Smiley
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Casper87
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


« Reply #27 on: April 05, 2008, 11:13:11 AM »

"Scrapper and Jason,

You both must be right.  I am sure your extensive knowledge about the intricacies and daily operational characteristics of the JFK sector at New York TRACON trump my irrelevant REAL-world experience in the aforementioned sector as a certified FAA Air Traffic Control Specialist.  "

lol.....and there it is........more sarcastic comments...from an NY controller
Logged
Hollis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


« Reply #28 on: April 06, 2008, 12:26:59 AM »

Not ALL JFK controllers 'get mad at you and bite your head off', as one seasoned airline Captain put it.
For example...
Logged
Gecko1
Guest
« Reply #29 on: April 06, 2008, 12:16:13 PM »

Well, they are New Yorkers. Wink
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!