Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 26, 2016, 11:53:21 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: No coverage in your area? If you are near your local airport contact us to learn about becoming a volunteer


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  JetBlue wants to play games
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: JetBlue wants to play games  (Read 39570 times)
SkanknTodd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« on: March 21, 2008, 12:51:02 PM »

Pretty self-explanatory...  Edited slightly for dead air, etc.  NY controllers are generally very helpful and friendly if you're nice and professional, but they bite hard if you disrespect them.

Todd

* PlayingGames.mp3 (2202.57 KB - downloaded 5439 times.)
Logged
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2008, 01:06:12 PM »

What the controller says about assigned speeds of CAMRN and LENDY isn't necessarily correct.  I'm not doubting the controller, he knows his airspace better than I do.  But the clearances, per the SID, are CAMRN: "Expect to cross at 11,000' and 250kts" and LENDY: "Expect to cross at FL190 and 250kts".

When I fly these arrivals, I get the altitude crossing restriction 100% of the time.  But I only get the speed restriction about 75% of the time (I've had them ask me to speed up).  Also, as these are "expect" only, we are not required to comply with them.  They are just advisory of what to anticipate from the center controller.

If assigned a speed of 310kts, for example, while cruising at 10,000', and then given a clearance to descend to 8,000', that deletes the previous speed restriction as well.  But, on the other hand, if given an assigned speed of 250kts at  FL190 then given a clearance to descend to 8,000', the speed restriction stays valid.

I guess what I'm saying here is JBU very well could have been given a speed restriction of 250kts over CAMRN.  But the previous controller (this would have been given by ZDC) may not have given him the speed restriction.  We just don't know the facts.  Obviously the controller was expecting him to have the 250kt restriction.
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
wrighty1976
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2008, 04:46:03 PM »

It is the "I can give you a number to call..."

Kinda swings the Jetblue
Logged
SkanknTodd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2008, 06:58:37 PM »

also note the voice coming from JetBlue changes towards the end.  sounds like the captain doesn't want the FO to get in any deeper than he is...
Logged
robyul1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2008, 06:23:46 AM »

an easily-resolved problem, all the controller had to say is "Jet Blue 852 increase your speed to 230kts, i got traffic behind you comin' in a little faster."  Jet blue would've sped up, and that's all she wrote.  But no, had to get the new york sarcasm in there and make the situation tense for both sides.  Also, when the controller informed the pilots of the speed restrictions, that was fine, it could've been done just before transferring them to tower.  It's all about attitude. 
Logged
KASWspotter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2008, 07:07:20 PM »

Jetblue was friendly and asked "what do you need?" He got a sarcastic instruction in return. What if he had followed it? I probably wouldve asked the same question. They are on approach in busy airspace. No reason to be rude on the controllers part at all. Jetblue responded they were assigned that speed and he still gave em a lecture and the "I can give you a number to call" bit.
Logged
davolijj
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 559


MMAC ARSR OKC


« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2008, 09:33:01 PM »

I'd have to side with JBU on this one.

Here's this poor guy, oblivious to the fact that he's being overtaken by a faster aircraft.  When the controller queries him he makes it clear he'll do whatever the controller wants.  Then he immediately gets a "f--k you" vector with side of sarcasm.  He didn't help matters much with his "you wanna play games" comment but obviously there was a breakdown in communication somewhere.  Either he was given a speed and didn't follow it or my guess is he wasn't assigned one but the controller thought the arrival assigned him one.  And as Cessna157 pointed out, the speeds on the SID are "Expect" instructions, for planning purposes only.

It was obviously not that busy or the controller wouldn't have had time to get into it with the pilot.  I think he was just irritated because if it HAD been busy, some clown doing 220kts thirty out could be a deal waiting to happen.
Logged

Regards
JD
Scrapper
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2008, 12:48:39 AM »

Wow, this guy's got some serious attitude... Maybe he didn't get any the night before... If I were the Jeblue pilot, I would've considered calling the TRACON on landing... That was uncalled for...
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2008, 09:20:11 AM »

Quote from: cessna157

If assigned a speed of 310kts, for example, while cruising at 10,000',
you shouldnt accept that assignment as it is a violation of FAR's.
Logged
Kiel McGowan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2008, 01:43:07 PM »

Quote from: cessna157

If assigned a speed of 310kts, for example, while cruising at 10,000',
you shouldnt accept that assignment as it is a violation of FAR's.


Below 10,000ft is a violation not at 10,000.
Logged
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2008, 03:23:10 PM »

Quote from: cessna157

If assigned a speed of 310kts, for example, while cruising at 10,000',
you shouldnt accept that assignment as it is a violation of FAR's.


As Kiel pointed out, only below 10,000 feet is there a maximum speed restriction of 250 knots IAS (14 CFR ยง91.117).  If a controller issues a descent below 10,000 feet and appends "off-shore rules apply" you can also exceed 250 knots (speed restrictions of 250 knots do not apply to aircraft operating beyond 12 NM from the coastline within the U.S. Flight Information Region, in offshore Class E airspace below 10,000 feet MSL).  Such an instructions is common descending into an eastern Florida destination from an over-water route.
Logged
camrnlendy
Guest
« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2008, 10:55:27 PM »

This controller did the right thing.  Pilots flying into JFK ought to know the drill at JFK, and it is rare to find a pilot (especially at JBU) doing this kind of thing anymore.  We are working our tails off to get everyone on the ground as safely and efficiently as possible with unrealistic levels of traffic.

The airspace over NY is not designed for someone who wants to pull the speed back without alerting the controller first.  Think of it like this.  You are in the middle of 15 cars driving in the left lane of the LIE doing 55 MPH, each with just a few feet between them (minimum spacing).  The lead car slows to 35 MPH without hitting the brakes.  What happens.  Everyone behind that lead car gets put in an unsafe situation, while getting delayed, and in turn, creating a traffic jam.  JFK is a saturated airport, and if one plane slows when not told to do so, everyone slows, and the holding patterns fill up and last the rest of the day.

Again, the controller was 100% correct.  The pilot needed to understand right away that what he did does not work in New York, and if he wanted to slow, then he would be resequenced behind faster traffic that wanted to land.  Pilots are issued 250 KTS at CAMRN and LENDY, and I agree with this controller that slowing down from that restriction would be a possible deviation.

Logged
Scrapper
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2008, 11:15:05 PM »

I COMPLETELY disagree with the last post... Unless you are given a restriction by the pilot NOT to slow down to below X speed until crossing the outer marker, or something to that effect, the pilot is free to slow down at will... If the controller does not want to backlog the guys behind this guy, then he needs to amend the clearance with something to that effect (ie. "JBU XXX cleared ILS approach runway XX, maintain 230 knots or better until the outer marker, traffic 6 nm in trail" etc.) otherwise, the pilot can assume that the traffic behind him is not a concern and start slowing down and retracting flaps, gear, etc. on his own schedule... with no speed restriction issued, the pilot can just assume that there's no one behind him, or that he's far enough ahead that there's no conflict with him slowing down... Air Traffic Controllers are supposed to be proactive, not assume that the pilot is going to do the right thing (because when given the choice, pilots will do what's best for their plane alone... it's up to the controller to think ahead and to think of the big picture... not the pilot...)
Logged
Jason
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


CFI/CFII


« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2008, 11:22:17 PM »

Again, the controller was 100% correct.  The pilot needed to understand right away that what he did does not work in New York, and if he wanted to slow, then he would be resequenced behind faster traffic that wanted to land.  Pilots are issued 250 KTS at CAMRN and LENDY, and I agree with this controller that slowing down from that restriction would be a possible deviation.

And in the off chance that the aircraft was never assigned the CAMRN or LENDY speed restriction?  There simply are not enough facts to base a solid answer on this one.  It is indeed a standard operating practice to issue the 250 knot restriction, but there are cases when that doesn't always happen due to a wide variety of variables.  Whether the pilot was right or wrong, it's an excellent opportunity to learn from the situation and to query ATC when given an instruction that deviates from an "EXPECT ____" notation on an assigned flight procedure.
Logged
camrnlendy
Guest
« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2008, 12:58:16 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.




« Last Edit: March 26, 2008, 01:08:38 AM by camrnlendy » Logged
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: 559


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: 11


« 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
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!