Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 26, 2016, 06:33:42 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: Check out: Air Race Classic 2016


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Really scary carelessness on ATC part
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Really scary carelessness on ATC part  (Read 21931 times)
RV1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2008, 01:06:50 AM »

Totalbeginner

You may want to listen to the recording again. There were numerous times that the pilot, the female one, said that they were on 23L. The male said 23L and then 23R. She also said what she was looking at for signage and they gave a description of how they got to where they were. The controller was Expecting to hear one thing and didn't catch what they were actually saying. Towards the end, the pilots did NOT listen to control instructions very well and had to continually be given amended directions for taxi.

Major errors on both parts.

For all you pilots out there, especially those that fly the CRJs and E145s, here's a recent mind blower: E145 departs, climbing to 3000. Vfr traffic opposite direction @ 3500. Traffic is passed as follows: XXX145, zzz approach radar contact, traffic 12 o'clock, 6 miles, opposite direction cessna at 3500, maintain 3000. He states "traffic in sight". Told "Roger, maintain visual separation with cessna, climb and maintain 13 thousand." Cessna is told about tfc, he advises in sight. 30 seconds later, XXX145 says, "Hey approach! We just got an RA about that traffic!" Me "You mean the one you reported in sight and were told to maintain a visual with?!" Him" Yeah, he was coming right at us!" Me "That's pretty much what opposite direction means".



You can't make this stuff up...
Logged

Kick butt, take no names, they dont matter anyways
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2008, 09:02:46 AM »

Cessna is told about tfc, he advises in sight. 30 seconds later, XXX145 says, "Hey approach! We just got an RA about that traffic!" Me "You mean the one you reported in sight and were told to maintain a visual with?!" Him" Yeah, he was coming right at us!" Me "That's pretty much what opposite direction means".

Something very similar happened just outside of Syracuse a few years ago and before I was good at making audio clips, otherwise I would have posted it in the Audio Clips board.  A Dash 8 was being vectored on a north downwind for an ILS intercept and there was a flight school Cessna 172 just north of the ILS approach at 2,000 practicing some VFR maneuvers.   

The controller told the Dash 8 about the Cessna and then gave the Cessna an "at or below 2,000 feet" restriction.  Moments later the Dash-8 reported traffic in sight.  The controller told the Dash-8 to maintain visual and descend to 2,500.   

About thirty seconds later the Dash-8 pilot announces that they are responding to an RA due to the Cessna.  The controller gets on and states that the Cessna is still showing 2,000 feet but the Dash-8 pilot begins to berate him about the "close call" and starts making comments about the Cessna pilots.  The controller was very professional and simply replied, "Sir, he was restricted to 2,000 and you were restricted to 2,500" and he let it go at that.   I was listening to this exchange thinking, hey, what about the fact that you (the Dash-8 pilot) called "Traffic in sight?"  That call doesn't give you the freedom to return to your duties inside the cockpit.

My guess was that the pilots called "traffic in sight" and then went back to both setting up the approach and running checklists, forgetting about the C172 until the TCAS alert.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
aviator_06
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2008, 04:24:11 PM »

Yea I saw this vid on youtube a while back.
Logged

Crazyaviator06
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2008, 06:02:09 PM »

Just have to add.... Props to the pilots who declined the takeoff clearence... Thats who i want flying when i fly as a passenger.....
Logged
drfinal
Guest
« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2008, 04:23:41 PM »

I DID like the one pilot who refused his takeoff clearance 'until we figure out what's going on.'

I don't think the initial taxi instructions were incorrect. The pilot made a wrong turn and ended up back at the active. Both pilots reported in at different locations--on the R and L RY. The controller kept denying  that the plane wasn't where she thought it was and tried to keep running her operation.

The person that "broke the chain" of events that could lead to disaster is the pilot that refused his takeoff clearance.





« Last Edit: October 03, 2008, 02:57:07 PM by drFinal » Logged
SirIsaac787
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2008, 07:21:42 PM »

Not sure if someone else had already said this (don't have time to read through everyone's responses...sorry) but the FAA said that the controller didn't do anything wrong in her "instructions to the pilots".  She did however make a major mistake when she lost her cool and then did what she shouldn't have.
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!