Air Traffic Control - Pat Kenny, RTÉ Radio 1

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

McNulty737

As your plane approaches Dublin Airport, one would be forgiven for attributing your safe landing to the two people in the cockpit. However, Marie Louise O’Donnell knows better and spared a thought for those in air traffic control who control almost every aspect of your airplane’s landing. She joined those in the tower at Dublin Airport to learn more.

Yeah sure, next time your plane has to dodge around CB's and land in 50kt gusty conditions on a wet runway - thank the guy drinking coffee in the control tower for the landing!

FlutterinBantam

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Pity she doesn't know what she is talking about herself!

rayz

McNulty737 wrote: »

Yeah sure, next time your plane has to dodge around CB's and land in 50kt gusty conditions on a wet runway - thank the guy drinking coffee in the control tower for the landing!

are you really that naive?? you're hardly a pilot i'd say.
first off, not one part of that radio segment was aimed at reducing the respect level for pilots. everybody knows it takes a huge amount of skill and precision to land in tough conditions.

that's not what the piece is about. ATC is almost the forgotten world of the avation industry. people know very little about it and the level of responsibilty involved. pilots look after your own plane and thats it. these guys look after 10 + aircraft in the sky each. they are responsible for the safe movement of hundreds of millions of euro worth of aircraft and thousands of lives. as a pilot, you dont do anything without their permission.

so next time you wanna have a dig at ATCO's, think again..... cos some of them dont drink coffee!!!;)

phonypony

I think the way the introduction was worded;

'one would be forgiven for attributing your safe landing to the two people in the cockpit. However, Marie Louise O’Donnell knows better'

and

'..air traffic control who control almost every aspect of your airplane’s landing'

is going a bit too far. I know the piece was specifically about EIDW, but lets not forget the many uncontrolled airports around the world, some with scheduled passenger services, where pilots self position and talk to each other and 'see and avoid'. To a 'layperson' the way she was going on is enough to convince them that ATC are somehow physically controlling the aircraft themselves. She should have portrayed a little more of the bigger picture and the relationship between ATCO and pilot.
All that aside, they have a stressful job with huge responsibilities and do it bloody well and there are a few friendly voices in Dublin who are usually very accommodating to GA!

rayz

phonypony wrote: »

I think the way the introduction was worded;

'one would be forgiven for attributing your safe landing to the two people in the cockpit. However, Marie Louise O’Donnell knows better'

and

'..air traffic control who control almost every aspect of your airplane’s landing'

is going a bit too far. I know the piece was specifically about EIDW, but lets not forget the many uncontrolled airports around the world, some with scheduled passenger services, where pilots self position and talk to each other and 'see and avoid'. To a 'layperson' the way she was going on is enough to convince them that ATC are somehow physically controlling the aircraft themselves. She should have portrayed a little more of the bigger picture and the relationship between ATCO and pilot.
All that aside, they have a stressful job with huge responsibilities and do it bloody well and there are a few friendly voices in Dublin who are usually very accommodating to GA!

i completely agree with you.

i was really only referring to his comment, portraying ATC to be a cushy sit back on your arse and drink coffee type job which is definately the jibe he was going for. and he'd be very wrong.

it was unneccesary

alan85

I think what Marie 'Bullsh*t' O'Donnell is leaving out the relationship between ATCO and pilot. It's important they work as a team and neither is more or less important. They both have important functions to both themselves and those around them.

http://www.youtube.com/user/justplanes?blend=1&ob=4#p/search/0/Wqh2hKOHlT4

I think this youtube video explains it well. The captain explains how pilots and air traffic controllers in South Africa get to know each other and have good relationships for work reasons.... It's at 6.25mins... Some great videos on that youtube account actually!

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

donkey balls

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you will find that many people havent a clue when it comes to airport/airline ops,I myself have been shown around the local TWR while in the USA traning.

Milan Cobian

I would never wish to denigrate ATCOs for whom I have the utmost respect, however just a small clarification.

they are responsible for the safe movement of hundreds of millions of euro worth of aircraft and thousands of lives

By law and tradition, the commander is solely responsible for everything concerned with the aircraft and all aboard it. He is entitled to take any action he deems necessary to ensure the safety of the aircraft, including declining to comply with ATC requests if he sees fit.

as a pilot, you dont do anything without their permission.

Not so. The umbrella name for ATC under legislation is in fact ATS (air traffic services). The key word is "services." ATC provide a service to prevent collisions and expedite traffic flow. They certainly do not give "permission" to the commander as to how he conducts his flight. A captain can, and will, decline an ATC request if he feels unable to comply or deems it unsafe. It is then up to ATC to figure out an alternative course of action that will be acceptable to the pilots. The captain is always in command of the aircraft and derives from legislation his permission to conduct the flight as he sees fit.

Finally, before I get jumped on, it would be a foolish pilot who would refuse a direct safety related instruction from ATC without very good reason to do so. And it would be an idiot who doesn't co-operate with ATC unless it really isn't possible to do that.
My point is merely that it is legally within the commanders prerogative to do so if he wished and could explain himself if required to do so.

IrishB.ie

Milan Cobian wrote: »

I would never wish to denigrate ATCOs for whom I have the utmost respect, however just a small clarification.

By law and tradition, the commander is solely responsible for everything concerned with the aircraft and all aboard it. He is entitled to take any action he deems necessary to ensure the safety of the aircraft, including declining to comply with ATC requests if he sees fit.



Not so. The umbrella name for ATC under legislation is in fact ATS (air traffic services). The key word is "services." ATC provide a service to prevent collisions and expedite traffic flow. They certainly do not give "permission" to the commander as to how he conducts his flight. A captain can, and will, decline an ATC request if he feels unable to comply or deems it unsafe. It is then up to ATC to figure out an alternative course of action that will be acceptable to the pilots. The captain is always in command of the aircraft and derives from legislation his permission to conduct the flight as he sees fit.

Finally, before I get jumped on, it would be a foolish pilot who would refuse a direct safety related instruction from ATC without very good reason to do so. And it would be an idiot who doesn't co-operate with ATC unless it really isn't possible to do that.
My point is merely that it is legally within the commanders prerogative to do so if he wished and could explain himself if required to do so.

What does law and tradition stipulate when the 'commander' is female?

Milan Cobian

We use our common sense.

IrishB.ie

Milan Cobian wrote: »

We use our common sense.

Lets stick to being as pedantic as you were in your initial post.

I have stated this before. Exactly who do you represent when you say 'We' ?. And can you provide a link to any law that precisely states the use of the words 'common sense' in its text.

View Profile

....for those in air traffic control who control almost every aspect of your airplane’s landing.

Like Milan Cobian stated, ATC is a service provided to pilots to aid the safe passage of their aircraft into/out of airports and through differnet airspace. The pilot has the ultimate say and as mentioned above, can refuse the ATC instructions. Especially common when you have thunderstorm activity.

The level of ATC service you receive varies greatly depending on the airport. For example flying into Gatwick or Madrid, ATC will manage you very closely, giving you constant level, heading, and speed changes.
Other less busy airports it is mostly up to the pilots to manage their descent, speed control etc. This can be especially tricky if the previous controller left you quite high compared to the expected profile.
Trust me, it's a skill to descend a slippery jet from 11.000ft about 20 miles out, with a 50kt tailwind so the aircraft is slow enough so you can get the flap out and be stable enough to intercept the ILS.

Now im not putting down the job these guys do. I have the utmost respect for them and they the are usually very obliging to our requests.
(apart from the Spanish but thats another story:mad:).

rayz

Milan Cobian wrote: »

I would never wish to denigrate ATCOs for whom I have the utmost respect, however just a small clarification.

By law and tradition, the commander is solely responsible for everything concerned with the aircraft and all aboard it. He is entitled to take any action he deems necessary to ensure the safety of the aircraft, including declining to comply with ATC requests if he sees fit.



Not so. The umbrella name for ATC under legislation is in fact ATS (air traffic services). The key word is "services." ATC provide a service to prevent collisions and expedite traffic flow. They certainly do not give "permission" to the commander as to how he conducts his flight. A captain can, and will, decline an ATC request if he feels unable to comply or deems it unsafe. It is then up to ATC to figure out an alternative course of action that will be acceptable to the pilots. The captain is always in command of the aircraft and derives from legislation his permission to conduct the flight as he sees fit.

Finally, before I get jumped on, it would be a foolish pilot who would refuse a direct safety related instruction from ATC without very good reason to do so. And it would be an idiot who doesn't co-operate with ATC unless it really isn't possible to do that.
My point is merely that it is legally within the commanders prerogative to do so if he wished and could explain himself if required to do so.

i didnt say CANT...... i said DONT

the beerhunter

Milan Cobian wrote: »

...including declining to comply with ATC requests if he sees fit.

just to clarify, those are mostly clearances and instructions from atc, rarely "requests", which is why it can cause a bit of a fuss if pilots "decline" to comply.

as view profile mentioned, thunderstorms make things particularly interesting so it's up to crews to inform atc where the weather is, and atc to inform crews where the traffic is. even in decent weather though, you'd be surprised how often two aircraft want to be in the same piece of sky or on the same piece of tarmac simulataneously.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

View Profile

Is this generally helpful or unhelpful? It sounds like micromanagement!

Its necessary in such busy airspace. The guys in Gatwick(for example) manage the high traffic volumes very well. Landing clearances given at about 500ft as the proceeding aircraft rotates off the runway. Keeps you on your toes!

I
How does DUB compare?

Havnt had the privilege of flying in here myself, but from what ive observed theyre are quite good.

I'm all ears.

Ah just the work to rule strike they have been on for the past year!! They wont give you any short-cuts and wont allow you to cruise higher than the level on your flight plan. Makes flights longer and less efficient!

Milan Cobian

IrishB.ie, the airlines tend to use common sense on the he/she thing as it keeps the operation going, which is more important than pedantics. However, in case of being faced with somebody as concerned as yourself about it, operations manuals will explicitly state that "he" applies to both genders.
Here is an example from an airline:
"This manual applies to both male and female pilots and operations personnel. For brevity the pronoun "he" is used throughout. Where appropriate the pronoun "she" should be inferred or assumed".
So you can now rest easy that the next time your captain is female, she will carry the same authority as her male counterpart. :rolleyes:

tippilot

Saw this on the military forum and thought it quite apt:

'What is the similarity between air traffic controllers and pilots?
If a pilot screws up, the pilot dies; but if ATC screws up,.... the pilot dies.'
- Sign over Control Tower Door -

BarryM

How is it that so many threads on here end up in slagging?? Never mind...

A very close relative is an ATC in the Eurocontrol Centre in Maastricht. I have been privileged to be let in there and, as an amateur pilot/enthusiast I was gobsmacked.

The amount of traffic an individual handles is amazing, and recall the aircraft are all travelling at 400knots+ so there isn't any room for musing....

It may not be as exciting as actually flying, but one couldn't happen without the other. Maastricht handles thousands of movements per hour!!

If you want to see what it is like have a look at the site mentioned in the Kenny piece www.flightradar24.com

McNulty737

rayz wrote: »

are you really that naive?? you're hardly a pilot i'd say.

I'm a pilot alright....for my sins.

as a pilot, you dont do anything without their permission.

This is....ahem....bollox. When flying head on towards a CB cloud i dont ask permission to deviate 20 degrees left or right, I do it and then inform the controller after the event. I regularly fly into Madrid airport, which has probably the most useless ATC in europe and regularly have to deviate from their instructed speeds/headings, because if you follow them alot of the time you'll end up doing a go around/got the **** kicked out of you from heavy wake turbulence (which happened to me at 1000 feet, not a nice experience).

Safety first, when ATC issues a clearance you follow it if it makes sense, if it doesent you take the course of action which does make sense and is safe.

so next time you wanna have a dig at ATCO's, think again..... cos some of them dont drink coffee!!!;)

I'm not taking a dig at controllers, I have the utmost respect for good, capable professional controllers. The standard of ATC in northern Europe is excellent, controllers in the UK and especially London are probably the best in the world - real pro's, excellent at their jobs.

However when you go South, particularly in Spain and to a lesser extent Italy, the standard of ATC deteriorates to at times, an almost unbelievable level of incompetence. Madrid is a place where you really have to watch out. Further south to Morocco and things get really interesting :eek:

xflyer

I think we've established now that ATC and pilots are complemtary if not always complimentary whether they be hes or shes.:p

Essentially it's team work, just sometimes some of the players don't play well.

To put it into perspective, depending on the airspace or the rules they are operating under, pilots don't even have to talk to ATC. On my most recent flight I didn't even bother. People are often surprised at this but that's the way it is.

The notion that ATC are all seeing controllers is not quite true. They are facilitators and provide a service.

alan85

As a pilot I always contact ATC if it exists. I think of them as as extra set of eyes. If anything goes wrong they're they people I'll call for help from. I'll say nothing bad and won't try to make myself superior to them. Friends in the sky!

DW_ATCO

xflyer wrote: »

To put it into perspective, depending on the airspace or the rules they are operating under, pilots don't even have to talk to ATC. On my most recent flight I didn't even bother. People are often surprised at this but that's the way it is.

Class G airspace I presume?? i take it you fly vfr and require 'info' only....thats a flight info service,not ATC........although provided by the same people in Dub

Cessna_Pilot

xflyer wrote: »

To put it into perspective, depending on the airspace or the rules they are operating under, pilots don't even have to talk to ATC. On my most recent flight I didn't even bother. People are often surprised at this but that's the way it is.
.

Off topic, but I used to fly VFR in Ireland/Uk and never did and never will understand why people don't use a radio if they have one and there is a service available to them. If you ask me everyone should have to be a frequency be it Info or controller.

xflyer

DW_ATCO wrote: »

Class G airspace I presume?? i take it you fly vfr and require 'info' only....thats a flight info service,not ATC........although provided by the same people in Dub

Bingo! I wondered would anyone pick it up. Took an Air Traffic Controller though!

That's the point it's information only, helpful but it's the pilot's responsibility to see and avoid. a controller busy with line traffic won't really be in a position to keep an eye on you all the time.

But also we are lucky in this country to have lots of class G airspace where we don't even need a radio or a transponder. That's a good thing not a bad thing.

Cessna_Pilot

xflyer wrote: »

But also we are lucky in this country to have lots of class G airspace where we don't even need a radio or a transponder. That's a good thing not a bad thing.

Just purely out of interest how is that a good thing?

xflyer

It means we have the freedom to fly pretty much where we like, when we like without any restrictions being placed on us other than basic rules of the air and our own good airmanship. Once we're outside the few areas of controlled airspace in this country. That is a good thing, many countries don't have that option or have huge areas of restricted airspace.

We shouldn't take this for granted.

Arpa

I love the way there are so many people claiming to be pilots because they jerked off to Flight Sim for a few years. I find it hard to believe that pilots have nothing better to do with their time than get into fights on boards...or is FSX running in the next window?

I could talk bullsh*t and with very little info pretend to be an expert in almost any field...particularly aviation because the info is available yet specific, so it's easier to get away with it.

If I was a pilot as I one day hope to be, I doubt very much I'll be getting into silly debates about ATC on a public site. That would be like a Doctor going on boards and giving out about his colleagues...professionals keep a tight hold on any info in their line of work. They don't fuel their egos on the internet.

So all the flight sim people out there pretending to be pilots, just shut up, we know you're talking crap.

Anyway back to topic...good find OP and interesting...though it would be nice if the reporter wasn't such an eejit from a journalistic point. Why would you send someone who can barely email to the ATCC? She should be covering fluffy surrogate mother stories and a tech reporter should have been sent who could have then simplified it for listeners.

xflyer

LOL, well this pilot has nothing better to do at moment. I presume you haven't been to PPRuNe then? Pilots do go onto websites and talk BS all the time. Don't compare pilots to Doctors. Doctors are professionals and highly paid. Pilots are a form of machine operator.

I could talk bullsh*t and with very little info pretend to be an expert in almost any field...particularly aviation because the info is available yet specific, so it's easier to get away with it.

If or when you become a pilot, you'll find that's not true. People pretending to be pilots are easily spotted by other pilots. If there's anyone like that here then they're very good.

Care to name names?

pclancy

:mad::mad::mad:

Arpa what exactly gives you the right to:

1. Take the thread off topic and have a rant and attack everyone
2. Label the entire community as having just "jerked off to flightsim for a few years" and insult every one of us without any idea who we are or what we do
3. Tell us all to shut up as you know we're talking crap
4. Do all the above yet state you're not actually a pilot yourself

If you don't like it here simply close your browser and move elsewhere, don't come in here and judge everyone, I don't care if the only little involvement in aviation a poster has is having once seen an airplane in the sky as a child, EVERYONE CAN POST HERE AND DISCUSS ANYTHING TO DO WITH AVIATION, don't tell anyone here to shut up or that their opinion isnt valued.

I'd love to ban you but a good mod doesnt let emotions get involved in decisions so i won't because i'm too angry right now.

To everyone else FFS can't we just discuss stuff without this "i'm a pilot and you're not" bull****, take it to pprune if that's what you want, everyone's got a voice here no matter if you've got real wings or not.

Arpa

It wasn't so far off topic really. I'm just tired of people claiming to be something they are not, and we all know it happens. I value everyones opinion to an extent, but when there are people pretending to be pilots just because they envision themselves in that role for whatever reason, it doesn't help anyone. As I said, I can pretend with a little research to be an expert in a field, but how does that help any contribution?
As for the do all above and state I'm not a pilot...that's called honesty.

I'm interested in aviation and like to discuss it with like minded people, but I do not have to pretend to be something I'm not to propose myself as more of an authority in order to win a little spat.

Ban me because you don't like what I said? There's a lot of that mentality going on in China right now, but each to his own.

As for your last point, that is exactly what I was suggesting, discuss the topics without pretending to be a pilot to give your point credence or gravitas.

pclancy

I don't see you as the judge of who is and who isnt a pilot. Anyone can pretend to be anything or anyone on the Internet its a simple as that, I agree its not good to boast about it but my point is its not up to you insult so many people or denounce anyone for not "being a pilot" when you don't have a clue as to their real life. A very serious rule here on Boards is to attack a post if you wish, but not attack a poster. I would expect you to be civil to me no matter how many hours I may or may not have logged in the last year and how often FSX runs on my computer.

Ban you for breaching the forum charter which says not to be offensive to anyone and to attack the post, not the poster. If we were in China you probably wouldnt have access to this website.

Just don't pop your head up now and then to offend a large bunch of people. If you want an pilot-only environment completly free of flight sim users, people that take photos at the end of runways, people aspiring to fly but with no real chance of doing so or bored geeks that read wikipeada, take it to pprune.

Lapin

In fairness to Arpa, he has a point.

I was of the understanding that Boards.ie was a universal discussion forum for all members to contribute to, and join in an exchange of mutual conversation on any topic.

And for the most part it is.

However this Aviation & Aircraft forum carries an element of snobbery on the behalf of those who pertain to be experts on all things to do with aviation.

There must be plenty of websites where aviation "experts" can converse in their own abbreviated lingo.

I also get the impression that there are many wannabe pilots talking rubbish here.

If Boards.ie is the open forum I thought it was, then it should be understandable to all users.

I'm not proposing a dumbing down of the Aviation & Aircraft forum but I will suggest that those who speak in NOTAM, SQUAK, ETOPS etc tone it down a tad.

Most of us in this forum aren't experts in undercarriage mechanics or air traffic control lingo. But we all share a love of things that fly.

So how about we have less of the oneupmanship and tripping over each to prove who the biggest expert is, and more straight talking about a subject we all love.

FlutterinBantam

Lapin wrote: »

In fairness to Arpa, he has a point.

I was of the understanding that Boards.ie was a universal discussion forum for all members to contribute to, and join in an exchange of mutual conversation on any topic.

And for the most part it is.

However this Aviation & Aircraft forum carries an element of snobbery on the behalf of those who pertain to be experts on all things to do with aviation.

There must be plenty of websites where aviation "experts" can converse in their own abbreviated lingo.

I also get the impression that there are many wannabe pilots talking rubbish here.

If Boards.ie is the open forum I thought it was, then it should be understandable to all users.

I'm not proposing a dumbing down of the Aviation & Aircraft forum but I will suggest that those who speak in NOTAM, SQUAK, ETOPS etc tone it down a tad.

Most of us in this forum aren't experts in undercarriage mechanics or air traffic control lingo. But we all share a love of things that fly.

So how about we have less of the oneupmanship and tripping over each to prove who the biggest expert is, and more straight talking about a subject we all love.

I don't think he had a point at all.

I would consider myself to be a fairly good judge of 'character' and in all my time in here the issue of people purporting to be something they are not, was never an issue.

In what could be considered a fairly 'technical' forum there will always be a certain amount of 'lingo' I don't think anyone goes way over the top.

I found the lads post a tad insulting and childish to be honest,he seems to be a bit anal about flying and aviation and as i understand it, not a regular contributor to this area.

While there are the odd spats in here it's well and sensibly moderated, and provides a generally well informed insight into the world of aviation from all perspectives.

May it continue like that.

Arpa

I'll write this light-heartedly, but I'm saying something serious here, that I think you should all read. As for Lapin, thanks for seeing my point.

Pclancy, are you seriously threatening me with a ban because something I said irked you? Please grow up.

Oh wait can I say grow up or is that an attack? I better read my rule charter, yes here it is, "Boards rule no 1. Don't annoy moderators, because they will dish out bans at the drop of a hat".

It's pathetic self approbation, look it up, and I'm really not bothered if you ban me or not. It will only make you look silly at having to ban someone because you are afraid of debate, in a forum!

Anyway where did I attack you pclancy? I suggested there is a lot of censorship mentailty in China and we should be happy to have an open arena for discussion in our country, so you should be aware of that.

As for the point I made about wannabe pilots, it's obvious people get off on it in here, maybe you are one of them. It would explain you getting so angry about it.

Why can't people just be honest? It would make for much more interesting debate if you didn't have joe bloggs saying, "Well considering that I landed an A340 with windshear on runway10 just yesterday, I think I know what I'm talking about." No you didn't joe bloggs, we know you didn't. You used your microsoft sidewinder while sipping coffee and wearing a pilot cap and aviator sunglasses in your bedroom.

And you know what? That's totally fine. It's fun to dream. I like FSX, I like plane spotting at Dublin Airport. I like listening to liveATC and watching flightradar. I try to take a flight every second week, not to go anywhere, but just so I can feel that rush of rolling down runway 28 and floating off over the Irish sea. But I don't purport to know more than I do. I guess that's why most of us are here, because we like aviation and would want to be involved someday, but pretending to be a pilot is not helpful. All it does is allows one poster to feign superiority of knowledge for their own gratification and thereby removes any open and interesting conversation for the lay person.

Anyway I know I've taken this way off topic now, but it was something worth addressing and hopefully some people see my point without wielding placards saying "Ban the non-pilot!". It would be good for the pretenders, you know who you are, to look at yourselves and wonder why you're doing it...it's a bit sad and you'd be much better off being honest. Because then you wouldn't have to wikipedia about the power output of a Rolls Royce engine when the topic arises, so you can sound superior whilst wearing your pilot's cap. Instead you could just say, "Jeez, I don't know, but it would be nice to find out. Anyone know?" And then nice, honest debate could happen.

Well, to be succinct, I see it's a bit of a close knit group in here, and you don't want a new poster pointing out the obvious flaws to you, so, I'll leave you all to it in future. Sad really that when confronted with something obvious, some take it as a personal affront thereby lending weight to its verity. Thanks for reading...

FlutterinBantam

It would be nice if you could quote some posts which back up your 'theory'.

xflyer

Again you repeat this accusation of non pilots posting here pretending to be pilots. In fact if you felt this topic is worthy of discussion why didn't you start a new thread and bring it up?

You could indeed be right, maybe there are people pretending to be pilots. I haven't detected one. I know at a least a couple of contributors here in real life. They are definitely pilots and some even earn their living from it. Others are student pilots and PPLs and wannabees. Some ATC and wait some like you are Flight simmers who dream.

None of us need to apologise for it. This isn't a close knit group, anyone with an interest is welcome. Attacking any group, however loose, will cause a closing of the ranks.

All it does is allows one poster to feign superiority of knowledge for their own gratification and thereby removes any open and interesting conversation for the lay person.

Clearly you have someone in mind, care to elaborate? If there is a Walter Mitty in here, out him. Tell us who it is.

rattrap

McNulty737 wrote: »

This is....ahem....bollox. When flying head on towards a CB cloud i dont ask permission to deviate 20 degrees left or right, I do it and then inform the controller after the event. I regularly fly into Madrid airport...

Just a query, but do you regularly fly into Dublin? Cause with an attitude like that I wouldn't want you on my frequency. I have never had a pilot that just turned and then told me afterwards. From my experience, pilots request a heading 'due weather' and ATC do their best to facilitate. If we can't give you that exact heading (usually due other aircraft) we ask if there's some other heading you could take up instead.
I find this especially important when there's a lot of weather around the airfield and aircraft are not following what would be considered 'standard' procedures eg they need early turns off the SID, guys holding in English airspace. I've even had a lad holding directly over the airfield at FL90 cause there was nowhere else for him to go!
I mean, by just turning without asking how do you know you're not flying directly into D5, MOA4 or some restricted airspace???

pclancy

Arpa wrote: »

Pclancy, are you seriously threatening me with a ban because something I said irked you? Please grow up.

Oh wait can I say grow up or is that an attack? I better read my rule charter, yes here it is, "Boards rule no 1. Don't annoy moderators, because they will dish out bans at the drop of a hat".

It's pathetic self approbation, look it up, and I'm really not bothered if you ban me or not. It will only make you look silly at having to ban someone because you are afraid of debate, in a forum!

Get over youself man, anyone that knows me on here would not see me as ever being on some kind of stupid power trip, I don't personally care either whether you're banned or not but when you offend a large group of posters it seems only fair as a response. However its an ability that I rarely ever use so I made myself not at the time. It seems you're oblivious to any insult you caused so either way I don't think it would have achieved anything. I was angry because you slated us all as basically being full of crap. For that I am pathetic?

If anyone on here is pilot-pretending too much for your liking or ramming their expert wikipedia knowledge down your throat then please bring it to my attention because I can't see anywhere where its happening right now. This is a place for mutual discussion and debate, your wideband definition of everyone as just "getting off" isnt the right statement to make.

pclancy

Arpa wrote: »

Pclancy, are you seriously threatening me with a ban because something I said irked you? Please grow up.

Oh wait can I say grow up or is that an attack? I better read my rule charter, yes here it is, "Boards rule no 1. Don't annoy moderators, because they will dish out bans at the drop of a hat".

It's pathetic self approbation, look it up, and I'm really not bothered if you ban me or not. It will only make you look silly at having to ban someone because you are afraid of debate, in a forum!

Get over youself man, anyone that knows me on here would not see me as ever being on some kind of stupid power trip, I don't personally care either whether you're banned or not but when you offend a large group of posters it seems only fair as a response. However its an ability that I rarely ever use so I made myself not at the time. It seems you're oblivious to any insult you caused so either way I don't think it would have achieved anything. I was angry because you slated us all as basically being full of crap. For that I am pathetic?

If anyone on here is pilot-pretending too much for your liking or ramming their expert wikipedia knowledge down your throat then please bring it to my attention because I can't see anywhere where its happening right now. This is a place for mutual discussion and debate, your wideband definition of everyone as just "getting off" isnt the right statement to make.
Q

donkey balls

Just thought I would add my tuppence worth both as a PPL and ex airline flight ops employee and ops mgr,Many a time people have asked questions here about pilot training and which way to go about it I have yet to come across snobery on this forum:eek: then again im a durty aul north sider:D.
As for the lingo I will hold my hand up to using it while posting here as im so used to it which brings me on to my next point if someone posts something like TAF/METAR/MTOW and you dont know ask the person what does it mean.(we wont bite:))
The position I held within the airline was a very responsible role but guess what I had to learn the ropes by asking questions and as I said to FB in another thread posted a few weeks ago, My back ground is in road transport mgmt I just happened to be moved/pushed into my role:p at the time mainly because I could think fast see the big picture etc.

MidgetWrestler

Milan Cobian wrote: »

Not so. The umbrella name for ATC under legislation is in fact ATS (air traffic services). The key word is "services." ATC provide a service to prevent collisions and expedite traffic flow. They certainly do not give "permission" to the commander as to how he conducts his flight. A captain can, and will, decline an ATC request if he feels unable to comply or deems it unsafe. It is then up to ATC to figure out an alternative course of action that will be acceptable to the pilots

Not exactly correct. The key word is 'Control'
Air Traffic Services (ATS) is the generic name given to all services provided to air traffic, you're right about that. But there are many services. The Air Traffic Control Service is just one of these, and ATC itself is split into different types of CONTROL. Control being the operative word. Area/Approach/Aerodrome etc. Other services that fall under the ATS umbrella are Flight Information Service (FIS) and Alerting Service, which are provided to participating flights, outside of controlled airspace, and are for the purposes of helping the pilot - these latter services are NOT CONTROLLED services. (they are provided to controlled flights too, as part of the ATC service)
If you are flying INSIDE controlled airspace, whether you are GA, Military, or Commercial, fixed wing or heli, VFR or IFR or SVFR, inside controlled airspace, you receive an Air Traffic CONTROL Service, and you MUST comply with all instructions given by ATC. Having said that, the pilot may deviate from clearances, but only if continuing on the clearance would place the safety of the flight in immediate danger.
So in short, Yes, it's a service... but it is a Controlled Service. Whether or not you choose to follow the instructions is not questionable, you don't have to like it.. But you will comply, without delay. Or be MOR'd. Do not confuse ATC with FIS.

McNulty737

rattrap wrote: »

Just a query, but do you regularly fly into Dublin? Cause with an attitude like that I wouldn't want you on my frequency. I have never had a pilot that just turned and then told me afterwards. From my experience, pilots request a heading 'due weather' and ATC do their best to facilitate. If we can't give you that exact heading (usually due other aircraft) we ask if there's some other heading you could take up instead.
I find this especially important when there's a lot of weather around the airfield and aircraft are not following what would be considered 'standard' procedures eg they need early turns off the SID, guys holding in English airspace. I've even had a lad holding directly over the airfield at FL90 cause there was nowhere else for him to go!
I mean, by just turning without asking how do you know you're not flying directly into D5, MOA4 or some restricted airspace???

I've flown into Dublin several times, and youre right, if time permits, and it usually does, we ask permission to deviate. However my point is if we need to deviate urgently for safety reasons, we do it. Example I was flying into Madrid recently and after asking the controllers permission to deviate, he stalled and started asking an Iberia aircraft, in Spanish, if there was in fact a cell where we were reporting it - he thought we were just using it as an excuse to take a shortcut. I'm not gonna sit there and fly the aircraft into a CB because of this moron, we deviated and filed an SAIR.

For the record i have always found ATC in Dublin to be courteous, competent and professional. Spain is another planet.

Lapin

Most people here are probably familiar with this website, but for those who aren't, its well worth a listen.

www.liveatc.net

It provides a good insight into the workings of ATC.

It makes for interesting listening while tracking aircraft on www.casperflights.com or www.flightradar24.com

Enjoy.

rattrap

McNulty737 wrote: »

I've flown into Dublin several times, and youre right, if time permits, and it usually does, we ask permission to deviate. However my point is if we need to deviate urgently for safety reasons, we do it. Example I was flying into Madrid recently and after asking the controllers permission to deviate, he stalled and started asking an Iberia aircraft, in Spanish, if there was in fact a cell where we were reporting it - he thought we were just using it as an excuse to take a shortcut. I'm not gonna sit there and fly the aircraft into a CB because of this moron, we deviated and filed an SAIR.

For the record i have always found ATC in Dublin to be courteous, competent and professional. Spain is another planet.

Fair enough. Can see you're point in that situation. TBH, the Spanish controller was obviously an idiot.
I think the whole feeling coming from this thread, is that controllers and pilots work together (even with the grief we give each other sometimes!). We do whatever we can to make your job easier and you guys do the same in return.
If you think about it in the vertical instead of the lateral though, it happens often enough with TCAS RA. All we can say is 'Roger' until the pilot gets back to us and conflict is over.