One controllers likes and dislikes. Ask about your plane.

[Scuba_Steve]

king air at 350 eh? Been that guy a few times

I recal coming back from portland a year or so ago and YVR centre asking us " Cariboo 341 say your mach"

After a moment looking it up on our MFD we replied with " ahh .48 ... "

There was a pause on the frequency then my co worker responds with " yeah I'm know everyone on the frequency is laughin now"

and I think one guy driving a heavy responded with " thats just cruel"

thats one of my "king air at 350 stories"

Cheers

[complexintentions]

To Old Dog Flying and SierraPoppa,

THANK YOU for your posts! It's a relief to hear comments like that from credible sources (actual controllers, with actual experience). When I hear someone who's supposed to be a "colleague" in my aviation profession actually trying to justify their whining about the performance of an aircraft by comparing it to a motorhome on a highway, well...it kind of blows my mind, because it seems to show a pretty shocking lack of experience and knowledge of aviation as a whole.

scrambled_legs,

Did you miss the day at training where they explained that not every one of the aircraft you would be handling would be an F18? You may be a pilot, but I highly doubt you've flown the range of aircraft performance you describe. "Outperformed by the first jets made?" By what criteria? Fuel efficiency? I think not. Speed and acceleration are not the primary drivers of aircraft design anymore. But you knew that, right?

I've seen and been a part of some incredible controlling. Where I've been in a bizjet and they push us hard and fast above one of those "slow-movers" you malign to overtake and re-sequence ahead of them. A turboprop where they hang us high on the approach because they know we can use those big disks and get down in a hurry. In a B777 where they know we can't, and they manage the a/c's energy like they're on the flightdeck themselves. It's beautiful. Small delay vectors and speed controlling to have ALL of us "performing at our max speed and running as tightly and efficiently as possible". Even the DC3 we blew by with about 260 knots overtake! The art of controlling to me, seems in just that: finding a way for for dissimilar types to coexist efficiently. If one plane is making 20 others suffer then maybe the controller should DO something about it, not whine. Isn't that the job: controling? Sorry if that frustrates you, but it just seems like such a weird complaint for the occupation.

@Rockie,

Agreed on the British controllers. London Control working the approaches into LHR is incredible, hour after hour, each a/c getting their landing clearance within 1 mile final as the previous a/c is exiting. They do quite a job with a system that simply was never intended to handle the volume.

Having said that...a special salute to my old buds at YVR ACC...you know who you are!

[squibbler]

Well actually I think most British accidents (Opps I mean accents) sound quite stupid; even if they are saying something that is actually quite intelligent.

Really? Most people I meet over here say "I just lurrrrrve your accent". Hmmm, actually it's just the ladies who say that. Maybe that's why you think it "sounds quite stupid", you know - the fact a Brit could drop your wife's / girlfriends panties just by looking her in the eye and saying "Good evening".

For what it's worth we don't have an accent. You do!

As for the thread, well formerly as a dual rated VFR/IFR controller in EGGP and now as a VFR controller in CYQT I maintain the same philosophy: I take what comes along and make it work. No point in getting irritated in doing what I'm paid for!

[sky's the limit]

Actually,

There was a program on a while back 20/20 or something, that did a study as to how British accents and marketing ploys are linked. It was rather interesting. While I can't remember specifics, it was something like 70% of men, and 80% of women are more likely to take as true, any given statement if it is delivered in a male British accent...

Explains all those Infomercials if nothing else...

stl

[NJ]

Those Brits do something that I think should be essential for controllers-in-training. NATS gives all college students 15 hours or so of pilot training. Even that much training would give a great impression of the workload involved in flying and how transmission timeliness = usefulness. Trainees now come through and can get their license without ever flying in an aircraft, or flying in their control zone and seeing the pilot's point of view.

Back to the subject: I like AT43's. They can keep up to the Boeings inside 20 if needed, or they can slow up to whatever you need them to do. But we get paid to handle whatever is thrown at us. So that's what I do.

[Rockie]

On the other side of the coin, it wouldn't hurt pilots to spend some quality time beside a controller at their station either.

[Old Dog Flying]

Nj and Rockie: you both have the same thoughts that I put into practice in the military. New controllers were given the opportunity to fly in whatever aircraft used at their first base posting. In Europe as a GCA controller, I made certain that I got plenty of back seat time in the CF-104D, Bug Smasher, Bell 47, and anything else I could whine and snivel my way into. As Tower Chief ay YMJ, I got PPC'd on the Tutor and the newbies to Tower and Terminal were also "encouraged" to get fam flights so that they too could appreciate the pilots point of view.

As a civilian tower controller, I have given talks to the pilots' side of the equation and encouraged them to come and sit with me for a couple of hours to "learn from the mistakes of other"...and it worked. How often is it done today? Probably not very often. I also flew the new trainees around the Fraser Valley in my own aircraft to give them a feel for what their job was all about...at my own expense.

And as has been said earlier, take the traffic and deal with it! I can think of running Cf-104s, C-47s, C-45s and Mirages as well as a host of other types, mixing things up and enjoying the challenge.

Thankfully I'm now retired and still flying the little Yellow Monster.

[Rockie]

See now I'm jealous. I never got to fly in the 104.

[Jaques Strappe]

It amazes me how this bitching is contained to Canada and in particular, YYZ. I have no problems with ATC anywhere in the world but over the past decade, the bitching and over controlling going on here has been in a steady decline. I am now hearing terms like "Air Canada, "hurry" or "hustle" to the next exit, sorry dude, those two words are not and should never be in a pilots vocabulary and they certainly are not used anywhere else in the world.

Airplanes, whatever make, model, size or performance, were not, are not and never will be, designed and built to accommodate controllers.

I personally don't think that was what the original poster was eluding to but I do have serious suspicions that new controllers are not taught much about various aircraft performance characteristics. The concept of 100,000 kgs of metal having enormous potential energy and inertia is apparently lost by the constant expectation that it can slow on a dime because the CRJ ahead was able to.

[Old Dog Flying]

J-S: You've made a good point about the lack of training of controllers in aircraft performance. I spent 17 years at ZBB and I was constantly frustrated at the lack of understanding by the trainees...and I tried to do something about it. With the Managers approval, I photographed nearly every type of aircraft on the field, then using Photoshop, altered the photos for aircraft recognition purposes and then added performance data to each one in the hope that the trainee would understand how to handle the different types. The Pitts M-12 vs the Tiger Moth while borh biplanes were worlds apart in how they were dealt with.

Added to the photos were short clips on special handling requirements and these were all put together in a Powerpoint slide show that the new trainees were supposed to view as part of their check-out...but the disc was given to another individual who promptly made it disappear as he did not thimk about it first. Petty politics at its worst.

This type of training should have been handled at NICTI.

[lilfssister]

No more NCTI now Old Dog

But since it's all region/tower specific now, maybe easier to incorporate?

[FamilyGuy]

Interesting replies thus far.

Now tell me, how does any of this fit into TODAY's environment where users are scrapping pillows and life jackets to save weight and hence fuel??? Is it really okay for others to burn more fuel so the dodgy old motorhome can block the left lane of the 401 during rush hour? Someone has to be inconvienced for that to happen.

Seems to me that system capacity and an "orderly" and "expeditious" flow of traffic are far more important TODAY than anything else. Actually, I think if one keeps the bigger picture in mind, then comments about certain aircraft that don't fit in as well and need to be "accomodated" are far more professional than others have alluded to. It's not a question of "bitching" about it as much as it is the needless waste of airspace and restrictions.

Not quite as simple anymore as working a BA146 (TONKA-JET) with a F28, a 727, a 737-200 (FLUFFY), a couple C402's/PA31's, a F5, a CT114 etc etc etc. Been there too... The users demand more, the traffic volumes are WAY higher and the equipment has changed.

But I digress as the moderators will likely delete this thread if it ever gets the least bit interesting....right?

[GilletteNorth]

I wonder why it's the airlines and NavCanada always being the ones pushed for cost savings? How about the fuel companies stop charging so freakin much for gas??? Or better yet, take gas and oil companies off the stock market. It's really the stock market speculators causing the price jumps.

Side note: Lilfssister, new avatar? Where'd kitty go?

[sky's the limit]

She's feeling a little left out....


stl

[Jaques Strappe]

Murray

I don't have a hard on for YYZ. I just wish they could move traffic as effectively as their counterparts. Just yesterday, a 767 waived his wake turbulence separation for departing behind another 767 ( which was lighter because it had a domestic destination ) with the wind blowing right across the runway ( as usual ) and he was denied by the controller. Apparently a GTAA policy.

That is obviously not the controller personally but rather the policy said controller has to work within, so stop taking things so personally. I also completely agree with complexintentions, the controlling at LHR is top drawer, as a pilot, you can leave the throttles at idle and base your descent on the "track miles from threshold" provided by the controller. Actually, it is a requirement. Imagine that? All sorts of types all weighing different weights, all on the approach, all at idle thrust, all at different vertical speeds. That is controlling as an art form. So when people gripe about an RJ climbing in a country where airspace is abundant, I think perhaps there is an issue. Again, not with the person but rather the system.

I am not a controller so I cannot see through your glasses but as a pilot who experiences the "product" of many different FIRs' and TCA's, I can tell you that for the most part, YYZ does not rank all that high. Again Murray, nothing personal.

It is a fact that all aircraft perform differently. Even aircraft of the same type perform differently based on the operators' policies or weight and configuration. I am not sure that controllers here are aware of that. This will become more evident in the upcoming months because as we speak, airlines are rewriting their policies to reflect better fuel savings. Descent speeds will be reduced, accepting directs will decline as airlines flight plan around FIRs' that charge higher fees, etc.

It would be a wonderful thing to have controllers and pilots spend a few days together on a training exercise like we used to do but I fear that with todays' "tunnel vision" management style from both camps, we may not achieve much other than perhaps better understanding each others frustrations.

[Rockie]

Interesting replies thus far.

Now tell me, how does any of this fit into TODAY's environment where users are scrapping pillows and life jackets to save weight and hence fuel??? Is it really okay for others to burn more fuel so the dodgy old motorhome can block the left lane of the 401 during rush hour? Someone has to be inconvienced for that to happen.

That's an interesting analogy but you have it wrong. Do you know that the slow pokes in the right lane (or left) are burning a lot less gas than the speed demons? The same thing is starting to happen in aviation as airlines slow things down to reduce fuel consumption. 250 knot descents will become the order of the day so you should get used to it.

[x-wind]

What do the controllers think of Navajo's? We can keeper in closer than commuters, but most of us stage cool from 20nm back.

[Jaques Strappe]

Murray

You are quite right. A hold prior to an approach in LHR is common and expected. It is usually only a couple of turns but works very well for metering the flow. The nice thing about it also is that pilots know ahead of time what to expect. A hold, clean, at a higher altitude is usually preferred over slow, low level vectoring. I am sure it makes the controllers job easier too.

But here is a serious question for you or anyone who works the arrivals, does the in trail spacing on the ILS increase when it is raining? The reason I ask is because landing rolls will increase and therefore increase runway occupancy times. The other day we landed on Rwy 23 with a quartering tailwind during moderate rain and the guy was miffed that we didn't make H2. While I appreciate there is a guy on final, there is only so much that reverse and anti skid will do. So when a tower guy sounds miffed on the radio in a scenario like that, is he pissed at the pilot or the terminal controller for stacking them so close? Is the distance between the OM and the threshold short enough that a difference in Vapp of say 30kts between aircraft, makes it impossible to kill the separation that was there prior to the OM? Had we been 3 tonnes lighter due to not carrying an alternate so far away, perhaps we could have made it but the controller has no idea how much we weigh and therefore how much runway we need. Am I correct to assume that this sort of contingency is built in to the required separation values?

[scrambled_legs]

scrambled_legs,

Did you miss the day at training where they explained that not every one of the aircraft you would be handling would be an F18? You may be a pilot, but I highly doubt you've flown the range of aircraft performance you describe. "Outperformed by the first jets made?" By what criteria? Fuel efficiency? I think not. Speed and acceleration are not the primary drivers of aircraft design anymore. But you knew that, right?

I've seen and been a part of some incredible controlling. Where I've been in a bizjet and they push us hard and fast above one of those "slow-movers" you malign to overtake and re-sequence ahead of them. A turboprop where they hang us high on the approach because they know we can use those big disks and get down in a hurry. In a B777 where they know we can't, and they manage the a/c's energy like they're on the flightdeck themselves. It's beautiful. Small delay vectors and speed controlling to have ALL of us "performing at our max speed and running as tightly and efficiently as possible". Even the DC3 we blew by with about 260 knots overtake! The art of controlling to me, seems in just that: finding a way for for dissimilar types to coexist efficiently. If one plane is making 20 others suffer then maybe the controller should DO something about it, not whine. Isn't that the job: controling? Sorry if that frustrates you, but it just seems like such a weird complaint for the occupation.

@Rockie,

Complex, yes of course speed and acceleration are not the only basis for comparing the quality of a certain aircraft. Why is it that no-one on here is willing to admit that yes some of the designs have flaws. Some are way too underpowered. Why does everyone put an aircraft on a pedestal, just because it has wings. There are some really shitty brand new cars coming off the lot that we can all agree are piles of junk. Why can't the same can be said about aircraft instead of everyone jumping on the person that started the thread calling him a lazy controller.

I actually don't have to worry about rates of climb or enroute speeds 90% of the time as I work in a tower. That being said I don't live in a bubble and I see what enroute/terminal controllers have to deal with day in day out. I have far more appreciation for what they have to go through than most of the pilots out there.

When a bunch of Bell 206's from the military come in to practice approaches IFR in screaming VFR, it makes me cringe. Sure it's fun watching terminal have jets rub their 3 mile halo with a lighter waving under their ATC licence. Yes they are running things as efficiently as possible but in the big picture, it's not effecient at all. They have to build a hole for 60kt approach that is 3 miles in diameter on a crossing runway. This means that airlines that are barely surviving are being delayed all in the name of some training that could have been conducted exactly the same, but under VFR rules.

I had to hold a Dash 8 short for 8 minutes the other day while a Navajo was on approach on the crossing runway and if I launched him I would have lost sep 8 miles on departure. Oh and it wasn't me bitching about the delay but rather me trying to explain to the pilot who was bitching at me, as to why they're sitting their for no reason. These aren't fun scenarios, their nuisances. We're vectoring planes to timbuktu as they burn needless fuel or sit on the ground for forever to accommodate poor performing aircraft or aircraft operating in areas that they shouldn't be. These are the things that frustrate controllers because they know that while that one pilot is flying with his head in the clouds, 8 others are turning red, pissed at their delays. I can only imagine what a B350 mixing it up with the big boys would be like.

But of course on AvCanada, its just a bunch of controllers bitching, not a bunch of controllers that are tired of explaining to pilots who are bitching on the frequency asking why they can't do what they want, when one aircraft is holding everyone else up.

[zzjayca]

But of course on AvCanada, its just a bunch of controllers bitching, not a bunch of controllers that are tired of explaining to pilots who are bitching on the frequency asking why they can't do what they want, when one aircraft is holding everyone else up.

+1