I dont want no stinking RSC......

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:54 pm

Guess what? It's winter. I dont need to hear an RSC that calls 95% bare and dry, with 5% ice patches. Why cant you give an RSC IF asked for one, aand stop tripping all over yourselves to give them.....I've had RSC's for runways I landed on five minutes ago! All the northern strips are snow covered....what's the point of hearing ten or more RSC's when each and every one is the same?

hydro · Post by **hydro** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:45 pm

I feel the same way Doc having to give that RSC with 5% ice patches along the rwy edges everytime. But based on the rules (in my case FS ManOps) we have to give it unless we know for sure you already have it from somewhere. It's one of those things that probably won't ever change since its the lawyers who run the show.

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:37 pm

What hydro said...

gr8gazu · Post by **gr8gazu** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:23 pm

Can't go against the lawyers orders..

At YYZ can the info at least be moved from the primary to the secondary ATIS? The RSC info takes way too much time to listen to just to get back to the other pertinent data.

Any comments from YYZ?

flyinhigh · Post by **flyinhigh** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:16 am

gr8gazu wrote: At YYZ can the info at least be moved from the primary to the secondary ATIS? The RSC info takes way too much time to listen to just to get back to the other pertinent data.

Could not agree more, The RSC should have its own frequency.
I don't get it when you coming in to well thunder bay for example, it's been -2 and skc for the last week, and you have rsc on the atis saying that runway such and such is this, runway such and such that.
Make another frequency for this would be awesome, that way when iit is 100% bare and dry guys don't have to listen to the atis for 10 min to get the real pertinent info that is required in this situation.

cheers

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:59 pm

Or they could ask....do you have the rsc.....do you require the rsc...too simple?

gr8gazu · Post by **gr8gazu** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 6:57 pm

cpl_atc wrote:
Maybe you've been flying in there for the last week, but how about the guy ferrying the new PC12 in from overseas? Or the guy from KMSP on his first flight up there since being off for ten days? Or the charter flight coming in from Omaha? Or, or, or....

I think one of the first defences against incidents/accidents is not making assumptions about what you think is "known" information, no matter how obvious it may seem to you.

Maybe we do assume too much but maybe common sense should be applied. Big Tstorm and gusty winds, maybe issue "standing water alert" in French!

Insensitive I know, but just a demonstration that you can't cover all bases.

A simple "RSC available on secondary ATIS frequence of 131.0 due contamination" would certainly cover your concerns and minimize our exposure to lengthy ATIS messages.

flyinhigh · Post by **flyinhigh** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:00 pm

cpl_atc wrote:
I think one of the first defences against incidents/accidents is not making assumptions about what you think is "known" information, no matter how obvious it may seem to you.

Hence, why I said, I agree there should be a seperate frequency.

CD · Post by CD » Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:07 am

flyinhigh wrote:
cpl_atc wrote:
I think one of the first defences against incidents/accidents is not making assumptions about what you think is "known" information, no matter how obvious it may seem to you.
Hence, why I said, I agree there should be a seperate frequency.

Of course, everyone would be willing to pay the additional NavCan fees associated with the maintenance of additional equipment associated with the separate frequencies across the country...

...whoops, wrong thread.

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:30 pm

Comes under the major "Tin plate your ass" attitude these days.

If (BIG IF) you were to come unstuck and heaven forbid, skidded off the end of the runway, lawyers would have a field day in asking why the hell wasn't the RSC provided.

I fully agree it sucks more than the chubby chick you went to high school with, but welcome to the 21st century.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:00 pm

It's not hard to understand people, its called CYA.

Soon as they take it away, someone will crash and blame it on ATC for not issuing one.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:16 am

But, we dont get them in the summer? And, I've seen conditions far worse after a rainfall in the summer, than most winter days? I've yet to hear an RSC make a difference in a go-no-go decision.....we're not talking fifteen inches of wet snow, that fell last night, or heavy freezing rain...and we all know it.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:37 am

Take for example the Southwest Crash in Chicago this winter.

Had the crew not recieved a RSC report, they could have easily blamed the incident on ATC for not properly informing them.

What other things should ATC cut out? Most modern airliners have TCAS, they know the traffics there long before ATC issues a traffic advisory, so well hell, since the pilot doesn't need it, lets throw that out as well?

There's a 100 things ATC provides to pilots that 99% of the time you will never need... its the 1% of the time that makes the difference.

RSC Reports influence pilots all the time, if you have a bad brake index it can affect which runway you would land on, or at least it should be entering your thought process at least.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:40 am

Doc wrote:But, we dont get them in the summer? And, I've seen conditions far worse after a rainfall in the summer, than most winter days? I've yet to hear an RSC make a difference in a go-no-go decision.....we're not talking fifteen inches of wet snow, that fell last night, or heavy freezing rain...and we all know it.

Is this entirely true? I've heard many a tower controller adivse pilots of standing water on the runway during heavy rain conditions.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:14 pm

South West still landed. They still skidded off the end. That's my point. If you think RSC's "influence pilots all the time"....well, you just keep on dreaming in colour.
And, we do get the odd "standing water" advisory, no doubt about it, but we dont get the "Cat Lake runway is a phuquen swamp!"......but we do have to hear about the "quarter inch of new snow" all winter long!
I have never been influenced by an RSC...not one time. Why? Am I some kind of moron? Probably...but I also KNOW that it snowed last night, and I've allready deceided to make the flight.....my whole point is....I AM NOT AGAINST RSC's......I JUST THINK WE SHOULD REQUEST THEM.....would that not be easier on ATC and FSS as well??

hydro · Post by **hydro** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:24 pm

Doc wrote: JUST THINK WE SHOULD REQUEST THEM.....would that not be easier on ATC and FSS as well??

It would be easier on us too. But I can see the lawyers side of things. What I'd like is some different standards on when we have to give it to you unprompted rather than give it every single time. i.e. wish it were 5% ice we can skip it, 95% ice we give it. I guess we can suggest it, and who knows. The powers that be finally got rid of the "VFR not recommended statement", maybe they can loosen this up to.

hydro

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:32 pm

"VFR not recommended" would make a whole hell of a lot more sence than telling the whole friggen world about 1/4 inch snow drifts!! Unsolisited bad weather reports would almost make sence....how many aircraft have been lost pushing wx vs. the dreaded quarter inch snow drift??

pokaroo · Post by **pokaroo** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:51 am

Speaking of a waste of time how about the requirement of ATC to remind you to make your mandatory calls at airports with a MF. It states in CARs the pilot has to do it but for some reason we have to remind them. We actually had a guy pulled recently for this.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:38 pm

Doc wrote:"VFR not recommended" would make a whole hell of a lot more sence than telling the whole friggen world about 1/4 inch snow drifts!! Unsolisited bad weather reports would almost make sence....how many aircraft have been lost pushing wx vs. the dreaded quarter inch snow drift??

I see your point especially if the airport normally handles nothing larger than a King Air on a 8000 foot runway

To add some more to the conversation, I know here in YQM many times pilots ask the Tower for a more current RSC than in the ATIS many times. Sometimes even when there's not really any precip. Normally is RJ pilots however.

jonathan_tcu · Post by **jonathan_tcu** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:15 pm

How about after a passing torrential downpour where the runways are literally a pool of water, temporarily halting all traffic? This is just dry humor to summer RSC which has happened at our airport.