Nasty ATC exchange

EI-EIO · Post by **EI-EIO** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:29 pm

Given occurrences of idiots breaking in on tower frequencies and the free available of scanners and ATC streams, I would suggest that neither controller IDs or ATC phone numbers are appropriate info for an unsecure channel. Better that the request for ID, tapes be relayed via the Company, especially since YYZ is a major base rather than an overflight ATC where the Company has no physical presence.

But that would be just a pax's opinion...

DLB · Post by **DLB** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:51 pm

cyyz wrote:
DLB wrote: Secondly, where did you get your law degree? I'm sure that Head Up Ass U is a fine school but I didnt know they had a law program. I would be interested in hearing exactly what law was broken by this fellow who put up the post? Telling him that his explanation "doesn't legally wash" is pretty informative.
The tape isn't public domain, and by "re-distributing" it, you make yourself culpable....

The kiddie porn guys don't go to court and argue, "hey I was just holding the stuff on my computer, I didn't produce it...."

Bahahahahaha....Kiddie porn?!? You've got to be fucking kidding. I dont know what you told the judge when you were in court on your kiddie porn charge but you are simply wrong if you think that a broadcast in the clear on a public frequency has some sort of special legal status that does not allow it to be replayed. Possessing kiddie porn is illegal; possessing the recording of a pilot-ATC exchange is not. Any nard sitting by Wendy's with a receiver can pick this shit up; and do you think that the producers of all of those stupid 'on the flightdeck' videos go to each controller spoken to by the crew with release forms? Give me a break Chairman Mao.

Clothesliner · Post by **Clothesliner** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:44 am

DLB wrote:...if you think that a broadcast in the clear on a public frequency has some sort of special legal status that does not allow it to be replayed. Possessing kiddie porn is illegal; possessing the recording of a pilot-ATC exchange is not.

Thinking way back to getting my radio license, I seem to remember that to divulge the content of a two-way radio conversation by other than the parties involved is illegal, and punishable by fines. I imagine it would be illegal to divulge this information regardless of whether or not you hold a radio operator's license. (Possessing or overhearing transmissions by themselves can't be illegal, I'd imagine.)

Cap'n P8 · Post by **Cap'n P8** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:24 am

Finally had a chance to listen to the clip. As far as I can tell the AC guy wasn't trying to tell the controller that he "wasn't seeing the whole picture", rather he was saying to the controller that "I don't see the whole picture but..." Whether that's what the controller got I don't know however.

In any case I think the AC guy got way to worked up about it. ATC has way too much to worry about then soliciting suggestions from people who definitely don't have the whole picture. They are doing an intense job in an extremely intense environment and don't need any distractions.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:03 am

OK. I haven't listened to the tape. I will admit ATC is very busy. I wouldn't want their job myself. BUT. How many times have we said that we don't get our money's worth out of Nav Can? How many times do we sit there flying along scratching our heads in wonder at how the YYZ terminal airspace is so innefficient? In the States, controllers seem to have the knowledge that running an airline costs money. That time is money. Any of you that have flown in ORD or LGA know what I'm talking about. It is not Nav Can's responsibility to ensure the airlines make money, but it is their responsibility to provide safe, EFFICIENT services. The latter part I think they don't give a shit about, after all, Nav Can is a "non profit" orginization so what do they know about running an airline. Pilots have egoes. They also know a thing or two about efficiency and money. Perhaps controllers in Canada should start thinking the same way.

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:49 am

I think ATL lets you depart as soon as the aircraft ahead had rotated as long as you have him in sight. That's efficiency!

Cap'n P8 · Post by **Cap'n P8** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:30 pm

Question is, do you think he wanted the tapes pulled/name and number because he was concerned about the companies bottom line?...or do you think he was getting all uppity because he was put in his place on frequency and was trying to recover some cred?

On air in busy airspace is not the place for a pissing match. 460's job is flying the plane, leave the controlling to the guy with the radar screen.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:35 pm

For the company's bottom line? Probably. Maybe not. Who knows? This guy was obviously pissed off and wasn't about to let the other guy get away with it.
But I can also tell you that the majority of AC pilots taxi around on one engine to save money. We also get very upset when there is no gate open or ramp crew because we are waisting fuel. All that for the bottom line. So when we are going nowhere fast, especially on a Rapidair, it's also very frustating. I'm sure this is the same at other companies.
Getting slowed down in YYZ seems to be a controllers answer to everything. In ORD, they want you do 250 kts as soon as you can after t/o. They will also have you do 250 as long as you can on approach. Try doing that in YYZ.
Somehow it appears this thread was started as an attempt to bash big red again. I think it was started by a Westjetter. I stood up for a WJ crew on this forum after their " little incident" in YHZ with a wingtip strike. I'll have to think twice in the future before doing that again.

Cap'n P8 · Post by **Cap'n P8** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:33 pm

I should start off by saying I'm non-partisan, I don't work for either company and it's been a long time since I've flown anywhere near Toronto.

And I wasn't trying to insinuate that air canada drivers don't go out of their way to make the company as successful as possible.

I just think that the controller had every right to say enough, let me do my job.

Jeremy Kent · Post by **Jeremy Kent** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:47 pm

Whether or not that is true, the controller's delivery was poor. "OK that's enough" is not--I'm guessing--standard phraseology and pretty rude in any context. IMHO.

WJ700 · Post by **WJ700** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:47 pm

tonysoprano wrote: Somehow it appears this thread was started as an attempt to bash big red again. I think it was started by a Westjetter. I stood up for a WJ crew on this forum after their " little incident" in YHZ with a wingtip strike. I'll have to think twice in the future before doing that again.

I think it was completely blown out of proportion by one or two that read it the wrong way. I would have posted had it been WestJet or United Airlines too. It's not meant to bash either Navcan or Air Canada so take it which ever way you want... for me, we've all heard a nasty exchange live, this one just happens to be on an ATC website.

The thread on The Airline Website was post by an AC fellow and it didn't go this direction at all... I suspect maturity had a big thing to do with it here.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:05 pm

WJ700.
I would also think we are all mature enough and wise enough to know before we even start a thread where it's going to go. I suspect you knew exactly where this was going to go. Just have a look at who's against the captain on this issue. Most of them are WJ guys. Oh no, this wasn't predictable at all.

WJ700 · Post by **WJ700** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:51 pm

tonysoprano wrote:WJ700.
I would also think we are all mature enough and wise enough to know before we even start a thread where it's going to go. I suspect you knew exactly where this was going to go. Just have a look at who's against the captain on this issue. Most of them are WJ guys. Oh no, this wasn't predictable at all.

I disagree. The thread had already run two pages on another forum without any issues. So, I assumed there may be some similar thoughts from different posters. Honestly, I'd assumed I would have heard people saying "I'd heard a good one before..." ect. Not it coming down to legal advice. However, the Troll content on Avcanada is much higher than most forums. Can you do a search of my 240 odd posts and find where I've been bashing AC? I've tried and I can't find anything.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:13 pm

Well, I don't think the legal advise on this forum means much anyway. But have a look at the views that your fellow WJ'ers have on this incident. Again, I'm not surprized. I guess that's really the only point I was trying to make. Oh and thanks for doing that search for me, you saved me a great deal of time.

WJ700 · Post by **WJ700** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:10 pm

tonysoprano wrote:But have a look at the views that your fellow WJ'ers have on this incident.

I assume it's the same attraction as a carwreck... this thread is so stupid, one just has to look.

Four1oh · Post by **Four1oh** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:00 pm

Tony, you need to untie those knotted panties for a sec. I don't care who that pilot worked for, I think he was being a dick. It just so happens he's an AC guy. So what? We all know there's 'dicks' in every department in every company. I'll be the first to admit that WJ isn't exempt either.
cheers.

tellyourkidstogetarealjob · Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:27 pm

Controller needs to learn how to defuse situations. Just give him your number. If you know you're right, don't worry about it.

AC pilot needs, 1) to have his radio license revoked, 2) to have his head professionally deinflated. How he managed to get it throught the hangar doors that morning is beyond me.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Mon May 01, 2006 5:04 am

AAAGGGHHH!!!

55+ · Post by **55+** » Mon May 01, 2006 6:59 am

Contrary to what has been stated by many on this particular item, there is an investigative process to have communication transcripts released. Unless there has been an accident/incident that requires investigation, Air Canada, WestJet et al will not get access period even if some departure controller/pilot had an exchange over the frequency.

Johnny767 · Post by **Johnny767** » Mon May 01, 2006 9:17 am

In the 'new age' there are nooooo secrets, 3000+ Pilots (can if they choose) know who this Captain is.

My take is, he made a complete idiot of himself. As if the Controller is going to broadcast his 'Name & Number' over the air.

Just as ATC can find out who the Captain is, after the fact, we can have the Controller identified.

Lets all take a lesson here and remember that you are always being watched and listened to.

motherfokker · Post by **motherfokker** » Mon May 01, 2006 11:08 am

too wierd.... well I guess he'll just have to go home and kick the cat to rid of all that built up anger of making only six figures a year.

pumpi134 · Post by **pumpi134** » Mon May 01, 2006 1:14 pm

I have been a lurker here for a while but this topic has finally got me to post. First I'm not either a WJ or AC supporter. I do not work for either and I really think this has nothing to do with it.

The pilot can make a request, the controller can approve it or not approve it. After the initial explaination to the pilot that "you are both going to the same place" The pilot sould have kept his mouth shut. The pilot has no right to to keep going on and on and keep asking the same question, there are other planes that need attention.

As was mentioned in another forum, if the controller had used the word "unable...." instead of "enough....." that probably would have been a wiser choice but I dont fault him for that. The pilot is acting like a 4 year old throwing a tantrum just because he did not get what he requested, with the safety of others at risk.

wooden spoon · Post by **wooden spoon** » Mon May 01, 2006 8:09 pm

i agree pumpi.if i was climbing out of toronto and having to level off for
this or waiting for a turn to final onto say 23 heading for 24r.
i cant say id be to impressed.it could have kept for later for sure.numbers in the book.somebody may have had to disconnect the AP and hand fly.
gees

170 to xray · Post by **170 to xray** » Wed May 03, 2006 8:24 am

Unfortunately you don't hear the cvr. It goes like this.

Cpt: Did he tell us to slow down?

FO: Yep, 220 knots.

Cpt: You did check on as Air Canada, right?

FO: Yes sir, I sure did.

Cpt: Get his name and number. Better yet have him pull the tapes! No one tells Air Canada to slow down. NO ONE!! (insert diabolical laughter)

C-FABH · Post by **C-FABH** » Wed May 03, 2006 9:03 am

Jaques Strappe wrote:Remember ROG? The guy could move airplanes and do it well which is why he didn't fit in with YYZ.

He was the best thing that ever happened to YYZ...