Sudbury to shut down tower and become FSS...WTF

[bigfssguy]

In Canada we do this back door little sneaky slide to FSS+ and I think it's total BS. Nothing pisses me off more than people pretending to be something they are not.
- "I have ways of making suggestions that effectively "control" some pilots..."
- "I technically can't say "radar identified" but there are ways around that..."

I work at an FSS and have a radar feed. We're required by our ops manual to radar identify aircraft. We're also forbidden by management from saying "radar identified".
FS Manops also instructs FSS to suggest actions to pilots if appropriate. If you have a problem with this, take it up with standards and procedures, it's not my problem that I'm doing my job as directed.

Big difference between "suggest actions if appropriate" and "I have ways of making suggestions that effectively "control" some pilots..."

You may think you are protected from liability while controlling a/c under the guise of "suggesting" but I would bet money that any aviation lawyer would have your ass not to mention your job if something goes wrong. And rest assured that the company would hang you out to dry. And we haven't even touched on the FSS that actually CLEAR a/c to land and take off!

If you want to control airplanes, learn to do it properly, get a license and positively control them with your license on the line. Otherwise stick to the advisory as you're supposed to.

And one last thing: regarding you identifying a/c as per your MANOPS, you are also required (As per a ruling from TC) to tell a/c that you are providing an advisory service only (not only when you have reason to believe they don't know this). Ask the pilots how many times they hear this. I'd wager that it is few and far between.
Rant over, Fire away.

I'm just curious keven, when in your personal experience have you seen an FSS actually do this? Next question you appear to be a VF controller, while you were either flying or sitting in the tower and this happened why didn;t you report it. I'm not going to say FSS trying to control at times doesn't happen but i would think from what i have seen that it would be very few and far between. I mean we've all seen FSS pasted as wanna be controllers for as long as i have been on this board but i have yet in my 6 years as an FSS ever seen an FSS giving control instructions or clearing planes to take of or land?

I use from time to time request planes do something (eg "request you make a right turn on departure to make room for the inbound flight", "request you stay above 1500ft til on final there is a helicopter flying below you" etc etc) I have even requested altitudes from aircraft but i only use thoseat busier sites so that if they agree (which they normally did) that i wouldn;t have to go back and forth with them getting postions and altitude til they saw each otehr or were past each other and i could worry about other conflicts i had going on.

To any pilots or controllers that have first hand information or have had FSS ever try to control them in any way please REPORT IT to the NC customer service line. This is an incredibly stupid thing to do on the part of the FSS and that person should and will get pasted to the wall for doing it. We FSS are not controllers and have no aspirations of becoming one, we are professionals that have a job to do with scope and bounds and we 99.999% of the time complete our jobs within that scope.

For the people who have said nice things about FSS thank you we appreciate nice words and an "attaboy" as much as anyone else. To those that think otherwise, instead of complaining of "wannabe controllers" or "FSS+" please report it right away. I would be quite happy to explain to a board of inquiry my actions that i know are well within the scope of my job. Instead of complaining about us on this board step up and report it and then some real results will be seen. If your not doing this then your just trolling and if thats your modus operandi then have at er, its kinda fun for me to read them!

[pokaroo]

KEV,

Who gives a F??

They have a job to do, and so do you. Do you follow every single rule to the letter every single day? We are all professionals and would never compromise the safety of an aircraft but I think we've all bent the rules a little once or twice or developed a "work around" or forgotten something or etc etc.

I work with 2 on site FSS and a FIC everyday and for the most part they do a great job. I also work with a tower and 15 other IFR sectors on a daily basis and for the most part they also do a great job. Notice "for the most part" in both cases.

I don't give a rat's ass about the last guys phraseology to the aircraft or his interpretation of the rules unless it affects me or the safety of an aircraft.

Wasn't this thread about shutting down a tower??

[kevenv]

KEV,

Who gives a F??

I'm going to say that seeing as how you took the time to reply to my post, you give a F. Otherwise why bother?

[kevenv]

Before we get carried away let me clarify:

I am not inferring that all, most or a majority of FSS fall into the category I ranted about. The post was in response to the small minority who insist on operating outside the rules. My apologies to any who were offended and felt I was tarring them as well. Good to see that ATC can rally to the FSS cause as well Pokaroo. Well done.

[pokaroo]

Yeah I give a F, we should all be in this together.

I'm gonna hope you were just in a bad mood and decided to take out a little frustration on here rather than somewhere else.

I think we've all been guilty of that a time or two.

Lighten up though.... you may need somebody to bail you out one day and it may be a FSS or a centre guy or a pilot or someguy plowing a runway.... we all do a job and we all have the same goals.......

Have a good one!

[bigfssguy]

Yeah I give a F, we should all be in this together.

I'm gonna hope you were just in a bad mood and decided to take out a little frustration on here rather than somewhere else.

I think we've all been guilty of that a time or two.

Lighten up though.... you may need somebody to bail you out one day and it may be a FSS or a centre guy or a pilot or someguy plowing a runway.... we all do a job and we all have the same goals.......

Have a good one!

Here here, not a big deal though. If FSS weren't getting geeked on by someone we would start to feel edgey. Occupational hazard i guess!

[justplanecrazy]

Well this has been a big derailing. Well we're on it though, why do FSS make suggestions at all? Your jobs used to be an advisory service not a suggested but not responsible control service. This appears to be a symptom of FSS being forced to work more and more traffic and has become accepted as common practice. I think a suggestion is simply an ass covering control instruction for someone that hasn't been trained how to control but is requesting control. If you suggest for a plane to do something you better be damn well sure that it's going to work. The first thing a VFR trainee has to learn is that they're in control, don't let the pilots run your airport, or you'll end up over your head in a big hurry. I don't see how that doesn't apply in the FSS suggested control world. As a controller I can tell a pilot to do something and then the situation changes and it won't work anymore and I have to bark out instructions to several people in order to recover. What do FSS do if they suggest something and then the picture changes?? If you're going to tell me to do something then take the training to prove that you know how to keep everyone separated then tell me to do it, don't suggest it, or in in other words, make the FSS a control tower.

Take this for example:

I use from time to time request planes do something (eg "request you make a right turn on departure to make room for the inbound flight", "request you stay above 1500ft til on final there is a helicopter flying below you" etc etc) I have even requested altitudes from aircraft but i only use thoseat busier sites so that if they agree (which they normally did) that i wouldn;t have to go back and forth with them getting postions and altitude til they saw each otehr or were past each other and i could worry about other conflicts i had going on.

If I ever suggest for an aircraft to stay at a certain altitude rather than pass traffic until they have each other visual and the aircraft descends, I'm in crap. You're relying on an aircraft to follow your suggestion, when nothing says he has to. So he descends and now the completely oblivious heli pilot gets smacked without any warning. If its that busy that pilots can't safely keep themselves seperated with traffic advisories only, then it shouldn't be an advisory service. It should be a control service with you telling them what to do and them being required by law to do it. I don't mean this as an ego thing but I do believe that at some point this is going to go to court and someone is going to fry. Our advisory service has changed due to the busier and busier stations that you guys are stuck working. Instead of upgrading to a tower, FSS has been forced to provide a quasi suggestive but not responsible or positive control, just to keep their heads above water. I'm not saying you're doing your jobs wrong I'm just saying FSS has evolved beyond its limits and is now a liability at places like Ft. Mac. I think its only a matter of time until this blows up in the companies face.

[lilfssister]

Well this has been a big derailing. Well we're on it though, why do FSS make suggestions at all?

Because our MANOPS tells us to.

If you have a close call the first thing asked is "was the FSS proactive in trying to avoid the situation that developed?"

[lilfssister]

If its that busy that pilots can't safely keep themselves seperated with traffic advisories only, then it shouldn't be an advisory service.

You only need two planes to have two planes in the same place. It doesn't have to be busy.

[justplanecrazy]

But you're not responsible for seperating planes. At least you weren't when FSS was initially created. You've evolved into this suggestive but not responsible quasi control that's now even being interpreted into your manuals. I mean where do you stop? Take the most basic conflict, for example a cessna downwind with a 737 on final. I know from experience that if the 737 is inside of 10nm's he's going to have to keep it in tight and have a tight base by the time that 737 is 6miles final, to make it in front or else he'll have to extend. (average speeds) It's virtually impossible for a pilot in the downwind to tell if he can squeeze in front of a plane doing 3 times the speed and 10 miles out but you've watched the same situation a thousand times and know it'll be tight, so do you suggest for him to follow in order to avoid a situation that developed?

Take that simple fix and add some more traffic. You have two cessnas doing circuits and you suggest the first one to extend his downwind to follow a much faster 737 on final. So he does. Meanwhile a cessna departs with a right turn to the opposite downwind opposite to the other cessna in the circuit who's right in front of him. Now the cessna that extended his downwind turns base behind the 737 at 6 miles final with another 737 15 miles final. So in 3 minutes he's now 3 miles final with the 737 at 6 miles final running him over so now what do you do. He can't pull up, the 737 will likely meet him at 1 mile final, he can't turn left with the other cessna in the downwind, he can't turn right with the other cessna departing the opposite downwind. Your initial very basic suggestion just boxed this poor fucker into a really bad spot.

Take the same situation in a controlled environment. You see the boxed in situation developing and you issue multiple control instructions to multiple planes in order to prevent it from ever getting to that point. You can tell him to keep it in tight and tell the 737 to slow. Or give him a 360 in the downwind before the 2nd cessna in the circuit catches up behind him, to keep him from going out too far on final and then they both follow the 2nd 737 in. Or keep the cessna departing to extend the crosswind so the cessna isn't boxed in on both sides. All very simple fixes done hundreds of times each day in a controlled environment, but what do you do in FSS, the same thing but only using suggestions? It's the pilots responsibility to seperate themselves. What if your suggestions create a situation that is worse than the initial situation? When do you say that well I don't have the training to forsee further conflicts so I'll let the pilots seperate themselves and if its too dangerous, than it's up to the company to make me a controller, give me the training and authority to control the situation for the pilots.

If it only takes two planes are you saying that you make suggestions for every conflict rather than let the pilots seperate themselves? What are they supposed to do in an MF. Should the CAR's operator start making suggestions as well? They have just as much training in control as you do. I trained an FSS to become a controller and he'd only solve conflicts as a reaction. It took him a really long time to forsee conflicts and see how an instruction or suggestion to avoid an obvious simple conflict could create a much worse situation. Eventually we got it turned around and he cursed his FSS training for causing him to start his training behind the ball. If FSS can make correct suggestions to keep traffic seperated, why do they have such a poor success rate at ATC? Every ex FSS has told me that their training was a detriment not a benefit to their ATC success and I've worked with 3 of them. Is that really a good track record for people that are suggesting control instructions to aircraft?

[lilfssister]

Well, first off, if it is not a published right hand circuit, the second Cessna better be joining left downwind?

[lilfssister]

Second, MF procedures are predicated on people knowing MF procedures and following them. It is based on the principle that pilots don't WANT to run into each other. If everyone knows where everyone else is, they should be able to make decisions that will avoid collisions. If it appears to us that there MAY be a collision due to poor decisions, then the suggestions come into play.

[lilfssister]

Third, if someone does not see the traffic they may conflict with, we will suggest they extend or 360 to avoid. Again, based on the principle that pilots do not want to hit each other, 99.9 times out of 100 they will do so.

[justplanecrazy]

you're right that's a bad example because the departing cessna should be 500' above the circuit altitude before turning right downwind. I could come up with another example of a simple conflict fix creating a much more complex and numerous conflicts but I wasted so much energy on the first one, I'll let someone else do it.

[justplanecrazy]

Third, if someone does not see the traffic they may conflict with, we will suggest they extend or 360 to avoid. Again, based on the principle that pilots do not want to hit each other, 99.9 times out of 100 they will do so.

Why the hell would you have to suggest that??? What if there's a cessna behind him and he turns his crosswind right off the deck with the other pilot doing a rate one 360, do you then suggest for the other pilot to turn back on runway heading and the other pilot to tighten up the 360 and the faster departure behind the guy that turned the early crosswind to start a partial left turn now? The point is you're not trained to control and you are, albeit through cover your ass, I'm not trained to do what I'm doing, suggestions. The moment that suggestion creates a bigger problem which results in a collision, all hell is going to break loose.

[lilfssister]

****CAVEAT**** This is not intended in any way to slur ATC either ACC or Tower

People who fly into MF airports know how it is supposed to work for the most part. People who are unfamiliar get nudged as needed. Again, based on the principle that pilots do not want to run into each other, they listen to what we say 99.9% of the time, and follow our suggestions. When one does not, their traffic, perhaps more familiar with the operation usually will.

[lilfssister]

Third, if someone does not see the traffic they may conflict with, we will suggest they extend or 360 to avoid. Again, based on the principle that pilots do not want to hit each other, 99.9 times out of 100 they will do so.

Why the hell would you have to suggest that??? What if there's a cessna behind him and he turns his crosswind right off the deck with the other pilot doing a rate one 360, do you then suggest for the other pilot to turn back on runway heading and the other pilot to tighten up the 360 and the faster departure behind the guy that turned the early crosswind to start a partial left turn now? The point is you're not trained to control and you are, albeit through cover your ass, I'm not trained to do what I'm doing, suggestions. The moment that suggestion creates a bigger problem which results in a collision, all hell is going to break loose.

Well, sorry to say it, but my only response can be, "DUH?"

Of course if there is someone behind them you don't suggest a 360. That's when you suggest an extended downwind. If you have someone departing a runway, they are going to be aware of the guy on the downwind already. Everybody on your frequency should be aware of the position of any aircraft based on their last known known position and speed/type, that they may possibly conflict with.

[justplanecrazy]

And that's your job to make the pilots aware of where their traffic is and what they're doing not to suggest for them to do something. So you suggest for him to extend and gets run over by the 2nd 737 on final. He could easily do a 360 in the downwind if the other guys just departing and flying a normal circuit. The point is when you suggest for him to do it, you are giving suggestive control and should be held liable if it causes a problem. You're not suggesting for them to follow the procedures, you're suggesting for them to solve their conflicts based on your judgement not their own judgement. You're taking the responsibility of the pilot because you feel they are incapable of seperating themselves with just knowing where their traffic is and instead providing your own suggestions... this is exactly the purpose of ATC. You're providing suggested control not a reminder of MF procedures.

[lilfssister]

And that's your job to make the pilots aware of where their traffic is and what they're doing not ...

THIS is the part of our FS MANOPS that most of you controllers do not seem to get. If I do not make a proactive effort to ensure that people see each other, and make suggestions as a next to last resort when they do not, THEN my ass is hung out to dry. It's vague..."Be proactive"... but it IS in our MANOPS. Suggested phraseologies are given, but it is still vague. Therefore anything short of saying DO THIS or DO THAT is acceptable. If a collision is imminent I have seen people get away with saying DO THIS or DO THAT. Rare, but if it prevented a collision it was acceptable.

[lilfssister]

So you suggest for him to extend and gets run over by the 2nd 737 on final.

Again, "DUH?"

We know about the second 737, he knows about the second 737. If extending will create a conflict, it won't be suggested, or he will elect to do something else if it IS suggested.

[lilfssister]

You're taking the responsibility of the pilot because you feel they are incapable of seperating themselves with just knowing where their traffic is and instead providing your own suggestions...

No we are not...we are intervening IF the pilot does not see the traffic, or does not come up with a plan to not conflict with traffic we know they will conflict with.

[lilfssister]

You've evolved into this suggestive but not responsible quasi control that's now even being interpreted into your manuals.

E X A C T L Y!

We are directed by our MANOPS to do this, so we do.

[justplanecrazy]

And that's your job to make the pilots aware of where their traffic is and what they're doing not ...

THIS is the part of our FS MANOPS that most of you controllers do not seem to get. If I do not make a proactive effort to ensure that people see each other, and make suggestions as a next to last resort when they do not, THEN my ass is hung out to dry. It's vague..."Be proactive"... but it IS in our MANOPS. Suggested phraseologies are given, but it is still vague. Therefore anything short of saying DO THIS or DO THAT is acceptable. If a collision is imminent I have seen people get away with saying DO THIS or DO THAT. Rare, but if it prevented a collision it was acceptable.

Be proactive?? That's the only thing in your Manops and it's somehow been interpreted into making suggested control instructions. Wouldn't being proactive refer to passing traffic for possible conflicts, rather than waiting until it is a conflict before passing traffic. I don't see how that can be interpreted to mean making suggestive control is required when there are so many things that say FSS shall not control aircraft. So you've said that you won't suggest for the pilot to do a 360 if someone else is in the circuit and you won't suggest for him to extend because he'll be run over by the second 737 on final, so what do you do? Suggest for him to turn final behind the second 737 at 12nm? Or is it too complex for you to suggest something so now you let the pilot decide? Is suggesting for an aircraft that doesn't see the traffic on final, to do a 360 or extend the downwind, really a last resort??? As I said before, FSS checkout rates in ATC are worse then the general publics. So how is it safe, and how are you qualified to use suggested control at an uncontrolled airport?

[sigmet77]

[FamilyGuy]

No Sigmet77, this isn't a train wreck or even a derailment of the original thread - the last few posts prove exactly the point.

Suggested actions?? THAT is precisley what I was talking about and precisely why I prefer controlled airports and completely uncontrolled airports to those served by FSS.

It's really like a 4-way yeild sign with someone "suggesting" action on the side of the road Who is in charge?

Why when I am at my busiest am I being bombarded by unqualified suggestions on what to do by someone who has no responsibility if they make a bad suggestion? If I don't follow the "suggestion" but buddy does where does that leave me...and him? "I strongly suggest you follow my suggestions even though I'm not responsible for the outcome".....

If pilots know the rules why do we need anyone on the ground confusing the issue with "suggestions"???????? Just tell me what I don't know (traffic postition) and let me do what I am responsible for.

Ultimately, either control the situation - and take responsibility for those instructions - or FACK OFF! (BTW I've had more than one Tower controller issue some really bad instructions - I swore under my breath - but I followed it and at the end of the day I'm okay with it because they are responsible!)

I'm not the least bit sorry if that offends anyone. I'm discussing concepts, not whether any particular branch or person does thier job as mandated. Although I sure would like to see what SOP's are in place that mandate some of these "must follow" procedures......