I like hearing about traffic clearing at the end...

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:03 pm

And the ones leaving the zone, nowhere near me. And the traffic about to taxi, long after I've landed. One of my favorites is hearing all about the float plane on short finial to the lake four miles south of the airport, that I'm approaching from the north. I like having the freq jammed up with this kind of crap, while I wait to ask for an altitude of conflicting traffic. I know it's not the fault of FFS people...but who's bell do we ring to stop this nonesence before somebody gets killed? Let's just keep it up until we cause a midair...then maybe we'll all get the message? Maybe not. End of rant.

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:10 pm

We're supposed to give you "pertinent" traffic. Have a problem, contact the local manager.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:16 pm

YHD, the other day...
Me...."tanker %$^, what's your altitude?"
Tanker...."We're at 3500, three miles out for 29."
Me...."Thanks, we'll follow you in." This is where this should have ended, but NO, it went on, and on, and on!
FSS..."The tanker is at 3500, three miles."
Me..."We heard him..."
FSS...."Are you planning number two?"
Me..."He's ahead of us, and yes, we're number two.."
FSS...."Do you have the tanker in sight?"
Me..."No, but he's ahead of us!"
FSS..."I need to know you have him in sight...."
Me...."We're five back, and he called THREE back, so we'll follow him..."
FSS..."Do you have the tanker in ight???"
Tanker....Tanker %^$, down and clear..."
Me...We're two finial, call you down and clear..."
DO WE REALLY NEED TO GO THROUGH THIS "SONG AND DANCE"???

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:22 pm

I say again...

If you have problems...have the manager investigate. Sounds like newbie overload to me?

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:22 pm

And that's GOOD "sister"....please do that...but make an effort to make it pertinent. And dont be so quick to assume I'm an idiot here...because beleive me, I'm trying to make safe suggestions. These freqs ARE being tied up with unnessary information overload. I am not naming names. Just giving an example on the last post.....this happens all the time. When something happens (like a midair) because of the freqs being tied up, are you going to tell me to complain to a manager?

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:24 pm

What's a "nebie"?

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:25 pm

Doc wrote:What's a "nebie"?

Please check my edit made before I saw yr reply

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:28 pm

Oh, a newbie....no, we are not newbies. And I'm not trying to "stir it up" here, it really IS that bad.

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:46 pm

Doc wrote:And that's GOOD "sister"....please do that...but make an effort to make it pertinent. And dont be so quick to assume I'm an idiot here...because beleive me, I'm trying to make safe suggestions. These freqs ARE being tied up with unnessary information overload. I am not naming names. Just giving an example on the last post.....this happens all the time. When something happens (like a midair) because of the freqs being tied up, are you going to tell me to complain to a manager?

Sweetiepie, I in no way assume Doc is a newbie..I was referring to the FSS staff.

I am ALWAYS willing to listen to pilots' suggestions for improvement (I think everyone knows that by now), but suggest a call/letter to NC management/Customer Service is the way to go, when you note it start happening, not after the fact of a near collision.

SierraPoppa · Post by **SierraPoppa** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:56 pm

Doc wrote:What's a "nebie"?

Was there really any need for that.

We could ask you what "finial" is but I'm pretty sure we all figured out you meant "final" and didn't want to make you look like an ass by pointing it out.

Especially as you did it twice in this thread.

You also spelled "nonsense" wrong in your first post but we won't bring that up either.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:22 am

Sorry about my spelling.....it was really late. And I didn't really get what "nebie" was, I didn't mean to be disrespectful (prolly spelt that wrong as well?)
And, lilfssister, I'll take your suggestion, and start writing letters...hope my spell check works! I'll just name dates and places, and hope the head guys at FSS listen to the tapes?

scrambled_legs · Post by **scrambled_legs** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:05 am

Doc why don't you make a comment to the operator over the radio or go up and talk to him/her afterwards. Writing management is like FSS writing you up for some minor between the lines rule that you didn't realise you were doing wrong.

bigfssguy · Post by **bigfssguy** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:07 am

In your scenario you mentioned i think the FSS working did the right thing. If i had a plane 2 miles behind another i would ask for visual contact. It is one way we can confirm that you know of each other and will provide visual seperation.

It is our responsibility to confirm there is NO CHANCE of collision by either ditances or altitude or by visual contact. I'm not new and i would have done the same thing too. CPL_ATC made a good point a tanker may be doing what 60 knots on approach since the tend to float up there while a king air is closer to 100 (feel free to correct me i'm only estimating). Two or three miles closes pretty quick.

He was doing nothing wrong he was just ensuring that the rules were satisfied there was no chance of banging tin. Doc you may have been comfortable with the situation but the FSS is just trying to do the job withing the rules and get everyone on the ground safely.

Also there is no need to write letters you can call NavCanada's 1-800 number and make it verbal. If you give some return contact info they will call you back with the results of there investigation. Personally, even though you don;t like it i think he did the right thing. Not to mention how hard is it to see a BIG yellow planein front of you, easier than a C310 or something.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:51 pm

Oh, he wasn't doing anything wrong....he was doing more than he needed to do.....and that's tying up freqs...and that's my whole point. But. thanks for the number...no letters (I'm way too lazy for that shit anyway) but you guys are there to "advise", and he had done his job....he does not "need" to know we "see" traffic, just make sure we "know" about it? That's what VFR is all about...WE are responsible for seperation...not FSS. If this is not true, then we should all be under radar control 24/7, and we should have towers everywhere.

Brint · Post by **Brint** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:54 pm

Good point Doc. Had you said "Nope, don't have him in sight." What can FSS do? Only "suggest you...."

bigfssguy, you said :"It is one way we can confirm that you know of each other and will provide visual seperation". What if you can't confirm?

This whole issue is a big beef with me as well.

Maybe we should start complaining and the rules will change. Unfortunately, the rules are written to protect Nav Canada's @$$ first, and then help out pilots.

scrambled_legs · Post by **scrambled_legs** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:53 pm

Doc I gotta say you're a little off on this one. If you saw how many calls are made by proffessionals with or without GPS stating that they're a certain distance from the field, only to be out by double the distance, you'd be shocked.

The FSS was right in badgering you about this. You couldn't see a tanker that told you he was 2 miles ahead??? I would expect you to be able to see him and if you don't there's a good chance he isn't where he says he is. If I was controlling and never had radar, I'd badger you too.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:56 pm

scrambled_legs wrote:Doc I gotta say you're a little off on this one. If you saw how many calls are made by proffessionals with or without GPS stating that they're a certain distance from the field, only to be out by double the distance, you'd be shocked.

Which is part of the reason why having a radar helps FSS so much. I'm not suggesting that what you're saying was the case with Doc or the tanker, but shitty position reports and estimates are uncomfortably common. I fairly regularly (at least every other shift) see position reports that are off by 50% or more as far as distance back goes, direction off by 90 degrees, and estimates off by 5 minutes on a 10 minute initial estimate, without there being a complex approach involved (someone saying they'll be overhead in 10, planning the full procedure onto 05, is different, of course). I've seen guys depart VFR for a destination northeast of here, fly northeast, and make their first position report on 126.7 as being 15 south of here. Rare, thank god, but it happens.

With radar, we can usually give a pilot his position accurately relative to another aircraft, and this whole problem goes away quickly. Without it, we have to depend on both pilots reporting their direction and distance back, accurately, from the same point. Were you using the DME? Was the tanker getting his distance using a GPS? If he was, was it relative to the VOR/DME, the center of the airport, the FAF, or the runway threshold? In YTH at least, that could easily mean 2 miles difference in where you say you are, possibly more.

Without knowing more about the traffic level at the time, and the tools available to the specialist, though, it's hard to say if they were wasting frequency time or not. There are certainly cases I've heard where specialists and pilots do waste time when they can't afford to, though. Often in ways much more useless than this. ("hey, how ya doing, see the game last night?")

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 8:33 am

_legs..."If I was controlling and never had radar, I'd badger you too." Kewl, except you are NOT controllers....FSS is to ADVISE. By badgering me, you would be tying up the freq. The advise had been given....now STFU! These FSS guys would be amazed how many places we fly WITHOUT their "advice" and never hit anything?????? Now, how DO we do this??? We do it by being allowed to "sort things out with the other pilot" without "help" from someone sitting inside a building in YWG, who "thinks" he should "control" us. Start advising....that's your job! We are under VFR...look it up....it means we maintain seperation through the use of the "mark 1" eyeball!

SierraPoppa · Post by **SierraPoppa** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:09 pm

Doc wrote:_legs..."If I was controlling and never had radar, I'd badger you too." Kewl, except you are NOT controllers....FSS is to ADVISE. By badgering me, you would be tying up the freq. The advise had been given....now STFU! These FSS guys would be amazed how many places we fly WITHOUT their "advice" and never hit anything?????? Now, how DO we do this??? We do it by being allowed to "sort things out with the other pilot" without "help" from someone sitting inside a building in YWG, who "thinks" he should "control" us. Start advising....that's your job! We are under VFR...look it up....it means we maintain seperation through the use of the "mark 1" eyeball!

Doc if it makes you feel any better I totally agree with you I'm from the old school, unfortunately I no longer control.

My personal opinion is people these days are waaaay over controlling situations and radar believe it or not makes it even worse.

My own personal opinion only certainly not that of NavCan.

I've been out to visit the guys at YBW a couple of times, way too much talk and trying to apply radar separation in the damned circuit for gods sake, look out the bloody window, that's what it's there for.

If I were still controlling I would pass you the traffic radar or no radar and the rest is up to you. If you can't find the traffic and are concerned I figure you are a big boy and you'll tell me, at that point I will do more to point out the traffic for you but if you say nothing I would have to assume you figure it's safe.

Now once you are both in sight of the tower and I figure you are too close I could be forced to do something but until then it's VFR out there.

bigfssguy · Post by **bigfssguy** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:28 pm

Sierra Poppa, i believe Doc is talking about FSS advisories in a RAAS advisories.

Radar has made a huge difference in advisories. Any aircraft within a 20 degree slice of pie with parelelling, crossing or converging paths are considered traffic for one another. Before radar we would be required to pass traffic and request position reports or if you proactive ask them to do something til they either see each other or are past one another. With radar if we have them on there then all we have to do is look and see if they are close to each other and then either continue with the conflict resolution or pass traffic once then ignore it depending on there proximity to one another.

Now Doc didn't like have to report the traffic ahead of him visual. Which is understandable, if he was comfortable with the situation then fine. But we have to satisfy our manual of operations which require the aircraft to have each other visual or there be no risk of collision. A lot of this comes down to comfort, some specialists are more comfortable than others. But in this case i think it was completely understandable since the FSS was operating vis RAAS (remote aerodrome advisory site if you didn't know).

DOc if you would have said yes i see the large flying water bannana in front of me then it would have been case closed and the FSS wouldn;'t have said another word about it. But since you argued with him saying yes you heard it in the advisory, you are the one who created the frequency congestion.

You have been flying for years i'm sure many FSS have asked for this same thing before. Was it becasue the FSS was new or was it just a bad day? Either way it is going to happen again, if you ever fly into churchill and you have traffic ahead of you i would ask for the same thing.

SierraPoppa · Post by **SierraPoppa** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 5:48 pm

bigfssguy wrote:Sierra Poppa, i believe Doc is talking about FSS advisories in a RAAS advisories.

Radar has made a huge difference in advisories. Any aircraft within a 20 degree slice of pie with parelelling, crossing or converging paths are considered traffic for one another. Before radar we would be required to pass traffic and request position reports or if you proactive ask them to do something til they either see each other or are past one another. With radar if we have them on there then all we have to do is look and see if they are close to each other and then either continue with the conflict resolution or pass traffic once then ignore it depending on there proximity to one another.

Now Doc didn't like have to report the traffic ahead of him visual. Which is understandable, if he was comfortable with the situation then fine. But we have to satisfy our manual of operations which require the aircraft to have each other visual or there be no risk of collision. A lot of this comes down to comfort, some specialists are more comfortable than others. But in this case i think it was completely understandable since the FSS was operating vis RAAS (remote aerodrome advisory site if you didn't know).

DOc if you would have said yes i see the large flying water bannana in front of me then it would have been case closed and the FSS wouldn;'t have said another word about it. But since you argued with him saying yes you heard it in the advisory, you are the one who created the frequency congestion.

You have been flying for years i'm sure many FSS have asked for this same thing before. Was it becasue the FSS was new or was it just a bad day? Either way it is going to happen again, if you ever fly into churchill and you have traffic ahead of you i would ask for the same thing.

This is not a slam against you or any other FSS or Tower person but someone somewhere has totally forgotten the theory of VFR flight.

There are no separation standards for VFR or to put it bluntly the separation standard is paint in other words don't touch.

If someone is two miles behind and doesn't see the lead aircraft big deal, if he starts to overrun the lead aircraft he will see him in plenty of time to either slow down or turn to get out of the way.

The rules may have changed for you guys and I would hazard a guess the lawyers have gotten involved and told management there are possible liability issues out there.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:57 pm

bigfssguy, I did not know the meaning of "RAAS". Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I do see the word "advisory", but dont seem to be able to find the word "control" in there anywhere? I did not "argue" with the FSS chap, I simply informed him that I knew about the said tanker.....that said, it is my job to maintain visual seperation with him...not FSS's (his job is done when he "advises" me of the traffic)...and BTW, how would an FSS guy in YWG be able to "point out traffic" to me from over 175 miles away, inside a building, without radar?? A mean feet to say the least.

scrambled_legs · Post by **scrambled_legs** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:03 pm

He won't see him if he's directly above or below.

Doc was relying on a position report from a pilot and although he couldn't see a huge freakin' Yellow Tanker which was supposedly 2 miles ahead, didn't seem to think it was a big deal?? I mean he should have seen him before the runway those birds are so easy to see. To rely on a pilots position report is like relying on a Laada. If the plane doesn't appear to be where he claims, don't just sit back and relax and wait for his two props to start chewing through the floor of your cab. I've had Airbus captains calling over the beacon at 10 miles final. After you have radar, you start to see that the percentage of traffic being where they report to be is right around 50%.

SP there may be no seperation standards other than scraping paint when you were around but it isn't that way anymore. In this scenario, you have two planes in close proximity and seeing as how they're both descent size aircraft but can't see each other, what is to say they aren't right on top of each other and won't scrape paint? Sure if the pilot is where he says he is, you'll probably see him before you run into the back of him but if you can't see him 2 miles back, I'm starting to doubt it. I wouldn't want to walk into a board and say well VFR is see and be seen, I guess they never saw each other. If he doesn't have him in sight then the FSS will probably ask for an update from the other traffic. In a few minutes he'll probably be reporting over the lights and if you're over the lights, you'd now know despite your previous convictions, that there is a problem. Doc what are you talking about, frequency congestion in an FSS???? You must be talking about Ft. Mac or else hearing voices inside your head.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:27 pm

_legs..yup. Must be voices in my head. For sure. That's it! When an MNR pilot reports two miles out, while we're just entering the zone, he has no idea whre he is. All pilots are simply idiots wandering blindly around the sky, just waiting to be "guided" by FSS. Thanks for straighting that out for me. I must wonder how I've ever managed to survive for many years, flying in and out of absolute shit-holes all over the north with no helping hand from remote FSS stations??

bigfssguy · Post by **bigfssguy** » Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:38 pm

Doc, you are correct FSS can't control, and we don;t controll. If we tried we would be up poop creek without a paddle. We'd be hung out to dry and more than likely fired. That being said we still have a responsibility to insure you guys aren;t going to tag each other.

You may not like it but especially since the FSS was in YWG it becomes even more imperitive to make sure you see each other. If the same thing happened here i could look up and either give a visual point out (traffic 10 0'clock high just intercepting final) or if there was good spacing then so be it no harm no foul. With RAAS you can only go by what the pilot tells you, which if you say nothing is not good enough.

If i was standing in front of a board of inquiry saying "well i gave him the traffic him in the advisory" i would get roasted. Not to mention my own consciencousness (sp?) of being involved with 4 deaths after you smacked into one another. If i did everything in my power to ensure your safety and something happened, fine, it would still suck but i would have a clean conscious (SP?). But if i used yours and SP's theory of well there responsibility there VFR , well i don't think i could live with it.

FSS and ATc care a lot about there job, they care about being as safe as possible for your sake and the passengers sake. I have been involved in a fatality already. In that case i did do everythign i could. Needless to say i don't want to go through another. Thats what the rules are for. Thats why we do what we do.