BA versus YYZ controllers

[Donald]

Interesting little interaction, shared by VAS:

https://youtu.be/ggIGCBnH7hc?si=XaraxsOZ78hJryiB

[philaviate]

Continue

[Hangry]

Just another example of the worst lowest rent controllers on earth. Totally unprofessional. Ignoring requests for the freq is just plain juvenile. Switched early? Big deal. People make mistakes. Reducing safety margins to prove a point?

Pathetic.

[CpnCrunch]

Sure, ATC was an ass, but I don't understand why the BA pilot was even asking the question if they had already been given the approach. Maybe approach had told them they were getting that approach but hadn't cleared them for it? Shouldn't they have just said the approach they were on in the initial call?

The whole thing just seems a waste of everyone's time.

[digits_]

Sure, ATC was an ass, but I don't understand why the BA pilot was even asking the question if they had already been given the approach. Maybe approach had told them they were getting that approach but hadn't cleared them for it? Shouldn't they have just said the approach they were on in the initial call?

The whole thing just seems a waste of everyone's time.

You've never wondered if you were cleared for an approach or cleared to land after receiving said clearance only a few minutes earlier?

The crew absolutely did the right thing by attempting to confirm if they were cleared for the approach. Assuming that the recording was complete and accurate, the controller's behavior was just bizarre.

[mantogasrsrwy]

Its seems like we entered the conversation at little late. SpeedBird reads back "cleared ILS" right at the beginning suggesting they were cleared the approach. But we don't actually hear the clearance. Was the beginning of the conversation cut off to stir controversy? I would take 170 to Savos and contact the tower there as an approach clearance. But I'm not a SpeedBird pilot who only lands there occasionally.

[Dry Guy]

Controller is power tripping. Just read back "Speedbird xxx continue" and continue.

[Pratt X 3]

It's an example of controller burnout, and unfortunately, it is happening more and more now. You can hear it in the voices of many controllers all across Canada. They are tired and their fuses are short. Put aside the politics and opinions on how it's gotten to this point; we, as professionals, need to have a bit of patience and understanding, even if it seems like we aren't receiving the same coming from the other end of the radio.
Could the tower controller have handled it better? Sure, but Speedbird also needed to do better. More concerned with making his established radio call than paying attention to the approach clearance and when/where to call the tower. And how did the arrival frequency just disappear from their avionics (should have been in the standby unless they preselected ground after switching to the tower freq; another distraction)? But to tie up the ground frequency (which probably was also clearance) while trying to prove a point was, by far, the worst display of professionalism seen recently. Ask for a number and debate with whoever is unfortunate enough to pick up the phone. Send in a pilot/safety report to your company. Have a bit more situational awareness when away from home base on how things are being done and try to fit in better. But please don't tie up the airwaves with all that nonsense. Please!

[digits_]

Ask for a number and debate with whoever is unfortunate enough to pick up the phone.

They did, and if the controller actually gave the tower number, that conversation would have significantly shorter. It was again the controller that derailed that conversation and tried to avoid their responsibility in the matter by attempting to dump it on approach. Everybody in that conversation knew that the approach controller was *not* the issue.

[digits_]

On an unrelated note, is there a controller who can explain if it's normal that tower doesn't know if a plane has been cleared for an approach or not?

If tower doesn't know, then what's the point of having an approach clearance at all?

[CpnCrunch]

You've never wondered if you were cleared for an approach or cleared to land after receiving said clearance only a few minutes earlier?

The crew absolutely did the right thing by attempting to confirm if they were cleared for the approach. Assuming that the recording was complete and accurate, the controller's behavior was just bizarre.

Yes, for landing clearance. I wouldn't really consider approach clearance a big deal if I'm not 100% sure the approach person has cleared me for it (assuming it was expected and at least discussed with approach controlled as being expected). If I tell the tower controller on initial contact I'm on x approach, I assume they will tell me if I'm not.

I can understand the pilot wanting to be 100% perfect, but it's not a safety issue.

[Dias]

Approach clearance is a big deal for British pilots because over there it's normal to be cleared to intercept the localizer first before you are cleared to descend on the glide path.

For some reason these controllers are believing they are literally in control of our aircraft and are forgetting they are actually traffic controllers.

The most cringey part of the entire incident though is that idiot pilot that interjects himself in the conversation at the end for some reason.

[alkaseltzer]

It's an example of controller burnout, and unfortunately, it is happening more and more now. You can hear it in the voices of many controllers all across Canada. They are tired and their fuses are short. Put aside the politics and opinions on how it's gotten to this point; we, as professionals, need to have a bit of patience and understanding, even if it seems like we aren't receiving the same coming from the other end of the radio.
Could the tower controller have handled it better? Sure, but Speedbird also needed to do better. More concerned with making his established radio call than paying attention to the approach clearance and when/where to call the tower. And how did the arrival frequency just disappear from their avionics (should have been in the standby unless they preselected ground after switching to the tower freq; another distraction)? But to tie up the ground frequency (which probably was also clearance) while trying to prove a point was, by far, the worst display of professionalism seen recently. Ask for a number and debate with whoever is unfortunate enough to pick up the phone. Send in a pilot/safety report to your company. Have a bit more situational awareness when away from home base on how things are being done and try to fit in better. But please don't tie up the airwaves with all that nonsense. Please!

Was this the same controller working the ground frequency about that had a 220 overfly a business jet as it was crossing runway 23? Was this a form of PTSD?

[Pratt X 3]

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize I had stumbled into the We Hate ATC support group. Can you show me where the bad ATC touched you on this pilot doll?

[Big Pistons Forever]

My 02 cents

1) If you are not sure of your clearance ask, but when you ask make sure your are clear in what you want to clarified. This started to go off the rails right at the beginning because it was not obvious to me at least what the BA pilot wanted.

2) Don't ask for flying lessons on ground. If you think you were miss handled by ATC absolutely follow up with the UOS or ACC Supe after shutdown on the phone

[DHC-1 Jockey]

On an unrelated note, is there a controller who can explain if it's normal that tower doesn't know if a plane has been cleared for an approach or not?

If tower doesn't know, then what's the point of having an approach clearance at all?

I'm a controller who has worked at two different smaller towers, so I have no idea how it works at Pearson. At smaller towers, we would know what type of approach the aircraft is on a number of ways:

1) Verbal coordination with the controlling IFR agency (more often used if the aircraft is doing a visual, an approach that isn't the advertised IFR approach, or something non-standard such as the advertised IFR approach but circling to another runway). Each unit has rules regarding when and what needs to be coordinated

2) The approach is indicated on the electronic strip. This would be the IFR controller inputting that information (Ex. ILS 33) on the strip which the tower controller sees. This would be the standard coordination if the aircraft is doing the advertised IFR approach to the advertised into-wind runway

3) Listening to the IFR frequency on our secondary radio. This is unofficial but I use it for planning purposes so I can try and hear what approach the pilot is requesting before it can either be officially verbally coordinated or input on the strip. I usually do this on busy VFR days so I can hear the pilot call the field in sight for the visual and start adjusting my traffic before the IFR controller has even had a chance to request the visual

All that being said, the above information only tells the tower controller what type of approach the pilot is intending. Unless you happen to be listening to the IFR frequency and actually hear the pilot be cleared for the approach and acknowledge that approach clearance, I just assume that the pilot has been cleared the approach once they've checked on with me. Perhaps at other towers, there's some sort of extra indication on the strip when the pilot has actually been cleared for the approach.

[digits_]

On an unrelated note, is there a controller who can explain if it's normal that tower doesn't know if a plane has been cleared for an approach or not?

If tower doesn't know, then what's the point of having an approach clearance at all?

I'm a controller who has worked at two different smaller towers, so I have no idea how it works at Pearson. At smaller towers, we would know what type of approach the aircraft is on a number of ways:

1) Verbal coordination with the controlling IFR agency (more often used if the aircraft is doing a visual, an approach that isn't the advertised IFR approach, or something non-standard such as the advertised IFR approach but circling to another runway). Each unit has rules regarding when and what needs to be coordinated

2) The approach is indicated on the electronic strip. This would be the IFR controller inputting that information (Ex. ILS 33) on the strip which the tower controller sees. This would be the standard coordination if the aircraft is doing the advertised IFR approach to the advertised into-wind runway

3) Listening to the IFR frequency on our secondary radio. This is unofficial but I use it for planning purposes so I can try and hear what approach the pilot is requesting before it can either be officially verbally coordinated or input on the strip. I usually do this on busy VFR days so I can hear the pilot call the field in sight for the visual and start adjusting my traffic before the IFR controller has even had a chance to request the visual

All that being said, the above information only tells the tower controller what type of approach the pilot is intending. Unless you happen to be listening to the IFR frequency and actually hear the pilot be cleared for the approach and acknowledge that approach clearance, I just assume that the pilot has been cleared the approach once they've checked on with me. Perhaps at other towers, there's some sort of extra indication on the strip when the pilot has actually been cleared for the approach.

Thank you very much!. For you as a tower controller, does it matter if a pilot is cleared for an approach? In a case like this, would you be allowed to clear a pilot for an approach or change their approach?

[Commonwealth]

Controllers are burned out? The system is not just failing controllers; everyone is burned out.

If someone cannot use an IFR frequency for its intended use then BOOK OFF.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

On an unrelated note, is there a controller who can explain if it's normal that tower doesn't know if a plane has been cleared for an approach or not?

If tower doesn't know, then what's the point of having an approach clearance at all?

I'm a controller who has worked at two different smaller towers, so I have no idea how it works at Pearson. At smaller towers, we would know what type of approach the aircraft is on a number of ways:

1) Verbal coordination with the controlling IFR agency (more often used if the aircraft is doing a visual, an approach that isn't the advertised IFR approach, or something non-standard such as the advertised IFR approach but circling to another runway). Each unit has rules regarding when and what needs to be coordinated

2) The approach is indicated on the electronic strip. This would be the IFR controller inputting that information (Ex. ILS 33) on the strip which the tower controller sees. This would be the standard coordination if the aircraft is doing the advertised IFR approach to the advertised into-wind runway

3) Listening to the IFR frequency on our secondary radio. This is unofficial but I use it for planning purposes so I can try and hear what approach the pilot is requesting before it can either be officially verbally coordinated or input on the strip. I usually do this on busy VFR days so I can hear the pilot call the field in sight for the visual and start adjusting my traffic before the IFR controller has even had a chance to request the visual

All that being said, the above information only tells the tower controller what type of approach the pilot is intending. Unless you happen to be listening to the IFR frequency and actually hear the pilot be cleared for the approach and acknowledge that approach clearance, I just assume that the pilot has been cleared the approach once they've checked on with me. Perhaps at other towers, there's some sort of extra indication on the strip when the pilot has actually been cleared for the approach.

Thank you very much!. For you as a tower controller, does it matter if a pilot is cleared for an approach? In a case like this, would you be allowed to clear a pilot for an approach or change their approach?

It doesn't matter to me if a pilot has been cleared for an approach. As I said, if the pilot has been switched over to me after verbal/electronic coordination has been affected with the IFR unit, I assume the pilot has been cleared the approach. If the situation that happened with the BA pilot happened to me, I'd simply use the hotline to confirm with the IFR controller that the pilot has been cleared the approach. I'd then then tell the pilot that "Affirmative, you were cleared for the ILS RWY 33." No fuss, no muss. I definitely wouldn't send the pilot back to the IFR controller when the aircraft is already established on final.

I've had a one-off where the pilot doing an RNAV approach lost RAIM or something else, and instead requested to do the ILS (same runway). I told the pilot to standby, and then informed the IFR controller what happened and that the pilot is now requesting the ILS instead. Instead of wanting the aircraft to switch back to him, the IFR controller gave me the approach clearance to relay to the pilot. The whole process took maybe 15 seconds from when the pilot first advised of the RNAV issues to when I issued the new approach clearance, and the pilot never even needed to deviate from their flight path.

Same if a pilot wants to change from an instrument approach to a visual or cancel IFR. I inform the IFR controller who then tells me that the aircraft is cleared for the visual, which I then relay to the pilot. If the pilot cancels IFR, I tell the IFR controller who acknowledges it and presumably gets rid of the strip on their end. It's really no big deal.

[digits_]

It doesn't matter to me if a pilot has been cleared for an approach. As I said, if the pilot has been switched over to me after verbal/electronic coordination has been affected with the IFR unit, I assume the pilot has been cleared the approach. If the situation that happened with the BA pilot happened to me, I'd simply use the hotline to confirm with the IFR controller that the pilot has been cleared the approach. I'd then then tell the pilot that "Affirmative, you were cleared for the ILS RWY 33." No fuss, no muss. I definitely wouldn't send the pilot back to the IFR controller when the aircraft is already established on final.

I've had a one-off where the pilot doing an RNAV approach lost RAIM or something else, and instead requested to do the ILS (same runway). I told the pilot to standby, and then informed the IFR controller what happened and that the pilot is now requesting the ILS instead. Instead of wanting the aircraft to switch back to him, the IFR controller gave me the approach clearance to relay to the pilot. The whole process took maybe 15 seconds from when the pilot first advised of the RNAV issues to when I issued the new approach clearance, and the pilot never even needed to deviate from their flight path.

Same if a pilot wants to change from an instrument approach to a visual or cancel IFR. I inform the IFR controller who then tells me that the aircraft is cleared for the visual, which I then relay to the pilot. If the pilot cancels IFR, I tell the IFR controller who acknowledges it and presumably gets rid of the strip on their end. It's really no big deal.

I love the information from the other side of the radio!

In the examples you mentioned above, why would the IFR controller care if a pilot switched from ILS to RNAV or the other way around inside 'your' tower airspace? Is that purely because of the missed approach procedure, to keep that airspace protected?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

In the examples you mentioned above, why would the IFR controller care if a pilot switched from ILS to RNAV or the other way around inside 'your' tower airspace? Is that purely because of the missed approach procedure, to keep that airspace protected?

The IFR controller would care for the reasons you mentioned such as different missed approaches and different minima if the weather is near minimums which could lead to a higher chance of a missed. If RAIM is lost or there's some other RNAV capability lost, that might be information the controller will pass on to any following aircraft who may then choose to do the ILS over the RNAV.

As well, even though the aircraft might be in "my" tower airspace, the ownership of the aircraft still belongs to the IFR controller, and the controller would want to know what approach the aircraft has changed to while still under their control. In practical terms, that means there's little I can do with that aircraft. Technically, I even need to have permission from the IFR controller to tell an IFR aircraft to keep their speed up or to slow to minimums. The reason being is that if there are back-to-back IFR's and I slow the first without the IFR controller's permission or knowledge, I could cause a separation loss due to the second aircraft catching up to the first. Or maybe the controller has another aircraft departing from an uncontrolled airport near my tower, and by me changing their speed, it causes a separation loss with that aircraft that I didn't even know existed until they pop up on RADAR.

At small towers, there are several criteria that need to be met before I can take control/ownership of an IFR arrival. At some towers, this can happen automatically at the edge of the control zone. At other towers, this needs to be verbally coordinated each time. I believe at the 4 major towers, they have agreements with their IFR arrival units to give extra permissions for the tower controller to do things without the need for coordination.

Always glad to answer any questions if I can. I used to fly 705 and a lot of these reasons which didn't make sense to me as a pilot only became apparent after I switched to the other side of the microphone! I'd also encourage people to try and get a tour of their local FSS/Tower/FIC or ACC unit. It's always good to put faces to voices, and it gives a chance for pilot and controllers alike to ask questions and get an overall better sense of each other's job and what it entails.

[tsgarp]

I didn’t hear the approach controller send BA over to tower. If they switched early that would explain tower sending him back to approach.

[Dias]

It's always good to put faces to voices

a9m9up.jpg (32.33 KiB) Viewed 1026 times

[digits_]

It's always good to put faces to voices

a9m9up.jpg

[lostaviator]

Both sides of the radio to calm down and recognize we are all just trying to work in the same system that is constantly trying to get us to do more with less.

Controllers - Stop getting moody when a pilot misses your call. We have "other lines" too.

Pilots - Stop flipping frequencies and talking before listening.

Both - it is better to ask than assume. Don't get pissy when the other side asks to confirm something.

Controllers - if a pilot screws up, tell them. The FAA does this right. I'd much rather get a number then find out 6 months later through a CADOR that I upset you.

Pilots - stop using your TCAS to guess what a controller is going to tell you to do (slowing on final going into YYZ for example)

Porter - stop doing everything at half the speed as of everyone else.

I have been saying for a while that there would be tremendous value in controllers and pilots sitting in the other chair for a few hours every few years. NavCan controllers should be on the flight deck jump seat eligibility list, and pilots should go sit with a controller once in a while.

CRM.... Back when CRM wasn't an HR exercise, we often had controllers come in to speak. There was so much value in that, and we need to start doing it again. CRM facilitators love to talk about that bullet proof door separating crew members, it is time we start addressing the radio barrier. There are way too many radio melt downs happening between two hard-working, good people just having a bad day / misunderstanding each other.