Don't know where it went. I guess we hit all the high points (low points) before it left?
For those who missed it, I didn't read back my whole call sign, and the controller was, IMHO very rude. No, that's not strong enough...he was an ASS. And, I made a remark to the affect, that it wouldn't happen in the States. I don't really buy the guys "bed side manor". I also think some of the read back corrections I've received, and heard others receive are a little anal. eg. I'll read back a clearance to Winnipeg, and I'll be corrected to say "the Winnipeg Airport" Like WTF do they think I'm going? Tim Horton's on Main and Portage??? Or we'll be given a "right turn and then proceed direct to the Winnipeg Airport"......Like we were going to take the scenic route via Montreal and Toronto??? Ya reap what ya sew!
The only time I've had a close call was in YXL because I was being forced by FSS to direct all my calls to them, and my conflicting traffic had to direct all his calls through FSS.....Two transmissions would have done it, but I think it took about eight....with a closing speed of four hundred knots...you do the math!......It's totally FUBAR!

Mommy!! Grampa's yelling at the computer again...make him stop!

I'll read back a clearance to Winnipeg, and I'll be corrected to say "the Winnipeg Airport" Like WTF do they think I'm going? Tim Horton's on Main and Portage???

That part made me giggle...so true. I Love ya doc.

Glad to see you came out to play. But when an aircraft files to YWG, it's only ambiguous to some moron, who might think that aircraft had intentions of landing anywhere BUT the airport?? Never landed at the NDB. I do know of a highway being the ultimate destination on a couple of occasions, but I don't think that was the original intent?
Maybe I'll be sure to mention my intent to bypass the seven-eleven on my next flight plan.

Why don't you just read the clearence back verbatim?, then you wont have an issue.

ps Not every IFR clearance ends @ an airport.

Doc, you seem to confuse what you regard as common sense with what is regulation. As CPL stated, ground based navaids may be offset from the aerodrome by quite a bit...affecting intended separation...not to mention the serviceability of a ground based navaid and the actions of a pilot in the event of a lost comm at destination.

I would say that the controller in question was frustrated with your disregard of readbacks or improper phraseology. I know I find it frustrating...bad habits at slow times make busy times extremely dangerous...why compound workload by blatently using poor phraseology?

Well, i definitely see a huge difference between the airport and the VOR and the NDB, and the name Winnipeg really doesn't tell me which one as they are all Winnipeg.

However i find controllers every bit as lax as pilots on this issue so obviously it has not caused a loss of separation yet. When it does we will do the typical hindsight thing and maybe then there will be a change.

i find controllers every bit as lax as pilots on this issue

I agree completely, I hear some awful phraseology around our parts...

Then don't make it a pissing match. Takes two to piss.

That illustrates my my point perfectly! Thank you so much for that. I really no longer GARA, and have left the building on the subject. Nobody will learn anything here.

Pilots need to keep in mind that while you guys/gals don't have RT phraseology checks perodically, controllers do.

We're required by our rules and regulations to do it a certain way, if you don't like it, file VFR I guess.

I really don't think it's hard for you to say the word "Airport". the .0001 of a second won't kill you, but the posibility of a pilot going direct CYQM instead of YQM, goes NORDO just might, I admit the odds are incredibly low, but saying "Airport" eliminates them alltogether.

...and just to add my 2 cents worth.

If (big if) something stupid was to happen, in the subsequent board when the transcript of RT is published, questions can and do get asked, and non-standard or incorrect phraseology not only looks bad, it can be included as mitigating circumstances, even if not directly related.. Like I mentioned on the Swiss mid-air thread, in a world where if something goes wrong and the good old bag of shit with a hole in it is swung to see who will get hit, a controller who requests the required readback is just doing his job.

Someone should tell the YWG twr to actually turn the ILS on when you clear an aircraft for that approach. It's ok. Changing the rwy in use twice probably confused them as much as it did us.

Something else I haven't seen noted here.

I've yet to meet a controller who enjoys having to re-issue a clearence anymore than a pilot.

As much as pilots find it a waste of time, if the controller is busy, it eats up valuable airtime and can be quite frustrating.

Another tip, if you're asked to read back a clearence, please don't try and rush through it faster to get it done, that normally leads to more readbacks.

Professionalism is all it takes, keep in mind also that controllers often are working multiple frequencies, so even though you don't hear anyone stepping in, the controller may have two or more other airplanes chatting at once during your readback, and two sectors trying to give him handoffs at the same time.

Long story short, controllers don't want to do another readback if it can be avoided.

cpl and inverted,

Good posts once the pissy factor was removed. Doc is probably a grumpy ol guy like me who usually complies but got called out on the rare case where he didn't.

Everybody lick your wounds and get ready for the next bout

Aww, can't you feel the love.........

It's very likely the controller was having a check ride (QA) at the time. We get QAs at least twice a year. A supervisor sits behind us, transmisions are recorded on CDs and placed in our file, and a report is filled out that we have to sign.

I get bad readbacks all the time from pilots, but it's a pain to correct each one. If I don't need to correct a readback (which takes time and ticks most pilots off), then I don't. If it is consequential, then I must and do correct the readback.

Also, there is lots of training going on, and a trainee will definately have to be correcting readbacks all day. Many trainees are experienced controllers training in a new complex, they're not new guys off the street. After a day of correcting pilot readbacks all day, a trainee can get quite cranky and short tempered.

My best advice, just readback the clearance verbatim. We notice every time that we don't get a verbatim readback whether we correct you or not. And if you notice somebody getting corrected, then be extra careful with your readback, because you're probably on the other side of a QA check ride. We also notice all the pilots out there who are very professional and give accurate readbacks.

And likwise, you folks practicing the dark arts shouldn't get all testy when a pilot points out an error in the clearence provided. Last two years I have received 4 IFR clearences that contained the same clearence limit that I refused to accept. Why? The clearence limit given was a navaid that was decommissioned in the early '90's. Gentleman on the other side of the mike was obviously miffed.

it'sme : Good point - we do make mistakes. I couldn't imagine getting miffed at someone if I'd cleared someone to a decomissioned navaid though, but I'm sure it happened...

Doesn't accepting the term "cleared direct Winnipeg Airport" mean your excepting a GPS clearence. Clearification of weather your on a GPS clearence or Beacon to becacon means diffrent seperation standerds if I'm not mistaken.

Not sure why you think that type of clearance automatically infers "a GPS" clearance. Lots of ways to navigate other than GPS. At the end of the day the controller really couldn't care less what you use, whether it be GPS, a ouji board, a multi-sensor FMS or goat entrails. As long as you go where you are cleared, along the track that you are cleared and within the permitted tolerances..........everybody is happy.

I heard a controller ask a pilot if his GPS was IFR certified, albeit an American controller, but, I'm pretty sure the controller could "care less" how you find your way. This was after the pilot had requested a "present position direct" to destination. To me at least, a "PPD" clearance implies a GPS direct routing, or perhaps INS, IRS (but who uses them anymore?) unless the cleared aircraft is within the range of a ground based navaid.

45 nm on each side? I did not know that. That's an awful lot of real estate!

CPL ATC

The only question I have ever been asked is "are you capable of direct xxx". Never been asked how we are going to go about doing that. It seems that equipment suffix codes don't always mean much.

As for my previous comments..................well many of your collegues have said exactly that over a beer...........we don't really care as long as you don't stray from where you should be.

There is many an operator out there that receives a clearance "direct xxx airport" that DO NOT have GPS equipment of any kind present on the aircraft. Sitting where you folks are sitting though, you have no means of knowing that. As long as he/she goes where you expect.......you are happy.

The controller wouldn't ask the question if your flight plan contained one of "GRXY" in the equipment codes.

My point is that even when flight plans don't contain one of the aformentioned codes, some of your collegues still ask if aircraft are capable direct xxx

very obvious difference in navigation precision between aircraft that are truly only /S equipped, and those that are GPS/Rnav equipped. The GPS aircraft fly razor-sharp tracks between waypoints/navaids/airports. /S aircraft wander all over the sky by comparison

True if the GPS is coupled to the AFCS. If it isn't, as is the case in many aircraft, then it is up to the flight crew to keep adjusting heading to maintain track in order for you to see your razor-sharp track. If they are paying more attention to the conversation within the cockpit or to the magazine/newspaper/book/electronic game in their hand then razor-sharp tracks go out the window even though they are GPS equipped.


The point is, what you see isn't always reality and can lead people into some assumptions that they should't make.

The most important variable, as cpl_atc said, is whether of not the aircraft is on RADAR. I have asked pilots who are /S (we call it slant-stupid) if they are able direct xxxxx. I have only asked this in a RADAR environment and that is because I don't feel like monitoring a vector for half an hour when I am busy with other tasks. If the aircraft says that they are able direct, but they have filed /S, then I presume that they have some sort of navigation (that is non-IFR GPS) but because they are on RADAR, I can monitor their progress. I know that a VFR-GPS, or INS or watch-GPS will be more accurate than my vector.

If the aircraft is off RADAR, and will be in controlled airspace, I would not (and am not permitted) to give a direct clearance unless the aircraft is /G or /R. I have had aircraft request direct routings "via GPS" in a non-radar environment, and I have to ask if the GPS is IFR certified. In most cases it isn't so I do not approve the direct routing. As cpl_atc stated, i could issue the clearance and protect for 90 miles, but that just isn't going to happen.

I'm curious "it'sme" have you heard of people being cleared direct, using non-ifr gps, in non-radar environments?