I haven't had a rant in a while...

[invertedattitude]

If a controller tells you there is turbulence at X number of levels, sometimes we might actually know what we're talking about.

At the end of an 8 hour shift, we had turbulence all night, all levels, basically from 6000' all the way to FL470, it was just a bad night to be flying on the east coast.

Anywho, a morning departure takes off, and climbing out of 250 they get the speil "Continuous light occasional moderate all flight levels"

They climb to flight planned level then ask somehow surprised "Um, centre we have turbulence here, do you have any better rides?"

Politely the reply of course is "Light to Moderate all levels until 67 West"

"Ok can we try 340?"

Gave them the descent, and to shorten the story they were surprised to find turbulence there, and did this three more times trying different levels, while every single other aircraft understands and simply rides it out.
Bottom line is this, if ATC tells you there's turbulence at certain levels, we're not guessing and if we're not sure we'll tell you, sometimes you just need to get off the radio turn the seatbelt signs on and enjoy the ride, there's not always a better option.

Fire away...

[AMM]

Whats this? ATC is tired and cranky? I don't believe it!

[The Raven]

invertedattitude,

I have to disagree with you strongly on this one.

First, in over 30 years of flying I have never seen moderate turbulence all the way from 6000 feet to FL470. Usually there is some altitude with a fairly decent ride. When a controller tells me that it is rough at all altitudes, I usually press him on it. Has he actually talked to the lower sector controller? Sometimes he is too busy (or heaven forbid, too lazy) to check other altitudes. Turbulence is not static. It moves horizontally and vertically.

For instance about a month ago coming westbound off the Atlantic enroute to Toronto, we were advised by ATC to anticipate light to moderate turbulence at all altitudes for about 500 miles. Well I am sorry, but I am not going to subject my passengers to over an hour of turbulence if there are alternatives. I pressed the controller to get ride reports in the lower sector. He matter of factly told me there were no aircraft in the lower sector so he couldn't get any reports. He seemed a bit peeved that I would question him on the turbulence. We requested a descent clearance to FL260 and after he cleared it with the lower sector controller, down we went. It was light to moderate turbulence all the way down and we continued our descent to FL220 where it smoothed out nicely.

We sat at FL220 for an hour in nice smooth air. On each frequency change we told ATC that it was nice and smooth. On my number 2 radio I was listening to the high sector controllers and they were still telling everyone that is was light to moderate at all altitudes.

Now I ask you, if your nervous granny was a passenger that day. Whose flight would she rather be on. One that took what the controller had to say as gospel and sat in the turbulence for an hour, or one that descended to a smooth altitude (against the controllers advice) and gave everyone a nice comfortable ride to their destination.

The Raven

ps...regarding your comment [i]"sometimes you need to get off the radio, turn the seatbelt on and enjoy the ride, there's not always a better option"[/i], please be advised that I will determine my options, not you. All I ask is that you provide me with information and if I want to change altitude (even numerous times), as long as there is no conflicting traffic that you approve it.

[invertedattitude]

Point taken Raven, perhaps my post comes across a little too strong then I meant it to be, it's more a little light at heart, and honestly for a whole 8 hour shift, it was one flight which was being a little over the top than usual.

My only point I'm trying to make is that we usually have a pretty good idea and sometimes we've had airplanes at every single level with no appreciable difference.

Granted 95% of the time you are correct there usually is a better level, but if ATC is obviously busy and the crew has been told to expect the same ride at all levels, you can appreciate that sometimes on a busy frequency it can be time consuming at best.

For the record I'm not tired and cranky either, just decided to start a little discussion.

I also fully respect and understand a crews responsibilty to their aircraft and their passengers, not just from a safety standpoint but also a business perspective and passenger comfort... but there is a line that has to be drawn at some point.

Also Raven, I will also fully agree that it is rare to experience turbulence everywhere, but I had airplanes up to FL470, and the low sector did confirm departures experiencing moderate turb right from 6000', so it does happen, regardless of how rare it may be, I will also add that only once have I seen an aircraft that normally operates high (290 above) descend as low as FL220 to get smooth air, and that one time it was followed by 50-100 other airplanes and that was only because we had several reports of continuous severe turbulence that night (FL230-FL400 for what its worth)

I would find it odd an airplane would move 10K + feet for moderate turbulence only, some airlines choose to ride out what they themselves call moderate-severe, but of course that is a rarity as well.

Most of the flights I work would have to get the rafts and paddles out if they were operating down at FL220 for any length of time, thus they almost always ride it out, or find a level somewhat close to their optimum with an acceptable ride.

[The Raven]

No problem inverted. Maybe I am easily offended. I understand it must be frustrating to have one aircraft after another ask for ride reports and altitude changes.

Here's one that gets my goat. We are climbing out of Heathrow with a cell at our 12 o'clock position at 40 miles. I tell the F/O to request 20 degrees to the right for weather avoidance. The F/O responds, "ATC will turn us before then anyway". I do a slow burn and give it 20 miles. As the F/O sees me reach up to turn the heading selector, he finally asks ATC for the right turn (which now necessitates a 35 degree turn) for weather avoidance. I then advise the F/O that unless he can give me a better alternative that he humour me and do as I request. Needless to say, it was a quiet flight after that.

Good football game by the way. Hope you got to watch some of it.

The Raven

[invertedattitude]

That's one part of ATC I haven't yet wrapped my head around.

Line of aircraft 20-30 planes all turn around a buildup, then another aircraft right in the midst of it all plows right through it, even after being advised and queried on the weather ahead.

One of the most troubling things I've had to do, is have a pilot of a 777 tell me his Wx radar is gone and can I vector him around the weather.

Now I'm not sure what other countries have, but here in Canada we don't have weather radar good enough to provide such a service accurately, and not only that it only works around prime radar sites which are few and far between.

[Old fella]

".......At the end of an 8 hour shift, we had turbulence all night, all levels, basically from 6000' all the way to FL470, it was just a bad night to be flying on the east coast.\...."

Imagine in one of the old JAZZERs CRJ-200 cans and trying to piss out a jug of Keiths Red hanging on to the ole dusty tool. Talk about a golden shower...... eeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuu!!!

[Apache64_]

Inverted attitude, i can sympathize with the numerous altitude changes by a crew that doesnt seem to pay attention to what you have told them.

In regards to the weather radar conking out. While we know your radar doesnt give a good indication of weather etc, but I sure in the heck would ask for as much help as you can give us when we are in cloud, knowing there is a cell between us and our destination. Even the limited service you can provide is better than flying blind into the heart of a cell! Thanks for the great service all you guys do provide us! It is appreciated.

Cheers


Apache

[invertedattitude]

All good, what ends up happening is we usually get another aircraft nearby to act as a "weather ship", preferrably one close to and behind to other aircraft, of course the other crew is advised where we get our information... but if the airplane behind says it's all clear ahead it should be for the lead plane as well, altitude being considered of course.

[moreccsplease]

We understand this as pilots that in Canada ATC can't help us with cells, in fact, they'll vector you right towards one. Pretty sad the lack of technology we have in this country at NavCanada, compared to the US ATC where they will vector you perfectly around a cell, or simply assign you a new STAR that will take you around it and back towards the airport flawlessly. In the US, you almost never have to ask for deviations in the terminal area, they do it for you.

[Brewguy]

Huh, imagine that. A country that's smaller than ours, with ten times our population can afford to have more & better technology ... who would have thought?

[rigpiggy]

It's not that we don't have the technology, just that Navcanada won't pony up to Environment Canada for a live feed.

[Gino Under]

Interesting thread.
For those with their quick answers and simple solutions, great.
But, did you know that in some countries, when you ask a controller for a ride report, he/she hasn't a clue what you're talking about.
The system here isn't perfect but it isn't the worst either. Not by a long shot.

[Churrasco]

In my opinion anyone that complains about Canadian ATC has not done much in the way of international operations. Canada has a pretty decent air traffic control system. The U.S. is good as well, although they tend to deviate markedly from ICAO standards in certain locations (NY for example). Western Europe is also very good.

If you want "interesting" try Brazil, certain African countries, and Russia. After that you won't be complaining about Canadian controllers or procedures.

Also remember that the guys in the flight deck and those sitting at the radar screens in Canada don't make policy - they carry it out. Blaming a controller at NavCanada for some of the less than efficient things the organization does operationally is akin to blaming an Air Canada pilot for that company's indifferent treatment of its passengers.

[verybadman]

Interesting thread.
For those with their quick answers and simple solutions, great.
But, did you know that in some countries, when you ask a controller for a ride report, he/she hasn't a clue what you're talking about.
The system here isn't perfect but it isn't the worst either. Not by a long shot.

That's an excellent point. But when we consider the amount of $$$ airlines spend on Nav fees, we should expect top tier service from ATC.

[ScudRunner]

I use to love it when I pounded Cargo around getting bumped around and all you would hear is WJ / AC etc hunting Altitudes, classic moment when ATC asked how the ride was at 340 and we said constant moderate looooooooong pause do you want another altitude ............... No its keeping me awake.

[invertedattitude]

Interesting thread.
For those with their quick answers and simple solutions, great.
But, did you know that in some countries, when you ask a controller for a ride report, he/she hasn't a clue what you're talking about.
The system here isn't perfect but it isn't the worst either. Not by a long shot.

That's an excellent point. But when we consider the amount of $$$ airlines spend on Nav fees, we should expect top tier service from ATC.

You do realize that NavCanada has some of the lowest Nav fees on the entire planet right?

[BLZD1]

Do you? I worked for different companies in the past and they always say it is cheaper to fly through US airspace. Is that fact or fiction? I do not know for sure.