Closing Time

There are a couple of great things about working at my current location.

The first and probably the best thing about it is we don't do doggo's (night shift for you 9 to 5'ers). Being an outstation tower we close for the night and the Control Zone becomes a CTAF. I have done my fair share of doggo's though in my previous job and it doesn't matter who you are, working nights is hard work. It's not natural to be up working those hours.

The second great thing for me is, because I'm still a Journeyman at my current location (I don't hold all the ratings) I don't work weekends. The tower is operated by a single controller on Saturday and Sunday. The academy's don't fly so there is next to no traffic. Just a few RPT and the usual weekend warriors.

The third great thing is that all the academies close up for the Christmas break! Meaning every year (as a Journeyman) I get two weeks off over Christmas/New Year. And because of all the public holidays I only need to take six days recreation leave to cover it.

If you are looking for a career as an Air Traffic Controller, these three points are something you really should take into consideration when choosing your stream. Trust me, being a Tower Controller is the way to go. The perks are endless.

When we are all kicking back enjoying the break next month, try to take a moment to think about those poor Enroute boys and girls slugging it out in the centres.

Then give yourself an uppercut and get back to reality and pop another bottle of red!

Moving On

After 18 months at my present location, I'll be moving on at some stage soon.

Just a couple of weeks ago I applied for a position at another tower and was lucky enough to get a job. My transfer date is yet to be confirmed but I'd expect the move to happen in the first half of 2008. Where am I going? Well, I never disclose where I work (although if you pay enough attention to the detail of my posts on this blog it is quite easy to work out!), so Ill be keeping that one to myself. All I will say though is that just a couple of years ago it was the busiest aerodrome in the southern hemisphere. That title has since been given to another location but word on the street is traffic levels are on the rise again.

I see this as good news. It will keep me interested and maybe I can provide my readers with some great reading!

So what has been happening over the last few weeks? Not a lot to be honest. Traffic levels have slid back again giving me more time to notice things some pilots do that annoy me. Notice I said "some". So you can't take offense, it might not be you.

It's just the little things. Here's one example. In our local instructions we have a LOA (Letter Of Agreement) with the local academy that clearly states that when traffic information is passed to the pilot and the pilot has that traffic in sight, he/she shall respond with

"Traffic Sighted".

Quite simple right? Haha, you'd think so. Day in and day out I get all sorts of different responses. Traffic copied, copied traffic, roger traffic, just today "traffic noted" to name a few. The other option is often no response at all. Anyway, rarely do I get the correct response.

So you may be thinking, what difference does it make? Well so far for me, no difference at all. But what would happen if the two aircraft in question were to collide?

We use Class D airspace procedures here. VFR to VFR don't require separation, just traffic information when necessary and we are to provide an "Air Traffic Control service".

What is an Air Traffic Control service? There are a few points but the important one in this case is that an Air Traffic Controller must

"Prevent collisions between aircraft..."

Ok, so Class D we don't have to provide a separation standard between two VFR aircraft, we can just pass traffic to them about each other BUT we must also prevent those two aircraft from colliding. Hmmm?

One simple technique to use in these procedures is passing separation responsibility on to the pilot. The phraseology would be:

"ABC report sighting the (aircraft) (position)"

"Traffic sighted ABC"

"ABC maintain own separation with the (aircraft)"

Now we get back to my original story about the "Traffic sighted". Our LOA covers this scenario. If an aircraft reports the traffic sighted then separation responsibility is automatically passed to the pilot. Basically it avoids having to make the above lengthy transmissions over and over again.

This is just one of the many things that annoy me. Why can't some people just do things properly? They should know their requirements but they either don't know them, or just don't care. It gets to the point where policing it on a case by case basis is impossible. It's like pulling teeth trying to coach them into saying the correct phrase. In the end I just give up and write them off as morons.

Controllers Vs Pilots - Authors Response

It's been a while again since my last blog. A few things have happened over the last few weeks, including a response to my "Controllers Vs Pilots" post. The response came in the form of an email, and the email was from Danielle Bruckert, the author of the "Go Numbers" blog. The blog that my post was written about.

"Hi,
thanks for your comment to gonumbers blog, it illustrated (as I have had the blog for a year or two now) I am finally getting to the market I intended - to promote feedback about aviation safety issues, whilst still laughing at ourselves.
Sorry if it seemed abrasive, the post wasn't written very well-one of those moods...I was going to edit it but it did serve a purpose - that was provoking comment.
I posted a reply online just to let you know, I thought your blog was not quite similar enough to link, but enjoyed your comments,
Regards
Danielle

I fully agree with
-ATC theory training for pilots, I am busy publishing separation minima in my airlaw book
-Tower experience for pilots - why not, I for one would be very willing to volunteer if the options are given.

But the main one like in a marraige I feel is more effective communication,

Will check your blog
Cheers
Danielle"

Thanks Danielle. That's great that you are in the process of publishing separation minima. I hope you share your thoughts with other pilots. The only way I could see pilots gaining experience in the tower would be as an observer. I guess this would be beneficial as the pilot would have an opportunity to raise questions with the controller as situations occur and the controller would be able to share their thinking process and application of separation standards with them.

Why not push the issue at your local aerodrome? I'm sure your local ATC would be more than happy to have you.

Controllers Vs Pilots

Just last night I was browsing through a few aviation blogs when I came across a post titled "Controllers Vs Pilots...Why it's a bit like a bad marriage". This is a topic that I must admit, I try to avoid in my blog. Due to the broad range of visitors My Life And Air Traffic Control receives, I'm sure to offend someone!

It's a topic that controllers talk about in the tower and pilots talk about in the cockpit and a fly on the wall would tell you that the two conversations, although on the same topic, are very different. I'm going to attempt to pick the above mentioned blog apart and break it down in such a way, that maybe the pilots out there that feel the same way as this author, might have a better understanding of where ATC stand in this argument.

The author begins by asking the question "how can you work together in an effective partnership when one person is always telling the other what to do". It is often obvious to the controller that a pilot may feel this way due to a number of factors which are all disappointing. Firstly I'd like to say that Controllers don't "tell" pilots what to do. We simply issue an "instruction" and we do it because it's our job and we have to. It is not personal, there is no malice behind it. The only time it gets personal is when you don't comply with our instructions or you complain about it and it gives us the shits.

Just two weeks ago I had an aircraft joining upwind for the circuit and at that time another aircraft was directly underneath it and becoming airborne from a touch and go. The instruction I gave to the pilot was:

"Maintain 3000, there's touch and go traffic becoming airborne beneath you, report sighting an aircraft turning crosswind."

The pilot responded in an angry voice "Tower can't we have normal decent".

This a perfect example of what gets on our nerves. Why do I have to explain my actions to this guy more than once? He is maintaining 3000ft because it is not safe to issue decent on top of another aircraft. Not because I feel like f#@king him around.

A pilots lack of compliance with an instruction or complaining makes our job harder and it's unnecessary. At the end of the day we are only there to do a job and ensure safety. It's our licence on the chopping block. All you are to us is an aircraft and a registration so don't get upset by being "told" what to do.

The next paragraph the author goes on to talk about pilots not understanding separation requirements and that once upon a time "controllers were required to learn basic flying skills as part of their training - at least to have minimum air experience time."

Only yesterday I wrote an article on this topic. As explained in my previous post, Air Traffic Controller's do, do extensive flight theory on course, among other things. So we do flight theory, why shouldn't a pilot do ATC theory? We also have pilot publications in the tower, why shouldn't a pilot have ATC publications in the cockpit? And as for controllers having air time, the equivalent would be pilots having tower or radar time which is a ridiculous proposal.

The next comment was "I like to rub the salt in a bit more mentioning, pilots normally controll to VFR or Tower requirements on their own when at unmanned airfields to some extent." A little bit confusing in the way it's written but I know what you are getting at. If an aerodrome was busy enough to warrant having a controller there 24 hours a day, the controller would be there 24 hours a day. Please don't confuse self separation outside of tower hours with Air Traffic Control. I have had this conversation before with other controllers, wondering what that busy sequence would have been like if the tower wasn't open. Just watch what goes on at a busy aerodrome minutes before a tower opening, or just minutes after close and the answer is clear.

"Pilots don’t always understand the complexities of the controllers requirements for separation, nor do controllers always find out what the pilots need in terms of performance and engine types". This is a true statement. We may not know ALL of your needs and requirements but we do have a pretty good idea. Aircraft are grouped into simple categories. One group for example could be piston, turbo-prop and jet. If you have any special requirements advise ATC on first contact or just making a simple transmission is all that is required. It is not our job to ask every aircraft what their special needs may be.

I'd like to complete this article by quoting the only paragraph I was even close to agreeing with.

"When the pilots begin to learn about required separation standards, and provide helpful requests and/or suggestions, and the controllers begin to learn about pilot requirements, aircraft performance, and flight priorities not from the books but from the realities of aviation, we can all work together more effectively."

Some elements of truth in that. The rest was utter bullshit.

Air Traffic Control Separation Standards

It's been a frustrating couple of weeks. A few things have come up, but one thing in particular got under my skin a bit.

You may or may not have read my previous post on a runway standard issue that came up, but another issue with the same standard has come up again. Here's the scenario.

ABC was cleared to land and roughly 500m down the runway.

There had obviously been a bit of confusion in the cockpit as to whether DEF was to be for a touch and go or a full stop. Previous to this point in time he had called on base for a touch and go. The clearance was withheld as ABC was still on short final and DEF was advised he was number two.

DEF then made a second call on about a 1 mile final that he was to be for a full stop landing. My assessment was that ABC would shortly vacate, even if he required full length for his landing roll there was no collision risk. So DEF was then cleared to land.

ABC vacated at the second taxiway, DEF landed shortly behind and that's the end of the story.

No.

ABC contacted the ground controller and advised him that DEF had been given a landing clearance while he was still on the runway. The ground controller then advised the pilot that no separation standard had been breached, as a landing clearance can be issued with another aircraft on the runway provided that in the opinion of the controller no collision risks exists, end of story.

No.

Not happy with the ground controllers response the pilot of ABC then attempted to convince the ground controller otherwise. He then proceeded to tell how he had to brake hard to vacate the runway at the taxiway he did, otherwise he would have required full length. The standard was then further explained to the pilot which was then responded to with silence.

An easy way to avoid this type of confusion is for me as the controller to avoid using the standard. It was quite easy to withhold the clearance until ABC had vacated and prior to DEF second call on final that is probably what would have happened. But in my opinion I had good reason to use the standard.

The first reason is because it is a standard that can be used. It's an open and shut case really and there's not much more to comment on that.

The second reason in this scenario is to cut down transmissions. Saving time is a good habit to get into in this job as things can get out of hand if you don't. We are trained in various techniques to do this and reducing the amount of transmissions is one of them. It reduces workload and reduces frequency congestion. How many pilots reading this have been in a control zone and had to "wait in line" for an opportunity to make a transmission? I'd say all of you. By reducing the transmissions the controller makes it also reduces the number of transmissions the pilot makes and things run a hell of a lot smoother.

In my explanations of scenarios I only ever include the aircraft involved. At the time this situation happened I had at least half a dozen other aircraft on frequency and other traffic conflictions to consider. When DEF called on final for a full stop landing by issuing the clearance then, I reduced the frequency transmissions by two and was then also able to transmit to another aircraft.

As previously explained, the Air Traffic Controller's course included a lot of theory from the private pilot's license course and we have publications readily available in the tower, used by pilots such as AIP. Maybe there should be a topic on ATC Separation Standards in the course for a PPL? If not maybe some documentation available on this topic?

To my knowledge there is no such thing but maybe one day someone might clue on to the fact that it's a good idea.

Until then...