Atom Feed (xml)
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.
Controllers Vs Pilots
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...
Air Traffic Control Salary Part 2
Due to the massive demand I have decided to do a more detailed post on just how much you can earn as an Air Traffic Controller. In my previous post on ATC salaries I wasn't very specific and just gave a broad range.
The salaries you will see here are exact values as of 1st July 2007. I just want to clarify that the base salaries I am about to give you are for Australian Air Traffic Controllers in the tower stream. Enroute or TMA controllers salaries may vary but not by much.
Any persons wishing to publish these figures, please provide a link back to this blog!
Trainee Field - $52,066
Level 2 - $78,945
Level 3 - $87,232
Level 4 - $95,518
Level 5 - $99,818
Level 6 - $104,117
Level 7 - $108,417
Level 8 - $113,683
Level 9 - $117,014
Level 10 - $121,314
Level 11 - $125,009
Level 12 - $128,705
Level 13 - $132,331
Sydney 1 - $138,627
Sydney 2 - $142,517
The two Sydney levels are additional levels available to Sydney controllers as these were negotiated back in the 80's for Sim Ops. and I have no idea how much the representative allowance is for Tower Managers.
Another thing to note is that you do get paid for over time. Unlike a lot of other occupations where you are on a set salary and any extra time isn't accounted for, with ATC if you do extra hours you get extra pay. And at great rates! I once heard an enroute controller added close to 50k on top of his base salary in "additional duties". The enroute sector is so short staffed it's really no surprise.
Pilot Calls Mayday
Thursday morning a CT4 lost all oil pressure on upwind and called mayday. Luckily the conditions were such that the pilot was able to make a tear drop turn back to the runway and land safely. If the runway was occupied or another aircraft was becoming airborne it could have been messy.
We also often get strong winds at the aerodrome well in excess of 20 knots. Thursday the wind was straight across the runway and a light 5 knots so there was no downwind for the turn back. If it had been like it was a couple of weeks ago, 25 knots straight down the runway he may not have made it.
There are a few plenty of other options though, just in this case the simplest option was the turn back to the runway. As an Air Traffic Controller this is the perfect example of making a decision in a split second, and it's a life and death situation.
It wasn't me controlling, I was rostered off. So let's breakdown what went through my colleagues mind in that half a second or so.
In this case the pilot advised he was making a turn back to the runway. This can have positive and/or negative effects depending on the circumstances. In this case it was all positive.
- The controller knew exactly what the pilots intentions were. A mayday can often cause confusion for a controller. Because the pilot may fear for his/her life (and this is fair enough), he/she may make a decision to deal with the situation that is in total disregard for what is happening in the airspace around them. Communication with the pilot is also limited at this point in time so you can be left guessing what they are going to do and move everyone else out of the way.
- There was no confliction with other traffic.
- There was no excessive downwind component on the opposite runway.
- It was probably the best option.
- Assess that no collision risk existed with other aircraft
- Assess the downwind component on the runway.
So what were the various options? My knee jerk reaction would have been a left turn for a landing on the crosswind runway. It solves any confliction with other aircraft becoming airborne and negates any downwind component that may have been present on the opposite runway. Another option would have been a base leg for the parallel runway, the third option the one that took place.
Anyway, the whole fleet was grounded on Friday so I had a nice relaxing day at work!
Any pilots reading this feel free to add your comments to this post. It's always interesting to know what goes on through your head when your engine is about to seize. In my training we were always taught that a pilot flies the plane first. This is true for the above situation and TCAS alerts are another good example.
I worked with a controller at my last posting who was also a pilot. He once told me a story that I found quite funny.
You often hear stories of engine failures and pilots positioning the aircraft so that no one on the ground was in danger for a forced landing. This guy had an engine failure once in a C172 and there just happened to be a football oval nearby for his landing. The only problem was it was full of football players! Fearing for his life he totally ignored the fact that there were people everywhere and steered straight for the football field!
Some people may call it cowardly, I call it self preservation!
One Week Of Training - Procedural Approach
(Above: Australian FIR)
It's been well over a week since my last post on how to be an Air Traffic Controller. This has been due to the fact that I was in the process of doing a week of training on ADC1 - Procedural Approach.
My official training won't commence until January next year as I am number two in line for training at that position. As an Air Traffic Controller you may often receive additional training prior to commencing your official training date.
The reason for this is because your training is set to a specified time limit (in this case 16 weeks) and it isn't ideal to spend the first 4-6 weeks of that 16 weeks learning things like phraseology's. For those that don't know what that is, phraseology is basically set phrases Air Traffic Controllers use to pass instructions. Pilots then also have their own set of standard phraseology's that they would reply with.
When I meet someone and they ask what I do for a living, usually the first response is something along the lines of "Oh, yeah. So you're the guy that waves the bats around on the ground". I then correct them which is followed by "Oh...that must be stressful". I have had this exact conversation countless times, so has every Air Traffic Controller I have met.
For the Air Traffic Controllers of tomorrow I'd like you to know that 95% of the time the job isn't all that stressful. We spend all our working days doing the job and seeing certain scenarios come up, that it eventually becomes like second nature. At times it can get really busy and the pressure can build up, but it is something you become accustomed to.
Something that I never get used to is Training. And it doesn't matter how you package it up and make it all nice, training in my opinion is bloody stressful. And for a number of reasons.
- It's new - Like I said in above, "it eventually becomes like second nature". When you are training for a new position you are seeing and doing things that you have never done before. New scenarios, new solutions. Add complex phraseology's to this mix and you have a cocktail for information overload. You thought you experienced an information overload in your studies? Ha, you haven't experienced anything until you have that much going on in your head that you can't even speak properly.
- Time Restrictions - Every training officer will tell you not to stress about this point. They'll say "We've all been where you are" and it's supposed to make you feel better. I guess it does in a way, knowing that the guy who knows everything about the job, once upon a time struggled like you are right now and then eventually overcame that. The reality for me is that I know that I have until a certain date to get this right and If I don't I may be speaking to my manager and telling him why I deserve to keep my job!
- Long Hours - After what feels like a long day at work, you go home to do study in your own time and learn what you didn't know today for tomorrow.
- It's not your licence! When you are training, your training officer is ultimately responsible for what happens in your airspace. If you do something wrong, you have your training officer their to pick up the pieces for you!
- It won't go on forever - Your training period only lasts for a few months, if not less. Within a matter of a couple of months you will be back within your comfort zone and it will all be over!
