I heard this recently while working ground control:
BHY123: "Ground, Big Heavy 123, request wind check."
LAX GC: "Big Heavy 123, LA Ground, wind calm."
BHY123: "Ahhh, we can't accept that."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
About Me
- CaptainVector
- This blog was created for my personal amusement as well as the 'edu-tainment' of family and friends. You are welcome to read and comment. However, please understand that this is not an official FAA publication, and nothing herein is to be taken for public policy or agency position. All opinions are my own, unless explicitly stated otherwise. While I make a reasonable effort to report facts correctly, there is always the possibility that I may be misinformed or just can't proofread my own work. No government time or resources are used for the maintenance of this blog. Enjoy, and thanks for reading!
One word............."Phew".......
ReplyDeleteUnable........to breath....(yea......it's lame)......careful Captain Vector.....I can see that smile from here.......:)
PS.....on my travels......listening to live ATC......seems controllers........get a bit perturbed by requests.......for "wind check".......or maybe its an east coast.......urban myth......??.....Does not require an answer...it's more of an observation....
Yes, we do get annoyed sometimes by requests for a wind check - usually because, when taken in context, it becomes immediately apparent that the pilot isn't paying any attention to what's going on. The controller thought process goes something like this:
Delete"Umm, I gave you the wind with your landing clearance, two miles ago. You really think it changed that much in two miles?"
Of course, the number of times that we're asked to confirm a landing clearance makes it apparent that they weren't listening to that part either.
Or this:
"I just cleared the aircraft behind you to land on the same runway that you're landing on, and gave it the wind." OR: "I just cleared an aircraft for takeoff from the same runway you're about to land on (or the parallel runway, less than 1000 feet away) and issued the wind as part of that transmission. Do you really think the wind is somehow going to be different for your plane?"
Of course, there are going to be times that rapidly changing conditions really do make an updated wind worthwhile information - and controllers are trained to recognized these situations and act accordingly.
"Of course, the number of times that we're asked to confirm a landing clearance makes it apparent that they weren't listening to that part either."
DeleteSo you'd rather we just continued on final unsure if we got the landing clearance? Or are you suggesting that the cockpit during landing is a serene and peaceful place and nobody should ever be unsure or possibly need to confirm anything?
Seriously -- I love your blog, but this is not really one of the most sensible positions I've heard...
The irony of the what I said and the situation you describe is that we absolutely do want pilots to request confirmation of something if they're not sure. I periodically meet pilots at local safety meetings, and that's one of the points that I (and my fellow controllers) always make: If you're not sure, ask.
DeleteLikewise, as a controller (and a licensed commercial pilot), I've been in the cockpit, and so I'm fully aware that the trip down the final is often the highest-workload segment of the flight. Now that nearly all cockpits have a crew of only two, there are fewer people to handle the myriad of tasks that comprise the approach and pre-landing checklists while flying the plane and talking/listening on the radios. Additionally, I'm aware that many carriers have internal requirements that all cockpit crew members must hear/be aware of ATC instructions.
That said, the amount of times that controllers have to re-issue instructions to aircraft a second or third or even a fourth time(!) has been a growing problem for us at LAX. As an anecdotal example, during a recent session on Local, I dealt with 32 aircraft during a 30-minute period. Of those 32, nine had some sort of issue with ATC instructions. These included aircraft not on the correct radio frequency, missed control instructions that required repeats, and erroneous read-backs (that also require repeats); I'm not including the two aircraft that didn't do what they were told even though they correctly acknowledged the control instructions. Each one of these situations required the controller to stop and go back to that aircraft to rectify/clarify/verify the instructions.
Yes, it could have just been me - except for the fact that I later watched a couple of other controllers have similar sessions. Since all of this didn't happen on just one frequency, I'm ruling out sun spots or some other sort of interference (it does happen), nor did any of these sessions had to deal with a stuck mic situation.
I'm not suggesting that pilots are snoozing in the cockpit (although I've had that happen too!). However, their workload has not necessarily been reduced by automation as much as non-pilots might expect. Just as texting while driving is a known distraction to drivers, dealing with "all the other stuff" while flying is a distraction for pilots. I'm not calling anyone out here; I think this is a system problem.
One of the possible (and eventual) solutions to this problem will be less talking on the radio, and more digital-type communication between pilots and controllers. We already do some of this by sending flight plan clearances electronically to most air carrier aircraft instead of reading them over the Clearance Delivery frequency. I expect that the air traffic system will gradually shift further in that direction.
The irony of that shift is that one of the oft-voiced pilot concerns about a system wherein pilots are not inundated with information for other aircraft, is that pilots would then not be able to maintain situational awareness of what's happening around them because they wouldn't be able to hear what's being said to and by other aircraft.
A fair critique, and one that deserved more than a flippant reply, which up to now is all I would've had time to give; apologies for the delay in my response. Thanks!
I don't get why this is odd - isn't it possible that an airliner's performance calculations require at least some headwind component for takeoff at a given weight/configuration on a given runway? So maybe what they really mean is they can't accept a shorter runway with no headwind, and need to request a longer runway?
ReplyDeleteActually, that's exactly what they meant, and I understood it as such. But put that way, it doesn't sound funny.
DeleteIn this particular situation, the aircraft in question had pushed back for departure with the current ATIS code, and had advised that they could take 24 Left for departure. While they were pushing (a protracted process for a heavy jet off some gates at LAX), a new ATIS came out - with a different wind than the previous one. The old weather had included a headwind component, whereas the new weather had none. This slight change of wind was enough for the aircraft to have to request the longer runway 25 Right for departure.
It's not odd, it's funny. Yes, there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he said it that way, and yet it still comes across as funny. In fact, it's funnier if you understand the perfectly reasonable explanation.
ReplyDeleteAgreed - thanks! I related this exact story to several fellow controllers, and all thought it was funny.
DeleteI agree it does seem to be quite odd but have had a smile due to this all day
Delete"I just cleared the aircraft behind you to land on the same runway that you're landing on, and gave it the wind." OR: "I just cleared an aircraft for takeoff from the same runway you're about to land on (or the parallel runway, less than 1000 feet away) and issued the wind as part of that transmission. Do you really think the wind is somehow going to be different for your plane?"
ReplyDeleteYes, but do you think BigHeavy123 pays any attention to a call to LittleGuy234? Are they supposed to pay attention to everything, or just calls to their particular flight? Caveat: I'm not a pilot, and I don't play one on TV, so I don't know what the professional expectations/responsibilities are here. I do know that whenever I fly United and listen to Ch9 (or listen to the tower on a spotting trip via my scanner) I can barely keep up with everything being said. I would think that pilots filter out everything that isn't aimed directly at them.
Captain Vector, thanks for yet another cool behinds the scenes look at your job and what goes on at airports. I thought the story was funny.
Yes, they generally do filter out stuff that's not directly addressed to them. As you say, they almost have to - after all, they've gotta fly the plane.
DeleteWhat's funny about this is that pilots don't like not being able to hear/understand what's being said to/by other aircraft around them. For example, the standard language in aviation in this country is English, as it is in much of the world. However, for a number of the pilots at LAX, English is not their first language. For some, it may not even be their second language. We are not supposed to communicate with pilots in some other language, and one of the rationalizations for that is that if we did, other pilots would not be able to understand what's being said and what's happening.
And yet, I have personally witnessed situations in which the controller's ability to speak to a foreign pilot in the pilot's native language made a life-or-death difference to the outcome.
The irony of all the various comments posted here is that pilots have often said that they want to hear what's going on around them, but even when they can, it's apparent that they aren't able (for whatever reasons) to listen.