What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Ask a controller... (in memory of Tony Kelly - tkatc)

Scott,

Are you making your request of me? Or perhaps the handful of controllers that frequent this board?

I don't vector VFR aircraft unless I need to keep them away from my final or they request vectors for a practice approach. Altitude I will use on occasion...again, to keep you from conflicting with my IFR arrivals/departures but even then it is an altitude at or above/below, not a hard altitude.

Perhaps you could just discontinue service if you didn't like the vector or altitude restriction? My two-cents, from an active controller. :D
 
Oh, almost forgot, if you have ATC gripes, by all means, air them. I will try to speculate on why something is being done or not being done. :)
 
Roger ain't up here!

humptybump said:
Thanks for the clarification.

To be honest, I was *TAUGHT* to say "roger" by a series of flight instructors as I progressed through PPL, Instrument, etc. I guess they all came from the same gene pool.
Click to expand...

I was taught NOT to say "Roger" at any time by one instructor. He said "Roger ain't up here, so don't be talking to him!" :eek:

Seriously, he taught me there were better ways of replying to most transmissions than by saying "Roger."
 
Isn't Roger Actually Meaningless?

I think that "Roger" is meaningless, or at least superfluous. These days the controllers want you to read back the instructions to be sure you have it right. If you just say "Roger", without the read back, then they don't really know if you truly understood the transmission or not. If you say "Roger" and then read back the instructions, then it is superfluous because you verify that you understand the transmission by the read back, so the "Roger" is superfluous.

:D
Hans
 
tkatc said:
Scott,

Are you making your request of me? Or perhaps the handful of controllers that frequent this board?

I don't vector VFR aircraft unless I need to keep them away from my final or they request vectors for a practice approach. Altitude I will use on occasion...again, to keep you from conflicting with my IFR arrivals/departures but even then it is an altitude at or above/below, not a hard altitude.

Perhaps you could just discontinue service if you didn't like the vector or altitude restriction? My two-cents, from an active controller. :D
Click to expand...

My point is it seems to me an increasing number of controllers are bypassing their advisory role for separation between two VFR aircraft and are assigning hard altitudes for this purpose. Not all of them...obviously the knowlegeable ones don't. In the kind of flying I do (Flight Check) we work closely with controllers so my tendency is not to terminate traffic advisories, though I have been tempted to several times by controllers who respond with "unable" to my coordination for strictly VFR operations in Class E airspace. I avoid verbal disputes on the radio and will comply with such ATC responses and save the discussions for a phone call later.
 
Last edited:
Flight Check eh? Hmm, recorded runs? 25 miles arcs? That kind of stuff along with the typical instrument approach runs? You do fly a very unique mission. Often times a controller is a bit confused by what it is you want exactly. I would turn the OTHER guy if I thought you were in conflict with him unless I wasnt talking to him. I understand the point you are making but I know I am not one of THOSE controllers nor do I think any of the controllers that frequent this board are either. We are pilots too so we have a broader understanding of what kind of service we should be providing.

I am going to make an assumption that you talk to alot of military controllers?? Not saying those controllers are bad, I used to be one, but they are generally YOUNG, GREEN, and INEXPERIENCED. Hopefully they grow just as we all did (and do) as pilots.
 
tkatc said:
I am going to make an assumption that you talk to alot of military controllers?? Not saying those controllers are bad, I used to be one, but they are generally YOUNG, GREEN, and INEXPERIENCED. Hopefully they grow just as we all did (and do) as pilots.
Click to expand...

We actually spend most of our times with the fine folks at TRACONs and almost always receive excellent service within the constraints of traffic flows and weather. It is just this one point that I have seen more and more...perhaps newer controllers rather than a new philosophy. Most of the military controllers we work with are in the military towers.

Not sure where you are based but just about any crew will welcome the opportunity to carry controllers when it works out for the mission, and it goes a long way in helping understand both sides of the microphone.
 
Last edited:
nucleus said:
I think that "Roger", is superfluous.
Click to expand...

Tower: "N917TB, verify you have information delta". Me: "7TB affirmative"

Tower: "N917TB, advise when you have information delta". Me: "7TB wilco"

Tower: "N917TB, information delta current". Me: "7TB, Roger".
 
Last edited:
tobinbasford said:
Tower: "N917TB, verify you have information delta". Me: "7TB affirmative"

Tower: "N917TB, report when you have information delta". Me: "7TB wilco"

Tower: "N917TB, information delta current". Me: "7TB, Roger".
Click to expand...

4822C!

(other words here for the board)
 
Radio

tobinbasford said:
Tower: "N917TB, verify you have information delta". Me: "7TB affirmative"

Tower: "N917TB, advise when you have information delta". Me: "7TB wilco"

Tower: "N917TB, information delta current". Me: "7TB, Roger".
Click to expand...

Seems to me correct response is 7BT has Delta.

What's with Wilco and Roger? Been watching old John Wayne movies?
 
IN the past I was able to get away with "NXXX has the current Numbers and Notams". But only because I can't seem to remember that one little letter for more than about 3 seconds.
 
VFR flight plan

Is it possible to open a flight plan (for the 3rd leg of a trip) when the flight plan for the second leg is not yet closed? Same tail number.

I recently had this happen - closed a vfr plan with CLE radio once KMNN was in sight, then opened with CLE radio my plan from KMNN to KLPR - but when I got home (to my house, the phone number I used for the plan) Flight service was looking for me for my 'late arrival' at KMNN - and based on my notes and caller ID, the call came in AFTER I opened the 3rd leg by about 5 minutes.

Crazy, but it happened. Any clues?

Rick 90432
 
Rick, you are asking about a flight service function which I can only guess as to answers based on my ATC/ flying experience. The VFR flight plan you are talking about is handled strictly by flight service. It is not an ATC function. ATC will sometimes open or close a VFR flight plan for you if you request them to do so. When this happens, all the controller does is simply call flight service and request the plan be opened/closed just as any pilot would do.

As far as being possible to have more than one open at the same time...yes, I think it is possible. I don't believe there is anything to prevent the system from allowing 2 flight plans to be open on the same aircraft, especially since the 2 flight plans may reside under the jurisdiction of 2 or more flight service stations.

As to why you got a call....who knows. Sounds like somebody dropped the ball. Miscommunication perhaps?
 
How traffic alert system works?

From a recent flight. VFR 9500 nice and smooth no Flight Following but I monitor sector frequency. Jax Center cleared a Dash to descend at good rate to 7000 (from 13000 I believe). As soon as controller pointed to him traffic at 11 squawking 95 hundred I knew it was me. Soon I saw the Dash at my altitude level about to pass on left side. Nothing extraordinary, nice separation but...

Then the controller said in stern voice - Traffic Alert!!! DashXXX traffic to your left side... turn... descend... I don't remember exact wording but it was coded like they knew what they were talking about. Dash Captain said something about seeing traffic on fishfinder and so on.

I wonder how that traffic alert system works and what would I expect if I were on FF on that flight? Could it be a kind of violation and what party is responsible for what? As I said nothing extraordinary, nice separation.
 
First, I don't speak Russian so forgive me.

Most, if not all commercial traffic has TCAS. TCAS is a traffic alerting system that works off another aircraft's transponder. This equipment basically SEES the other aircraft's transponder in the vicinity and, if warranted, will instruct the pilot to take evasive action.

(This is another good thing about RVs because we have the performance to frequent altitudes that typical spam cans stay away from. 9500' is reasonably protected from your VFR Cessnas, Pipers, and even Bonanzas or Mooneys. So all we need to worry about at the higher altitudes is commercial/IFR aircraft which either have ATC guidance and/or TCAS)

In your example, the controller issued a descent with you in mind. He wanted the Dash to descend quickly. When that didn't happen quickly enough he issued a "Traffic Alert" which controllers use to avoid an imminent situation. Its basically a HIGH PRIORITY traffic call. So if you ever hear "Traffic Alert", the controller means business.

Not sure who, if anyone, was wrong but if the Dash collided with you....the controller would be in some DEEP trouble. Possibly even jailtime if they could prove negligence.

On RADAR, targets that get close seem MUCH closer to the controller than to the pilots. As you said, you weren't that alarmed and did not take any evasive action, but the controller sure got worked up a bit.
 
Seem to me that it would be a simple thing for atc to have information on specific N#'s that would pop up in the system for aircraft type and equipment. FSS has a profile on you when you call in just from caller ID reference. For example, if I call approach or center for flight following, they enter my N# and it they would instantly know I am an RV9/U. It would be less work for controller and less air time. Wouldn't this be doable and beneficial?
 
Kelley, that would be great wouldn't it?

That sort of thing is on the horizon, but you have to remember, the DOT has bigger issues to spend money on. Dilapidated bridges and such. I currently work traffic on a RADAR scope that is older than I am. Newer equipment trickles in but ATC is not "experimental", everything must be "certified" and maintained as such.
 
I appreciated the, what seems to me in the last year or so, to be a more helpful ATC with respect to in-flight/pop-up IFR clearances. Before, one almost always had to call FSS to file and then call center back to get the clearance--which was a pain. What confuses me though is that nowadays ATC says they need the standard info from the flight plan 'on the tapes' for reference if needed later. However, I've heard other pilots provide some of this info, but not all. Maybe they missed fuel req'd, fuel on-board, number of souls, aircraft home base, etc.

So my question to you, what is the minimum required to be 'on the tapes' to get a pop-up IFR?

Thanks!

-Jim
 
Technically, we shouldnt provide IFR pickups. We aren't officially trained for it like FSS is. Some controllers know there is info that is filed with a flight plan that would serve vitally in case of an accident so they try to mimic some of that info. Putting it on the tape would provide at least SOME info if trouble presented itself. The tapes could be referred to immediately if needed.

For whatever reason, sometimes a filed plan doesn't make it into the machine. In such a case, I don't mind putting something in on the fly. DUATS has made errors as well as some FSS's.

But there are times when a pilot just doesn't file a thing...in that case I am reluctant to help and if I am busy you will be my lowest priority. I may even make you return to a certain point or altitude before issuing the clearance.

Anyway, the "minimum" would be all the info you would present when you file, but untrained/lazy controllers will ask for whatever info it is they can remember in an attempt to cover themselves should you have an accident.
 
Thanks, makes sense.

One other question, why is approach asking me if I have weather and NOTAMS when approaching an uncontrolled field? Is it just controller technique here in Nebraska? Or was there an offiical change following the Senator Inhoff debacle with the construction crews on the runway?

Thx,

-Jim
 
If you are IFR we are required to make sure you have advanced approach information.

If you are just VFR then we aren't required to ensure you have it but if something peculiar was going on at that particular airport then I might ask the pilot just to make sure they knew something odd was up.
 
What you say about IFR and weather makes sense. Advising of a new NOTAM that just came out for the airport, awesome. But this is every time regardless of IFR or VFR and the only NOTAM is the 300' tower with a burned out light that's been published for a couple weeks. Thx for the insight. -Jim
 
Why does my local tower try to make me leave the lateral boundary of their delta airspace rather than climb through the top?

Kmcn, airport is at 350, delta stops at 2900, they always tell me to "remain at or below 2500 and report exiting the delta to the north (or whatever). Its a trsa, close to a very UN-busy afb....
 
They want to build in 500' of vertical separation for any IFR traffic that may be overhead at 3000'. It is their standard operating procedure for built in protection. I bet if you request higher, you'll likely have your request granted.
 
gtmule said:
Why does my local tower try to make me leave the lateral boundary of their delta airspace rather than climb through the top?

Kmcn, airport is at 350, delta stops at 2900, they always tell me to "remain at or below 2500 and report exiting the delta to the north (or whatever). Its a trsa, close to a very UN-busy afb....
Click to expand...

We have something similiar locally.. The class d has a letter of agreement with the class c that owns the airspace is that nobody exits the top without prior coordination. Usually all that requires is a simple request before take off. If you wait until airborne it doesn't give them ample time to coordinate
 
VFR flight following

TKATC,
I fly out of KHHR in los angeles. Recently I took off went thru the class B mini route talking to LAX tower, they handed me off to Santa monica tower. When I left santa monica tower, they said ," spam can Nxxxx frequency can approved.". But they did not tell me what frequency to use for continued VFR flight following? How would I find the appropriate frequency? Would it be best to try the SAnta monica airport departure frequency? Thanks for your insight.
 
It sounds like the controller terminated your flight following as you left his/her airspace. If you don't know the next controller's frequency, you can just ask the controller who is terminating you. If that fails or you are just coming up in an unfamiliar area looking for flight following, check the A/FD of the nearest airport. It will list frequencies you can try depending on your altitude. If you get the wrong controller...they will usually give you the correct frequency.
 
use of transponder?

Tony,
Thanks for the response. As a follow up, if I am on VFR flight following, and lose radio communications due to failure of the radio, would you recommend I turn the transponder to 76xx, or just not worry about it if on VFR? How about if I am approaching my home airport VFR (Class D) and lose the radio, would you recommend I change the transponder code or just fly the normal traffic flow and wait for the lights from the tower? If VFR, I am a little hesitant to change the transponder over since i think it lights up the ATC's screens. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
 
If IFR, without hesitation go to 7600. VFR and inside class B,C, or D airspace...I would go to 7600 and fly the plan you had discussed with the controller until leaving that airspace then go to 1200. VFR in uncontrolled airspace...is a toss up. I would be tempted to go to 7600 for a sweep or 2 then change to 1200 OR just go to 1200 and make a phone call when you land.

I would try different things depending on the mission/situation. Let's say you lose transmission but still retain the receiver, a quick second on 7600 then back would alert the controller to a problem. He/she may then ask you to acknowledge transmissions by ident. So in that case you could communicate through the transponder.

If I HAD to land at a B,C, or D airport, I would use 7600 the entire way in and look for light gun signals. But if I had the option, I would land at an uncontrolled field, call the approach control/tower and explain my situation and ask for options.
 
RADAR sweep time

Hi Tony,

How long does it take for ASR to do a full sweep? I looked in the AIM and I didn't find any mention of it.

Thank you,
 
Hmmm, not your typical question. More suited for the techs that maintain our ancient systems but for some reason 3 seconds comes to mind. There are many things I've learned (and forgot) along the way and this may be one of them.

Several months ago I was training a new controller and asked them what an acceptable RADAR return was...the answer that I was looking for was you need to see the target for 1/3 of a sweep to be acceptable. I must have tried 3 or 4 publications but could never justify the answer that was embedded in my brain LONG ago.

Our publications/orders are revised so much that much of the material I was taught is no longer easily accessible to the next generation controllers.
 
Thanks!

tkatc said:
Hmmm, not your typical question. More suited for the techs that maintain our ancient systems but for some reason 3 seconds comes to mind. There are many things I've learned (and forgot) along the way and this may be one of them.
Click to expand...

Hi Tony,

I had concluded it was around 4 secs; I just wanted to get a confirmation that it wasn't something way out in left field like 60 seconds or something even longer. I'm trying to track down a transponder reply issue and a local guy on the field asked the profound question, "How do you know you have a problem?" Welll ... ummm ... uhhhh .... hmmmm ... darn!. Up until this point, I was only suspicious because of ATC communications. This got me thinking that I should see a reply at least every 3-4 seconds if I'm just outside of Austin's Class C airspace.

Thank you,
 
I don't get an "R" on my transponder every 3 secs if that's what you mean. A sweep is one thing...interrogation is a totally separate function apart from RADAR. The interrogator does spin atop the radar antenna but works a bit differently from what I understand.

Let me ask around with the tech guys to see if I can give a better answer. Stay tuned.
 
I have one....not related to Osh.

What do you guys see on your scopes for aircraft with no operating transponder?

Will whatever you see be rolled into the composite TIS-B beaming from the ADS-B ground stations?

In other words does TIS-B let properly equipped aircraft know about all aircraft even if they are not using a transponder?
 
I'd be surprised if non-transponder traffic was relayed via TIS-B, because all you have is a primary radar return with no altitude information (slant range and azimuth only). This wouldn't be particularly useful because you'd see a traffic blip on the screen, but wouldn't know if it was skimming tree tops or 10k feet above you. But Tony's the expert.
 
krw5927 said:
I'd be surprised if non-transponder traffic was relayed via TIS-B, because all you have is a primary radar return with no altitude information (slant range and azimuth only). This wouldn't be particularly useful because you'd see a traffic blip on the screen, but wouldn't know if it was skimming tree tops or 10k feet above you.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I certainly have heard ATC broadcast traffic alerts with the words "type and altitude unknown" or "altitude unverified". I would think if ATC knows position and course, that certainly COULD be included in the TIS-B data stream, right?
 
I am no an expert on the ads-b stuff, yet. My requirements will not change wether aircraft are equipped or not. Ads-b will be supplemental to ATC services.

If the transponder is out, off, or nonexistent all we see is a primary radar return. ( a blip)

There are several instances where we are required to call the traffic regardless of if we are seeing a transponder return or not. We are required to call all traffic to turbojets if the targets appear likely to merge. When we don't see transponder info, then you will hear "type and altitude unknown".
 
This is our rule concerning merging targets:

5-1-8. MERGING TARGET PROCEDURES

a. Except while they are established in a holding pattern, apply merging target procedures to all radar identified:

1. Aircraft at 10,000 feet and above.

2. Turbojet aircraft regardless of altitude.

REFERENCE-
P/CG Term- Turbojet Aircraft.

3. Presidential aircraft regardless of altitude.

b. Issue traffic information to those aircraft listed in subpara a whose targets appear likely to merge unless the aircraft are separated by more than the appropriate vertical separation minima.
 
Section B above is of particular interest here...since we have no way of knowing the altitude of a "blip", the traffic gets issued.

As far as a "blip" being incorporated into the data stream....well, that remains unknown to me BUT if I had to guess...I would say NO, it would not be included. Certainly this new equipment will have default or programmable filters so it only shows you traffic of concern. With that in mind, it wouldn't know whether or not to filter out that target.

Again, I don't know a lot about this new technology, so I am just thinking out loud.
 
I have some new information addressing the concerns posted on this thread recently.

A radar sweep is a bit longer than 3 seconds as I quoted before. It is actually 4 to 4.5 seconds per sweep.

There are 2 types of interrogaters in use throughout the majority of the country. The first system, ATCRBs, is an older system that continously broadcasts and receives on each sweep, so essentially you are interrogated on each sweep. The second system, MODE S, can actually "predict" your position and information after it initially acquires you making it a more efficient system. It requires less information to be broadcast back and forth saving time and congestion. It also frees up "bandwidth" (for lack of a better term) so that additional information can be passed.

A primary target, a blip, or an aircraft without an operating transponder (choose your own title) will not be broadcast into the data stream from ground based stations. (without altitude information, I doubt your equipment would show it anyway). There are 398 ground based stations and that number is expected to increase for redundancy.

I am impressed and excited over this technology and can only imagine what it may become. I suppose it will eventually make controllers obsolete. Sort of like larger retail stores are equipped with self checkout lanes. :rolleyes: Hopefully I'll be long retired by then.

At the shop we also talked about the 2020 ADS-B mandate. Does this mandate include ALL aircraft or only aircraft that intend to fly into certain airspaces? If ALL aircraft, does that mean older types without equipment will be grounded? Hmm...:confused:
 
Two questions regarding IFR instructions

A couple of days ago we flew to KMRY which we had filed IFR and had the most interesting (read erratic) communication with ATC. For once, the errors were not on my part or at least not solely.

Mistakes aside which was acknowledged and did not cause any issues or concern, two question has come up for me that I am hoping to get clarification on here. First question is about the very first controller who we got our clearance in the air. The clearance was all simple and close to what we expected, heading 170 to ECA, v585, PATYY, v111 SNS. However the heading he had given us would not take us to ECA, it was off by at least 30 degrees and there was no appreciable wind. I asked him if we are clear to our next leg (ECA) and was using my GPS to get there which it was confirmed but he insisted that I follow the heading he was giving. I did so only shortly later the next controller cleared us direct to a way point much closer to our destination and nullified the issue. So, the question is how far should I have followed the heading knowing it is not going to get me to the way point had we not got the new instruction?

The second question, on the approach (ILS 10R) I was given a heading (presumed the last vector) to join the Loc but was not cleared for the approach. It didn?t take long to intercept the Loc and repeated calls to the controller to see if I am clear went unanswered. I believe there was some communication (radio) issue but don?t believe it was on my side as I tried it on my second radio and I could hear other aircraft calling him with no answer. Anyway, when I intercepted the loc, I got myself established and after a few more tries to ATC, made a call to tower which they cleared us for landing. Now the question is did I violate any rules and should I have kept the last heading I was given or was it correct to get established on Loc. It was IMC as we were in a rather thick fog.


As always, thanks in advance for your wisdom.
 
First part, FOLLOW the heading. It SOUNDS to me like he gave you a vector to keep you clear of something (traffic or an airspace boundary that he doesn't own), we do this often and then when you are clear of what we want to miss, we would send you direct to a point along your route of flight. (which eventually happened). Going direct to a point is NOT what your were issued, you were issued a heading. (At least that is what it sounds like happened to me)

Second, were you told to fly XXX heading to join? If so, that is what he meant. Fly that heading and join the localizer, which you did, perfect. Yes, you still need a clearance to descend via the glideslope and in the absence of that, you correctly inquired about it. Radio failure has a whole set of different rules. You finally found alternate means to communicate with ATC. Kudos. I think you performed perfectly.
 
tkatc said:
First part, FOLLOW the heading. It SOUNDS to me like he gave you a vector to keep you clear of something (traffic or an airspace boundary that he doesn't own), we do this often and then when you are clear of what we want to miss, we would send you direct to a point along your route of flight. (which eventually happened). Going direct to a point is NOT what your were issued, you were issued a heading. (At least that is what it sounds like happened to me).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. On first point, I agree that I was given a heading and should have followed it but what had confused me was that the instruction was ?clear xyz via heading xxx to 123? which I took that as he is giving me an initial heading till I find my real heading that would takes me to my way point. I think a bit more info as the reason for diversion would have cleared the confusion.

Luckily in that area I was in clear VFR and there was no cause of concern in regards to safety.
 
Bavafa said:
Thanks for the feedback. On first point, I agree that I was given a heading and should have followed it but what had confused me was that the instruction was ?clear xyz via heading xxx to 123? which I took that as he is giving me an initial heading till I find my real heading that would takes me to my way point. I think a bit more info as the reason for diversion would have cleared the confusion.

Luckily in that area I was in clear VFR and there was no cause of concern in regards to safety.
Click to expand...

I agree, the communication could have been better. Not knowing exactly what was said, I can only speculate. Usually you will hear something like "Cleared to XYZ via radar vectors to ABC, V1, DEF, XYZ. Fly heading 180" It is typically understood that the pilot fly the issued headings until intercepting XYZ or cleared direct to a point along the route.

I understand that it is easy to miscommunicate in this scenario. The preferred way to do this is to pick up the clearance on the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top