Late ATC

[Mick McGuire 960484]

Thanks Jeffery, that is good advice.

[Craig Moulton]

Had I not wanted ATC I would not have been online.

 

And you took my comments completely out of context. As I said, and I will say again, the problem you speak of is due PRIMARILY to new controllers who are still on a bit of a power trip and who want as much traffic to control as possible, and perhaps even a traffic chaser. Veteran controllers are more likely not going to bother someone so close to the airport.

 

If I understood the original post, the pilot was 10 miles from landing. Too close for CTR or Approach to do any good, and certainly outside the realm of GND, DEL controllers as well. A tower guy certainly was with his rights to send you a contact me command. That is certainly enough time for to dial up the frequency and make a call by the FAF or outermarker.

 

Being that the original post did address the specifics of what really happened, it was a certainly only a supposition on everyone's part as to why there even was a complaint.

 

Okay, so the heart of the matter was that the landing runway was changed from 18L to 18R...if it was [Mod - lovely stuff]py weather, then I can see the merit of the complaint. If the weather was VFR, then again, it should not have even been a big deal. ATC generally is there to expedite the orderly movement of aircraft from departure to arrival. It is quite possible that the runway change was made to expedite your arrival. Using Austin for example (AUS) it has two South facing runways (17L/R if I recall correctly), 17L is better suited as a departure runway becuase it is a shorter taxi time. 17R is better suited as an arrival runway because, again, it is a shorter taxi time from roll out to parking.

 

It is easy to come on and complain about this and that, and without all the FACTS, it is hard for anyone to fairly comment on the situation.

[Terry Kocher 919807]

I prefer 250 to the marker personally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.......the middle marker.

 

Screw the middle marker, 250kts to the inner marker.

 

And to think, ExpressJet still lets you fly for them.

[Gerry Hattendorf 935415]

Screw the middle marker, 250kts to the inner marker...

 

And you always wondered why those airport maintenance vehicles would chase you after landing!

 

Just picking up a piece of flap here, a gear door there, oh and we found your left inboard slat stuck in the glideslope antenna!!!

 

[Nick Faith 966466]

If there's a slat stuck anywhere on the ERJ... you have bigger problems than landing fast Besides.. 250 to the marker.. no problem.. flaps, gear, speed brake.. and you're back at ref in no time

[Stephen Murphy 912359]

As a controller I generally see if pilots are on the ILS/Approach, if its 10nm I send a contact me, if its 6nm or less I dont bother till they are on the ground.

 

As a pilot:

I slow to 250 when below FL245 (Mach in use above) generally by the time I get to FL100 I would have just about gotten to 250kts aswell depending on rate of descent. Then about 220kts from FL80/60 (Based on FL60 as TL as used in Ireland) Once coming up on the ILS I am 180kts before I get to it, slow to 160 for the approach then reduce when closing in on the threshold (150 at 4 dme may be, as required really)

 

It works for me!

[Jeffery Williams 849847]

I slow to 250 when below FL245 (Mach in use above) generally by the time I get to FL100 I would have just about gotten to 250kts aswell depending on rate of descent. Then about 220kts from FL80/60 (Based on FL60 as TL as used in Ireland) Once coming up on the ILS I am 180kts before I get to it, slow to 160 for the approach then reduce when closing in on the threshold (150 at 4 dme may be, as required really)

 

I guess your VA pays pilots by the hour...

[John Speranza 908835]

Chances are, If I'm below 10k, and within 20nm of the field, I'll just disconnect if I get a "contact me".

 

I mean, it's situation dependent, but If I'm on base, or downwind, I don't see a point for a controller coming to vector me in. I find it takes a good 5-10 mins longer to get into an airport when a controller plays the "vectoring" game, rather than myself just doing a simple downwind>base>final: or following the lost comms procedure for an instrument approach. (From the IAF to the Final Approach CRS, etc.,).

 

It's not that I don't like ATC, but in the last 5 mins of my flight, when my workload is already high, I don't need to sit there getting squawk codes, radar identifying myself, and then being unnecessarially vectored away from the approach path for the pleasure of ATC.

 

Like I said, I don't mind ATC -- Infact, I quite like it. However, there's a big difference between being part of a "system" (full ATC from the starting airport until shutdown), compared to flying an entire flight without ATC only to be called on base leg, 10 miles out. I just find it unncecessary.

 

-"SA"

[Keith Smith]

As a controller, I'm sensitve about sending the 'contactme' messages when I first plug-in if the pilots are close to the field. If there's a sequencing issue, I'll have them call me and I'll just play the tower role, treating them as though as I have them in sight (if the weather's nice). This means we skip the radar ID, I ask if they have the field and/or the other arrival in sight, and then get them down safely with minimum fuss.

 

Yes, it's unrealistic to not radar ID an arrival into Bravo airspace...but it's equally unrealistic for LAX to go from an untowered airport, to towered at the drop of a hat. It's just one of those VATSIM compromises, and I've found pilots appreciate the 'simple' handling if they're anywhere near the field.