Air Traffic Controller Discussion With a Global Perspective
By Mark Smith 1119598
#520754 He could have taken a flight from Hamilton and "went missed" on approach and avoided all this. I'm sure hoping the controller(s) could have accommodated a missed approach. Or is missed approaches breaking some unheard rule?
Don, VATCAN is looking for controllers, maybe apply to be a Saskatchewan controller. :D :mrgreen: :D :mrgreen: :D
By Sean Harrison 870618
#520766 I guess that’s why I’m only a C1, because I do try and accommodate everyone. It’s more about helping than controlling for me. After 30yrs as State police Officer I had enough of individuals pushing their common sense on others. Common sense is subjective, and is based on education, situational awareness, and intelligence. I can find ten people that all agree on something, but that doesn’t make it right. If commonsense is sufficient maybe we could be a lawless society.
By Brad Littlejohn 811975
#520773
Don Desfosse 1035677 wrote:
Nick Warren 813047 wrote:It's "air traffic control" not "air traffic accommodation"

Love it! Although we do generally try to be accommodating, if there needs to be one or the other, it's control.

Dan Everette 856101 wrote:Also, if the controller is smart, they'd offer alternatives, such as another nearby airport they can practice approaches.

Exactly! Proceed direct Saskatchewan!

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Saskatchewan doesn't deserve that! C'mon!!

Cleared direct Alert (CYLT) would be more like it. :twisted: :twisted:

BL.
By Simon Kelsey 810049
#520838
Sean Harrison 870618 wrote:Should we really be leaving it up to an individual who happens to be controlling to decide what can and can’t be done?

I mean denying a flight based on “I can’t handle it at the moment.” seems to be against the CoC to me.


Pardon!?

As others have said, in the reverse situation as a pilot, if ATC ask me to do something I'm not comfortable with or would cause me an excessive workload, I will say "unable" - which by extension would also be against the CoC.

Likewise, if ATC are unable to accomodate a request due to workload or for any other reason, they also reserve the right to say "unable". As a VFR pilot I was always taught -- and teach all my P3 students -- that you must assume that any request for a transit with controlled airspace will be denied. In the real world, if you get the transit, bonus, but you must always have an alternative up your sleeve. Event, not an event, doesn't matter.

Likewise, in the situation quoted by the OP -- deciding to "flight check" an ILS in the middle of a busy event, presumably entailing multiple circuits, perhaps expecting to check the back course and all the rest of it -- well, frankly that sounds to me like someone bent on creating as much havoc as possible for both pilots and controllers -- or at the very least to deliberately be an awkward sod. Why is it essential to simulate that particular flight at that particular time? It seems bizarre to suggest that a flight calculated for the express reason of causing disruption should not be against the CoC, but for a controller to make a decision to regulate the traffic flow in to their sector/airspace would be. Is issuing a hold against the CoC? If someone is insistent on landing in the opposite direction to everyone else in the middle of an event, is denying that request against the CoC or do we have to delay everybody else in order to accommodate that request? Where does it end?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping people out and being accommodating. But for goodness' sake -- if we're going to start saying that managing the flow of traffic in or out of a sector, or denying a VFR aircraft airspace transit is against the CoC, then VATSIM really has jumped the shark.
By Kirk Christie 956763
#520868 People seem to forget that Air Traffic Control is there to provide a service to pilots, the job of the controller is plain and simple, stop planes from hitting each other, nothing more, nothing less, just because its air traffic control, does not mean you get to police the airspace and who can and can't use it.
By Josh Glottmann 1275389
#520869
Kirk Christie 956763 wrote:People seem to forget that Air Traffic Control is there to provide a service to pilots, the job of the controller is plain and simple, stop planes from hitting each other, nothing more, nothing less, just because its air traffic control, does not mean you get to police the airspace and who can and can't use it.

FAA 7110.65 wrote:The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system and to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic.

In the situation presented above, these objectives would not able to be satisfied. By conducting multiple, somewhat untimely/unnecessary approaches, you disrupt the normal (event level) flow of traffic. While this may not necessarily affect the safety, an undue burden may be placed on the controllers, which does compromise safety. I believe that handling unreasonable requests during significant traffic levels is at the discretion of the controllers, at a minimum. If we say that pilots’ requests have to be unilaterally accommodated, we might as well let everyone fly on their own. The function of ATC cannot be achieved without the discretion of the controller to permit/deny workload-intensive procedures in already-high-workload situations.
By Jeff Turner 810425
#522456
Dan Everette 856101 wrote:
Sean Harrison 870618 wrote:Should we really be leaving it up to an individual who happens to be controlling to decide what can and can’t be done?

I mean denying a flight based on “I can’t handle it at the moment.” seems to be against the CoC to me. I’ve been denied access to controlled airspace while flying a helicopter, and was told it isn’t allowed. There wasn’t an event and it wasn’t even moderate traffic.

If it is an event, surely the planners have considered all the possibilities, and produced an event document and NOTAMS. The divisional board can approve the NOTAM, then it is clear to everyone (people flying, people controlling, and people supervising) what can and cannot be done.

In this case, say the guy calls a SUP, apart from his own personal judgement what does he base his decision on?


I don't think he can technically "deny" the IFR flight plan. The point of the OP was to minimize the impact to an event by someone who would likely be denied (or significantly delayed) those services in the real world with similar levels of traffic.

Now there are ways to minimize the impact, without denying the flight. And that's to employ the same techniques that are used in the real world. Holding is one of them. "Remain clear of the Class D" is another one. Not providing a Class B clearance is another. Having a clown in the pattern keep doing 360s on the downwind until you can fit them in. In the OP's case, have them fly the full procedure from the most far away IAF, and fly the missed into a hold.

Can this be left up to an individual who happens to be controlling? ABSOLUTELY! That's their job. They are there to prioritize and safely and expeditiously move traffic. I would argue that the dozens of other aircraft participating in the event take priority over aircraft that want to conduct practice approaches during the event. Let him call a SUP. Their flight plan isn't being denied. They are being told there will be delays due to traffic and the nature of their request. (Also, if the controller is smart, they'd offer alternatives, such as another nearby airport they can practice approaches).

I'm curious on one thing: What was the response from the facility when you reported the controller telling you that helicopter flight wasn't allowed in controlled airspace?



+1