VATUSA Forums
General => The Classroom (Controller Tips) => Topic started by: Tim Farrell on February 20, 2012, 03:07:36 PM
-
Gents,
Is it me or does it appear that more and more controllers are not letting pilots fly the arrivals into airports? I realize the majority of newer pilots on Vatsim, haven't a clue on how to fly them or even what they are. But some of us do know how to fly them. I see it happening more often than ever myself by getting pulled off an arrival with little or zero traffic and no reason. Arrivals were created to expedite traffic flow into the terminal area safely alieviating the need for multiple vectors.
Why on earth would a controller want to complicate his/her life by taking a pilot off an arrival for no appearant reason when there is little or no traffic? I for one like to let pilot(s) fly the arrival as much as possible and limit my commands to what is really needed. If the majority of the pilots can't fly the arrivals, then take it up with those pilots. Don't penalize the ones that can. If you pull me off an arrival, at the very least I would expect a reason why.
-
Tim,
So hard to determine the demeanor and tone behind text... but not knowing the whole story here I'll just take a stab and say that I practice the same thing. When traffic and workload is light, I have no problem pulling aircraft off a STAR solely for the purpose of expediting their arrival into the airport. This is not just something I do on VATSIM, but something that occurs in real life at two facilities that I know of.
Now that I said that, are you referring to situations where it would be more expeditious to leave them on?
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Gents,
Is it me or does it appear that more and more controllers are not letting pilots fly the arrivals into airports? I realize the majority of newer pilots on Vatsim, haven't a clue on how to fly them or even what they are. But some of us do know how to fly them. I see it happening more often than ever myself by getting pulled off an arrival with little or zero traffic and no reason. Arrivals were created to expedite traffic flow into the terminal area safely alieviating the need for multiple vectors.
Why on earth would a controller want to complicate his/her life by taking a pilot off an arrival for no appearant reason when there is little or no traffic? I for one like to let pilot(s) fly the arrival as much as possible and limit my commands to what is really needed. If the majority of the pilots can't fly the arrivals, then take it up with those pilots. Don't penalize the ones that can. If you pull me off an arrival, at the very least I would expect a reason why.[/quote]
The Only Reason(s) I would take an Aircraft off a STAR would be for Traffic Separation, or if Traffic was light, to make their approach more expeditious.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Tim,
So hard to determine the demeanor and tone behind text... but not knowing the whole story here I'll just take a stab and say that I practice the same thing. When traffic and workload is light, I have no problem pulling aircraft off a STAR solely for the purpose of expediting their arrival into the airport. This is not just something I do on VATSIM, but something that occurs in real life at two facilities that I know of.
Now that I said that, are you referring to situations where it would be more expeditious to leave them on?[/quote]
I Agree.
-
I guess my point is. If I file a STAR, let me fly the STAR or give me a reason for pulling me off the STAR when there is little or no traffic.
-
STARS in ZOB are almost never used to their full extent in either RW or on VATSIM. We pull aircraft off a few fixes early for vectoring purposes and the last few points are rarely used.
-
Gavin, Got no problem with vectors off the last couple of fixes.
We do it too. Controller to pilot: ...Vectors to final. (A valid reason).
It's when I get pulled off way earlier because the controller has no confidence in other pilots ability to fly the STAR. I'll use the BYP5 arrival into DFW for example. It would be similar to like being pulled off at intersection MAMEE on the BYP5.
-
Gavin, Got no problem with vectors off the last couple of fixes.
We do it too. Controller to pilot: ...Vectors to final. (A valid reason).
It's when I get pulled off way earlier because the controller has no confidence in other pilots ability to fly the STAR. I'll use the BYP5 arrival into DFW for example. It would be similar to like being pulled off at intersection MAMEE on the BYP5.
Alright, I see haha. That does seem rather ridiculous, as I assume that isn't even in the TRACON yet. Thanks for clearing it up!
-
Gavin, Got no problem with vectors off the last couple of fixes.
We do it too. Controller to pilot: ...Vectors to final. (A valid reason).
It's when I get pulled off way earlier because the controller has no confidence in other pilots ability to fly the STAR. I'll use the BYP5 arrival into DFW for example. It would be similar to like being pulled off at intersection MAMEE on the BYP5.
What's wrong with that? If I pull you off and send you direct to the IAP for an instrument approach it's expeditious flow of air traffic. Nothing wrong with it in the least and done rw as well.
-
Daniel,
Appearantly you didn't look at the BYP5 arrival. MAMEE is some 133 nm out from DFW. Gonna vector to an IAP from there? You are missing the point!
-
Daniel,
Appearantly you didn't look at the BYP5 arrival. MAMEE is some 133 nm out from DFW. Gonna vector to an IAP from there? You are missing the point!
I've done it from further out... aka, before the aircraft even got onto the arrival.
"Cleared direct SMFIX. Pilots discretion, descend to cross SMFIX at or above 6000, then cleared (approach) runway (runway)." There is technically nothing wrong with it. It's especially useful if you're really busy, they're RNAV equipped, and they are going to a semi-satellite field.
There are more important things to be "upset" about versus a controller's technique of pulling you off a STAR early.
-
Mid ops RW at KMSP.
NXXXX - Proceed Direct Minneapolis airport, descend at pilots discretion, maintain 10000
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]I've done it from further out... aka, before the aircraft even got onto the arrival.
"Cleared direct SMFIX. Pilots discretion, descend to cross SMFIX at or above 6000, then cleared (approach) runway (runway)." There is technically nothing wrong with it. It's especially useful if you're really busy, they're RNAV equipped, and they are going to a semi-satellite field.
There are more important things to be "upset" about versus a controller's technique of pulling you off a STAR early.[/quote]
Personally, I wouldn't vector an aircraft off a STAR unless they are within 50 miles of the Arrival Airport.
Just my thought ^^
Regards,
-
Personally, I wouldn't vector an aircraft off a STAR unless they are within 50 miles of the Arrival Airport.
Just my thought ^^
Regards,
Why though? What makes <50 any different.
NXXXX - Proceed Direct Minneapolis airport, descend at pilots discretion, maintain 10000
And knowing this there have been plenty of times I have cleared an aircraft direct MSP all the say down by SDF, CRW, or CMH when i worked ZID and you guys were online. Seemed many enjoyed it, both controller and pilot. This was again during the mid with just one or two arrivals heading to MSP.
When I get a chance to get back to working on LOAs with our adjacent facilities I would like to ad a mid shift clause allowing for direct clearances.
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Why though? What makes <50 any different.[/quote]
It's just how I was thought. I tried it on a few pilots and they all gave me Attitude after wards D:. So, If I am going to vector an aircraft off of a STAR, it would be <50 miles.
-
I've done it from further out... aka, before the aircraft even got onto the arrival.
"Cleared direct SMFIX. Pilots discretion, descend to cross SMFIX at or above 6000, then cleared (approach) runway (runway)." There is technically nothing wrong with it. It's especially useful if you're really busy, they're RNAV equipped, and they are going to a semi-satellite field.
There are more important things to be "upset" about versus a controller's technique of pulling you off a STAR early.
Apparently you didn't read the whole thing Daniel, he said especially when it is slow and there is no reason for it. Being really busy is understood.
-
I've done it from further out... aka, before the aircraft even got onto the arrival.
"Cleared direct SMFIX. Pilots discretion, descend to cross SMFIX at or above 6000, then cleared (approach) runway (runway)." There is technically nothing wrong with it. It's especially useful if you're really busy, they're RNAV equipped, and they are going to a semi-satellite field.
There are more important things to be "upset" about versus a controller's technique of pulling you off a STAR early.
Daniel,
Agreed if busy. If you read my first post. The scenario was little or no traffic!!!!
Thanks Steve!
-
I don't see where you two are coming from,
I would be even more inclined to pull them off as early as possible and clear them direct the IAP for the approach if there was little to no traffic. As there is a much lower chance of a conflict arising.
If I were running CTR (on a normal afternoon / evening, when it's not too busy), and I see an RNAV capable a/c, even if they're quite far out, I'd just give them the approach clearance (as long as I can then separate any other A/C flying in or out) as it means the pilot doesn't fly as far and I have less work to do, Win Win Scenario?
Cheers!
Rahul
-
Agreed if busy. If you read my first post. The scenario was little or no traffic!!!!
I am seriously confused. If you get pulled off of the arrival for a shortcut for your approach, you'd be upset about that?
This happens ALL the time in the RW.
-
What's wrong with that? If I pull you off and send you direct to the IAP for an instrument approach it's expeditious flow of air traffic. Nothing wrong with it in the least and done rw as well.
I do this all the time, especially when there isn't any traffic. My personal record...clearing an ILS 125 miles out. Muahahaha!
-
I've cleared planes for ILSes 3 states away...
-
Daniel,
Agreed if busy. If you read my first post. The scenario was little or no traffic!!!!
Thanks Steve!
That makes even less sense. If you are giving them a short cut, there is NOTHING to be upset about. Less traffic = short cuts are a great thing. I hate when I am flying and the only one in the airspace and the controller pulls a similar-to-FS-default-ATC style controlling on me.
If you're busy, short cuts are a great tool to establish and maintain separation. If you're slow, short cuts are a great thing to increase efficiency of air traffic which is one of the primary duties of ATC.
So, unless we are all misinterpreting your initial post, what exactly is the problem with taking people off a STAR if you're getting them to the destination quicker?
-
Is this something to have a fuss about?? ..everyone else has different opinions..
-
Is this something to have a fuss about?? ..everyone else has different opinions..
It is when you got a I1 posting on a public forum making it sound like it's a bad thing to give a short cut and not a technique employed by many many MANY controllers both online and rw.
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]a technique[/quote]
You said it right there, its a Technique. Is it required to give pilot's Short cuts, no. Is it Helpful at times, yes. Everyone has different opinions. Like me. I don't take planes off of starts unless i know its going to be Expeditious and/or the pilot request's it.
And like I have said, maybe it's his opinion?
Regards,
-
You said it right there, its a Technique. Is it required to give pilot's Short cuts, no. Is it Helpful at times, yes. Everyone has different opinions. Like me. I don't take planes off of starts unless i know its going to be Expeditious and/or the pilot request's it.
And like I have said, maybe it's his opinion?
Regards,
Right, and he's making it seem like the technique of taking people off an arrival is wrong. That's the point.
-
Right, and he's making it seem like the technique of taking people off an arrival is wrong. That's the point.
Gotcha.
Regards,
-
Thanks for your reply gents.
-
I do this all the time, especially when there isn't any traffic. My personal record...clearing an ILS 125 miles out. Muahahaha!
once upon a time there was a a ZOA controller flying through ZMP in the dead of night. A center controller, bright fellow, cleared them for an ils into KPLN from 545 miles away. "No traffic observed between you and the field," were the magical words. But then the ZOA's buddies came up and request IFR out of KPLN 5 minutes later. The controller was crushed
-
once upon a time there was a a ZOA controller flying through ZMP in the dead of night. A center controller, bright fellow, cleared them for an ils into KPLN from 545 miles away. "No traffic observed between you and the field," were the magical words. But then the ZOA's buddies came up and request IFR out of KPLN 5 minutes later. The controller was crushed
"Hold for release, traffic 530 mile final."
-
"Hold for release, traffic 530 mile final."
THAT IS AWESOME!
-
I can see both opinions. My first reaction would be it is a training issue but not knowing all the particulars not sure if it is or is not. My other comment would be I would imagine that it could also depend on the airport. I personally do not think it is a good idea to pull somebody off of an arrival and give them direct to a fix especially without giving a reason or asking the pilot if they would like to do this.
-
Please let me propose a situation, and this happens all the time at ZAU.
Lets have an arrival to KORD (http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1202/00166AD.PDF), filed with the WYNDE4 STAR (http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1202/00166WYNDE_C.PDF)
Lets next notice the location of the airport on the approach chart.
Now, 9 out of 10 hours, KORD is running west ops and landing on 27L or 28
Does it make sense for me to let an arrival fly the entire arrival all the way RALFE before giving it vectors to final? That just doesn't make sense to me. That's 35 miles past the field, then back at least 40 miles at 4000ft to pick up the approach. Completely pointless, and not to mention, if ZAU practiced this the facility would be inundated by negative reviews complaining about "being left on the STAR too long".
From what I have seen on this network, if a pilot requests to fly to complete arrival, and the controller is able to accommodate this request without causing a lack of separation or other undo hardship, the controller is most likely to approve the request.
It isn't a training issue, it's a technique used to expedite traffic flow. A controllers number one job may be separation, but his second is to ensure the orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic in his sector.
-
Is that apart from the fact that the chart states, "ORD Landing West : Expect Radar vectors to final approach course after PAITN"
Cheers!
Rahul
-
Where I have the problem is RNAV arrivals. I have more and more controllers who want to give me a vector instead of having me fly the arrival as published that would would take me straight into the approach. The 7110.65 says that you are not to take someone off of an RNAV until the last minute. There is a list of reasons why you don't do it including traffic, noise etc. Controllers need to read the arrivals before they are certified on approach. They need to allow pilots to fly as published unless there is an problem such as traffic.
Example. Flying into Fort Lauderdale. Jingle1 RNAV arrival. Approach consistently gives me a 090 heading off of JINGLE for 9L. You don't have to give any vectors cause the arrival brings you direct to HOLID from JEREM which is the inital fix on the 9L ILS. All you have to do is tell the pilot which runway and what the altitude to fly. If the pilot doesn't fly it then he can be given vectors.
Any Arrival, you should not take them off until at least the crossing point. I have not seen that problem anywhere in VATSIM.
-
Where I have the problem is RNAV arrivals. I have more and more controllers who want to give me a vector instead of having me fly the arrival as published that would would take me straight into the approach. The 7110.65 says that you are not to take someone off of an RNAV until the last minute. There is a list of reasons why you don't do it including traffic, noise etc. Controllers need to read the arrivals before they are certified on approach. They need to allow pilots to fly as published unless there is an problem such as traffic.
Example. Flying into Fort Lauderdale. Jingle1 RNAV arrival. Approach consistently gives me a 090 heading off of JINGLE for 9L. You don't have to give any vectors cause the arrival brings you direct to HOLID from JEREM which is the inital fix on the 9L ILS. All you have to do is tell the pilot which runway and what the altitude to fly. If the pilot doesn't fly it then he can be given vectors.
Any Arrival, you should not take them off until at least the crossing point. I have not seen that problem anywhere in VATSIM.
Not necessarily. For example, the KEPEC2 and SUNST2 arrivals both end at PRINO, the IAF for the 25L ILS at KLAS. However, PRINO is a 21nm final. It's standard to take aircraft off the arrival near BLD and PTAC to SHAND or LARRE. Another reason for this is airspace (when split) the aircraft would enter Final APP's airspace, then leave it, only to turn around and come back into it.
Let's look at the JINGL1, since you mention it specifically. The text of the arrival says:
"From over RXXAN via 128* track to FORTL, thence as depicted to BEPAC, then voa 093* heading. Expect radar vectors" (emphasis mine)
The path to HOLID is a dotted line, and if you read the text, is confirmed to be for Lost Comms
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Controllers need to read the arrivals before they are certified on approach.[/quote]
Have a look at the chart again..
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The 7110.65 says that you are not to take someone off of an RNAV until the last minute.[/quote]
Reference please? I can't find that anywhere.
-
While we're on the topic of RNAV arrivals, I should point out that RNAV does not necessarily equal Profile. If the chart says "Expect X @ Y" then you can't "descend via" the arrival. (I've seen this way too many times to count)
There are RNAV arrivals that are profile (see: KEPEC2 and SUNST2 previously mentioned)
There are RNAV arrivals that are NOT profile (SEE BOJID1 @ PHL) The only hard restrictions on that arrival are the 190 kts speed restriction, all others are "Expect"
There are non-RNAV arrivals that ARE and are not profile. RIIVR2 @ LAX is profile, SADDE6 is not.
-
And there is still zero reason why you couldn't take someone off an arrival for expeditious flow of air traffic as is one of the primary duties of ATC.
FAAO 7110.65 2-1-1 ATC Service (emphasis mine)
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent
a collision between aircraft operating in the system
and to organize and expedite the flow of traffic[/quote]
Also, the phraseology "Cleared direct", section 4-2-5 of the 7110.65 is listed as follows:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]3. Issue a clearance “direct” to a point on the
previously issued route.
PHRASEOLOGY
CLEARED DIRECT (fix).
NOTE: Clearances authorizing “direct” to a point on a previously
issued route do not require the phrase “rest of route
unchanged.” However, it must be understood where the
previously cleared route is resumed. When necessary, “rest
of route unchanged” may be used to clarify routing.[/quote]
I see nothing about RNAV STARs and being unable to remove an aircraft from them.
It is common for many enroute facilities to give short cuts onto STARs if it gives a short cut and there is little to no traffic.
"Cleared direct SUMFX, resume the arrival" or something similar. Terminal environments have no reason to keep someone on an arrival when they can get to the runway quicker by being vectored off. Radar vector has no restrictions on whether the aircraft is on a STAR or not. The only restrictions are that you give a reason for the initial vector. FAAO 5-6.
If you were referring to this on FAAO 7110.65 5-6-1:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]... Allow aircraft operating on an RNAV route to remain on their own navigation to the extent possible.[/quote]
You need to look at the first part of that paragraph. It's also saying their own navigation, that is inclusive of "Cleared direct". It's referring to not give RNAV aircraft radar vectors where possible, but not excluding using radar vectors for operational advantages and not necessarily leaving them on their filed route. On the STAR you listed, radar vectors are actually required to get to the IAF as charted.
So, in the end, if I file SMFIXR SMFIXZ SMFIXA SMFIXB SMFIXC I would be under my own navigation if given "Cleared direct SMFIXC". You would also be following one of your primary duties. There is nothing wrong with it. What's wrong is teaching that it is wrong.
-
I think the real issue here is that VATSIM pilots would like to fly the whole arrival for the "Simulation" aspect of flying and to show that they can fly and follow a chart. Where as a pilots in the real world love short cuts....they will take anything to save time and money...something that VATSIM pilots do not have to worry about. There really is not a right or wrong way of doing it unless a controller is causing a disruption in the flow of traffic by pulling aircraft off of and arrival.
-
I think the real issue here is that VATSIM pilots would like to fly the whole arrival for the "Simulation" aspect of flying and to show that they can fly and follow a chart. Where as a pilots in the real world love short cuts....they will take anything to save time and money...something that VATSIM pilots do not have to worry about. There really is not a right or wrong way of doing it unless a controller is causing a disruption in the flow of traffic by pulling aircraft off of and arrival.
You're assuming pilots want to fly/follow the chart. Lots of pilots want to fly realisticly as well. So shortcuts would be providing that. In the end, short cuts are often times offered but are turned down (both online and real world) simply by responding "Prefer to stay on filed routing". Teaching it's wrong or trying to justify it's wrong by blindly saying "well that's what xxx publication says" is an injustice to your trainee. Lots of controllers both virtual and rw have different interpretations of what the publication says. Ask any other real world controller, and they'll tell you... I can't even begin to describe how many "discussions" I get in with people here at my ATC facility over interpretations of publications. Show 'em what the book says and if they don't understand try to explain it. But let them make their own interpretation.
-
This has certainly been an interesting topic! As a somewhat new controller (and very seldom sim pilot) it appears one of the best ways to take someone off a STAR is to ask them if they want a shortcut. Provided of course, the traffic situation will allow it too. At times I have a pilot tell me he can see the runway as he's on downwind (on a STAR) and implies he's like a visual approach. Hmmm? Fun every time you look around, eh?
-
Use the STAR as your tool. If you have traffic, use it. If there's one guy flying it, take him off and get him on the ground. I couldn't care less if a pilot complained, quite honestly.
-
5-6-1 a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement, operational advantage, confidence maneuver or when a pilot requests. Allow aircraft operating on an RNAV route to remain on their own navigation to the extent possible.
That said I watched an LA controller last night take a pilot of a STAR in a very dangerous area. When you take the responsibility of vectoring a pilot, then you take the responsibility to making sure he gets to his destination. By allowing the pilot to fly the star he gets there via the route which he spent so much time meticulously planning into his FMC. Giving direct FIX is not a problem when it comes to flying over an airspace. I'll take the shortcut. But when my RNAV arrival leads me directly to the IAF, and you give me a vector you then have to give me a vector to join the approach and many controllers are missing that. In the Case of LA. There are mountains that you have to navigate through and around to reach airports you start vectoring and the next thing you know, you vector someone into a mountain. Of course as a pilot, I have to right to say "unable" to any direction given by ATC. The final decision for safety is in the hands of the pilot.
-
5-6-1 a. In controlled airspace for separation, safety, noise abatement, operational advantage, confidence maneuver or when a pilot requests. Allow aircraft operating on an RNAV route to remain on their own navigation to the extent possible.
If an operational advantage exists, I am going to take them off the STAR. Period. A STAR is a tool afforded to ATC to assist with arriving traffic. I don't consider a STAR or SID as part of the route as a SID and STAR are authorized by ATC (and outside the US, assigned by ATC) as a tool to get the pilot safely to and from their requested route and not actually part of the route.
IE,
Looking at this route from ATL to DFW:
JCKTS6 JAMMR MEI JAN CQY6
The route is JAMMR direct MEI direct JAN (JAMMR..MEI..JAN). JCKTS6 and CQY6 are nothing more than on and off ramps going from their departure to their route and from their route to their destination airport. That is my interpretation and that theory is what was taught to me in my ATC school and training.
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]you give me a vector you then have to give me a vector to join the approach and many controllers are missing that.[/quote]
Not necessarily. What if they took you off the arrival for separation that you just couldn't see? Maybe taking you around a departure, taking you around a slower moving aircraft on the same arrival, etc? Nothing stops them from vectoring you off and then re-routing you direct to the IAF. It's pretty easy and done all the time. Would you rather be vectored off or placed in a holding pattern? Or be the departing aircraft left low?
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]There are mountains that you have to navigate through and around to reach airports you start vectoring and the next thing you know, you vector someone into a mountain.[/quote]
Sorry, but no. That is the completely wrong way to think. While yes, if you take someone off their route you become responsible for separation.. not all vectors lead to a collision. How often do you hear on the news that ATC turned a plane into a mountain? Damn near never. I've heard more planes hitting mountains due to pilot error (not paying attention, etc) than ATC error. And why pick mountains? Over in ZFW, you have radio towers, skyscrapers, etc. Do you not vector people to final in fear of them hitting a skyscraper? That's how your statement came across.
-
In the Case of LA. There are mountains that you have to navigate through and around to reach airports you start vectoring and the next thing you know, you vector someone into a mountain.
That's why things like MVAs exist...so controllers don't vector you into mountains. You should fly in the LA area real world sometime, and see how often you are left on the STAR.
-
There are mountains that you have to navigate through and around to reach airports you start vectoring and the next thing you know, you vector someone into a mountain. Of course as a pilot, I have to right to say "unable" to any direction given by ATC. The final decision for safety is in the hands of the pilot.
You may have a right to say unable, but just because you're near mountains doesn't mean your safety is being compromised. We have pilots calling Denver Center occasionally saying, "Denver Center, just wanted to confirm with you that we're close to some mountains," which is really no different than calling New York Departure and confirming that they're flying over some skyscrapers. Vectoring 101 teaches us to vector at or above the MVA, and if people can't do that by the time they're an S3, then it would be interesting to know why not.
-
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Vectoring 101 teaches us to vector at or above the MVA, and if people can't do that by the time they're an S3, then it would be interesting to know why not.[/quote]
Seeing as there is no requirement in the GRP that mentions the MVA, an S3 is not required to have knowledge of the MVA.
-
Seeing as there is no requirement in the GRP that mentions the MVA, an S3 is not required to have knowledge of the MVA.
Sure it does, under S3, section E Traffic Management
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]3) Provides suitable vectors to aircraft when require[/quote]
Suitable vectors to me is inclusive of "Don't vector that guy into that skyscraper over there" (or mountain, or what have you).
While it is perfectly legal to vector below the MVA as a radar controller, there are some stipulations that must be followed prior to doing so. But MVAs, to me, are included under the GRP III(E)(3).
-
Like you said before Daniel, its all interpretation.
To me, Vectors are not altitudes, they are headings.
-
Like you said before Daniel, its all interpretation.
To me, Vectors are not altitudes, they are headings.
Headings that take you into a mountain.. how can those be called suitable? Just curious. I never said vectors are altitudes, vectors are nothing except headings. However, a vector into a solid object is or should be an unsuitable vector.
You also have this, III(D)(3) which covers altitudes (specific descents)
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]3: Issues descent and provides runway assignment or reiteration[/quote]
And then you have the ambiguous coverage of III(G)(2)
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]2: Provides additional information or navigation service[/quote]
Navigation service can also be used to say "Keep them vectored away from those dangerous pixels". I don't think ensuring APP/DEP controllers know and follow an MVA can be classified as something the GRP was attempting to prevent a controller from knowing. After all, imagine the outcry from pilots if controllers in ZSE, ZLC and ZDV started vectoring people into the mountains, or ZNY and ZLA controllers started vectoring people into the major downtown cities. I think, if anything, it's unjustifiable and a disservice to everyone (pilots and students) to say "Oh, since the GRP doesn't specifically say they have to know about MVAs then they aren't included".
-
Yes, vectors are headings, but suitable vectors are suitable/appropriate/survivable in 3D airspace. If you disagree, please let me know the next time you want to fly in my airspace.... I'll attempt to illustrate why headings alone don't make for suitable vectors.... And please make sure your crash detection is on.....
-
Seeing as there is no requirement in the GRP that mentions the MVA, an S3 is not required to have knowledge of the MVA.
There's also no requirement that controllers operate their radar client with their monitors or speakers turned on. That's a ridiculous argument.
-
What a great laugh you guys have given me. 'WHY CANT WE BE FRIENDS, WHY CANT WE BE FRIENDS, WHY CANT WE BE FRIENDS, WHY CANT WE BE FRIENDS."?
-
There's also no requirement that controllers operate their radar client with their monitors or speakers turned on. That's a ridiculous argument.
Where is the like button here?
Personally, with all the flying I've been doing recently.. I would always ask en-route to give me a shortcut. And always happy to receive one. Seldom do I follow the SID, unless it gets me around a terrain, otherwise, I would just go direct to the first fix in my flight plan. I do the same for STARS. I'd prefer to go directly to the IAF. If someone vectors me directly to an IAF, I would be eternally grateful. (: