Being a professional flight instructor can sometimes make one feel like Rodney Dangerfield ("I get no respect!"). One area where this is most obvious can be interactions with ATC. While many, many controllers are helpful with the oddball requests that instrument instruction can generate, others are not so understanding. In their defense, flight instruction results in unexpected requests and non-professional pilots may have non-professional radio technique. Scheduled operations are more predictable, pre-filed, and staffed by skilled and experienced pilots. Still there are times when ATC seems, well, grumpy.
me: Oakland Center, Skyhawk 12345, 2000, climbing 3500, missed approach at Petaluma, direct Point Reyes
OC: 345, radar contact 4 miles northwest of Petaluma, say intentions
me: 345 requests vectors for the Santa Rosa ILS 32, missed approach, then VFR flight following to Oakland
OC: 345, I'm too busy for multiple approaches, say request
me: 345 requests the Santa Rosa ILS 32
OC: 345, I'm unable multiple approaches, say request
me: Ah, I'm confused, we're only asking for one approach, the Santa Rosa ILS 32, 345
OC: 345, I'm unable multiple approaches, so it will have to be a full stop landing
me: Request the Santa Rosa ILS 32, full stop
OC: Fly the Point Reyes transition and report established ...
The really strange thing about this was that we continued to monitor the frequency and heard very little going on. Perhaps controllers are feeling resentful that the FAA has (as is allowed by current laws) foisted a new contract on them after months of unsuccessful bargaining. Since the government can simply dictate the new contract, it's odd that they even bother to bargain. But hey, that's just me ...
We all know where this is heading: Being charged for ATC services. The so-called pay-per-view is already in place in some countries and now it seems that it's making its way, slowly and inexorably, to the U.S. Here's my view of what ATC services will look like, once you apply some old-fashioned American ingenuity to it:
Norcal: Skyhawk 123, radar contact 15 miles east of Oakland, say request.
me: Skyhawk 123 requests an IFR clearance, Oakland ILS 27 Right, information mike
Norcal: Skyhawk 123, how will you be paying today?
me: We'll use our Norcal/Macy's credit card, Skyhawk 123
Norcal: Skyhawk 123 is cleared to the Oakland Airport via radar vectors to the ILS 27, maintain 3000, squawk 4543
me: Cleared to Oakland via radar vector for the ILS 27, maintain 3000, squawk 4543
Norcal: Skyhawk 123, I see you are a gold member, would you like to upgrade to a platinum account, which offers complimentary altimeter setting and express vectors?
me: Negative, Skyhawk 123.
Norcal: Skyhawk 123 is 3 miles from NAGVY, fly heading 240, maintain 3000 until established, cleared ILS 27 right.
me: 240, 3000 until established, cleared ILS 27 right, Skyhawk 123
Norcal: Skyhawk 123, be advised that you account is overdue so I will only be able to offer you the localizer with no glideslope and the approach lights will be set to low.
me: I sent a check last week!
Norcal: We haven't received it, contact the Oakland tower 118.3, and thanks for using Norcal/Macy's
7 comments:
Ah, brilliant!
Though I fear that last conversation may become all too accurate! :)
Considering the fact that large portions of the aviation community tend to come down like a ton of bricks on anything that has the word "government" in it, I do find it ironic to see them lobbying for the preservation of a government service.
I just wished they'd make the learning transfer to other government services which are under severe attack, like education and health care.
BTW, you should ask some people who fly in the UK - it is scary to listen to their stories. If anyone thought that filing flight plans in the US is weird, try Eurocontrol...
Christian,
I'm not sure what to make of your post.
I think most people have heard what pay-per-view looks like in the EU and that's why most GA folks don't want it here. The irony, to me, is that people want continued free or low-cost services AND lower taxes.
I agree with you that dismissing all government-provided services out-of-hand is at the same time short-sighted and not mindful of history. I recognize that many people feel that private industry can provide these services more efficient and I while I disagree, I respect their right to hold that view.
The US government has budget problems and there WILL BE a political solution. Whether all of us agree with it or like it is another issue.
I don't find filing flight plans in the US to be weird, btw.
Filing flight plans in the US is weird if you try to file them in such a way that they come back "as filed".
Now, in the US, ATC is nice enough to redo your routing and give you whatever it is they want. Now pretend you had to file a "legal" route, and all you got was "denied", with no clue what "legal" really is.
As for the irony, I didn't mean to implicate that you in particular where advocating the ultimate laissez faire, but I notice that many people in aviation seem to believe that the military and police are the only government services worthy of funding.
For what it's worth, I personally believe that ATC will become a lot less relevant once self-separation becomes technologically feasable and cheap - which will not be too far off in the future. It will be a grass-roots thing, just like GPS.
Air traffic controllers will go the way of traffic cops, used only where there is a high influx of traffic - or to write tickets.
Why should it matter whether on not the IFR clearance you receive matches your filed route?
And I have no idea what you mean by a "legal route."
If ATC tries to assign you a routing you can't comply with due to equipment restrictions, aircraft performance, or a safety of flight issues, just tell them "unable."
I don't see "self-separation" for IFR flights becoming a reality any time soon. Look at how few IFR receivers with WAAS capability there are and how few GA aircraft actually have such a unit. The cost of entry is just too high. There's no practical way that self-separation can be realized through a grass roots effort. Geez, I'm just happy if other pilots at non-towered airports actually use their radios and don't do stupid things.
In Canada, "IFR Training flights" within 100NM of Toronto need to phone the ACC in advance to get a flow control number. You tell them how many approaches/holds you want and where/when and they tell you if they can accomidate you. Usually they can but sometimes I've been told my only option is to file a normal flight plan (Ie to land) then you can cancel IFR and try for more approaches VFR or go back home.
Our system went private a while back and recently has been adding some user-fees and decommisioning navaids. But the controllers are usually pleseant on the radio.
Flight Service Stations in the U.S. have been privatized and are operated by Lockheed Martin. Sometimes I think the service is better, but sometimes their phone just rings and rings.
On several occasions when I really needed to get an update briefing by phone and there was no other way to access weather information, I sat on hold for over 10 minutes and finally gave up.
If ATC goes the same route, it will SUCK big time in my opinion.
Post a Comment