Pet peeves from the ATC folks

[Catbert]

I've been following the thread "Any traffic in the area please advise". There was a great post there by someone in ATC, which got me to thinking.

As a pilot, I'd really like to know what honks off you folks on the other end of the radio. What annoying things are we doing? What can we do better or different? Everything from procedures to goofy radio calls.

 

[skipper1]

Maybe....

We could start an ATC forum for that. I suggested that several weeks ago. I thought it would be usefull as well!

 

[gkrangers]

ATC pet peeves? Pilots.

 

[SDCFI]

ATC pet peeves? Pilots.

Funny, that's my pet peeve too!

 

[gear goes down]

ATC pet peeves? Pilots.

Hey, they wouldn’t have a job if it wasn’t for us!

 

[Hold West]

Aaah, ya know, I started reading this board because I'm intending to bail out of the FAA in a little under 2 years, and I'm interested in a retirement job in aviation somewhere. I really don't want to get to bogged down in ATC-specific talk. But since you asked...

OK, two peeves, having to do with visual approaches.

First, why are so many pilots tacking on "when it helps" reporting the airport in sight? Helps who? I don't get it. If I can immediately clear you for a visual approach, I will. If I can't I won't. Simple as that. Can't you just say "airport in sight"?

Second, what's wrong with actually saying "Airport in sight"? Lots of pilots out there saying "We have the field all the way" (or my real favorite, "field all the way when it helps". All the way to what? I've taken to asking pilots who say that, "Verify field in sight?" And trust me, if anything untoward ever happens, my bosses will bust my chops for accepting that as a report that you have the airport in sight.

Third (I know I said two peeves, but I'm on a roll) why do many pilots wait until I spew a whole bunch of approach clearance phraseology before reporting the airport in sight? The situation is this: ATIS reporting VFR weather, ILS and visual approaches to Runway 2 in use. Every aircraft that checks on landing I vector to the localizer. Then, I watch and wait, and timing it just right, I rattle off, "ABC666, 6 miles from DAFIX, turn left heading 050, maintain 3000 til established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 2 approach". The reply is "ABC666, field in sight". So I go back and say "ABC666, cleared visual approach". Can't we just eliminate the middle man, and report the field in sight, save me a little breath? And, to confuse me all the more, why are pilots intent on a visual approach clearance, yet pick up the intercept heading I gave them anyway, and fly the approach all the way to the runway? I mean, I understand flying a stabilized approach and all that, but why not just accept the instrument approach clearance?

Dog's on, I'm going to go watch TV.... :laugh:

 

[h25b]

Just to turn the tables here....

2 things that drives me crazy from the ATC guys...

(1) When they are "on the other line" and don't acknowledge you for 5 check ins. Just once I'd like to ignore them for 3 or 4 calls and then come back to them with, "sorry, I was on the other line..." :erm: We get just as busy working 2 separate radios at times and if we miss one radio call they act like we've lost separation with another aircraft.

(2) When they click the mike and it sounds as if they are having someone's birthday party in the background... What are you guys doing in that dark room anyway ? Once I replied to the guy in Indy Center, "sorry could you tell the guys to stop the kegs stands going on in the background because I can't here thing you're saying...."

 

[HS125]

Third (I know I said two peeves, but I'm on a roll) 1)why do many pilots wait until I spew a whole bunch of approach clearance phraseology before reporting the airport in sight? The situation is this: ATIS reporting VFR weather, ILS and visual approaches to Runway 2 in use. Every aircraft that checks on landing I vector to the localizer. Then, I watch and wait, and timing it just right, I rattle off, "ABC666, 6 miles from DAFIX, turn left heading 050, maintain 3000 til established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 2 approach". The reply is "ABC666, field in sight". So I go back and say "ABC666, cleared visual approach". Can't we just eliminate the middle man, and report the field in sight, save me a little breath? And, 2) to confuse me all the more, why are pilots intent on a visual approach clearance, yet pick up the intercept heading I gave them anyway, and fly the approach all the way to the runway? I mean, I understand flying a stabilized approach and all that, but why not just accept the instrument approach clearance?

1. Probably because we are waiting for you to clear us for the visual. If the ATIS is reporting VFR we expect (unless we are landing CLE) a visual approach clearance, not to be vectored for a 20 mile final. Depending on your work load, it can be difficult to even get a word into you to let you know that we have the airport in sight until you give us that approach clearance and we acknowledge that clearance.

The airport that I'm based at, uses the approach control for a neighboring airport. Approach control is intent on vectoring us for the approach regardless of the weather and traffic. It could be clear and a million with no traffic within 1,000 miles and they still make us fly the approach. The controllers will ask us if we have the airport in sight and still vector us for an approach even after we confirm airport in sight.:angryfire I guess these guys are in training to go to CLE!

2. Lazy pilots. :laugh:

 

[32LT10]

One of my favorites is when the guys call ground and say they want to "taxi to the active runway". I suppose the inactive runway would have a better use for departure?

If as a group we do one thing that hurts us it is the micmouthrunuthover disease. Keep it short and to the point.

Also, for the RJ guys can you take the marbles out of your mouths and quit trying to sound like John Wayne on the radio? Especially in busy airspace. "Beagleflight tuuuuuu, double ought, tuuuuu is with you wuuun wuuun tousand and we got the info victaaaaah" All this while the controller is issuing rapid fire instructions. What is with the "with you"? If you are talking to him/her at ATC then they know you are "with them". You only have so many words left in your life. Don't use them all at wuuuuunce.

 

[HS125]

Just to turn the tables here....

2 things that drives me crazy from the ATC guys...

(1) When they are "on the other line" and don't acknowledge you for 5 check ins. Just once I'd like to ignore them for 3 or 4 calls and then come back to them with, "sorry, I was on the other line..." :erm: We get just as busy working 2 separate radios at times and if we miss one radio call they act like we've lost separation with another aircraft.

(2) When they click the mike and it sounds as if they are having someone's birthday party in the background... What are you guys doing in that dark room anyway ? Once I replied to the guy in Indy Center, "sorry could you tell the guys to stop the kegs stands going on in the background because I can't here thing you're saying...."

(3) Controllers working more than one frequency that get upset when you call them and step on the other guy talking on the other frequency. Like we are supposed to know what that frequency is and that we should be monitoring it.

(4) Controllers who forget to give you the hand off and you fly for 10 - 15 min. before you realize that you've just gone NORDO and have to scramble to find the right center frequency.

(5) Pilots who can't be bothered to listen to ATC and have to be repeatedly called by ATC before they answer and then they read the clearance back wrong. Put down the paper, turn off the Ipod, let the FA go back in the cabin to do her job and listen up!