Man, that place looks really familiar... hmmmm... where have I seen that place before? ;)
When someone is on a ledge or threatening to throw themselves off a bridge (happens all the time in NYC ... on the radio during traffic reports they call it "police activity"), they should just pelt them with sand baggies or perhaps real bullets until they fall off. This way, if they are serious and want to die, they'll die and there's no more disrupting everyone's day.
iceman49
01-21-2012 06:58 AM
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1120212)
Spot on... SLC needs to be fixed and bad, as has been previously illustrated here. The reason why there are numerous problems with people asking as well as violations there is because the terminology is horrible. Fix the terminology and you fix the problem. There is nothing wrong with adding a few words to save a mountain of problems and confusion... like how ATL does the "RNAV to FUTBOL, cleared for takeoff 27R." The 3 "words" added to the front of that phrase fixed a lot of previous problems.
Oh, and more inefficiencies- DTW has decided to thin out their type 1 fluid, so they apply type IV to all applications to "help with holdover times." They do it even when there is no active frozen precip. We tried 4 times to explain it to them today and they had no clue that spraying 1000 dollars worth of type IV on an airplane when it's sunny does nothing because there is no holdover time. The only response was "we have to spray the type IV."
Maybe they're using the pic as a resume enhancer for their SWA application.
gloopy
01-21-2012 10:04 AM
Originally Posted by Dash8widget
(Post 1120164)
So much of our interaction with the ATC system revolves around per-defined phrases; cleared to land, line up and wait, reduce speed to, resume normal speed, climb and maintain, etc. All of these have specific meanings. So when a controller issues a clearance using the standard phraseology their intentions should be clear. Now, as pilots, we need to have an internal logic filter - ie. does this clearance make sense? In the case of SLC - if I'm climbing out on a SID that has a restriction to cross a fix at FL230, and prior to reaching that fix the controller clears me to "climb and maintain FL300," I know, by definition, he wants me to climb and maintain FL300. And, by definition, the restriction to cross the fix at FL230 no longer applies. And to me, this clearance passes the makes sense test.
It does pass the "make sense test". But when you ask, even though you don't have to because it makes sense, and you get a contradictory response from ATC 1 or 2 times out of 10 (more like 2 or 3 times out of 10 in SLC) then it warrants a free 5 second querry. Every single time.
Originally Posted by Dash8widget
(Post 1120164)
I'm not saying there isnt sometimes confusion on both side. But when you say to the controller, "hey, can we delete the speed restrictions?" and he responds "resume normal speed," he hasn't really answered your question, has he.
Exactly. "Resume Normal Speed" in those situations means nothing. Clarification is required because you know that ATC is incorrect on the phraseology or at the very least unsure about what's going on or being asked. So you get clarification. If they give you a "climb and maintain" and you waste a query only to be told 8 or 9 times out of 10 "um, yeah, duh! what else can it mean you big dummy!" then you might not win the top gun trophy for the day, but at least you'll graduate. During those 1 or 2 times out of 10 that you query a "climb/descend and maintain" where there are charted altitudes and you uncover a difference of expectations, that more than makes up for the other 8 or 9 wasted free 5 second radio calls.
Even if we fixed this issue 100% today with never another misunderstanding on either to come up, its reasonable to still be cautious for a while and ask anyway because there is no way to tell if the issue was fixed 100% until you get 100% correct responses for a while. So far, on either "climb/descend and maintain" with crossing restrictions and/or "resume normal speed" with charted speed restrictions, I'm still trapping way too many errors by asking to stop asking so therefore I will keep asking. Its as simple as that.
Wasatch Phantom
01-21-2012 10:04 AM
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1120212)
Oh, and more inefficiencies- DTW has decided to thin out their type 1 fluid, so they apply type IV to all applications to "help with holdover times." They do it even when there is no active frozen precip. We tried 4 times to explain it to them today and they had no clue that spraying 1000 dollars worth of type IV on an airplane when it's sunny does nothing because there is no holdover time. The only response was "we have to spray the type IV."
A few years ago I was told the fellow who ran the de-icing program in SLC came up with the idea of doing all the deicing with hot water only and then spraying a thin coating of type IV afterward. It saved a bunch of money over using gallons and gallons of type 1.
Perhaps DTW has adopted that practice....
iceman49
01-21-2012 10:06 AM
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
(Post 1120404)
A few years ago I was told the fellow who ran the de-icing program in SLC came up with the idea of doing all the deicing with hot water only and then spraying a thin coating of type IV afterward. It saved a bunch of money over using gallons and gallons of type 1.
Perhaps DTW has adopted that practice....
Little difficult to compare winters in DTW and SLC
Sink r8
01-21-2012 10:24 AM
Could it be that Type IV has a limited shelf-life, and hasn't been used enough in this mild winter? I sure hope ther's a logical reason...
