What does having a stabilized approach have anything to do with controllers who aren't properly controlling traffic?

Why does it even matter to ATC what my company's requirements are? I always thought, and I could be very very wrong here, that ATC requirements were to vector you no shorter than 2 miles to the FAF.

So we all know what ATC is supposed to do
 

This is how it's supposed to be done (link). Bolds are my own. The "approach gate" is a radar fix a minimum of 1 NM outside the FAF.
Have you ever heard an airline pilot request vectors inside the gate (not the controller asking if you/they will accept it, but the pilot request it)? How many times have you intercepted inside the FAF - this should NEVER happen if a controller vectored you, even if you requested it.

The link provides much more detail. It is 10 years old though, so perhaps the regs have changed . . . I am not a controller.

Sniper:

I agree with you 100%. If a controller vectors you inside the FAF, several problems come up.

If conducting an ILS, you'll be above the glideslope before you capture the localizer, thus being high. If you choose to descend, then you aren't inside the obstacle protection zone.

Additionally, there is a reason why there is a glideslope intercept altitude published. This is so you can check to make sure that you are on the correct lobe of the ILS. If you intercept inside the glideslope interecept altitude or FAF, you could find yourself capturing the wrong lobe (high or low), both of which are bad.

I thought the OP was trying to educate himself as to our needs; why the rancor?

Anyway, for JetBlue we need to be configured with final flaps, on speed, engines spooled, and in a position to descend continuously to the TDZ not in excess of 1000 fpm. For both VMC and IMC we're required to be stabilized 1000' AFE. This is true for both the Bus and 190; note the 1000 foot requirement for visual approaches is more restrictive than many other carriers. That's why you're gonna hear me squirm or refuse when you ask for 180 knots to a 4-5 mile final. Hope this helps.

You're right except for the false G/S issue. The first false G/S is about 1,500 feet above the FAF on the ILS.

No rancor. There is a big difference between what our companies require us to fly and what is required by FAR for the controllers. If the controllers followed their rules, we would have no issue meeting ours.

Exactly!
 

I have to agree with this posting 100%!

I see this happend all the time in Atlanta. Terrible last vectors inside the marker almost paralleling or very late last vectors.

After being screwed by these "pros" a few times I started correcting the last vectors given myself to match was what was actually needed.

Do not trust the controller to know best, used your head and be proactive and always, ALWAYS question in your head what the controller is wanting you to do.

Atlanta is one of those places where an accident is just waiting to happend.

It is a training place for controllers and with the amount of flying in and out is just simple a bad match.

We need guys like they have in O' Hare in Atlanta.
It is a mess on the ground most of the time and dangerous in the air many times.

There is a lot of talk about the quality of the pilots but hey the controllers are in the game also and they need higher level than what they hold in some places.

It is way easy to become a controller in the States and the product shows it.

Looking back at a few accidents lately caused by controller attitude we might see that we do have a problem there.

Dont get me wrong, most do a good job like most pilots but there is a lot to be done in the controller field also. It is time for the FAA to take it seriously.

I wish we pilots could write them up the same way they can do with us. Maybe ask them for a phone number to call them when they screw you up really badly.:p

All facilities are "training" facilities now. The old days of working your way up to the bigger facilities have been changed by the same people you saw on ABC last week partying $5 million of your tax money in ATL.

Having said that, how would you suggest a controller gets O'Hare type experience. They all had to start somewhere, and even the O'Hare guys/gals had a first day there, too.

Also, I'm not sure I want all the non-standard phraseology and procedures that ORD controllers use as the norm. Yes, they get the job done, but g*d help the neophyte ORD pilot, or foreign (non-english speaking) pilot who is not familiar with ORD.

It's far from ideal.



That's true. Many, myself included, were hired with no experience whatsoever; some not even familiar with aircraft or airports. But, the same is true of pilots, even military.



I'm not aware of attitude causing an accident. Care to elaborate?



You can call and complain any time you want. Call during business hours and ask for the Quality Assurance office, Operations manager, or Air Traffic Manager. Write down the frequency and zulu date/time. You don't need any info from the controller, except perhaps the phone number (which you can get from other sources).

Thanks Tony for the answers and questions.

What I mean with attitude in some recent accident situations is for example what happend over the Hudson river when an helicopter and private piston engine collide in the air and what the supervisor and the controller on duty were doing at the time.

I also recall something about the lonely controller during the Comair accident not paying all the attention one would expect.

We also have the landing on the taxiway in Atlanta (not an accident but an ocurrance) were the controller gave the sidestep option late, very late in the approach.

I can agree that anybody can with some effort become a pilot as easy as a controller but you dont move into a 747 when you start working as a pilot like a fresh controller can start in ATL to be trained.

For the pilot it takes a lot of training and experience to get to the biggest you can get to (747, 777, etc) and ATL and ORD must be the biggest you can get to as a controller.

I am based in Atlanta since the start of 2008 and was ORD based before.

I am European and live in the US ( Becoming American soon) and had no problem adapting to ORD even with very few years in the states.

Yes they have a different way of working in ORD but the experience level is high. They know what they are doing all the time.

ATL on the other hand is a mess too many times to be acceptable. Bad separation, bad vectors, bad ground handling, bad ramp handling. Flows all the time and problems even on the best VFR day. Not all are bad. We have like in any other place some good contollers in ATL also. But it is a mess in general.

From my practical experience flying and being based in both places I have to say that I'll take the ORD guys anytime before the ATL ATC.

I believe the old system that you mention where the controllers would move to bigger places after a few years of experience must be the right way to go. (Do not understand why they changed it). There are thousends of small to medium size airports around the US were controllers can gain tons of experience before moving into and working in places like ATL.

ATL, ORD should be the top for any Controller and only the most experienced ones should work in those places. That is my opinion only and we are all entitled to have one.
By the way Tony, I always read your postings and answers with interest.

Hermann:)

I fly into Atlanta all the time. I think they do a pretty damn good job. I've never seen a loss of separation (caused by a controller). And the vectors you get are excellent. If it is going to be a short approach, they tell you, unlike other places which will leave you high and dry.