Just because its legal, doesn't make it safe
06-01-2013, 05:14 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Ajax
The tailwind issue is real, and I agree and share those feelings, but its a tottally different topic.
As for the "reputation" we may have of not being "friendly and/or helpful" all I can say is that there is not a single instance that I can think of where I would not want to be talking to a VFR aircraft transitioning through my airspace at an altitude that will have an impact on my final approach course at any of the airports I serve. Most controllers I work with feel the same way. I have to be totally down the crapper with traffic to deny traffic advisories, because telling an aircraft "unable advisories" does not magically make him disappear off my scope.
As for the "reputation" we may have of not being "friendly and/or helpful" all I can say is that there is not a single instance that I can think of where I would not want to be talking to a VFR aircraft transitioning through my airspace at an altitude that will have an impact on my final approach course at any of the airports I serve. Most controllers I work with feel the same way. I have to be totally down the crapper with traffic to deny traffic advisories, because telling an aircraft "unable advisories" does not magically make him disappear off my scope.
06-02-2013, 05:45 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Position: Captian, G450, G550 (Ret.)
Posts: 165
I am in an out of TEB, MMU and HPN a lot (like several times a week). I have had lots of VFR no radio contacts pointed out by you fine controllers but rarely have I had a conflict even when busy. I find that the NY controllers are some of the best in the country. I would classify their reputation as "very professional". Those time when communications were tense were during very high stress situations when safety margins were compromised. Totally understandable.
As to getting answers to your questions, these folks Teterboro Users Group have meetings every few months with a NY Tracon representative (Ralph Tamburro) present. Perhaps you can send your concerns to him to bring up at the meeting. I also see that he is retiring, maybe you can volunteer
Kevin
As to getting answers to your questions, these folks Teterboro Users Group have meetings every few months with a NY Tracon representative (Ralph Tamburro) present. Perhaps you can send your concerns to him to bring up at the meeting. I also see that he is retiring, maybe you can volunteer
Kevin
06-02-2013, 12:29 PM
#13
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: N90-EWR
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by 7Xdriver
I am in an out of TEB, MMU and HPN a lot (like several times a week). I have had lots of VFR no radio contacts pointed out by you fine controllers but rarely have I had a conflict even when busy. I find that the NY controllers are some of the best in the country. I would classify their reputation as "very professional". Those time when communications were tense were during very high stress situations when safety margins were compromised. Totally understandable.
As to getting answers to your questions, these folks Teterboro Users Group have meetings every few months with a NY Tracon representative (Ralph Tamburro) present. Perhaps you can send your concerns to him to bring up at the meeting. I also see that he is retiring, maybe you can volunteer
Kevin
As to getting answers to your questions, these folks Teterboro Users Group have meetings every few months with a NY Tracon representative (Ralph Tamburro) present. Perhaps you can send your concerns to him to bring up at the meeting. I also see that he is retiring, maybe you can volunteer
Kevin
06-02-2013, 02:18 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Position: Captian, G450, G550 (Ret.)
Posts: 165
Originally Posted by Ajax
Ralph Tamburro hasn't worked a radar scope since the early 90's, and has had a total disconnect with what actually happens with today's ATC at the NY Tracon for many years. I could go on with a lot more details, but I don't want to derail my own thread.
06-02-2013, 03:35 PM
#15
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: N90-EWR
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by 7Xdriver
Alrighty then. Pardon my post and back to whatever you wish to accomplish here.
06-03-2013, 07:29 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Position: C-172 PPL
Posts: 176
Class D underlying?
One of the biggest concerns that I have always had as an air traffic controller with 2 decades+ worth of working at the NY Tracon is VFR aircraft floating around just a hair under the class bravo, and not talking to anyone.
In most cases, the simple fact that they declared intentions is enough to allay ATC concerns; they're given a "proceed" and that's all. In some cases, they're given a squawk and more detailed instructions.
I've looked at other TACs, and Seattle seems to be pretty rare in putting this Delta around the lowest parts of the Bravo. But IMHO, its a good idea, and the Delta should be even bigger than it is at SeaTac.
Is there a good reason this isn't done at more airports, especially around NYC?
06-03-2013, 09:12 AM
#18
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: N90-EWR
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by abelenky
The way that Seattle seems to handle this is that there is a Class-Delta around and below the most inner-parts of the Class-Bravo. That means that VFR pilots who get close to that area have to contact the tower and announce their intentions.
In most cases, the simple fact that they declared intentions is enough to allay ATC concerns; they're given a "proceed" and that's all. In some cases, they're given a squawk and more detailed instructions.
I've looked at other TACs, and Seattle seems to be pretty rare in putting this Delta around the lowest parts of the Bravo. But IMHO, its a good idea, and the Delta should be even bigger than it is at SeaTac.
Is there a good reason this isn't done at more airports, especially around NYC?
In most cases, the simple fact that they declared intentions is enough to allay ATC concerns; they're given a "proceed" and that's all. In some cases, they're given a squawk and more detailed instructions.
I've looked at other TACs, and Seattle seems to be pretty rare in putting this Delta around the lowest parts of the Bravo. But IMHO, its a good idea, and the Delta should be even bigger than it is at SeaTac.
Is there a good reason this isn't done at more airports, especially around NYC?
I'm not familiar with Seattle's class B, but I think its safe to say that's comparing apples and oranges. For one, NY's class Bravo deals with multiple primary International airports (EWR, LGA, JFK) instead of one, multiple secondary airports (TEB, MMU, CDW, HPN, FRG), some uncontrolled fields (N07, LDJ), plus heliports everywhere. An easier solution is to extend it to 30NM, and lower the floor to 1500. The lowest we normally descend traffic is 2000, so that would give 500 feet buffer under most circumstances.
06-04-2013, 06:43 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,026
Originally Posted by Ajax
Ralph Tamburro hasn't worked a radar scope since the early 90's, and has had a total disconnect with what actually happens with today's ATC at the NY Tracon for many years. I could go on with a lot more details, but I don't want to derail my own thread.
You have a GA users group meeting with a rep from NY Tracon and the rep is despised by many of the scope controllers (rightly or wrongly). The system is really working great once again.
Guess the users group should have a vetting process set up taking into account the inside politics, personalities, etc when dealing with ATC reps of any kind (take nothing for granted). Something’s wrong here folks.
06-04-2013, 08:17 PM
#20
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: N90-EWR
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by RhinoPherret
Isn’t this a classic!
You have a GA users group meeting with a rep from NY Tracon and the rep is despised by many of the scope controllers (rightly or wrongly). The system is really working great once again.
Guess the users group should have a vetting process set up taking into account the inside politics, personalities, etc when dealing with ATC reps of any kind (take nothing for granted). Something’s wrong here folks.
You have a GA users group meeting with a rep from NY Tracon and the rep is despised by many of the scope controllers (rightly or wrongly). The system is really working great once again.
Guess the users group should have a vetting process set up taking into account the inside politics, personalities, etc when dealing with ATC reps of any kind (take nothing for granted). Something’s wrong here folks.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lowtimer77
Regional
55
11-10-2008 06:10 PM
