Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
01-21-2012, 10:04 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
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.
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.
01-21-2012, 10:04 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
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."
Perhaps DTW has adopted that practice....
01-21-2012, 10:06 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
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....
Perhaps DTW has adopted that practice....
01-21-2012, 10:24 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
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...
01-21-2012, 11:12 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
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.
Speaking of ATC, here's a recent doozy:
Incident: Expressjet E145 at Gulfport on Jun 19th 2011, near collision on takeoff
Incident: Expressjet E145 at Gulfport on Jun 19th 2011, near collision on takeoff
By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Dec 20th 2011 14:08Z, last updated Wednesday, Jan 18th 2012 22:05ZThe NTSB have released their factual report stating that radar data confirm both aircraft were airborne when the Embraer passed in front of the Cessna with a vertical separation of 0 feet and a horizontal separation of 300 feet.
The NTSB reported that the tower controller had cleared the Cessna for takeoff from runway 18 intersection taxiway A. 10 seconds later the Embraer reported on the tower frequency after taxiing along taxiway C, reported ready for takeoff from runway 14 and was cleared for takeoff from runway 14 another 6 seconds later.
A trainee controller and his instructor entering the control room at that time became aware of the simultaneous takeoff clearances and called "you have got two rolling", the controller however did not acknowledge. The trainee controller recalled seeing the Embraer passing just in front of the Cessna.
The investigation revealed that the tower controller in charge thought to get along well with his collegues, however was not well liked by his collegues, the collegues avoiding as much as possible to work with him. The collegues expressed frustration at the continual problems created by the controller and his inability to correct the deficiencies.
The investigation also found out that the radar facility's administration had limited the controller in charge to no longer be used as an instructor for trainee controllers as well as no longer to work the tower position, this restriction however had not been communicated to the controller, who was still licensed to work the tower position. As he was also licensed as controller in charge, he was free to assign himself to the tower position unless a supervisor was in charge of the radar facility.
The controller has been placed into an administrative status pending further action.
On Jan 18th 2012 the NTSB released their final report concluding the probable cause of the incident was:
the Gulfport control tower local controller cleared two aircraft for takeoff from runways with intersecting departure flight paths without ensuring the first aircraft had passed the flight path intersection prior to clearing the second aircraft for takeoff.
Incident: Expressjet E145 at Gulfport on Jun 19th 2011, near collision on takeoff
By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Dec 20th 2011 14:08Z, last updated Wednesday, Jan 18th 2012 22:05ZThe NTSB have released their factual report stating that radar data confirm both aircraft were airborne when the Embraer passed in front of the Cessna with a vertical separation of 0 feet and a horizontal separation of 300 feet.
The NTSB reported that the tower controller had cleared the Cessna for takeoff from runway 18 intersection taxiway A. 10 seconds later the Embraer reported on the tower frequency after taxiing along taxiway C, reported ready for takeoff from runway 14 and was cleared for takeoff from runway 14 another 6 seconds later.
A trainee controller and his instructor entering the control room at that time became aware of the simultaneous takeoff clearances and called "you have got two rolling", the controller however did not acknowledge. The trainee controller recalled seeing the Embraer passing just in front of the Cessna.
The investigation revealed that the tower controller in charge thought to get along well with his collegues, however was not well liked by his collegues, the collegues avoiding as much as possible to work with him. The collegues expressed frustration at the continual problems created by the controller and his inability to correct the deficiencies.
The investigation also found out that the radar facility's administration had limited the controller in charge to no longer be used as an instructor for trainee controllers as well as no longer to work the tower position, this restriction however had not been communicated to the controller, who was still licensed to work the tower position. As he was also licensed as controller in charge, he was free to assign himself to the tower position unless a supervisor was in charge of the radar facility.
The controller has been placed into an administrative status pending further action.
On Jan 18th 2012 the NTSB released their final report concluding the probable cause of the incident was:
the Gulfport control tower local controller cleared two aircraft for takeoff from runways with intersecting departure flight paths without ensuring the first aircraft had passed the flight path intersection prior to clearing the second aircraft for takeoff.
But anyways, they're as bad as us
so I guess it doesn't hurt to clarify.BTW, slightly off subject I had a jumpseater once who had lost his license for 90 days for an altitude incursion in a WB on climb out of one of our hubs. It was a great reminder to take no prisoners no matter how often you do it every day.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 01-21-2012 at 11:27 AM.
01-21-2012, 11:18 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B737 CA
Posts: 1,518
Thanks Dash8widget & others for the refresher course on the meaning of "climb and maintain" in reference to RNAV DPs with holddowns. I didn't know, or had forgotten, that its use deletes all altitude restrictions on a DP, although it makes sense if you think about the use of "descend and maintain" on a STAR. It makes me feel a little better that I'm apparently not the only one confused, I constantly heard other aircraft asking for clarification.
I guess my next question is, why the heck do they publish any holddowns on the SLC DPs if they are essentially never ever binding without the controller restating them anyways? Seems rather superfluous.
I guess my next question is, why the heck do they publish any holddowns on the SLC DPs if they are essentially never ever binding without the controller restating them anyways? Seems rather superfluous.
01-21-2012, 12:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Top
Posts: 472
I dunno man, but I'd like to chime in and reiterate that nobody ever got violated for asking for clarification.
01-21-2012, 12:28 PM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 94
From the regional forum:
With all the talk of scope restrictions, I'm curious to see the different scope rules of the majors. A good general comparison of the restrictions and provisions of the legacies would be greatly apperciated. I hope to educate myself of the size and complexities of scope for future heathly flight deck discussions. Any chart or link to realivent comparison material would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
P.s. I apologize if the above post is misspelled or unlegible due to typing it quickly on my phone.
With all the talk of scope restrictions, I'm curious to see the different scope rules of the majors. A good general comparison of the restrictions and provisions of the legacies would be greatly apperciated. I hope to educate myself of the size and complexities of scope for future heathly flight deck discussions. Any chart or link to realivent comparison material would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
P.s. I apologize if the above post is misspelled or unlegible due to typing it quickly on my phone.
01-21-2012, 01:16 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
Didn't mean to give the impression I was comparing winters.
Yes, we get a lot more snow than DTW, but there's quite a number of days where the airplanes get covered with frost overnight and that has to be removed. They use the hot water and type IV procedure for that too.
The guy that came up with that procedure did a really good job running Delta's de-icing program here. The crews were (and are) well trained and they understand the benefits of both preventive maintenance and ensuring your de-icing equipment works... before the de-icing season hits.
Some stations have problems with one, two, or all three of those.
Yes, we get a lot more snow than DTW, but there's quite a number of days where the airplanes get covered with frost overnight and that has to be removed. They use the hot water and type IV procedure for that too.
The guy that came up with that procedure did a really good job running Delta's de-icing program here. The crews were (and are) well trained and they understand the benefits of both preventive maintenance and ensuring your de-icing equipment works... before the de-icing season hits.
Some stations have problems with one, two, or all three of those.
01-21-2012, 02:06 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
