Aviation.ca - Your Number One Source for Canadian Aviation News, Jobs and Information!

You've heard me rant about pilots not carrying charts with them. Now we move on to the next logical step, and that's using them. In ATC, we see instances that are proof positive that someone isn't using charts on a daily basis. In my view, there are a variety of possible reasons, but my view is purely theoretical as it hasn't been proven.

One example is simple: Flight plan routes. We've seen some flight plan routes that prove someone hasn't looked at a chart. Realizing that not all pilots file their own flight plans, dispatchers can be called in on this one, too. In the Moncton FIR, we often see aircraft flying between Fredericton (CYFC) and Saint John (CYSJ), both in New Brunswick and only about 40NM apart direct. Problem is, a direct routing between the two takes you right through one of the most violated restricted areas in Canada. CYR724 is the training range at Gagetown, NB, and is charted as "continuous live firing FL250 and below". Anyone who has worked in the tower at CYFC (now an FSS and they can attest) can tell you that they do training at all hours of the day. The area is huge, noted on all VFR and IFR charts that show CYFC and CYSJ (including approach plates and SIDs), and yet, many pilots and dispatchers seem quite ignorant of it, sometimes. Also, this airspace comes into play when pilots play with the RNAV/GPS and ask for direct routes into Moncton from the west instead of using the preferential routes published in the CFS. Boston ATC will often approve the direct routing (heck they sometimes initiate it by offering it), since the aircraft flies above this area, not through it, but the end result is that the pilot gets hung up at FL260 til about 50NM from CYQM. Between Boston's airspace and "the camp", there is so little room to fix the problem. For example, a B737 inbound to Moncton the other day when told that he would be hung up asked for a clearance direct YFC direct YQM, something that will normally work. The pilot's wide turn radius at FL260 and 500 knots groundspeed ended up having him ride the western boundary, which is too close for me to allow him to descend, so he was hung up anyway. His original routing, as passed to us from Boston ARTCC, would have kept him clear of it.

Another proof of not reading pubs probably results in GPS usage as well, though it could be contributed as much to laziness as it can to nav capability. Preferential routes, already mentioned, are designed for a reason. Often, high-density airports have common traffic patterns and ATC has to insitute procedures and methods of controlling air traffic to ensure the most painless flow overall. It may mean some restrictions on operators, but proof is seen quite readily regarding the pain and restrictions that operators who end up off these routes have to deal with. The pref routes are published in the CFS and should be used when filing flight plans to certain destinations. Departing Halifax for Toronto's Pearson airport and filing CYHZ > CYYZ, for example, is just begging for a reroute from ATC. The best part from ATC perspective, is when a pilot does this, proving he hasn't read his publications, and then he gets angry with ATC for changing his route of flight. As a controller, issuing a reroute is not one of my favorite tasks, especially when the route is long and I'm busy. I know it takes some time to program a new route in an FMS and that this is something you'd rather not do. But we can't simply let you fly directly to your destination in every case. Airport to airport inside one FIR (provided you're not crossing a busy corridor) is one thing, but flying point to point on a segment that crosses several FIRs is not likely to happen, realisticly speaking. Help yourself out and file routes that ATC can live with.

So having charts isn't enough on its own. In order for them to do their jobs, you have to unfold them as part of the preflight planning. You read your NOTAMs, right? You should be looking at the flight plan route, too, even if "dispatch took care of that." You might just see a reason not to ask for a direct routing to fix down the road. You also may find a reason to refuse an offer of a routing from ATC that they think might save you time. ATC is often quite unaware of things like restricted areas that are deep inside the next FIR, let alone in an FIR beyond that. They often figure, "That's the pilot's job." And really, it is.

I won't be making any official posts over the coming days, but I felt a greeting for the holidays was the least I could do. So, be it Christmas, or another season you're celebrating, all the best to you and yours during the holidays!

Straight-in approaches versus full-procedure approaches have occasionally confused pilots, but it's an important differentiation to be made. Some of this sort of relates to my last post regarding the "outbound report" and when to make it, too.

When flying IFR and in receipt of an approach clearance, the words chosen by ATC are most often an indicator as to what's expected, just as with anything else. For example, if you're approaching your destination, and ATC says, "Alpha Bravo Charlie cleared to the Sumspot Airport for the ILS runway 04 approach," there is something expected of you, aside from the readback. ATC is doing several things in this clearance. First, your clearance limit is now the airport, and how they expect you to get there is by flying the instrument approach procedure named the "ILS RWY 04" approach out of the Canada Air Pilot (CAP). As we know, the approach plates are a published set of instructions and numbers which tell a pilot how to fly a particular approach, rather than having ATC try to read each individual number to each individual pilot. The one thing that's often not stressed in a clearance such as the previous example is that the pilot is not expected, nor authorized, to fly a straight-in procedure, even if one is published. If a straight-in is expected or authorized, ATC will include the term, "Straight-in" as part of the clearance. The previous example's wording would be changed to, "Alpha Bravo Charlie cleared to the Sumspot Airport for the straight-in ILS runway 04 approach." Normally with a straight-in approach, the nature of the transition would be specified as well, such as by the name of the IF ("... via FIXXX") or an IAF or VOR radial and a DME arc ("... via the 220 radial and the 10 DME arc), etc. The only routine example I can think of off hand where the term "straight-in" is not used and one is expected is when an approach procedure is commenced following an RNAV STAR, since the RNAV STAR is in itself a transition to the straight-in procedure (detailed as such in the AIM, RAC 9.2.3).

The reason a clearance for a straight-in approach must be specific (and hence, a straight-in approach not flown unless ATC issues a clearance for one, or approves a subsequent request for one) goes back to what was said in my last post about outbound reports and procedure turns. If ATC is expecting you to do a procedure turn, they may also be providing separation from other airplanes based on you doing certain actions, such as proceeding away from the airport at a certain point in the approach procedure. If you're running a straight-in approach, it may very well affect what ATC has planned, and proving separation can be difficult. It may, because by nature a straight-in approach tends to take less time, affect even how close an arriving aircraft can get to the departing aircraft while the arrival is on final, too.

If you receive an approach clearance that doesn't include the term "straight-in" and you want to do a straight-in procedure, simply ask ATC for approval for that. Either they'll let you and modify their plans for other traffic, or they may not be able to approve it based on what has already been issued to other traffic. But it's important to "straighten" it out all up front, rather than put yourself in a situation where less than appropriate separation may exist, possibly endangering your aircraft.

When flying a procedure turn, when are you "by the fix outbound"? There is a proper time to consider yourself outbound, and a good reason behind it. Here's some detail as to why.

Some pilots seem to believe that an aircraft is outbound when it is over the procedure turn fix beginning the turn to proceed away from the aerodrome. If you're, say, holding on the final approach course on the opposite side of the field, this becomes an issue. The AIM (RAC 9.14) states that the outbound report should be made when the aircraft is over, or abeam, the fix, proceeding away from the aerodrome. Hence, when holding on the FAF on the final approach course, you're not outbound when you reach the FAF and start the turn, but rather after you've started the turn, are abeam the fix (it's off to your side), [u]and[/u] you're heading away from the airfield.

The reason this is important is that in a procedural, or non-radar, environment, ATC must prove that separation exists, and this is done by getting reports of aircraft to ensure certain conditions exist. In the case of arrival vs. departure, an aircraft doing a procedure turn on an approach can afford a departure a narrow window of opportunity to depart. Take a westbound runway, for example, with a FAF 4NM from the runway threshold. An inbound aircraft is holding at the FAF at 4,000 while another arrival lands. ATC plans to get a departure out before the second aircraft gets in. Altitude-wise, the departure can be cleared to 3,000 without fear of conflict even though the holding airspace overlies the aerodrome, since the holding aircraft is at 4,000 feet. The first aircraft lands, and the departure is issued his clearance to go which is good to 3,000. The holding aircraft may be cleared for an approach, but an altitude restriction must be applied here. This restriction would be, "Not below 4,000 til by the Sumspot NDB outbound." This means that the arrival cannot descend below 4,000 until he is not only heading away from the airfield, but also by the fix, meaning that there is a certain amount of space proven to exist between the departure on the runway and the arrival in the air and they're heading away from each other -- in effect, "tail to tail". If the arrival were to consider himself outbound when he flies over the NDB and starts the turn, he leaves 4,000 feet in descent, and there is no proven separation between the two aircraft. Thus the reason for the entry in the AIM, intending to clarify to pilots when the aircraft is considered to be "outbound" on an approach.

A while ago, I posted in my old blog, and I beleive here as well, about an incident whereby an IFR pilot flew through my area and admitted to me that he wasn't carrying charts for his destination. I posted about how bad an idea this is. Not knowing about the restricted areas (there were plenty around this military training base) or where they are, the terrain surrounding the airport and so forth. This could put the pilot in a bad spot, especially if he suffered the loss of communications and it were IMC at destination (it was that particular day).

I received in my home e-mail yesterday afternoon while at work (consequently, I didn't reply until this morning which is likely too late), the following question:

I am currently in KBGR planning a flight to CYYR and realized that I forgot my Canadian Approach Plates. So, now I am trying to buy some...guess what, nobody sells them and my boss wants me to leave. So, aviation geniusses of the back seat, what to do?

I'll take the insult about being a back seat aviation genius for what it's worth. My answer to him was simply an echo of what was already said. In NavCanada, we are routinely bombarded with a model of aviation events leading up to accidents in which holes, not unlike those in Swiss cheese, line up in a series of events and let something slip through, leading to an accident. In the aviation industry, there are often many chances to prevent accidents from occuring. This is one of those huge red flags that, in my opinion, should be screaming out for attention. If that pilot did fly to a foreign field without charts and something occured, would this not be one of those things they write about in the post accident investigation? Can't you see it now?

From the pilot's point of view, it's definitely a quandry. Fly without them, or risk losing your job? Not a happy place to be. One could, but probably won't cost you your life. The other could very well cost you your livelihood. Back to the beginning, though, who is at fault? I wonder how a court would look at a termination hearing and see how the employer threatened a pilot for refusing to fly in a potentially dangerous situation. Sure, the pilot forgot his charts, so that's his responsibility. But if the employer said, knowing the circumstances, "Fly or be fired," how would that make them look?

This really isn't much to do with aviation, but someone asked me about the length of my answers to questions, mostly to do with their average length. What can I say? They tend to be long. In fact, I'm known as a repository for (somewhat) useless information, even at the ACC where I work. One controller there will prefix any question he asks, knowing it will generally be a long answer, with, "In 500 words or less, can you tell me this?" I'll ponder for a few seconds and most often tell him, "No." He'll generally leave it at that, too.

Given how strongly I believe in clear and concise communication, and often harp on the use of as few words as possible to convey the meaning of a transmission, it's hard to accept that I could be so garrulous. But what can I say? I believe that understanding is better than just knowing, and my answers to questions often involve some background information to help understand why things are the way they are. Afterall, I tend to research the background to questions that I have, and this helps me to understand the answers I find. Pedantic? Not intentionally. Interested in sharing what I have learned? Absolutely. That's why I write.

This post is a prime example. A simple question requires how many words from me? At least I wasn't responding on the radio.

I made a statement in one of the forums and it seemed to hit a note with me. In the Ask the Expert forum, a question about flying into busy, complex, class C airspace and being unfamiliar with the area arose, and I said, "Controllers rarely like surprises."

I think there is a lot of truth in that. I can think of many situations and occurrences where the surprise factor was way too high. A pilot expected to navigate to a certain fix (because he has requested a clearance to it and his nav gear indicated he could) and navigating instead to another one. A pilot flying a missed approach chooses his own altitude rather than the published one (don't ask me why this happened, as the excuse the pilot offered made no sense). An aircraft making a 110° left turn because of inadvertent entering BIMTU in the RNAV rather than BIMKU. A pilot told to "keep the speed up" dropping to final approach speed 25NM back from the field (well, actually, the FMS doing it while the pilot apologized for it). A fellow controller giving a descent clearance or a clearance directly to a certain fix that was not coordinated. The list goes on.

Surprise presents may go over well in family situations, but when you think about it, what "surprises" do we really like? Being cut off in traffic, "Honey, I'm late," and so on. Surprises are best left for parties, Christmas, and so forth, in my opinion. A little fun now and then is great, but be careful about just how the surprise will go over. Especially when the controller you're talking to sounds cranky. Communications is one of those things that I believe is as much an art as it is a science, and communications can resolve any chance of unwanted surprises.

A recent post in the forums reminded me of some "games" that some ATC played over the years at Christmas time. Like when we would record the ATIS, we used to do it entirely by voice, rather than the computer assembling sound bytes to speak it out. We would do little things like instead of "Information Charlie," we'd do, "Information Christmas," and so forth.

Another "game" that I've heard was played involved the radars. One controller had his wife bring his children in on Chirstmas even to wish them a Merry Christmas and such, but also played a little. He would use the target of an aircraft that was entirely outside the FIR but close enough to be seen on radar (this since there would be no flight data on this aircraft and it would just be an uncorrelated target on radar -- no data tag associated with it). He would enter a makeshift flight plan so that it would show up with a data tag calling him, "Santa", and point it out to the kids. "Better get home and get to bed, kids. He's coming!" The kids just ate this sort of thing up. Imagine seeing Santa's sleigh on the radars?

I've often wondered about other occupations and if they have similar opportunities to "play" at different times of the year.