Act Acting » Acting Agency » ATC says wrong position

ATC says wrong position

Question:

It’s on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation And, I stand corrected, there was information in the plan view (that should have been in the provile view, that would have permitted descent from 7,000 11.6 miles prior to the FAF.  The flight crash 2 or 3 miles prior to ROUND HILL because they descended to 1,800 prior to ROUND HILL based on their training and use of the profile view.

Yes, my *hazy* recollection was that there was information on the chart. Of course, today, they would (hopefully) have been given a safe altitude to maintain until crossing ROUND HILL. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Response:

<<I’d be willing to cut them some slack every now and then. As I am.  I don’t think poorly of ATC for making this mistake.  Live humans just aren’t good at getting minute details correct on a continual basis.  But it’s important that the pilot get a good feel for all areas in which ATC *might* make a mistake and have a contingency plan. Thanks

Response:

… If you have a copy of that approach, I would be able to give you more precise information. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) It’s on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation

I can’t seem to locate that on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation, can you tell me when and/or what title?  I think it may have already scrolled off of my server. Would someone please get it and put it on a web page somewhere.  I have googled for it as well, to no avail…. Thanks, John Clonts Temple, Texas N7NZ

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <<I think my approach would be to emphasize to the student the importance of situational awareness in all instances, and the attitude that he is the one flying and responsible…I think students (and advanced pilots) sometimes fall into the trap of allowing/expecting too much hand-holding from ATC.   I agree with all you said. I’ve been aware of this problem with ATC for a while and use it to illustrate to students how important it is for THEM to be in charge. I was just curious as to 1) how often others had noticed this, and 2) who was using this information in order to descend to intermediate altitudes.

I cannot recall ever hearing ATC give me a "distance from" an incorrect fix during an approach clearance.  90% of my flying is in the NE receiving radar services. Also, my recollection (and I could be wrong here), is that during the times I get a "maintain ….ft until established" clearance, it’s for a precision approach.  For non-precision approaches, I’ve received a "maintain …ft until crossing xyz" Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Response:

Go back to TWA 514 in 1974 and they didn’t provide much information at all with vectors to approach courses.

TWA 514 wasn’t vectored for the approach.

Response:

The FAA is far more concerned about the NTSB and the industry "knowing too much," thus forcing a change in entrenched ATC procedures.  The handlers at the FAA see every challenge at ATC procedures, if succesful, perhaps reducing "capacity."

Blakey seems a little less interested in such nonsense.  Let us hope there will be a third zero. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s all about moving traffic and nothing about safety.

Response:

So, you guys would have probably flown to the FAF at 7,000 then descended to touchdown (300 feet) in some 5 miles. ;-)

I don’t have a copy of the approach at hand, and I cannot recall how I would have flown it.  Clearly your supposition is ludicrous.  However, I would NOT have descended from 7,000′ until I was on a charted portion of the approach. If you have a copy of that approach, I would be able to give you more precise information. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Response:

Go back to TWA 514 in 1974 and they didn’t provide much information at all with vectors to approach courses.

I thought that was more of a training issue.  I have been told that up until that accident, the training at the airlines (at least at TWA) was that when ATC cleared you for an approach, descent to the initial charted altitude on the approach plate was safe. I was undergoing my instrument training at that time, and both I and my instructor were surprised that TWA descended based on that approach clearance.  It was a number of years later that I discovered that their descent was in accord with the then current TWA airline procedures. There have been more unsafe situations resulting from vectors over the years than anyone really knows.  The NASA database is full of them, but the FAA ignores the issue.  Some are controller errors, some are pilot errors, and some are a combination of the two.

Concur. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Response:

<<I think my approach would be to emphasize to the student the importance of situational awareness in all instances, and the attitude that he is the one flying and responsible…I think students (and advanced pilots) sometimes fall into the trap of allowing/expecting too much hand-holding from ATC.   I agree with all you said. I’ve been aware of this problem with ATC for a while and use it to illustrate to students how important it is for THEM to be in charge. I was just curious as to 1) how often others had noticed this, and 2) who was using this information in order to descend to intermediate altitudes.

Response:

From a controllers point of view, the part about "you’re X miles from X" is just checking a box that needs to be checked.  It’s probably the one messed up the most as either 1) you clear aircraft on multiple approaches to multiple runways (not at the same time usually) and occasionally say the wrong fix, or 2) you don’t vector much for approaches and just screw it up once in a while.  I’m willing to bet all those other items, (heading, altitude, approach clearance) are fairly accurate most of the time.  If I’m vectoring someone on a 100nm range (200nm from one side of the scope to the other) and I say 3 miles instead of 3.5 or 4, I suspect I wont get too much grief over it.  If so, well, there’s always arcs and PT’s.  ;) For this reason, I tell students to never rely on ATC’s distance statements to make a descent.

Unless the mileage is off by some really high amount, I’d agree with that approach, no pun intended.  I assume most of you ignore the first part of that clearance, as that is the only part of that transmission that really is NOT a clearance anyway.  Now if they give you the wrong airport, runway, or approach, major warning flag. But at a big airport with 12 ILS’s and even more VOR, NDB, and GPS approaches, and all the IAF’s and FAF’s to go along with all of those, which are often not the same for a given runway – I’d be willing to cut them some slack every now and then. Chris

Response:

Go back to TWA 514 in 1974 and they didn’t provide much information at all with vectors to approach courses. I thought that was more of a training issue.  I have been told that up until that accident, the training at the airlines (at least at TWA) was that when ATC cleared you for an approach, descent to the initial charted altitude on the approach plate was safe.

TWA, the Air Force, and some other operators taught that in training, as you say.  Others did not, but even those who didn’t were still often in the lurch with the ATC radar vector procedures in vogue at the time.  With the clearance TWA 514 received, those "who knew better" would have ended up far too high to land, unless they could have gotten a fairly weak controller to step them down on the MVA chart.  Also, the approach chart was deficient as to profile portrayal. I was undergoing my instrument training at that time, and both I and my instructor were surprised that TWA descended based on that approach clearance.  It was a number of years later that I discovered that their descent was in accord with the then current TWA airline procedures.

So, you guys would have probably flown to the FAF at 7,000 then descended to touchdown (300 feet) in some 5 miles. ;-) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There have been more unsafe situations resulting from vectors over the years than anyone really knows.  The NASA database is full of them, but the FAA ignores the issue.  Some are controller errors, some are pilot errors, and some are a combination of the two. Concur. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Response:

Go back to TWA 514 in 1974 and they didn’t provide much information at all with vectors to approach courses. TWA 514 wasn’t vectored for the approach.

Well, technically you’re correct.  In fact the FAA tried to argue, and lost, that he was a non-radar arrival.  Washington Center vectored him onto the Armel 301 radial (which eventually became the final approach course) some 35 miles prior to the VOR, told him to maintain 7,000 then handed him off to approach control.  Approach control simply cleared him for the approach while the flight was still on the non-published portion of the 301 radial, and the approach clearance contained no altitude restrictions. If it smells like a vector, it is a vector.  It would be more like a 7110.65P 5-9-4 vector than a 5-9-1 vector. But, your assertion that 514 was not vectored for the approach is pure Steve-techo-bablle bullshit.  It was that kind of attitude that created the atmosphere at the FAA to set the stage for the crash.

Response:

So, you guys would have probably flown to the FAF at 7,000 then descended to touchdown (300 feet) in some 5 miles. ;-) I don’t have a copy of the approach at hand, and I cannot recall how I would have flown it.  Clearly your supposition is ludicrous.  However, I would NOT have descended from 7,000′ until I was on a charted portion of the approach. If you have a copy of that approach, I would be able to give you more precise information. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

It’s on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation And, I stand corrected, there was information in the plan view (that should have been in the provile view, that would have permitted descent from 7,000 11.6 miles prior to the FAF.  The flight crash 2 or 3 miles prior to ROUND HILL because they descended to 1,800 prior to ROUND HILL based on their training and use of the profile view.

Response:

Also, my recollection (and I could be wrong here), is that during the times I get a "maintain ….ft until established" clearance, it’s for a precision approach.  For non-precision approaches, I’ve received a "maintain …ft until crossing xyz"

"Crossing" is to be used if they vector you to a non-published extension of an approach course.  "Established" is to be used if they vector you onto a published segment of an approach.  Precision or non-precision makes no difference. (Ref 711065P, 5-9-1, and all associated notes, and 5-9-4, and all associated notes.)

Response:

There have been more unsafe situations resulting from vectors over the years than anyone really knows.  The NASA database is full of them, but the FAA ignores the issue.  Some are controller errors, some are pilot errors, and some are a combination of the two. That is because FAA is afraid of opening ATC controllers up to civil liability.  What FAA fails to comprehend is that "gross negligence", or "restraint of trade", is required to win a lawsuit in such a situation. Human error is not gross negligence and the issue could be safely addressed.

If the controller is reasonably acting within the scope of agency, there is no way a controller is going to be held personally liable in any civil lawsuit.  In any case, the feds would indemify the controller in such a very unlikely event, unlike the private sector. The FAA is far more concerned about the NTSB and the industry "knowing too much," thus forcing a change in entrenched ATC procedures.  The handlers at the FAA see every challenge at ATC procedures, if succesful, perhaps reducing "capacity." It’s all about moving traffic and nothing about safety.

Response:

<<I guess I’m not understanding the circumstance clearly, that might lead someone to use that kind of information as an "OK to descend" point. When being vectored outside the FAF, ATC will say, "You’re 4 miles from x, turn left heading 210, maintain 2,500 until established, cleared for the approach". If you are between the IF and the FAF (as they said you were), then the published altitude is 2,000.  If you are outside the IF, the published altitude remains 2,500. If ATC says you’re 4 miles outside the FAF, but you’re really 4 miles outside the IF, then if you descend based on that info, you’ve screwed up.

Response:

<<Of course, with GPS, the pilot can, and should be, the final authority on the distance to the final approach fix or point. Agreed.   However, this "service" provided by ATC occured (I suppose) long before we had means to always verify the information.  Seems a bit unsafe.

Response:

<<Of course, with GPS, the pilot can, and should be, the final authority on the distance to the final approach fix or point. Agreed. However, this "service" provided by ATC occured (I suppose) long before we had means to always verify the information.  Seems a bit unsafe.

Go back to TWA 514 in 1974 and they didn’t provide much information at all with vectors to approach courses. There have been more unsafe situations resulting from vectors over the years than anyone really knows.  The NASA database is full of them, but the FAA ignores the issue.  Some are controller errors, some are pilot errors, and some are a combination of the two.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <<Of course, with GPS, the pilot can, and should be, the final authority on the distance to the final approach fix or point. Agreed. However, this "service" provided by ATC occured (I suppose) long before we had means to always verify the information.  Seems a bit unsafe. Go back to TWA 514 in 1974 and they didn’t provide much information at all with vectors to approach courses. There have been more unsafe situations resulting from vectors over the years than anyone really knows.  The NASA database is full of them, but the FAA ignores the issue.  Some are controller errors, some are pilot errors, and some are a combination of the two.

That is because FAA is afraid of opening ATC controllers up to civil liability.  What FAA fails to comprehend is that "gross negligence", or "restraint of trade", is required to win a lawsuit in such a situation. Human error is not gross negligence and the issue could be safely addressed.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <<I guess I’m not understanding the circumstance clearly, that might lead someone to use that kind of information as an "OK to descend" point. When being vectored outside the FAF, ATC will say, "You’re 4 miles from x, turn left heading 210, maintain 2,500 until established, cleared for the approach". If you are between the IF and the FAF (as they said you were), then the published altitude is 2,000.  If you are outside the IF, the published altitude remains 2,500. If ATC says you’re 4 miles outside the FAF, but you’re really 4 miles outside the IF, then if you descend based on that info, you’ve screwed up.

OK, I understand now.  I’m not an instructor, so I can only repeat back what I learned years ago.  I think my approach would be to emphasize to the student the importance of situational awareness in all instances, and the attitude that he is the one flying and responsible. An intermediate segment is usually at least five miles long.  So if all of a sudden ATC places the pilot 5+ miles from where the pilot thinks he is, that should trigger an immediate reaction to verify position. I think students (and advanced pilots) sometimes fall into the trap of allowing/expecting too much hand-holding from ATC.  That may be more true in certain areas of the country than others.  So I think it’s extremely important to emphasize SA, responsibility, and the importance of being on a published segment of the approach (and knowing exactly where you are) before beginning a descent. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Response:

When being vectored, and ATC says your 4 miles from X, I noticed occasionally that they state the wrong X.  They confuse the FAF with the IF.  For this reason, I tell students to never rely on ATC’s distance statements to make a descent. How often do others see this?

I guess I’m not understanding the circumstance clearly, that might lead someone to use that kind of information as an "OK to descend" point. If ATC is giving an approach clearance, and you are being radar vectored or on a random route, you should have received an "altitude to maintain until …" If you are approaching an IAF that has a procedure turn, and you are NOT receiving radar vectors to final, I was taught that being on a published portion of the approach meant that I had to cross the IAF first. ????? Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Response:

When being vectored, and ATC says your 4 miles from X, I noticed occasionally that they state the wrong X.  They confuse the FAF with the IF.  For this reason, I tell students to never rely on ATC’s distance statements to make a descent. How often do others see this?

That’s one of the many valuable purposes that a moving map of the MVA chart would serve.  Of course, with GPS, the pilot can, and should be, the final authority on the distance to the final approach fix or point.

Response:

When being vectored, and ATC says your 4 miles from X, I noticed occasionally that they state the wrong X.  They confuse the FAF with the IF.  For this reason, I tell students to never rely on ATC’s distance statements to make a descent. How often do others see this? << On a VFR approach to Oakland, I was told I was a mile off course when in fact I was lined up precisely with the runway.  The aircraft ahead of me was told the same thing (but I don’t know what his alignment was).  I suspect their radar was a bit off that day. Jose — (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Response:

When being vectored, and ATC says your 4 miles from X, I noticed occasionally that they state the wrong X.  They confuse the FAF with the IF.  For this reason, I tell students to never rely on ATC’s distance statements to make a descent. How often do others see this?

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply