ATC ambiguities.

Ron Levy said:
...and without the clarification the controller should have provided, the pilot is required to demand that clarification.
Click to expand...

... if he is "uncertain."

The crack in which bad things fall is where the controller's instructions are objectively ambiguous, but the pilot was certain of only one meaning when he heard them rather than in 20-20 hindsight.

I'm not sure of the OP's mindset when he heard them. I think he recognized the ambiguity, but, somewhat poetically, it's unclear.
 
Ron Levy said:
...the ATC Handbook and the Pilot/Controller Glossary both tell the controller not to use that word alone.
Click to expand...

Interesting that the ATC Handbook didn't mention it until relatively recently. I wonder how long it's been in the P/CG?

JO 7110.65U CHG 3 Briefing Guide, 8/22/13

1. PARAGRAPH NUMBER AND TITLE: 3-10-1. LANDING INFORMATION

2. BACKGROUND: In 2012 the Root Cause Analysis Team (RCAT) submitted a safety recommendation to Runway Safety Council (RSC) that a change to paragraph 3-10-1 “Landing Information” FAA Order JO 7110.65 be made. The request recommends air traffic controllers provide pilots with additional information when using the term “continue.” This recommendation was presented to Terminal Operations & Procedures to process the minor formatting change to the paragraph for clarity.
...
NEW
3-10-1. LANDING INFORMATION
...
CONTINUE.
NOTE*
Additional information should normally be issued with instructions to continue. Example: “continue, report one mile final”; “continue, expect landing clearance two mile final”; etc.
 
Sorry for the interruption..Slightly off topic but...

If anybody is looking for a hangar in a great complex at KISP ( Islip, NY ) let me know.

I think you will find it is a different world at Islip compared to KFRG.. The controllers are the best and it is much less crowded, you won't be #20 on downwind over the northport stacks !

PM if interested. Thanks.

P.S. I think the controllers instructions were not correct and even though I would probably have asked for clarification I think you chose the best option based on her instructions. From my previous experiences the command I would have expected would have been "Continue on downwind I will call your base" "Continue on downwind, report the cessna on final in sight"
 
Last edited:
iflyatiger said:
Sorry for the interruption..Slightly off topic but...

If anybody is looking for a hangar in a great complex at KISP ( Islip, NY ) let me know.

I think you will find it is a different world at Islip compared to KFRG.. The controllers are the best and it is much less crowded, you won't be #20 on downwind over the northport stacks !

PM if interested. Thanks.

P.S. I think the controllers instructions were not correct and even though I would probably have asked for clarification I think you chose the best option based on her instructions. From my previous experiences the command I would have expected would have been "Continue on downwind I will call your base" "Continue on downwind, report the cessna on final in sight"
Click to expand...

Here here! This is a huge reason I like KISP and don't really see myself enjoying KFRG. The culture at Islip tower seems very helpful and I've been constantly impressed by them. They really do know how to work the airspace too and really get planes in and out really well.

Anyway, having listened to the ATC feed now, I honestly don't think this is anything to be sensitive about. She really did not scold anyone and certainly did not give any major attitude. Her instruction was unclear but the pilot in question absolutely should have asked for clarification. There were several other planes in the pattern at the time and one plane( farmingdale 60 I think) was being handled quite a bit so if the pilot had situational awareness, I would be very concerned about just flying a normal patern with this amount of traffic in the area and given a "continue" instruction. You can't just blindly interpret ATC instructions and fly around in your own airplane without thinking about what's going on around you.

Aside from KISP and a few of the approach controllers that I've flown under, New York area controllers are a pretty unforgiving bunch. They honestly have to be. It is way to busy around here for them to be forgiving of mistakes.
 
Last edited:
jspilot said:
Here here! This is a huge reason I like KISP and don't really see myself enjoying KFRG. The culture at Islip tower seems very helpful and I've been constantly impressed by them. They really do know how to work the airspace too and really get planes in and out really well.

Anyway, having listened to the ATC feed now, I honestly don't think this is anything to be sensitive about. She really did not scold anyone and certainly did not give any major attitude. Her instruction was unclear but the pilot in question absolutely should have asked for clarification. There were several other planes in the pattern at the time and one plane( farmingdale 60 I think) was being handled quite a bit so if the pilot had situational awareness, I would be very concerned about just flying a normal patern with this amount of traffic in the area and given a "continue" instruction. You can't just blindly interpret ATC instructions and fly around in your own airplane without thinking about what's going on around you.

Aside from KISP and a few of the approach controllers that I've flown under, New York area controllers are a pretty unforgiving bunch. They honestly have to be. It is way to busy around here for them to be forgiving of mistakes.
Click to expand...

:confused: The controller was incorrectly telling other aircraft that the OP turned base on their own. Then the controller told the OP to listen up next time. If a controller has a problem with what a pilot does you say "possible pilot deviation, advise you call me on xxxx after landing." It's either a PD or it isn't.

The OP received a "continue" on downwind with no other restriction. Two problems with this. First, "extend downwind" is the only phraseology given in the 7110.65 to adjust for sequencing and spacing for the OP's situation. Generally controllers throw in a "I'll call your base" with that. "Continue" is used when the controller is temporarily withholding the clearance for some reason (3-10-5 f.) or they aren't sure about the sequence and just want the aircraft to keep coming inbound (3-10-1). The pilot is expected to continue on a normal pattern and either report something or expect their clearance at a certain point. Second, the controller used "continue" by itself without further instructions. Years ago in ATC that was completely acceptable but now the FAA wants instructions after the "continue" to reduce confusion. That is why last year they added the note in 3-10 saying that they should provide additional information.

To the OP, you did exactly what I would have. I never even would have questioned the clarity of a "continue." When traffic is that busy, you don't need to be asking "OK, are you saying to continue on downwind or are you saying to continue inbound my approach?" Even the "Continue on downwind, I'll call your base" that she used with the next aircraft was improper. I'm not saying she is a horrible controller either. By the sound of it, she's been doing ATC for more than a day. I'm just saying she needs to tighten up her phraseology so it's more in line with the guidance in the 7110.65.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
:confused: The controller was incorrectly telling other aircraft that the OP turned base on their own. Then the controller told the OP to listen up next time. If a controller has a problem with what a pilot does you say "possible pilot deviation, advise you call me on xxxx after landing." It's either a PD or it isn't.

The OP received a "continue" on downwind with no other restriction. Two problems with this. First, "extend downwind" is the only phraseology given in the 7110.65 to adjust for sequencing and spacing for the OP's situation. Generally controllers throw in a "I'll call your base" with that. "Continue" is used when the controller is temporarily withholding the clearance for some reason (3-10-5 f.) or they aren't sure about the sequence and just want the aircraft to keep coming inbound (3-10-1). The pilot is expected to continue on a normal pattern and either report something or expect their clearance at a certain point. Second, the controller used "continue" by itself without further instructions. Years ago in ATC that was completely acceptable but now the FAA wants instructions after the "continue" to reduce confusion. That is why last year they added the note in 3-10 saying that they should provide additional information.

To the OP, you did exactly what I would have. I never even would have questioned the clarity of a "continue." When traffic is that busy, you don't need to be asking "OK, are you saying to continue on downwind or are you saying to continue inbound my approach?" Even the "Continue on downwind, I'll call your base" that she used with the next aircraft was improper. I'm not saying she is a horrible controller either. By the sound of it, she's been doing ATC for more than a day. I'm just saying she needs to tighten up her phraseology so it's more in line with the guidance in the 7110.65.
Click to expand...


Best answer yet..... IMHO...:yes:
 
Again alot of good comments coming in. Now. Where can I find a nr to call?
 
C182P said:
And that's the exact problem -- the controller's idea of what needs to not change and the pilots idea of the same are not always in sync, where a little more verbosity can make things crystal clear (read: safer, and can help congest the radio less due to less clarification).
Click to expand...

Isn't that the reason that the P/CG was published in the first place?

Bob Gardner
 
I confirm EVERY time there is a possible conflict (traffic entry direction on parallels, etc.). My buddy was chastized by a Class D tower .. approaching a RWY 18-36 from the west and cleared left traffic runway 18. He crossed mid-field to enter the downwind at the sleepy Class D and got the riot act all the way through landing. He asked how I would've interpreted it, and although I would've have expected a mid field cross as well, I would've confirmed/clarified. But if I got the "treatment" through all landing phases as he did, I probably would request progressive taxi from that single runway:rolleyes:
 
Try these numbers. Pulled from FRG info online.
631-454-2331
631-847-0721
The controller really seems like a piece of work. She was pretty short with others in the audio clip also.
 
danhagan said:
...My buddy was chastized by a Class D tower .. approaching a RWY 18-36 from the west and cleared left traffic runway 18. He crossed mid-field to enter the downwind at the sleepy Class D and got the riot act all the way through landing. ...
Click to expand...

When arriving at John Wayne from the west, crossing mid-field and then turning downwind for runway 19L is very standard.

What did tower expect him to do? Make right traffic even though cleared left traffic? Cross mid-field and go far enough out to tear-drop around to the 45 entry leg for left traffic?
 
Why call the tower days later?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
2 days after the initial incident hardly seems like a long time if you wanted time to discuss it on PoA and collect your thoughts, file a NASA ASRS report, and then hunt down the tower number.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
When arriving at John Wayne from the west, crossing mid-field and then turning downwind for runway 19L is very standard.

What did tower expect him to do? Make right traffic even though cleared left traffic? Cross mid-field and go far enough out to tear-drop around to the 45 entry leg for left traffic?
Click to expand...

That's why my buddy was miffed. Am not sure what the controller expected as he never relayed what he was expecting to my buddy ... but the controller had time to chastise him on downwind to base to final and through the ground roll as my buddy was the only traffic in the Class D at the time (mid afternoon).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top