ATC makes mistakes and I get reported

[SkyDog58]

Not touching that one Tim.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The trainee on position and the 6 aircraft conducting the overhead, really aren’t relevant to anything. The trainee has to get experience with higher and more complex levels of traffic before they can get certified. Ultimately it comes down to the student’s monitor if indeed an readback error catch was made on their end.

I understand and generally agree with your point, but if 6 simultaneous aircraft are in the pattern and that is not typical for that airport, it may not be the best time to have the trainee in the seat.

SDM Sabreliner/172 midair germane.

The trainee quickly became overwhelmed and it got busier than the qualified sup was used to. That was a direct factor in killing people.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Closure rate of 50kts is the key on the runway. Been to Oshkosh multiple times, landed on the same runway with upto 4 aircraft on the same runway multiple times, going about the same speed as everyone else.

No confusion when I read back and turned base. I read back and complied with what I thought I was told. What I understood and read back WAS my clearance. If ATC thinks it wasn't, then they needed to correct it immediately. As I mentioned, there was a separate overlapping communication from the other set of aircraft - so there was a lot of chatter. Sitting at home and going over the tape a couple of times revealed what was said. He may have said "extend downwind" as well - I just didn't hear it. I am used to "extend downwind, I'll call your base" so nothing new there. I read it back and comply with it all the time.

I agree the the monitor needed to correct the wrong readback. There were three people in the tower - all probably watching the overhead break

Don't really want this thread to turn emotional, just educational. As pilots and ATC, we work together. Ultimate goal is to have a safe flying environment for everyone. We do what we're cleared to do or say "unable" if we can't. But our clearance is what we read back, not what ATC says. There has to be a two way handshake. If ATC doesn't listen and verify what we read back, there is really no point in reading back instructions, is there?

BTW, this is not the first time I have heard ATC not correct a readback, but some of them are somewhat minor - but I wish they would do it every time. Creates better pilots.

So you're saying that it's ok for pilots to mis-hear something, but not controllers?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Lord, I hope someone never gets a LHSO instruction.

Are LAHSO’s still being given?

I haven’t heard one in forever. Even at airports where the ATIS says LAHSO is in effect, they don’t seem to issue it much.

 

[Velocity173]

Closure rate of 50kts is the key on the runway. Been to Oshkosh multiple times, landed on the same runway with upto 4 aircraft on the same runway multiple times, going about the same speed as everyone else.

No confusion when I read back and turned base. I read back and complied with what I thought I was told. What I understood and read back WAS my clearance. If ATC thinks it wasn't, then they needed to correct it immediately. As I mentioned, there was a separate overlapping communication from the other set of aircraft - so there was a lot of chatter. Sitting at home and going over the tape a couple of times revealed what was said. He may have said "extend downwind" as well - I just didn't hear it. I am used to "extend downwind, I'll call your base" so nothing new there. I read it back and comply with it all the time.

I agree the the monitor needed to correct the wrong readback. There were three people in the tower - all probably watching the overhead break

Don't really want this thread to turn emotional, just educational. As pilots and ATC, we work together. Ultimate goal is to have a safe flying environment for everyone. We do what we're cleared to do or say "unable" if we can't. But our clearance is what we read back, not what ATC says. There has to be a two way handshake. If ATC doesn't listen and verify what we read back, there is really no point in reading back instructions, is there?

BTW, this is not the first time I have heard ATC not correct a readback, but some of them are somewhat minor - but I wish they would do it every time. Creates better pilots.

ATC is required to ensure that a readback is correct if one is done, not ensure pilot’s readback an instruction. Outside of runway assignment and hold short instructions, instructions and clearances just have to be acknowledged. “Wilco, Roger, affirmative” or other similar statements will suffice.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Oh boy, you are so wrong. Controllers issue control instructions, not pilots.

I think his point is that the controller had the opportunity to correct his misunderstanding and failed to do that. Which is frustrating. Doesn’t mean the pilot didn’t screw up, but the check in the system failed.

 

[slacktide]

So why was there an issue? Why was I told to call tower? Anything wrong there? I didn't land without clearance.

You failed to follow an ATC instruction. If you thought the instruction was unclear or too fast, you should have asked for clarification. If it was still too fast the second time, you could have used the request "WORDS TWICE", a technique described in the pilot/controller glossary.

Just because ATC is giving you instructions does not mean that you are under positive control. They are two different things.

Gotta ask, are a you a new pilot? Rusty pilot recently returning to flight? Do you spend most of your time in uncontrolled airspace? You might consider getting a flight review with specific focus on towered airport operations.

 

[Timbeck2]

I understand and generally agree with your point, but if 6 simultaneous aircraft are in the pattern and that is not typical for that airport, it may not be the best time to have the trainee in the seat.

SDM Sabreliner/172 midair germane.

The trainee quickly became overwhelmed and it got busier than the qualified sup was used to. That was a direct factor in killing people.

Ummmm no. No problem having a trainee "in the seat" (most controllers will appreciate that as a trainee, you stand up while in position...I digress) during ALL periods of airport activity. If it gets too busy for the trainee, the monitor should start speaking up and overriding the trainee but the trainee should be right there watching and listening until the situation gets back to something the trainee can handle. There is no other way to learn to be a good controller without getting your ass kicked in position. What scares me the most is a trainee that barely squeaked by on his rating day because he got the minimal amount of traffic to obtain said rating.

Having said that, I'm not familiar with the example you posted. SDM Sabreliner/172 midair germane.

 

[SkyDog58]

Are LAHSO’s still being given?

I haven’t heard one in forever. Even at airports where the ATIS says LAHSO is in effect, they don’t seem to issue it much.

I believe so though I might be wrong. I haven't heard one in ages either but then I don't fly into any airports that it might be done at lately.

 

[Velocity173]

I understand and generally agree with your point, but if 6 simultaneous aircraft are in the pattern and that is not typical for that airport, it may not be the best time to have the trainee in the seat.

SDM Sabreliner/172 midair germane.

The trainee quickly became overwhelmed and it got busier than the qualified sup was used to. That was a direct factor in killing people.

All depends on the level of the trainee. If they’re new, then when traffic picks up, you bump them off. In this situation it’s impossible to tell how much traffic was going on. As a trainee, I worked multiple flights on position. You gotta get the experience even in heavy traffic in order to get signed off.

In this case, one flight (6) is a simple work in, especially since they’re doing the overhead. Every flight is still treated as a single aircraft. One instruction, one clearance, applies to all aircraft in the flight.

I suppose the UHF issue, if indeed that’s what they were on, could be confusing for other civ pilots but all they need to do is listen to ATC’s traffic calls. No need to really hear what the overhead guys are doing. Kinda confused as to what the op means about the flight talking amoungst themselves. The flight should be up a seperate internal and not be yapping on tower freq.

 

[Mike Smith]

Here is the deal, there are tapes.......everyone involved get to listen to the tapes. The FSDO will get to listen to the tapes. Unfortunately the OP has decided that we cannot listen to the tapes, so none of us really know what happened. Based on what the OP is saying it sounds like he was task saturated and missed the instruction, turned base into a gaggle of fast movers and scared the chit out of everyone.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Having said that, I'm not familiar with the example you posted. SDM Sabreliner/172 midair germane.

So the Brown Field midair that happened only a couple years ago started with a typical day at SDM. Trainee in the seat with a qualified sup. Then it started to get busy. At least 6 planes in the pattern, maybe one or two more. Trainee getting overwhelmed, Sup takes over but at that point the sup got overwhelmed and they completely lost track of a 172 and it got hit by the Sabreliner.

 

[PaulS]

……….. If it gets too busy for the trainee, the monitor should start speaking up and overriding the trainee but the trainee should be right there watching and listening until the situation gets back to something the trainee can handle. There is no other way to learn to be a good controller without getting your ass kicked in position. …………..

That's kind of like learning to fly an approach when things get a little crazy....

 

[kayoh190]

Are LAHSO’s still being given?

I haven’t heard one in forever. Even at airports where the ATIS says LAHSO is in effect, they don’t seem to issue it much.

Not sure if you mean GA only, but we do them in MIA quite a bit - land on 12 hold short of 9. It’s no big deal as 9 is pretty much at the end, but I see it a lot. Only other place I see it is DFW - on 18R we’re told to hold short of taxiway Bravo. Again, lots of pavement available though.

 

[idahoflier]

Not true. In all reality and as others have said, there is a trainee and the trainee is being monitored by a rated controller and in most places, both are being monitored by a supervisor. If this was an incident in which the tapes (all digital now but we still call them that) were reviewed and the tower was indeed at fault then the monitor and possibly the supervisor could lose their ratings.

Understood. But do controllers have that much discretion? I was under the impression that in today's environment controllers can face disciplinary measures if they don't report a deviation.

 

[bobmrg]

Good point there. Take evasive action as I see fit - but I am under positive control of ATC in the pattern, I am not going where I want to go. Likewise if VFR in Bravo.

Otherwise ATC could have sent the 6 jets around me and we all go home happy.

No. No way. You are PIC and separation is up to you.

At the first opportunity I would have called the tower to ask that the tapes be pulled and let a quality control person have a tape-talk with the controller.

Bob

 

[AggieMike88]

IMO, every approach to landing is a go-around until proven otherwise

I like what one well respected flight instructor and FAA Safety Team Member in these parts says

• ETOISARTO -- Every Take Off Is A Rejected Take Off
• ELISAGA -- Every Landing Is A Go Around
• EIAISAMA -- Every Instrument Approach Is A Missed Approach

 

[mscard88]

<---- never violated anybody

Me either, but then I was Air Force enlisted and they were off-I-fers.

 

[mscard88]

I think his point is that the controller had the opportunity to correct his misunderstanding and failed to do that. Which is frustrating. Doesn’t mean the pilot didn’t screw up, but the check in the system failed.

True, controller should have caught the wrong readback too. I agree.

 

[Anon]

Understood. But do controllers have that much discretion? I was under the impression that in today's environment controllers can face disciplinary measures if they don't report a deviation.

I think you're right. They said something about things being automatically reported.

The case was dropped without any further action - so no issues there. But I would like to see a bit more of a system where you can "suggest" your case so that the ATC system is better. Readbacks should be taken seriously and actions of pilots needs to be monitored. What I readback is what I will do - not what ATC told me to do. It is upto them to say - no, that is not what I asked you to do.

The pilots are the guys in the plane that end up dying AND it gets reported as "pilot error".

Like I said before, due to the nature what I was flying, I can't divulge tapes or locations.

 

[Timbeck2]

So the Brown Field midair that happened only a couple years ago started with a typical day at SDM. Trainee in the seat with a qualified sup. Then it started to get busy. At least 6 planes in the pattern, maybe one or two more. Trainee getting overwhelmed, Sup takes over but at that point the sup got overwhelmed and they completely lost track of a 172 and it got hit by the Sabreliner.

Got it. Remember when I was talking about the controller that squeaks by on his rating day? Could have been the supervisor. I wasn't there, not going to speculate but unfortunate nonetheless.

 

[Timbeck2]

Understood. But do controllers have that much discretion? I was under the impression that in today's environment controllers can face disciplinary measures if they don't report a deviation.

Depends on the management of the facility.

 

[AggieMike88]

Closure rate of 50kts is the key on the runway.

Let's focus for a moment on your statement that you say the other aircraft was 3000 feet ahead and your closure rate of 50 knots.

For the moment, we will not use the fact that, after touchdown, you are decelerating and no longer at that 50 knot closure rate.

So 50 kts converts to 57.54 MPH. That converts to 84.39 feet per second.

3000 feet, at a constant 84.39 feet per second, will be covered in 35.55 seconds (and folks are welcome to check my math and correct).

Dunno about others, but 30 seconds is a pretty long time and should be long enough for the plane ahead of you to exit the runway. In reality, this time is going to be even longer because you will be slowing down after your wheels are firmly planted. So it might be more time before you reach the point where the aircraft was when you touched down.

 

[Timbeck2]

Sounds good to me Mike, I trust your math and will add that 30 seconds is a lifetime on the runway and that goes both ways. Waiting for someone to start their take off roll after 30 seconds can be a nail biter.

 

[SkyDog58]

The simple fact is that until the OP demonstrates some stones by posting a link to the recordings, we do not really know the truth as to what happened. Though I do believe we can draw some conclusions on the OP himself and his knowledge of how things work.

 

[Timbeck2]

All depends on the level of the trainee. If they’re new, then when traffic picks up, you bump them off. In this situation it’s impossible to tell how much traffic was going on. As a trainee, I worked multiple flights on position. You gotta get the experience even in heavy traffic in order to get signed off.

In this case, one flight (6) is a simple work in, especially since they’re doing the overhead. Every flight is still treated as a single aircraft. One instruction, one clearance, applies to all aircraft in the flight.

I suppose the UHF issue, if indeed that’s what they were on, could be confusing for other civ pilots but all they need to do is listen to ATC’s traffic calls. No need to really hear what the overhead guys are doing. Kinda confused as to what the op means about the flight talking amoungst themselves. The flight should be up a seperate internal and not be yapping on tower freq.

"...You gotta get the experience even in heavy traffic in order to get signed off."

I would add that you need experience especially with heavy traffic, more than once, in order to be signed off. I'm a CTO examiner, sort of the ATC equivalent of a DPE and I won't sign anyone off until I'm convinced that they can work heavy traffic. Having said that and being that I'm up there as a watch supervisor every day, I take into account that if the rating day doesn't see heavy traffic, I have the option of using what I've seen the trainee do in the past to sign them off. Its almost impossible to see them do ALL the things they need to do to prove to me that they can do the job.

 

[Timbeck2]

The simple fact is that until the OP demonstrates some stones by posting a link to the recordings, we do not really know the truth as to what happened. Though I do believe we can draw some conclusions on the OP himself and his knowledge of how things work.

I don't need to hear the tape, I just want to know what the tower said to him when he called.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I don't need to hear the tape, I just want to know what the tower said to him when he called.

The case was dropped without any further action

Sounds like much ado about nothing.

 

[Timbeck2]

the "case"

 

[benyflyguy]

Are you under the impression that the tower is responsible to keep you separated from other aircraft while in the air? Because they have NO such responsibility. That's your job. Refer to the FAR/AIM, section 3-2-5, paragraph e.

"No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft."

^^^^^THIS

But not sure it warrants being called out for a violation..

 

[JonH]

"Turn base" or "I'll call your base". That's one call you don't want to miss. You got a nice headset?

Stop looking for fault and learn. It doesn't have to happen a third time.

 

[kkoran]

Perhaps the controllers didn't hear the OP's readback because the flight was transmitting on UHF at the same time.

 

[Velocity173]

Perhaps the controllers didn't hear the OP's readback because the flight was transmitting on UHF at the same time.

That happens a lot with military on UHF and definitely possible in this case. If it happened, ATC still has to get back to the OP and obtain acknowledgement for the instruction “extend downwind, I’ll call your base.”

 

[midlifeflyer]

No confusion when I read back and turned base. I read back and complied with what I thought I was told. What I understood and read back WAS my clearance. If ATC thinks it wasn't, then they needed to correct it immediately.

Strictly as an FYI, there is a US Court of Appeals case in which a pilot, thinking an instruction was for him, read it back and "complied." The instruction wasn't for him, the pilot was violated, and the violation upheld. The case might have been decided differently post Pilots Bill of Rights, but it's there.

More on point, someone suggested a link to the Live ATC feed. It would be really helpful to hear what the communications actually were. At this point, it is your memory of the comms, which may or may not be accurate. OTOH, I applaud your desire for anonymity while the process is ongoing.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yes and no. I haven't looked into it lately, but my best recollection from a CLE a few years ago is that the NTSB caselaw is mixed on whether a pilot deviation is appropriate where an instruction is readback improperly and the controller fails to correct the pilot.

It is US Court of Appeals caselaw. The NTSB overruled the FAA and dismissed the PD. The FAA appealed. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit reversed the NTSB and upheld the violation. The principle of the case is that the NTSB must accept the FAA's interpretation of the rules under a statutory enhanced deference standard. That standard was changed in the Pilots Bill of Rights legislation, but whether that would change the result is unknown.

The case is FAA vs NTSB and Merrell.

 

[luvflyin]

That happens a lot with military on UHF and definitely possible in this case. If it happened, ATC still has to get back to the OP and obtain acknowledgement for the instruction “extend downwind, I’ll call your base.”

The OP said “"I'll call your base" but extremely fast.” Including ‘extend downwind’ in that transmission might have, probably would have, made this an incident that didn’t happen. I think we had two busy people here, one pilot and one controller.

 

[denverpilot]

<---- never violated anybody

Not touching that one Tim.

Neither has Tim, allegedly!

Are LAHSO’s still being given?

I haven’t heard one in forever. Even at airports where the ATIS says LAHSO is in effect, they don’t seem to issue it much.

Yes. Got one not to long ago. Huge runway, no brainer. Accepted it. Did it. Done.

I like what one well respected flight instructor and FAA Safety Team Member in these parts says

• ETOISARTO -- Every Take Off Is A Rejected Take Off
• ELISAGA -- Every Landing Is A Go Around
• EIAISAMA -- Every Instrument Approach Is A Missed Approach

Good god. Kill him now before he breeds [again]. He’s proliferating more damn useless acronyms.

Hello all,

So this is the second time something similar has happened to me, and both times it was reported and then dismissed without any adverse consequence to the controllers that were controlling the airspace. There were two issues the last time.

Hang on. We haven’t met, but this reply is going to be long. Read carefully and don’t assume length means emotional. Here we go.

First point: You do not know if there were no adverse consequences to the controllers or supervisors involved.

They have no reason to tell you that.

How do you know this?

Continuing...

Issue 1 - ATC wants me to land on the same runway on which there is another airplane that is already on the ground but still taxiing. We have a 3000 feet separation as reported by tower, but the airplane that landing is taxiing (at a brisk walk pace presumably) and I am doing 65 knots over the threshold. I have a closure rate of estimated 50 kts, and that separation will become much less if the airplane on the ground decides to take the next taxiway. Uncomfortable, so I asked if I can go around - and got ready to go around, permission or not.

You missed something very critical in your training. You do not ASK to go around. You are pilot in command and you CHOOSE to go around.

NOTIFY the tower a go around has commenced as soon as practicable when it is safe to do so.

As far as the separation goes, 3000’ is generally adequate and not a big deal. All the inaccurate babble about closure rates with no math done to prove it, aside, if you’re uncomfortable, fine. Go around.

Most aircraft that approach at 65 knots will stop easily in 3000’ if you hit your landing spot to the minimum standard to earn a Private certificate.

Issue 2 - ATC tells me to report left downwind on the go around which I do (a bit later than midfield).

Why late? Are you behind the airplane by a mile here or what? Where’s the flight of six right now? Were you distracted or not listening to the other radio traffic for situational awareness?

Fly your airplane first always, but learn to listen and visualize where everyone is.

I report left downwind and they say what I thought was turn base. It ended up being "I'll call your base" but extremely fast. I said turning base, and turned base.

If you were unsure of the radio call ASK for clarification. Do NOT follow an instruction that was not understood.

Downwind there’s nobody you’re going to run into, generally. Turn in, you have people you can hit. CHOOSE the safer option if an instruction is unclear.

Continue downwind, “SAY AGAIN for Bugsmasher 123?”

Now from base, I see a formation of 6 airplanes behind me doing an overhead break and talking among themselves.

What do you mean “talking amongst themselves”? How would you hear that, and why would they be doing it on the Tower frequency? Please explain, you left out a critical detail.

ATC never corrected what I said and never corrected my base turn until I started turning final and there were a lot of people on the radio.

Who? The flight of six? Usually a flight is cleared to land as a unit and ONE aircraft is talking to the Tower.

I’m also not quite seeing the geometry here. If you were downwind turning base and a flight of six was at the initial breaking BEHIND you, they’re turning to be BEHIND you in the downwind.

Did they catch UP to you because of their speed? What kind of aircraft were these? Military jets or just a gaggle of RVs out for a friendly formation flight?

Then I heard go around step to the right - which I did. Then they came back with "possible violation, call this number" - so called the number and actually went and talked to the tower.

Best I can figure out here is they overtook you on base to final, and passed you with a landing clearance? Tower moved you right so they could land ahead of you? That makes sense.

It’s the only place the Tower could put you once you turned base early.

Nothing wrong with just moving over to the right when you saw a gaggle of aircraft passing you on the inside of their turn to the runway, and going around again ... stay well off to the right of the runway on your own, even if you couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

PUT THE PLANE in the safest location.

Controller on duty at the time was actually a trainee that never verified my readback and also never caught what I was doing even though I was on a base leg and fully visible from the tower. On top of that, I was reported to FAA for a possible pilot deviation - which I knew wouldn't hold any water.

How did you learn the controller was a trainee?

So on that flight, I feel ATC put me in two places that I didn't belong. I am in their airspace and I feel they failed to keep me separated and safe.

You went around on the first one. Your call, 100%.

You followed an instruction you didn’t completely understand on the second one, that’s on you.

They failed to do this by putting a trainee in an airspace with 6 very fast moving planes in the pattern that were talking among themselves. And then I get violated.

You got violated for not following the instruction given. If you didn’t copy it you had a duty to ask for a clarification and continue downwind which was the safest place to be. Situational awareness.

Nobody’s up there trying to go out of their way to give an unintelligible or confusing instruction or to violate pilots because they did.

So should I just be happy that there was no certificate enforcement against me and be happy about that, or should I go ahead and see if I can actually hold ATC responsible for the mistakes they made? How do you even do that?

You should be happy and move on. Enforcement of controller rules is not your job in this system, nor are you in a supervisory role over the controllers.

And you have completely missed the largest mistake you made that triggered the possible violation.

If you’re really going to have that conversation with the Tower Chief, all you’re going to do is incriminate yourself of that mistake. Your conversation will likely be recorded and if you admit to that mistake it’ll be evidence that can be used against you.

The enforcement action can be re-opened or re-evaluated at any time. There is no “double jeopardy” rule for this.

Mistakes happen. You definitely made one. The controller maybe made one. Move on and learn from it. Evaluate your performance for ways to avoid it happening again, and they’ll evaluate theirs.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Why late? Are you behind the airplane by a mile here or what? Where’s the flight of six right now? Were you distracted or not listening to the other radio traffic for situational awareness?

Fly your airplane first always, but learn to listen and visualize where everyone is.

Observation (and ): this is the flip side of the comments in the Class D bemoaning the lack of a communication requirement. A CFI can probably go to a towered airport and, while maintains overall radio silence, ask the trainee what ATC just said. If it's to another aircraft, don't be surprised if the answer is, "I don't know. It wasn't for me." It's also likely the underpinning of those who claim ATITAPA is helpful. If it wasn't directed specifically at them, they weren't really listening.

 

[denverpilot]

Observation (and ): this is the flip side of the comments in the Class D bemoaning the lack of a communication requirement. A CFI can probably go to a towered airport and, while maintains overall radio silence, ask the trainee what ATC just said. If it's to another aircraft, don't be surprised if the answer is, "I don't know. It wasn't for me." It's also likely the underpinning of those who claim ATITAPA is helpful. If it wasn't directed specifically at them, they weren't really listening.

I had another CFI beat the “listen and visualize” into my head a little while before I started on the CFI. Just before Instrument actually. Guess it’s been a while.

We flew together at a fairly busy uncontrolled airport.

If I said anything over the radio chatter even while taxiing and running checklists he would probe...

“You heard the helicopter right? Where is he right NOW? Point to him.”

After about three go-arounds of that, I got with the listening program.

I was annoyed at him at first. The helicopter is out there doing an approach and I’m over here on the ramp running a run-up checklist. I don’t care!

But after he made me PRACTICE paying attention I noticed something interesting. I did it the next flight, and the next, and the next...

It’s a practicable skill. You won’t find it on any testing standards and sure won’t get beat up by an old codger who wants you to do it if the CFI is teaching to a standard syllabus.

This is why even when they annoy me at times, I really like flying with older instructors.

I don’t think the way he approached it is fair for a newbie student but it’s certainly a way to get the attention of a rated pilot that they’re ignoring useful information already available in their earcups.

So the runup takes two more minutes? So what? You have a much better mental map of where the high speed metal thingies are around the airport and above it before you do that spin around and scan the sky thing.

I like some of the old dog’s tricks. They’re often new tricks to me! Making me point at random traffic or at least in their general direction from nothing but the radio traffic heard, was a great “pay attention” trick.

Side note: You also start to notice how awful most position reports are. Ha. That’ll get your attention, too.

I’ve also pointed out in another thread that at least one local DPE will get extremely annoyed with CFI candidates who talk over ATC, other aircraft, anything on the intercom.

He doesn’t want you talking and teaching when someone else is talking, the student won’t hear it anyway. Plus it sets the wrong expectation to listen only to one’s own tail number calls.

Now I will say that trying to do the visualization thing when listening to TRACON is a whole different ball game until you know common intersection names.

In an unfamiliar area, good luck. But listen anyway...

 

[SkyDog58]

...
Hang on. We haven’t met, but this reply is going to be long.
....