That was my wife's comment when we talked about it yesterday. If someone poops or pees themselves, they're gonna turn the plane back to the gate if it is still on the ground. Doesn't take but a minute for the pilot to call ground and tell 'em they need to turn off on an adjacent taxiway or pull off in a holding area. Lord, we had a near emergency a few weeks ago in my airspace from some dude that partied a bit too hard in Vegas. My wife had a similar incident when she was flying out to OKC to see me some years ago, and the flight got delayed coming out of ATL. She very politely asked the FA if she could get up, but it wasn't until a pilot deadheading back said something that they let her get up to go. It has almost gotten to the point where the airlines have forgotten they're dealing with people. People who have bodily functions they can't just turn off on a whim, people who have to be places by a specific time. While those involved in recent incidents aren't blameless, maybe th

(Written on 28/04/2017)(Permalink)

As a controller, I see this much more often in regional jets than mainline aircraft. It becomes readily apparent when there is miles in trail to an airport and there's an Envoy or Acey loafing along 20-40 knots slower than everyone else. It isn't uncommon to find them flying at .69-.7 Mach when the aircraft is capable of doing .76-.78 Mach. If anyone else has their speed pulled back, it usually isn't by much. Maybe .02-.03 Mach at most. As mentioned in the article, they don't save that much on an individual flight, but it adds up across the entire fleet over the span of a year.

(Written on 13/01/2017)(Permalink)

FWIW, it says both of them passed a drug test. Since those things can usually pick up someone having used pot for the past month or so, I'm going to reason that while the controller in question may not have been smoking himself, it certainly seems he may have been in the company of those who were right before he came in, which still makes me question his judgement given his responsibility. As to everyone who is coming down on the guy who dozed off, I welcome anyone to work these rotating shifts for a year and see what it does to you. You grow accustomed to it, but you never adjust to it. You just take it for granted that you're going to be tired on your midshift after 3-4 hours and try to do your best to not nod off. But that's why we have two people in the area all the time, to guard against that occurrence. It has been my understanding that towers were supposed to operate the same way, so my guess is that the one who pulled up smelling of pot was supposed to have been at the facil

(Written on 16/12/2016)(Permalink)

Problem is, once the VOR is actually decommissioned, it isn't charted any longer. If it isn't charted, it drops out of databases and is also no longer part of the jet or victor route. It would take a major rule change for the three letter fixes to stay active after the VOR has been stricken for the record. For the record, I'd be all for them making that change, it is MUCH easier as a controller to put those three letter IDs in the computer when I'm handed a lengthy reroute than a bunch of RNAV waypoints. But as I said, those making the rules often have no clue what the practical impact of their policies are. I'm not lamenting progress, but I can't think it is that horribly expensive to maintain some of the backbone VORs for redundancy's sake, and also so someone that only sporadically files IFR doesn't have to drop 10-15k for an IFR certified GPS.

(Written on 29/07/2016)(Permalink)

VOR transmitters are solid state and are "analog" out of operational necessity. Your VOR receiver measures the phase angle between the reference and rotating signal to derive your position from the station. I'm not going to say you can't do it with a digitally modulated signal (because someone will come around and tell me you can!) but with my limited knowledge on the subject, I'd say it would be needlessly more complex, plus would require a change of equipment in the aircraft. Analog and digital are simply ways of conveying information over a radio wave, and both have their applications. Digital happens to be a bit better for voice and video because you're just transmitting 0s and 1s and is less susceptible to interference. But for other applications, it just adds expense and complexity for the task at hand.

(Written on 29/07/2016)(Permalink)

Phase 2 is quite the hatchet list. Several of those are major VORs used on STARS, major jet routes, etc. Both lists are going to leave the airspace I work rather devoid of any kind of non-satellite navigation since most of the NDBs are gone too. Lord help any of the /A aircraft out there unless the agency is going to change the rules on VFR GPS and make them legal to use for en-route navigation. Agency has already started converting some of the RNAV STARS to where they don't include any VORs anyway. Ironically there have been a couple of STARS I deal with on a daily basis that have been changed, yet the VOR they used to start from isn't on the list. What is slightly annoying is that instead of sharing the same waypoint that is co-located with said VOR, one of the arrivals has a randomly placed waypoint about five miles away. That has already been causing some confusion amongst the airlines and we've had to deal with all kinds of funky routes requiring additional coordination with a

(Written on 29/07/2016)(Permalink)

Always liked the Cactus callsign. Worst part about this is now we as controllers aren't going to know which AAL pilots are going to complain about every little bump they get and the ones that won't.

(Written on 10/04/2015)(Permalink)

Helicopters routinely fly at altitudes below adequate radar and even radio coverage, so they're often flying without the benefit of ATC services. In some parts of the country an ELT may be the only thing that brings attention to something has happened to them until the operator notices that they're overdue and gives SAR a place to start looking.

(Written on 03/04/2015)(Permalink)

I shudder any time I see someone hand propping an airplane. I know its been done hundreds of thousands of times safely, but it just gives me the willies. Someone did it once in a 172 I was flying after someone left the master switch on, I don't think I've ever stood on the brakes in an airplane harder in my life.

(Written on 16/01/2015)(Permalink)

I think this is more to stave off potential issues rather than address any current safety concern. I know of more than one example where there have been zoning/building permit squabbles where a local airport authority tried to challenge the height of a building citing safety of flight, only to find out they basically had no real power to do anything about it. As a GA pilot who had a mechanical difficulty that reduced the already pathetic climb rate of a C150 even further shortly after I ran out of enough runway to put it back down, I'm rather appreciative of efforts to keep developers from encroaching on airports with taller structures. When building safety buffers into airports, it isn't about what has happened, but preventing something from happening in the first place. Yes, someone on a normal approach will always clear buildings and other structures under the current rules, but if someone loses a cylinder or an engine at low altitude, the last thing they want to have to do is

(Written on 28/06/2014)(Permalink)