Agreed, but that's clearly not the angle I'm getting at here. If you've read anything into my last few posts, it's not about flying by the book, flying by the regs, or flying to the letter of the instruction - it's flying courteously.

 

It's no secret in the industry that, if you want to do something non-standard, you should at the very least make it known. Granted, I've been using request and advise somewhat interchangeably here, but the fact remains: if you're flying into a busy field and want to do something non standard, request/advise it so that the controller has time to plan ahead.

 

I may not be making myself clear enough.

 

I don't for a moment disagree with you that if you want to do something 'non-standard' you should make your intentions known, nor do I disagree that if you're flying in to a busy airfield you must accept that you need to bend to the flow of traffic that is already established. However, where we seem to differ is our definitions of the term 'non-standard', and this may be a US vs UK thing as much as anything.

 

In my experience, most if not all airlines over here would encourage their pilots to fly in the most efficient way possible, commensurate of course with safety, good airmanship and ATC instructions.

 

What can the pilot do to influence the success of the business? Primarily, ensure to the best of their ability that the aircraft departs on time and that delays and fuel usage (i.e. costs) are kept to a minimum, as well as customer service/comfort considerations.

 

In a practical sense, this means using one's superior pilot skills ( ;-) ) and airmanship to operate the aircraft in the most efficient manner possible. In the descent, one of the ways to achieve that is by avoiding long periods of level flight, excessive speedbrake usage, and so on and so forth. In the climb, it might involve requesting the 250kt /FL100 speed restriction to be lifted (outside the US ;-)) in order to accelerate to ECON speed earlier (though some companies have different views on this).

 

To that end, I would consider it "normal" over here to fly a low-drag profile where possible, to aim to manage descents in such a manner that long periods of level flight are avoided, and to aim to acheive a CDA where feasible. Indeed, LHR and LGW demand it: there may not be any charts with "CDA" in the title, but in real life if you fail to achieve a CDA after the stacks your airline will be hit with a fine by the noise police.

 

By the same token, ATC will attempt to assist airlines to save fuel by endeavouring to offer direct routings, descent profiles that, as much as possible, are continuous. Of course, that may not always be possible because of traffic considerations, but if a particular profile is necessary in order to ensure separation then ATC will be explicit about what is required.

 

So, you're flying with an RYR callsign, and everyone else in that fleet is just flying the standard approach. Then you come blazing in closing on the flight in front of you because I couldn't read your mind either to know you were going to behave outside of the norm for everyone else in the traffic flow, and outside of the norm for your airline (not sure what is SOP for RYR, but it doesn't look like EGPH has any CDAs). Can you do that because you're the PIC and you're in command of the aircraft? Absolutely. Did you break a reg? No. The problem, though, is that you're assuming the controller should assume you won't fly how the rest of the people are flying and arbitrarily assign you a speed restriction that matches the other flight's speeds (even though those aircraft, behaving as they always have, didn't require an explicit speed). Aviation is based off of assumptions and standards. This is the only way all of this works. Heck, even your example of beginning a speed adjustment at 4.5 DME works because controllers have observed that pattern and plan for it.

 

It's that word "standard approach" again. What is this standard approach, standard descent profile that you keep referring to? I know what I consider standard -- Vernon, I'm sure has his own thoughts and so will others reading this thread. The whole point is that if you don't give specifics, you're leaving that "standard" up to the intepretation of the crew of that particular flight.

 

What, then, are the standards? Well, there is an ICAO standard minimum rate of climb and descent: 500fpm. Clearly, if one were intending to climb or descend at less than 500fpm, this would be non-standard. But if you descend me early (let's say, 200-odd NM out), what do you expect as a controller? I know what I, and I suspect most other pilots would do: in the absence of any further restriction (good rate through XXX, level by YYY), I would be inclined to either go in to V/S (probably c.1000fpm) or use the "DES NOW" function to initiate a shallow descent with the intention of regaining the profile. Is this reasonable, or do you expect me to go hooning down in an idle descent? Grey areas, as you note, are scattered around aviation, and I'm genuinely interested to know what you, as a controller expect me to do -- I am but an occasional visitor to IAD, and I'm very happy to learn any differences.

 

Likewise, in terms of speed: in the real world as well, there are some operators who, in the absence of a speed restriction, would consider it perfectly normal to arrive at the IAF clean at 250kias (or more, if possible -- I'm thinking of Vernon's favoured carrier!) and then configure from there; others would be more inclined to slow down earlier.

 

I promise you, this isn't about playing the "I'm the PIC" card. It's about expectations between controllers and pilots.

 

You start your shift letting every aircraft do its thing because it's not quite busy yet.

Things start to get busy, but you've been handling DAL MD80s, JBU 320s and AAL 737s without giving them extra information, though you're spacing them a little more tightly than before. You're simply controlling based on your instinct of performance and regular behavior of how the pilots will perform in each aircraft, at each airline.

All of the sudden, some self-important guy, flying for any of those three airlines then comes in, notices he hasn't been assigned anything specific in terms of speed or procedures and proceeds to be fully configured at the IAF. Why? Because he wants to and the controller should've specified his speed. Right?

 

Now, perhaps we are getting a little closer to the issue -- maybe there is a divide in terms of the way ATC operates on the two sides of the pond.

 

In the example you give, I'm not sure this would fly at all at a UK ATC unit. Heck, we can't even deem two aircraft separated if they're within 12NM of each other on own nav enroute, we have to put them on headings if we want to get closer than that in order to *guarantee* their trajectories, so I cannot possibly see how a controller would ever be permitted to allow that situation to develop. Streaming aircraft on to the ILS in a busy environment without any form of speed control? I can't see how you could possibly guarantee separation in the event of, for instance, a radar outage or comms failure in that situation. It's not enough to be watching on the radar to ensure the blips don't get too close: you must *guarantee* separation will still be achieved if it all goes Pete Tong.

 

However, to continue with the example: you're telling me that I mustn't fly too fast, nor must I fly too slowly, else I might compromise other aircraft around me. I can't disagree with that, but what is this Goldilocks speed that you are expecting me to fly? I don't know what the guy in front or behind me is doing: only you, as the controller, knows that. So how can I, as a pilot, second-guess what you want me to do?

 

I can see the Board of Inquiry now:

 

"So, Mr Bloggs, you allowed separation to be lost between the two aircraft on approach. Is that correct?"

"Yes, m'lud. But it wasn't my fault -- the chap behind was 20kts faster!"

"And did you issue any speed control to ensure the following aircraft would not catch up?"

"No, m'lud."

"So how did you intend to ensure separation would be maintained?"

"Well, I rather hoped the bloke behind would fly exactly the same speed as the chap in front."

"Did you tell him the speed of the preceding aircraft?"

"No, m'lud."

"I rest my case..."

 

When you're at a non-towered field, the wind is blowing 350 at 5. The AWOS states that the calm wind runway is Runway 17 and a few people in the pattern are using 17 in accordance with that. Do the regs prevent you from taking off of Runway 35? No. Might you have a good reason for wanting to depart 35? Sure. I think we can all agree, though, that if at all possible, you should depart Runway 17 to fit in with the traffic flow. If you're unable to do so, then you should time and announce it well enough in advance, so that the other pilots know and can adjust if necessary.

 

This is a little different over here: here in the UK the Rules of the Air require that you must make every effort to fit in with the established flow of traffic, so in that case you would have to have an exceptionally good reason for wanting to depart in the opposite direction and be prepared to accept any delay that comes with it.

 

If you don't mind me asking, what is it that you do for a living? You seem to be a very knowledgeable guy, but this discussion here points to a lot of that being book knowledge instead of operational knowledge. While book knowledge is certainly important (and commendable - we all know I'm a huge proponent of self study and reading manuals), operational knowledge is equally important, and what really drives my point here: if you're going to do something that may be considered non-normal, then it should be communicated.

 

TL;DR: If a pilot were to simply fly his plane by the book, and flex his authority in the regs, he or she could still be a giant irritation to everyone around, simply by not fitting into the mix, or letting people know to plan around this ahead of time. There's a layer on top of blindly following the regs, or being the self-important crewmember. It's called being an aviator.

 

I work in the media. I'm not a pilot (though I have done a little flying and gliding in the past) but I like to try and think like one in this hobby. I hate to pull out the phrase, but I am very well acquainted with a number of pilots and controllers (indeed, I've just spent a very pleasant afternoon in the company of a former 747 training standards captain for a major carrier) and so whilst the majority of my knowledge is book-based, I've been fortunate enough over the years to benefit from various people's operational experience to understand better how things work in practice.

 

I'm the first to agree with you that the big A word -- airmanship -- is key, and actually what I'm trying to say here is not "I'll do what I want and hang you all -- because the regulations say I can do X, Y and Z if I want to" -- that's not the point I was driving at.

 

As I say, I'm not advocating flying extreme speeds or profiles at either end of the scale for the heck of it: but I can say with certainty that I have never heard anyone on the RT in real life here in the UK, request a "low drag approach".

 

What this thread does illustrate is the need, perhaps for greater understanding between pilots and controllers in terms of what each expects from the other!

 

 

It's that word "standard approach" again. What is this standard approach, standard descent profile that you keep referring to? I know what I consider standard -- Vernon, I'm sure has his own thoughts and so will others reading this thread. The whole point is that if you don't give specifics, you're leaving that "standard" up to the intepretation of the crew of that particular flight.

What, then, are the standards? Well, there is an ICAO standard minimum rate of climb and descent: 500fpm. Clearly, if one were intending to climb or descend at less than 500fpm, this would be non-standard. But if you descend me early (let's say, 200-odd NM out), what do you expect as a controller? I know what I, and I suspect most other pilots would do: in the absence of any further restriction (good rate through XXX, level by YYY), I would be inclined to either go in to V/S (probably c.1000fpm) or use the "DES NOW" function to initiate a shallow descent with the intention of regaining the profile. Is this reasonable, or do you expect me to go hooning down in an idle descent? Grey areas, as you note, are scattered around aviation, and I'm genuinely interested to know what you, as a controller expect me to do -- I am but an occasional visitor to IAD, and I'm very happy to learn any differences.

Likewise, in terms of speed: in the real world as well, there are some operators who, in the absence of a speed restriction, would consider it perfectly normal to arrive at the IAF clean at 250kias (or more, if possible -- I'm thinking of Vernon's favoured carrier!) and then configure from there; others would be more inclined to slow down earlier.

 

If the "low drag approach" is the standard - as determined by the norm set over time based on company SOP (this is the "standard" I've been referring to, explained in at least a couple of my posts) - then it need not be requested/advised.

 

 

 

In the example you give, I'm not sure this would fly at all at a UK ATC unit. Heck, we can't even deem two aircraft separated if they're within 12NM of each other on own nav enroute, we have to put them on headings if we want to get closer than that in order to *guarantee* their trajectories, so I cannot possibly see how a controller would ever be permitted to allow that situation to develop. Streaming aircraft on to the ILS in a busy environment without any form of speed control? I can't see how you could possibly guarantee separation in the event of, for instance, a radar outage or comms failure in that situation. It's not enough to be watching on the radar to ensure the blips don't get too close: you must *guarantee* separation will still be achieved if it all goes Pete Tong.

 

However, to continue with the example: you're telling me that I mustn't fly too fast, nor must I fly too slowly, else I might compromise other aircraft around me. I can't disagree with that, but what is this Goldilocks speed that you are expecting me to fly? I don't know what the guy in front or behind me is doing: only you, as the controller, knows that. So how can I, as a pilot, second-guess what you want me to do?

 

My example probably wouldn't fly over there. I was going to allude to it in my last post, but I decided not to, as I don't particularly like the system of (over) control over there, and it usually devolves into an argument on some level. Our mins here (on a basic level) are:

• En Route: 5nm (3 in some cases, now that ADS-B is in use)
• Terminal: 3nm (plus whatever is required for wake turbulence)
• Visual approach with preceding traffic in sight: Pilot discretion (yes, even on an IFR flight plan, which I know is a huge difference over here versus over there). No onerous and redundant requirement to provide extra separation simply to have extra separation.

Regardless, as I've mentioned quite a number of times: fly in the predictable manner, as dictated by your company operations. If you're going to deviate from that for some reason, advise. This really isn't a complex point or topic. Since airlines have SOPs, they have established norms. These norms will create a pattern of behavior that observers (controllers) will recognize over time. This means that other airlines' traffic will be worked into the flows based on these observations and assumptions.

 

If your company does a spiraling final over the numbers, spiral your final over the numbers because that's what the controller is expecting (and, in this case, your company likely has a letter of agreement with that facility so that the procedure is known and on paper). If you're going to fly the regular approach, then let the controller know you're stepping outside of the norm, even though every other operator does the normal approach.

 

 

 

I can see the Board of Inquiry now:

"So, Mr Bloggs, you allowed separation to be lost between the two aircraft on approach. Is that correct?"

[...]

 

Except you're taking the case too far. I never said separation was (or would be) lost. I simply said a deviation from a set standard without an advisory could cause a controller (who is spacing based off of the expected norm), to issue reactive commands (which increases workload, and the number of commands given to all aircraft).

 

 

 

I work in the media. I'm not a pilot (though I have done a little flying and gliding in the past) but I like to try and think like one in this hobby. I hate to pull out the phrase, but I am very well acquainted with a number of pilots and controllers (indeed, I've just spent a very pleasant afternoon in the company of a former 747 training standards captain for a major carrier) and so whilst the majority of my knowledge is book-based, I've been fortunate enough over the years to benefit from various people's operational experience to understand better how things work in practice.

 

I mean this in the nicest way possible: based on your posts in this thread, and a few others, this is not too surprising. Again, you have a ton of knowledge, which should be celebrated, but the operational aspect (to include understanding the underlying issue of what I've been trying to convey this entire time) seems to be a little short of the mark. Learning about someone else's operational experience is still essentially "book knowledge."

 

 

 

As I say, I'm not advocating flying extreme speeds or profiles at either end of the scale for the heck of it: but I can say with certainty that I have never heard anyone on the RT in real life here in the UK, request a "low drag approach".

 

Then it must be standard enough to not cause an issue. That, or it fits in line with the European style of controlling, which is magenta lining people with speed assignments until short final, which would play into the low drag concept. We use vectors to accommodate variation, for the most part.

 

I'm simply raising the point that if there is a non-standard situation, based on some expectation (again, usually that comes out of observing SOP behavior over time), it should be reported. Minor variance, of course, is planned for, but major differences from the norms - be it a low drag approach, or major S turns for spacing - realistically can't be assumed and therefore planned for. If a low drag approach is the norm, however, then one need not say a word.

 

If in doubt, though, say something.

Europe is a very different place to America. Many countries, many different procedures in the size of America. Consistency is key. Also, all of Europe is busy all the time, less can be said about America. Hence the need for "magenta lining" people, as you put it. I live over a STAR for EGLL, Greenwich, and the tonne of planes coming in is outstanding. Mix that with Healthrow, Gatwick, Stansted, City and Luton, as well as smaller places such as Southend, in this tiny area, is a LOT of planes in and out. Mix that with any plane going across the Atlantic, even if not in to England. And you have that in a lot of areas within not that far of London. Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin, Munich, Paris. It's a very very busy airspace, of course controllers need to be on top of it and tell pilots what to do. You state you don't like the over control of how things are in Europe, but you do understand how busy it is, right?

 

Also, Europe is Europe, America is America, quite different. Calling experience in to an area you've never worked is a bit pointless, it adds nothing. Simon could easily argue he know more about European operations then Kyle regardless of his job. The culture differences are massive, quite frankly. England is 20-odd miles from France, but I can tell, having lived in both, people are really different, and to believe that doesn't effect controlling is just lying (there is an active post on Avsim right now that can attest to that)

Also, all of Europe is busy all the time, less can be said about America. Hence the need for "magenta lining" people, as you put it. I live over a STAR for EGLL, Greenwich, and the tonne of planes coming in is outstanding. Mix that with Healthrow, Gatwick, Stansted, City and Luton, as well as smaller places such as Southend, in this tiny area, is a LOT of planes in and out. Mix that with any plane going across the Atlantic, even if not in to Endland. And you have that in a lot of areas within not that far of London. Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin, Munich, Paris. It's a very very busy airspace, of course controllers need to be on top of it and tell pilots what to do. You state you don't like the over control of how things are in Europe, but you do understand how busy it is, right?

 

Right, but looking at the rather onerous sep requirements they keep over there, the very reason they're busy all the time is that they force themselves to be. Over here, we pack aircraft in as best we can, and can legally do so because of our better designed regulations (at least in the case of traffic management and separation). It's not 1950 anymore. We have radar that's actually pretty precise, and nav systems that are even more precise (else we wouldn't have RNP). This means that the margin of error (part of the reason sep requirements existed in the first place) for a position is actually very low now. That said, operating with lower mins is not only possible, it's a good idea. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, we can take advantage of visuals. If a trailing pilot reports a preceding aircraft in sight, the controller can issue "follow that traffic, cleared visual [etc]." The separation requirement is then placed on the pilot, which means we're no longer bound by the 3nm, and can really get them in. DCA, as an example, has a reputation for this.

 

So, as you can see, the busy all the time thing is somewhat a product of their own causes. Instead of the demand kept in narrow windows, they're artificially spreading it by forcing higher separation mins. In order to enforce this, and ensure proper timing, they keep people on the magenta line (vectors introduce variance).

 

 

 

Also, Europe is Europe, America is America, quite different. Calling experience in to an area you've never worked is a bit pointless, it adds nothing. Simon could easily argue he know more about European operations then Kyle regardless of his job. The culture differences are massive, quite frankly

 

I'm no EU SME, but Traffic Management is Traffic Management. With a known quantity of airplanes, you have a set rate, determined by the regulatory mins. Adjustments to the rate will give a higher or lower delay number that must be absorbed by the aircraft later in the stream.

Right, but looking at the rather onerous sep requirements they keep over there, the very reason they're busy all the time is that they force themselves to be. Over here, we pack aircraft in as best we can, and can legally do so because of our better designed regulations (at least in the case of traffic management and separation). It's not 1950 anymore.

 

Right, so all controllers in Europe are busy because of bad practice? And US controllers are not because of good practice? I'm just trying to make sure we are on the same page here. Because you're making are quite frankly outrageous statement here, especially as someone who hasn't working in any European control. Suggesting one of the busiest airspace in the world, London, is badly controlled because the employees in ATC at bad at that job is a huge claim to make, by someone who has never worked there (have you ever worked in ATC?)

 

Kyle what's what your job? Because you're speaking as someone who has never worked in ATC in Europe and I have to ask, have you flown in to a major European city as a pilot? No offence, but just reiterating what you called Simon out on earlier.

 

Maybe now is the time to point out statistics according to this page http://www.airfleets.net/crash/stat_country.htm that USA is 63 and all European countries are 39 (Greenland and Turkey I wasn't sure what to do about but even so, not even close) That's a whole continent, with widely different languages and cultures very far off the mark. Even if I added up badly and missed countries, we're still showing different numbers.

 

I'm really struggling with your comment. We have big cities that are very busy, whose native language is NOT English and you are suggesting European ATC is bad because they make it bad? On purpose? Because America has "better designed regulations" (your quote) and your making that from what? Please tell me what European cities you've lived in. You do know that Europe is not 1950, right? You're bordering on being offensive right now. You know Airbus is from Europe right? The work horse of the air, one of the most forward thinkings companies in aviation builds their wings in Wales, and combines the sections of the plane in the south of France. And you think the whole of Europe is bad at ATC? Come on son, please don't tell me you believe that. Don't tell people you not a subject matter expert then lecture people on being a subject matter expert. You're better then that

Well this turned out to be an interesting thread!   I learned quite a bit and I appreciate everyone's contributions. 

I like to fly in Scotland quite a bit, but almost always with the FSX built-in ATC.   So I had flown into EGPH and EGPF many times, but always vectored by ATC, so I had never really looked at recent charts and had never seen a racetrack procedure before, let alone tried to fly one. 

So in the past few days, I've been playing around with trying to fly all of the approaches for both major Scottish airports, without any ATC at all to bug me.  I've been doing touch and goes and flying between the airports, both with the NGX with much automation, and also with older, analog jetliners like a popular payware 727, and another popular payware DC-9, mostly hand flying. 

 

Fun!   The strange thing is, I've flown into EGPF many times as a passenger on a jetliner, and I don't think we've ever flown a hold or a racetrack. 

 

 

Right, so all controllers in Europe are busy because of bad practice? And US controllers are not because of good practice? I'm just trying to make sure we are on the same page here. Because you're making are quite frankly outrageous statement here, especially as someone who hasn't working in any European control. Suggesting one of the busiest airspace in the world, London, is badly controlled because the employees in ATC at bad at that job is a huge claim to make, by someone who has never worked there (have you ever worked in ATC?)

 

Whoa there. You're putting some pretty nasty words in my mouth, and I do not take to kindly to that. I do understand that I'm highlighting differences between two countries, and not speaking kindly about one of them, please do not take my words and run with them in an effort to stir up drama.

 

What I had said was, and this is a direct quote from the above post:

"Right, but looking at the rather onerous sep requirements they keep over there, the very reason they're busy all the time is that they force themselves to be. [Examples]. So, as you can see, the busy all the time thing is somewhat a product of their own causes. Instead of the demand kept in narrow windows, they're artificially spreading it by forcing higher separation mins."

 

Nowhere in there did I say that any controller was bad at their job. What I did reference, very, very specifically, was the onerous separation requirements. 'Onerous' doesn't mean bad, but it also doesn't mean good. 'Onerous' means burdensome. Burdensome means there are improvements to be made to make it less so. Our system isn't perfect over here, either. Just have the wind blow from the southeast at JFK and watch the entirety of N90 come to a grinding halt. That's through poor planning decades back, but hindsight is perfect.

 

 

 

Kyle what's what your job? Because you're speaking as someone who has never worked in ATC in Europe and I have to ask, have you flown in to a major European city as a pilot? No offence, but just reiterating what you called Simon out on earlier.

 

My current job is to support the FAA in a variety of ways. One of them is working with the world's air traffic organizations in recording events and errors to determine if the way we're regulating aviation (as an international aviation community) is effective, and if changes could be made to make it better. This regularly involves telling people we think they could be better (to include our own FAA facilities). Of course, making something better requires an acknowledgement that it could be improved, as I've clearly pointed at. Prior to that, I worked on a contract very heavily involved in traffic management, and this included global operators.

 

Regardless, traffic management is traffic management. The concept is the same here as it is there:

You have planes and you need to put them on the runway. The speed at which this is done (aircraft per hour) is directly dependent on how many planes you can deliver to that runway, which is dependent on the number of miles you need to maintain between them. Again, as I mentioned before, here in the States, a controller can have a pilot report the preceding traffic in sight and clear him or her on the approach (when conditions allow, of course). The pilot is then required to maintain separation, and the radar controller is not required to maintain radar separation mins, because radar isn't being used as the means of separation. This practice allows us to get a lot of aircraft in, within a narrower window of time, which propagates back less delay. The UK model, however, maintains a higher required separation to the runway. While, in theory, one could put just as many aircraft down on the runway, with higher separation mins, that amount of traffic - by requirement - must be spaced out through a longer period of time.

 

20 aircraft at 2nm vis sep:

x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x

 

20 aircraft at 3nm vis sep:

x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x---x

 

Doesn't look like a whole lot now, but take the number of aircraft in a day and multiply that out. That one extra mile ends up helping out a lot (even the half mile between 2 and the 2.5 that LHR can use in certain situations would help).

 

While you raise an interesting point about my lack of operational pilot experience over there, the pilot pool that understands TM operations is very, very, very small. In fact, one of the issues with how we used to run TM was that most pilots didn't get it. We'd ground stop an airport to help delay the flow of traffic into another airport, and then the pilots would firewall the throttles in the air to "make up time." That usually created another situation at the destination all over again. We don't do that anymore, because it was better to just come up with a new way than to try to force feed more information to every single pilot. Again, having worked with TM and people in the TMU, I know rather well the challenges the face, and how various procedures can affect them.

 

 

 

Maybe now is the time to point out statistics according to this page [link] that USA is 63 and all European countries are 39 (Greenland and Turkey I wasn't sure what to do about but even so, not even close) That's a whole continent, with widely different languages and cultures very far off the mark. Even if I added up badly and missed countries, we're still showing different numbers.

 

Just looking at the top of the page, I see this: "In this section are included all the plane accidents having pulled a plane destruction. Only accidents occured on an Airfleets supported aircraft are recorded."

 

"Having pulled a plane destruction."

...almost like they were trying to say "pull a frontside 540 up to an ollie to grind on the lip right before dropping in on the pipe for a sick plane destruction on the high side, brah!"

 

That's not the language I'd be relying on when looking for a reputable source. Moreover, what are the bounds? Is it being controlled for aircraft movements? ...per capita? ...per miles flown? Is this 121/129 only? Heck, what years are they even using? What's the correlation between ATC and the accident (quite honestly, in today's aviation world, it's usually none), because none seems to be made?

 

Heck, part 121 operators had 31 accidents in 2011 alone (though none of them were fatal), and most of those were attributed to encounters with turbulence (Source: http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Documents/ARA1401.pdf). None are attributed to ATC (while airborne, which is the only area where radar sep applies).

 

Moreover, that Airfleets site notes that only "supported" aircraft are recorded, and if you go to the supported page, you'll see that they can't even spell Ilyushin correctly. Not the source I would be using when trying to make a statement.

 

 

 

I'm really struggling with your comment. We have big cities that are very busy, whose native language is NOT English and you are suggesting European ATC is bad because they make it bad? On purpose? Because America has "better designed regulations" (your quote) and your making that from what? Please tell me what European cities you've lived in. You do know that Europe is not 1950, right? You're bordering on being offensive right now. You know Airbus is from Europe right? The work horse of the air, one of the most forward thinkings companies in aviation builds their wings in Wales, and combines the sections of the plane in the south of France. And you think the whole of Europe is bad at ATC? Come on son, please don't tell me you believe that. Don't tell people you not a subject matter expert then lecture people on being a subject matter expert. You're better then that

 

As I mentioned earlier, please avoid polarizing my words. Nowhere in my posts did I say anything was bad. At worst, I alluded to a situation where it could be better.

 

Point one:

"European ATC is bad because they make it bad? On purpose?"

I never said ATC was bad. I said that the sep requirements were onerous or burdensome, and that this spread out traffic movements across the day. This was to counter an earlier point that "all of Europe is busy all the time." The "all the time" part is different here because we don't need the extra time to bring in the same amount of aircraft. This is directly determined by the sep requirements we have here. That is not an emotional argument; it is a statistical one.

 

Point two:

"Because America has "better designed regulations" (your quote) and your making that from what?"

From the fact that we have lower separation mins given our ability to allow visual separation for visual approaches. It's not until poor weather rolls in that our sep requirements are about equal. Again, not an emotionally driven argument, but one based on the facts I have available to me.

 

Point three:
"Please tell me what European cities you've lived in. You do know that Europe is not 1950, right?"

Stockholm, Stavanger, London, Munich. I have at least a month's worth of time in each of those spots (individually). There are a few others, but not enough to be considered enough to be immersed in the culture. My commentary about 1950 was related to the beginnings of radar, and how our technologies regarding it have become more precise over time, which would provide for lower separation standards. While we lagged behind that over here as well, we're finally getting down to some lower requirements in various parts of the country, and internationally, to include the NATs. That latter part, of course, is in cooperation with NATS UK - so no, my commentary is certainly not all bad. In fact, the NAT region is one of the areas of the world where they're actually ahead of the rest. We're not perfect over here - not by a long shot. Please be careful to avoid assuming that just because I'm critical of one thing, I'm going to be critical of the rest. That couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Point four:

"You know Airbus is from Europe right?"

Yes.

 

Point five:

" And you think the whole of Europe is bad at ATC?"

See above. Don't stuff words in mouths. It won't end well and only places doubt on credibility. If one is going to quote - one should quote precisely.

 

Point six:

"Don't tell people you not a subject matter expert then lecture people on being a subject matter expert."

I said I was "no EU SME, but Traffic Management is Traffic Management." This is the truth. I don't know the most minute details about ATC over there as I do over here, but I know the basics enough to know what they're doing, and most of how it differs from over here. Moreover, as I showed earlier, the fundamental issues of traffic management are not regional. The approach to traffic management may be (over there, the play a higher importance on separation at all times than we do over here, as an example), but the base issues are the same.

 

 

 

No need to add emotion into this discussion. What was said was simply an observation based on known facts. One could easily say to me "you know, the FAA truly created a complete farce with its latest hiring call for controllers," and all I could say would be "you know, you're right." If it weren't true, I'd simply counter with facts. Emotion simply compromises a position.