Vsplat Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Just getting some anecdotal reports from a crew who had to go around in YYC a couple of days ago, pretty strong Xwinds on the 35 operation, approach destabilised. When they asked for a second approach, the story goes that YYC replied negative, unless they were declaring min fuel, mayday or pan, they were required to go to their alternate. Such a directive would be wrong on so many levels, I have to think there is a large piece of the story missing. Can anyone here, more familiar with YYC ATC shed some light on this? Urban myth? Real? Local policy perhaps? Thanks Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsidestick Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Vsplat, I've been trying to get hold of an ATC Tower controller I know since I read about this on another forum. Agreed that if this happened as published, it represents a major unsafe shift in policy towards unstabilized approaches and go around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Strong surface winds seems to always slow down arrivals. YYZ is a good example. I wonder if YYC/ATC didn't have the time or a place to vector this flight and told them make an issue or it's adios. And you never know if the voice you're talking to is a trainee. They don't know when it's your first flight either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIP Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 A controller cannot refuse a request for another approach. On what grounds could that possibly be done ?? If this statement is true, the controller in question needs some remedial training at best. Perhaps as posted above, there is more to this story, not sure how that would have unfolded though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsidestick Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Westjet 2311/02June CYYC-1.mp3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIP Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 7 minutes ago, acsidestick said: Westjet 2311/02June CYYC-1.mp3 That is more than ridiculous, absurd comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Would like to hear the next controller's opinion of "wait times". Not really enough info in that clip to form an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zan Vetter Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 2 things, "everybody gets one shot." Nope why does YYC and YEG all say, "correct" after every transmission. Nowhere else does that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted June 5, 2017 Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 After listening to that recording (thanks AIP), all I can say is "wow". Here we are trying to break the pattern of unstable approaches leading to landings when the crew should go around, and this one controller decides everyone gets one shot. Nav Can had better sort this out immediately. And all the better if they make a public statement affirming their policy. Otherwise, I can just see word spreading that YYC is 'land or else'. Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinair Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I wouldn't think there is a policy change here. To me this is likely an inexperienced controller, or one experienced enough to be at the peak of arrogance. It sounds like the controller wisely backed off and sent the airplane to arrival after the crew inquired how long before another approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acsidestick Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I'm not sure, but I think the first controller got pulled off the chair, as WJ instructions were given twice in a row. Maybe the controller realized he could be charged with unlawful interference of an aircraft in flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.