|
INCIDENT'LY:
The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the flow of traffic.
The provision of additional services is not optional on the part of the controller, but rather is required when the work situation permits.
Give first priority to separating aircraft and issuing safety alerts as required in this (7110.65)
order.
Those three statements sum up the heart and soul of air traffic control. When I was a developmental, my instructors would point out that there are requirements which must be met that are contained in FAAO 7110.65. There were also requirements that were of "moral responsibility" and not specifically written down anywhere. The old-timers valued both responsibilities equally and took great pride in their ability to provide superlative service to all who operated in their areas of jurisdiction. For example, if an aircraft called ready for taxi from a non-movement area, the pilot would be informed of any known hazards, such as other traffic observed or known to be moving in the area, or of what appeared to be a pothole in the taxi street.
What the old-timers called "moral responsibility" really was "additional service." For the most part, the newer folks are doing the same thing; providing first-rate service, but every once in a while, someone fails for one reason or another to provide some simple information which could make the difference between an incident or a smooth operation. It gets back to breaking links in the error or accident chain.
Recently, two aircraft collided at night on a taxiway. If the controller had warned either one of the pilots that another aircraft was operating in the vicinity, it is possible that a link in the accident chain could have been broken and the collision avoided. The controller had information that neither pilot had, but the controller chose not to provide that additional service. What a shame! Should the pilots have been more vigilant? Absolutely! But that is not the point. The point is that information could have and should have been shared, but wasn't.
FAAO 7110.65 is quite specific regarding separation standards for aircraft on final approach to the runway, runways themselves, and during the en route phase of flight. There are no standards of separation to be applied to nonmovement areas or taxiways. So, if aircraft collide in the traffic pattern or on ramp or taxiway surfaces, is it a controller's fault? No, but remember the first sentence in 7110.65 Chapter 2, paragraph 2-1-1 ATC SERVICE? "The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system and to organize and expedite the flow of traffic." Does this mean that controllers are expected to provide separation services to aircraft on nonmovement areas? No, it does not. What it means is this; you have the big picture for the most part. Your workstation is on an elevated platform with panoramic windows giving you the opportunity to see possible hazards which those at ground level may not be able to see in time to prevent an incident.
The pilot is required to avoid mishaps by using the "see and avoid" method whether on the ground or in the air. You can facilitate by sharing information. That action will satisfy the responsibilities required of you by FAAO 7110.65. So whether you call it "additional services" or an unwritten "moral responsibility," make the effort to share information that may be helpful to the pilot. Break a link!
Phraseology Trap
Is the failure to use standard phraseology a nitpicky item? The use of nonstandard phraseology can be a subtle trap for you. Here is how one ATCS got caught in the trap and received an operational deviation for his trouble.
ATCS A: "Hey Motle, Ripper on the 05."
ATCS B: "Yeah."
ATCS A: "Can you take him at FL330 or should I leave him at FL310?"
ATCS B: "I can't take him at FL330."
ATCS A: "Okay, BB."
ATCS A thought that controller B said, "I can take him at FL330." If you think about it, you can see that it would be very easy to misunderstand whether the controller said "can" or "can't." If standard phraseology had been used, would the misunderstanding have occurred? Compare the following conversation with the first example.
ATCS A: "Motle, Ripper on the 05, APREQ."
ATCS B: "Motle."
ATCS A: "Will you accept NWA 465 climbing to FL330 or FL310?"
ATCS B: "Unable NWA 465 at FL330, maintain FL310."
ATCS A: "NWA 465 at FL310, BB."
ATCS B: "DQ."
(AAT-210)
|