The proper roles of the pilot-in-command and ATC are often blurred, especially in congested airspace. 12 IFR Refresher, October 1996 Had this flight crew fully understood the traditional relationship between ATC, the pilot-in-command, and the IAP itself, this accident wouldnt have happened. By Wally Roberts THE CRASH OF AN AMERICAN Airlines Boeing 757 during descent and approach to Cali, Colombia in Decem- ber, 1995 was the result of the flight crews misunderstanding of its and ATCs role in the proper conduct of an instrument approach procedure (see Cascading Events, July IFRR). The crew was having a problem program- ming the last-minute IAP into the B- 757s glass cockpit area navigation system and sought the help of ATC to bypass the critical segments of the IAP. The crew almost certainly thought ATC could wave its magic wand, thus negat- ing the critical early segments of this mountain-laden IAP. Had this flight crew fully understood the traditional relationship between ATC, the pilot-in-command, and the IAP itself, this accident wouldnt have happened. This flight crew wasnt com- prised of a couple of dummies, rather they were the prevalent end-product of what could fairly be called an aberrant U.S. ATC system and U.S. instrument pilot training environment. ATCs fundamental purpose Air traffic services throughout the world exist for one fundamental pur- pose: to ensure adequate and safe sepa- ration between IFR aircraft within con- trolled airspace. There are three signifi- cant secondary functions of ATC: (1) provide airport and runway services to all aircraft at airports with operating control towers, (2) route IFR aircraft to avoid controlled airspace that is re- stricted or unusable because of military or other special operations, and (3) pro- vide pertinent information that will as- sist the pilotsuch as traffic informa- tion, significant weather advisories, and other safety-related information deemed appropriate by ATC policy makers. An extension of secondary function (1) is the limited separation and se- quencing of VFR aircraft in the termi- nal airspace that surrounds high-den- sity (high-collision-risk) airports, which we know as Class B and C air- space. Single airplane example A good example that sets forth the fundamental of the relationship be- tween ATC and the IFR aircraft is to hypothesize there is only one airplane flying IFR anywhere in the U.S. In this admittedly extreme example would there be any need for ATC at all? Not really, provided someone was available to help with timely weather informa- tion. The pilot would be free to use any published route and fly to the airport of choice. The pilot could also elect to forego published routes provided he/she maintained at least the minimum en route IFR altitude set forth by FAR 91.177(a)(2). Once at the destination, descent below the minimum legal IFR en route altitude would be made via any published and available IAP, but the pilot wouldnt be free to shortcut any required segments of the IAP while operating under IFR. The single airplane example is extreme, but it demonstrates the point that the IFR pilot, not ATC, owns the sky when traffic is not a factor. Lets modify our hypothesis and say its 3:00 a.m. and there are several airplanes widely separated within 300 miles of airspace. Its still pretty much the pilots call, with ATC approving pilot requests while making certain no conflict will develop with either the widely scattered IFR traffic or restricted airspace. Efficiency in the face of traffic The foregoing principles apply to all of the controlled airspace of the world and is fairly well set forth in applicable United Nation International Civil Avia- tion (ICAO) agreements. The genesis for these concepts was originated by the early United States commercial air car- rier operations of the 1920s and 1930s. In those early days, the airlines ran the air traffic control system in this coun- try. As aviation commerce grew the gov- ernment saw its way to take over both the rules and operation of ATC. Gov- ernment saw a compelling interest in moving the maximum amount of IFR traffic within the constraints of the ex- isting systems. Thus evolved the con- straints imposed by several IFR pilots wanting their way and needing a ref- eree to balance the needs of each pilot against the entire group airborne (as well as those chomping to become air- borne) at any given time. The fundamental ATC system evolved prior to the advent of radar. Separation was based on time/altitude/ distance standards applied on the basis of pilot position reports and filed true airspeed, with the pilots communicat- ing with ATC through en route com- munications relay stations. In most of the worlds airspace this rudimentary system is still the order of the day, of- ten with ATC communications being made through intermediaries. In some parts of the world, there are domestic ATC systems that have radar in spots, with the voids not always being appar- ent to the pilot. (This is even true of the U.S. today at lower altitudes, particu- larly in the high mountain country.) Necessity and mothers invention The development of radar was born of pre-World War II necessity. Lurking IFR Refresher, October 1996 13 Subscribe to IFR Refresher today! Yes, please enter my order for: 1 year of IFR Refresher for $60 (U.S. and International). 2 years of IFRR for $110 (U.S. and International). The back issues Ive listed below, for just $7.50 each, plus $2.00 shipping and handling per total order. (For a listing of feature articles in each issue, see other side; cash or check only for back issue orders.) IFR Refresher Permanent Binderjust $5.95 (plus $2.50 for shipping and handling). $______ Total for items selected above. $______ Shipping & handling (not applicable to subscriptions) $______ CT residents add 6.0% sales tax (binders only) $______ Total this order IFR Refresher Guarantee If you are not completely satisfied with any item you order from us, you may cancel or return the item for a cheerful refund. Name __________________________________________ Address ________________________________________ City ___________________________________________ State __________ Zip ____________________________ Please bill my: MC/Visa_____ American Express_______ Card # ___________________ Exp. Date _____________ Signature _______________________________________ Daytime Phone # (required for MC/V) ________________ Mail to IFR Refresher, 75 Holly Hill Lane, Greenwich, CT 06836-2626 FIELD TIPS close in the background was the dream of congested airspace air traffic man- agers to have real-time surveillance of IFR traffic, at least in busy terminal air- space. We all know the rest of the story...or do we? Here is where the waters got muddied, in the interests of the safe, expeditious, and efficient movement of IFR traffic in high-density airspace. With the advent of radar, the controller became proactive rather than reactive. What used to be huge parcels of air- space that had to be partitioned for time/ altitude/distance separation immedi- ately became chopped into relatively infinitesimal pieces. For the first time, the available concrete at the busy air- ports became the limiting factor for traf- fic acceptance rates rather than avail- able en route and terminal airspace. Radar placed controllers into the position of being able to micro-manage separation and efficient movement of IFR traffic by adjusting aircraft speed and flight paths on the fly. Pilots, as well as the system, were apparent benefi- ciaries of this ATC eye-in-the-sky. Who doesnt appreciate, turn left heading 060, proceed direct Skygirl VOR when able. Or, descend to 3,000, fly head- ing of 240 for a vector to the Skylawn Runway 24 ILS final approach course. Potentially deadly illusion As ATC radar evolved and matured, both pilots and controllers became so used to it that the appearance the con- troller was really flying the airplane came into not only the lore of the land, but even into the lore of the aviation community. Good controllers soon learned how to milk the maximum out of the system through usually judicious and expert use of their radar scopes. But, from the outset, there have been limits to what a controller can, and can- not, do with radar separation techniques and procedures. Thats a key point to keep in mind: they are radar separation techniques and procedures. They are not replacements for the pilots primary responsibility for both control and navi- gation of the aircraft. This profound principle is so easily lost in the noise of constant ATC communications and radar instructions, from pre-taxi clear- ance contacts until engine shutdown. Any instrument flight instructor worth the job description has instilled in his/her students from day-one the critical principles of flying IFR, espe- cially single-pilot IFR, in decreasing order of importance: (1) aviate, (2) navi- gate, and (3) communicate. Yet, the pressures of the system seem to drive (3) into at least a tie with (1). Whats worse is that neither the pi- lot nor the controller typically fully understand the capabilities and limita- tions of each other. ATC procedures are a hodgepodge of years of collections of time-tested techniques, procedures, and legal imperatives, sometimes with an eye to squeeze a bit more efficiency out of the system. The result is a com- plex handbook that is difficult for con- trollers to fully understand, and effec- tively impossible for most pilots to fully comprehend. Job descriptions very different Pilots are trained to fly airplanes. In the case of instrument-rated pilots, this extends to being able to safely and com- petently control and navigate the aircraft (continued on next page) 14 IFR Refresher, October 1996 These back issues of IFR Refresher are available If you dont have a complete file of IFR Refresher, you may have missed vital information and good reading. August 1992Vol. 6, No. 8 Circling Approaches Revisited September 1992Vol. 6, No. 9 Situational Awareness October 1992Vol. 6, No. 10 Coping With Pitot-Static Failures November 1992Vol. 6, No. 11 Instrument Competency December 1992Vol. 6, No. 12 Holding Entries Simplified January 1993Vol. 7, No. 1 Straight-in or Procedure Turn? March 1993Vol. 7, No. 3 Human Performance Accidents April 1993Vol. 7, No. 4 Where the Heck am I? May 1993Vol. 7, No. 5 Planning a Zero-Zero Takeoff June 1993Vol. 7, No. 6 Hazards of Night IFR July 1993Vol. 7, No. 7 Approach Chart Checklist August 1993Vol. 7, No. 8 Watching Weather Progress September 1993-Vol. 7, No. 9 Non-Precision Approach Tactics October 1993Vol. 7, No. 10 Which Way Should I Depart? November 1993Vol. 7, No. 11 Logging Ground Time December 1993Vol. 7, No. 12 How GPS Works January 1994Vol. 8, No. 1 Flying With GPS February 1994Vol. 8, No. 2 Egg-in-Hand Routine GPS Overlay Approaches Planning Your Next Approach March 1994Vol. 8, No. 3 Are You IFR or VFR? Radar Service Terminated When the Glideslope Fails April 1994Vol. 8, No. 4 Ensuring a Safe Departure Flying the ILS with Style May 1994Vol. 8, No. 5 Alternate of Choice June 1994Vol. 8, No. 6 Cross-checking the Gauges Lost Comm in Motion July 1994Vol. 8, No. 7 When ATC Loses Track of You When the Instruments Lie August 1994Vol. 8, No. 8 Approach Transitions Attitudes and Decision-Making Pilot Attitude Profile September 1994Vol. 8, No. 9 At The Bottom of the Approach Initial Approach Fixes October 1994Vol. 8, No. 10 Avoiding Spatial Disorientation Weather Briefing Checklist November 1994Vol. 8, No. 11 Keeping Your Cockpit Organized Partial Panel Proficiency December 1994Vol. 8, No. 12 Organizing Your Scan Whos Responsibility is it? January 1995Vol. 9, No. 1 How the Airlines Fly IFR On Being PIC February 1995Vol. 9, No. 2 Complying With ATC Instructions Understanding TAF Reports When IFR & VFR Traffic Mix March 1995Vol. 9, No. 3 ABCs of an Arrival Comments From Examiners Lost Com Occurrences April 1995Vol. 9, No. 4 Checking for Notams Flying the Final Approach Learning From Others May 1995Vol. 9, No. 5 Completing the Missed Departing IFR Safely June 1995Vol. 9, No. 6 Establishing Visibility Minimums Organizing Your IFR Training July 1995Vol. 9, No. 7 GPS For Positional Awareness Where To Miss The Approach August 1995Vol. 9, No. 8 When are You a Non-radar Arrival? Why Pilot-induced Accidents? September 1995Vol. 9, No. 9 How to Beat the Weather Threading the Needle Properly October 1995Vol. 9, No. 10 Airway Operations Basic Instruments & Partial Panel November 1995Vol. 9, No. 11 Negotiating Clearances Vectors Below the Hilltops December 1995Vol. 9, No. 12 Peculiarities of Holding Pilot Idiosyncrasies January 1996Vol. 10, No. 1 Circling and the Visual Segment Is There a Runway Out There? February 1996Vol. 10, No. 2 En Route Arrival Clearances Go/No-Go Decisions March 1996Vol. 10, No. 3 Infamous NDB Approach Lost Com: Lets Get Real When You Cant Get In April 1996Vol. 10, No. 4 Insidious Illusions Low Visibility Operations Whats Below MDAand DH? May 1996Vol. 10, No. 5 Improving The Odds At Night Safe Approach Procedures Set In The Approach Mode When Are You Established? June 1996Vol. 10, No. 6 Approach Chart Rules! Dont Do Anything Stupid Look Out Below Where Are You? July 1996Vol. 10, No. 7 Cascading Events How Far Would You Go? Unairworthy With Towbar When Its Time to Reverse Course August 1996Vol. 10, No. 8 Configuration Changes Lights, Camera, Action Mission Pressure Ramp Inspection September 1996Vol. 10, No. 9 Altitude Deviations Look-See Crash Proficiency and Confidence Takeoff Considerations Plusevery issue has a different and challenging IFR Quiz! See form on reverse side to order. FIELD TIPS Authority. . . (continued from page 13) solely by reference to instruments and avionics. The instrument-rated pilot is also expected to have sufficient under- standing of the ATC system so as to be able to comply with an IFR flight plan and all reasonable ATC clearances and instructions. The properly trained IFR domestic airspace controller is required to be pro- ficient in the use of radar separation techniques and procedures, and to be very familiar with the layout, con- straints and limitations of the ATC facilitys airspace. Most Center control- lers that work low-altitude sectors also get some fairly intensive training in non- radar separation procedures for the many pockets of non-radar terminal airspace. This gets me to the ever-sensitive is- sue between pilots and controllers: the job description of ATC controllers doesnt include knowing how to fly an airplane. Most controllers these days arent pilots. Those controllers who are also pilots carry to their job a real plus. Nonetheless, its not a part of the job description, contrary to the many Hol- lywood films that have the controller saving the day when the pilot passes out or succumbs to a heart attack. Of course there have been some wonderful real- world situations where controllers who happened to also be pilots have made some remarkable saves, well above and beyond the call of duty, but its neither to be expected nor counted on. Terminal instrument procedures I cant say often enough how de- manding the training and skills that are required of a proficient radar control- ler. Nonetheless, they are skills directed towards that safe and efficient separa- tion of IFR airplanes. The navigation services that a pilot should expect from ATC are finite and limited, even in a radar environment. Controllers are well- trained in the use of radar, and its rela- tionship to the en route structure. Their training on instrument approach proce- dures, however, is limited to the nature of the IAPs routes, and the ability to use radar to shortcut segments leading to the FAF, where local conditions permit. Nor are controllers trained on the pi- lot/aircraft performance and obstacle- clearance aspects of IFR departure pro- cedures and SIDs. The controllers per- spective is limited to the routes these procedures follow as they relate to traf- IFR Refresher, October 1996 15 FIELD TIPS fic separation. Traffic separation is the controllers game. Obstacle clearance and adherence to the system/aircraft performance limitations of IAPs and departure procedures is the pilots game. Alas, these lines, too, get blurred at many locations where the controller can provide radar-vectored departure assis- tance to the en route structure. The wary pilot who knows all these nuances is well-served by the time-sav- ing departure vector, yet not lulled at a mountain bowl airport with little or no effective ATC radar coverage. A more general principle about all radar vectors: if there is an iota of doubt in your mind that it is a radar vector, with its atten- dant sharing by ATC in terrain clear- ance responsibilities, dont accept it without some serious questions. 1 Controller provided approach There is also the special case where some ATC terminal facilities can pro- vide ASR (or even rarer these days) PAR approaches. These are truly hybrid IAPs that come the closest to giving the appearance that the skilled controller is flying the airplane. Think about it, though: the ASR and PAR IAPs are advanced forms of controller-provided navigation. Also, these are services that are best used only after a recent fair- weather practice session for both the pilot and the controller. No denigration here In my career of flying mostly domes- tic U.S. airline routes I cannot remem- ber how many times ATC has offered additional services, such as advance warning on severe lines of thunder- storms, or information on turbulence, or even a friendly, casual comment about a football game. The controller is a valuable partner when it is all work- ing as its suppose to. When its work- ing at its best, the controller provides not only that essential separation ser- vice, the additional services are replete. When to draw the line The pilot must be ever diligent about when to draw the line as to what the controller is permitted to do in naviga- tion of the aircraft for sake of system efficiency. The American Airlines trag- edy at Cali demonstrated a flight crew that had unreasonable expectations about what a non-radar controller could, or could not, do to change terminal in- strument procedures. In this case the controller, in the face of a language limitation, tried several times to keep the crew on the full IAP. The American Airlines crew had un- doubtedly been conditioned by the in- numerable times U.S. ATC had, for in- stance, taken it off a SID or STAR with a vector, followed by a return-to-course and resume own nav. Or, perhaps the crew had been saved by ATC over the years by a simple reroute to save hav- ing to resolve a complex glass cockpit routing-construction problem. Without careful reflection upon the limitations of ATCs role, its easy to have all this high-density airspace ATC intervention cause the potentially dan- gerous appearance that controllers are omnipotent soothsayers of all instru- ment flight procedures. The soothsay- ers reside in IAP design offices and technical users groups. They arent available by picking up the mic. Its up to the pilot to faithfully fol- low all published procedures, except- ing only those vectored or direct shortcuts that are consistent with the published procedure, whether it be a SID, airway, or IAP (IFR departure pro- cedures never can have ATC shortcuts). Its strictly up to you, the pilot, to know what is correct and incorrect about the use of airways, departure, and instru- ment approach procedures, and thats no simple task. Pilot knowledge and cooperation The ATC system works best when pilots and controllers cooperate with each other. When safety is obviously not at stake, pilots are well advised to go with the flow, and not be overly con- cerned about what appears to be a slightly inefficient clearance or instruc- tion from ATC. The more confident you are about your responsibilities vis--vis the controllers, the easier it is to defer to the controller when safety isnt a fac- tor. Take it with a smile and consider it money in the bank for that rainy day when you have to fully exert your com- mand authority to its fullest. In any case its never worth angry words on the air. When you see something going astray, its far better to be friendly and inter- estingly inquisitive, rather than combat- ive and superior in attitude. Bad atti- tudes are bad attitudes, whether from pilots or controllers. If you feel a need to argue save it for a phone call or, if something really se- rious needs to be resolved, say it in writing. If you believe theres an im- mediate safety issue involved take com- mand of the situation objectively and without bluster. In critical situations declaring an emergency sooner, rather than later, often bodes well for both the pilot and the controller, assuming all bases are covered. Wally Roberts is a retired airline captain, former chairman of the ALPA TERPs Committee and an active CFII in San Clemente, CA. If you feel uncomfortable about your technical command of the opera- tional nuances of instrument flight procedures, you arent alone. More training and information is needed in this arena. The FAA could do a better job of keeping pilots fully abreast of all the technical informa- tion needed by pilots. Airline and general aviation flight training de- partments could do a better job as well.Ed. 1 In the U.S., ATC assumes responsibility for issuing off-route altitudes that assure safe terrain clearance, anytime ATC initiates an off-route clearance. U.S. ATC also assumes responsibility for terrain clearance during radar vectors, except where the aircraft is climbing below the minimum vectoring altitude. In the rest of the world, ATC does not reliably assume responsibility for off-route terrain clearance, even where initiated by ATC. Some countries do not assume responsibility for terrain clearance even during radar vectors. Even U.S. ATC is not infallible so the off-route/radar vector terrain clear- ance responsibilities are, in fact, shared between the pilot and controller.
HIV Sero-Status and Risk Factors of Sero-Positivity of HIV Exposed Children Below Two Years of Age at Mityana General Hospital in Mityana District, Uganda