Let's Make a Deal Or Else

[donkaye]

One of the best articles I have ever read on ATC Communications was written by Mike Busch in the June 1994 Issue of IFR Magazine.  It gave me clarity with my dealings with ATC.  By being assertive but "nice" I'm usually able to get what I want when I want it.  Yesterday was the exception.  On the last leg of our trip back from AirVenture 2021 at about noon, it was time to cross the Sierra Nevada Mountains.  As has often been discussed, flying early in the morning is best for avoiding both turbulence and convection from the heating of the land. However, after getting up early for the previous several days to avoid weather systems, this day looked to be clear and benign for the balance of the trip. so we got a late start.  All went as planned until arriving at the Sierras.  There was a 30 knot wind at our altitude running parallel to the Owens Valley.  This created a venturi down the valley, and as we found out, significant turbulence at our altitude of 16,000 feet.  My mitigation when this happens is to go higher to try and find smoother air.  I called ATC and asked for higher.  He said "Unable".  I waited 5 more minutes, as the turbulence got worse.  This time I asked politely if he was going approve higher anytime soon.  He said "No".  I said, "Cancel IFR" and immediately climbed to 17,500.  It smoothed out at 17,000 to comfortably cross the mountains and complete at great 2 week trip.

[ArtVandelay]

Is there a reason given you have a turbo that you don’t fly in the flight levels as SOP in the summer? Higher, faster, smoother, cooler?

[donkaye]

8 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

Is there a reason given you have a turbo that you don’t fly in the flight levels as SOP in the summer? Higher, faster, smoother, cooler?

Yes, a passenger who is susceptible to the Bends and headwinds going West.

[Boilermonkey]

Don…our airplanes are only separated by one serial number.   I wonder who the middle child is?

[EricJ]

This is why I prefer flying VFR.   I don't even have to ask, I just make the adjustment.

[RJBrown]

2 hours ago, Boilermonkey said:

Don…our airplanes are only separated by one serial number.   I wonder who the middle child is?

N800MS is owned by a John McGhee in Breckinridge CO.

I tried to buy this airplane in 2009. Went so far as flying to Denton for a pre buy. The “MS” are the initials of a California lawyer and we’re part of a interesting and questionable history. When I looked at it there was tape across the middle of the last 0 turning it into an 8. Two Arizona doctors were divorcing and had paid way too much to the lawyer. They were not happy with the results of my pre buy. The price came down further than I had offered before is was finally sold. 
 Nice solid plane but had been neglected badly. I wish I had been able to buy it at a fair price. The two doctors weren’t ready for the truth yet when I tried. I paid for a pre buy that surely helped the later buyer.
That plane was the “Poster Boy” for why getting a pre buy is important.
I’ve paid for a pre buy each time I bought. Both other planes were exactly as represented and I bought them. 
This plane would have been a nightmare had I not had a Mooney Service Center do a quality prebuy.

When the deal fell through on this one I ended up with the J in my avatar. If I had bought this one with a turbocharger I would probably still own it.

I could have enjoyed the M20M but after a Rocket I just hated flying the J.

(Edit) quite a long ownership history since I looked at it. Mike Sullivan and the Tuglers are the owners I knew about.

I later crossed paths with Brian Postle briefly in Colorado. He ended up with a good plane at a good price. I was kind of jealous after we talked.

Edited August 5, 2021 by RJBrown
Add pictures

[Will.iam]

2 hours ago, donkaye said:

One of the best articles I have ever read on ATC Communications was written by Mike Busch in the June 1994 Issue of IFR Magazine.  It gave me clarity with my dealings with ATC.  By being assertive but "nice" I'm usually able to get what I want when I want it.  Yesterday was the exception.  On the last leg of our trip back from AirVenture 2021 at about noon, it was time to cross the Sierra Nevada Mountains.  As has often been discussed, flying early in the morning is best for avoiding both turbulence and convection from the heating of the land. However, after getting up early for the previous several days to avoid weather systems, this day looked to be clear and benign for the balance of the trip. so we got a late start.  All went as planned until arriving at the Sierras.  There was a 30 knot wind at our altitude running parallel to the Owens Valley.  This created a venturi down the valley, and as we found out, significant turbulence at our altitude of 16,000 feet.  My mitigation when this happens is to go higher to try and find smoother air.  I called ATC and asked for higher.  He said "Unable".  I waited 5 more minutes, as the turbulence got worse.  This time I asked politely if he was going approve higher anytime soon.  He said "No".  I said, "Cancel IFR" and immediately climbed to 17,500.  It smoothly out at 17,000 to comfortably cross the mountains and complete at great 2 week trip.

Hey donkaye, did you tell the controller you were in moderate turbulence? Then request an altitude change? This more often than not will get the controller to approve an altitude change even if it takes turning you 30 degrees off course to get the climb going. If the turbulence gets too extreme then you stop asking and you start telling him you are climbing. This is exercising your safety of flight command authority. It’s like a TCAS advisory to climb or descend, you do the altitude change and then tell ATC why you deviated from your altitude once you are safely clear of the threat.  I can’t tell you how many times a controller issues me a heading directly at a thunderstorm or to start descending on a star arrival when there is weather below us and I say unable. Same thing when there is weather on our path, i will request a deviation until 20 miles from the red on the wx display in the FL’s and 10 miles when lower, at that point i no longer ask, I’m doing what ever it takes to avoid getting bounced around and advise ATC what we are doing. My flight attendants and passengers appreciate it even if it makes us arrive later to our destination. My motto “I’d rather arrive late than dead-on time”  

I’m glad you had the VFR weather to just cancel IFR and do what you needed to do. But in the future if you are IFR and can not cancel to go VFR, and you are getting pushed into an unsafe corner don’t forget to tell the controller why you need the deviation, and they will most likely bend over backwards to accommodate. If not then just do it, file an ASAP report. 
Out of all of times i have done this i have never had my company or FAA question me or even inquire in to the deviation. 

Just my opinion on the matter, not a CFI or aviation lawyer, your results may vary from my results, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. 

[donkaye]

29 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

Hey donkaye, did you tell the controller you were in moderate turbulence? Then request an altitude change? This more often than not will get the controller to approve an altitude change even if it takes turning you 30 degrees off course to get the climb going. If the turbulence gets too extreme then you stop asking and you start telling him you are climbing. This is exercising your safety of flight command authority. It’s like a TCAS advisory to climb or descend, you do the altitude change and then tell ATC why you deviated from your altitude once you are safely clear of the threat.  I can’t tell you how many times a controller issues me a heading directly at a thunderstorm or to start descending on a star arrival when there is weather below us and I say unable. Same thing when there is weather on our path, i will request a deviation until 20 miles from the red on the wx display in the FL’s and 10 miles when lower, at that point i no longer ask, I’m doing what ever it takes to avoid getting bounced around and advise ATC what we are doing. My flight attendants and passengers appreciate it even if it makes us arrive later to our destination. My motto “I’d rather arrive late than dead-on time”  

I’m glad you had the VFR weather to just cancel IFR and do what you needed to do. But in the future if you are IFR and can not cancel to go VFR, and you are getting pushed into an unsafe corner don’t forget to tell the controller why you need the deviation, and they will most likely bend over backwards to accommodate. If not then just do it, file an ASAP report. 
Out of all of times i have done this i have never had my company or FAA question me or even inquire in to the deviation. 

Just my opinion on the matter, not a CFI or aviation lawyer, your results may vary from my results, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. 

I agree.  In the past I have communicated with a controller about the need to descend due to potential ice.  I have always gotten it.  I did not say, "Request higher due to turbulence" this time.  However, based on his attitude he was unlikely to give me higher anyway.  That doesn't negate the fact that I should have told him the issue.  I did give a pilot report to him when level at 17,500, and he didn't have the courtesy to respond.  You and I both know, having listened to controllers for thousands of hours, when you get one who is just uncooperative.  Luckily, it rarely happens.

[Mooney Dog]

4 hours ago, donkaye said:

...This time I asked politely if he was going approve higher anytime soon.  He said "No".  I said, "Cancel IFR" and immediately climbed to 17,500.  It smoothly out at 17,000 to comfortably cross the mountains and complete at great 2 week trip.

Just out of curiosity, did you tell him the reason you needed higher? You may not have been able to get higher due to fl180 being unavailable as well. Its any number of things really. 

[RJBrown]

At U-42 (Salt Lake #2 back then) in south Salt Lake valley I was filed IFR to Denver APA. VFR at the surface solid IFR 3000 feet up due to the typical inversion layer.

On call up I was given a 30 min wait. Fair, traffic does have to get out of SLC. when I called back 30 later he gave me an even longer wait. I responded OK I’ll take off VFR and pick up my IFR airborne. Took off and circled just east of the class B but fairly close to air he needed. Once airborne I picked up the IFR so quick it made your head spin. He NOW wanted me out of his airspace and gone like now. I was in the clouds for about 3 minutes once cleared.

I’ll wait my turn but don’t be a jerk about it. Once off the ground in legal VFR he had to make the big iron miss me. Should have done his job and just fit me in.

[Will.iam]

5 hours ago, donkaye said:

I agree.  In the past I have communicated with a controller about the need to descend due to potential ice.  I have always gotten it.  I did not say, "Request higher due to turbulence" this time.  However, based on his attitude he was unlikely to give me higher anyway.  That doesn't negate the fact that I should have told him the issue.  I did give a pilot report to him when level at 17,500, and he didn't have the courtesy to respond.  You and I both know, having listened to controllers for thousands of hours, when you get one who is just uncooperative.  Luckily, it rarely happens.

If the controller really gets uncooperative you can ask for a telephone number to talk once on the ground.  I have heard this asked before over the radios and it's amazing how the radio communication resets to a more cooperative atmosphere.

[Will.iam]

This would be an issue if the controller wasn't already rude to quite a few on the radio already.  The FSDO works both ways.

[jaylw314]

57 minutes ago, philip_g said:

This is the attitude that makes controllers turn pilots in for every little thing they do wrong. The FSDO is more than happy to take the info.

Pot and kettle?

[PT20J]

It would be interesting to understand why the controller refused the request. The controllers have their own rulebook. How many have really dissected JO 7110.65. There are lots of separation requirements, LOAs, and workload issues. Sometimes a simple pilot request requires the controller to negotiate with another controller in the next sector. Maybe that controller is busy. Lots of stuff happens behind the curtain. If VMC, operating VFR can make it easier for everyone because it removes separation requirements from the controller.

Back when it was easier to visit TRACONS, I used to take students there and we could "plug in" with a controller. Everyone was always amazed at how much landline communication there was between controllers.

Skip

[Will.iam]

Maybe it would have helped if i said 99% of the time controllers go out of their way to help. I was just commenting that on the rare few occasions, when concerns over your safety of flight, don’t be afraid to speak out what you need and do what you need to do to keep from bending metal or getting hurt or killed.   

[Will.iam]

This is true but i don’t know what paperwork and extra attention i would get for declaring an emergency because a controller didn’t approve a course deviation due to weather and i deviated anyway. Maybe that would be the official way to do that but i have yet to ever hear another pilot over the radios do that. 

[carusoam]

48 minutes ago, philip_g said:

Just another thread of pilots without an actual clue bashing controllers. Another Thursday here on MS.

So the proper response is bashing the next guy?

MS has a few really good controllers… who often lend a hand around here…

We don’t get a whole lot of input from that side…

If you have some experience to add to the conversation… that would be great!

It’s really cool when you bump into the same controller during a return flight… there are real people in that cab…  not all of them are experiencing a tough day like Don’s ATC guy…

It is a bit tough to be in the minority class of MS… sometimes all mechanics are be blamed for something.  Today, it’s ATC’s turn in the barrel…  people selling planes are always the bad guy…

It is another day on MS… try to have a pleasant one.

Go MS!

Best regards,

-a-

 

[smwash02]

55 minutes ago, PT20J said:

It would be interesting to understand why the controller refused the request. The controllers have their own rulebook. How many have really dissected JO 7110.65.

This is a spot where I feel there's a disconnect at times. They'll happily tell me why I'm being asked to turn 10 degrees left or right without me asking, but when I get denied what seems reasonable to me or vectored significantly out of my way I don't usually get an explanation. If I knew the "why" I can do things to make both sides more efficient. It's not always reasonable to ask when things are busy, so I can see justification in asking for the phone number to call to keep it off the air and seek to understand each other in a less hectic environment.

Something I really appreciated recently was the other day I had filed for 11,000 somewhere and when I got in the air the controller said "If you want 11,000 I have to vector you around, but if you can accept 7,000 I can give you direct, what would you like?" I was over the moon with the option instead of a goofy routing I wasn't expecting. I wish this happened more often.

[Mooney Dog]

2 hours ago, philip_g said:

This is the attitude that makes controllers turn pilots in for every little thing they do wrong. The FSDO is more than happy to take the info.

Asking for a number to talk about something on the ground rather in the air is largely considered a safer option. It general alerts people to the "hey i might be doing something wrong" mentality as well and things go one of two ways from that point. They double down, or they try and help. I have had a few controllers thank me for calling later and talking rather than taking up their radio with my fight. 

At the end of the day, the controllers work for the pilots, not the other way around. 

As to the original post, I don't agree with it fully, but the pilot did what he was in a legal right to do. Could he be nicer about it? sure. He could also be a big jerk about it too.

59 minutes ago, philip_g said:

There's a reason you didn't get higher...

Yes, and I'm willing to bet it was likely due to the fact FL180 was unavailable at that time. Whos to say, I don't know.  I would imagine controllers in Cali and Florida are probably some of the most overworked in the country, so simple changes may get brushed off with "I'm busy" a lot. 

 

15 minutes ago, philip_g said:

You'll never hear a word from anyone about it.

There is almost ALWAYS a follow up to someone declaring an emergency. 

 

2 minutes ago, smwash02 said:

I can give you direct

Ah yes, a IFR pilots dream

[Mooney Dog]

4 minutes ago, philip_g said:

There is almost never a follow-up to an emergency. At most a call to tell the facility you're safe on the ground. But don't take my word for it. Take aopas https://blog.aopa.org/aopa/2016/11/30/declaring-an-emergency/

 

The suggestion was far from "talk about something safe on the ground" the implication was "ask for a number so you can get them in trouble" 

I can promise you from experience, if you have an engine failure and declare, you're going to get a follow up. Its not a "ton of paper work", but there are some question to answer and its mostly straight forward stuff. Nothing that would make you not want to declare in the future, mostly checking to make sure you're okay and things where handled. Now if you declare cause someone's sick. Yeah you're probably not going to have anything to do afterwards. 

 

Possible pilot deviation is an "implication" that someone is about to "get you in trouble" that normally results in a "its no big deal, just be careful next time." 

[PT20J]

24 minutes ago, Mooney Dog said:

There is almost ALWAYS a follow up to someone declaring an emergency. 

I declared an emergency twice.

First one: Got a priority straight in landing at a busy tower controlled airport due to a control problem because a mechanic had been doing sheet metal work and left a cleco in the wing that jammed an aileron -- it fell out on landing. Cleared the runway. Shut down and requested to walk onto the runway to pick up the part which was approved. Restarted and taxied the airplane to parking. Never heard a word about it from the FAA.

Second one: Departed a tower controlled airport on a local tour flight in the museum's DC-3. Left engine started surging and running rough. Declared an emergency and requested equipment. Made an uneventful landing and taxied to ramp and shut down and never heard a word about it from the FAA.

The one time I did hear about an incident was when I had a magneto issue and returned to San Jose just after exiting the traffic pattern due to a rough running engine. As I was parking an FAA guy from the FSDO (located on the field) showed up and questioned why I hadn't declared an emergency said he thought I exercised poor judgement.

Skip

[Mooney Dog]

1 minute ago, PT20J said:

I declared an emergency twice.

First one: Got a priority straight in landing at a busy tower controlled airport due to a control problem because a mechanic had been doing sheet metal work and left a cleco in the wing that jammed an aileron -- it fell out on landing. Cleared the runway. Shut down and requested to walk onto the runway to pick up the part which was approved. Restarted and taxied the airplane to parking. Never heard a word about it from the FAA.

Second one: Departed a tower controlled airport on a local tour flight in the museum's DC-3. Left engine started surging and running rough. Declared an emergency and requested equipment. Made an uneventful landing and taxied to ramp and shut down and never heard a word about it from the FAA.

The one time I did hear about an incident was when I had a magneto issue and returned to San Jose just after exiting the traffic pattern due to a rough running engine. As I was parking an FAA guy from the FSDO (located on the field) showed up and questioned why I hadn't declared an emergency said he thought I exercised poor judgement.

Skip

Im surprised you didnt get a follow up for your first one. Sheet metal in a jammed aileron sounds lot a violation of 830.5

[PT20J]

48 minutes ago, smwash02 said:

This is a spot where I feel there's a disconnect at times. They'll happily tell me why I'm being asked to turn 10 degrees left or right without me asking, but when I get denied what seems reasonable to me or vectored significantly out of my way I don't usually get an explanation. If I knew the "why" I can do things to make both sides more efficient. It's not always reasonable to ask when things are busy, so I can see justification in asking for the phone number to call to keep it off the air and seek to understand each other in a less hectic environment.

Something I really appreciated recently was the other day I had filed for 11,000 somewhere and when I got in the air the controller said "If you want 11,000 I have to vector you around, but if you can accept 7,000 I can give you direct, what would you like?" I was over the moon with the option instead of a goofy routing I wasn't expecting. I wish this happened more often.

Some controllers are more forthcoming than others. Some just say what is required. But, you can always ask. Flying with a student through Moffett NAS (Now Federal Airfield) airspace, the student asked me how tall is Hangar 1 (the old blimp hangar that housed the Macon) -- students think flight instructors know everything, I guess. I keyed the mic and asked the controller, "How tall is hangar 1?" "200 feet", was the reply. And the student said, "Wow, I never knew you could ask them questions."

Skip

 

[ilovecornfields]

@philip_g, you sound really angry.

@donkaye is a good guy. Very professional. I’ve flown with him several times. He used to tour with The Offspring so I’m sure he can tolerate a little discomfort and some unique personalities. I think he was sharing a story regarding a frustrating experience and trying to brainstorm to see how he could get a different outcome in the future. 

I’ve personally called the tower at my local field a couple of times when I had less than satisfactory exchanges on the air. Both times the exchanges were very educational and professional and we managed to share information in a very positive and meaningful way. I don’t think getting their number is necessarily a threat, I think it’s an acknowledgment that piloting an aircraft and controlling air traffic are two cognitively demanding tasks and that perhaps ideas can be more effectively communicated in a different setting.

On an unrelated note, has anyone heard the Opposing Bases podcast? It’s two controllers who are both pilots and they do a great job of explaining why ATC does the things they do.

[PT20J]

12 minutes ago, Mooney Dog said:

Im surprised you didnt get a follow up for your first one. Sheet metal in a jammed aileron sounds lot a violation of 830.5

The tower didn't ask and I didn't file a report because technically, it wasn't a failure or malfunction. What happened is that I was teaching aerobatics in a C-152 Aerobat and when we did a hammerhead the cleco evidently came out a lightening hole in the back of the right wing. Cessna ailerons are hinged at the top and the cleco ended up between the trailing edge of the wing and the bottom edge of the aileron which kept the aileron from returning to trail and caused the airplane to bank right. Except we didn't know it was a cleco and it was in about the same location as the control rod end so we thought maybe something had broken. We found there was enough give in the cables that we could get it to fly straight with about ten pounds of left aileron. Afterwards it was evident that if we had banked right, the cleco would have dislodged, but not knowing what what was going on at the time, that didn't seem prudent.

Skip