Is it "rude" to request a certain runway?

cmill said:
I've noticed that also. Actually had a controller ask me to verify I was /a I said affirm, then she said something like "well if you're /a then how are you flying direct?" Her tone kind of took me by surprise so without thinking I just said "magic"

Only time I've ever been asked how I was going direct as a /a. Usually it's the other way around. The controllers are trying to give me gps appchs.
Click to expand...
Ah, well usually the clearance is "fly heading xxx, when able direct whatever." Even if it's hundreds of miles away. Now if you have say a handheld, you can make sure that controller gave you a really good vector.
 
It's not rude at all to ask.

Dropping anchor 60+ miles from the airport, slowing your descent rate to that of a kite, or not responding to instructions because I can't grant your request...is mildly rude however.
 
Isn't /a can go direct when close enough to the navaid we're asking you to go to? I try to give a general heading and say direct when able.
 
DJTRACON said:
Isn't /a can go direct when close enough to the navaid we're asking you to go to? I try to give a general heading and say direct when able.
Click to expand...
I don't know if that's the correct procedure (something in the .65 probably says so), but yes, that's how I've always had it done.
 
Though not in the book, I have had success in getting /A where they need to be with both of these methods:

1. PTN - point the nose

2. FTI - follow the interstate
 
Most guys flying /a have a handheld, we just can't technically take a direct clearance. Now, we can take a "vector," and use the gps as a backup. Even if I have a panel mounted gps, I'll still file as /a because the database is usually out of date. IIRC we can still use it legally enroute as long as were within the service volume of a nav aid. Terminal procedures are a no go though.

Also, if you have a pilot turn down a direct clearance, and ask for a vector, most of the time they have a gps, their just being anal. They'll take a heading then use their gps to go direct anyway. I don't think it's necessary, but if it helps them sleep better at night, ok.
 
cmill said:
Actually had a controller ask me to verify I was /a I said affirm, then she said something like "well if you're /a then how are you flying direct?" Her tone kind of took me by surprise so without thinking I just said "magic"
Click to expand...

I would have laughed, but I can see some of the guys I work with going apoplectic at that response. Probably a good 10 to 15 minutes of cursing gradually decreasing to a general denigration of all pilots and their mothers.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
This is equally effective for /W.
Click to expand...

I'll be happy when the Delta DC-9's and Fedex 727's are history.

"Center, request shortcut to, insert any location 500+ miles away including destination airport. Cleared direct XXX. Center were /W can you give us a heading?"
 
I never had a problem even requesting at SNA - albeit it was 10 years ago (when flying was affordable) but in the evening I often requested to tear drop off 19R to 1R, they never said no.
 
BWER said:
I'll be happy when the Delta DC-9's and Fedex 727's are history.

"Center, request shortcut to, insert any location 500+ miles away including destination airport. Cleared direct XXX. Center were /W can you give us a heading?"
Click to expand...
That's /A + RVSM right?
 
z987k said:
/A on airplanes operated by certificated carriers needs to die. The fuel savings alone will pay for the things in like a week.
Click to expand...
So when both FMSs and both GPSs are broken at 0520 in El Paso, Texas you think I should just sit there instead? ;)
 
Autothrust Blue said:
The nine is just so Chuck Norris, though...
Click to expand...

If the FAA wrote a rule that said part 121 carriers had to have FMS, RNP, and RVSM, under "Except as provided in paragraph (b), no air carrier may operate an aircraft under this part without suitable FMS, RNP, and RVSM;" Paragraph (b) would read "(b) Operators of DC-9 are exempt from this rule"
 
gotWXdagain said:
If the FAA wrote a rule that said part 121 carriers had to have FMS, RNP, and RVSM, under "Except as provided in paragraph (b), no air carrier may operate an aircraft under this part without suitable FMS, RNP, and RVSM;" Paragraph (b) would read "(b) Operators of DC-9 are exempt from this rule"
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised. Long live the Douglas Regional Jet. ;)
 
We routinely have to request certain runways, due to performance requirements. ATC have always obliged, and most of the time, being familiar with heavies, will ask us on delivery if we need RWXX.

For landing, again, normally ATC are very helpful. Granted, where we fly, there are many more 777s, 747s etc, who all need the similar chunks of Tarmac. Giving an early heads-up doesn't harm, I'm sure.

For when diplomacy fails; AUTOBRAKE MAX on the triple is incredibly effective. Im sure I've floated 172s further than AB MAX landing distances!
 
On my way into IAD, I'll barter if it's a little busy.

Me: Potomac, Colgan XXXX, tops are 5,000, bases 3,500, request 19L.
Potomac: Thanks for the report, turn left heading 150 to join localizer 19L.

Me (off frequency): You're welcome, Captain. I think you'll be able to make your commute home, after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top