Oh, she "googled it". Right. This crazy woman is going to get people killed.

https://twitter.com/libsoftikt.../1745321432672837842

Petition Link

Was this bitch FUCKING serious.

...said the woman who has never flown an airplane in her life.

Done!

Think Brenda needs to find another line of work.

As a frequent flyer, I am more and more less enthusiastic about getting on an airplane nowadays. This DEI shit is soon going to get a lot of people killed.

I've heard way worse than Brenda from controllers, unfortunately. Most controllers are cool, professional, have a sense of humor (Chicago O'Hare), and have a good attitude.

Having said that, when there is a disagreement about something, the controller is a lot like the cop that pulled you over for some infraction. Being argumentative with the cop isn't going to solve the problem. The pilot in this case started out with a polite agreement to follow her rule at her airport. He verbalized surprise but then agreed again to comply in the future. So far so good, but then he kept telling her that her interpretation was wrong. That's where the pilot should have kept quiet regardless of his belief, and both of them should have kept it off the radio. Both were determined to be right, and in that case the pilot isn't going to win, at least not in that moment over the radio.

I just signed the petition. That bitch is an idiot and an authority freak. Not a healthy combo in my opinion.

Like a bad cop, she seems likely to abuse any authority she might ever be granted. I despise abuse of public trust.

...and I live in the same county this airport is in.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:...Most controllers are cool, professional, have a sense of humor (Chicago O'Hare), and have a good attitude. ...

Kennedy Steve was one of the greatest.

I found this comment about her on reddit:

“Soon as saw the title, I knew who the controller is.

For those of y’all not in the know, she would fit in at KSQL.

She’s rude, doesn’t know her airspace, wants to argue about everything. She’s the KDTO version of nails on a chalkboard. The best thing I can say about her is that at a student heavy airport, least potential pilots meet ATC at its worst early on.“

Good thing you can override them if there if your safety is in jeopardy.
I told a controller to get stuffed when on a short final at night and he ordered me to do a go around because he wanted to clear a Citation to land coming in the opposite direction. I was less than 150 ft AGL when he called me.

He got irritated and told me to turn off on the first taxiway. OK, I put it down on the edge of the runway and turned off immediately at the runup area just to be an ass. All I had to do was swing around and go when the Citation FINALLY came in minutes later and taxied off.

I also "googled it" and could not find a definition of a short approach in the FARs. I did find a link to this FAA Advisory Circular dated 06 June 23 that defines a Short Approach in section 9.12.5.1. I found this link in this Reddit thread. For perspective, this event happened at least over 3 months ago.

Here’s the definition from the FAA Advisory Circular linked above:

“9.12.5.1
A Short Approach. A short approach is executed when the pilot makes an abbreviated downwind, base, and final legs turning inside of the standard 90-degree base turn. This can be requested at a towered airport for aircraft spacing, but is more commonly used at a non-towered airport or a part-time-towered airport when the control tower is not operating, when landing with a simulated engine out or completing a power-off 180-degree accuracy approach commercial-rating maneuver.”

Seems like that’s what the pilot thought it meant.

I had my first ever near miss in October coming into Pensecola. We were almost at tree top level when the pilot had to abort the landing since the collision avoidance system went off. Was a fun ride. Would love to know the details of what happened.

I've been a pilot for 10 years and that is absolutely ridiculous. Sadly it's getting worse and worse. I agree with the sentiment that there WILL be a horrible accident due to atc negligence down the road. Many have gotten lucky the guys flying the plane were paying attention.

quote:

Originally posted by Tailhook 84:
I also "googled it" and could not find a definition of a short approach in the FARs. I did find a link to this FAA Advisory Circular dated 06 June 23 that defines a Short Approach in section 9.12.5.1. I found this link in this Reddit thread. For perspective, this event happened at least over 3 months ago.

I couldn't find any definition in the AIM or an ATC controller's handbook.

Outside of official FAA documents, any googled definition is meaningless. Wherever she read a definition from googling it (if we even think she did) was immaterial to real life. I really hope she is not relying on google for anything!

Back last century when we still flew turboprops, several towers would assign us a Short Approach to fill a gap, if we could accept it. It was a power off approach from a downwind 6000 AGL (yes), get all the drag out, turn final at 500 agl on speed, configured, power set at approach torque. Now that was a short approach, known as the Orbital Reentry Maneuver, but it sure as heck wasn't turning base abeam the numbers!

This has been going on for decades. While it's just now becoming more apparent in the airlines, the military experienced this in the late 80s and in the 90s with female pilots.

Now please note, I'm not saying there aren't and weren't fully capable and qualified female pilots. There most certainly are and were. However, as a military flight instructor in the early 90's we definitely had a different set of criteria and standards for female students than we did for male students.

One example: For Advanced Strike training (that's the last part of a 3-part syllabus that takes about 18 months to graduate a Naval Aviator from the jet training pipeline), male students were allowed 2 chances to qualify on the carrier. If you didn't qualify the second time out you were dropped from training.

This happened to several students during my time as an instructor even though they were at the end of their training and all that stood between them and graduation was carrier qualification. It makes sense though - as a NAVAL Aviator, being able to get back aboard your carrier is pretty key to longevity and mission attainment. However, female students were permitted multiple qualification sessions beyond the standard 2 attempts. While almost all were able to qualify during the normal 2 carrier qual sessions, a few took 3, 4 or even more to "qualify" and graduate.

One of the more well-known results of this policy was Kara Hultgreen killing herself and almost killing her RIO at the carrier in 1994. Film and deep dive here

I'm not surprised that companies have sacrificed quality for social acceptance. Sadly, as others have said, it's going to kill a lot of people one day.

For us non-aviator types--could an aviator please explain this...or "break it down" in layman terms? Multiple syllable words are acceptable.

quote:

Originally posted by bcereuss:
For us non-aviator types--could an aviator please explain this...or "break it down" in layman terms? Multiple syllable words are acceptable.

The pilot basically wanted to make his turn to set up his final approach for landing sooner than normal. The controller wanted him to start this turn ridiculously sooner than normal. What she was directing him to do did not make sense.

That is it in a nutshell.

quote:

Originally posted by bcereuss:
For us non-aviator types--could an aviator please explain this...or "break it down" in layman terms? Multiple syllable words are acceptable.

In a standard approach pattern, you fly downwind (parallel to the runway, opposite the direction your going to land). You continue flying that past the runway, then turn 90 degrees in on your base leg (perpendicular to and back toward the runway so you can line up on the centerline), then turn another 90 degrees to final, where you're lined up on the centerline prepared to land. It's a stable approach with different steps at each stage for different aircraft that puts you in a position to make a safe landing every time.

The power off 180 degree turn to land they were practicing is an emergency maneuver simulating engine loss where they chop the power and have to safely glide to the landing. It's important to master in training as you don't get a second chance to land if you lose your engine in real life.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:

Good thing you can override them if there if your safety is in jeopardy. I told a controller to get stuffed

The Orlando-Sanford Airport (KSFB) has ILS (Instrument Landing System) approaches for the east-west runways, but not for the north-south runway. I was inbound to that airport one day when winds were out of the north and gusting. There was a fair amount of airline traffic and tower was assigning all departures and arrivals to the east-west runways, meaning that there was a gusty, ninety degree crosswind.

A small aerobatic plane was inbound and the pilot asked for runway 36, so that he would be landing into the wind. Tower denied his request and cleared him for one of the east-west runways. The pilot's next transmission was short, and to the point: "For safety, I am landing on 36. I can do it with your clearance, or I can do it without your clearance and deal with the paperwork later."

Tower supervisor broke in, over-riding the controller who had refused the request for runway 36, and said "You're cleared to land runway 36. Please expedite and clear the runway as quickly as you can safely do that."

I'm not sure whether this is still the case, but at the time that I was in and out of Sanford frequently, there were a lot of trainees working in the tower and there were some "interesting" times. Supervisor broke in frequently with amended clearances.