DTO Tower Controller and Pilot Argue On-the-Air

I don't understand, contract tower government tower, Union, non-union, it seems like she's just crap at her job. How does she still have it? Why is a petition needed to remove her? At some point, you have to say she's not the problem, management is.

I've never flown at DTO, at least not in the 20 years that I remember, so I'm basing all of this on others' comments, but it's not like any of its a secret.
 
Its weird I did a bit of googling this morning and it seems most are latching onto this as a means to bash diversity hiring.
She was hired years ago and her gender has nothing to do with her sucking. We gotta attach politics to everything now it seams.
 
Its weird I did a bit of googling this morning and it seems most are latching onto this as a means to bash diversity hiring.
She was hired years ago and her gender has nothing to do with her sucking. We gotta attach politics to everything now it seams.
The irony is all the people promoting her removal by citing her as a case of failed DEI policy -- those folks are actually substantially improving her odds of keeping her job.
 
I don't understand, contract tower government tower, Union, non-union, it seems like she's just crap at her job. How does she still have it? Why is a petition needed to remove her? At some point, you have to say she's not the problem, management is.

I've never flown at DTO, at least not in the 20 years that I remember, so I'm basing all of this on others' comments, but it's not like any of its a secret.

I have no experience with this tower, its personnel, or its contract. But in general terms, I've worked with and around government contracts my whole life. Government contracts for services, especially like ATC, are weird things when it comes to performance. I assume they are fixed-price contracts, meaning that the contract company gets paid $X each year to provide ATC services, and how they do it is up to them, assuming they meet minimum standards specified in the contract.

Who is the customer of a contract ATC tower? We as pilots like to think that we are ATC's customers, but that's only true in the broadest sense of the word. More accurately, it's the organization that is paying the bills, in other words the FAA.

As long as a contract tower is being operated safely, it probably meets its contractual obligations to the FAA. The attitude, demeanor, or likeableness of the controllers is probably not specified in the contract as a performance metric. As long as airplanes are landing safely and the traffic volume is maintained, the contractor is probably meeting its contract. If the contractor is providing adequate services and getting paid, there's little incentive for the contractor to fire (and therefore have to subsequently replace) people. Add to that the reality that many contract towers aren't exactly overflowing with people (there are a lot fewer controllers working at a contract tower than you think - it's definitely single digits), and it becomes harder to fire someone without real cause, as everybody else's workload/hours will naturally have to increase to compensate (or operating hours reduced, which could mean not meeting the contract).

Notice I have used the word "probably" and similar a lot. Because again, I have no knowledge of the actual tower's situation. But I'm not sure what the legal remedy is in this case, if there even is one. Certainly the social media pressure has been intense recently, it will be interesting to see how things are handled.
 
A primary target is simply a blip on the radar. No data tag, altitude or anything else. The only thing that can be determined is the direction of flight. She should know better than to berate a non controller on the definition. Also she’s wrong about the short approach thing. She is an embarrassment to the profession.

I have asked a CAP pilot to make a short approach and they didn’t know what that meant. Just sayin…
 
I have no experience with this tower, its personnel, or its contract. But in general terms, I've worked with and around government contracts my whole life. Government contracts for services, especially like ATC, are weird things when it comes to performance. I assume they are fixed-price contracts, meaning that the contract company gets paid $X each year to provide ATC services, and how they do it is up to them, assuming they meet minimum standards specified in the contract.

Who is the customer of a contract ATC tower? We as pilots like to think that we are ATC's customers, but that's only true in the broadest sense of the word. More accurately, it's the organization that is paying the bills, in other words the FAA.

As long as a contract tower is being operated safely, it probably meets its contractual obligations to the FAA. The attitude, demeanor, or likeableness of the controllers is probably not specified in the contract as a performance metric. As long as airplanes are landing safely and the traffic volume is maintained, the contractor is probably meeting its contract. If the contractor is providing adequate services and getting paid, there's little incentive for the contractor to fire (and therefore have to subsequently replace) people. Add to that the reality that many contract towers aren't exactly overflowing with people (there are a lot fewer controllers working at a contract tower than you think - it's definitely single digits), and it becomes harder to fire someone without real cause, as everybody else's workload/hours will naturally have to increase to compensate (or operating hours reduced, which could mean not meeting the contract).

Notice I have used the word "probably" and similar a lot. Because again, I have no knowledge of the actual tower's situation. But I'm not sure what the legal remedy is in this case, if there even is one. Certainly the social media pressure has been intense recently, it will be interesting to see how things are handled.
I spent 20+ years in the Federal government, and your points about the contract are spot on. The customer isn't the flying public but the FAA itself, and the performance metrics almost certainly don't have anything to say about politeness or over-the-air demeanor.

The good news is that these contracts have to be re-competed on a regular basis. If the GA community really wants to tackle substandard contract tower ops, AOPA should be enlisted to meet with the FAA Contracting Officer (CO) before the next re-compete is issued. Evaluation criteria for contract award (especially past performance), as well as performance metrics after award, should be discussed, and a mechanism for incorporating pilot satisfaction proposed. But it's got to be more serious than "the mean controller hurt our feelings" - I'd think the issues would need to be cast in terms of safety and operational efficiency.
 
The irony is all the people promoting her removal by citing her as a case of failed DEI policy -- those folks are actually substantially improving her odds of keeping her job.
Exactly. While she might not be a DEI hire, now that she’s in, she can use it in a lawsuit if fired. At my brother’s facility they terminated a guy in tower and he used race as reason. Funny thing was, his primary trainer was black.
 
Its weird I did a bit of googling this morning and it seems most are latching onto this as a means to bash diversity hiring.
She was hired years ago and her gender has nothing to do with her sucking. We gotta attach politics to everything now it seams.
It seems to be a rule.
 
I have asked a CAP pilot to make a short approach and they didn’t know what that meant. Just sayin…
While it's defined in the PCG

MAKE SHORT APPROACH- Used by ATC to inform a pilot to alter his/her traffic pattern so as to make a short final approach.​

and is described in a bit more detail in AC90-66B

A short approach is executed when the pilot makes an abbreviated downwind, base, and final legs turning inside of the standard 45-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.​

it's also one of the many aviation terms which people who have not experienced it might not know, regardless of other experience. In my case, I've probably be asked to, requested, and and performed at least a dozen.

I'd bet that CAP pilot knew what an "overhead approach" is but I'd bet there are a lot of pilots who, even if they heard of it, wouldn't have a clue what to do.
 
Last edited:
Velocity said
"Primary (radar) target is in the AIM. It’s depicted (ch5)and defined (PCG). Not worth giving a smart *** comment to a pilot over the air though."

"Back in the day", I often had a controller respond to an initial callup "I have several primary targets near where you are reporting, for radar identification, turn right 30 degrees". This was followed by a vector to the airport, and altitude of any targets that were talking to them.


Fortunately, technology has advanced to the point that aircraft no longer exist that do not report with a transponder which includes accurate altitude, and full aircraft data.. A bit of sarcasm there, for those who read too literally.

Make your personal complaint. Let other pilots who were also personally insulted or miss handled make their complaints.

But do not call on a bunch of pilots who have listened to a recording to take up the charge to end a career. If there are not enough local complaints, no need to get rid of her.

I have been spoken to abusively in the past, and got over it.
 
The problem is, the definition doesn’t have any specific distance. Controllers use it to ensure adequate spacing / sequencing but what they expect and what the pilot does are two different things.

Not supposed to use speed restrictions on final but I’ve used “fly slowest practical speed on final” before. What the pilot does and what I expected them to do might not match. That’s where the controller needs to step in and make sure they have a plan B when their original ambiguous instruction goes south.
 
If anything, I don’t wanna see her fired I would just want her to make a public apology and then do better.

There’s something to be said for sterile cockpit and all that and absolutely using correct terminology and procedures on the radio but we are all humans as well and it’s actually nice to hear a cheerful controller say “good day” or chuckle about something when there’s not much traffic on the radio. And that goes for a quick snip at an instructor or student that’s ruining everyone else’s pattern, too.

It’s longer drawn-out drama that’s more clearly problematic.
 
The problem is, the definition doesn’t have any specific distance. Controllers use it to ensure adequate spacing / sequencing but what they expect and what the pilot does are two different things.
Yes but you can say the same for the normal traffic pattern too (and a bunch of other things also). Normal variation for different types of airplanes. Plus variation among pilots. To a pilot used to flying 2 mile patterns in a Cessna 152, my normal pattern in a Mooney might look short. The pilot in the audio sounded like he knew from experience what he was doing. OTOH, that controller was clueless about anything that her own "googled" static definition involving no final segment outside the confines of the runway itself, regardless of whether LSA or jet, which is ridiculous.

Of course I've seen variation with controllers. In most cases, a "make short approach," instruction was accompanied by an explanation. "Citation on 4 mile final. Make short approach," tells me how short I need to make it. I've received that one with students, and replied, "unable; we'll extend downwind." I've also heard landmarks used. "Turn final inside of..."
 
Yes but you can say the same for the normal traffic pattern too (and a bunch of other things also). Normal variation for different types of airplanes. Plus variation among pilots. To a pilot used to flying 2 mile patterns in a Cessna 152, my normal pattern in a Mooney might look short. The pilot in the audio sounded like he knew from experience what he was doing. OTOH, that controller was clueless about anything that her own "googled" static definition involving no final segment outside the confines of the runway itself, regardless of whether LSA or jet, which is ridiculous.

Of course I've seen variation with controllers. In most cases, a "make short approach," instruction was accompanied by an explanation. "Citation on 4 mile final. Make short approach," tells me how short I need to make it. I've received that one with students, and replied, "unable; we'll extend downwind." I've also heard landmarks used. "Turn final inside of..."
Yeah unless the controller takes hold of the situation and issues something specific, it’s all subjective.

It’s like the term “expedite.” I remember once with a T-33 leaving our air show I told him to expedite his climb to top local traffic. He still gave me a mediocre climb rate and I had a perfect collision going on. Plan A didn't work so I held him low for a few miles til clear of traffic (plan B). What I didn’t do is come up with some Google BS about expedite has a certain climb rate associated with the term. It doesn’t.

A lot in ATC is predicated on expected norms based on controller experience. Then, there are a lot of controllers who have no clue and issue instructions without any understanding of aircraft performance. In my experience, it’s hit or miss these days when it comes to a controller that can see the big picture.
 
Last edited:
I have no experience with this tower, its personnel, or its contract. But in general terms, I've worked with and around government contracts my whole life. Government contracts for services, especially like ATC, are weird things when it comes to performance. I assume they are fixed-price contracts, meaning that the contract company gets paid $X each year to provide ATC services, and how they do it is up to them, assuming they meet minimum standards specified in the contract.

Who is the customer of a contract ATC tower? We as pilots like to think that we are ATC's customers, but that's only true in the broadest sense of the word. More accurately, it's the organization that is paying the bills, in other words the FAA.

As long as a contract tower is being operated safely, it probably meets its contractual obligations to the FAA. The attitude, demeanor, or likeableness of the controllers is probably not specified in the contract as a performance metric. As long as airplanes are landing safely and the traffic volume is maintained, the contractor is probably meeting its contract. If the contractor is providing adequate services and getting paid, there's little incentive for the contractor to fire (and therefore have to subsequently replace) people. Add to that the reality that many contract towers aren't exactly overflowing with people (there are a lot fewer controllers working at a contract tower than you think - it's definitely single digits), and it becomes harder to fire someone without real cause, as everybody else's workload/hours will naturally have to increase to compensate (or operating hours reduced, which could mean not meeting the contract).

Notice I have used the word "probably" and similar a lot. Because again, I have no knowledge of the actual tower's situation. But I'm not sure what the legal remedy is in this case, if there even is one. Certainly the social media pressure has been intense recently, it will be interesting to see how things are handled.
It's a city-owned airport, so I would have assumed that the city awards the ATC contract, but maybe it is the FAA. Regardless, she's a public embarrassment, to the airport and to the company running the tower. And from what I know of government contracting, the contractor is always hoping to get that renewal and not have the contract rebid. Performance to the minimum standard is one thing, attracting negative attention based on your employees f****** up, is entirely different.
 
I have no experience with this tower, its personnel, or its contract. But in general terms, I've worked with and around government contracts my whole life. Government contracts for services, especially like ATC, are weird things when it comes to performance. I assume they are fixed-price contracts, meaning that the contract company gets paid $X each year to provide ATC services, and how they do it is up to them, assuming they meet minimum standards specified in the contract.

Who is the customer of a contract ATC tower? We as pilots like to think that we are ATC's customers, but that's only true in the broadest sense of the word. More accurately, it's the organization that is paying the bills, in other words the FAA.

As long as a contract tower is being operated safely, it probably meets its contractual obligations to the FAA. The attitude, demeanor, or likeableness of the controllers is probably not specified in the contract as a performance metric. As long as airplanes are landing safely and the traffic volume is maintained, the contractor is probably meeting its contract. If the contractor is providing adequate services and getting paid, there's little incentive for the contractor to fire (and therefore have to subsequently replace) people. Add to that the reality that many contract towers aren't exactly overflowing with people (there are a lot fewer controllers working at a contract tower than you think - it's definitely single digits), and it becomes harder to fire someone without real cause, as everybody else's workload/hours will naturally have to increase to compensate (or operating hours reduced, which could mean not meeting the contract).

Notice I have used the word "probably" and similar a lot. Because again, I have no knowledge of the actual tower's situation. But I'm not sure what the legal remedy is in this case, if there even is one. Certainly the social media pressure has been intense recently, it will be interesting to see how things are handled.
Anyone who followed the SQL contract tower drama- a chronically, arguably dangerously understaffed CT, unable to meet pilot needs as a result, and with at least one difficult, cranky, argumentative controller (who was often one of only two total controllers who could possibly handle traffic there) understands this.
On air argument between controller and DPE It was social pressure that finally forced a change, I believe. VAS on YouTube, folks on Reddit and the like. The owner of San Carlos flight Center tried for years, but it was this interaction which caused it, I think.
 
Agree on the unprofessionalism of the controller, but why not ask for a "power off 180"? When I was practicing for my Commercial (and afterwards for practice) I always request a "power off 180" to a controller or announce it that way on CTAF.
 
It's a city-owned airport, so I would have assumed that the city awards the ATC contract, but maybe it is the FAA. Regardless, she's a public embarrassment, to the airport and to the company running the tower. And from what I know of government contracting, the contractor is always hoping to get that renewal and not have the contract rebid. Performance to the minimum standard is one thing, attracting negative attention based on your employees f****** up, is entirely different.
Virtually all airports are owned by the city or county or some other local government. This includes the big ones like DFW, ORD, etc., with FAA-staffed towers. The federal government itself owns very few airports other than military fields.

The contract tower program is funded by the FAA. There are a lot of good details at this website:

 
A primary target is simply a blip on the radar. No data tag, altitude or anything else. The only thing that can be determined is the direction of flight. She should know better than to berate a non controller on the definition. Also she’s wrong about the short approach thing. She is an embarrassment to the profession.

I have asked a CAP pilot to make a short approach and they didn’t know what that meant. Just sayin…
Some CAP pilots are better than others; kinda like GA pilots in general. CAP does try to ensure competence among its pilots through annual check rides, among other things, but the check pilots are volunteers like the rest of the membership, so it's probably inevitable that some deficiencies will slip through the cracks.
 
Anyone who followed the SQL contract tower drama- a chronically, arguably dangerously understaffed CT, unable to meet pilot needs as a result, and with at least one difficult, cranky, argumentative controller (who was often one of only two total controllers who could possibly handle traffic there) understands this.
On air argument between controller and DPE It was social pressure that finally forced a change, I believe. VAS on YouTube, folks on Reddit and the like. The owner of San Carlos flight Center tried for years, but it was this interaction which caused it, I think.
I kind of wonder if San Mateo County might have pressed for more staffing at SQL Tower as well. When the runway reopened after resurfacing, the County posted a very professional looking video on their Facebook page, celebrating the increase in staffing.
 

Yeesh. As entertaining as petitions and YouTube and Twitter and POA stuff are, it would be more effective if every pilot who has a complaint just filed a NASA report each time. That almost certainly would get some attention from the right folks.
 
Virtually all airports are owned by the city or county or some other local government. This includes the big ones like DFW, ORD, etc., with FAA-staffed towers. The federal government itself owns very few airports other than military fields.

The contract tower program is funded by the FAA. There are a lot of good details at this website:

Yup. In 1982. As a solution to this in late 1981….
 
Virtually all airports are owned by the city or county or some other local government. This includes the big ones like DFW, ORD, etc., with FAA-staffed towers. The federal government itself owns very few airports other than military fields.
Actually most airports in the US are privately owned. If you're talking about only airports with control towers, then yes, I suspect (haven't checked) most are government owned.
 
SixPapaCharlie, I have done a lot of flying in the vicinity of primary targets, and been a frequent primary target. The alternate term is Type And Altitude Unknown.

Rather than getting upset by an unfamiliar term, crank up the Mark 1, Mod 0 eyeball and make sure the airspace you intend to use is empty.

She may not even know what is producing the return, or see it. If you hit it, it is all on you, she did her best.

She does sound like a controller who should be at a Marine base, where the guys are used to such verbal abuse, and occasionally return it off post.........
My local approach control is MCAS Cherry Point, they’ve always been very good, very accommodating. likewise the controllers at Seymour Johnson AFB nearby.
I think you’re comment wrt marine/military controllers is in error and/or out of date.
 
Last edited:
Morgan, repeating the quoted statement from way up top on this thread, with the relevant portion only.

"She does sound like a controller who should be at a Marine base, where the guys are used to such verbal abuse, and occasionally return it off post........."

The Marines are somewhat famous for verbal abuse in basic training, but lack of acceptance of it when not deserved. At MCAS Cherry Point, I think this controller would last about a week. I have also flown in MCAS Cherry Point airspace, they were polite and precise.

I could also tell a story of a Marine NCO who abused his privileges by requiring one of his most trivial underlings with an illegal personal favor, wash and wax a Jaguar XK 120 coupe, with the private to provide his own soap, rags, and Simonize. The details are complex, but the cost to the NCO was substantial. And long lasting. :crazy:
 
Last edited:
I'd bet that CAP pilot knew what an "overhead approach" is but I'd bet there are a lot of pilots who, even if they heard of it, wouldn't have a clue what to do.

Why would a CAP pilot know what an overhead approach is?
 
Actually most airports in the US are privately owned. If you're talking about only airports with control towers, then yes, I suspect (haven't checked) most are government owned.
Yes, you are correct. I should have said "airports busy enough to warrant a tower are almost all owned by local governments". My emphasis was really on the "local governments vs the feds" aspect, not the public vs private ownership aspect.
 
The ones I know would,
Some are ex-military, so would know. But the vast majority are not.

In my CAP Squadron, we have 6 CAP pilots. Only two have military background, and one of those was a helicopter pilot in the military.
 
Some are ex-military, so would know. But the vast majority are not.

In my CAP Squadron, we have 6 CAP pilots. Only two have military background, and one of those was a helicopter pilot in the military.
Added to that are pilots who don't have a military background but have heard or read about it.
 
Back
Top