As a controller at New York Center, I can tell you as fact that we do not have coupled frequencies. Most times, sectors are combined up and we work multiple frequencies. It is not uncommon for aircraft to be transmitting on different frequencies at the same time. Of course, we can usually comprehend what is being said on all frequencies but we can only respond to one aircraft at a time. This is why sometimes you hear us transmitting to aircraft and you do not hear a reply. Additionally, military aircraft sometime use UHF although all cargo and tankers have VHF and usually use that.

Ground ORD
 

Tower: UAxxx Taxi 32L, follow Continental Alpha 7, Bravo

UAxxx: 32L A7, Bravo following CA
no contact taxing

Tower: CA, Where are you Going?
CA: Not really sure
Tower:Stop where you are, we have to figure out how to turn you around.

UAxxx: Tower do you still want me following the CA?

Tower: Not if you want to get out tonight.

Balloons
 

Flying out of LAS, heard ATC advise of large bundle of balloons passing through 10,300...

Along the same lines flying into SFO last month heard the tower advise that there was a flock of geese reported at 300 feet on final approach.

Flying into California's Bay Area recently:
ATC: "UAxxx, be advised the airport is 5 miles BEHIND you!"
AC: "Yes sir, we reported airport in sight some minutes ago."
ATC: "UAxxx, cleared for approach and landing" <paraphrased>

I LOL'd. I wasn't paying super-close attention, but I don't recall hearing ATC clear us to land, so it sure sounded like they threw our crew under the bus on this one!

Crew kept the door closed as pax debarked - I was debating some wording which would show the crew support w/o alerting other pax to comment on way out: "ATC really threw you guys under the bus! Way to stay professional!" but it wasn't an issue.

Richard

It's possible you were flying the downwind leg of the approach when this exchange took place, in which case it would appear to be entirely normal.

In a similar vein, years ago at SMF there was an exchange that went something like this:

KSMF Tower: "UAxxx, be advised of a flock of geese on final at 500 feet AGL."
UAxxx: "Roger; was that altitude an estimate or a mode C readout?"

More recently flying into DFW landing 13R we were following EGF RJ that reported a buzzard circling the final approach course around 1000' AGL. Tower advised us and the following traffic as well but fortunately we were negative buzzard! No witty remarks by our pilots, however!

In almost any other circumstance it would be an impossible clearance if it has been transcribed correctly here, no? One cannot accept a visual approach clearance if one does not have the runway (or traffic to follow) in sight and certainly you can't have the runway in sight if it's truly all the way behind you (i.e. at the 6 o'clock position).

Methinks there's an error in the transcription here. Either that or gross exaggeration by the ATC: i.e. the airport 5 miles "behind" is more like 5 miles abeam or slightly behind, say at the 4 o'clock if coming down the Bay on a right downwind to the 28s...

Also the controller that cleared the airplane for an approach (Norcal TRACON) would certainly NOT be the one to clear it to land (SFO ATCT).

That is *ENTIRELY* possible - I was admittedly NOT paying close attention, but the note of annoyance in the pilot's voice and the aircraft's unusual geographic position relative to a normal (per uninformed but frequent pax on this route) approach/landing path were what made me believe things were exceptional.

I'm definitely not a pilot, so given the above information I'm even more glad that I didn't have opportunity to put my foot in my mouth and/or contribute to another pilot's dislike of Ch9!

Thanks!
Richard

Was flying SFO-ORD last week and heard our flight ask ATC for clearance to descend a few thousand feet when all other flights were asking to ascend. Got clearance and ATC was wondering why.

ATC: "May I ask why? Are you getting a bumpy ride?"
UA: "No, the ride is perfectly smooth. I'm fighting sinus pressure from an old cold"
ATC: "I understand that one"

Then further east we descend further and the same question comes up but either the pilot didn't hear the question or chose not to answer that time.

Red-eye pilot talk-show
 

Years ago on an SFO-IAD redeye the pilot told us pre-pushback that he was bored and would talk to us on channel 9 throughout the flight. Once at cruising altitude, he started by explaining his background, why he wanted to become a pilot, and how he went about it. He then started with the left side of the cockpit and explained the instruments and what they do as he worked his way to the right side. The co-pilot would speak up once in a while and add some comments. The pilot then told us if we had any questions, write them down and give them to a flight attendant. She would slide them under the cockpit door and they would answer them on channel 9.

It was one of the most entertaining flights I'd ever been on (until the marijuana crazed cookie guy grounded our flight a few months ago).

Oooh, that sounds like a good story - is that on another thread somewhere? :D

Pot Cookies
 

Was interesting seeing the bomb squad as we landed in Pittsburgh.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...2cookies1.html

Descent into SFO last Sunday night. ATC informs the pilot of the plane behind us that an unauthorized laser had been reported in the vicinity of Palo Alto airport. Pilot replies, "Roger, I'll keep my eyes... well, closed for that."

This is totally fantastic. ^

Flying mostly UA international routes, I wish that more UA international pilots would turn Ch.9 on. It is by far the exception -- seemingly something like 90% of the time it's not available (inbound and outbound from the US).

I was flying from PDX-DEN and the F/O came on mid flight and announced he'd be on channel 9 in a couple of minutes to talk about the A320 we were flying on. It was the first time I'd experienced this and thought it was most cool. I gave the Purser a GTEM so pass on.