On air conversation about JFK controller - Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKrffnq4V1A

I wanted to go to a new airport. While on KJAN approach frequency,
discussion ensued about the recent incident at JFK. It wouldn't
surprise me that the feelings the approach controller conveyed in the
video represented most ATC controllers. I am also glad he didn't lose
his style of personal style of handling traffic and humor :-)

6 minute video includes take off from KMBO, initial contact with
approach and conversation above, landing KIDL and landing KMBO

writes:

> I wanted to go to a new airport. While on KJAN approach frequency,
> discussion ensued about the recent incident at JFK.

Then the controller was making essentially the same mistake as the one at JFK.
ATC frequencies are not for chats or discussions.

On Mar 6, 12:29*pm, A Guy Called Tyketto
> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
>
> >> I wanted to go to a new airport. *While on KJAN approach frequency,
> >> discussion ensued about the recent incident at JFK. *
>
> > Then the controller was making essentially the same mistake as the one at JFK.
> > ATC frequencies are not for chats or discussions.
>
> * * * * The same exact thing you said about the person who talked that
> scared student pilot down, who won an Archie Award for doing so.

Too friggin funny!

Of course Mx makes a judgment without being there.

It was only me, the other pilot and maybe 2 other planes in the entire
Charlie airspace. In this video. It was so quiet on frequency that I
edited the silence out,. There was about 2 to 3 second delay in
between responses so I edited that period of time out for video
purposes.

Hardly a safety issue to say the least.

On Mar 7, 8:22*am, " > wrote:

> Too friggin funny!
>
> Of course Mx makes a judgment without being there.
>
> It was only me, the other pilot and maybe 2 other planes in the entire
> Charlie airspace. *In this video. *It was so quiet on frequency that I
> edited the silence out,. *There was about 2 to 3 second delay in
> between responses so I edited that period of time out for video
> purposes.
>
> Hardly a safety issue to say the least.

Just imagine for one second (which is all it would take) to imagine
real life (and unsimulated flight) as mixedup would have it.

Things like changing frequencies of all other nonemergency traffic
seem to elude this paragon of the bytes in the sky...

There's no Control-Alt-Delete to the real world !

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> The same exact thing you said about the person who talked that
> scared student pilot down, who won an Archie Award for doing so.

Award or not, the controller didn't save that pilot. And if the pilot had
died, I think it safe to say that no Archie Award would have been forthcoming.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> The same exact thing you said about the person who talked that
>> scared student pilot down, who won an Archie Award for doing so.
>
> Award or not, the controller didn't save that pilot. And if the pilot had
> died, I think it safe to say that no Archie Award would have been forthcoming.

********. If the controller weren't there and able to get the
pilot down, that pilot wouldn't be alive today, let alone flying
another plane today. From the Award Aware press release itself:

http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/Archie09-Southwest.msp

John Charlton displays dedication and professionalism continuously as
an air traffic controller at LCH, and on Sept. 23, 2008, he once again
went above and beyond to ensure a safe end result to a situation that
could have easily ended in tragedy.

On this specific day, it was Charlton?s patience that saved the day. He
was working local control when a Delta State University student pilot
came over frequency requesting clearance. After clearing the Cessna 172
to land on Runway 15, Charlton watched as it made two unsuccessful
attempts.

It goes on further to say:

[John's] actions speak highly for the amount of dedication that he
showed on this day and every day that he reports to work at FAA LCH
ATC,? describes Lake Charles Regional Airport Director of Public
Safety, Chad Primeaux, who has more than 18 years of experience in the
airport public safety business. ?If it had not been for Charlton?s
professionalism and dedication to the job at hand, the end result would
have been a totally different event than the one that occurred.?

Charlton demonstrated these significant qualities at such an imperative
time, remaining calm and alert as he continued to work other aircraft
and ground vehicles. In addition, he showed remarkable tolerance for
the young pilot, one who was physically shaking from the traumatic
experience she had just endured.

"Through the years, I have heard and witnessed a number of emergency
situations involving aircraft," wrote airport Executive Director Heath
Allen in a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration. "I can't say
that I have ever observed such a devoted, extraordinary effort that Mr.
Charlton gave to ensure that the young pilot landed safely and walked
away unharmed."

Transcripts and audio of the incident are available as well.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLk1CHyBkZmuMZ8L8RAjWAAKDkD4vVX6oBEzbeuCZspa TyPx45AQCfSatM
ZmT9tE9Vo5Fe7ywBAGpzjIk=
=g8M4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Not only that, but he did it in a way that she probaly was able to get
back into a plane the folowing day and continue her career..

An experience lke that can stop some careers cold......

Dave


On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 07:06:49 +0000 (UTC), A Guy Called Tyketto
> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>>
>>> The same exact thing you said about the person who talked that
>>> scared student pilot down, who won an Archie Award for doing so.
>>
>> Award or not, the controller didn't save that pilot. And if the pilot had
>> died, I think it safe to say that no Archie Award would have been forthcoming.
>
> ********. If the controller weren't there and able to get the
>pilot down, that pilot wouldn't be alive today, let alone flying
>another plane today. From the Award Aware press release itself:
>
> http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/Archie09-Southwest.msp
>
>John Charlton displays dedication and professionalism continuously as
>an air traffic controller at LCH, and on Sept. 23, 2008, he once again
>went above and beyond to ensure a safe end result to a situation that
>could have easily ended in tragedy.
>
>On this specific day, it was Charlton?s patience that saved the day. He
>was working local control when a Delta State University student pilot
>came over frequency requesting clearance. After clearing the Cessna 172
>to land on Runway 15, Charlton watched as it made two unsuccessful
>attempts.
>
> It goes on further to say:
>
>[John's] actions speak highly for the amount of dedication that he
>showed on this day and every day that he reports to work at FAA LCH
>ATC,? describes Lake Charles Regional Airport Director of Public
>Safety, Chad Primeaux, who has more than 18 years of experience in the
>airport public safety business. ?If it had not been for Charlton?s
>professionalism and dedication to the job at hand, the end result would
>have been a totally different event than the one that occurred.?
>
>Charlton demonstrated these significant qualities at such an imperative
>time, remaining calm and alert as he continued to work other aircraft
>and ground vehicles. In addition, he showed remarkable tolerance for
>the young pilot, one who was physically shaking from the traumatic
>experience she had just endured.
>
>"Through the years, I have heard and witnessed a number of emergency
>situations involving aircraft," wrote airport Executive Director Heath
>Allen in a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration. "I can't say
>that I have ever observed such a devoted, extraordinary effort that Mr.
>Charlton gave to ensure that the young pilot landed safely and walked
>away unharmed."
>
> Transcripts and audio of the incident are available as well.
>
> BL.

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> ********. If the controller weren't there and able to get the
> pilot down, that pilot wouldn't be alive today, let alone flying
> another plane today.

I've heard the recording. He didn't really provide much help. She had a cute
voice, and that probably motivated him to "help" her. And that probably also
caused other people to assume that she wouldn't have been able to survive on
her own (cute girls being so helpless and all). And shaking after a bad
experience isn't unusual, and it doesn't necessarily indicate a high degree of
actual risk.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> ********. If the controller weren't there and able to get the
>> pilot down, that pilot wouldn't be alive today, let alone flying
>> another plane today.
>
> I've heard the recording. He didn't really provide much help. She had a cute
> voice, and that probably motivated him to "help" her. And that probably also
> caused other people to assume that she wouldn't have been able to survive on
> her own (cute girls being so helpless and all). And shaking after a bad
> experience isn't unusual, and it doesn't necessarily indicate a high degree of
> actual risk.

More delusional nonsense.

Total disconnect with reality noted.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mar 7, 8:49*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I've heard the recording. He didn't really provide much help. She had a cute
> voice, and that probably motivated him to "help" her.

Pray tell, how do you come up with this WHIMSICAL CRAP?

WHAT FACTS DO YOU BASE MOTIVATION of the ATC controller on?

AND WHAT POSITION ARE YOU IN TO TELL HOW MUCH HELP WAS GIVEN. DID YOU
TALK TO THE PILOT FIRST HAND OR ARE YOU TALKING OUT OF YOUR HEAD.

Oh BTW, comforting voice from ATC is A TON of help in the real world
of FLYING. I talk from first hand experience!!!!!!!

DON'T believe me???? See http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=34158#34158

YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THIS IN MSFS.

writes:

> WHAT FACTS DO YOU BASE MOTIVATION of the ATC controller on?

Facts? None of the interpretations of his actions are objectively verifiable.
Some people think he saved her life, others don't. I think she would have
survived with or without his help. She didn't sound nearly as panicked or
incompetent as people insist that she was. In fact, I was surprised by how
un-upset she seemed after all the hype I had heard about the incident.

If you want to ask for facts, you need to be prepared to provide them as well.
In this case, the evaluation of what he did is necessarily and unavoidably
subjective.

> Oh BTW, comforting voice from ATC is A TON of help in the real world
> of FLYING. I talk from first hand experience!!!!!!!

Yes, but you still need to be able to survive on your own, as the comforting
voice of ATC won't necessarily be there when things turn bad.

On Mar 8, 8:30*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Yes, but you still need to be able to survive on your own, as the comforting
> voice of ATC won't necessarily be there when things turn bad.

How do you know that?
You have never been a pilot in command of a real aircraft in real
time..
You are a child who plays with toys and then pretends to know what
real pilots think and do...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> WHAT FACTS DO YOU BASE MOTIVATION of the ATC controller on?
>
> Facts? None of the interpretations of his actions are objectively verifiable.

And you fail to get that OTHER PILOTS WERE ON THE SAME
FREQUENCY. The interpretations of his actions are HIGHLY verifiable,
whereas your statements to the contrary are not, and only are your
OPINION. The FAA, NATCA, those other pilots, and that Delta State pilot
can EASILY say otherwise.

> Some people think he saved her life, others don't. I think she would have
> survived with or without his help. She didn't sound nearly as panicked or
> incompetent as people insist that she was. In fact, I was surprised by how
> un-upset she seemed after all the hype I had heard about the incident.

By all means. Please list those 'others' who don't think he
saved her life. We're all waiting with baited breath.

> If you want to ask for facts, you need to be prepared to provide them as well.
> In this case, the evaluation of what he did is necessarily and unavoidably
> subjective.

Practice what you preach. Please provide your facts to state
otherwise.

>> Oh BTW, comforting voice from ATC is A TON of help in the real world
>> of FLYING. I talk from first hand experience!!!!!!!
>
> Yes, but you still need to be able to survive on your own, as the comforting
> voice of ATC won't necessarily be there when things turn bad.

Things turned bad for this pilot. Things turned bad for the
other pilots who were saved by the controllers who won Archie Awards in
their respective regions. And since you weren't in the sky with the
pilot, nor were you not sitting in the cab or at the TRACON or at the
ARTCC, you can't say otherwise that ATC's help there wouldn't help
pilots in distress to make it and survive.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLlA7vyBkZmuMZ8L8RAqxBAJ0SIri90noa/sFrq4xhlXSxhf9vagCg6pTt
RK+JU2tzppEFmHeZ38F5LN8=
=TD7L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> ATC frequencies are not for chats or discussions.

Which regulations prohibit them?

On Mar 7, 1:30*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:


>Yes, but you still need to be able to survive on your own, as the
> comforting voice of ATC won't necessarily be there when things turn bad.

WRONG!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!! and more WRONG!!!!

YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ MY EXPERIENCE DID YOU?????????????????

> If you want to ask for facts, you need to be prepared to provide them as well.
> In this case, the evaluation of what he did is necessarily and unavoidably
> subjective.

I PROVIDED MY FACTS BASED ON FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE. YOU HAVE PROVIDED
ZERO, NADA.

I WANT YOUR FACTS to show the controller did not help save a life (two
lives in this case).

If you plan to make an opinion OR EVEN APPEAR CREDIBLE, please provide
the sources of FACTS that support your opinion. You never talked to
the controller, you NEVER talked to the pilot did you???????????

<It seems I hear the sound of crickets will be forthcoming from the
inaction of providing facts for Mx opinion support>

Jim Logajan writes:

> Which regulations prohibit them?

See FAA JO 7210.3W, Section 2.

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> Which regulations prohibit them?
>
> See FAA JO 7210.3W, Section 2.

First, this is not a regulation.

Second, it doesn't have "Sections", it has parts and chapters.

And, lastly, this is work instructions for operating air traffic facilities
and has nothing to do with pilots.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mar 7, 6:13*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
> > Which regulations prohibit them?
>
> See FAA JO 7210.3W, Section 2.

There are 7 section 2's

What PAGE number does it say in the 448 page document what is
PROHIBITED to be said on frequency.

There are 31 occurrences of the word prohibited in the document of
which NONE say idle talk or chat is PROHIBITED that I can see.

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:07:04 -0800 (PST), george wrote:

> On Mar 8, 8:30*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> Yes, but you still need to be able to survive on your own, as the comforting
>> voice of ATC won't necessarily be there when things turn bad.
>
> How do you know that?
> You have never been a pilot in command of a real aircraft in real
> time..
> You are a child who plays with toys and then pretends to know what
> real pilots think and do...

What do you call an idiot (you) who responds to a moron (him).

RetardoTeam.

A pair of diaper ****ting retards.
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

On Mar 10, 7:50*am, Tiger Would > wrote:

> What do you call an idiot (you) who responds to a moron (him).
>


Have you stopped beating your wife ?

On Mar 6, 9:56*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Award or not, the controller didn't save that pilot.

B/S! You are wrong as usual, the controller DID, DID may I repeat DID
save that pilot's life! Would he have gotten down safely without the
controller? Probably not! You are talking out of your backside! You
know nothing about the real world of flight, you don't fly, you
probably never will, and nothing that proceeds from your trap should
be taken with any amount of sincerity whatsoever.

Ricky

On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:22:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:

> Of course Mx makes a judgment without being there.

Why do you possibly care? What shortcoming in your life, what void,
does he fill?

On Mar 13, 4:11*pm, "Jay \"Little Napoleon\" Severson"
> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:22:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:
> > Of course Mx makes a judgment without being there.
>
> Why do you possibly care? What shortcoming in your life, what void,
> does he fill?

The answer to your question is fortunately none :-)

His judgment is clearly a credibility issue especially when he claims
the ATC controller was breaking rules.

He still hasn't showed me the reference when I asked him to point the
page in the reference he provided to Jim that idle chat is prohibited
on the frequency.

Gee I wonder why.....

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:58:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:

> On Mar 13, 4:11*pm, "Jay \"Little Napoleon\" Severson"
> > wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 11:22:01 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>> Of course Mx makes a judgment without being there.
>>
>> Why do you possibly care? What shortcoming in your life, what void,
>> does he fill?
>
> The answer to your question is fortunately none :-)
>
> His judgment is clearly a credibility issue especially when he claims
> the ATC controller was breaking rules.
>
> He still hasn't showed me the reference when I asked him to point the
> page in the reference he provided to Jim that idle chat is prohibited
> on the frequency.
>
> Gee I wonder why.....

Because he's a troll who gets off on ruining newsgroups and sucking in
ppl like you to accomplish his means?

On Mar 15, 2:53*pm, "Jay \"Little Napoleon\" Severson"
> wrote:

> Because he's a troll who gets off on ruining newsgroups and sucking in
> ppl like you to accomplish his means?- Hide quoted text -

Can't argue that.... Unfortunately I did take the bait hook line and
sinker.

On Mar 16, 8:57*am, " > wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2:53*pm, "Jay \"Little Napoleon\" Severson"
>
> > wrote:
> > Because he's a troll who gets off on ruining newsgroups and sucking in
> > ppl like you to accomplish his means?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Can't argue that.... Unfortunately I did take the bait hook line and
> sinker.

But then if you just let idiots post half arsed claims about aviation
some-one out there will think that (because there is no reply) that
the idiot has a point.

On Mar 15, 3:07*pm, george > wrote:

> But then if you just let idiots post half arsed claims about aviation
> some-one out there will think that (because there is no reply) that
> the idiot has a point.

This is true too! :-)

I guess the hard thing is to finding that right balance without
feeding the Mx troll.

"george" > wrote

But then if you just let idiots post half arsed claims about aviation
some-one out there will think that (because there is no reply) that
the idiot has a point.

*****************
My reply on how to handle that problem is a boilerplate statement that does
not acknowledge the poster as being worth a direct argument.

Reply with something like:

The poster, Mxsmaniac that wrote the above is not a pilot, and has been
proven to be a troll that is only posting here to stir up trouble and
destroy this newsgroup. He frequently posts information that is partially
or totally false, so his posts should not be believed. Others would be best
advised to not engage with this poster, which only prolongs his disruptive
presence.
--
Jim in NC

On Mar 15, 7:07*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:

> Reply with something like:
>
> The poster, Mxsmaniac that wrote the above is not a pilot, and has been
> proven to be a troll that is only posting here to stir up trouble and
> destroy this newsgroup. *

Ya know, Jim, I agree somewhat, but I wonder if Mx's intent is really
to "destroy this newsgroup?" I could be wrong.
He seems to have legitimate things to say & ask sometimes, or most of
the time, but he is possibly one with a mental deficiency of sorts,
which may lead to his annoying comments here. I don't get the
impression that he's trying to purposefully be disruptive, but he is
anyway.

I do agree, however, that a blanket statement such as your's is
wisdom, especially for one who may be inclined to take what he says
with any amount of sincerity.

Ricky

george wrote:

>
> But then if you just let idiots post half arsed claims about aviation
> some-one out there will think that (because there is no reply) that
> the idiot has a point.


No, you completely ignore them, and they will eventually go away for
lack of attention.

"Stephen!" > wrote > Looks like yer using Oulook Express...
Try this:
>
> Tools >> Options
>
> "Send" tab.
>
> "News Sending Format" set to "Plain Text"
>
> Click "Plain Text Settings" button
>
> Check mark "Indent the original..." and select '>' on the drop down.

I have all of that, and it works well on most people's posts. Some posts
will not respond in the correct manner, with the ">" being added, though. I
think it is a problem with how some other people are posting.
--
Jim in NC

"Ricky" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 15, 7:07 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:

> Reply with something like:
>
> The poster, Mxsmaniac that wrote the above is not a pilot, and has been
> proven to be a troll that is only posting here to stir up trouble and
> destroy this newsgroup.

Ya know, Jim, I agree somewhat, but I wonder if Mx's intent is really
to "destroy this newsgroup?" I could be wrong.
He seems to have legitimate things to say & ask sometimes, or most of
the time, but he is possibly one with a mental deficiency of sorts,
which may lead to his annoying comments here. I don't get the
impression that he's trying to purposefully be disruptive, but he is
anyway.

I do agree, however, that a blanket statement such as your's is
wisdom, especially for one who may be inclined to take what he says
with any amount of sincerity.

Ricky

---------------

Remember that a broken clock appears correct from time to time as well.

However, Jim's advice is the only practical solution. It really doesn't
matter whether a troll's immediate purpose for any particular thread or post
is to learn something of possible value, to simply gain attention, or to be
disruptive and ultimately destructive.

Peter

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Ricky" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Mar 15, 7:07 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>> Reply with something like:
>>
>> The poster, Mxsmaniac that wrote the above is not a pilot, and has been
>> proven to be a troll that is only posting here to stir up trouble and
>> destroy this newsgroup.
>
> Ya know, Jim, I agree somewhat, but I wonder if Mx's intent is really
> to "destroy this newsgroup?" I could be wrong.
> He seems to have legitimate things to say & ask sometimes, or most of
> the time, but he is possibly one with a mental deficiency of sorts,
> which may lead to his annoying comments here. I don't get the
> impression that he's trying to purposefully be disruptive, but he is
> anyway.
>
> I do agree, however, that a blanket statement such as your's is
> wisdom, especially for one who may be inclined to take what he says
> with any amount of sincerity.
>
> Ricky
>
> ---------------
>
> Remember that a broken clock appears correct from time to time as well.
>
> However, Jim's advice is the only practical solution. It really doesn't
> matter whether a troll's immediate pame old discussionurpose for any particular thread or post
> is to learn something of possible value, to simply gain attention, or to be
> disruptive and ultimately destructive.
>
> Peter
>
>
>

Same old discussion, almost verbatim, that has been going on here for
years. The only thing that hasn't been tried is totally ignoring him.
Give it a try, everyone. What's to lose?