Pardon me, but this is the kind of bull**** that's killing GA

[A.Coleman]

Please read this. This is what's killing GA and we ought to do something
about it.


http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2005/02/08/news/news04.prt

and this

http://www.news4jax.com/news/4269212/detail.html#



Please take it for what its worth -- a money grab. Even if on your worse
days you have a bone to pick with ATC, recognize that these lawsuit outcomes
are not truly about the truth or whose at fault; its about who has the deep
pockets. The ultimate question is: what's the PICs responsibility? These
outcomes blame ATC. If the pilot were to have been presented during his
written exam with hypothetical questions encompassing the same facts, what
do you think his answers would have been if the choices were either to blame
the PIC or to blame ATC?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"A.Coleman" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Please read this. This is what's killing GA and we ought to do something
> about it.
>
>
> http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2005/02/08/news/news04.prt
>
> and this
>
> http://www.news4jax.com/news/4269212/detail.html#
>
>
>
> Please take it for what its worth -- a money grab. Even if on your worse
> days you have a bone to pick with ATC, recognize that these lawsuit
> outcomes are not truly about the truth or whose at fault; its about who
> has the deep pockets. The ultimate question is: what's the PICs
> responsibility? These outcomes blame ATC. If the pilot were to have been
> presented during his written exam with hypothetical questions encompassing
> the same facts, what do you think his answers would have been if the
> choices were either to blame the PIC or to blame ATC?
>

It doesn't look like a money grab to me. There are many suits without merit
that win big bucks, but this doesn't appear to be one of them. The
controller made a fundamental error and two people were killed as a result.

[Mike Granby]

But the NTSB report won't be admissible, right?

They'll have to argue the case de novo.

[BTIZ]

I believe that is correct.. NTSB reports are for safety reporting.. and not
admissible in a court of law.. or else no one would talk to the NTSB and
we'd never figure out what went wrong and how to correct it.

BT

"Mike Granby" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> But the NTSB report won't be admissible, right?
>
> They'll have to argue the case de novo.
>

[C J Campbell]

"A.Coleman" > wrote in message
m...
> Please read this. This is what's killing GA and we ought to do something
> about it.
>
>
> http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2005/02/08/news/news04.prt
>
> and this
>
> http://www.news4jax.com/news/4269212/detail.html#
>
>
>
> Please take it for what its worth -- a money grab. Even if on your worse
> days you have a bone to pick with ATC, recognize that these lawsuit
outcomes
> are not truly about the truth or whose at fault; its about who has the
deep
> pockets. The ultimate question is: what's the PICs responsibility? These
> outcomes blame ATC.

Rightfully so. Note that neither of these suits assign all the blame to ATC,
but the behavior of the controllers in both cases was incompetent enough
that I have no problem with the award of some damages, particularly in the
first case. ATC regularly vectors IFR traffic below the route MEA, using
minimum vectoring altitudes that are not available to pilots. All those
alarms and things are there for a reason -- and the controllers chose to
ignore them. I would go so far as to suggest that the tower controllers
should have been charged with manslaughter.

[Slick]

You lose one of your children because of a drunk driver or someone's
mistake. Then tell me how you feel.
"A.Coleman" > wrote in message
m...
> Please read this. This is what's killing GA and we ought to do something
> about it.
>
>
> http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2005/02/08/news/news04.prt
>
> and this
>
> http://www.news4jax.com/news/4269212/detail.html#
>
>
>
> Please take it for what its worth -- a money grab. Even if on your worse
> days you have a bone to pick with ATC, recognize that these lawsuit
outcomes
> are not truly about the truth or whose at fault; its about who has the
deep
> pockets. The ultimate question is: what's the PICs responsibility? These
> outcomes blame ATC. If the pilot were to have been presented during his
> written exam with hypothetical questions encompassing the same facts, what
> do you think his answers would have been if the choices were either to
blame
> the PIC or to blame ATC?
>
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[kontiki]

That is a poor example of the kindof bs that is "killing" GA. It
seems pretty clear to me that an ATC screw-up caused this one. ATC
incompetence would have to be way down at the bottom of the list
of things killing GA... if it would even be on the list.

[Ron Natalie]

A.Coleman wrote:
> Please read this. This is what's killing GA and we ought to do something
> about it.
>
>
> http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2005/02/08/news/news04.prt
>
I've read the accident reports on this one. The controller screwed up
big on this. Yes you can take the philosophy that the controller is always
trying to kill you and question every instruction he gives you, but there's
no indication that doing that is inherently safer in the long run either.

[Ron Natalie]

Mike Granby wrote:
> But the NTSB report won't be admissible, right?
>
They would argue it de novo anyhow. However the NTSB tells them
what to say pretty much.

[David Lesher]

The ATC screwup I recall was when they vectored the jump plane over
Lake Erie and all the skydivers drowned. I've never looked for that
NTSB report {It happened in the 60's} but maybe I will.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Lesher" > wrote in message
...
>
> The ATC screwup I recall was when they vectored the jump plane over
> Lake Erie and all the skydivers drowned. I've never looked for that
> NTSB report {It happened in the 60's} but maybe I will.
>

How was that an ATC screw-up?

[Denny]

Yes, the controller errored in not following procedure on the altitude
snitch alarm (it's there for more than just dinging us pilots for
busting an altitude), but interestingly we have no information about
why the other airplane did not question who else answered to his tail
number... And how did the other airplane get down if he didn't take the
controllers instructions?... In controlled airspace I try to be alert
to similar tail numbers...

And, don't be too worried about Uncle Sam getting sued, he's got your
money to pay it with...

denny

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Yes, the controller errored in not following procedure on the altitude
> snitch alarm (it's there for more than just dinging us pilots for
> busting an altitude), but interestingly we have no information about
> why the other airplane did not question who else answered to his tail
> number... And how did the other airplane get down if he didn't take the
> controllers instructions?... In controlled airspace I try to be alert
> to similar tail numbers...
>

That was not the only ATC error. When similar callsigns are on the
frequency the controller is supposed to use full callsigns and alert each
pilot of the situation.

[Dean Wilkinson]

Hey, you can sue anyone for anything, doesn't mean you'll win. Take for
instance the Washington state family suing Caterpillar because an Israeli
bulldozer driver ran over their daughter who was standing in front of a
Palestinian house that was to be demolished. The bulldozer worked as
designed, the death occured because their protesting daughter was too
stubborn to move and the driver was too stubborn to stop. Squish.

Yep, sounds like Caterpillar's fault, doesn't it? If they had only put a
disclaimer on the front of the bulldozer that said, "Caution, standing in
front of this bulldozer as it bears down on you can result in severe injury
or death.", they would be off the hook. Now you know where all those silly
product warnings come from...

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:59:24 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
> wrote:

>The ATC screwup I recall was when they vectored the jump plane over
>Lake Erie and all the skydivers drowned. I've never looked for that
>NTSB report {It happened in the 60's} but maybe I will.

I remember there being a cloud cover such that the pilot, who was
above it, did not know where he was and ended up out over lake Erie.
Don't remember anything about ATC being involved though.

Corky Scott

[xyzzy]

Mike Granby wrote:

> But the NTSB report won't be admissible, right?

I don't think accident reports of any type are admissable since they are
always heresay -- filled out by a person who did not witness the accident.

I suppose that because I was on a jury for a lawsuit involving a car
crash and when the cop's report was "shown" to us, everything was
blacked out except the date, location, and names of the parties involved.

[Roy Smith]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> That was not the only ATC error. When similar callsigns are on the
> frequency the controller is supposed to use full callsigns and alert each
> pilot of the situation.

I've had fun with that. My club owns Archer 17AV. There is also a
Archer 117AV in the area. One day I'm just about to call up NY
Approach returning to HPN when 117AV beats me to it and checks in,
same destination. It took me a while to get the controller to
understand that he hadn't just heard the callsign wrong, and there
really were two of us.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> I remember there being a cloud cover such that the pilot, who was
> above it, did not know where he was and ended up out over lake Erie.
> Don't remember anything about ATC being involved though.
>

From dropzone.com:

On August 27th 1967, Bob Karns, who was a pilot working for Ortner Aviation
at Wakeman Ohio, was giving a free jump from 20,000 ft + in a B-25 WW II
bomber, to some jumpers who had jumped from that aircraft at an air show,
for which Karns had been paid.

There was so many jumpers showed up at Ortner Field, the plane was
overloaded to the extent that the nose wheel came up off the ground.

As a result, three or four jumpers were taken from the aircraft, and the
rest were to make the jump.

The plane took off and began its long climb, disappearing into 100% cloud
cover . Cloud base was about 4000 ft and the tops about 6000 feet.

A local jumper who should have known better, took off a bit later in a
Cessna 180, and was planning to take 35mm still photos of the jumpers as
they fell towards Ortner field.

Common sense should have made him realize that the jumpers would be passing
his Cessna 180 like bullets, and he would not get any usable photos, and if
they were far enough away from the Cessna, they would be nothing but tiny
specks in his viewfinder.

The plane reached altitude, and the pilot (Bob Karns) received confirmation
that the aircraft was directly over Ortner field. The radar screen was
showing a blip at that spot ( actually it was the Cessna 180) and Karns
turned and waved the jumpers out the bomb bay doors. Jimmy Simmons was first
to go, and the others followed like they were tied on a long string.

There was a total of 18 jumpers, and Bob Coy (one of the survivors) told me
later they had a real blast getting together and just flying....until they
approached the dark clouds at 6K.

As the jumpers came through the clouds, they were faced with a rainstorm and
the fact that they were 5 miles out over Lake Erie.

They opened the chutes immediately, hoping to make it closer to shore. I
believe everyone had Para-Commanders, and although its a great canopy, it
doesnt fly like a square...not even close.

Few made any headway, and prepared to ditch in the lake, which was 72
degrees F.

Norm Allard had two jumpsuits on because of the cold at altitude, but he
managed to get them off, except for the altimeter pinning them both to his
wrist. Thats how they found him.

Bill Onyska had the only piece of flotation gear, which he inflated, but the
CO2 went out a small hole
that had gone unnoticed in the device...and it was useless.

BoB Coy, tried using his packed reserve as floatation, but it soon became
waterlogged, and he discarded it, and then he tried to lay on his helmet
which had styrofoam inside. That probably saved his life.

A search was quickly started, and over the next 5 days, they collected all
the bodies from the lake.

A boat had been brought alongside a jumper named Johnson, and the boat then
drove off leaving him in the lake. It is possible the guy was a smuggler or
out for a cruise with someone elses wife and didnt want to get involved. A
second boat rescued Johnson.

Para Commanders were floating on the lake...with no one in the harness, or
near them. Several were cut to pieces by boat propellers and founds later.

My best friend, Joe Malarik was the last to be found. Oddly enough, Joe had
been in a bar the night before with his girldfriend Barb and another guy,
and he said that when he died, he would prefer to drown. He did so the very
next day.

When Joe was a young boy, he drowned in a swimming pool, but was revived. He
thought it would be the best way to go.

The B-25 aircraft, made another circuit, and again was told by Oberlin Tower
that it was directly over Ortner Field, and Larry Hartman and Al Olmstead
jumped, wearinmg oxygen masks and bottles.

The Cessna hand landed by this time, and the B-25 was in fact, over the
target area.

Hartman noticed through a small hole in the clouds, one of the airport
runways, and he pointed to it for Olmstead. They tracked over, and landed on
the airport.

By this time, the accident was known, and everyone got involved in the
search.

Dale Gates of the Parkman DZ, flew his Cessna a few feet above the choppy
waves of the lake, trying to spot survivors, but none were seen.

In all 16 jumpers died that day.

[John Galban]

Denny wrote:
> Yes, the controller errored in not following procedure on the
altitude
> snitch alarm (it's there for more than just dinging us pilots for
> busting an altitude), but interestingly we have no information about
> why the other airplane did not question who else answered to his tail
> number...

<snip>

Simple, the abbreviated callsign used by the controller was the
correct one for both airplanes (four papa alpha). How would either
airplane know which one the controller was talking to. In the accident
pilot's defense, he did read back with his full callsign and the
controller missed that as well. I'd say the controller had some
responsibilty in this one.

As for the Jacksonville crash, I've read the NTSB report on that one
and I agree with the OP. It was a money grab. The pilot lost it on
missed approach at 1,000 ft. supposedly it was caused by the tower
controllers giving the pilot an altimeter setting that was .03" Hg off.


John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Jay Beckman]

"A.Coleman" > wrote in message
m...
> Please read this. This is what's killing GA and we ought to do something
> about it.
>

I'm curious about something from the "4PA" incident...

The article mentions that there were five aircraft ostensibly travelling
together along the same route, right?

What if the lead aircraft (if there was one...) had mentioned to the
controller that they were a "flight of five" from the Pan Am Academy? Might
that have made a lightbulb go off in the controllers head that "these five
probably have similar call signs." ??

The only reason I ask is that we have a lot of Embry Riddle planes in AZ and
they all end in ER which I could see causing a similar set of
circumstances...

Just wondering out loud...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:Sv3_d.6088$uk7.4361@fed1read01...
>
> I'm curious about something from the "4PA" incident...
>
> The article mentions that there were five aircraft ostensibly travelling
> together along the same route, right?
>
> What if the lead aircraft (if there was one...) had mentioned to the
> controller that they were a "flight of five" from the Pan Am Academy?
> Might that have made a lightbulb go off in the controllers head that
> "these five probably have similar call signs." ??
>
> The only reason I ask is that we have a lot of Embry Riddle planes in AZ
> and they all end in ER which I could see causing a similar set of
> circumstances...
>
> Just wondering out loud...
>

A flight is treated as one aircraft and operates under a single call sign.

[Mike W.]

> What if the lead aircraft (if there was one...) had mentioned to the
> controller that they were a "flight of five" from the Pan Am Academy?
Might
> that have made a lightbulb go off in the controllers head that "these five
> probably have similar call signs." ??
>
> The only reason I ask is that we have a lot of Embry Riddle planes in AZ
and
> they all end in ER which I could see causing a similar set of
> circumstances...

Not that the contorollers didn't contribute to the accident, but wouldn't
the PILOT be thinking 'hmmm, was that call for me?' If I were flying in
mountainous terrain and was asked to descend below safe altitude, I sure as
hell would stay right where I was until I found out what the controller had
in mind.

There is a magic word you can use when a controller asks you to do something
you feel is unsafe. 'Unable'.

[Mike 'Flyin'8']

Ya know when I was doing my first solo XC for my PPL, I flew out of
Carlsbad and over the Julian VOR and off to the rest of my XC trip.
This was the same place where this plane crashed. Anyway, I was level
at 7500 outbound toward the Vulcan Mtn, and the controller told a
plane with Very similarr callsign as mine (I think they actually did
call my plane) to descend to (whatever it was) an altitude which was
lower than then peak of Vulcan Mtn. The other plane did not respond,
and in turn I thought it was my call sign. Of course, I immediatly
thought "No way am I going to descend into that mountain." and called
the tower and asked if the descent was intended for my callsign. They
promptly said "No, maintian 7500" and re-issued the descend for a way
different tail number. Hmmmm..

>
>> What if the lead aircraft (if there was one...) had mentioned to the
>> controller that they were a "flight of five" from the Pan Am Academy?
>Might
>> that have made a lightbulb go off in the controllers head that "these five
>> probably have similar call signs." ??
>>
>> The only reason I ask is that we have a lot of Embry Riddle planes in AZ
>and
>> they all end in ER which I could see causing a similar set of
>> circumstances...
>
>Not that the contorollers didn't contribute to the accident, but wouldn't
>the PILOT be thinking 'hmmm, was that call for me?' If I were flying in
>mountainous terrain and was asked to descend below safe altitude, I sure as
>hell would stay right where I was until I found out what the controller had
>in mind.
>
>There is a magic word you can use when a controller asks you to do something
>you feel is unsafe. 'Unable'.
>


Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

[Jay Beckman]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> news:Sv3_d.6088$uk7.4361@fed1read01...
>>
>> I'm curious about something from the "4PA" incident...
>>
>> The article mentions that there were five aircraft ostensibly travelling
>> together along the same route, right?
>>
>> What if the lead aircraft (if there was one...) had mentioned to the
>> controller that they were a "flight of five" from the Pan Am Academy?
>> Might that have made a lightbulb go off in the controllers head that
>> "these five probably have similar call signs." ??
>>
>> The only reason I ask is that we have a lot of Embry Riddle planes in AZ
>> and they all end in ER which I could see causing a similar set of
>> circumstances...
>>
>> Just wondering out loud...
>>
>
> A flight is treated as one aircraft and operates under a single call sign.
>

Thanks. I kinda figured my theory had holes in it.

Jay B

[David Lesher]

Corky Scott > writes:

>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:59:24 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
> wrote:

>>The ATC screwup I recall was when they vectored the jump plane over
>>Lake Erie and all the skydivers drowned. I've never looked for that
>>NTSB report {It happened in the 60's} but maybe I will.

>I remember there being a cloud cover such that the pilot, who was
>above it, did not know where he was and ended up out over lake Erie.
>Don't remember anything about ATC being involved though.


I do not recall any details beyond the USG settling with the widows, etc.
Hence my interest in looking it up...




--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Denny]

I have noted the tendency of controlled pilots to simply lean back,
relax, and let ATC do the driving...
Stuff happens, stay alert...

denny

[Doug]

My condolences to these pilots and their families.

A pilot and ATC enter into a contract when on an IFR flight plan. ATC
agrees to give clearances that avoid terrain and other aircraft and the
pilot agrees to fly the airplane according to those clearances. A pilot
should monitor his position and inform ATC of an incorrect instruction
if he is aware of it. The pilot can maintain safety by deviating even
if it is in violation of the clearance.

When mistakes are made, and they do occasionally happen, responsibility
should be attached to the parties that made the mistake. The only way
to "make whole" the injured party is through money awards. Sometimes
money isn't necessary, sometimes all that is required is recognition of
the mistake.

There was a fairly high profile case some years ago with a commercial
aircraft in Maryland. ATC cleared him to descend prematurely. On their
own, a sim operation gave the exact same instructions the pilots
received to sim pilot crews. Sixty percent crashed in a similar way as
the real plane. If sixty percent crashed, you could crash too. (most
of the ones that DIDN'T crash were had a crew member from that area who
knew about that mountain).

It it accidents like these that make me reluctant to fly approaches
into unfamiliar airports in mountainous terrain or with nearby tall
antennae towers or other tall obstructions. I have, as a pilot, been
given incorrect ATC instructions or temporarily been forgotten to be
given an important turn to final. As a single pilot, I cannot do both
ATC's job and fly the plane. Nor can I count on being able to recognize
an ATC mistake. It sounds easy to say "unable", but it's not, and it is
even harder to be sure, and I have to be SURE, that it is necessary to
say unable. I know, I've been in that situation.

Keep training, ATC, we pilots need you. We all need to work together on
this. Same goes for us pilots. When mistakes happen we all need to take
a hard look at what happened and figure out how to avoid it in the
future.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> There was a fairly high profile case some years ago with a commercial
> aircraft in Maryland. ATC cleared him to descend prematurely.
>

Sounds like you're referring to TWA514. ATC didn't issue a descent
clearance, ATC issued an approach clearance. The pilot descended through an
intermediate altitude.

[Doug]

That one is worth reviewing, if anyone has a link.

[Doug]

A link for the TWA 514 flight is:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>A link for the TWA 514 flight is:
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html
>

The approach plate of the time can be seen in alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
under the subject 1974 IAD VOR DME RWY 12.

[Ron Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>There was a fairly high profile case some years ago with a commercial
>>aircraft in Maryland. ATC cleared him to descend prematurely.
>>
>
>
> Sounds like you're referring to TWA514. ATC didn't issue a descent
> clearance, ATC issued an approach clearance. The pilot descended through an
> intermediate altitude.
>
>
It wasn't MD either, was just over the ridge here in Virginia.

[Scott D.]

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:42:44 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

>"A.Coleman" > wrote in message
m...
>> Please read this. This is what's killing GA and we ought to do something
>> about it.
>>
>
>I'm curious about something from the "4PA" incident...
>
>The article mentions that there were five aircraft ostensibly travelling
>together along the same route, right?
>
>What if the lead aircraft (if there was one...) had mentioned to the
>controller that they were a "flight of five" from the Pan Am Academy? Might
>that have made a lightbulb go off in the controllers head that "these five
>probably have similar call signs." ??
>
According to the article in the last paragraph and the NTSB report,
the aircraft were on an IFR flight plan. So they would not be
reporting to ATC as a flight of 5. They had a 5-10 min separation
between each other. You would only use flight of X for formation
flying. There was no tops reported but it was overcast at 2000 agl
18 miles away which would be around 3400 MSL and the wreckage was
found at 5500 msl. It would be hard to fly formation while IMC and at
night. So they would not have reported as such.


Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher

[Steven P. McNicoll]

<Scott D.> wrote in message
...
>
> According to the article in the last paragraph and the NTSB report,
> the aircraft were on an IFR flight plan. So they would not be
> reporting to ATC as a flight of 5.
>

There's no restriction on formation flights for IFR operations or
conditions. The military does it regularly, civil operators very rarely.
The only regulatory restriction on formation flights is carrying passengers
for hire.

[David Lesher]

Ron Natalie > writes:

>> Sounds like you're referring to TWA514. ATC didn't issue a descent
>> clearance, ATC issued an approach clearance. The pilot descended through an
>> intermediate altitude.
>>
>>
>It wasn't MD either, was just over the ridge here in Virginia.

Right into Mount Weather, the ""secret"" WWIII redoubt for POTUS.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433