How's this for a Tower/Pilot exchange in an Emergency?

[Kyle Boatright]

Instead of responding to a request for vectors in an engine failure over
water situation, this controller played Q&A. No telling if the plane would
have made land if the controller had answered *the* question. The pilot and
his teenage daughter died in the crash...

The airplane (a C-195) was based about 20 miles from me and went down last
fall off the Florida coast.

KB

TOWER: November 22 Lima your mode c (transponder) appears to be
intermittent.

TILLMAN: OK, 22 Lima this moisture causes strange things no doubt.

TOWER: OK, I'm just letting you know. What altitude are you leaving.

TILLMAN: Climbing through four thousand four hundred.

TOWER: Thank you.

Moments later, Tillman said, "Two, two Lima, we just lost an engine here.
Two, Two Lima, we need a vector (direction) for the beach if possible."

TOWER: Say it again, sir.

TILLMAN: Two, two lima, we, ah our engine just started running rough, we
need a vector if possible.

TOWER: Yes sir. Are you able to maintain altitude? If you're not, I'll
vector you right in on the localizer and nice little glide rate.

TILLMAN: I'm unable to maintain altitude.

TOWER: Number of souls on board?

TILLMAN: Four souls.

TOWER: Nover two, two lima, your position is three miles east of the airport
as you break out, turn right two seven zero.

Then came the final exchange.

TILLMAN: See, I'm heading to heading of two seven zero. We're over the
water, we're not going to make it.

TILLMAN: Send some help, we're going in the drink.

TOWER: Alright, we're coming out. We'll send folks out to you.

TOWER: Two, two lima just crashed, we believe, in the ocean down in St.
Augustine, so any new information you might have starting putting it
together.

[Peter Duniho]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
> Instead of responding to a request for vectors in an engine failure over
> water situation, this controller played Q&A. No telling if the plane
> would have made land if the controller had answered *the* question.

And no telling how the controller would have replied if the pilot had a)
actually declared an emergency, and b) had not confused matters by using the
phrase "lost an engine" (which to me, implies at least one engine is left
running), and c) had not further confused matters by first saying they had
"lost an engine" and then later saying that their engine was "running
rough".

I'm also a little unclear as to how it is that the pilot didn't already know
what direction to head to get to the beach. Yes, maybe things would have
been different if the controller had provided the vector to the beach at
once, but it seems to me that if you're over the water at St. Augustine, you
head west to reach land (which turns out to be basically the vector provided
eventually anyway). It's not rocket science.

Basically, after the initial request, the controller instructed "say again".
Instead of simply repeating his transmission, the pilot changed his tune and
failed to specify what kind of vector he wanted, and failed to indicate that
he had actually lost an engine. Assuming the controller really didn't
understand the initial transmission, I cannot see how he can be faulted for
failing to provide a vector (a vector to where?) or for not immediately
recognizing the severity of the situation (he's got a guy with a
rough-running engine, not a complete failure, as far as he knows).

I really cannot see how the controller's response or lack thereof could be
considered to have contributed a significant role to the accident. From
what you've posted, the airplane in question was at least 4000' altitude
before the engine problem. An immediate turn to the west (where any pilot
should have known land was) would have given him a good four mile glide or
more (assuming typical GA airplane glide ratio), and the airplane was only
three miles from the *airport* (admittedly, not far from the beach) by the
time the controller got around to giving him position information.

I see plenty of pilot error, and *maybe* a teeny tiny glitch in the
controller's response. To try to put the deaths of the pilot and his
daughter on the controller is just plain wrong.

Pilot in command. The final authority with respect to responsibility for
the safety of the flight. As pilots, we need to take that responsibility
seriously. Short of obvious gross negligence, point the finger somewhere
else is NOT taking that responsibility seriously.

Pete

[kontiki]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> I'm also a little unclear as to how it is that the pilot didn't already know
> what direction to head to get to the beach. Yes, maybe things would have
> been different if the controller had provided the vector to the beach at
> once, but it seems to me that if you're over the water at St. Augustine, you
> head west to reach land (which turns out to be basically the vector provided
> eventually anyway). It's not rocket science.

This also struck me... even without a vector or contrary to ATC instructions
you would want to head toward the beach. Since as pilot in command you can
do whatever needs to be done to insure the safety of the flight, I'd head that
way immediately and woryy about a vector from ATC later. Sad story though.

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

I couldn't agree more with your view.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kyle Boatright]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Instead of responding to a request for vectors in an engine failure over
>> water situation, this controller played Q&A. No telling if the plane
>> would have made land if the controller had answered *the* question.
>
<<<snip>>>
>
> I see plenty of pilot error, and *maybe* a teeny tiny glitch in the
> controller's response. To try to put the deaths of the pilot and his
> daughter on the controller is just plain wrong.
>
> Pilot in command. The final authority with respect to responsibility for
> the safety of the flight. As pilots, we need to take that responsibility
> seriously. Short of obvious gross negligence, point the finger somewhere
> else is NOT taking that responsibility seriously.
>
> Pete

I guess I see it differently. Losing an engine over water, probably trying
to work the problem, the pilot may have been rattled and without the mental
capacity in that situation to process which way to turn. Also, the guy may
have been IFR, although that certainly isn't clear. What he needed was a
direction to turn and he didn't get that immediately.

Regardless of whether it is a controller, a co-worker, or my wife, it really
bugs me when someone doesn't give a direct answer to a question...

KB

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> Instead of responding to a request for vectors in an engine failure over
> water situation, this controller played Q&A. No telling if the plane
> would have made land if the controller had answered *the* question. The
> pilot and his teenage daughter died in the crash...
>
> The airplane (a C-195) was based about 20 miles from me and went down last
> fall off the Florida coast.
>
> KB
>
> TOWER: November 22 Lima your mode c (transponder) appears to be
> intermittent.
>
> TILLMAN: OK, 22 Lima this moisture causes strange things no doubt.
>
> TOWER: OK, I'm just letting you know. What altitude are you leaving.
>
> TILLMAN: Climbing through four thousand four hundred.
>
> TOWER: Thank you.
>
> Moments later, Tillman said, "Two, two Lima, we just lost an engine here.
> Two, Two Lima, we need a vector (direction) for the beach if possible."
>
> TOWER: Say it again, sir.
>
> TILLMAN: Two, two lima, we, ah our engine just started running rough, we
> need a vector if possible.
>
> TOWER: Yes sir. Are you able to maintain altitude? If you're not, I'll
> vector you right in on the localizer and nice little glide rate.
>
> TILLMAN: I'm unable to maintain altitude.
>
> TOWER: Number of souls on board?
>
> TILLMAN: Four souls.
>
> TOWER: Nover two, two lima, your position is three miles east of the
> airport as you break out, turn right two seven zero.
>
> Then came the final exchange.
>
> TILLMAN: See, I'm heading to heading of two seven zero. We're over the
> water, we're not going to make it.
>
> TILLMAN: Send some help, we're going in the drink.
>
> TOWER: Alright, we're coming out. We'll send folks out to you.
>
> TOWER: Two, two lima just crashed, we believe, in the ocean down in St.
> Augustine, so any new information you might have starting putting it
> together.
>

What's your source for this?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I guess I see it differently. Losing an engine over water, probably trying
> to work the problem, the pilot may have been rattled and without the
> mental capacity in that situation to process which way to turn. Also, the
> guy may have been IFR, although that certainly isn't clear. What he
> needed was a direction to turn and he didn't get that immediately.
>

If he was that rattled he was beyond help.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> Instead of responding to a request for vectors in an engine failure over
> water situation, this controller played Q&A. No telling if the plane would
> have made land if the controller had answered *the* question. The pilot and
> his teenage daughter died in the crash...
>
> The airplane (a C-195) was based about 20 miles from me and went down last
> fall off the Florida coast.


I didn't hear anything inappropriate in the controller's questions. He didn't
ask for that much information but he got as much as he could in a short time.
He definitely needs to know how many souls on board. Otherwise someone could
spend days unnecessarily looking for survivors.

As for the pilot, he didn't know west of the ocean is Florida? The controller
gave him a more specific heading but a westerly heading would certainly have
headed him to *some* beach if he had the range. From 4400 feet, he probably was
only about six minutes or so to touchdown. As it was, he was just three miles
from the airport itself. I'm not sure why he couldn't make it from three miles
out. Did he dump his altitude trying to get below the clouds?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[John Gaquin]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>
> I guess I see it differently... What he needed was a direction to turn
> and he didn't get that immediately.

At the first indication of a problem, he lost his situational awareness,
stopped thinking, had no plan to revert to, and called for ATC to save his
bacon. In short, he panicked. Training should have either caught this
propensity, or obviated it. In any event, he had at his disposal all the
information (and, I think, altitude) needed to save himself, but he
panicked. A sad case, 'tis true, but there's no one here who needs to be
told that the penalty for unpreparedness can be severe.

[Thomas Borchert]

Kyle,

> Losing an engine over water, probably trying
> to work the problem, the pilot may have been rattled and without the mental
> capacity in that situation to process which way to turn.
>

If one flies single engine over water, one absolutely totally needs to have
thought through an engine failure and the required actions well in advance of
the flight. That's part of the normal risk management strategy.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Duniho]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> I guess I see it differently. Losing an engine over water, probably trying
> to work the problem, the pilot may have been rattled and without the
> mental capacity in that situation to process which way to turn.

It's the pilot's job to not get rattled in an emergency. Yes it happens,
but the fact that it happens doesn't shift the blame to ATC.

> Also, the guy may have been IFR, although that certainly isn't clear.

The way I read the transcript, he is IFR. However, that's irrelevant.

> What he needed was a direction to turn and he didn't get that immediately.

He didn't provide ATC with the information necessary for ATC to provide an
appropriate vector, nor should he have needed ATC to tell him which way to
turn anyway.

> Regardless of whether it is a controller, a co-worker, or my wife, it
> really bugs me when someone doesn't give a direct answer to a question...

It bugs me too, but in this case it's not clear the person who was asked the
question was provided sufficient information to provide an answer.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> And no telling how the controller would have replied if the pilot had a)
> actually declared an emergency, and b) had not confused matters by using
> the phrase "lost an engine" (which to me, implies at least one engine is
> left running), and c) had not further confused matters by first saying
> they had "lost an engine" and then later saying that their engine was
> "running rough".
>

True, the pilot never declared an emergency, but it appears the controller
was treating it as an emergency anyway. He wouldn't have asked the number
of souls on board otherwise.


>
> I'm also a little unclear as to how it is that the pilot didn't already
> know what direction to head to get to the beach. Yes, maybe things would
> have been different if the controller had provided the vector to the beach
> at once, but it seems to me that if you're over the water at St.
> Augustine, you head west to reach land (which turns out to be basically
> the vector provided eventually anyway). It's not rocket science.
>
> Basically, after the initial request, the controller instructed "say
> again". Instead of simply repeating his transmission, the pilot changed
> his tune and failed to specify what kind of vector he wanted, and failed
> to indicate that he had actually lost an engine. Assuming the controller
> really didn't understand the initial transmission, I cannot see how he can
> be faulted for failing to provide a vector (a vector to where?) or for not
> immediately recognizing the severity of the situation (he's got a guy with
> a rough-running engine, not a complete failure, as far as he knows).
>
> I really cannot see how the controller's response or lack thereof could be
> considered to have contributed a significant role to the accident. From
> what you've posted, the airplane in question was at least 4000' altitude
> before the engine problem. An immediate turn to the west (where any pilot
> should have known land was) would have given him a good four mile glide or
> more (assuming typical GA airplane glide ratio), and the airplane was only
> three miles from the *airport* (admittedly, not far from the beach) by the
> time the controller got around to giving him position information.
>
> I see plenty of pilot error, and *maybe* a teeny tiny glitch in the
> controller's response. To try to put the deaths of the pilot and his
> daughter on the controller is just plain wrong.
>
> Pilot in command. The final authority with respect to responsibility for
> the safety of the flight. As pilots, we need to take that responsibility
> seriously. Short of obvious gross negligence, point the finger somewhere
> else is NOT taking that responsibility seriously.
>

The preliminary report on this accident is available here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060111X00045&key=1


I'm more than a little suspicious about this tale. What's the source of the
transcript? I've read quite a few accident briefs, ATC transmissions tend
to be identified by the position and aircraft transmissions by the aircraft
call sign. I'd expect to see the ATC transmissions identified here as
"Jacksonville Approach" and the airplane's transmissions as "N22L", but
they're identified as "TOWER" and "TILLMAN".

[Greg Farris]

I agree with Peter - When I read "Lost an Engine" my thought was there was
one still running. The urgency of the situiation was not clear, at least in the
transcript.

SE out over water, too far out to get back to shore on 4000' of altitude and
losing one's only engine warrants a full-on MAYDAY call - not ah..
er...whatever.

On the (dubious) assumption this transcript is real, it would be a stretch to
assign much blame with the controller.

GF

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree with Peter - When I read "Lost an Engine" my thought was there
> was
> one still running. The urgency of the situiation was not clear, at least
> in the
> transcript.
>
> SE out over water, too far out to get back to shore on 4000' of altitude
> and
> losing one's only engine warrants a full-on MAYDAY call - not ah..
> er...whatever.
>

The airplane was level at 6,000 when he first called ATC with a problem.
The preliminary report does not indicate the route, but it's hard to imagine
one where he couldn't reach terra firma from 6,000 feet.

[Barney Rubble]

I think he was in IMC....
TOWER: Nover two, two lima, your position is three miles east of the airport
as you ___break out___, turn right two seven zero


"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Instead of responding to a request for vectors in an engine failure over
>>> water situation, this controller played Q&A. No telling if the plane
>>> would have made land if the controller had answered *the* question.
>>
> <<<snip>>>
>>
>> I see plenty of pilot error, and *maybe* a teeny tiny glitch in the
>> controller's response. To try to put the deaths of the pilot and his
>> daughter on the controller is just plain wrong.
>>
>> Pilot in command. The final authority with respect to responsibility for
>> the safety of the flight. As pilots, we need to take that responsibility
>> seriously. Short of obvious gross negligence, point the finger somewhere
>> else is NOT taking that responsibility seriously.
>>
>> Pete
>
> I guess I see it differently. Losing an engine over water, probably trying
> to work the problem, the pilot may have been rattled and without the
> mental capacity in that situation to process which way to turn. Also, the
> guy may have been IFR, although that certainly isn't clear. What he
> needed was a direction to turn and he didn't get that immediately.
>
> Regardless of whether it is a controller, a co-worker, or my wife, it
> really bugs me when someone doesn't give a direct answer to a question...
>
> KB
>
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

The accident report does say, " Instrument meteorological conditions
prevailed in the area at the time and an instrument flight rules (IFR)
flight plan was filed..."

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060111X00045&key=1

"Barney Rubble" > wrote in message
...
>I think he was in IMC....
> TOWER: Nover two, two lima, your position is three miles east of the
> airport
> as you ___break out___, turn right two seven zero
>
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Instead of responding to a request for vectors in an engine failure
>>>> over water situation, this controller played Q&A. No telling if the
>>>> plane would have made land if the controller had answered *the*
>>>> question.
>>>
>> <<<snip>>>
>>>
>>> I see plenty of pilot error, and *maybe* a teeny tiny glitch in the
>>> controller's response. To try to put the deaths of the pilot and his
>>> daughter on the controller is just plain wrong.
>>>
>>> Pilot in command. The final authority with respect to responsibility
>>> for the safety of the flight. As pilots, we need to take that
>>> responsibility seriously. Short of obvious gross negligence, point the
>>> finger somewhere else is NOT taking that responsibility seriously.
>>>
>>> Pete
>>
>> I guess I see it differently. Losing an engine over water, probably
>> trying to work the problem, the pilot may have been rattled and without
>> the mental capacity in that situation to process which way to turn. Also,
>> the guy may have been IFR, although that certainly isn't clear. What he
>> needed was a direction to turn and he didn't get that immediately.
>>
>> Regardless of whether it is a controller, a co-worker, or my wife, it
>> really bugs me when someone doesn't give a direct answer to a question...
>>
>> KB
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Regardless of whether it is a controller, a co-worker, or my wife, it
> really bugs me when someone doesn't give a direct answer to a question...
>

What question was not given a direct answer?

[three-eight-hotel]

>> When I read "Lost an Engine" my thought was there was
>> one still running

I agree completely, with what Peter has said. However, if an IFR
flight plan was filed, wouldn't the controller know the make and model
of the airplane? I know that I certainly wouldn't know whether a plane
was a single or multi-engine, in many cases, but then, I don't know how
much a controller is required to know??? I know if I saw something as
simple as "Cessna 172", I could figure it out... ;-)

Just curious as to how much a controller might be required to know, if
anything, about the aircraft specified in a flight plan.

Best Regards,
Todd

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"three-eight-hotel" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I agree completely, with what Peter has said. However, if an IFR
> flight plan was filed, wouldn't the controller know the make and model
> of the airplane?
>

The guy was operating IFR. The strip would have shown the type to be C195
but the controller wouldn't necessarily know that's a single.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> The preliminary report on this accident is available here:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060111X00045&key=1
>
>
> I'm more than a little suspicious about this tale. What's the source of
> the transcript? I've read quite a few accident briefs, ATC transmissions
> tend to be identified by the position and aircraft transmissions by the
> aircraft call sign. I'd expect to see the ATC transmissions identified
> here as "Jacksonville Approach" and the airplane's transmissions as
> "N22L", but they're identified as "TOWER" and "TILLMAN".

You'll find the transcript posted at www.ajc.com (the Atlanta Journal).
Also, you can listen to a recording at www.wsbradio.com

[Kyle Boatright]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I guess I see it differently. Losing an engine over water, probably
>> trying to work the problem, the pilot may have been rattled and without
>> the mental capacity in that situation to process which way to turn.
>
> It's the pilot's job to not get rattled in an emergency. Yes it happens,
> but the fact that it happens doesn't shift the blame to ATC.

Agreed, as pilots, we are more or less in control of and responsible for our
own destinies, but the guy asked for specific information and didn't get it.
As has been said time and time again, most accidents result from a chain of
events. In this one, there were several issues that could have prevented
the fatalities. If the engine hadn't stopped. If the pilot hadn't lost
situational awareness. If a C-195 was a better glider. etc. etc. etc. But
the way I see it, the controller had the opportunity to break the chain by
giving the requested information (a vector) immediately.

>
>> Also, the guy may have been IFR, although that certainly isn't clear.
>
> The way I read the transcript, he is IFR. However, that's irrelevant.
>
>> What he needed was a direction to turn and he didn't get that
>> immediately.
>
> He didn't provide ATC with the information necessary for ATC to provide an
> appropriate vector, nor should he have needed ATC to tell him which way to
> turn anyway.
>
>> Regardless of whether it is a controller, a co-worker, or my wife, it
>> really bugs me when someone doesn't give a direct answer to a question...
>
> It bugs me too, but in this case it's not clear the person who was asked
> the question was provided sufficient information to provide an answer.

Here's a snippet of the transcript:

Moments later, Tillman said, "Two, two Lima, we just lost an engine here.
Two, Two Lima, we need a vector (direction) for the beach if possible."

TOWER: Say it again, sir.

TILLMAN: Two, two lima, we, ah our engine just started running rough, we
need a vector if possible.

After this, the controller got into the issues of souls on board, ability to
to maintain altitude, etc. It isn't clear how long the pilot was without the
information he requested (a vector), but some time did pass while the rest
of the conversation took place. Maybe, just maybe, that was the time the
guy needed to keep the airplane out of the water.

> Pete

KB

[Flyingmonk]

Good observation.

The Monk

[Flyingmonk]

Good observation.

The Monk

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> Agreed, as pilots, we are more or less in control of and responsible for
> our own destinies, but the guy asked for specific information and didn't
> get it.

What specific information did the guy ask for?


>
> As has been said time and time again, most accidents result from a chain
> of events. In this one, there were several issues that could have
> prevented the fatalities. If the engine hadn't stopped. If the pilot
> hadn't lost situational awareness. If a C-195 was a better glider. etc.
> etc. etc. But the way I see it, the controller had the opportunity to
> break the chain by giving the requested information (a vector)
> immediately.
>

A vector to where?


>
> Here's a snippet of the transcript:
>
> Moments later, Tillman said, "Two, two Lima, we just lost an engine here.
> Two, Two Lima, we need a vector (direction) for the beach if possible."
>
> TOWER: Say it again, sir.
>
> TILLMAN: Two, two lima, we, ah our engine just started running rough, we
> need a vector if possible.
>
> After this, the controller got into the issues of souls on board, ability
> to to maintain altitude, etc. It isn't clear how long the pilot was
> without the information he requested (a vector), but some time did pass
> while the rest of the conversation took place. Maybe, just maybe, that
> was the time the guy needed to keep the airplane out of the water.
>

So his engine just started running rough and he wants a vector to somewhere.
Where? An engine maintenance shop?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> You'll find the transcript posted at www.ajc.com (the Atlanta Journal).
> Also, you can listen to a recording at www.wsbradio.com
>

Be more specific.

[jladd]

Steven, What are controllers taught, if anything, about make and model
of aircraft?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"jladd" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Steven, What are controllers taught, if anything, about make and model
> of aircraft?
>

Today? Beats me. 23 years ago in the enroute initial course there was a
brief overview of the more common types of aircraft, but a Cessna 195 isn't
all that common.

[Peter Duniho]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
> Agreed, as pilots, we are more or less in control of and responsible for
> our own destinies, but the guy asked for specific information and didn't
> get it.

That's just not how I read the transcript. That is, he did NOT ask for
specific information, as far as what the controller actually acknowledged.
The only time he asked for specific information, the response was "say
again". Which he failed to do.

> [...] But the way I see it, the controller had the opportunity to break
> the chain by giving the requested information (a vector) immediately.

Perhaps. However, by focusing your original post on this one factor, when
it's an incredibly small part of the overall accident, you do a great
disservice to the controller, and unreasonably minimize the pilot's
responsibility in the accident.

Whatever role the controller may have had, it didn't warrant starting a
whole new thread here to question his actions.

> [...]
> Here's a snippet of the transcript: [...]

Yes, I read it the first time.

> After this, the controller got into the issues of souls on board, ability
> to to maintain altitude, etc. It isn't clear how long the pilot was
> without the information he requested (a vector), but some time did pass
> while the rest of the conversation took place. Maybe, just maybe, that
> was the time the guy needed to keep the airplane out of the water.

At no time did the pilot actually give the controller the specific
information needed to provide the vector the pilot was asking for. The one
time he tried to do so, the controller made a very clear response indicating
that the transmission was NOT understood.

I don't really agree with the culpability on the controller's part that is
being implied by you, even if he did receive the original request. But
given that he didn't, I don't even see room for debate. How can he be held
responsible for not answering a question he didn't receive?

Pete

[alexy]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote:

>Good observation.
>
>The Monk

What is a good observation?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[B a r r y]

jladd wrote:
> Steven, What are controllers taught, if anything, about make and model
> of aircraft?
>

I've toured my local ATC center. Above each controller's position is a
multi-function PC with a 14" or 15", possibly touch-screen, monitor. On
this PC, they demonstrated an aircraft type database that included
applicable facts like climb and descent rates, fuel load, seats, gross
weight, and maybe typical takeoff and landing distance requirements,
similar to a postcard. Most records also included a photo of an example
aircraft. I was led to believe that this might be a local project.

[BDS]

"B a r r y" > wrote

> > Steven, What are controllers taught, if anything, about make and model
> > of aircraft?

During recurrency training we are taught that controllers are not experts on
aircraft or weather, and most are not pilots. If you tell them you just had
a vacuum failure they may not know exactly what the implications of that
statement are - I'm sure that many if not most would, but there are no
guarantees. If you say "I just lost an engine" it seems normal to assume
that you have more than one the way that statement is worded, but that
doesn't really matter because if you want priority handling, you need to
declare an emergency.

When you go through these training courses and failures are occurring left
and right, you learn to declare an emergency at the drop of a hat because
priority handling can be important. An example I recall from the course is
an incident that happened a few years back where a twin lost an engine and
the pilot was asked if he wanted to declare an emergency - he declined.
Later when he was on final a conflict developed and the twin was told to go
around - not an ideal situation but the pilot decided that he didn't need or
want priority handling by failing to declare.

BDS

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Kyle Boatright" > writes:

> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> I guess I see it differently. Losing an engine over water, probably
> >> trying to work the problem, the pilot may have been rattled and without
> >> the mental capacity in that situation to process which way to turn.
> >
> > It's the pilot's job to not get rattled in an emergency. Yes it happens,
> > but the fact that it happens doesn't shift the blame to ATC.
>
> Agreed, as pilots, we are more or less in control of and responsible for our
> own destinies, but the guy asked for specific information and didn't get it.
> As has been said time and time again, most accidents result from a chain of
> events. In this one, there were several issues that could have prevented
> the fatalities. If the engine hadn't stopped. If the pilot hadn't lost
> situational awareness. If a C-195 was a better glider. etc. etc. etc. But
> the way I see it, the controller had the opportunity to break the chain by
> giving the requested information (a vector) immediately.

The controller's response to the transmission with the request was
"Say it again, sir"; indicating that he hadn't fully heard and
understood the transmission. This could be due to radio noise, or
local distractions, or no doubt other things; but, if the controller
*didn't hear the request* (or not clearly enough to understand it) I
think it's *at least* premature to criticize him for not responding to
it!

You may well be right that getting an immediate clear answer might
have helped the pilot, enough to make the difference between life and
death. It's unfortunate that he didn't get a response. But I'm
skeptical of blaming it on the controller, based on the facts so far
in front of us (pretty thing).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
>
> You may well be right that getting an immediate clear answer might
> have helped the pilot, enough to make the difference between life and
> death.
>

An immediate clear request would have helped.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "Kyle Boatright" > writes:
>
>> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>> > . ..
>> >> I guess I see it differently. Losing an engine over water, probably
>> >> trying to work the problem, the pilot may have been rattled and
>> >> without
>> >> the mental capacity in that situation to process which way to turn.
>> >
>> > It's the pilot's job to not get rattled in an emergency. Yes it
>> > happens,
>> > but the fact that it happens doesn't shift the blame to ATC.
>>
>> Agreed, as pilots, we are more or less in control of and responsible for
>> our
>> own destinies, but the guy asked for specific information and didn't get
>> it.
>> As has been said time and time again, most accidents result from a chain
>> of
>> events. In this one, there were several issues that could have prevented
>> the fatalities. If the engine hadn't stopped. If the pilot hadn't lost
>> situational awareness. If a C-195 was a better glider. etc. etc. etc.
>> But
>> the way I see it, the controller had the opportunity to break the chain
>> by
>> giving the requested information (a vector) immediately.
>
> The controller's response to the transmission with the request was
> "Say it again, sir"; indicating that he hadn't fully heard and
> understood the transmission. This could be due to radio noise, or
> local distractions, or no doubt other things; but, if the controller
> *didn't hear the request* (or not clearly enough to understand it) I
> think it's *at least* premature to criticize him for not responding to
> it!
>
> You may well be right that getting an immediate clear answer might
> have helped the pilot, enough to make the difference between life and
> death. It's unfortunate that he didn't get a response. But I'm
> skeptical of blaming it on the controller, based on the facts so far
> in front of us (pretty thing).
> --


Add to that the pilot when asked to repeat downgraded the issue from lost an
engine to the engine is running rough.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You may well be right that getting an immediate clear answer might
> > have helped the pilot, enough to make the difference between life and
> > death.
>
> An immediate clear request would have helped.

Well, it was clear to the transcriber; has anybody heard the actual
tape? Apparently it wasn't clear to the controller.

But if that was the key point, it would have been nice if he'd
responded to "say it again" by saying it again, yes.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Peter Duniho]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> Well, it was clear to the transcriber; has anybody heard the actual
> tape? Apparently it wasn't clear to the controller.

A radio transmission can be missed for reasons other than problems with the
actual transmission.

The controller transmitting "say again" is his signal to the pilot that, for
whatever reason (and that reason is irrelevant), the controller needs the
transmission to be repeated. Along with a number of other failures on his
part, the pilot failed to do that as well.

Pete

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> An immediate clear request would have helped.
>
> Well, it was clear to the transcriber; has anybody heard the actual
> tape? Apparently it wasn't clear to the controller.


The transcriber has the advantage of being able to play the tape over and over
again until he/she gets it.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Peter Duniho" > writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Well, it was clear to the transcriber; has anybody heard the actual
> > tape? Apparently it wasn't clear to the controller.
>
> A radio transmission can be missed for reasons other than problems with the
> actual transmission.

Yes, and I said that in my initial message.

> The controller transmitting "say again" is his signal to the pilot that, for
> whatever reason (and that reason is irrelevant), the controller needs the
> transmission to be repeated. Along with a number of other failures on his
> part, the pilot failed to do that as well.

Yes, I know. Apparently the pilot was dealing with a heavy workload
in a scary situation there; single-engine IFR over water, and now
engine trouble. Still, if that's what the pilot most needed, it was a
serious mistake not to ask for it again.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >> An immediate clear request would have helped.
> >
> > Well, it was clear to the transcriber; has anybody heard the actual
> > tape? Apparently it wasn't clear to the controller.
>
> The transcriber has the advantage of being able to play the tape over and over
> again until he/she gets it.

True. And may even get it wrong, translating a definitely garbled
tape into a clear-looking transcript.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> An immediate clear request would have helped.
>>
>
> Well, it was clear to the transcriber; has anybody heard the actual
> tape? Apparently it wasn't clear to the controller.
>

To what do you refer?

[Chris Ehlbeck]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>>>An immediate clear request would have helped.
>>
>>Well, it was clear to the transcriber; has anybody heard the actual
>>tape? Apparently it wasn't clear to the controller.
>
>
>
> The transcriber has the advantage of being able to play the tape over and over
> again until he/she gets it.
>
>
>
I got to hear the recording on the local news as the pilot was from this
area. He sounded urgent but not panicked. Being a low-time private
pilot when I heard "we've lost AN engine" would've led me to believe it
was a multi. BTW, led my wife in her limited GA knowledge to think the
same. I never heard him declare an emergency, never heard mayday, never
heard even pan pan pan. He requested vectors back and got them. Once
he said "we're going in the drink" the controller told him they were
sending someone out (it was apparent to me they knew where he was).
When the crash occurred, the story here was that the local Sheriff's
Dept and Coast Guard responded but halted after a day because of bad
weather.

Chris

[John Gaquin]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>
> I guess I see it differently... What he needed was a direction to turn
> and he didn't get that immediately.

At the first indication of a problem, he lost his situational awareness,
stopped thinking, had no plan to revert to, and called for ATC to save his
bacon. In short, he panicked. Training should have either caught this
propensity, or obviated it. In any event, he had at his disposal all the
information (and, I think, altitude) needed to save himself, but he
panicked. You simply can't transfer the blame for that to ATC. A sad case,
'tis true, but there's no one here who needs to be told that the penalty for
unpreparedness can be severe.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> An immediate clear request would have helped.
> >>
> >
> > Well, it was clear to the transcriber; has anybody heard the actual
> > tape? Apparently it wasn't clear to the controller.
> >
>
> To what do you refer?

The transcript shows a clear request. However it also shows the
controller responding "say it again", so it either wasn't clear to the
controller for technical reasons (radio sound quality) or else it
wasn't clear to the controller because he was doing something else
when the communication came in (I understand this to be a normal part
of the job; I believe you don't work just one frequency, and sometimes
need to talk on the phone or in person to other controllers, and
probably other distractions as well). I'm just wondering which --
mere curiosity, neither result would indicate any error on the
controller's part.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[John Gaquin]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>
> You'll find the transcript posted at www.ajc.com (the Atlanta Journal).

A sign of the times in 21st century US of A... (or is it just
Georgia?)......

Go to the link above provided by Kyle. Check out the photo on the left of
the closing ceremony at the Olympics, with performers lowering themselves
from the roof inside the stadium. Note the caption, stating "...Performers
repel from the roof of Olympic Stadium during closing ceremonies...".
Doesn't anyone check anything anymore?

:-)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
>
> The transcript shows a clear request.
>

I don't think so.

[John Gaquin]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message news:Vt-

Too late..... gone.

[Kyle Boatright]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "John Gaquin" > wrote in message news:Vt-
>
> Too late..... gone.

The AJC isn't exactly a top shelf newspaper. Unfortunately, it is the only
one in Atlanta that covers the entire city/state.

Sometimes they even get their facts straight.

;-)