"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 he
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X00045&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".