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

Good observation.

The Monk

Good observation.

The Monk

"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?

"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

"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/

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

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?e...11X00045&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

"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?

"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.

"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".