IFR/Flight Following -- ATC Preferences?

Judah wrote:
Newps wrote in news:j7-dnWQG7ogqsPneRVn-
:



Judah wrote:



I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I believe a controller will
issue an alert if a pilot is descending faster than 1700 fpm.

Not while you are VFR.


Hmmm. I remember a specific instance during my VFR training that an
instructor warned me to be careful about coming down too fast because it
would cause an alerts with ATC... For some reason, since I know you to be a
controller, I have more faith in your response.

When you are VFR the computer will not give low altitude alerts.

Judah wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:


The point is those things are unrelated to flight following.


The original point was that had he had flight following, he might have
survived. You are assuming that the OP meant that a controller would have
alerted him. I interpret it that had he been listening to the frequency, he
might have been more aware of his surroundings and situation and taken
appropriate action.

I don't think this is true at all. If anything, listening to the
frequency would have detracted from his concentration on flying the
airplane, a task that in retrospect he wasn't capable of performing in
the prevailing conditions. I don't think adding to his mental workload
would have contributed to better flying.


Matt

Judah wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote in
:


I think Steven's point though is that they can't fly the airplane for
the pilot, which was essentially the original suggestion.


While I agree with the point that you are making here on Steve's behalf, I
don't think the original suggestion was that ATC can fly the plane for the
pilot, nor that your point is indeed Steve's.

Bob's original comment was, "JFK, Jr. was not required by regulation to use
flight following...but the outcome of his flight might have been
drastically different had he done so."

He lost control of his airplane. This implies he wasn't capable of
flying the airplane in the prevailing conditions. To have the outcome
be different would have required someone else to be flying the airplane.
Thus the above suggestion essentially implies that. That was my point.


Steve then asked, "How would have flight following made a difference? He
didn't run into an unseen airplane." The implication being that the only
benefit of flight following is traffic alerts. When I brought up very
specific examples of benefits that one can get while getting flight
following, he dismissed it as unrelated to the flight following and
suggests that simply listening on the frequency is all that is necessary.

I'll let Steven answer for himself on this one. :-)


The original point - a suggestion that one can improve his/her safety by
using flight following - is completely lost in Steve's trial-lawyer
tactics. The fact remains, however, that even Steve concedes that simply
listening to the proper frequency can improve situational awareness, and as
such the original point is actually supported by Steve's own arguments.

I disagree. The original point that flight following would have changed
the outcome in this case is completely fallacious. Steven has his own
unique way of pointing that out, but his point is correct whether you
agree with his tactic or not.


I'm just trying to have a friendly conversation. If I wanted my words to be
picked apart like the Talmud, I would have become a lawyer or a Rabbi.

If you didn't want your words to be picked apart, you shouldn't have
posted in a newsgroup. :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

snip
He lost control of his airplane. This implies he wasn't capable of
flying the airplane in the prevailing conditions. To have the
outcome be different would have required someone else to be flying the
airplane.
Thus the above suggestion essentially implies that. That was my
point.

I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact, all
reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a controlled
flight directly into the water. If that's the case, either he was suicidal
or he was disoriented.

snip

The original point - a suggestion that one can improve his/her safety
by using flight following - is completely lost in Steve's
trial-lawyer tactics. The fact remains, however, that even Steve
concedes that simply listening to the proper frequency can improve
situational awareness, and as such the original point is actually
supported by Steve's own arguments.

I disagree. The original point that flight following would have
changed the outcome in this case is completely fallacious. Steven has
his own unique way of pointing that out, but his point is correct
whether you agree with his tactic or not.

Actually, there is no evidence whether his point is correct or not,
regardless of whether you agree with it or whether I disagree with it.
Your agreement is no more evidenciary than my disagreement...

I'm just trying to have a friendly conversation. If I wanted my
words
to be picked apart like the Talmud, I would have become a lawyer or
a Rabbi.

If you didn't want your words to be picked apart, you shouldn't have
posted in a newsgroup. :-)


Oy Vey! Why didn't I see that one coming?

Judah wrote:

I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact, all
reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a controlled
flight directly into the water. If that's the case, either he was suicidal
or he was disoriented.

The NTSB report reads in part:

"The airplane's rate of descent eventually exceeded 4,700 fpm"

I wouldn't call that maintaining "controlled flight."

source:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X19354&key=1


--
Peter
























----== 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 =----

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Judah wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:


The point is those things are unrelated to flight following.


The original point was that had he had flight following, he might
have survived. You are assuming that the OP meant that a controller
would have alerted him. I interpret it that had he been listening to
the frequency, he might have been more aware of his surroundings and
situation and taken appropriate action.

I don't think this is true at all. If anything, listening to the
frequency would have detracted from his concentration on flying the
airplane, a task that in retrospect he wasn't capable of performing
in
the prevailing conditions. I don't think adding to his mental
workload would have contributed to better flying.


Matt


Perhaps if he were listening to the frequency, he would have been given
the correct altimeter setting in a handoff and realized that he was
about to descend into the water.

Or perhaps the controller could have advised him that the weather at
the
airport was below Night VFR minimums and he would have diverted safely
to another airport that was safe.

Or perhaps his wife sitting next to him would have stopped bitching at
him for being late for their wedding plans long enough to let him
listen
to the frequency and fly the plane.

Or perhaps talk on the frequency would have woken him up from his
"zoning out" because he was tired and on medication.

Or perhaps he was suicidal and the whole thing would was done on
purpose.

Who knows what the conditions were or what situations might have
improved it. Your guess is as good as mine. But that's kinda the point,
isn't it...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:


"Judah" wrote in message
.. .

The original point was that had he had flight following, he might
have survived. You are assuming that the OP meant that a controller
would have alerted him. I interpret it that had he been listening to
the frequency, he
might have been more aware of his surroundings and situation and
taken appropriate action.


So flight following can prevent spatial disorientation?



No, but it can prevent you from having your altimeter set incorrectly so
that you fly into the water when you think you are 500' above it...

He was only 500' above the water for 7 seconds. There was nothing
controlled about the descent or the flight once he got into a death spiral.

Judah wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
ink.net:


"Judah" wrote in message
...

The original point was that had he had flight following, he might
have survived. You are assuming that the OP meant that a controller
would have alerted him. I interpret it that had he been listening to
the frequency, he
might have been more aware of his surroundings and situation and
taken appropriate action.


So flight following can prevent spatial disorientation?




No, but it can prevent you from having your altimeter set incorrectly so
that you fly into the water when you think you are 500' above it...

Judah wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

snip

He lost control of his airplane. This implies he wasn't capable of
flying the airplane in the prevailing conditions. To have the
outcome be different would have required someone else to be flying the
airplane.
Thus the above suggestion essentially implies that. That was my
point.


I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact, all
reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a controlled
flight directly into the water. If that's the case, either he was suicidal
or he was disoriented.

That is an interesting definition of "control" that you are using. If
the goal was to fly straight and level and you instead flew into the
water, then that is loss of control in my book. Anytime you aren't
making the airplane do what it should be doing, you are not in control.

Matt

"Peter R." wrote in
:

Judah wrote:

I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact,
all reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a
controlled flight directly into the water. If that's the case,
either
he was suicidal or he was disoriented.

The NTSB report reads in part:

"The airplane's rate of descent eventually exceeded 4,700 fpm"

I wouldn't call that maintaining "controlled flight."

source:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X19354&key=1



He was absolutely controlling the aircraft. The controls did not fail,
nor did he release the controls - if anything, creating a 4,700 fpm
descent requires either significant pressure or considerable trim
adjustment.

He nosed the plane down directly into the water.

He thought he was maintaining level flight. He ignored his training and
his instruments in an effort to make his seat feel right. While it's
not clear exactly what his mental state was at the time of the
accident, it is perfectly plausable to believe that his mental state
might have been improved if he were in communication with an ATC
facility, FSS or other aviation-related entity that would have brought
his attention back to his piloting instead of on whatever else his mind
was on.