"Out of fuel, out of hope: 'Help, I'm in the water'"

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:45:40 GMT, Jose
wrote:

There sure was a lot of irrelevant information requested by the
sherriff... I don't think that finding out what his name is will be all
that helpful in getting a rescue underway... just location, plane type
and color, injuries, and go look for him.

You obviously have never worked within the
Fire/Police/Rescue/Ambulance system. Just because the call taker is
asking these questions, does not mean that help is not already on the
way. Once the call taker inputs just a few items into the system
(type of call, location), it is shipped to the dispatcher who is
already making the call over the radio ( the call taker and dispatcher
is not the same person). As more info is gathered, it is transferred
in real time to the dispatcher so they can relay it to the right
parties.

Is there any good reason to waste time asking for his name and such,
when other information (like, since the communications was bad, "say
twice your location") might be more helpful for a quick response?

It would be nice to know the persons name so that they know who they
are looking for and possibly be able to figure out a route which he
took over the water. If you didn't know who he was and possibly where
he was coming from and where he was going, you just opened up a bigger
area to search. Also, there is a standardization in dispatch
procedures in the US that I would say most agencies follow. In
listening to the line of questioning, I would say that they do follow
those procedures. Again help is on the way, and the call taker can
help calm and reassure the person on the other line that help is on
its way. Yes communications was bad so the call taker was a little
bit confused as to what was going on. Unlike here where we knew what
was going on before we even heard the sound bite, the call taker is
being thrown into a situation that he is having to process this
information quickly and determine the correct response.

I see nothing wrong with what the call taker was doing. There has
been no allegation of delay in the system due to the call taker asking
the questions.

Surely the sherriff has a callback feature that would ring the cellphone
if contact was lost (which is most likely due to the phone falling into
the lake)

Sometime yes and some time no. Cell phones are different creatures.
There are times, that if your cell phone is from another geographical
location, it will not show up as anything. There are ways of cross
referencing what towers the cell hits and now with GPS on the phones
it is even better, but it is still not fool proof. Also sometimes,
the phone number that comes back on the AniAli is not the correct
number ( it will display the number to the cell provider) so the call
taker has to ask for that number to make sure that it is correct.
Even when you call from your home number they have to make sure that
it is correct including your address even though it is showing them on
the computer what it is.

I am talking from 13 years experience as a police officer/ 5 years as
an EMT, and 3 years as a marine fire fighter. I spent enough time in
dispatch to know how the system works.


Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher's

You obviously have never worked within the
Fire/Police/Rescue/Ambulance system. Just because the call taker is
asking these questions, does not mean that help is not already on the
way.

No, I have never worked in that system, or any rescue system for that
matter. Thanks for the info.

What I would have hoped to hear (sitting in my comfortable chair after
considering this on Usenet for a while) are suggestions to grab a
flashlight, or otherwise how to mark the area for search and rescue.
Granted there probably wasn't enough time, as the plane was already
filling with water...

I have read that one can survive being underwater for hours if the water
is cold enough. Perhaps he could have been saved even if things looked
bleak.

I wonder how high he was flying - mild hypoxia from being at 10,500 feet
crossing the lake (for maximum gliding range during the crossing) might
easily impair one's judgement at a critical time, including the time
leading up to the event, (perhaps preventing him from making appropriate
radio calls earlier)

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Ben Smith" wrote in message
...
Here's a couple more links.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/apr05/321506.asp

http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/m...?packageid=774


Accidents are always a series of mistakes/bad-judgments.

Here's just a few:
1) Poor fuel planning and continuing on with low fuel from Michigan side.
2) Water crossing
3) No floatation devices
4) Night

Sad!!

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

Accidents are always a series of mistakes/bad-judgments.

Here's just a few:
1) Poor fuel planning and continuing on with low fuel from Michigan side.
2) Water crossing
3) No floatation devices
4) Night

Sad!!


I don't mean to speak ill of the dead, but the series of
mistakes/bad-judgments in this situation drive it into the stupid range.

Man, was that chilling to listen to. Here's audio of the ATC starting at
04:45 - http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kmke...26-05-0030.mp3.
There was a very helpful Midex 812 pilot that tried to help and was relaying
information including the lat/long. Unfortunately, with no flotation device
and the cold water, the downed pilot's chances were slim. A stark reminder
to buy those flotation devices!

Marco Leon

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Ben Smith" wrote in message
...
Here's a couple more links.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/apr05/321506.asp

http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/m...?packageid=774


Accidents are always a series of mistakes/bad-judgments.

Here's just a few:
1) Poor fuel planning and continuing on with low fuel from Michigan side.
2) Water crossing
3) No floatation devices
4) Night

Sad!!

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:31:38 -0400, "Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com
wrote in ::

Here's audio of the ATC starting at
04:45 - http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kmke...26-05-0030.mp3.

What I find disappointing is the late pilot's lack of authoritative
attitude while exercising the duties of Pilot In Command. He called
ATC and confessed his dwindling fuel state only minutes before
ditching. He asked ATC if he should exit the aircraft while it was
sinking. It was as though he was praying instead of thinking.

Why didn't he _TELL_ ATC what he needed, and _request_ that ATC
contact the Coast Guard and despatch a helo to his location? Why
didn't he take _command_ of his situation? From the recordings of his
last VHF and cellular transmissions, it was as if he thought
responsibility for his continuation of life rested in the hands of
others; it was as if he wanted someone else to think of a way to save
him.

Had he immediately confessed his low-fuel situation to ATC, requested
dispatch of emergency rescue craft, fashioned some sort of floatation
device (plastic bag, empty bottle, something...), and made some sort
of survival plan, his chances might have been better.

Anyone who fails to recognize that they are the primary factor in
saving themselves in an emergency situation is doomed.

Condolences to the surviving family members. RIP.

Agreed, he did everything wrong, and although he apparently started the
trip with no trepidation (or use of cerebral cortex), maybe it was panic
that in the end froze his trhought processes as he realized that he was
in deep trouble.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:31:38 -0400, "Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com
wrote in ::


Here's audio of the ATC starting at
04:45 - http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kmke...26-05-0030.mp3.


What I find disappointing is the late pilot's lack of authoritative
attitude while exercising the duties of Pilot In Command. He called
ATC and confessed his dwindling fuel state only minutes before
ditching. He asked ATC if he should exit the aircraft while it was
sinking. It was as though he was praying instead of thinking.

Why didn't he _TELL_ ATC what he needed, and _request_ that ATC
contact the Coast Guard and despatch a helo to his location? Why
didn't he take _command_ of his situation? From the recordings of his
last VHF and cellular transmissions, it was as if he thought
responsibility for his continuation of life rested in the hands of
others; it was as if he wanted someone else to think of a way to save
him.

Had he immediately confessed his low-fuel situation to ATC, requested
dispatch of emergency rescue craft, fashioned some sort of floatation
device (plastic bag, empty bottle, something...), and made some sort
of survival plan, his chances might have been better.

Anyone who fails to recognize that they are the primary factor in
saving themselves in an emergency situation is doomed.

Condolences to the surviving family members. RIP.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

What I find disappointing is the late pilot's lack of authoritative
attitude while exercising the duties of Pilot In Command. He called
ATC and confessed his dwindling fuel state only minutes before
ditching. He asked ATC if he should exit the aircraft while it was
sinking. It was as though he was praying instead of thinking.

Why didn't he _TELL_ ATC what he needed, and _request_ that ATC
contact the Coast Guard and despatch a helo to his location? Why
didn't he take _command_ of his situation?


Because he was clueless.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:12:54 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

What I find disappointing is the late pilot's lack of authoritative
attitude while exercising the duties of Pilot In Command. He called
ATC and confessed his dwindling fuel state only minutes before
ditching. He asked ATC if he should exit the aircraft while it was
sinking. It was as though he was praying instead of thinking.

Just curious Larry,

You seem to be very hard on this individual. Have you, yourself been
confronted with a real deal emergency while PIC?

I have had (what others called emergencies) 3 situations where I did what I
was trained to do, and that was aviate, navigate and then communicate. I
had a failed vacuum pump during a night flight, partial engine failure
(lost a cylinder in flight) and an electrical fire.

Only in the cylinder failure did I declare an emergency. I posted my
experience to the rec.aviation.student newsgroup under "first emergency
which is archived in Google. I say this, because I always thought I would
be the type to "panic", yet I listened to what my instructor always said,
and that is to aviate (fly the plane), navigate and then communicate.

On the vacuum pump failure and electrical fire, after aviating and
navigating, I advised ATC of my problems.

From what I heard on the tapes, it appeared to me, the pilot was doing what
he was suppose to be doing. Aviate, navigate and then communicate.

Yes, I agree, he made some questionable decisions in the first place, and
even though the outcome came out with the ultimate price, it really seem to
me, that he did do the three golden rules of aviate, navigate and
communicate.

He made a survivable landing in water at night, which in my opinion, seems
like he was aviating the plane. He knew his position, so he was navigating,
and he was communicating, from everything I heard from the tapes on what
seemed to be a very level, professional level.

Monday night quarter backing is great, but when the pressure cooker is on,
we tend to react much differently then the comforts of our homes.

Anyone who fails to recognize that they are the primary factor in
saving themselves in an emergency situation is doomed.
Condolences to the surviving family members. RIP.

Only thing I can agree with any of your posts so far.

Allen
(who pretty much had to change his britches after aviating a "3 cylinder
plane" for 20 minutes.

I'm just dumbfounded that someone would make that flight. What
a sad deal.


Accidents are always a series of mistakes/bad-judgments.

Here's just a few:
1) Poor fuel planning and continuing on with low fuel from Michigan side.
2) Water crossing
3) No floatation devices
4) Night

Sad!!