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

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.

"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

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.

Peter,

I couldn't agree more with your view.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"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
. ..

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.

"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.

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)

"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

"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