IFR/Flight Following -- ATC Preferences?

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."

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.

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'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.

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 =----

"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.

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

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

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

The controls functioned properly. They performed as the pilot
controlled them. The fact that the pilot was controlling them in a
manner that was inconsistent with what you perceive to be his goals
does not imply that he did not have control of the aircraft.

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

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 cites "failure to maintain control of the airplane during a
descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation"
as the probable cause of this accident. Every account I've seen agreed with
that, what are these conflicting reports you refer to?

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

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."

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.


Please explain how a weather or turbulence report or personal greetings or a
brief personal conversation or even a sports score announcement may have
saved JFK Jr.



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.


Steve didn't concede that simply listening to the proper frequency can
improve situational awareness, Steve said that everything from weather and
turbulence reports to personal greetings and brief personal conversations or
even sports score announcements can be had by just being on the frequency.