IFR/Flight Following -- ATC Preferences?

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:
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.

This is the most bizarre definition of being in control that I've ever
heard of. If someone wets their pants and didn't intend to, you say
they lost control of their bladder. The fact that their bladder did
just what it is supposed to do when the "valve" muscle relaxes is
completely irrelevant.

I never said that the controls didn't function correctly. That would be
a control system failure. The fact is that the pilot didn't have
control of his airplane. Having your hands on the controls and
manipulating the controls doesn't mean you are in control. A student
making his first landing attempt in an airplane is handling the controls
and the airplane is doing just what the student tells it to do, but,
except in very rare instances, no first time landing by a student is in
control to any great extent.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in news:JvAaf.2391$lb.178682
@news1.epix.net:

Judah wrote:

This is the most bizarre definition of being in control that I've ever
heard of. If someone wets their pants and didn't intend to, you say
they lost control of their bladder. The fact that their bladder did
just what it is supposed to do when the "valve" muscle relaxes is
completely irrelevant.

I never said that the controls didn't function correctly. That would be
a control system failure. The fact is that the pilot didn't have
control of his airplane. Having your hands on the controls and
manipulating the controls doesn't mean you are in control. A student
making his first landing attempt in an airplane is handling the controls
and the airplane is doing just what the student tells it to do, but,
except in very rare instances, no first time landing by a student is in
control to any great extent.


Matt

Your comments are self-contradictory. Either the student is in control of
the airplane or he isn't. There is no "great extent". If the plane is in a
stall or spiral, and flying in a different direction than it is being
pointed, then certainly the plane is out of control. If the control
surfaces are not functioning properly, then certainly the plane is out of
control. But if a first time student is piloting a plane, and the plane
performs the actions that the pilot directs it, the plane is in control. If
the pilot is inexperienced, and as a result cannot properly hold a heading
or altitude, it doesn't mean the plane is out of control, it just means
that the pilot is a poor pilot.

The controls functioned properly. They performed as the pilot
controlled them.

The same can be said of a car that is skidding off the side of the road.
The steering wheel didn't fail, and the wheels are still obeying the
laws of physics.

But the car =is= out of control.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote in news:H1Baf.9040$Lv.1764
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

The controls functioned properly. They performed as the pilot
controlled them.

The same can be said of a car that is skidding off the side of the road.
The steering wheel didn't fail, and the wheels are still obeying the
laws of physics.

But the car =is= out of control.

Jose

That's not accurate. If the car is not travelling in the direction is
pointing it it is out of control. There is no evidence that the plane was
flying in a direction other than which it was pointed.

A better analogy would be a driver who drove his car into a guardrail
because he was "hypnotized" by the lights from the oncoming traffic. The
car did not lose control, the driver simply did not drive safely.

A plane being out of control implies a problem with the plane. A pilot
flying incorrectly implies a problem with the pilot. I believe the JFK Jr.
case is a case of the latter, not the former.

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

A plane being out of control implies a problem with the plane. A pilot
flying incorrectly implies a problem with the pilot. I believe the JFK Jr.
case is a case of the latter, not the former.


You are mistaken.

You are mistaken

That's not accurate. If the car is not travelling in the direction is
pointing it it is out of control.

That's not accurate. A car driven by a skillful race driver can skid
quite a bit while remaining totally in control. "In control", in the
sense that most people with whom I have acquaintance, means that the
driver has a good sense of what the vehicle is capable of and the
vehicle is doing what the driver wants it to do. "Out of control" means
that the driver is unable, perhaps by virtue of his lack of skill, to
make the vehicle do this. An aerobatics pilot has the plane completely
under his (or her) control doing the same maneuvers that a student pilot
would be totally out of control with.

But it doesn't really matter what words you want to apply to the situation.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote in
:

But it doesn't really matter what words you want to apply to the
situation.


Yeah - this whole thread has death spiraled into a bickering over
semantics...

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

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.


If you believe he was in controlled flight at the time he hit the water you
also have to believe this was not an accident but a murder-suicide instead.
What is your evidence of that?