IFR/Flight Following -- ATC Preferences?

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

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.


You're saying it was a murder-suicide? What is your evidence of that?



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.


Now you're saying he was out of control. Make up your mind.

"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?

On what basis do you assume he had the wrong altimeter setting?

Giving an altimeter setting is sometimes a way to tactfully say "check
your altitude". It does not imply that the pilot actually has the wrong
setting. There is plausible deniability.

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

"Jose" wrote in message
m...

Giving an altimeter setting is sometimes a way to tactfully say "check
your altitude".

Yes, if ATC observes the pilot at the wrong altitude. But he wasn't
receiving any ATC services.



It does not imply that the pilot actually has the wrong setting. There is
plausible deniability.


Judah assumed he was at the wrong altitude.

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


"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

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...


So can listening to an ATIS or ASOS/AWOS broadcast. Flight following
would not have prevented this accident.

Are you saying that JFK Jr's altimeter was improperly set? If so,
what is your evidence?

No. I am saying is none of us know for certain what happened that night.
There are many theories, but incomplete evidence. There is no way to
definitively prove the root cause of the accident. Your theory of him
getting into a graveyard spiral, while popular and seemingly plausible,
also has holes. As was described earlier in this thread - he had over 100
hours of hood time, and should have been capable of recognizing that
something was wrong and turning on his autopilot...

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.

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


"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?



Pilot error Loss of aircraft control.

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.

Judah wrote:

As was described earlier in this thread - he had over 100
hours of hood time, and should have been capable of recognizing that
something was wrong and turning on his autopilot...

Where are you getting this "100 hours of hood time" fact? The NTSB
accident reports estimates that JFK only had 310 hours. Additionally, the
NTSB report mentions that he has 13.3 hours of time with a CFII during his
instrument training and 16.9 hours of simulator time.

Your "over 100 hours of hood time" is not at all believable, much less
supported by the facts reported in the accident report.

Here, it appears to me that the facts of the accident report may not be as
fresh on your mind as they once we

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 =----

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

No. I am saying is none of us know for certain what happened that night.
There are many theories, but incomplete evidence. There is no way to
definitively prove the root cause of the accident. Your theory of him
getting into a graveyard spiral, while popular and seemingly plausible,
also has holes.


I posited no such theory.



As was described earlier in this thread - he had over 100
hours of hood time, and should have been capable of recognizing that
something was wrong and turning on his autopilot...


A loss of control due to spatial disorientation best fits the evidence.