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

"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

Good observation.

The Monk

Good observation.

The Monk

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...

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.

What specific information did the guy ask for?



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.


A vector to where?



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.


So his engine just started running rough and he wants a vector to somewhere.
Where? An engine maintenance shop?

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..

You'll find the transcript posted at www.ajc.com (the Atlanta Journal).
Also, you can listen to a recording at www.wsbradio.com


Be more specific.

Steven, What are controllers taught, if anything, about make and model
of aircraft?

"jladd" wrote in message
ups.com...

Steven, What are controllers taught, if anything, about make and model
of aircraft?


Today? Beats me. 23 years ago in the enroute initial course there was a
brief overview of the more common types of aircraft, but a Cessna 195 isn't
all that common.

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...
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.

That's just not how I read the transcript. That is, he did NOT ask for
specific information, as far as what the controller actually acknowledged.
The only time he asked for specific information, the response was "say
again". Which he failed to do.

[...] But the way I see it, the controller had the opportunity to break
the chain by giving the requested information (a vector) immediately.

Perhaps. However, by focusing your original post on this one factor, when
it's an incredibly small part of the overall accident, you do a great
disservice to the controller, and unreasonably minimize the pilot's
responsibility in the accident.

Whatever role the controller may have had, it didn't warrant starting a
whole new thread here to question his actions.

[...]
Here's a snippet of the transcript: [...]

Yes, I read it the first time.

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.

At no time did the pilot actually give the controller the specific
information needed to provide the vector the pilot was asking for. The one
time he tried to do so, the controller made a very clear response indicating
that the transmission was NOT understood.

I don't really agree with the culpability on the controller's part that is
being implied by you, even if he did receive the original request. But
given that he didn't, I don't even see room for debate. How can he be held
responsible for not answering a question he didn't receive?

Pete

"Flyingmonk" wrote:

Good observation.

The Monk

What is a good observation?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

jladd wrote:
Steven, What are controllers taught, if anything, about make and model
of aircraft?


I've toured my local ATC center. Above each controller's position is a
multi-function PC with a 14" or 15", possibly touch-screen, monitor. On
this PC, they demonstrated an aircraft type database that included
applicable facts like climb and descent rates, fuel load, seats, gross
weight, and maybe typical takeoff and landing distance requirements,
similar to a postcard. Most records also included a photo of an example
aircraft. I was led to believe that this might be a local project.