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

"B a r r y" wrote

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

During recurrency training we are taught that controllers are not experts on
aircraft or weather, and most are not pilots. If you tell them you just had
a vacuum failure they may not know exactly what the implications of that
statement are - I'm sure that many if not most would, but there are no
guarantees. If you say "I just lost an engine" it seems normal to assume
that you have more than one the way that statement is worded, but that
doesn't really matter because if you want priority handling, you need to
declare an emergency.

When you go through these training courses and failures are occurring left
and right, you learn to declare an emergency at the drop of a hat because
priority handling can be important. An example I recall from the course is
an incident that happened a few years back where a twin lost an engine and
the pilot was asked if he wanted to declare an emergency - he declined.
Later when he was on final a conflict developed and the twin was told to go
around - not an ideal situation but the pilot decided that he didn't need or
want priority handling by failing to declare.

BDS

"Kyle Boatright" writes:

"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.

The controller's response to the transmission with the request was
"Say it again, sir"; indicating that he hadn't fully heard and
understood the transmission. This could be due to radio noise, or
local distractions, or no doubt other things; but, if the controller
*didn't hear the request* (or not clearly enough to understand it) I
think it's *at least* premature to criticize him for not responding to
it!

You may well be right that getting an immediate clear answer might
have helped the pilot, enough to make the difference between life and
death. It's unfortunate that he didn't get a response. But I'm
skeptical of blaming it on the controller, based on the facts so far
in front of us (pretty thing).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...

You may well be right that getting an immediate clear answer might
have helped the pilot, enough to make the difference between life and
death.


An immediate clear request would have helped.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Kyle Boatright" writes:

"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.

The controller's response to the transmission with the request was
"Say it again, sir"; indicating that he hadn't fully heard and
understood the transmission. This could be due to radio noise, or
local distractions, or no doubt other things; but, if the controller
*didn't hear the request* (or not clearly enough to understand it) I
think it's *at least* premature to criticize him for not responding to
it!

You may well be right that getting an immediate clear answer might
have helped the pilot, enough to make the difference between life and
death. It's unfortunate that he didn't get a response. But I'm
skeptical of blaming it on the controller, based on the facts so far
in front of us (pretty thing).
--


Add to that the pilot when asked to repeat downgraded the issue from lost an
engine to the engine is running rough.

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...

You may well be right that getting an immediate clear answer might
have helped the pilot, enough to make the difference between life and
death.

An immediate clear request would have helped.

Well, it was clear to the transcriber; has anybody heard the actual
tape? Apparently it wasn't clear to the controller.

But if that was the key point, it would have been nice if he'd
responded to "say it again" by saying it again, yes.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Well, it was clear to the transcriber; has anybody heard the actual
tape? Apparently it wasn't clear to the controller.

A radio transmission can be missed for reasons other than problems with the
actual transmission.

The controller transmitting "say again" is his signal to the pilot that, for
whatever reason (and that reason is irrelevant), the controller needs the
transmission to be repeated. Along with a number of other failures on his
part, the pilot failed to do that as well.

Pete

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
An immediate clear request would have helped.

Well, it was clear to the transcriber; has anybody heard the actual
tape? Apparently it wasn't clear to the controller.


The transcriber has the advantage of being able to play the tape over and over
again until he/she gets it.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

"Peter Duniho" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Well, it was clear to the transcriber; has anybody heard the actual
tape? Apparently it wasn't clear to the controller.

A radio transmission can be missed for reasons other than problems with the
actual transmission.

Yes, and I said that in my initial message.

The controller transmitting "say again" is his signal to the pilot that, for
whatever reason (and that reason is irrelevant), the controller needs the
transmission to be repeated. Along with a number of other failures on his
part, the pilot failed to do that as well.

Yes, I know. Apparently the pilot was dealing with a heavy workload
in a scary situation there; single-engine IFR over water, and now
engine trouble. Still, if that's what the pilot most needed, it was a
serious mistake not to ask for it again.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
An immediate clear request would have helped.

Well, it was clear to the transcriber; has anybody heard the actual
tape? Apparently it wasn't clear to the controller.

The transcriber has the advantage of being able to play the tape over and over
again until he/she gets it.

True. And may even get it wrong, translating a definitely garbled
tape into a clear-looking transcript.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...

An immediate clear request would have helped.


Well, it was clear to the transcriber; has anybody heard the actual
tape? Apparently it wasn't clear to the controller.


To what do you refer?