A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ATC Vectors IFR Flight Into California Mountain



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #6  
Old June 4th 16, 10:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Don Poitras
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default ATC Vectors IFR Flight Into California Mountain

Larry Dighera wrote:

Which particular "bog-standard" ATC instructions are you referring to?


"3BW, turn left, a heading of 290, vector to final, descend and maintain 3000."

The pilot seems to have complied with all the instructions he acknowledged
receiving that I'm aware of prior to the handoff to SoCal. At that point it
appears that he lost radio contact with ATC and continued on the last vector he
had received. From the LiveATC recording, SoCal's 290 heading assignment
doesn't appear to have been received by the pilot.


Certainly it wasn't acknowledged.

N133BW is not on the LiveATC recording after the ATC handoff to SoCal at 01:05
into the recording he
http://www.liveatc.net/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=13234.0;attach=888 3.
That could be a result of many things.


The SoCal receiver is not the same as the Santa Monica tower receiver. These
are just volunteer radios, not official tapes from ATC. There's no way to
tell what the plane transmitted other than by inference.

Your assertion that there were transmissions from the aircraft after the
handoff to SoCal that were not captured on the LiveATC recording seems
unfounded. Do you have another source for those transmissions from the
aircraft that you believe are missing on the LiveATC recording?


The first SoCal transmission to the plane was clearly a response to a call
from the plane. He gave him the altimeter and didn't repeat it, which
implies the plane read it back correctly. Two and a half minutes later,
ATC gave him the vector to final which he didn't respond to. They then
repeatedly tried to get him to respond, even calling him on another
frequency. Two minutes later, it sounds as though ATC thought they had him,
"we've been trying to get ahold of you, turn left immediately and climb..."
Another 3 minutes of trying to get him to climb or turn, and then it was
too late.

I agree that the information available to date does not appear to imply a
violation by SoCal controllers.


Good. "ATC error" in a fatal crash is not something to be expressed without
a very good reason.

--
Don Poitras
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
bad vectors, no hand off Lurker Instrument Flight Rules 23 February 13th 07 10:03 PM
RNAV vectors Dan Luke Instrument Flight Rules 74 December 26th 06 10:31 PM
FAA Blessing for Blue Mountain or Rocky Mountain instruments??? dave Home Built 2 May 26th 06 01:56 PM
finding mountain passes for flight planning? John T Piloting 46 March 28th 06 07:04 PM
Baby Bush will be Closing Airports in California to VFR Flight Again Larry Dighera Piloting 119 March 13th 04 02:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.