Pardon me, but this is the kind of bull**** that's killing GA

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:Sv3_d.6088$uk7.4361@fed1read01...

I'm curious about something from the "4PA" incident...

The article mentions that there were five aircraft ostensibly travelling
together along the same route, right?

What if the lead aircraft (if there was one...) had mentioned to the
controller that they were a "flight of five" from the Pan Am Academy?
Might that have made a lightbulb go off in the controllers head that
"these five probably have similar call signs." ??

The only reason I ask is that we have a lot of Embry Riddle planes in AZ
and they all end in ER which I could see causing a similar set of
circumstances...

Just wondering out loud...


A flight is treated as one aircraft and operates under a single call sign.

What if the lead aircraft (if there was one...) had mentioned to the
controller that they were a "flight of five" from the Pan Am Academy?
Might
that have made a lightbulb go off in the controllers head that "these five
probably have similar call signs." ??

The only reason I ask is that we have a lot of Embry Riddle planes in AZ
and
they all end in ER which I could see causing a similar set of
circumstances...

Not that the contorollers didn't contribute to the accident, but wouldn't
the PILOT be thinking 'hmmm, was that call for me?' If I were flying in
mountainous terrain and was asked to descend below safe altitude, I sure as
hell would stay right where I was until I found out what the controller had
in mind.

There is a magic word you can use when a controller asks you to do something
you feel is unsafe. 'Unable'.

Ya know when I was doing my first solo XC for my PPL, I flew out of
Carlsbad and over the Julian VOR and off to the rest of my XC trip.
This was the same place where this plane crashed. Anyway, I was level
at 7500 outbound toward the Vulcan Mtn, and the controller told a
plane with Very similarr callsign as mine (I think they actually did
call my plane) to descend to (whatever it was) an altitude which was
lower than then peak of Vulcan Mtn. The other plane did not respond,
and in turn I thought it was my call sign. Of course, I immediatly
thought "No way am I going to descend into that mountain." and called
the tower and asked if the descent was intended for my callsign. They
promptly said "No, maintian 7500" and re-issued the descend for a way
different tail number. Hmmmm..


What if the lead aircraft (if there was one...) had mentioned to the
controller that they were a "flight of five" from the Pan Am Academy?
Might
that have made a lightbulb go off in the controllers head that "these five
probably have similar call signs." ??

The only reason I ask is that we have a lot of Embry Riddle planes in AZ
and
they all end in ER which I could see causing a similar set of
circumstances...

Not that the contorollers didn't contribute to the accident, but wouldn't
the PILOT be thinking 'hmmm, was that call for me?' If I were flying in
mountainous terrain and was asked to descend below safe altitude, I sure as
hell would stay right where I was until I found out what the controller had
in mind.

There is a magic word you can use when a controller asks you to do something
you feel is unsafe. 'Unable'.



Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:Sv3_d.6088$uk7.4361@fed1read01...

I'm curious about something from the "4PA" incident...

The article mentions that there were five aircraft ostensibly travelling
together along the same route, right?

What if the lead aircraft (if there was one...) had mentioned to the
controller that they were a "flight of five" from the Pan Am Academy?
Might that have made a lightbulb go off in the controllers head that
"these five probably have similar call signs." ??

The only reason I ask is that we have a lot of Embry Riddle planes in AZ
and they all end in ER which I could see causing a similar set of
circumstances...

Just wondering out loud...


A flight is treated as one aircraft and operates under a single call sign.


Thanks. I kinda figured my theory had holes in it.

Jay B

Corky Scott writes:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:59:24 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
wrote:

The ATC screwup I recall was when they vectored the jump plane over
Lake Erie and all the skydivers drowned. I've never looked for that
NTSB report {It happened in the 60's} but maybe I will.

I remember there being a cloud cover such that the pilot, who was
above it, did not know where he was and ended up out over lake Erie.
Don't remember anything about ATC being involved though.


I do not recall any details beyond the USG settling with the widows, etc.
Hence my interest in looking it up...




--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

I have noted the tendency of controlled pilots to simply lean back,
relax, and let ATC do the driving...
Stuff happens, stay alert...

denny

My condolences to these pilots and their families.

A pilot and ATC enter into a contract when on an IFR flight plan. ATC
agrees to give clearances that avoid terrain and other aircraft and the
pilot agrees to fly the airplane according to those clearances. A pilot
should monitor his position and inform ATC of an incorrect instruction
if he is aware of it. The pilot can maintain safety by deviating even
if it is in violation of the clearance.

When mistakes are made, and they do occasionally happen, responsibility
should be attached to the parties that made the mistake. The only way
to "make whole" the injured party is through money awards. Sometimes
money isn't necessary, sometimes all that is required is recognition of
the mistake.

There was a fairly high profile case some years ago with a commercial
aircraft in Maryland. ATC cleared him to descend prematurely. On their
own, a sim operation gave the exact same instructions the pilots
received to sim pilot crews. Sixty percent crashed in a similar way as
the real plane. If sixty percent crashed, you could crash too. (most
of the ones that DIDN'T crash were had a crew member from that area who
knew about that mountain).

It it accidents like these that make me reluctant to fly approaches
into unfamiliar airports in mountainous terrain or with nearby tall
antennae towers or other tall obstructions. I have, as a pilot, been
given incorrect ATC instructions or temporarily been forgotten to be
given an important turn to final. As a single pilot, I cannot do both
ATC's job and fly the plane. Nor can I count on being able to recognize
an ATC mistake. It sounds easy to say "unable", but it's not, and it is
even harder to be sure, and I have to be SURE, that it is necessary to
say unable. I know, I've been in that situation.

Keep training, ATC, we pilots need you. We all need to work together on
this. Same goes for us pilots. When mistakes happen we all need to take
a hard look at what happened and figure out how to avoid it in the
future.

"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...

There was a fairly high profile case some years ago with a commercial
aircraft in Maryland. ATC cleared him to descend prematurely.


Sounds like you're referring to TWA514. ATC didn't issue a descent
clearance, ATC issued an approach clearance. The pilot descended through an
intermediate altitude.

That one is worth reviewing, if anyone has a link.

A link for the TWA 514 flight is:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html