IFR/Flight Following -- ATC Preferences?

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Judah wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

snip

He lost control of his airplane. This implies he wasn't capable of
flying the airplane in the prevailing conditions. To have the
outcome be different would have required someone else to be flying
the airplane.
Thus the above suggestion essentially implies that. That was my
point.


I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact,
all reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a
controlled flight directly into the water. If that's the case,
either
he was suicidal or he was disoriented.

That is an interesting definition of "control" that you are using.
If
the goal was to fly straight and level and you instead flew into the
water, then that is loss of control in my book. Anytime you aren't
making the airplane do what it should be doing, you are not in
control.

Matt

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.

Judah wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:


Judah wrote:


Matt Whiting wrote in
:

snip


He lost control of his airplane. This implies he wasn't capable of
flying the airplane in the prevailing conditions. To have the
outcome be different would have required someone else to be flying
the airplane.
Thus the above suggestion essentially implies that. That was my
point.


I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact,
all reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a
controlled flight directly into the water. If that's the case,

either

he was suicidal or he was disoriented.

That is an interesting definition of "control" that you are using.

If

the goal was to fly straight and level and you instead flew into the
water, then that is loss of control in my book. Anytime you aren't
making the airplane do what it should be doing, you are not in
control.

Matt


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.

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

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

Judah wrote:

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.

Sorry, I disagree.

--
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 =----

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:26:29 GMT, Judah wrote:

"Peter R." wrote in
:

Judah wrote:

I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact,
all reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a
controlled flight directly into the water. If that's the case,
either
he was suicidal or he was disoriented.

The NTSB report reads in part:

"The airplane's rate of descent eventually exceeded 4,700 fpm"

I wouldn't call that maintaining "controlled flight."

source:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X19354&key=1



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.

Doubtful. More likely he was in a "grave yard spiral". Here it's
semantics. Yah, he sorta, was kinda, in control, but really wasn't as
exceeding Vne is considered out of control if you don't bring it back.

Considering the aircraft he was probably beyond the point of being
able to bring it back to level flight without doing severe structural
damage.


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.

Look at the time from the start of the deviation until impact. It's
typical of some one turning off an autopilot, looking out the window
to find the ground looking back to discover they've started a spiral,
correcting, doing the same thing again in the other direction, and not
being able to ignore what their body was telling them and believe the
instruments. He had nearly 100 hours hood time. With that many hours
it's something he should have recognized immediately.

It's highly unlikely any controller would have recognized what was
happening until he was in the spiral and by then it was probably too
late. Had he been IFR it would have set off the alarms with the first
100 foot deviation.

However other than we can be fairly certain he took the grave yard
spiral to the water, any thing beyond that is pure and useless
speculation.

When you get into a situation like that only the pilot can save
himself and passengers. When in way over his head the pooch has
already been screwed.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

While I agree with the point that you are making here on Steve's behalf, I
don't think the original suggestion was that ATC can fly the plane for the
pilot, nor that your point is indeed Steve's.

Bob's original comment was, "JFK, Jr. was not required by regulation to
use flight following...but the outcome of his flight might have been
drastically different had he done so."

Steve then asked, "How would have flight following made a difference? He
didn't run into an unseen airplane." The implication being that the only
benefit of flight following is traffic alerts. When I brought up very
specific examples of benefits that one can get while getting flight
following, he dismissed it as unrelated to the flight following and
suggests that simply listening on the frequency is all that is necessary.


Please explain how a weather or turbulence report or personal greetings or a
brief personal conversation or even a sports score announcement may have
saved JFK Jr.



The original point - a suggestion that one can improve his/her safety by
using flight following - is completely lost in Steve's trial-lawyer
tactics. The fact remains, however, that even Steve concedes that simply
listening to the proper frequency can improve situational awareness, and
as such the original point is actually supported by Steve's own arguments.


Steve didn't concede that simply listening to the proper frequency can
improve situational awareness, Steve said that everything from weather and
turbulence reports to personal greetings and brief personal conversations or
even sports score announcements can be had by just being on the frequency.

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1130780252.792010@sj-nntpcache-3...

My remark was based on personal experience. They didn't explicitly say "we
want to talk to you", but I inferred that from the tone of the
conversation. Maybe it was Center and not Approach, I'm not sure any more.
Who owns the airspace above the Chicago bravo?


Chicago approach owns up to 13,000, Chicago center owns the airspace above
that.



Anyway, guessing at their motivation, I thought it was because there was a
lot of aluminum up there and they'd rather be talking to my moving speed
bump and know my intentions rather than guessing.

What's your opinion?


If they're talking to you they have to issue you as traffic to all other
conflicting traffic as well as advise you of that conflicting traffic. If
they're not talking to you they just have to advise the other traffic of
you. Not talking to you lessens the workload.

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

I never read anywhere that he lost control of his aircraft. In fact, all
reports indicated quite the opposite - that he maintained a controlled
flight directly into the water. If that's the case, either he was suicidal
or he was disoriented.


The NTSB report cites "failure to maintain control of the airplane during a
descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation"
as the probable cause of this accident. Every account I've seen agreed with
that, what are these conflicting reports you refer to?

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..

Perhaps if he were listening to the frequency, he would have been given
the correct altimeter setting in a handoff and realized that he was
about to descend into the water.


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



Or perhaps the controller could have advised him that the weather at
the airport was below Night VFR minimums and he would have diverted safely
to another airport that was safe.


The weather was well above VFR minimums.



Or perhaps his wife sitting next to him would have stopped bitching at
him for being late for their wedding plans long enough to let him
listen to the frequency and fly the plane.

Or perhaps talk on the frequency would have woken him up from his
"zoning out" because he was tired and on medication.


Why would the chatter on the frequency wake him if his wife's bitching could
not?



Or perhaps he was suicidal and the whole thing would was done on
purpose.


Do you have the evidence that he was suicidal?



Who knows what the conditions were or what situations might have
improved it. Your guess is as good as mine. But that's kinda the point,
isn't it...


Actually, your guesses aren't very good at all. While other's guesses are
based on logic and probability yours are based on your own whims.

"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?