Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 21, 2014, 08:06:46 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  AAY emergency landing. KSFB
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: AAY emergency landing. KSFB  (Read 34847 times)
seagull
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #45 on: April 05, 2007, 01:47:47 PM »

YWG Tower...I agree.  From a perspective of heavy traffic or dealing with an emergency.  I would have squashed this guy.  Required transmissions on the radio...comments on the phone.

ATC'r
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #46 on: April 05, 2007, 01:52:46 PM »

For the record, no airspace was 'violated' because an acknowledgement of your transmission is clearance to enter class C. Yes, the controller asked him to 'circumnavigate' and as one other poster asked - what exactly does that mean?

ยง 91.123   Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions, Paragraph B reads:

Quote
(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

The pilot was asked to circumnavigate the airspace, as in go around it.  If I were told to circumnavigate the class C airspace and I were approaching the inner ring as this pilot was, I would take that to mean fly around the inner ring.  It is a pretty straight-forward instruction.

And while you are correct that callsign acknowledgement is all that is needed to enter class C airspace, that acceptance would be trumped by any ATC instruction that followed the callsign, as in "Seaplane XXX, circumnavigate the class C," or even better, "Seaplane XXX, remain clear of class Charlie airspace."

Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
kcabpilot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #47 on: April 05, 2007, 02:15:01 PM »

Neither of those instructions were given. The controller said 'we're gonna' have to ask you to circumnavigate at this time' and there indeed was a question as to what that meant. 'Sterilize the airspace' is also not am implicit instruction to remain clear of Class C.

I think my first assesment was correct. You guys are getting all wound up over nothing.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #48 on: April 05, 2007, 03:42:11 PM »

Neither of those instructions were given. The controller said 'we're gonna' have to ask you to circumnavigate at this time' and there indeed was a question as to what that meant.

And?   Don't forget the rest:   The pilot acknowledged that instruction (which normally means the pilot fully understood it), gave his plan, and the controller then replied, "As long as you go around our airspace, that'll be fine."  When the pilot came back with a "You mean I can't even come into your class C?" the controller countered, "Circumnavigate around Lake Jessup and east of the river, will be fine, at or below 500 feet."

Now, could the controller have been more clear had he used better phraseology, as in "Remain clear of class C?"  Sure, but there was no evidence in the clip that your pilot buddy was confused about what the controller needed, and the excess banter between the two of them presented a clear picture (at least to this low-time 1,200 hr pilot) of the requirement.

Furthermore, upon listening to this another time, it is apparent to me that your buddy was attempting to cut the corner back to the north well early of where the controller wanted him, as evidenced by the continual request by the controller to push him further east.  In looking at the sectional chart, you will see that all but the eastern-most sliver of the lake is inside the class C inner ring and your buddy kept stating that he was over the water, which implies that he was well inside class C even though the controller stated, "as long as you go around our airspace, you'll be fine." 

I think my first assesment was correct. You guys are getting all wound up over nothing.

And you are attempting to spin this incident in favor of your friend when clearly mistakes were made by him.   In the end, what was he trying to protect?  A $2.50 fuel savings?   Please.

Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Biff
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 373



WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 05, 2007, 04:01:35 PM »

I don't know if 'circumnavigate' is approved phraseology (any controllers out there still reading this thread?), but any experienced pilot should know what it means.
Regardless, his instruction to stay "east of the river" was unambiguous. 

I don't think his disregard of the instructions were nearly as big a deal as his attempts to argue over the freq.
Logged

Ben Diss
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #50 on: April 05, 2007, 09:48:22 PM »

Neither of those instructions were given. The controller said 'we're gonna' have to ask you to circumnavigate at this time' and there indeed was a question as to what that meant.

And?   Don't forget the rest:   The pilot acknowledged that instruction (which normally means the pilot fully understood it), gave his plan, and the controller then replied, "As long as you go around our airspace, that'll be fine."  When the pilot came back with a "You mean I can't even come into your class C?" the controller countered, "Circumnavigate around Lake Jessup and east of the river, will be fine, at or below 500 feet."

Now, could the controller have been more clear had he used better phraseology, as in "Remain clear of class C?"  Sure, but there was no evidence in the clip that your pilot buddy was confused about what the controller needed, and the excess banter between the two of them presented a clear picture (at least to this low-time 1,200 hr pilot) of the requirement.

Furthermore, upon listening to this another time, it is apparent to me that your buddy was attempting to cut the corner back to the north well early of where the controller wanted him, as evidenced by the continual request by the controller to push him further east.  In looking at the sectional chart, you will see that all but the eastern-most sliver of the lake is inside the class C inner ring and your buddy kept stating that he was over the water, which implies that he was well inside class C even though the controller stated, "as long as you go around our airspace, you'll be fine." 

I think my first assesment was correct. You guys are getting all wound up over nothing.

And you are attempting to spin this incident in favor of your friend when clearly mistakes were made by him.   In the end, what was he trying to protect?  A $2.50 fuel savings?   Please.



If it was that cut and dry, why wasn't he violated?

Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #51 on: April 05, 2007, 11:41:17 PM »

If it was that cut and dry, why wasn't he violated?

Why should he be?   You would need a controller's input to confirm the following but my understanding is that a controller's primary job does not involve policing aviation regulations and reporting those who break them.   That's another branch of the FAA.  As long as there was no loss of separation or other serious breach of safety, a controller will not typically report a tail id to the FAA for most infractions.  In the case of this incident there was neither a loss of separation or a serious breach of safety. 

For the record, what gets me slightly irked about this incident is nothing more than the fact that it comes off as an air version of road rage.   In this day of growing impatience and increased narcissism, a pilot yelling over the frequency about something as trivial as an extra 4 mile, 2 minute, $2.50 beyond his preferred route embodies for a brief moment the direction our society is heading.

"ME. ME. ME.  IT'S ALL ABOUT ME!"

Do I want him reported, harassed, or whatever else was suggested in this thread?  Absolutely not.  I just hope this gentleman's ego does get him into an aviation situation that gets him or someone else killed.




« Last Edit: April 05, 2007, 11:42:55 PM by KSYR-pjr » Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
kcabpilot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #52 on: April 06, 2007, 03:17:23 AM »

So now he was 'yelling'?

This just keeps getting better.....

Look, I know the guy, he wasn't 'enraged' and he isn't gonna 'hurt' anybody. This whole incident boils down to one simple thing and that is a supervisor going overboard and ordering the controllers to 'sterilize' the airspace. If that weren't the case that controller would have let that seaplane continue on it's course because it was in no way relevent to the emergency on hand. There was no conflict and he knew it. He even explained that he was just doing it because he was told to.

Classic case of micro management, supervisors getting in the way of the people who actually do the work. That's how I see it and I'm stickin' to it  tongue
« Last Edit: April 06, 2007, 04:37:30 AM by kcabpilot » Logged
Ben Diss
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #53 on: April 06, 2007, 08:17:48 AM »

...As long as there was no loss of separation or other serious breach of safety, a controller will not typically report a tail id to the FAA for most infractions... 

No sorry, that's not the way it works.  Controllers can and do report violations even when there is no loss of separation and even when there is no breach of safety.  Come down to NY and just clip the class B airspace and see what happens.  I know of many cases where the controllers here report guys who they think are just barely inside the airspace.  Many are now fighting back and winning their case with the FAA, thanks to GPS.

My point is, if he did something so drastically wrong, he would have been violated.  Sure, he was a jerk, but that's it.

-Ben
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #54 on: April 06, 2007, 09:24:25 AM »

This whole incident boils down to one simple thing and that is a supervisor going overboard and ordering the controllers to 'sterilize' the airspace.

So, now you are claiming the incident in question is not even the pilot's fault, it's the ATC supervisors fault?  Now that is funny.  Thanks for the laugh.



Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #55 on: April 06, 2007, 09:53:22 AM »

No sorry, that's not the way it works.  Controllers can and do report violations even when there is no loss of separation and even when there is no breach of safety. 

First hand, I can tell you it certainly isn't that common as you make it.  I have made my share of mistakes in the Northeast and Eastern US airspace and have yet to been violated.  One of the more blatant ones occurred last January when I was returning to NY from Florida.  My autopilot disengaged while I was heads-down retrieving weather on the downlinked receiver.  When I finally returned to scanning my instruments, I was 600 feet below my IFR altitude and descending.  Just as I was moving to correct, the controller called and pointed this out.  Had it been as strict as you claimed, I would have been violated.

In contrast, the controller was very polite and, after I had admitted the reason for the mistake, let it go at that.  A day later I filed a NASA safety form as added protection. 

I will agree that there seems to be certain (US) FAA hot buttons in any given year and perhaps I should have added that caveat.  Obviously after 9/11 busting the ADIZ around Washington, DC, is a biggie and will most likely result in a violation 99.9% of the time, assuming the controller is able to identify the aircraft. 

In your example, perhaps the FAA is trying to reduce the number of inadvertent NY class B airspace infractions by instructing controllers to report all cases since there are most likely a lot that occur in any given year.  Runway incursions are another hot button.  But to say that all regulation infractions are reported by controllers is, in my opinion and experience, overstating a controller's role.

And one more point:  I am in total agreement with you that in the grand scheme of aviation mistakes, this pilot's attitude does not rank up there.  And again, I do not believe he should be violated, even if he hypothetically or factually did go against the instructions of ATC.  But that horse has been beaten to death.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
Ben Diss
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #56 on: April 06, 2007, 11:19:50 AM »

... to say that all regulation infractions are reported by controllers is, in my opinion and experience, overstating a controller's role ...

I never said that.
Logged
KASWspotter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #57 on: April 06, 2007, 11:42:06 AM »

Ok let me ask this. Would anyone stop and argue with a cop when he sends you on a detour around an accident up ahead of you? We've all been there. The accident is 2 miles ahead so the police move to the nearest perpendicular intersection and detour people around the trouble. Simply what was being done here. Costs about as much in gas to do it as this guy lost. But you DO IT because the people in charge TELL YOU TO DO IT. There are ramifacations if you dont. Whether or not the controller used the right phraseology is really a non factor. He was dealing with an emergency inbound and stated several times what he wanted the guy to do. The seaplane should've sucked it up and helped the situation and the controller by backing off or complying. He knew and understood what was wanted by the controller. Instead he showed his backside.
Logged
digger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


« Reply #58 on: April 06, 2007, 12:29:25 PM »

Quote
And again, I do not believe he should be violated, even if he hypothetically or factually did go against the instructions of ATC.


He probably put himself at greater risk of being deviated for his flying by his arguementative atitude--which I think was unquestionably an abuse of the communications frequency...
Logged
kcabpilot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #59 on: April 06, 2007, 12:53:59 PM »

[So, now you are claiming the incident in question is not even the pilot's fault, it's the ATC supervisors fault?  Now that is funny.  Thanks for the laugh.

I'm saying - THERE WAS NO INCIDENT. Nothing but a complaint voiced over the airwaves. Get over it already.

One day, while the boy was away at school, his father decided to try an
experiment.  He went into the boy's room and placed on his study table four objects - a
Bible, a silver dollar, a bottle of whiskey and a Playboy magazine. "I'll
just hide behind the door," the old preacher said to himself.

"When he comes home from school this afternoon, I'll see which object he
picks up. If it's the Bible, he's going to be a preacher like me, and what
a  blessing that would be!

If he picks up the dollar, he's going to be a businessman, and that would
be OK.

But, if picks up the bottle, he's going to be a no-good drunkard; and Lord,
what a shame that would be!

Worst of all, if he picks up that magazine he's gonna be a skirt-chasin'
bum."

The old man waited anxiously, and soon heard his son's footsteps as he
entered the house, whistling and headed for his room. The boy tossed his
books on the bed, and as he turned to leave the room he spotted the objects
on the table. With curiosity in his eye, he walked over to inspect them.
The boy took a few moments as he examined the objects.

Finally, he picked up the Bible and placed it under his arm; picked up the
silver dollar and dropped it into is pocket; uncorked the bottle and took a
big drink while he admired this month's centerfold in Playboy.

"Lord have mercy," the old preacher whispered disgustedly, "he's gonna be a
pilot!"
« Last Edit: April 06, 2007, 01:00:13 PM by kcabpilot » Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!