Cessna 421C Monterey 7/13

Has anyone ever heard of of a circumstance where a controller refused a t/o clearance because he didn't like the way the pilot read back instructions?

I don't mean where the controller coaxed a pilot to get him to get the readback correct, but effectively said, "Sir, you're done here. Come back another time. No clearance for you."
 
Reminds me of a time when an Arizona tower controller ordered a pilot to land and get with an instructor because she failed to follow an instruction while transiting through his class D. (The consensus of the thread was that he didn't have the authority to do that.)
 
I guarantee that everyone on this board would lose their ship if a controller said to them, "You're not competent to fly." Before anyone says, "That would never happen to me because: I'm wonderful, I'm not Jerry or whatever, remember this woman was a CFI-ATP.
 
LesGawlik said:
Has anyone ever heard of of a circumstance where a controller refused a t/o clearance because he didn't like the way the pilot read back instructions?

I don't mean where the controller coaxed a pilot to get him to get the readback correct, but effectively said, "Sir, you're done here. Come back another time. No clearance for you."
Click to expand...
This was from the Archie awards a couple years ago:
Frankly it's a little scary to me that the controller gave him that many chances before telling him to forget it. If that was an uncontrolled field he would've been a smoking hole or worse.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't it just a few years ago that pilots were petitioning to have a notoriously tight-assed controller removed from KMRY? Now the controller can hardly be understood.
 
MFE said:
Wasn't it just a few years ago that pilots were petitioning to have a notoriously tight-assed controller removed from KMRY? Now the controller can hardly be understood.
Click to expand...
I still can't understand what he said and I've played it at least five times. What a mush mouth. It sounded like the lady was in pain to me when she read back the clearance. Flight path looks like loss of attitude indicator or incapacitation, but wow, what a terrible sounding controller. :( I think I'd have made him fax it to me.
 
I'm afraid it will only get worse over time....
 
This accident reeks to me of a medical incapacitation issue. I hope the NTSB will be able to assess that possibility given the condition of the wreckage.
 
For what it's worth... I live near KMRY.

Local speculation is she lost an engine on departure climb and became disoriented in the fog, which tends to be heavy.

NTSB has their hands full sifting through the evidence.
 
LesGawlik said:
Has anyone ever heard of of a circumstance where a controller refused a t/o clearance because he didn't like the way the pilot read back instructions?

I don't mean where the controller coaxed a pilot to get him to get the readback correct, but effectively said, "Sir, you're done here. Come back another time. No clearance for you."
Click to expand...

I heard the recording of a drunk Mooney pilot once that the controller had arrested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Jim K said:
This was from the Archie awards a couple years ago:
Frankly it's a little scary to me that the controller gave him that many chances before telling him to forget it. If that was an uncontrolled field he would've been a smoking hole or worse.
Click to expand...
Wow, thanks for sharing. I was unfamiliar with that

Frankly the 421 pilot sounded only slightly better
 
Final:

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/103470/pdf

Spoiler alert:


Probable Cause and Findings
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot’s failure to maintain airplane control due to spatial disorientation during an
instrument departure procedure in instrument meteorological conditions which resulted in a
collision with terrain. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s lack of recent instrument
flying experience.
 
asicer said:
Final:

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/103470/pdf

Spoiler alert:


Probable Cause and Findings
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot’s failure to maintain airplane control due to spatial disorientation during an
instrument departure procedure in instrument meteorological conditions which resulted in a
collision with terrain. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s lack of recent instrument
flying experience.
Click to expand...
Sad, but about what I'd expect from the NTSB on a GA accident these days.
 
asicer said:
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot’s failure to maintain airplane control due to spatial disorientation ... Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s lack of recent instrument flying experience.
Click to expand...
Any mention of the witness marks on her attitude indicator? I'm not buying disorientation due to lack of currency.
 
dtuuri said:
Any mention of the witness marks on her attitude indicator? I'm not buying disorientation due to lack of currency.
Click to expand...

Why not? Flying in IMC is a very perishable skill. The report says

"In the 12 months preceding to the accident flight, the pilot accumulated about 0.3 hours of simulated instrument flight, 0.7 hours of actual instrument flight and no instrument approaches."

That's not even close to current - already back in IPC territory.
 
Steamflyer said:
Why not? Flying in IMC is a very perishable skill.
Click to expand...
Ok, "lack of recent instrument flying experience" in interpreting the flight instruments is what I'm not buying if that's what is being implied. You don't forget how to interpret an attitude indicator any more than how to ride a bicycle, although both were a tad difficult at the first try. Now, if they meant "lack of monitoring the backup flight instruments" in case of primary instrument failure — and having no recent experience contributed to THAT, I'd buy it. But I didn't see an analysis of instrument facing marks in the docket. I could've missed them or they might not have been possible to obtain. When an instrument pilot turns right and descends rather than climbs in the correct direction, based on my experience at the tortuous hands of a devious Flight Safety CFI who insidiously failed my attitude indicator with no flags during recurrent training, it is impossible to catch unless you have one eye on a backup (which may be across the cockpit), a copilot to call out the difference or both.
 
Last edited:
@dtuuri - completely agree that in addition to proficiency and currency, having a backup AI on the same side as the pilot should be required, as should be the ability to rapidly detect an issue with either AI. A TC or a TB is a poor substitute for an actual AI, which is why one is permitted to substitute an AI for a TC. Not sure why it's not universally done - an electric AI is about 2k, a rounding error in IFR capable aircraft costs and it could save your life. I've had my primary AI crap out on rotation and needed to use the backup AI. Could it have been managed without a second AI? Maybe, but will hopefully never find out - a second AI is the first thing that goes in every plane I fly in IMC.

One doesn't forget how to interpret an AI, but inner ear imbalances can throw off the best interpretation. Jumping into a complex twin after more than a year without being in IMC is not a recipe for guaranteed success.

The docket basically said all the instruments were burned and smashed to pieces. There are pictures indicating same...
 
Steamflyer said:
I've had my primary AI crap out on rotation and needed to use the backup AI.
Click to expand...
Good catch! If you had a flag, then no need to resolve the ambiguity of which one to follow. In my simulated case I had no earthly clue until my copilot started screaming. I must have then seen just enough that didn't add up for me to relinquish the controls to him while I sorted things out, which was VERY hard until I covered the ADI. I was better at monitoring backups during climbout when I flew single-pilot in a Turbo Commander — would do an S-turn during taxi to check the T&B just for that purpose and then watch both sides of the panel for inconsistencies during takeoff and climb. Not doing so is more an example of insufficient training or total experience, imo, not lack of recent experience, ymmv.

Steamflyer said:
The docket basically said all the instruments were burned and smashed to pieces. There are pictures indicating same...
Click to expand...
That's my conclusion too.
 
dtuuri said:
Good catch! If you had a flag, then no need to resolve the ambiguity of which one to follow.

Not doing so is more an example of insufficient training or total experience, imo, not lack of recent experience, ymmv.
Click to expand...

The AI which failed was vacuum driven and also drove the autopilot. It did not have nor could it be upgraded to have a flag. The electric backups I used to install (the MidContinent, sometimes branded "Lifesaver") had flags and a battery. Now tend to trend towards the AV-30 for a backup.

Total experience can partially compensate for lack of recent experience, but not entirely so.

Good training plus experience should allow almost immediate detection of a failed instrument if one has a good scan - like to find a Redbird a couple of times a year and get beat up by some nice young CFII. Last session on climb out in a 172 I noticed 85 kts airspeed and pitch increasing to about 15 degrees, so immediately knew the AI was kaput. Shooting an ILS to mins partial panel with only a TC in that sim reinforced my love of a second AI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top