Funny argument between tower and instructor

benyflyguy

benyflyguy

En-Route
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
3,755
Location
NEPA
Display Name
Display name:
benyflyguy

Just listened to this over on Reddit and it was quite amusing. Crazy back and forth.
 
time to stop digging...
 
I put the majority of the blame on the pilot but the controller should have stopped replying to the pilot early on. The whole taxi back clearance because of him was unprofessional as well.
 
It sounds like there is some history there between those two or the CFI is a bit of local lejund down there.
 
benyflyguy said:
It sounds like there is some history there between those two or the CFI is a bit of local lejund down there.
Click to expand...
Local legend is right. News article from the 90's about him with a student flipping a 152 shortly after landing. Was the students first flight and were in 60mph gusts. Wow.
 
RussR said:
I agree 100%, but the tower controller kept participating too. He should have, and could have, stopped it at the very beginning.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I heard 3 blocked calls from that back-and-forth. I wonder if tower could have just said "extend upwind", waited until 93U was 3sm away and then "frequency change approved". If 93U calls back, respond with "aircraft calling from outside my airspace, standby"
 
not funny, IMO. sets a very bad example for his student and doesn't do much for his reputation for those who were listening. i'm hoping his boss was one of them. i also think the controller should have shut down the exchange sooner than he did.
 
However, it’s the controller that is likely to get a demerit. It was all just two douches going at it until the controller got his feelings hurt and gave retaliatory instruction for no valid reason.
 
Racerx said:
Local legend is right. News article from the 90's about him with a student flipping a 152 shortly after landing. Was the students first flight and were in 60mph gusts. Wow.
Click to expand...
And he was fired by Pan Am- for arguing with a gate agent who told him he’d need to check on of his carry ons.
 
bflynn said:
However, it’s the controller that is likely to get a demerit. It was all just two douches going at it until the controller got his feelings hurt and gave retaliatory instruction for no valid reason.
Click to expand...
If tower controller wanted him on the ground so he could have CFI phone tower to discuss- wouldn’t that be legit?

Agree tower should have ceased arguing with him.
 
That wasn't funny, it was painful. The controller should have stopped it, he made his point. But that instructor is a moron. His student unfortunately probably doesn't know better, but he should find another instructor.
 
SFDukie said:
If tower controller wanted him on the ground so he could have CFI phone tower to discuss- wouldn’t that be legit?

Agree tower should have ceased arguing with him.
Click to expand...

No. He issued a PD and to call the tower after landing. That should be the end of it. You don’t give a restricted landing because of an argument over the air. ATC freqs are to be used only for ATC purposes.
 
Fair or not, ATC has to be the grown up in the room (someone has to be). Has to put the ego aside and just give directions. In the perfect world Tower could have just given him a pilot deviation for blocking the frequency (or something) and be done with it.

But I'll give the tower a little bit of grace with this - given we're all human, I'd wager this pilot has been annoying for a long time and this was the final straw for that day.

Pilot? Jacka$$. PaulS nailed it - painful.
 
benyflyguy said:

Just listened to this over on Reddit and it was quite amusing. Crazy back and forth.
Click to expand...

Not at all amusing. This back and forth was a danger to aviation safety.

The controller should never have engaged in a conversation with 93U.

Why is this guy a CFI? He very clearly has no business being solo in an aircraft, let alone teaching others to fly. If he is working at an FBO or a school, they need to have their heads examined after they fire him for judgement and compliance issues.

The tower controller had every right to comment on his sloppy pattern behavior. Listening to this, I’m fairly certain that this wasn’t his first offense. Because of that, after advising 93U of the complaint, and after the very first exchange with him, the controller should simply have cleared him to land full stop, shut down, and contact the tower. He has the right and the responsibility to do that.

The controller should then have requested that the aircraft complaining about the incursion contact tower upon landing. He did nothing wrong, but he should have been asked to detail his complaint.

When did this occur? Someone please tell me that this isn’t five years old and that nothing came of it.

The FAA should fully investigate this incident after pulling this CFI’s ticket on an emergency revocation. I am no champion of the feds. Such an action should be very rare and limited. But incidents like this cannot be allowed. We’re all supposed to be grown-ups. Furthermore, the controller needs to be counseled by his supervisor over his role in this foolishness. His actions were unacceptable as well, and could have compromised flight safety.

Pilots need knowledge, experience and good judgement to be safe. You can teach the first, and gain the second, if you live long enough, but not everyone develops that third trait, regardless of how much of the first two they acquire.

After hearing that debacle, the CFI in 93U obviously had none of the above.
 
Nothing funny about the exchange. Poor example from an all knowing, never wrong, highly experienced ex-airline pilot. The student pilot will forever have this in their flight experience.
 
WDD said:
Fair or not, ATC has to be the grown up in the room (someone has to be). Has to put the ego aside and just give directions. In the perfect world Tower could have just given him a pilot deviation for blocking the frequency (or something) and be done with it.

But I'll give the tower a little bit of grace with this - given we're all human, I'd wager this pilot has been annoying for a long time and this was the final straw for that day.

Pilot? Jacka$$. PaulS nailed it - painful.
Click to expand...
There did seem to be some history between them. The “you’re always so defensive” thing bears that out. That being said, I give the Controller zero grace for keeping that going.
 
Salty said:
douche vs douche

But the pilot wins the douche belt by judges decision.
Click to expand...
I give the belt to the Controller. I was thinking the pilot was thinking, ‘Ah ha, I finally made him snap’
 
Last edited:
Here’s what we do. Get a couple planes. One a four seater, one a single seater. We rig the single seater to sustain a 90 degree nose down dive. Put the Pilot and Controller in the four seater. We need a volunteer to fly the single seater, jump out and parachute to safety. Someone to fly the big plane and someone to throw the ‘contestants’ out sans parachutes. ……..
 
orca64 said:
the controller should simply have cleared him to land full stop, shut down, and contact the tower. He has the right and the responsibility to do that.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe this is correct. A controller cannot order an airplane to land and shut down. If you believe otherwise, find the proper phraseology for ordering such an action in the ATC manual.
 
orca64 said:
…after the very first exchange with him, the controller should simply have cleared him to land full stop, shut down, and contact the tower. He has the right and the responsibility to do that.
Click to expand...

This can’t happen. ATC doesn’t have this authority to shut him down. ATC could deny the option request. ATC could (temporarily) deny him service if the pilot’s ongoing dialogue is not allowing the controller to do his job serving other traffic. But, ordering a shut down? I don’t think so.
 
bflynn said:
I don’t believe this is correct. A controller cannot order an airplane to land and shut down. If you believe otherwise, find the proper phraseology for ordering such an action in the ATC manual.
Click to expand...

Couldn’t the controller just issue a full-stop as opposed to T&G or the option? He tried and the CFI argued. Seems like he could deny the option and issue full stop, and if the CFI disregarded he’d have another issue.

While the controller should’ve cut this off much earlier, this idi…I mean CFI needs to have his ticket yanked.
 
ATC clearances are based on known or observed traffic and airport conditions. You don’t issue a clearance based upon an argument with that pilot. The argument alone is a violation of ATC service because it’s a transmission of a “personal nature.”

The pilot asking for the controllers name is a joke. They can ask to “mark the tapes” which they are required to do with a request but names or operating initials over the air is not required by the controller.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunate...but like a train wreck does capture attention. I'm glad no one was injured during this excercise.
 
bflynn said:
I don’t believe this is correct. A controller cannot order an airplane to land and shut down. If you believe otherwise, find the proper phraseology for ordering such an action in the ATC manual.
Click to expand...

The controller has authority to do that for emergency traffic or national security (9/11 SCATANA). Authority just because they don’t like the pilot? Nope.

Reminds of the thread years ago with the female pilot in AZ who was issued a PD, then the controller told the pilot to turn back to the airport and land. She just continued on. Now, that would be a violation of 91.123 but it’s also an instruction the controller has no authority to make.
 
Controlled field. Clearance for a full stop. Clearance to taxi to a point on the ramp. No further taxi clearance. They don’t call it the penalty box at Ohare for no reason.
 
That exchange took 5 minutes AFTER a base turn to final. How long was his final leg that he didn't reach the runway in 5 minutes?
 
RussR said:
I agree 100%, but the tower controller kept participating too. He should have, and could have, stopped it at the very beginning.
Click to expand...
You know, there's an interesting old quote that says this:

"It is not good to accept the person of the wicked, to overthrow the righteous in judgment."

The controller wasn't in the wrong to correct the dude and I'm giving him a mostly pass for finally refusing to put up with it. The controller's decision to argue wasn't the best, but he wasn't fundamentally in the wrong.
 
orca64 said:
Controlled field. Clearance for a full stop. Clearance to taxi to a point on the ramp. No further taxi clearance. They don’t call it the penalty box at Ohare for no reason.
Click to expand...

You can go around any time, then leave the airspace. I agree the controller had no power to order this guy to land. He did have the authority to only give a full stop landing, but as I said, the pilot can always go around, then tell the controller he is leaving the pattern.

Would that have worked for this pilot? Probably not because it sounds like he was based here. I would love to see the fight path that got the pilot corrected.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter and nobody cares. The pilot should have just said "OK", and moved on, which would have been the smartest thing to do. The pilot turned this into a Brasher warning, it's no one else's fault.

We needed the "Captain Happy" commenter pilot here.
 
Google Earth shows North Perry Airport as quite an extensive facility--4 2700' runways (between the thresholds, 3250 total), 7 parallel taxiways, many, many hangars, and a 100 planes on the ramps. The runways are too short for most commercial traffic. What goes on there?
 
Last edited:
Domenick said:
Google Earth shows North Perry Airport as quite an extensive facility--4 2700' runways, 7 parallel taxiways, many many hangars, and a 100 planes on the ramps. The runways are too short for most commercial traffic. What goes on there?
Click to expand...

Very busy with local pilots and banner tows, plus a puppy mill or two on the field. Sounds like the CFI on this incident has a history of sloppiness in the pattern.
 
Omalley1537 said:
Seems like he could deny the option and issue full stop, and if the CFI disregarded he’d have another issue.
Click to expand...

The pilot always has the option to go around, cleared or not. ATC is not in command of the aircraft.
 
“Maintain radio silence unless ATC related “ should have been said a lot earlier. And the controller should have passed on the complaint and ignored everything else.
 
Out of curiosity from the controllers here. Said he did what he should have done, issued the complaint and moved on. What would their next steps be if they continued to overshoot? Issue a PD and allow them to keep overshooting the runway? Change the sequencing as to not have another aircraft on approach to the other runway?
 
Grum.Man said:
Out of curiosity from the controllers here. Said he did what he should have done, issued the complaint and moved on. What would their next steps be if they continued to overshoot? Issue a PD and allow them to keep overshooting the runway? Change the sequencing as to not have another aircraft on approach to the other runway?
Click to expand...

A similar situation happened at my airport, two warnings. The tower told the pilot he was unable to allow him to stay in the pattern. His options were land, or leave the airspace. Guy wanted to make an issue if it, but the tower won that battle. Unsafe operations deemed by the tower was justification. But of course the controller didn’t get in a whole argument over the frequency. And this controller lost his leg to stand on when he allowed full stop taxi back, and then “because it’s you”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top