TBM Crash May Implicate ATC

Rob P. said:
You should consider telling the surviving family members your little "joke." Maybe they'll find it funny. Maybe not. I'm betting they won't.
Click to expand...
Not a joke. You insisting on ATC saving the guy is the same as the little old ladies that insist the police will save them therefore your training and icky guns aren't necessary. When seconds count the police and a polite request getting you a lower altitude are minutes away. You support my theory, gun guys are afraid of everything.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Trying to equate a pilot error accident to concealed carry is, well, just stupid.

You obviously don't have much aviation experience (it shows) and you obviously don't understand pilot-controller communication.

You're not impressing anyone with the gun crap, really. :nonod: :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

1) Not equating a plane crash to concealed carry. I AM making a reference to the fact that firearms are dangerous and that if you work in that industry you notice "indications of a problem" and those things tend to get immediate and priority attention.

Unfortunately, in the aviation world, "indications of a problem" don't get priority attention. In fact, as in this case, they barely get any attention at all.

2) Have been upfront that I'm not very experienced in aviation. That doesn't diminish my beliefs or my own knowledge. We are all the sum of our experiences and knowledge. Mine is different than yours but just as valid.

3) Wasn't trying to impress anyone. Was merely trying to explain that in my world you don't get a free pass to criticize the dead guy and say that if only he had only done it right he'd be alive today. But hey, if it makes you feel better, you can believe that I'm just some stupid gun nut.

In the end I hope that your life's Dominos never begin to unexpectedly cascade while you sit and wonder "wait...what?" as everyone around pops another beer and says "if only..."
 
ClimbnSink said:
Not a joke. You insisting on ATC saving the guy is the same as the little old ladies that insist the police will save them therefore your training and icky guns aren't necessary. When seconds count the police and a polite request getting you a lower altitude are minutes away. You support my theory, gun guys are afraid of everything.
Click to expand...

Interesting theory.

Usually it's the gun guys who get shot defending the guys with the theories. Because, you know, theories are so dam impregnable. Or was it the skull of the guy with the theory???
 
Rob P. said:
I carry a firearm every day. In MY WORLD,
Click to expand...
So do carry this firearm proudly and live in YOUR WORLD but don't try to pilot an airplane because you clearly have no propensity to understand 'That World'.

Apparently, in the the flying world, that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
How do you know it doesn't happen? It does happen, there is NTSB investigation, etc, potential FAA actions, etc - by the way it is all public data readily accessible, it is probably much more transparent and under public scrutiny than in your firearms world.
 
Last edited:
Rob P. said:
1) Not equating a plane crash to concealed carry. I AM making a reference to the fact that firearms are dangerous and that if you work in that industry you notice "indications of a problem" and those things tend to get immediate and priority attention.

Unfortunately, in the aviation world, "indications of a problem" don't get priority attention. In fact, as in this case, they barely get any attention at all.

2) Have been upfront that I'm not very experienced in aviation. That doesn't diminish my beliefs or my own knowledge. We are all the sum of our experiences and knowledge. Mine is different than yours but just as valid.

3) Wasn't trying to impress anyone. Was merely trying to explain that in my world you don't get a free pass to criticize the dead guy and say that if only he had only done it right he'd be alive today. But hey, if it makes you feel better, you can believe that I'm just some stupid gun nut.

In the end I hope that your life's Dominos never begin to unexpectedly cascade while you sit and wonder "wait...what?" as everyone around pops another beer and says "if only..."
Click to expand...

:rolleyes2:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Rob P. said:
...What you don't get is that when bad things start to happen, people are supposed to act. That's called stepping up. When you are the "go to guy" you are putting yourself in the position of BEING the guy who is supposed to step up. Sometimes, when that person fails to step up, other people die. After that, someone is supposed to investigate and then make changes in procedures so that it doesn't happen again...
Click to expand...

I wonder if you understand the fact that in aviation, the "go to guy," the one who is supposed to step up or others will die, is the pilot in command. That's the meaning and importance of the regulation designated as 14 CFR 91.3:

§91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.​

Controllers can offer help, but they are not the final authority. Many of them are not even pilots, and even if they were, there would be no guarantee that they would always recognize the severity of a vaguely described problem.
 
Rob P. said:
I guess it comes down to this: Would YOU personally be comfortable with that controller on the line with you if YOU had a problem and needed something "unconventional"?
Click to expand...
Yes....
 
N801BH said:
Hmmmm... I can't wait to see the outcome the FAA has on the A&P and IA who signed off on that annual... Care to name names??:dunno:
Click to expand...

No, and I seriously doubt they will even go into it since there were no injuries.
 
ClimbnSink said:
All bow before the NTSB.:lol: How often do they get it right?:rofl: Besides if anyone if overly fond of blaming pilot error it is the NTSB.:yes:
Click to expand...

The NTSB is correct in what they state, or they don't state it. The reason they are so fond of Pilot Error is that most accidents are pilot error. It'll get more interesting when we have autonomous planes.
 
Rob P. said:
I guess it comes down to this: Would YOU personally be comfortable with that controller on the line with you if YOU had a problem and needed something "unconventional"? This is not asking if YOU are capable of handling the "potential emergency" you are dealing with. This is asking if YOU are OK with needing something from THAT GUY and he's asleep at the switch and tells you that you can't do what you're planning on, or needing to be, doing?

Are YOU ok with that?
Click to expand...

Yes, most definitely, the controlled doesn't control my flight, the controller controls the airspace. There was absolutely nothing, not even a suggestion in the AIM much less a rule in the FARs that prevented him from putting on his O2, pushing the yoke forward, chopping the power and taking a sled ride for 10'000' which is what I would have done. As I was pushing forward and chopping the power, I would hit the PTT and TELL ATC, not ask, TELL them that "(xxx Center, 0TB, I have a pressure problem and am heading for 10,000."

You point out the problem, he didn't ask for anything unconventional, he asked for something conventional, a lower altitude. He said he had "a bad indication", that does not indicate an emergency, so the controller used the normal methods of protecting the airspace to get him lower.

If you ask for lower, they will assure the airspace is coordinated for you being lower prior to issuing the new clearance, that is their job. If you declare an emergency and head for lower, then they will shove everybody out of your way as you're coming. The PIC owns two three links in the accident chain. He didn't recognize/treat a problem for what it was, he did not don his O2, he did not declare an emergency and descend. Their death is of his doing as he could have prevented them.

As for your gun training, all you do is teach scared people that gun violence is the answer to their weakness and fear. Comparing that to anything like ATC is completely idiotic.

In comparison to what you say about the ATC handling of this is like saying someone armed needs permission from the Police before they can shoot, and while standing there with Gun in hand on the phone with 911, they were shot by their assailant waiting for permission, so it's the cop's fault.
 
Rob P. said:
Oh, I get it. In my real life I teach beginner and advanced firearms as well as CCW training. I carry a firearm every day. In MY WORLD, if someone screws up, people die. As a result, safety is top priority and no one EVER gets to ignore an "indication of a problem."

So, yeah, I really get it.
Click to expand...

No, you really don't get it.
 
Rob P. said:
Oh, I get it. In my real life I teach beginner and advanced firearms as well as CCW training. I carry a firearm every day. In MY WORLD, if someone screws up, people die. As a result, safety is top priority and no one EVER gets to ignore an "indication of a problem."

So, yeah, I really get it.

What you don't get is that when bad things start to happen, people are supposed to act. That's called stepping up. When you are the "go to guy" you are putting yourself in the position of BEING the guy who is supposed to step up. Sometimes, when that person fails to step up, other people die. After that, someone is supposed to investigate and then make changes in procedures so that it doesn't happen again.
Click to expand...

So...let's carry your analogy forward, shall we.

You're a CCW instructor. You notice one of your students has some bags under his eyes and says he had to sleep on the couch the night before. You sympathize with him, offer to help and think nothing more of it.

That night he shoots his entire family.

You're saying that you are responsible for those deaths because you had "indications of a problem" and you didn't step up and take the guy's gun away. I mean you were the "go to guy" right, and you didn't take the little informAtion you had and read the guys's mind that he was about to snap, so obviously you're responsible.
 
JeffDG said:
So...let's carry your analogy forward, shall we.

You're a CCW instructor. You notice one of your students has some bags under his eyes and says he had to sleep on the couch the night before. You sympathize with him, offer to help and think nothing more of it.

That night he shoots his entire family.

You're saying that you are responsible for those deaths because you had "indications of a problem" and you didn't step up and take the guy's gun away. I mean you were the "go to guy" right, and you didn't take the little informAtion you had and read the guys's mind that he was about to snap, so obviously you're responsible.
Click to expand...

Yep.....
 
I think you guys are steeped in one way of thinking and cannot get out of the box that someone else built for you.

Yes, the pilot screwed up. Maybe he didnt notice the bad indication early enough, or maybe he was already compromised when the indicator flashed.

I think the above poster is only saying: Lets be open and take a fresh look at our protocols and perhaps we can find ways to improve safety by better pilot-controller communications.

Analogy- if your best friend says that he and his wife are having issues and they later get a divorce its not your fault. But if you value the sanctity of marriage and you value the friendship you would know that he's reaching out for help and be there for him.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I think you guys are steeped in one way of thinking and cannot get out of the box that someone else built for you.

Yes, the pilot screwed up. Maybe he didnt notice the bad indication early enough, or maybe he was already compromised when the indicator flashed.

I think the above poster is only saying: Lets be open and take a fresh look at our protocols and perhaps we can find ways to improve safety by better pilot-controller communications.

Analogy- if your best friend says that he and his wife are having issues and they later get a divorce its not your fault. But if you value the sanctity of marriage and you value the friendship you would know that he's reaching out for help and be there for him.
Click to expand...

I think we all agree that the pilot did not communicate well. There are some who believe the controller should have recognized that the pilot was hypoxic from his transmission stating that he had a bad indication. Those folks are wrong.
 
Even if the controller immediately gave him what he was asking for, a descent to FL180, it probably wouldn't have made a difference.
 
Last edited:
Dave Theisen said:
Even if the controller immediately gave him what he was asking for, a descent to FL180, it probably would have made a difference.
Click to expand...

Did you mean to write "wouldn't" there? "Would" doesn't seem to fit the tone of your statement.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by N801BH
Hmmmm... I can't wait to see the outcome the FAA has on the A&P and IA who signed off on that annual... Care to name names??:dunno:




Henning said:
No, and I seriously doubt they will even go into it since there were no injuries.
Click to expand...

Interesting answer...

So, the FAA's policy is ( if no one is hurt, even though the plane gets destroyed ), there will be NO investigation and sanctions against the FAA certified A&P and IA who clearly didn't perform their duties to the FAA's high standards??:dunno:...:confused:....:rolleyes2:
 
The pilot bears complete responsibility. He should have descended to the appropriate altitude immediately, declared an emergency when able, but the pilots responsibilityis to take the appropriate action to maintain the safety of flight. Not wait for permission from atc which in reality has no authority or responsibility at all over the pilots operation of the aircraft. The pilot is the "final authority" as to the operation of the aircraft. The pilot also bears full responsibility as to how that authority is implemented ( or not )
 
roncachamp said:
I think we all agree that the pilot did not communicate well. There are some who believe the controller should have recognized that the pilot was hypoxic from his transmission stating that he had a bad indication. Those folks are wrong.
Click to expand...

I understand your position and also your absolute need to be right. But by saying they are WRONG clearly sets up a this or that view of the situation. In a disagreement its usually a little of this and a little of that in a way that few could ever imagine, a paradigm shift.
 
I'm curious about a few things: was his wife also a pilot (I think I saw she was), TBM experience?

How do the masks in the cockpit work? Do they automatically start feeding O2 when pulled from where thegy are stowed? Do they have to be armed? Is it possible for one mask to get O2 and the other not (do they draw from the same source)?
 
Melting said:
The pilot bears complete responsibility. He should have descended to the appropriate altitude immediately, declared an emergency when able, but the pilots responsibilityis to take the appropriate action to maintain the safety of flight. Not wait for permission from atc which in reality has no authority or responsibility at all over the pilots operation of the aircraft. The pilot is the "final authority" as to the operation of the aircraft. The pilot also bears full responsibility as to how that authority is implemented ( or not )
Click to expand...

That is NOT exactly true....

Since 9-11 , controllers are instructed, in fact REQUIRED... to do whatever is needed in the event of a flight that wants to change their destination mid flight without a GREAT excuse and not using the "key" words for that request...:yesnod:
 
Jaybird180 said:
I understand your position and also your absolute need to be right. But by saying they are WRONG clearly sets up a this or that view of the situation. In a disagreement its usually a little of this and a little of that in a way that few could ever imagine, a paradigm shift.
Click to expand...

Apparently your so close to DC that the hot gaseous state of politicians has affected your thinking. It is not" a little of this or a little of that " in this case. The pilot screwed the pooch. When you go high, in a performance aircraft your in the big boys club and must accept that responsibility. Get a grip.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I understand your position and also your absolute need to be right. But by saying they are WRONG clearly sets up a this or that view of the situation. In a disagreement its usually a little of this and a little of that in a way that few could ever imagine, a paradigm shift.
Click to expand...

It's not that way in this case.
 
N801BH said:
So, the FAA's policy is ( if no one is hurt, even though the plane gets destroyed ), there will be NO investigation and sanctions against the FAA certified A&P and IA who clearly didn't perform their duties to the FAA's high standards??:dunno:...:confused:....:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

"Worked when I tested it. Must have broken. **** happens."
 
How sad that the O2 masks are just right there...what happened?

maxresdefault.jpg
 
Rob P. said:
Wasn't trying to impress anyone. Was merely trying to explain that in my world you don't get a free pass to criticize the dead guy and say that if only he had only done it right he'd be alive today. But hey, if it makes you feel better, you can believe that I'm just some stupid gun nut.
Click to expand...

So because he died as a result of his own errors, he can't be held responsible for those errors and the blame gets passed on to whomever is next in line?? But if he lived, would it be ok to blame him for his own errors??


PS - I like guns. I have one. I believe in them. And I also believe in being responsible for your actions over coddling.
 
jesse said:
That's pretty damn convenient, ugly as sin, but convenient for sure.
Click to expand...

That's part of why I asked earlier - what starts the O2 flow? If the masks are so easy to grab, right there, and (I'm assuming his wife was also front seat) neither of them seemed to have put them on.

Yeah, hypoxia makes you stupid, but wow, they were so close.
 
Matthew said:
That's part of why I asked earlier - what starts the O2 flow? If the masks are so easy to grab, right there, and (I'm assuming his wife was also front seat) neither of them seemed to have put them on.

Yeah, hypoxia makes you stupid, but wow, they were so close.
Click to expand...

I really think this guy was in denial when and if his neurons were firing properly when he saw the indication of a problem. I think in his mind this just couldn't happen.

I think it reinforces, in my mind anyway, that if you get a life or death indication like this, where getting lower or maybe landing is the correct response to the indication, you act on the indication, then sort out whether it was a real problem or not from a safe vantage point.
 
PaulS said:
I really think this guy was in denial when and if his neurons were firing properly when he saw the indication of a problem. I think in his mind this just couldn't happen.

I think it reinforces, in my mind anyway, that if you get a life or death indication like this, where getting lower or maybe landing is the correct response to the indication, you act on the indication, then sort out whether it was a real problem or not from a safe vantage point.
Click to expand...

From AIM:
6-1-2(a) ... An aircraft is in at least an urgency condition the moment the pilot becomes doubtful about position, fuel endurance, weather, or any other condition that could adversely affect flight safety.


I'd say the "you are going to die" alarm is a pretty good indicator that flight safety is about to be adversely affected.
 
Henning said:
The NTSB is correct in what they state, or they don't state it. The reason they are so fond of Pilot Error is that most accidents are pilot error. It'll get more interesting when we have autonomous planes.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that most accidents in general are "pilot" or user error. I'm just surprised the insurance companies have not added culpability clauses to all policies.
 
silver-eagle said:
I would suggest that most accidents in general are "pilot" or user error. I'm just surprised the insurance companies have not added culpability clauses to all policies.
Click to expand...

Given that all pilots make mistakes, who would buy such policies?
 
silver-eagle said:
I would suggest that most accidents in general are "pilot" or user error. I'm just surprised the insurance companies have not added culpability clauses to all policies.
Click to expand...

That would defeat the purpose of insurance.
 
This seems appropriate here, although written for another context

Jim Logajan said:
That is not how it works. The FAA regulation in 91.3 that states the PIC is the final authority and responsible for the aircraft only affects the FAA's potential actions, not those of other entities. Civil lawsuits, on the other hand, are not (well should not, at least) be affected by anything other than an actual analysis of facts and fault apportionment. It is not difficult to find accidents where the FAA or NTSB found the pilot at fault per the 91.3 pre-assumption but a civil court found a different party wholly or partially at fault for the same accident.

There is no reason in my humble opinion why a civil court should not find the FBO at least partially at fault for the accident that spawned the OP's useful investigation.

Pragmatically speaking the pilot should have been more alert for their own sake anyway - but just as pragmatically there is a limit to how much responsibility should be dumped on a single person. Holding others responsible for their mistakes is important even if some regulation attempts to dump final responsibility onto someone else. After all, 91.3 could be said to imply that even someone who maliciously, rather than accidentally, added Jet-A to a fuel tank could not be held responsible for a subsequent accident because the pilot didn't verify the proper fuel was added.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top