TBM Crash May Implicate ATC

[Jaybird180]

No. What the controller should have concluded was there was a problem with the airplane.
......
But hey, what do I know. I'm just a low time fomer student thinking about restarting my training...

You make very good points. Welcome to PoA.

 

[RotorAndWing]

No. What the controller should have concluded was there was a problem with the airplane.

Now, once the controller concluded THAT, he should have done something other than exhibit indifference to an undeclared emergency. ATC didn't know EXACTLY what the "problem" was, but they DID KNOW that there WAS a "problem."

IMO, if a pilot calls ATC and says "I have a problem with my airplane and I need to descend" that sort of says that MAYBE that airplane could fall out of the sky (which it did in this case eventually). That "MAYBE" should have been enough for the controller to move the OTHER aircraft out of the way and give priority to the problem aircraft.

Add to this is the idea that if I were in another airplane and someone heading at me said "Ummm, there's a problem with the airplane here.." I'd WANT the controller to divert me instead of telling the plane with the flying problem HE's the one who has to turn and wait a bit until they can find time to get back to him on his problem. Having a flaming ball of wreckage hurtling at me from 28,000 feet would ruin my day.

As for the idea that pilot not saying the "magic words" means there wasn't an emergency; exactly what do you think happened when the pilot stopped saying anything? That's right, they scrambled jets because there was an emergency. Which word apprently no one actually said. So, requiring the "magic words" to be spoken or there isn't an emergency ignores reality.

Now, having said all of that, the controller probably isn't legally liable. However, he is culpable for contributing to the death of 2 souls through indifference or neglect. The FAA is also maybe equally culpable for failing to properly train controllers to recognize potential emergencies and deal with them in a manner which treats the potential emergency as a priority rather than "We'll get back to you on that..."

PIC, busy, tired, AIM, FAR, should have, would have, yada yada yada are all just excuses. The plane had a problem and problems get fixed ON THE GROUND, not at 28, 25, 20 thousand feet up.

But hey, what do I know. I'm just a low time fomer student thinking about restarting my training...

The controller did what he was trained to do. Controllers aren't trained to fly the aircraft for the pilot or second guess the pilot. Pilots have a responsibility to communicate clearly and concisely with ATC. We have a few controllers here on this board that can detail how and why they do certain things. Another thing to remember is the controller has several aircraft he's working at any given time, and he may have even been working multiple sectors.

The (apparent) failure here rest with the PIC. Had he dealt with his problem more timely and systematically, and had he communicated clearly the situation would have probably ended differently.

 

[ClimbnSink]

This one is all on the pilot.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

It would seem, in a high performance aircraft, at high altitude , a new airplane, this gentleman would have had supplemental ox. At his fingertips. This fellow was a seasoned pilot and must have flown at altitude many times. But....as they say " ........happens." A good friend who used to fly for marriott in a Lear said that in the Payne Stewart tragedy, the pilot may not have noticed the warning light on the console in bright sunlight, that told him cabin pressure needed attention before he took off. He said they climbed so fast they quickly ran out of ox. And were out cold in minutes. Anybody?

 

[Zeldman]

It would seem, in a high performance aircraft, at high altitude , a new airplane, this gentleman would have had supplemental ox. At his fingertips. This fellow was a seasoned pilot and must have flown at altitude many times. But....as they say " ........happens." A good friend who used to fly for marriott in a Lear said that in the Payne Stewart tragedy, the pilot may not have noticed the warning light on the console in bright sunlight, that told him cabin pressure needed attention before he took off. He said they climbed so fast they quickly ran out of ox. And were out cold in minutes. Anybody?

Because you don't pressurize on the ground. Only off the ground.

I think you meant that the warning light might not have been noticed in the bright sunlight while climbing?

In my planes the cabin altitude warning annunciator light is small so it would be easy to miss if the sun was shining on the warning light panel.

Because they didn't think of that problem in 1978 when my plane was made.

 

[Hawker800]

Should also get a horn.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

A good friend who used to fly for marriott in a Lear said that in the Payne Stewart tragedy, the pilot may not have noticed the warning light on the console in bright sunlight, that told him cabin pressure needed attention before he took off. He said they climbed so fast they quickly ran out of ox. And were out cold in minutes. Anybody?

The plane left Florida at 9:20am, heading West, means the sun was behind them, I've sat in a Lear 35, they don't have sunroofs, there is no way the sun was a factor.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

That's why I asked. I probably have the story screwed up but pal flew lears for a long time and said the pilot "probably did not see the light" , I do remember that. He also said a Lear was a pig to fly and much preferred an MU2 which he also flew many hours. I've never flown in a Lear but flew in the right seat of the MU2 several times. That's a no none sense , ***** and git machine. Really fun to ride in it but very cramped in cockpit.

 

[RotorAndWing]

TBM 850 AFM

 

[MooneyDriver78]

That's why I asked. I probably have the story screwed up but pal flew lears for a long time and said the pilot "probably did not see the light" , I do remember that. He also said a Lear was a pig to fly and much preferred an MU2 which he also flew many hours. I've never flown in a Lear but flew in the right seat of the MU2 several times. That's a no none sense , ***** and git machine. Really fun to ride in it but very cramped in cockpit.

It's more likely the bulb was burned out....and yes, those planes are not designed for the pilots....the rest of the plane is roomy tho. There is an audio signal, maybe the CB was blown, or maybe the alarm was toast. My plane is in annual and found out my gear horn is blown, sh#t happens.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Out of all of this, one thing can be certain: Right now there are lawyers preparing a case. You will see Socata, Pratt&Whitney, whoever provided training, the avionics manufacturer, Hartzell and probably the FAA get sued for this "wrongful deaths".

 

[Paulie]

Because you don't pressurize on the ground. Only off the ground.

I think you meant that the warning light might not have been noticed in the bright sunlight while climbing?

In my planes the cabin altitude warning annunciator light is small so it would be easy to miss if the sun was shining on the warning light panel.

Because they didn't think of that problem in 1978 when my plane was made.

BS airliners all pressurize before take off to avoid a pressure bump when transitioning to air mode.
Your 1978 is a dinosaur.

 

[47PILOT]

Out of all of this, one thing can be certain: Right now there are lawyers preparing a case. You will see Socata, Pratt&Whitney, whoever provided training, the avionics manufacturer, Hartzell and probably the FAA get sued for this "wrongful deaths".

Sad, really sad, but unfortunately true.

 

[RotorAndWing]

BS airliners all pressurize before take off to avoid a pressure bump when transitioning to air mode.
.

More than a "bump", it's done to seat the doors and windows.

BTW the Airbus doesn't have a noticeable bump when a packs off takeoff is performed.

 

[Paulie]

More than a "bump", it's done to seat the doors and windows.

BTW the Airbus doesn't have a noticeable bump when a packs off takeoff is performed.

If the packs are off you have no pressurization. Why would they take off without the packs on?
Doors and windows do not need to be set. Where do you get your info?

 

[RotorAndWing]

If the packs are off you have no pressurization. Why would they take off without the packs on?

Pack's off take off can be performed for performance considerations, economy or contaminated runway conditions.

From the A319/320 FCOM

PROCEDURES
NORMAL PROCEDURES
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES - BEFORE TAKEOFF

PACK 1 and 2..........................................AS RQRD
Consider selecting packs OFF, or APU bleed ON.
This will improve performance when using TOGA thrust.
In case of a FLEX takeoff, selecting packs OFF or APU bleed ON will reduce takeoff EGT, and thus
reduce maintenance costs.
The use of flex thrust may reduce maintenance costs. The effect is particularly significant with the
first degrees of FLEX.
Use of APU bleed is not authorized, if wing anti-ice is to be used.

A318/A319/A320/A321 FLIGHT CREW TRAINING MANUAL

NORMAL OPERATIONS
TAKEOFF

THRUST REDUCTION ALTITUDE

Applicable to: ALL
At the thrust reduction altitude, "LVR CLB" flashes on the FMA. When manual flying, lower slightly the nose, as applicable, to anticipate the pitch down FD order. Bring the thrust levers back to CLB detent. The A/THR is now active (A/THR on the FMA changes from blue to white).
The FD pitch down order depends upon the amount of thrust decrease between TOGA or FLX and CLB.

If takeoff was performed packs OFF, the packs will be selected back to ON after thrust reductionbecause of the potential resulting EGT increase. They will be preferably selected sequentially to improve passenger's comfort.

Doors and windows do not need to be set. Where do you get your info?

Typed on the B727, B757, B767, A320

 

[Paulie]

OK in unusual circumstances packs off but there will be no bump because no pressurization.
I understand you guys know how to push the buttons, but have no idea what happens systems wise.
30 years fixing what you guys break at Braniff and American all systems all types they fly/flew.
I can tell you absolutely that you don' t need to "set the seals". B727, DC-10,B747-100, 200 DC-9 , DC-8 (yes I'm familiar when these types) does not pre pressurize, do the seals leak?
When we changed a pax window we had to pry them out.
If your training was anything like Americans, they told you the airplane ends at the aft side of the cockpit door.
Pre pressurization is to avoid the sudden jump in pressure when the squat switches sense airborne.
You may be type rated, but I wouldn't ask a bus driver to explain the how the bus engine works.
BTW Airbus builds a crappy, disposable airplane.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I understand you guys know how to push the buttons, but have no idea what happens systems wise.

Really? Guess you never went through a type ride and the oral exam, or systems ground school.

30 years fixing what you guys break at Braniff and American all systems all types they fly/flew.

In my 30 years in the airline business I never "broke" anything. However the airplane on occasion would have a problem that normal use would require repair.

I can tell you absolutely that you don' t need to "set the seals". B727, DC-10,B747-100, 200 DC-9 , DC-8 (yes I'm familiar when these types) does not pre pressurize, do the seals leak?

I never said "seals". The windows and doors are plug type, the slight pressurization on takeoff would put pressure on them. On the 727 we had a few instances of cockpit sliding windows popping open on takeoff (packs off TO). Boeing recommended packs on TO (except for performance or contamination) to prevent this, along with a check of the latching mechanism. IIRC the B757/B767 manuals also discuss this.

When we changed a pax window we had to pry them out.

Never spoke of passenger windows, only of opening cockpit windows and doors/hatches.

If your training was anything like Americans, they told you the airplane ends at the aft side of the cockpit door.

The training I recieved was very complete and thorough.

Pre pressurization is to avoid the sudden jump in pressure when the squat switches sense airborne.

That is one function. However newer generation aircraft don't get this "bump" on packs off take offs due to the advanced controllers and outflow valves.

You may be type rated, but I wouldn't ask a bus driver to explain the how the bus engine works.

And I wouldn't ask the mechanic to explain advanced aircraft flight operations.

Oh, BTW, I hold an Airframe and Powerplant with Inspection Authorization, so I think I understand systems.

BTW Airbus builds a crappy, disposable airplane.

Your opinion. Check out the sales numbers of Boeing and Airbus when you get a chance.

 

[overdrive148]

 

[3393RP]

Really? Guess you never went through a type ride and the oral exam, or systems ground school.



In my 30 years in the airline business I never "broke" anything. However the airplane on occasion would have a problem that normal use would require repair.

The training I received was very complete and thorough.


And I wouldn't ask the mechanic to explain advanced aircraft flight operations.

Oh, BTW, I hold an Airframe and Powerplant with Inspection Authorization, so I think I understand systems.



Your opinion. Check out the sales numbers of Boeing and Airbus when you get a chance.

 

[Jaybird180]

It would seem, in a high performance aircraft, at high altitude , a new airplane, this gentleman would have had supplemental ox. At his fingertips. This fellow was a seasoned pilot and must have flown at altitude many times. But....as they say " ........happens." A good friend who used to fly for marriott in a Lear said that in the Payne Stewart tragedy, the pilot may not have noticed the warning light on the console in bright sunlight, that told him cabin pressure needed attention before he took off. He said they climbed so fast they quickly ran out of ox. And were out cold in minutes. Anybody?

Climb checklist would address this. Even if it means arresting the climb at a certain altitude until pressurization is verified.

 

[Paulie]

"More than a "bump", it's done to seat the doors and windows."

That's what you stated.
Your airline routinely performs flex takeoffs?
What carrier is it?

Pilots are like actors in that it doesn't take a lot of brains to become one and once they're paid for their job they think they know everything.

I'm not going to argue with you any further, but in my 30 plus years working the line at several airlines I met plenty of pilots that had no idea how the systems work. The airlines do not spend the time and money training flight crews in depth systems training.

You stating that because you hold a AP IA that you worked on transport category aircraft while being a pilot?
Holding a mechanics certificate means nothing if you haven't actually worked the aircraft.
Airbus sells airplanes because they are cheaper than Boeing. As with everything else you get what you pay for.
Ever see a Airbus with 100,000 cycles? They are retired much sooner than Boeings because it is not economically feasible to overhaul them, cheaper to get a new one.
If you ever worked maintenance on Airbus you would know what a poorly designed/manufactured aircraft they are, but no, everything looks great from the cockpit.

 

[N747JB]

One clue for any pilot flying any pressurized airplane that the pressurization is not working on take off, is the changes in pressure as you climb. Especially in jets where you often climb at 2-5000 FPM, it's tough on the old ears! My Conquest is the only pressurized airplane I have flown that requires the pressurization to be turned off on the ground! It is very easy to forget to turn it back on for departure, the airplane reminds you very quickly if you forget..................or so they tell me.
I can't imagine taking off and climbing to altitude with no pressurization and no one noticing, either in this accident or Payne Stewart's, even if the pilot or pilots didn't notice, the passengers would come up front and say something obout their ears popping!

It would seem, in a high performance aircraft, at high altitude , a new airplane, this gentleman would have had supplemental ox. At his fingertips. This fellow was a seasoned pilot and must have flown at altitude many times. But....as they say " ........happens." A good friend who used to fly for marriott in a Lear said that in the Payne Stewart tragedy, the pilot may not have noticed the warning light on the console in bright sunlight, that told him cabin pressure needed attention before he took off. He said they climbed so fast they quickly ran out of ox. And were out cold in minutes. Anybody?

 

[olasek]

So, requiring the "magic words" to be spoken or there isn't an emergency ignores reality.
............
But hey, what do I know. I'm just a low time fomer student thinking about restarting my training...

If you ever go back to training you should learn what this 'reality' is, without it you are bound to repeat mistakes of others. This is not the first accident in which pilot failed to communicate clearly - there is a whole chapter on such accidents, probably Avianca flight 52 at JFK is the most famous such example. And the rules that were developed - what is pilot's and what is controller's responsibility are result of decades of aviation practice/experience and spilled blood, and there are deep reasons for them.

 

[Everskyward]

BS airliners all pressurize before take off to avoid a pressure bump when transitioning to air mode.
Your 1978 is a dinosaur.

Lear 35s do not pressurize before takeoff. I think that's the airplane we were talking about at the time since the poster mentioned Payne Stewart. Many newer airplanes do.

As far as the subject of the original post, it's silly to think that a controller could magically divine that the TBM had a pressurization problem or that it needed an immediate descent from the words the pilot spoke.

 

[Rob P.]

If you ever go back to training you should learn what this 'reality' is, without it you are bound to repeat mistakes of others. This is not the first accident in which pilot failed to communicate clearly - there is a whole chapter on such accidents, probably Avianca flight 52 at JFK is the most famous such example. And the rules that were developed - what is pilot's and what is controller's responsibility are result of decades of aviation practice/experience and spilled blood, and there are deep reasons for them.

Regardless, few seem to understand that we are human. We don't toss out our ability to think because some "rule" says that "unless A happens, don't do B".

And, IIRC, there's a "rule" in the FAR that says (effectively) that any of the rules can be suspended if there's an emergency. So, does someone actually have to SPEAK the magic words or not? I don't remember any FAR that says so.

"Custom and practice" are poor substitues for doing your job to the fullest extent you can. They are, as I said before, excuses. Granted, they are reliable excuses that society supports because it's easier on the lamebrains. But, they are still excuses.

And, nowhere did I even hint that ATC should have somehow flown the plane for the pilot. What I said, baldly and plainly, was that ATC needed to act so that the pilot could fly the plane and assess his indicated problem without worrying about outside issues.

And, there are a couple of factual things that happened that are being ignored. The pilot said he needed to descend. Not "wanted to;" NEEDED to. He also said there was an indication of a problem. So, add those together and what do you get? What solution, if any, would you propose? What did ATC do?

It's not second guessing. When there's a situation that develops in an aircraft and it gets ignored by ATC, then a procedure needs to be developed to avoid that kind of situation in the future.

Or, you can just blame the pilot.

 

[olasek]

And, there are a couple of factual things that happened that are being ignored. The pilot said he needed to descend. Not "wanted to;" NEEDED to.

No, it wasn't ignored or you clearly failed to read this thread.
The pilot could have descended without asking anybody for permission, this was discussed at length, multiple times. But yes, after initiating such descent 'mayday' or 'emergency' declaration is a must which this pilot clearly was reluctant to do.

 

[B350ATP]

Pilot should have declared

period, the end

 

[N747JB]

Pilot should have declared

period, the end

But, that wouldn't have given us 190 posts calling each other poopieheads!

 

[B350ATP]

But, that wouldn't have given us 190 posts calling each other poopieheads!

 

[Jaybird180]

No, it wasn't ignored or you clearly failed to read this thread.
The pilot could have descended without asking anybody for permission, this was discussed at length, multiple times. But yes, after initiating such descent 'mayday' or 'emergency' declaration is a must which this pilot clearly was reluctant to do.

IFR is a cooperative system. I imagine that its difficult to seize control from a CONTROLLER afterall it their job to be in control. I had what I thought was an urgent situation and I will never again hesitate to say the word EMERGENCY.

Thats my takeaway

 

[warthog1984]

Pilot should have declared

period, the end

Pilot should have acted as PIC and headed for breathable altitude

period, the end

 

[RotorAndWing]

Your airline routinely performs flex takeoffs?

Lots of carriers perform FLEX takeoffs. Do you understand what a FLEX take off actually is?

A318/A319/A320/A321 FLIGHT CREW
OPERATING MANUAL

USE OF FLEXIBLE TAKEOFF

The pilot can use flexible takeoff when the actual takeoff weight is lower than the maximum permissible takeoff weight for the actual temperature. The maximum permissible takeoff weight decreases when temperature increases, so it is possible to assume a temperature at which the actual takeoff weight would be the limiting one. This temperature is called FLEXIBLE TEMPERATURE or assumed temperature and is entered in the FADEC via the MCDU PERF TO page in order to get the adapted thrust.

Pilots are like actors in that it doesn't take a lot of brains to become one and once they're paid for their job they think they know everything.

You can actually use that same logic towards mechanics.

Let me be clear, several of my friends are mechanics at my current airline and previous one. I have a lot of respect for them and their job. Like any other profession you will have good ones, and not so good ones.

I'm not going to argue with you any further, but in my 30 plus years working the line at several airlines I met plenty of pilots that had no idea how the systems work. The airlines do not spend the time and money training flight crews in depth systems training.

Let me ask you this, did you ever attend training with the pilots? Did you go through systems training? Did you ever sit for a type rating systems oral?

Of course not. The FAA sets the standard for pilot training, so the airlines don't have the option of "reducing training" as you have implied.

You stating that because you hold a AP IA that you worked on transport category aircraft while being a pilot?
Holding a mechanics certificate means nothing if you haven't actually worked the aircraft.

The majority of my A&P experience is helicopter and GA. My military experience was that of an Avionics Tech, "I" and "O" level, and also working on Phase Inspection crew were we cross trained and assisted the airframe, engines and hydraulics techs. This was on Lockheed Orions (P-3's).

However that doesn't preclude me from understanding what a A, B, C or D check entails or understanding what is written in a maintenance manual for a particular aircraft I operated. Changing a pump is changing a pump, a tire change or brake change is pretty much the same (again, that's what the manual is for) or rigging trailing edge flaps, etc. Any competent mechanic that can read can do any of these functions.

What makes a competent mechanic is someone who understands the use of tools and which tool is proper for the job, can read and comprehend a maintenance manual and understands the basics which every A&P is tested on before earning the certificate. Working on a specific make and model only requires additional training for that type.

Airbus sells airplanes because they are cheaper than Boeing. As with everything else you get what you pay for.
Ever see a Airbus with 100,000 cycles? They are retired much sooner than Boeings because it is not economically feasible to overhaul them, cheaper to get a new one.
If you ever worked maintenance on Airbus you would know what a poorly designed/manufactured aircraft they are, but no, everything looks great from the cockpit.

Again, just your opinion Paulie. You hate Airbus, we get that.

You remind me of a few mechanics I've come to know who sit in the maintenance shack ****ed off at the world. You hate pilots, OK that's obvious as well.

Consider this Paulie. You hate the pilots. They made better money than you, worked in a cleaner environment, had better schedules than you. But without the pilots, you wouldn't have had an airline to work for in the first place, without the pilots they sure don't need mechanics.

Most pilots can do your job with minimal training, but you can't do their jobs without extensive training and years of experience.

Apparently you got in the wrong line during career day at High School. Can't help you with that.

Have a nice day.

 

[RotorAndWing]

IFR is a cooperative system. I imagine that its difficult to seize control from a CONTROLLER afterall it their job to be in control. I had what I thought was an urgent situation and I will never again hesitate to say the word EMERGENCY.

Thats my takeaway

The ATC controller doesn't control the aircraft, he issues clearances and controls the airspace.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Regardless, few seem to understand that we are human. We don't toss out our ability to think because some "rule" says that "unless A happens, don't do B".

And, IIRC, there's a "rule" in the FAR that says (effectively) that any of the rules can be suspended if there's an emergency. So, does someone actually have to SPEAK the magic words or not? I don't remember any FAR that says so.

"Custom and practice" are poor substitues for doing your job to the fullest extent you can. They are, as I said before, excuses. Granted, they are reliable excuses that society supports because it's easier on the lamebrains. But, they are still excuses.

And, nowhere did I even hint that ATC should have somehow flown the plane for the pilot. What I said, baldly and plainly, was that ATC needed to act so that the pilot could fly the plane and assess his indicated problem without worrying about outside issues.

And, there are a couple of factual things that happened that are being ignored. The pilot said he needed to descend. Not "wanted to;" NEEDED to. He also said there was an indication of a problem. So, add those together and what do you get? What solution, if any, would you propose? What did ATC do?

It's not second guessing. When there's a situation that develops in an aircraft and it gets ignored by ATC, then a procedure needs to be developed to avoid that kind of situation in the future.

Or, you can just blame the pilot.

Aeronautical Information Manual

Section 3. Distress and Urgency Procedures

6−3−1. Distress and Urgency
Communications

Chapter 8. Medical Facts for Pilots

8−1−2. Effects of Altitude

Order JO 7110.65V
Air Traffic Organization Policy

Chapter 10. Emergencies
Section 1. General
10−1−1. EMERGENCY DETERMINATIONS

 

[47PILOT]

Why do so many of these types of threads always turn into a such pi$$ing match?
sometimes a bit entertaining, but more often a waist of time.

 

[B350ATP]

Pilot should have acted as PIC and headed for breathable altitude

period, the end

100% agree

 

[roncachamp]

No. What the controller should have concluded was there was a problem with the airplane.

Why?

Now, once the controller concluded THAT, he should have done something other than exhibit indifference to an undeclared emergency. ATC didn't know EXACTLY what the "problem" was, but they DID KNOW that there WAS a "problem."

How was indifference displayed by the controller? The pilot requested lower and the controller responded by issuing the lowest altitude he had available at that time.

IMO, if a pilot calls ATC and says "I have a problem with my airplane and I need to descend" that sort of says that MAYBE that airplane could fall out of the sky (which it did in this case eventually). That "MAYBE" should have been enough for the controller to move the OTHER aircraft out of the way and give priority to the problem aircraft.

Is that what this pilot said?

Add to this is the idea that if I were in another airplane and someone heading at me said "Ummm, there's a problem with the airplane here.." I'd WANT the controller to divert me instead of telling the plane with the flying problem HE's the one who has to turn and wait a bit until they can find time to get back to him on his problem. Having a flaming ball of wreckage hurtling at me from 28,000 feet would ruin my day.

Did another pilot say anything like that in this case?

As for the idea that pilot not saying the "magic words" means there wasn't an emergency; exactly what do you think happened when the pilot stopped saying anything? That's right, they scrambled jets because there was an emergency. Which word apprently no one actually said. So, requiring the "magic words" to be spoken or there isn't an emergency ignores reality.

Has anyone suggested that not not saying the "magic words" means there wasn't an emergency?

Now, having said all of that, the controller probably isn't legally liable. However, he is culpable for contributing to the death of 2 souls through indifference or neglect. The FAA is also maybe equally culpable for failing to properly train controllers to recognize potential emergencies and deal with them in a manner which treats the potential emergency as a priority rather than "We'll get back to you on that...".

Nothing in the report suggests indifference or neglect by the controller.

PIC, busy, tired, AIM, FAR, should have, would have, yada yada yada are all just excuses. The plane had a problem and problems get fixed ON THE GROUND, not at 28, 25, 20 thousand feet up.

But hey, what do I know. I'm just a low time fomer student thinking about restarting my training...

So you're not in a position to supply any meaningful contribution to this discussion.

 

[CTLSi]

roncachamp: Why?

Because the pilot said something was wrong with the aircraft.

How was indifference displayed by the controller? The pilot requested lower and the controller responded by issuing the lowest altitude he had available at that time....

What information says the controller was giving the lowest altitude at the time?

Nothing in the report suggests indifference or neglect by the controller.

Nothing in the dialog suggest the controller was going the extra mile and getting the guy lower, quicker...

So you're not in a position to supply any meaningful contribution to this discussion.

So you think growling a bunch of nonsense makes your dribble a contribution?

 

[ebetancourt]

There seem to be just two camps here. Pilots with an emergency should declare it. Controllers should be ready to treat casual requests as emergencies when they somehow divine that there might be an emergency.

Why do pilots hesitate to declare an emergency? I have never understood the concept.

Ernie