This one is VERY hard to listen to...I'm guessing another "cognitive decline"...

I think there's a balance between being forceful enough on the radio that they know you mean business but being professional and composed enough to work towards the best outcome.
The woman controller and the ground guy were over the top. They're just trying to add insult to injury for no gain. I understand they're severely frustrated but that's not a great excuse to go ballistic. It helps no one.

Wait until the plane is powered down and he's calling you on the recorded line, then you can chew him out and let him know in no uncertain terms how much he ****** up!
 
I think it’s good to let him know he needs to do better during the flight rather than ignoring it until after the flight. However, the way it was done here was not constructive.
 
bbchien said:
"a report of operational violation has just recieved which constitues a reasonable basis for evaluation of your capabilities to exercise duties of pilot in command. Within 60 days from the date of this letter, please submit a neruopsychological evaluation brom a nuerospychologist fmailiar iwth aviation standards...." sigh.
Click to expand...
Yes Doc, he sounds like an aging pilot and he just sealed his fate. Thankfully this may have been caught in time before he hurt others.
I have had to council pilots to reevaluate their flying based on observations and incidents. Thankfully they chose the decision to ground themselves, or only fly with another "seeing eye pilot".

I'm watching myself as I age, hopefully another 10yrs or so.
 
Anthem said:
Sorry. I understand once. But I think it was 4x that he didnt follow heading commands. It was at least 2x that he didnt heed altitude command. He didnt contact ground before moving after clearing the runway. he didnt hold short of runway 24 as instructed. He missed at least 4 calls to his plane because he "missed" instructions. he tried to set up downwind on a runway that they werent landing on. What is that, like 6+ pilot deviations ? At what point do you stop defending the pilot for any transgressions / frustrations that ATC has ? They were fully professional for the first 3 missed calls. After that - this guy is a hazard to everybody else out there. He shouldnt be up there as student pilots soloing follow directions better. He was flat out just flying his own like at an uncontrolled airport and ignoring all instructions. Im not sure he complied with one instruction correctly. . .

Why should others in one of the busiest corridors in the world be in danger and inconvenienced over the repeated transgressions of an incapable pilot ? Because he wasnt belligerant and unprofessional ? Maybe not unprofessional in his responses (which he missed half of), but he was certainly unprofessional in his flying. . .
Click to expand...
Sounds like the D.O. at one charter outfit I worked for.
 
Anthem said:
Um - no, kick him to a smaller airport with less traffic than deal with him in there.
Click to expand...
How you gonna do that when he's not following instructions to begin with? Just get him on the group ASAP so the sake of everyone sharing the sky with him.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that it's a medical issue. If he's been there for 14 years and is suddenly confused, that's meaningful. And another good reason to get him on the ground ASAP.
 
Sounds like local control sent airport Ops (TEB99)out to him. I’m not sure why they’d insist on him copying a number while he’s already in the middle of an active runway. The controllers have a right to be frustrated with him, but professionalism would suggest putting on the kid gloves and gently get him out of the way of the metal that’s queuing up.
 
I said delay incoming traffic for 5” because he needs to get down now.
He wasn’t following instructions- headings, holding short etc- and you want to send him somewhere else-where he’s likely unfamiliar with runways, frequencies, procedures, etc- when he’s a mile from his home field
It adds to the workload which is *already* more than he can competently handle. Thst seems dangerous-To others and this pilot.
 
Anthem said:
Yes. Send him back to where he took off from (which is 30 min away). Where there isnt busy ATC, tower and planes/jets all over. Because he's damn clueless and shouldnt even be in there. Sorry, very little tolerance to that much incompetence. This wasnt just one or two things - this was all over the place. And yes - I think its better if you had just given him a heading to fly and force him to fly it. If you dont give him permission to land - I dont think he would actually try and land it. Just fly him out in whatever direction and get him out of that space. No one needs to be dealing with that there.
Click to expand...
That solution could have some poor outcomes.
I'm at an airport where we have a lot of student traffic and we see our fair share of student pilots f up and get instructions wrong repeatedly. Reading back the wrong thing, doing the wrong thing, going silent and not responding at all, you name it.
ATC can get frustrated but they usually just issue progressively simpler instructions and let them know they're on thin ice.
I can't imagine the outcome would be better if ATC told them to take a hike out of the airspace and go land at an unfamiliar airfield.

This guy was operating incompetently and a total handful - but getting him on the ground was the right maneuver. Sending him out of the airspace so he doesn't disrupt others... no. Besides, what if the next airfield does the same to him?
Now if he was asking to fly in the pattern after that trainwreck interaction? Then sure... tell him no way. It's either land, GTFO, or come back once you've got a CFI onboard to help.
 
I’m not sure sending him anywhere would have helped. They already tried that, how many times? He couldn’t turn to a heading. The only thing that helped was when they told him to follow another aircraft and he was able to do that. I don’t know anything about the guy or why he had problems, but he couldn’t follow directions. Trying to get him out of the airspace, in a safe direction and altitude, might not have worked either. This was an airport he implied he was familiar with and he was completely lost in all dimensions. As far as not answering calls, it seemed like the controllers were being stepped on a few times and he might have been trying to talk at the same time they were.

As far as why his brakes stopped working right at that moment, I got nothing.
 
Last edited:
Anthem said:
I’m going to change this tact a bit. Based on some research - this pilot probably should consider hanging up his flying or it should probably be forcibly removed. If the plane registration matches the owner and pilot - then the age is a factor and probably as some have said that it’s cognitive decline.
Click to expand...
Dan Gryder also speculates like this before all the facts are in. Let's see what happened first. But, yeah, if this is the "new normal" for this guy, he needs to hang it up.
 
Anthem said:
...The facts arent going to come out on this. NTSB iisnt involved. Its between the ATC controllers, FAA and him and you will not hear anything else....
Click to expand...

just curious but when that other knucklehead busted bravo out west somewhere ("I can't copy, I'm flying!") didn't he have a call with the FAA that someone got a hold of as part of FOIA? you know, the one where he said his daughter had to go peepee and that's why he was a complete bumbling yoyo? so, maybe the info WILL be available?
 
Anthem said:
and I totally get that there are potentially better ways to handle that situation. But you have people saying - well - why not just delay 5 or 6 other passenger jets and what not and let this guy land ? Um - no, kick him to a smaller airport with less traffic than deal with him in there.

And using your example - I agree to a a certain extent. But if you told them 6x to do this and they didnt, you'd just kick them out of the OR and get someone else in there. At some point - he is a greater hazard to the patient than help to you. . . - potentially not following directions and giving you the incorrect drug or amount because he isnt listening and isnt doing the correct thing.
Click to expand...
But kicking this guy out of your airspace so YOU don't have to deal with him doesnt mean he's not a hazard to everyone else outside. Potentially including planes inbound to you. If anything it's worse because now you're going to make him attempt to find another airport when he has enough problems getting to the one he already sees. If you're satisfied with "not my problem anymore" and he balls it up...it's probably going to be your problem with the ensuing investigation.
 
eman1200 said:
just curious but when that other knucklehead busted bravo out west somewhere ("I can't copy, I'm flying!") didn't he have a call with the FAA that someone got a hold of as part of FOIA? you know, the one where he said his daughter had to go peepee and that's why he was a complete bumbling yoyo? so, maybe the info WILL be available?
Click to expand...
I believe he said his daughter was "sick". The conversation I believe was with shift supervisor and from memory apologized.

Thats another one where ATC could have done better. Waited until he was well inside the bravo before trying to get him out. Could have given the guy vectors rather than start a ****ing match

He parks the way he flies...But he's a "Centurion"

RDT_20240606_1239496081887728872315576.png
 
Last edited:
Anthem said:
The owner of the plane is 87. Not going to release the name, but pretty easy to find. Assume what you want from that data point. The facts arent going to come out on this. NTSB iisnt involved. Its between the ATC controllers, FAA and him and you will not hear anything else - so not sure what you are waiting for as I doubt you'll get anything else.
Click to expand...
I thought it was kind of sad when he started pleading to be allowed to land. If it really was an issue of declining capacity, that moment seemed to be when he realized it.
 
Racerx said:
I believe he said his daughter was "sick". The conversation I believe was with shift supervisor and from memory apologized...
Click to expand...
my only point being the information may be available, whereas someone else said we'll never know.
 
When you have a guy with half his brain not working, can not hold altitude or change a heading, but has a runway in sight, get him on that runway.

If you try to vector him elsewhere, he will not succeed, and the near inevitable crash will be at a random location.

If you do not clear him to land at your airport, he may do so anyway, as he clearly realizes that he needs to be on the ground.

Once he is on the ground, you can deal with him, including physically taking control of the plane, removing him and arresting him, or taking him to an emergency room.

What is the cost of holding all inbound until you deal with him on the ground? Versus he has a midair with one of those very important inbound airliners that must be served?

That was the real issue, in the short term.
 
Anthem said:
The facts arent going to come out on this. NTSB iisnt involved. Its between the ATC controllers, FAA and him and you will not hear anything else - so not sure what you are waiting for as I doubt you'll get anything else.
Click to expand...
Then it's a good thing we aren't the ones tasked with determining a cause and corrective actions, and that those who are have information not available to the general public.

Nauga,
without speculative fiction
 
geezer said:
When you have a guy with half his brain not working, can not hold altitude or change a heading, but has a runway in sight, get him on that runway.

If you try to vector him elsewhere, he will not succeed, and the near inevitable crash will be at a random location.

If you do not clear him to land at your airport, he may do so anyway, as he clearly realizes that he needs to be on the ground.

Once he is on the ground, you can deal with him, including physically taking control of the plane, removing him and arresting him, or taking him to an emergency room.

What is the cost of holding all inbound until you deal with him on the ground? Versus he has a midair with one of those very important inbound airliners that must be served?

That was the real issue, in the short term.
Click to expand...
What reason would you have to believe that a guy who couldn't turn to a heading, or even turn in the right direction, could safely land the plane. I think it's a miracle that he got on the ground anywhere.
 
coincidentally:

"You have asked us to notify you when a webinar is scheduled that meets your criteria. The following webinar may be of interest to you:

"ABS - Flying As An Older Pilot"
Topic: Presentation On The Effects Of Aging On Pilot Performance And Ways Older Pilots May Fly Safely Longer
On Tuesday, June 11, 2024 at 19:00 Central Daylight Time (17:00 PDT; 18:00 MDT; 20:00 EDT; 14:00 HST; 16:00 AKDT; 17:00 Arizona; Wednesday, June 12, 2024 00:00 GMT)"
 
My instructor told me early on, if you think you might crash, do it at an airport, they are equipped for airplane crashes. They also have direct lines to ambulances and hospitals. He was primarily addressing finding that I was up in an increasing crosswind situation, but the general rule is a good one.

The goal is to save your life, not the plane or your airman's certificate.

Hind sight proves he could at least get the plane on the runway without dinging it.
 
First, 911 does not take you to the ambulance, you go to a center which separates crank calls from real emergencies, then forwards the call to the appropriate service.

Airports push one button, and the phone rings at the fire station. I have landed with a fire truck and an ambulance paralleling me on a taxiway. Very reassuring following an electrical fire in the radio stack.

Recently, my wife dialed 911 for a fire at the house behind us. The operator wanted the house number, and phone number of that house, so she could call and verify there was a fire there. They were new residents, we did not have their phone number, and due to a 90 degree turn in our street, we were in an east west numbering set, they were north south, so no relationship. 10 minutes after the call, a fire truck arrived from 2 miles away, close enough that we heard the station siren go off as the truck departed. The fire was slow developing, so moderate damage.

Calling 911, where do you specify the crash is going to happen, especially if you are on a cross country?

PS, My instructor was giving me his view in 1957, dial phones, no cell phones, no 911. The Geezer has been flying a long time. He has also called 911 many times, and the response can be very good, or very bad. Radio calls to my power company dispatcher, who relayed through direct lines to the appropriate emergency dispatcher, gave near instant dispatch. The airports have similar direct lines, no debate whether it is a real emergency.


Another PS, Do you think that pilot could make a coherent call on 911, and direct them to the location of his impending crash? And simultaneously continue to fly his plane?
 
Last edited:
geezer said:
My instructor told me early on, if you think you might crash, do it at an airport, they are equipped for airplane crashes. They also have direct lines to ambulances and hospitals.
Click to expand...
This would be (mostly) true if you added "towered" before the word airport. I agree that it's best to crash at an airport for many many reasons, but the level of crash response varies a lot at uncontrolled fields.
 
Also remember that someone effing up like that in TEB, also affects airplanes going into EWR, LGA, and probably a few more.
It’s not just about inconveniencing a few into TEB.
 
Anthem said:
and I totally get that there are potentially better ways to handle that situation. But you have people saying - well - why not just delay 5 or 6 other passenger jets and what not and let this guy land ? Um - no, kick him to a smaller airport with less traffic than deal with him in there.

And using your example - I agree to a a certain extent. But if you told them 6x to do this and they didnt, you'd just kick them out of the OR and get someone else in there. At some point - he is a greater hazard to the patient than help to you. . . - potentially not following directions and giving you the incorrect drug or amount because he isnt listening and isnt doing the correct thing.
Click to expand...
ATC maybe should have sent him elsewhere. But they made a decision not to do that. The problem is that they executed their decision with an utter lack of professionalism (with one exception). Yelling, threatening, insulting both directly and publicly to other professionals, etc. have no place in any professional context (except for the context of those being your profession, which is not applicable to ATC).

Professionalism in any field, in my book, means maintaining the same level of competence and decorum no matter how difficult things are or how badly they are going. Neal Armstrong's heartrate hit 150 on short final to Tranquility Base, an approach that was challenging enough even if it hadn't been riddled with unexpected guidance computer errors, but you wouldn't guess that it exceeded about 35 beats per minute if you listen to the tape. Listen to the ATC audio of the Miracle on the Hudson and you won't catch the slightest deviation from decorum even though Sullenberger and Skiles were as busy as a one-armed paper-hanger in a windstorm trying to bring their airplane back to life or at least make a forced landing that someone would live to tell about, all while Betty was screaming at them to pull up. (ATC did a great job on that one, too. If the same controllers from this thread were at KTEB tower back in 2009, it makes even more sense to go for the Hudson instead.) Stevie Ray Vaughan would keep playing his heart out with a broken string until his tech brought him a fresh guitar mid-song, never missing a beat.

When your profession involves talking to people whose lives are to some degree in your hands, there is no excuse for acting like an angry toddler. Full stop. That goes double when the person you are talking to is struggling to keep it together, for any reason. I understand that the culture in that part of the country might have a greater degree of acceptance for that flavor of impatient unprofessionalism than elsewhere. If so, that doesn't make it any less unprofessional. If you call 911 with a bleeding femoral artery, do they just scream at you repeatedly to "stop ****ing bleeding and calm the **** down" until your heart stops and then tell your colleagues what a disaster you were?

The pilot probably should not have been in the air at all that day, much less in challenging airspace. We don't know if he was fine when he took off and got a dose of carbon monoxide in the air or if he stole someone's car keys to go flying despite doctor's orders that he isn't fit to leave the house. We don't have any defense for him other than speculation. But this isn't a zero-sum game and it is possible that more than one person was in the wrong. No part of how this amateur pilot conducted his flight gives the professional controllers an excuse for how they conducted themselves.
 
Last edited:
Anthem said:
Why should others in one of the busiest corridors in the world be in danger and inconvenienced over the repeated transgressions of an incapable pilot ? Because he wasnt belligerant and unprofessional ? Maybe not unprofessional in his responses (which he missed half of), but he was certainly unprofessional in his flying. . .
Click to expand...
Because the guy was clearly in trouble and needed help. The reason didn't matter then, get him on the ground safely and without killing anyone, including himself.

Unless you just don't care if someone kills themselves (and maybe others) because of a helmet fire or worse (stroke mid flight maybe). He needed to be on the ground, do what's necessary to get him there.
 
Anthem said:
You can define amateur or professionals the way you want. I imagine you are saying that professionals that do fly for a living. My guess is that the majority of "professionals" and "amateurs" alike in that airspace, dont want that guy in that airspace. the "disaster" comment on frequency was already after he was on the ground. If you are against the admonishment on "frequency" - fine. But I just flew out of KTEB yesterday. Been regularly flying in there (two times this month already). I actually asked some of the grounds people there. Yes he does park there - a couple FBO's dont even want his business (although i think they are down to 2 there since Signature took over 3 others). He is a known issue there. The FAA hasnt pulled his certs yet but everyones opinion is that he shouldnt be flying. there was /no/ medical emergency that day. This is supposedly /normal/ and all the time with this pilot. He feels entitled to fly there and comes up with various excuses to sound legit when he constantly makes mistakes. This isnt the first and has happened a few times - he just ignores it and keeps on flying. All hearsay - of course, but hey - better than anything else.

My issue with this - is that everyone wants to criticize the controllers. Hey I'm even criticizing by saying I think they should have sent him elsewhere. But every one wants to seem to give the pilot a light "pass" saying - maybe he had a medical emergency, maybe a stroke or whatever. Lets confirm and say no medical personnel was called that day. Maybe he is just too old to be flying - period. End stop. And apparently he'll just flying because until something major happens outside of copying numbers that he seems to ignore - which might explain why the controllers asked for someone to track him down and stop him. The question is - how many times does this have to keep happening ? You say professionals dont get to act this way. Guess what - pilots dont either - and I consider what this pilot did or did not do - much more egregious.

And let’s be clear - Im agreeing that perhaps this could have been handled better. I wrote that in an earlier post. Im saying let’s look at the entirery of the situation here - roast the pilot that caused this, and not the first time. The controllers could have done better - and they also knew who they were dealing with. Which is also why there was another controller who took over part of it.

And if you’re wondering if I actually flew out of there yesterday - here is the ForeFlight d-atis you get when filing flight plans there along with the negative pdc notice for a filed flight plan.
Click to expand...
You keep writing that people here want to give the pilot a pass. I don't see that anywhere in the thread. Like I said, the only excuses we can think of for the pilot come from speculation. I have no reason to doubt your information about the pilot's issues.

What I don't understand is your seeming insistence that the controllers get a pass for their unprofessional conduct. I doubt that was the only time they have acted like amateurs on the air. But even if it was, there's simply no excuse for it. They earned every criticism they are getting in this thread.
 
Anthem said:
ahh interesting. comments are being deleted. . . . by said admin no less. . . I dont see the comment I replied and quoted to anymore. Not that that changes anything but still a small annoyance when past historical things are being debated. uncool. .. .

but when you justify what the pilots actions are that day - maybe he had a medical. He needed to get down. Maybe he had a stroke. Maybe he had a helmet fire. Those are all in my definition pilots here trying to deflect and giving the pilot a pass.

Ive flown in to that airspace quite frequently these days. Ive found them all to be professional and courteous. Do they expect you to be on your game ? absolutely. And everyone generally is (professionals or amateurs). The airspace and the airwaves are super congested. I have no problem with what they said or did. They didnt spend 5 minutes admonishing him while putting others in jeopardy. Could they have done better ? Absolutely. Does a public flogging maybe get a point across - maybe as well.

But what I dont get is that there is more criticism thrown at the controllers rather than the pilot. . What allowances should be made for someone flying within very congested and problematic airspace. I mean you could easily be shot down if you flew the wrong way in some areas (especially a presidential TFR) and not following directions. But why are we not just addressing the original issue ? maybe because the pilot is one of "us" and we want to blame others over looking within ?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't characterize any of that as giving the pilot a pass. He certainly deserved the PD, investigation, and possibly 709 ride if he even gets to keep his certs. While I don't agree with some of the harsher criticism of ATC, I do think this could have been handled differently. Do you agree it's possible that everyone involved could have done better? At the end, he's on the ground, so I don't know what value assigning "fault" or "blame" has. It's more about learning to do better in the future.
 
Last edited:
I think the pilot said he was based at that airport. Do you think the controllers had prior experience with him and his, ahem, skill level?

(or am I not remembering correctly?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top