ATC Communication Problems? m/w Mad citation Pilot vs ATC

I hope he's the owner of the LLC and the plane... If not, that's going to be some carpet dance he'll be doing for his boss. :eek: :D

And it will be a bit before I can go back and dig up what Approach he was yelling about at first that he didn't want to do. Do you know which one it was and what's wrong with the Approach?
 
M20K said:
what Approach he was yelling about at first that he didn't want to do. Do you know which one it was and what's wrong with the Approach?
Click to expand...
He asked for the "widest approach into 11L at KTOA" (whatever that means). After that, he was complaining about not being able to do the RNAV 11L.
 
First time I've ever heard someone on an IFR flight plan not being able to find the destination airport due to "sun glare".

The pilot informed ATC that he saw the airport on his GPS, which should have circumvented the need to declare an emergency and bully ATC to build him a personalized custom instrument approach in very busy and confined airspace.

I think a 709 ride is certainly justified for this guy.
 
asicer said:
After that, he was complaining about not being able to do the RNAV 11L.
Click to expand...
There was also some talk about the mountains. But the ILS and both RNAVs come in over the water and the VOR is along the coastline. So if there's not more to this story that was edited out of the recording, it would seem that this guy's got some serious issues. :D
 
Other than a wrong frequency, what was a violation? Is threatening to declare an emergency or refusing to call ATC a violation?
 
He is (was) flying a citation 5 into Torrence CA. After basically berating the controller because he apparently couldn’t make a turn, unclear about other instrument approaches, couldn’t use another approach to avoid traffic at LAX (who stayed very professional) he ultimately said “emergency “. She (controller) took that as a real emergency. They stopped arrivals at LAX to allow him to land.

I suspect he is at least having an uncomfortable conversation with the FAA. And likely seeing a 709 ride in his future.
 
Why would a 709 ride address the attitude of that guy?
 
Bob Noel said:
Why would a 709 ride address the attitude of that guy?
Click to expand...

His attitude was the least of his transgressions. What appears to be his inability to fit into the IFR system and fly a standard RNAV instrument approach without extra assistance from ATC could be the justification for consideration of a possible 709 ride.

I only listened to the tape once a couple of nights ago so I may be mistaken, but it seems things went sideways when this guy realized he wasn't' going to fly the ILS. Maybe he, or the aircraft, was not prepared or equipped for an RNAV approach? If that's the case a 709 ride could be a beneficial learning experience.
 
Last edited:
I think he wanted the RNAV 11L but they couldn't give it to him due to LAX traffic. They were using an approach to 29R, circle-to-land 11L and he didn't think that was safe in a Citation V, for some reason. He wanted a wider left-downwind.

I don't think he needs a 709 ride, he needs an anger management class!
 
Most pilots are "normal", but it seems flying attracts a slightly higher percentage of arrogant Karens and Drama Kings mixed with spoiled. These are the people who will give you advice on your golf swing after they just met you. They also cut in line at the grocery store.

"I'm in command - I have the power of life and death! Ha ha ha ha!"
 
Clip4 said:
Other than a wrong frequency, what was a violation? Is threatening to declare an emergency or refusing to call ATC a violation?
Click to expand...
There may be more to it, but I did not hear a Brasher warning. Even if it were, refusing to call is not a violation.

Threatening an emergency? Maybe. It sounds like ATC treated it as an emergency, referring to it as "the emergency aircraft" to another. I have not heard of a case in which a pilot was busted for a bogus emergency declaration, but I guess I can see a basis for a 91.13 violation depending on other circumstances.
 
midlifeflyer said:
There may be more to it, but I did not hear a Brasher warning. Even if it were, refusing to call is not a violation.

Threatening an emergency? Maybe. It sounds like ATC treated it as an emergency, referring to it as "the emergency aircraft" to another. I have not heard of a case in which a pilot was busted for a bogus emergency declaration, but I guess I can see a basis for a 91.13 violation depending on other circumstances.
Click to expand...
If they want to, they could violate him for any deviations under the regulations that weren't "required to meet that emergency," since that's all that 91.3 permits. That would be any rule deviation if there wasn't actually an emergency. I'm sure the FAA is loathe to do that though and be seen as questioning emergency authority and possibly discouraging pilots from declaring.
 
I usually am unhappy with the idea that the FAA will burn you if they get it up their nose to burn you, regardless of regs violated.

Here, I see the application for that state of affairs and am glad for it.
 
Last edited:
Larry in TN said:
I think he wanted the RNAV 11L but they couldn't give it to him due to LAX traffic. They were using an approach to 29R, circle-to-land 11L and he didn't think that was safe in a Citation V, for some reason. He wanted a wider left-downwind.

I don't think he needs a 709 ride, he needs an anger management class!
Click to expand...
Yeah. He was adamant about wanting the RNAV 11L. He was saying I’m gonna declare an emergency and do the RNAV 11L. She was saying she’d have to coordinate with the Controller doing departures at LAX. It looks to me like that Approach was designed to clear departures off 25R. They almost always land on the outboards and depart on the inboards at LAX so 25L shouldn’t be an issue although it provides separation from those also.

1784564070998.png
 
Lindberg said:
If they want to, they could violate him for any deviations under the regulations that weren't "required to meet that emergency," since that's all that 91.3 permits. That would be any rule deviation if there wasn't actually an emergency. I'm sure the FAA is loathe to do that though and be seen as questioning emergency authority and possibly discouraging pilots from declaring.
Click to expand...
I agree there a a few ways to go about it if they want to. Maybe even tie it into 91.123.
 
Talk about Main Character Syndrome!

Knowing only what is revealed in the VASAviation videos, it seems like the appropriate course of action would be to issue an emergency revocation. No 709s. No time outs. No stern talking-tos. In this incident, the PIC exhibits behaviors (personality traits, perhaps) that are often causal or contributing factors of accidents. He should be grounded, permanently.

As an aside, the use of emergency authority when no actual emergency exists, just to get an approach different from those offered by ATC, is a total gaping a-hole move. That alone should merit certificate action.

It concerns me that we have to share the airspace with specimens such as this, each an accident-waiting-to-happen, and the world would be a better place if they were riding Greyhound instead of flying an airplane. I hope the Chief Counsel agrees.
 
This popped up on my feed from yesterday. Can someone explain to me why he is so mad with ATC. He seems obsessed with not flying his citation over the mountains.
 
Maybe he's just really bad at making RT turns.. Someone looked the aircraft up and it seems he's some very popular Doctor with quite a bit of legal trouble so maybe he does know the feds well.
 
francisco collazos said:
Can someone explain to me why he is so mad with ATC. He seems obsessed with not flying his citation over the mountains.
Click to expand...
That's the $100 question. Is he really an entitled idiot, OR.... Is there something earlier on the recording we don't hear?

Based on what we do hear of the Controller, the entitled idiot is the leading theory, but without the whole recoding, who knows. And I really don't get the comment about the mountains. Pretty much any direction he would have come from he would have flow over actual mountains vs the "hills" right around the airport.
 
Now I am curious. Is a bad attitude and being an obnoxious twit against the regs?

What actually can they bust him for? Did he create an unsafe condition for his flight? Do they want to come down on someone for declaring an emergency?

Tim
 
Larry in TN said:
I think he wanted the RNAV 11L but they couldn't give it to him due to LAX traffic. They were using an approach to 29R, circle-to-land 11L and he didn't think that was safe in a Citation V, for some reason. He wanted a wider left-downwind.

I don't think he needs a 709 ride, he needs an anger management class!
Click to expand...
From listening to what he says at about 5:45, it sounds like the previous controller had told him to expect ILS11 with a left traffic circle to land. It would appear that he had trouble dealing with a new set of instructions from the local ATC....
 
StraightnLevel said:
From listening to what he says at about 5:45, it sounds like the previous controller had told him to expect ILS11 with a left traffic circle to land. It would appear that he had trouble dealing with a new set of instructions from the local ATC....
Click to expand...
They were using either the ILS 29R, or RNAV 29R, circle-to-land 11L. The 11L approaches would only be available when LAX was in the (rare) east operation such as with strong winds from the east.
 
Larry in TN said:
They were using either the ILS 29R, or RNAV 29R, circle-to-land 11L. The 11L approaches would only be available when LAX was in the (rare) east operation such as with strong winds from the east.
Click to expand...
Where did you hear that? I’m not seeing the RNAV 11L having any more/less impact on LAX 7 arrivals than 25 departures.
 
luvflyin said:
Where did you hear that? I’m not seeing the RNAV 11L having any more/less impact on LAX 7 arrivals than 25 departures.
Click to expand...
The controller on duty said that they would normally use the ILS 29R, but with the G/S OTS, they were using the RNAV because the 29R G/S was OTS. This was in the email to VASAviation that he posted in the third video.

The SoCal controller said that they couldn't use the RNAV 11L due to it infringing on LAX traffic. Since the approach exists, I'm extrapolating that it would be able to be used with LAX in the east configuration due to high winds which would also require 11L at TOA when the weather wouldn't permit the circle-to-land.
 
Lindberg said:
If they want to, they could violate him for any deviations under the regulations that weren't "required to meet that emergency," since that's all that 91.3 permits. That would be any rule deviation if there wasn't actually an emergency. I'm sure the FAA is loathe to do that though and be seen as questioning emergency authority and possibly discouraging pilots from declaring.
Click to expand...
The FAA doesn't "violate" a pilot. The pilot is the one that has done some form of violation. The FAA could take certificate action but they don't "violate" anybody and never have.
 
asicer said:
There's a third video?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'd go back and listen... but are there three videos that have different audio clips? Is there more to the story if you listen to all three?
 
M20K said:
I'm not sure I'd go back and listen... but are there three videos that have different audio clips? Is there more to the story if you listen to all three?
Click to expand...

the third video has whiny baby complaining about not getting to taxi when he wants. There's a little bit of audio from the day before, but the third video is more about the next day.
 
Roger Wilco said:
Talk about Main Character Syndrome!

Knowing only what is revealed in the VASAviation videos, it seems like the appropriate course of action would be to issue an emergency revocation. No 709s. No time outs. No stern talking-tos. In this incident, the PIC exhibits behaviors (personality traits, perhaps) that are often causal or contributing factors of accidents. He should be grounded, permanently.

As an aside, the use of emergency authority when no actual emergency exists, just to get an approach different from those offered by ATC, is a total gaping a-hole move. That alone should merit certificate action.

It concerns me that we have to share the airspace with specimens such as this, each an accident-waiting-to-happen, and the world would be a better place if they were riding Greyhound instead of flying an airplane. I hope the Chief Counsel agrees.
Click to expand...

Nailed it.

1784596353622.png
 
Absent the attitude, there would have been nothing wrong with the pilot refusing the route over the mountain or the original approach if is was for a articulable safety concern. There is also nothing wrong with ATC not authoring the approach when they can’t provide separation.

The first controller should have issued a hold and worked the problem with the adjoining TRACON or simply asked what alternate the pilot wanted. If the pilot had declared an emergency, he would have violated 91.3(b) because he did not have “In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action,”.
 
Based on the way this pilot conducted himself, my guess is that he will refuse to answer phone calls from the FAA. Even if his certificate is revoked, he will probably continue to fly.
 
sarangan said:
Based on the way this pilot conducted himself, my guess is that he will refuse to answer phone calls from the FAA. Even if his certificate is revoked, he will probably continue to fly.
Click to expand...
I suppose he could attempt that, but the revocation would likely also have a civil fine and the government is pretty good at collecting.
 
Clip4 said:
The first controller should have issued a hold and worked the problem with the adjoining TRACON or simply asked what alternate the pilot wanted.
Click to expand...

Yes. Happened to me. Approaching the destination from the west, was offered a choice of one of either of two RNAV approaches. Going around the north side of airport and landing to the southwest, or flying around the airport to the south and landing to the northwest.

Conditions were night, calm/light winds, in low IFR conditions. Instead, I requested the ILS to the northeast in order to have high intensity lead-in rabbit lighting instead of just REIL's, and less time in the air.

Controller said sure, you can have the ILS, but he'd have to spin us in a hold for around 20 minutes due to inbound traffic. So, took the shorter distance around the south side and flew the RNAV landing to the northwest... the rabbit wasn't worth 20 minutes in a hold. No drama or animosity involved. Painful listening to this guy in SoCal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top