Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Warlock, Jun 9, 2016.
Keepest thou thy flying speed...
Yes not if the controller wanted a heading of 030 specifically. But a controller will say "turn thirty degrees left" for a reason, like avoiding weather, for spacing, etc.
My comment had nothing to do with the interaction between atc and the actual pilot but how a large group of pilots have all listened to the exact same recording and there must be 20 differing opinions on the instructions that were given. They all can't be right... So at least some of the pilots here, would have heard the instructions and gotten it wrong too. I'm not saying they would have crashed, but mistakes would have been made.
Or she's Bessie Coleman on a good day and was suffering from a TIA or some other medical event. Could have even been CO in the cockpit. Maybe by your standards she'd still be incompetent.
Agreed. This video from a few weeks ago was in a class D which is under the Houston Bravo. (Forward the video to about 8:00 for the pattern.) After being cleared on early downwind, I got a go-around command right when I was about to flare. This was because of a Falcon jet that Approach handed over behind me. I can blame this go-around on the jet coming in too fast, the controller's sequencing, and/or myself (not tight enough). The important thing is that we all worked together to resolve the issue. However I do admit that this was nothing compared to the stress from a Bravo approach.
Correct, I posted a page from JO 7110.65, it clearly states that turns can be in group form, that's thirty instead of 0 3 0, but the controller clearly states "heading thirty degrees", which tells me even the controller was getting confused and mixed terminology.
No, it absolutely does NOT say that. The controller CANNOT say "thirty" instead of 030. You are conflating 5-6-2 a.1 with a.2. "Group form" is only an option under a.2 which is referring to an amount of heading change. The controller should not have used the word "heading" but using group form as in "thirty degrees" sends a crystal clear signal that the instruction was to change heading by 30 degrees, not fly heading 0 3 0. Again, see also AIM 4-2-10.
No dog in this dumb thread's "fight" whatever it is, but just a note that the above, if it's what was said, is incorrect phraseology. It's either "turn left 30 degrees", or "turn left heading zero three zero".
This crap CAN contribute to accidents, as much as people tend to blow it off.
And so many would be afraid or not care enough to clarify.
I was flying last week, Houston controller refused to call me by my proper call sign, but I kept correcting her until she shipped me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Huh? How is it crystal clear? If the controller said, "turn left heading 30 degrees," he apparently used non-standard phraseology. Even if you have the pilot-controller glossary memorized, what mind-reading powers make it clear that the instruction he meant to give was "turn left 30 degrees" and not "turn left heading zero three zero"?
P.S. FWIW, I would have interpreted the instruction the same way she apparently did because of the word "heading." Maybe that makes me incompetent and/or I should go read the AIM again.
Because he said "thirty degrees" and not "zero three zero." Why is this so hard?
But he also said "heading." Why is this so hard?
BTW, I don't know if he said that or not, but that's what's reported above. At least one transcript has the controller not saying that, but the pilot saying it on her readback and the controller not correcting her. I'm not going to listen to the tape. Obviously, if you receive an ambiguous instruction you should seek clarification. But most pilots probably have never heard of JO 7110.65 and might not even know such an instruction is ambiguous.
I listened to the recording, heard the word "heading", and made the same assumption it looks like she did.
I did as well. I might have noticed the non-standard "30 degrees" instead of 030 and asked for clarification, but I might not have in real life. And speaking as a high time CFII who does not always get things perfectly right every time either.
I just listened to the tape again in case I missed something.
I agree with virtually everything you say in this post.
The difference is you say "she was asked for a level of skill beyond her experience level".
I call that incompetent to handle the task that she signed up for.
Part of the obligation of a competent pilot (and I see this very often here on POA) is knowing your personal limitations as well as what you're "authorized" to do. She clearly had no business doing that.
Heck, it wasn't even all that busy for a B airport.
As an example, I am qualed to fly many different jets around the world into European, Asian and African countries. If I was asked to do so I would be the first one waiving the white flag and asking for further training.
Well I'm not a medical expert but I do have first hand experience of someone gooing through TIA's. From the sound of her admittedly competent tone I'm guessing that's not the case.
She couldn't line up with runways, didn't know to descend, and ATC had to prompt a go around.
Does that sound like a competent PP to you??
I didn't know asking you direct questions on your quote of a quote was trolling, but I'll assume your answer to my question is "Yes, training matters."
It sounds to me she was out of sorts; maybe is was the first class Bravo experience, maybe she was getting "help" from the passengers, maybe it was the ambiguous instructions and changing instructions from ATC or maybe she overreacted when the controller emphasized making a tight turn while she was slow and still climbing....a momentary lapse of judgment.
I was told my certificate is a license to learn, she didn't learn fast enough, her biggest mistakes was not rejecting 35 runway or not leaving when things started becoming messy. I hope AOPA does one of their safety videos on this one.
Exactly- a simple question from the pilot is what is needed.
"Tower do you want me to turn left 30 degrees or turn and maintain a heading of zero three zero?"
Guys I notice a trend on this forum that concerns me. Many expect a level of perfection from ATC and other pilots that is often not there. If you flew around in New York airspace all the time like I do, you'd grow to respect that ATC has an often insanely demanding job and wants to be as clear as possible. That being said, they often don't use exact phraseology and honestly, I don't care. If I've been given an instruction and I understand it, I do it. If I get an instruction that I don't understand I ask. It's a simple premise that many of us in our non-pilot lives must live by. In 5 years of flying around the busiest airspace in the country, I've never been chewed out by a controller once simply by operating under the rule, "ask when I don't know if I'm understanding the instruction."
Why all of the emphasis on the "30 Degree" instruction? If I'm not way off, that was well prior to when she started the fateful final maneuver. I hear controllers make mistakes often enough, but I don't think this one has any responsibility in this accident. Pilot lost control for whatever reason.
We expect pilots not to run out of fuel or stall/spin the aircraft. Thats not entirely an unreasonable expectation or level of performance.
That's not what I'm talking about. There are about 3 pages of replys about if ATC said an instruction that was phrased wrong. Please, that's just arguing for arguing sake.
IMHO she didn't sound incompetent. All this speculation is just that, speculation. Hopefully the investigation will shed light on this accident. A more experienced pilot might have asked for a different runway or even avoided Hobby altogether but the cause of the crash is really unknown at this point. With the amount of heavy traffic into and out of Hobby, wake turbulence might even have been a player. My only experience with wake turbulence happened to be overhead Hobby with no "caution, wake turbulence" call from the tower and no airiliner in sight. Fuel remaining or fuel management might be a contributing factor. We just don't know at this point. Calling the pilot incompetent is premature until all the facts are determined.
At one point (when doing her go around on 04), the controller said that he was calling her right base now. Did he mean, "turn right base now," or "standby for me to call your right base"? Seems this confusion may have contributed to her overshooting 35. Of course, that's not really causal of the accident any more than her decision to go flying was.
Welcome to the forums
I had an electrical problem at night (alternator completely came apart and rotated) within 9 seconds my battery exploded . I was near my home field directly over a highway. I had smoke in the cockpit, but all gauges running well. Had fire extinguisher ready and all electrical turned off, vented the smoke after insuring no in cockpit flames. Uneventful landing, but after putting it away I imagined if I had augered it in instead and bought the farm, and if the NTSB couldn't tell about the alternator and battery cause due to crash damage ... well, I'd be getting a lot of pilot error, shouldn't fly at night posts here regarding my "wreck"
Not to mention that as near as I can tell, the phrases being argued about would not have affected the outcome of this accident.
I can see the report now: "Probable cause: Pilot error. Contributing factors: Pilot apparently distracted while playing with fire extinguisher and turning off electrical for unknown reasons."
A theme I've seen in the thread is that the pilot might have been overwhelmed or task saturated. A misunderstood phrase might have added to the stress level after it was pointed out. I doubt it bothered her when it was given because she repeated it and made the turn she thought was issued. But when the controller came back and said he didn't know what she was doing, did that get in her head? I dunno.
My condolences to the family and friends.
This thread is worse than the presidential campaign tweets, as poorly understood, blown out of proportion, and totally misconstrued. Watch the video matched with the audio. When the controller called for a left 30 degrees, it was to set her up for a downwind to 35; without which she wold have flown straight through the extended center line of 35 and into the final for 4. I am not sure I would have interpreted that any different given the circumstances but she was neither downwind nor base to 35. And I did hear a couple of different voices from the ATC side. Were they not coordinated? Were they reacting to how she was flying? And I am not faulting the controllers. They were certainly busy with other traffic but did a good job helping her out.
There is a statement attributed to the military "Train like you fight; fight like you train." There is nothing that says once you get your license that you cannot take your favorite CFI out for a spin around the patch. In fact, I think after you've had sufficient time to build up some bad habits, you seek them out to remold the clay. Don't wait for the flight review. Your proactive might save you some aggrevation. There is also the WINGS program to do.
The old saying "you can have 100 hrs of experience, or you can have 1 hour of experience a hundred times", comes to mind.
Any pilot who flies a piston single into a busy airport like Hobby had better be ready for unexpected changes such as go arounds or switched runway assignments. If they aren't, they need to pick a different/slower airport to land at and drive the rest of the way.
Granted, the controller's phraseology would have confused me too... I'd expect "turn left heading zero-three-zero" or "turn thirty degrees left" but not a combination of the two.
If the pilot had positioned herself on a downwind for 35 as instructed, the heading change instruction wouldn't have been necessary.
I agree, and never suggested otherwise. I simply commented that could have easily added to the stress level/confusion/frustration. Should any pilot who flies a piston single be immune to stress? Unlikely, but some handle it better than others. Unfortunately that can have fatal effects.
Listening to the audio, I agree and believe she was overwhelmed or task saturated. My point is that the controller's instructions that are being argued about were early enough in the audio clip that that she was flying long after that. Even if she was confused about what to do with those instructions she did at least another couple circuits around the airport after that point.
Immune to stress? No.
Capable enough to handle the stress this situation presented? Without a doubt.
A lot of posts here and unfortunately the pilots performance and end result would suggest that this pilot was under a fair amount of stress.
Anyone reading this thread or listening to the audio of this event, while sitting firmly in the comfort of terra firma, and finds themselves feeling stressed or thinking this situation was a "high stress evolution", I'd suggest staying far away from busy airspace until further training has occurred for them.
IMO, and it's only that, this whole event is not something that anyone who was prepared to enter the airspace should have died from.
Was she a component pilot? Perhaps. She might have been Chuck Yeager 364 days out of the year. Unfortunately, the day her competency was called into question, it killed her.
This is not meant as a snide remark towards her or her skillset, but unless there was a structural/mechanical failure of the aircraft, her abilities and her abilities alone as a pilot killed her and 2 other individuals.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looking at the ground track in the video posted a few pages back it appears to me that she started her base turn immediately after being cleared and instructed to land #2 to the airport following the jet traffic landing on rwy 4. By turning immediately she appeared to get too close to the jet, making the spacing suboptimal and the tailwind also blew her past the extended centerline of 35. I believe that prompted the controller to give the heading correction instruction, after she said she wasn't lined up on 35.
Ultimately, I think she was overloaded and trying to comply exactly with the controller's requests, so much so that it made matters worse. At my local towered airport we often get instructions like "make straight in for rwy 30" even when we're about 45 degrees offset. Someone taking that instruction 100% literally might have responded similar and asked the controller what to do rather than just moving over to runway centerline and coming in to land.
This thread went from 'learning experience' to 'Narcissistic Ego M-bation'.
Lock it up.
No one would label you as an "incompetent pilot" if you weren't up to that particular task. The fact you recognize your limitations is a tribute to your judgement borne of lots of experience. Sadly, she hadn't acquired enough experience to adequately recognize her limitations in this case, which I find sad. So I will continue to refuse to label her with that pejorative.
Watching this video it seems pretty clear that she was lined up on the runway more or less, four times and failed to execute a landing on a huge runway from at least a two mile final. She was lined up on 04 once and could have landed 04 a second time. She was lined up on 35 three times and failed to get down. If you can't get the plane down in VFR conditions onto a 6000 or 7000 x 150 runway, I think there are serious issues with basic flying skills.