TBM Crash May Implicate ATC

ebetancourt said:
Why do pilots hesitate to declare an emergency? I have never understood the concept.
Click to expand...
Human factors at their best.

1. inconvenience- incomplete mission - all of a sudden a well planned trip is cut short. Perhaps I can still save it?
2. there is something wrong with a brand new $4 mln airplane - can't be, disbelief.
3. I have flown for so long and never had a problem, could this be my fault, perhaps situation is not so dire after all, lets wait and see.
 
Last edited:
Rob P. said:
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.
Click to expand...
§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.
Click to expand...
Note that it allows the pilot to act contrary to the FARs if needed to respond to an emergency.
 
Denial is the first stage in any problem, you don't see what you don't want to see. "I have a bad indication" note he didn't say what indication, just a bad gauge, don't even want to think about losing pressure "I can't really be having an emergency". (How people would expect a controller to interpret that into an emergency is really kind of beyond me and I'm not sure they're cut out for the responsibility of being PIC). He never got past denial though before he lost the ability to be effective.
 
Henning said:
Denial is the first stage in any problem, you don't see what you don't want to see. "I have a bad indication" note he didn't say what indication, just a bad gauge, don't even want to think about losing pressure "I can't really be having an emergency". (How people would expect a controller to interpret that into an emergency is really kind of beyond me and I'm not sure they're cut out for the responsibility of being PIC). He never got past denial though before he lost the ability to be effective.
Click to expand...


The fact that it was a new plane probably affected his thinking, he may not have been familiar with the systems, the POH is like a 1000 pages long, not counting other pilot guides, or he was thinking it can't be that serious, this is a brand new plane?
 
teejayevans said:
The fact that it was a new plane probably affected his thinking, he may not have been familiar with the systems, the POH is like a 1000 pages long, not counting other pilot guides, or he was thinking it can't be that serious, this is a brand new plane?
Click to expand...

I doubt there is a significant difference in the pressurization system from the 700 or 850 which he had considerable time in from my understanding.
 
There is a change from 850 to 900 how pressurization works, the TBM brochure says that now pressurization settings are completely automatic.
 
olasek said:
There is a change from 850 to 900 how pressurization works, the TBM brochure says that now pressurization settings are completely automatic.
Click to expand...

Well that simplifies everything doesn't it. It eliminates all options but descent.
 
teejayevans said:
The fact that it was a new plane probably affected his thinking, he may not have been familiar with the systems, the POH is like a 1000 pages long, not counting other pilot guides,
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how many pages the AFM is, or how complex the systems. The PIC should have a good working knowledge of the aircraft, and most importantly know the emergency items.

But, under Part 91 operations, training requirements and currency are rather slim. The insurance typically is more controlling, but that to can be gotten around.
 
ebetancourt said:
Why do pilots hesitate to declare an emergency? I have never understood the concept.

Ernie
Click to expand...

I have said before that I am quick to declare an emergency.

But there are psychological factors at work that, in a real emergency, often keep pilots from declaring.

First, there's that 3 to 5 seconds it takes most to get beyond the "Huh? What???" stage. Deer in the headlights and all that. We like to think we can react instantaneously to problems, but that's an illusion.

Second, there's denial. "This can't be happening. Can it? Might be just an instrument, or..."

And at that altitude in that amount of time one's decision making processes may already be impeded.

I virtually guarantee you that if the accident pilot was on this thread discussing another pilot's actions, he'd be advocating a quicker response and an immediate declaration and descent.

As I've quoted before, Warren Zevon sang, "You're a whole 'nother person when you're scared." Best to keep that in mind as one types out exactly what they would or would not have done in a given situation. You don't really know.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself in this thread, but the same themes keep recurring.
 
Not only psychological but physiological changes as one adapts as well. Adrenaline is a powerful drug.
 
CTLSi said:
Because the pilot said something was wrong with the aircraft.
Click to expand...

The pilot said, "We have an indication that’s not correct in the plane."

What information says the controller was giving the lowest altitude at the time?
Click to expand...

This:
The controller at that point told Glazer to stand by, and moments later cleared N900KN to descend to FL 250, to which the pilot responded more emphatically, "250, and we need to get lower, Nine Hundred Kilo November."

ATC next informed the TBM of opposite traffic ahead at FL 240 and instructed the pilot to turn left 30 degrees, which the pilot acknowledged. Nearly two minutes elapsed before ATC appears to clear the flight to FL 200. Glazer, slurring his speech, appears to acknowledge the instruction.
Click to expand...

So you think growling a bunch of nonsense makes your dribble a contribution?
Click to expand...

No.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Doesn't matter how many pages the AFM is, or how complex the systems. The PIC should have a good working knowledge of the aircraft, and most importantly know the emergency items.
Click to expand...
Oh come on :rolleyes2: I'll bet every pilot on this board has flown planes without reading the POH and manuals cover to cover.
Furthermore, some I'll bet they brag about it...when asked about some equipment they don't know: "I'm a stick and rudder guy". Like that's all you need
 
Last edited:
teejayevans said:
Oh come on :rolleyes2: I'll bet every pilot on this board has flown planes without reading the POH and manuals cover to cover.
Furthermore, some I'll bet they brag about it...when asked about some equipment they don't know: "I'm a stick and rudder guy". Like that's all you need
Click to expand...

I've read the POH cover to cover for both planes I've flown. :dunno:
 
This was not have happened if the pilot and controller were women.
 
ebetancourt said:
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
Click to expand...
Same reason people quietly drown
 
Jaybird180 said:
This was not have happened if the pilot and controller were women.
Click to expand...

Not sure it would make a difference on the controller end, but from my experience training women offshore, I can see the argument for the pilot case. They are much more likely to use the published procedure they were trained on exactingly.
 
Remember, in this instance, both pilots were Hypoxic. He was probably buried and confused and didn't 'think' to declare or realize he was sinking into an emergency. He started to slur his words minutes into the ordeal.
 
Rob P. said:
No. What the controller should have concluded was there was a problem with the airplane.

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.
Click to expand...

All are good points and there are many controllers who would have made at least a cursory inquiry as to the nature of the problem. However, until ATC procedures are changed that is the "reality" in which we fly. The takeaway is the three cardinal rules for handling any emergency or abnormal situation: maintain aircraft control, assess the situation, and take proper action.
 
CTLSi said:
He was probably buried and confused and didn't 'think' to declare or realize he was sinking into an emergency.
Click to expand...
If he was hypoxic and unable to realize emergency then most likely little could have been done to save him at that point short of superman flying to his aircraft. It is certainly not part of controller's job description to guess severity of the problem.
 
CTLSi said:
Remember, in this instance, both pilots were Hypoxic. He was probably buried and confused and didn't 'think' to declare or realize he was sinking into an emergency. He started to slur his words minutes into the ordeal.
Click to expand...
So when I fly drunk it is ATCs responsibility to save me? Awesome. I'm gonna start turning on the radio when I get to the bottom of the bottle.:lol:
 
ClimbnSink said:
So when I fly drunk it is ATCs responsibility to save me? Awesome. I'm gonna start turning on the radio when I get to the bottom of the bottle.:lol:
Click to expand...

Well, the controller could have given the guy a lower altitude on initial request. Coulda, shoulda, woulda kinda thing...

I think the FAA should take heed on these Hypoxia deals...and automatically have ATC clear to 10k feet or lower on first call no matter what the pilot requests.
 
CTLSi said:
and automatically have ATC clear to 10k feet
Click to expand...
They can't clear to something he didn't ask, he requested FL180 which by the way is still way too high. Also, I repeat, no where in his conversation was there a clear indication of pressurization problems, pilot may request lower altitudes for many other reasons, controller is not a pilot, he can't start query pilot and help him debug whatever problems he is facing, he is controlling many other airplanes at the same time.
 
Last edited:
The controller would have if the pilot declared. Better yet the controller would have made room if the pilot had descended first and asked permission later. It is no one else's job to keep you alive up there. Accept that or take up bowling.
 
olasek said:
They can't clear to something he didn't ask, he requested FL180 which by the way is still way too high. Also, I repeat, no where in his conversation was there a clear indication of pressurization problems, pilot may request lower altitudes for many other reasons, controller is not a pilot, he can start query pilot and help him debug whatever problems he is facing, he is controlling many other airplanes at the same time.
Click to expand...

Sure they can. The pilot asks for FL14, the controller says cleared to one-zero-thousand feet... No controller has to give a pilot what they ask for in fact. Such requests are REQUESTS.

Try asking for a runway sometime. Sometimes you get it, sometimes you get told to fly long base and turn final to a different runway. Depends on traffic and how the controller wants to manage his airspace.
 
CTLSi said:
Well, the controller could have given the guy a lower altitude on initial request. Coulda, shoulda, woulda kinda thing...

I think the FAA should take heed on these Hypoxia deals...and automatically have ATC clear to 10k feet or lower on first call no matter what the pilot requests.
Click to expand...

He did give him a lower altitude on initial request. He gave him 250 and 4 minutes later 200.

So you're saying anytime a pilot requests lower for a problem, they should automatically consider it an emergency and clear them to 10,000?
 
teejayevans said:
Oh come on :rolleyes2: I'll bet every pilot on this board has flown planes without reading the POH and manuals cover to cover.
Furthermore, some I'll bet they brag about it...when asked about some equipment they don't know: "I'm a stick and rudder guy". Like that's all you need
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

But my point is that one is a fool to do it. It's one thing not to read a POH on a 150hp SEL fixed gear airplane that flies less than 110 knots, it's entirely another thing to fly a high performance pressurized turbine powered airplane with complex systems and procedures and not understand it.
 
teejayevans said:
I'll bet every pilot on this board has flown planes without reading the POH and manuals cover to cover.
Click to expand...
I admit I din't read cover to cover but POH aren't really meant to be read this way. There are performance table, graphs, etc - you don't 'read' them. But I knew all the limitations and emergency, abnormal procedures plus I knew how to use the rest of the stuff in case I needed it. If for example I forgot how soft field takeoff is executed I knew where to find it.
 
i have read the POH cover to cover. And I took the checklists from them for preflight and emergency and created my own adding other critical items, laminating them, and keep them in the plane.
 
teejayevans said:
Oh come on :rolleyes2: I'll bet every pilot on this board has flown planes without reading the POH and manuals cover to cover.
Click to expand...


Tom leads me to an interesting observation.

I was asked to ferry a friend's Mooney from MI to FL. I spent some time reviewing the POH before the flight.

It's the one on the left:

8952196629_cca38cbe4d_c.jpg


On the right is a training manual for an SR22, very similar in scope and size to the POH provided with the plane.

It's hard for me to imagine reading that cover to cover - its huge. And if you buy a new Cirrus, its only one manual of many to cover all the avionics and systems in the plane*.

TMI stands for Too Much Information, and I think that's become a problem in the massive documentation that accompanies some new, technologically advanced aircraft. There's just so much fluff its hard to find the info you really need.


*If a Cirrus owner feels so inclined, I'd be curious as the the total number of pages of documentation provided with a new Cirrus. It probably won't equal the size of the nation's tax code, but I'll bet it comes close!
 
Velocity173 said:
He did give him a lower altitude on initial request. He gave him 250 and 4 minutes later 200.

So you're saying anytime a pilot requests lower for a problem, they should automatically consider it an emergency and clear them to 10,000?
Click to expand...

That seems to be the thrust of the position, yes.

Personally, I see nothing in the transcript that would lead a reasonable controller to the conclusion that there was any kind of "emergency".
 
I'd say people are more likely to read the POH on a mid-60's Cessna cover to cover than a new TBM 900, as Fast Eddie pointed out the old Cessna books are 30-40 pages at most, while the TBM's flight manual is probably closer to 500 pages, all in. :eek: But, as you know turbine drivers do go to initial and recurrent training, this SHOULD insure they know the systems.;) While I've read my POH's and flight manuals, including most of the supplements, I learned most of the systems in ground school.:D

RotorAndWing said:
Perhaps.

But my point is that one is a fool to do it. It's one thing not to read a POH on a 150hp SEL fixed gear airplane that flies less than 110 knots, it's entirely another thing to fly a high performance pressurized turbine powered airplane with complex systems and procedures and not understand it.
Click to expand...
 
Jeez.

All you guys with all your judgments and pontificating:


  • Were you there in the cockpit?
  • Do you know what this pilot was seeing and experiencing?
  • Do you know what his physical and mental condition was?
  • Did you quiz him and determine that he was not familiar with the POH?
  • Ditto the controller; were you there?
  • Do you know what was going on in the controller's airspace?
  • Do you know what his physical and mental condition was?
  • Do you know what technical knowledge the controller might have had regarding pressurization systems and hypoxia?

The only known facts are (1) that the pilot did not declare an emergency and (2) the controller did not recognize that there might be a serious problem.

I think the only valid conclusions that can be drawn are (1) that it is unfortunate that the pilot did not, for unknown reasons, declare an emergency and (2) that it is unfortunate that the controller did not conclude, from limited clues, that there was a problem.

Everything else is speculation verging on wild guesses and, in many posts IMO, unbelievable arrogance.
 
It is the pilots job to do your number (1) It is not the controllers job, nor are they trained to do your number (2)
The failure was the pilots and the pilots alone.
 
airdale said:
I think the only valid conclusions that can be drawn are (1) that it is unfortunate that the pilot did not, for unknown reasons, declare an emergency and (2) that it is unfortunate that the controller did not conclude, from limited clues, that there was a problem.
Click to expand...
The only valid conclusions from al this limited info:

1. The pilot did not do his job (or some extraordinary technical circumstances prevented him from doing his job)
2. The controller did.
 
Last edited:
warthog1984 said:
3. The pilot died while the controller got to go home to the wife and kids at night.
Click to expand...
Yeah, controllers normally return to their homes, their job doesn't carry any inherent risk, they sit in their chairs and don't do 300 kts at 28000 feet, the same can't be said about pilots. And typically they don't own $4 mln aircraft and don't fly on weekends to their summer homes in Florida.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top