TBM Crash May Implicate ATC

[roncachamp]

Well, the controller could have given the guy a lower altitude on initial request.

What is the hard evidence that supports that conclusion?

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.

What was in the pilot's first transmission that made it clear to you that this was a "Hypoxia deal"?

 

[JeffDG]

What is the hard evidence that supports that conclusion?

All controllers are mind-readers. That's the evidence that would be needed to support the assertion.

 

[roncachamp]

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.

Are you a pilot?

 

[Dr. O]

As Goose said, 'come on Mav, do some of that pilot ****'
The FAA in all of it's wisdom has declared you to be PIC, so 'command'.
Now, when the controller goes home that night and tells his wife all about this &^%hole pilot who snarled his traffic flow - at least you will still be alive to not give a **** . . .

 

[roncachamp]

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.

FL14 would be 1400 MSL, if Flight Levels were used at such altitudes in the US.

"Nine Hundred Kilo November, we need to descend to about 180," the pilot informed the controller, sounding coherent and calm. "We have an indication that’s not correct in the plane."

Had I been the controller I would have given the pilot the lowest altitude I had available, probably FL240 if traffic was not a factor, entered 180 in the computer, and initiated a handoff to the low sector controller. I may have also wondered briefly what type of incorrect indication would be corrected by descending to FL180.

Had the pilot instead said something like, "Nine Hundred Kilo November, we need to descend to about 180, we have lost pressurization." I would have immediately issued FL240, turning other traffic as necessary to avoid collision, and coordinated with the sector below for descent down to 10,000.

 

[JeffDG]

I may have also wondered briefly what type of incorrect indication would be corrected by descending to FL180.

Off the top of my head, as a pilot who doesn't fly anywhere near FL, and not a controller, about the only thing I can think of is something to do with RVSM.

 

[Velocity173]

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 agree. You can't just be giving an immediate descent to 10,000 ft simply because a pilot reports a problem. Example, the aircraft I fly requires a descent below 8,000 ft for a fuel boost pump failure. Has nothing to do with hypoxia and I wouldn't expect them to declare for me either. If you don't communicate the nature of the problem to ATC, they can't offer assistance.

Also, there are medical conditions that sound like hypoxia but it's something else. I used to talk to this guy on position almost every night:
http://kathrynaviationnews.com/?p=143277

While he wasn't at an hypoxic altitude on the flight, he commonly flew in the flight levels on other flights. He chose the best course of action for his condition. Told ATC he had a medical problem, put the aircraft on AP and flew out to sea. Unfortunately, like hypoxia, once someone exhibits the signs of a serious medical condition, usually it's too late for the controller to do anything about it.

 

[roncachamp]

Off the top of my head, as a pilot who doesn't fly anywhere near FL, and not a controller, about the only thing I can think of is something to do with RVSM.

RVSM affected FL290 through FL410.

 

[CTLSi]

What is the hard evidence that supports that conclusion?



What was in the pilot's first transmission that made it clear to you that this was a "Hypoxia deal"?

Once again, the pilot reported 'something wrong' with the aircraft. The controller could have been alerted to that and when the pilot asked for a lower flight level anticipated the problem given the circumstances and said simply, 'descend and maintain one-zero-thousand feet' ignoring the pilots obviously incorrect request.

 

[roncachamp]

Once again, the pilot reported 'something wrong' with the aircraft. The controller could have been alerted to that and when the pilot asked for a lower flight level anticipated the problem given the circumstances and said simply, 'descend and maintain one-zero-thousand feet' ignoring the pilots obviously incorrect request.

Only in your fantasies.

 

[Henning]

Once again, the pilot reported 'something wrong' with the aircraft. The controller could have been alerted to that and when the pilot asked for a lower flight level anticipated the problem given the circumstances and said simply, 'descend and maintain one-zero-thousand feet' ignoring the pilots obviously incorrect request.

No he didn't, he said he had an incorrect indication. That does not come close to the standard of something that should elevate the controller's level of concern. We are the pilots, we deal with little stuff gone wrong all the time that is nothing close to an emergency. It's up to the pilot to assure the safe conclusion of their flight and they have the authority to act on that in any way they deem necessary. When you declare the rules are suspended and the airspace is yours as required. Even when a controller declares for a pilot, there are only a limited number of commercial flights now where the controller can do anything except get people out of the way.

 

[Matthew]

Once again, the pilot reported 'something wrong' with the aircraft. The controller could have been alerted to that and when the pilot asked for a lower flight level anticipated the problem given the circumstances and said simply, 'descend and maintain one-zero-thousand feet' ignoring the pilots obviously incorrect request.

huh - I wonder if it works in reverse? C172 requests higher (say, 6000), for whatever reason (turbulence maybe), controller anticipates problem and says "Climb and maintain FL280"?

 

[3393RP]

...when the pilot asked for a lower flight level anticipated the problem given the circumstances and said simply, 'descend and maintain one-zero-thousand feet' ignoring the pilots obviously incorrect request.

You keep saying this...it's never going to happen, and it shouldn't.

You are wrong. When you rephrase it again, you'll still be wrong.

 

[Everskyward]

To me, the statement, "We have an indication which is not correct." is too vague to mean much of anything. My first thought would be that the indication is possibly false, not that there is necessarily anything wrong. But I fly an airplane which can tend towards hypochondria. Not only that but we are sitting here analyzing that statement, sitting in front of a computer. The controller only heard it once, in the middle of working other traffic.

 

[N747JB]

Once again, the pilot reported 'something wrong' with the aircraft. The controller could have been alerted to that and when the pilot asked for a lower flight level anticipated the problem given the circumstances and said simply, 'descend and maintain one-zero-thousand feet' ignoring the pilots obviously incorrect request.

I've been flying a little over 30 years and have yet to have a controller tell me to decend 18,000 feet unless it was my request or part of the standard arrival to an area. It just don't happen that way!
Had he stated he had a pressurization problem or declared an emergency, sure they would have moved heaven and earth to get him down, but sadly he didn't.

 

[N747JB]

An "incorrect indication" can be anything from a mag compass spinning around to a master caution light blinking in your face. Maybe the standby gyro just quit? I have had several indications in the cockpit that I may have hoped were incorrect, but I treated them as real and most of them were. I had a battery over temp light on in the Citation, ni-cad batteries can overheat and cause fire! I assumed it was correct and followed the checklist, landed and discovered the battery had indeed overheated and had to be replaced!

 

[comanchepilot]

The correct communication in that situation is:

"XXX Center, TBM 900KN is declaring an emergency and is in an emergency descent to 12000 with a pressurization problem."

That is the correct a) action before you communicate and b) the correct statement after you are in the descent and are heading in the right direction. AVIATE NAVIGATE COMMUNICATE.

 

[roncachamp]

The correct communication in that situation is:

"XXX Center, TBM 900KN is declaring an emergency and is in an emergency descent to 12000 with a pressurization problem."

That is the correct a) action before you communicate and b) the correct statement after you are in the descent and are heading in the right direction. AVIATE NAVIGATE COMMUNICATE.

Too wordy. The "is declaring an emergency and" part is unnecessary.

 

[PaulS]

An "incorrect indication" can be anything from a mag compass spinning around to a master caution light blinking in your face. Maybe the standby gyro just quit? I have had several indications in the cockpit that I may have hoped were incorrect, but I treated them as real and most of them were. I had a battery over temp light on in the Citation, ni-cad batteries can overheat and cause fire! I assumed it was correct and followed the checklist, landed and discovered the battery had indeed overheated and had to be replaced!

Speculating here.... disregarding whether he was hypoxic or not when he made the initial call, I think this guy thought he had an instrumentation issue versus a pressurization issue. In my mind, any safety indication, should be treated as real even if you don't believe it.

To me that means that you take action immediately if you get a cabin pressure indication, get safe( oxygen mask) and to safety (breathable altitude), sort out the indication later. I think that is a good attitude for a pilot to have....

 

[MooneyDriver78]

You keep saying this...it's never going to happen, and it shouldn't.

You are wrong. When you rephrase it again, you'll still be wrong.

You replying to someone who's only flying experience is 100 hours of Microsoft flight simulator, you're wasting electrons.

 

[Henning]

An "incorrect indication" can be anything from a mag compass spinning around to a master caution light blinking in your face. Maybe the standby gyro just quit? I have had several indications in the cockpit that I may have hoped were incorrect, but I treated them as real and most of them were. I had a battery over temp light on in the Citation, ni-cad batteries can overheat and cause fire! I assumed it was correct and followed the checklist, landed and discovered the battery had indeed overheated and had to be replaced!

$$$$$

 

[comanchepilot]

Perhaps. I've had pressurization problems at altitude before and requested ATC for lower and told them I had a problem. They would usually ask if it's an emergency and I would respond "Not at this time, we just need to get down to FLxxx and work this out".

Would not any 'FL' be too high with a pressurization issue?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Would not any 'FL' be too high with a pressurization issue?

Depends upon the situation. If I'm in an airplane with 2 packs and one goes inop, going down to a lower flight level will be within limitations for a 1 pack operation.

I've also had pressurization controller issues (fluctuating out flow valve) where going down to a lower level the fluctuation stopped and the system stabilized.

 

[comanchepilot]

Depends upon the situation. If I'm in an airplane with 2 packs and one goes inop, going down to a lower flight level will be within limitations for a 1 pack operation.

I've also had pressurization controller issues (fluctuating out flow valve) where going down to a lower level the fluctuation stopped and the system stabilized.

I see what you mean - ok.

 

[B350ATP]

Pilot should have declared as soon as the safe outcome of the flight was in question. Nobody on here knows what the "indication problem" was, so everybody arguing with each other is not going to change what remains, and that is, don't hesitate to declare.

The foundational theme is the lack of declaring. Had he declared, ATC would have treated it different.

The other camp which thinks ATC should read minds will be the same one that complains "ATC is trying to fly my plane"

If you smoke in bed and burn the house down, don't then complain that the fire department response time may have saved your house.

Lets put blame and accountability where it should be assigned.

 

[CTLSi]

Pilot should have declared as soon as the safe outcome of the flight was in question. Nobody on here knows what the "indication problem" was, so everybody arguing with each other is not going to change what remains, and that is, don't hesitate to declare.

The foundational theme is the lack of declaring. Had he declared, ATC would have treated it different.

The other camp which thinks ATC should read minds will be the same one that complains "ATC is trying to fly my plane"

If you smoke in bed and burn the house down, don't then complain that the fire department response time may have saved your house.

Lets put blame and accountability where it should be assigned.

You mean on the dead pilot, right? The point of this whole discussion is not so much this pilot and his not calling an emergency. Obviously had he done so ATC would have been jolted into giving him an oxygen altitude despite his error in calling for a higher FL.

It is really for the future. Can we, should we ask that ATC look at high altitude distress calls and act to getting a pilot down quickly erroring on the side of caution and the possibility that the pilot may not be able to think clearly enough to ask for the correct lower altitude themselves...

 

[roncachamp]

You mean on the dead pilot, right? The point of this whole discussion is not so much this pilot and his not calling an emergency. Obviously had he done so ATC would have been jolted into giving him an oxygen altitude despite his error in calling for a higher FL.

It is really for the future. Can we, should we ask that ATC look at high altitude distress calls and act to getting a pilot down quickly erroring on the side of caution and the possibility that the pilot may not be able to think clearly enough to ask for the correct lower altitude themselves...

There was no distress call. There was a report of an incorrect indication.

 

[B350ATP]

You mean on the dead pilot, right? The point of this whole discussion is not so much this pilot and his not calling an emergency. Obviously had he done so ATC would have been jolted into giving him an oxygen altitude despite his error in calling for a higher FL.

It is really for the future. Can we, should we ask that ATC look at high altitude distress calls and act to getting a pilot down quickly erroring on the side of caution and the possibility that the pilot may not be able to think clearly enough to ask for the correct lower altitude themselves...

Well, who do you have in mind. ATC? The dead guy, was the PIC. Or maybe I got all this confused and the dead guy was not the PIC nor was he responsible for acting like a PIC or communicating malfunctions or emergency situations to ATC. I guess since he is sadly, now, dead, then post accident discussion of this should absolve him of any responsibility ?

Whether he is dead or alive has nothing to do with being responsible for being a Pilot in Command.

As the thread starter, I recognize your passion for this topic. However, this accident was not caused by ATC. Had he declared an emergency, the outcome would likely be different.

 

[CTLSi]

Well, who do you have in mind. ATC? The dead guy, was the PIC. Or maybe I got all this confused and the dead guy was not the PIC nor was he responsible for acting like a PIC or communicating malfunctions or emergency situations to ATC. I guess since he is sadly, now, dead, then post accident discussion of this should absolve him of any responsibility ?

Whether he is dead or alive has nothing to do with being responsible for being a Pilot in Command.

As the thread starter, I recognize your passion for this topic. However, this accident was not caused by ATC. Had he declared an emergency, the outcome would likely be different.

i do not blame ATC as I said in an earlier post. We all agree the pilot was responsible to declare an emergency. I am simply saying shouldn't we wonder whether a Hypoxia situation where a person can become incapacitated and lose awareness be treated a little differently by the only person in the convo that could do that? Namely the controller?

 

[JeffDG]

i do not blame ATC as I said in an earlier post. We all agree the pilot was responsible to declare an emergency. I am simply saying shouldn't we wonder whether a Hypoxia situation where a person can become incapacitated and lose awareness be treated a little differently by the only person in the convo that could do that? Namely the controller?

Jeez...

The issue isn't that the pilot never used the "e" word. The use of that word is not relevant.

The issue is: no reasonable controller would have deemed there to be any kind of distress situation based on what the controller knew at the time.

Incorrect indication is not, in any reasonable universe, a phrase that would be interpreted as "distress"

 

[TriGear28]

Pilots are required to have a high altitude endorsement. Not controllers. Controllers are also not expected to be familiar with the systems involved on all a/c nor know how to react to undefined readings from an instrument panel they cannot see. They do their best but the controller really is flying blind here, more so perhaps than the pilot they are trying to assist.


Consider this. If the controller was a pilot with high altitude training he may not think there is an issue regarding pressurization if the pic requested fl180 instead of 10k.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TriGear28]

At first when I saw he only requested 18k, I assumed he was already hypoxic. But then I saw where the enunciation lights at <10k. It may have lit up, he said, let's get down 5/10k and see when the light goes off. When it does, we arein the clear. But it was too late.

 

[roncachamp]

i do not blame ATC as I said in an earlier post. We all agree the pilot was responsible to declare an emergency. I am simply saying shouldn't we wonder whether a Hypoxia situation where a person can become incapacitated and lose awareness be treated a little differently by the only person in the convo that could do that? Namely the controller?

You're absolutely right. The controller should have immediately recognized that the pilot's statement, "We have an indication that’s not correct in the plane", could only mean that the pilot was hypoxic and implemented the ATC hypoxic pilot action plan.

Now let's move on.

 

[kevin7500]

...and implemented the ATC hypoxic pilot action plan.

I knew it! After 2001 all new planes were equipped with secret access codes that permitted ATC access to the flight controls, effectively turning the plane into a drone. Surely, this brand new TBM had this system installed.

Why didn't the controller simply access the control systems and bring the plane to a lower altitude himself?

 

[JeffDG]

I knew it! After 2001 all new planes were equipped with secret access codes that permitted ATC access to the flight controls, effectively turning the plane into a drone. Surely, this brand new TBM had this system installed.

Why didn't the controller simply access the control systems and bring the plane to a lower altitude himself?

Simple. Cuba hasn't been keeping up with their Chemtrail spraying, so this TBM was flown over Cuba to up their dose.

They knew that without an accident like this, people would be suspicious, so they had to sacrifice the pilot to the cause.

 

[jesse]

Pilots are required to have a high altitude endorsement. Not controllers. Controllers are also not expected to be familiar with the systems involved on all a/c nor know how to react to undefined readings from an instrument panel they cannot see. They do their best but the controller really is flying blind here, more so perhaps than the pilot they are trying to assist.


Consider this. If the controller was a pilot with high altitude training he may not think there is an issue regarding pressurization if the pic requested fl180 instead of 10k.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some planes can cruise in the flight levels without a pilot holding which alto due endorsement. Malibu is a good example of that. Max ceiling is FL250 which means no endorsement needed. You can still get into plenty of trouble at fl250.

 

[warthog1984]

Some planes can cruise in the flight levels without a pilot holding which alto due endorsement. Malibu is a good example of that. Max ceiling is FL250 which means no endorsement needed. You can still get into plenty of trouble at fl250.

This TBM was at FL280, which means the high-alt endorsement was needed. OTOH, the SR-22T is IMO dangerous because it's certified ceiling is FL250 but it can actually physically go much higher. How many Cirrus pilots run into this trap?

 

[jesse]

This TBM was at FL280, which means the high-alt endorsement was needed. OTOH, the SR-22T is IMO dangerous because it's certified ceiling is FL250 but it can actually physically go much higher. How many Cirrus pilots run into this trap?

I can't imagine wanting to fly a cirrus much that high. There would be nothing comfortable about that.

 

[weilke]

This TBM was at FL280, which means the high-alt endorsement was needed. OTOH, the SR-22T is IMO dangerous because it's certified ceiling is FL250 but it can actually physically go much higher. How many Cirrus pilots run into this trap?

I dont know about any Cirrus, but a couple of years ago someone in a Mooney Bravo thought that cruising at FL250 was a good idea:

CEN09FA610

 

[Henning]

You mean on the dead pilot, right? The point of this whole discussion is not so much this pilot and his not calling an emergency. Obviously had he done so ATC would have been jolted into giving him an oxygen altitude despite his error in calling for a higher FL.

It is really for the future. Can we, should we ask that ATC look at high altitude distress calls and act to getting a pilot down quickly erroring on the side of caution and the possibility that the pilot may not be able to think clearly enough to ask for the correct lower altitude themselves...

Yes, the dead pilot. He is the only one operating the plane, he is the only one that screwed up. Until the controller gets telemetry both ways to the aircraft systems, the controller can do nothing for him except keep traffic out of his way. First though,the pilot has to make the controller aware.