LiveATC Discussion Forums
Air Traffic Monitoring => Aviation Audio Clips => Topic started by: stfitts on March 29, 2007, 08:51:10 PM
-
Anyone have the clip of the AAy flight coming down in SFB??
-
Video is here (http://www.local6.com/news/11441316/detail.html).
I'm editing up the clip now. Almost 2 hours of recordings with lots of dead air to sort thru.
Here's a teaser for now....
-
Ok, here it is. It's a long clip - 6:33
There's a seaplane driver that gets really pissed for being vectored around the airspace.
I cut out lots of silence and most of the transmissions to/from all the news choppers that were hovering around like vultures.
Also bleeped out the tower phone number at the end.
-
Really appreciate it - While I understand the thinking of the seaplane there was NO reason for him to be such a punk about it. Rules are rules - the tower is not doing it to be mean.
-
It is unfortunate that the seaplane pilot failed to understand that their was actually an emergency going on at the airport, specifically an air carrier, which gains presidence over a seaplane, anyways. The pilot acted as if the controller himself decided out of the blue that he would vector the seaplane out of the way. The explanation by the controller on why the vector was needed was very clear, yet the pilot still did not comprehend the situation in full.
Very professional job by controller.
-
Wow, that seaplane guy is a real idiot. No excuses for that kind of behavior.
-
Dumbass! Listening to that pilot was like watching a trainwreck. It's people like him that give the rest of us a bad name, not to mention ceding ground to opponents of general aviation who want to further restrict airspace and close smaller airports.
I'm completely angered and horrified by that exchange...
-
wow that seaplane =\
-
I should point out at the 5:04 mark you hear the controller say "looks good", and one of the helo pilots say "looks good from this side too". This was in response to the landing.
Also, the Lake Jessup the seaplane driver keeps mentioning is entirely inside Sanford's class C. If he was over any part of the lake, then he was inside the airspace. He was told to circumnavigate the class C and he violated that by flying over the lake.
-
All the irate pilot had to do was drop below 1,300 feet and he would have been below class C airspace (once past the inner ring surrounding the airport) and free to turn to the north much earlier. Of course, he most likely didn't have a sectional chart handy to know that and therefore came across the dolt that he made himself out to be.
edit: Added note about inner ring for clarification
-
I believe he was already at 500 or below, but SFB's class C goes to the surface in the area he was in. Lake Jessup is the big lake to the southeast of the airport. The controller was trying to get him outside the inner ring.
I think he did have either a sectional or a GPS on board. When he did finally clear the airspace you hear him say "we're showing outside your airspace so we're turning north now. goodbye". And then of course he went on another 2 minutes trying to argue with the controller. :roll:
(http://www.biffshangar.com/images/misc/ksfb_c.jpg)
-
Lake Jessup is the big lake to the southeast of the airport. The controller was trying to get him outside the inner ring.
Ah, my mistake. I didn't know the area and assumed that Lake Jessup was the next lake over to the east there. My Jepp Flightstar software didn't have the names on the lakes when I looked at the airspace.
So what was he complaining about then? Going a few miles more to the east. Come on....
Thanks for the correction.
-
I think he did have either a sectional or a GPS on board. When he did finally clear the airspace you hear him say "we're showing outside your airspace so we're turning north now. goodbye".
Didn't see your above comment when I originally replied. In regards to having a GPS on board, whether it were a handheld or a certified IFR unit, either unit doesn't necessarily display altitudes of class B and C airspaces without some extra keystroke and/or pointer manipulation. Thus, I agree he would be aware of the borders via the moving map but not the altitudes.
Of course, now that we are talking about the inner ring, altitude is irrelevant since the class C airspace there starts at the ground and goes all the way to the class B airspace at 3,000 feet.
How about some math to further demonstrate this pilot was nothing but a whiner. That inner ring is only 10 nm wide from west to east. He mentioned he was approaching from the southwest so lets call his diversion 7 nm direct east and perhaps 7 to the north (two sides of a triangle, rather than the base) until he was back on course, as opposed to a direct line of 10 miles northeast. Thus, he actually flew about 4 miles greater than his preferred route.
Landings.com reports that his tail ID is a Maule M-7-235B (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1063176/M/) that burns about 14 gallons per hour. Assuming a ground speed of 110 knots, it took our wayward friend an extra 2 minutes to fly the extra 4 nm. Two minutes at 14 gallons per hour equates to an extra 1/2 gallon of fuel used to divert.
Lets assume an above-average US $5.00 per gallon of 100 LL aviation fuel (average 100LL in the US is around $3.90/gal). That would mean our friend spent an extra US $2.50 to go around the airspace.
-
lol... That's about right.
If he had circumnavigated the class C as he was told, instead of boring straight into it, it wouldn't have been all that much of a diversion. His destination was Lake Ashby which is northeast of the airport. It would have only required a slight bend in his route to avoid the airspace.
I wonder if he called the tower today. Wish I had a recording of that. :-P
-
I agree that the seaplane pilot was a dolt.
Did the controller use the correct verbiage or should he have said "remain clear of the class C airspace"? I ask that because I wonder why they wouldn't have been pissed at the guy and reported him for a violation? Did miss something in that regard?
-
Seaplane is a complete moron. I have no idea what that man was thinking when he made those transmissions. When ATC tells you something YOU DO IT. I don't care if its inconvenient, if it does not risk safety on your flight, you do it even if you don't understand it. Seaplane needs ground work on radio etiquette big time.
-
This seaplane guy pissed me off so badly that I found who he was. If anyone else wants his phone number to have a word, just PM me. I'm sure I'm not allowed to post it publicly here.
Want to know the sad part? He's got an ATP with type ratings on the 737 and DC-9. Obviously retired airline captain. Maybe they need to extend the retirement age from 60 to something higher, but certainly not for this guy.
-
When ATC tells you something YOU DO IT. I don't care if its inconvenient, if it does not risk safety on your flight, you do it even if you don't understand it. Seaplane needs ground work on radio etiquette big time.
Ummm, not so fast. Trust, but verify. Controllers have been known to make mistakes that sent aircraft into mountains, other aircraft, or into the teeth of thunderstorm cells. If a pilot does not understand an instruction, he/she is obligated to request clarification.
In no way am I defending the pilot of this clip. Instead, my point is that we pilots have an obligation to fully understand a controller's instruction to be absolutely sure it fits into our situational awareness of the flight. A pilot who blindly or mechanically follows a controller's instruction is potentially setting him/herself up for a very bad day.
-
This seaplane guy pissed me off so badly that I found who he was. If anyone else wants his phone number to have a word, just PM me. I'm sure I'm not allowed to post it publicly here.
Relax. While this certainly was not general aviation's finest hour, there is nothing to be gained by embarrassing this pilot.
-
It's not hard to find who's the owner of that airplane. It doesn't mean he was the one flying it that day.
But yea, whoever he was, he embarrassed himself enough. No one got hurt. No need to go vigilante on him.
-
Ummm, not so fast. Trust, but verify. Controllers have been known to make mistakes that sent aircraft into mountains, other aircraft, or into the teeth of thunderstorm cells. If a pilot does not understand an instruction, he/she is obligated to request clarification.
Did the controller not specify that there was an emergency in progress? That would tell me all that I needed to know.
-
Did the controller not specify that there was an emergency in progress? That would tell me all that I needed to know.
Again, I repeat: My comments were NOT a defense for the pilot in the clip. I was responding to Student Pilot's specific words in his post that stated, "When ATC tells you something YOU DO IT... even if you do not understand it."
-
Understood and agreed. Sorry about the confusion.
-
Did the controller not specify that there was an emergency in progress? That would tell me all that I needed to know.
Again, I repeat: My comments were NOT a defense for the pilot in the clip. I was responding to Student Pilot's specific words in his post that stated, "When ATC tells you something YOU DO IT... even if you do not understand it."
I should have been more specific. If there is an emergency on freq and ATC specifically tells you he needs to do something for that emergency, you do it. Emergency aircraft come first no matter what/
-
I should have been more specific. If there is an emergency on freq and ATC specifically tells you he needs to do something for that emergency, you do it. Emergency aircraft come first no matter what/
Yep, in this particular case you are completely correct. The controller made it extremely clear to the dolt of a pilot that there was an emergency IN PROGRESS. After his diversion, the pilot makes the asinine comment that HE didn't see how HIS aircraft would have interfered with the emergency in progress, as if this goof had an air traffic radar on board his little Maule that depicted all aircraft around him.
In listening to that clip I picked up that the emergency aircraft was landing TO THE EAST and already called one go-around that resulted in a runway heading/maintain 2,000 feet altitude instruction straight out to the east. If you look at Biff's sectional image he posted earlier in this topic, you will see that a runway heading go-around on runway 9 Left a second time would have placed the emergency aircraft right into the path of the Maule had the Maule been allowed to cut through the inner ring of the class C just to the east of the airport. As controllers are not fortune tellers and couldn't predict a successful landing on the second attempt, they kept all options open by ensuring nothing else was in the airspace to the east of the airport.
So perhaps it turned out that the emergency aircraft did land and that the "sterile" airspace requirement exceeded the emergency by a minute or so (note the sarcasm here). For a paltry $2.50 (see this cost of the pilot's diversion calculated earlier) the Maule pilot got to make a complete a$$ out of himself over public airways and suffer even more ego bruising right here in this board.
-
OMG that seaplane pilot was an A$$ im half tempted to look up his address on the faa aircraft registration and send him a letter. and a copy of his audio clip. there was an emergancy in progress he should just do as hes told. and get out of the airspace. ugg.
-
Bravo Zulu to that controller for maintaining prefessional composure in that most annoying situation.
-
Wow. He was crying about wasting his fuel. How about the time of the controllers he wasted during that emergency. I'm smart enough to know that if there is an emergency in progress you limit non essential communications. This guy needs a kick in the butt.
-
This just angers me to no point. When an emergency is declared you do as your told and ask no questions unless it has to do with safety. This guy should lose his right to fly!
-
As PIC he can say unable if he thinks any irection form ATC will put HIM in jeopardy. Short of that you do what they say.
He is a seaplane....why didn't he just land in the water (he was over the lake) and wait it out....then fly as he wants. :-P
-
That seaplane really pissed me off.
-
Thanks for the clip biff, i love your site i use it all the time.
-
I know the seaplane fellow, he's an ex-Navy A7 pilot and a great guy. He does like to elucidate with controllers over the radio but he's not the dolt or asshole you are all making him out to be. This audio clip was time condensed and edited plus the controller admitted that the reason for the vector was because a supervisor had deemed it so (micro-managing) I'd guess that both the controller and the pilot knew that there was no impending conflict.
Plus, he did everything they asked him to do (albeit with a bit of fanfare)
I'm only here because I saw a blurb about a seaplane pilot in Florida and thought 'Naw, it couldn't be...' I have to chuckle at his unintended noteriety :lol:
-
I know the seaplane fellow, he's an ex-Navy A7 pilot and a great guy. He does like to elucidate with controllers over the radio but he's not the dolt or asshole you are all making him out to be.
Your acquaintance complained way too much over the air for what amounted to approximately four extra nautical miles outside his preferred route. If he had a problem with the controller, he should have simply asked for the phone number of the tower, noted the time, date, and frequency on his lapboard, then took it up with the tower supervisor after he landed.
Being an ex-Navy A7 pilot, assuming this is indeed fact, demonstrates to me nothing more than (for that moment) the inflated ego behind the pilot who tied up the controller in useless and potentially distracting banter.
Hey, if nothing else this clip shows that we all are human and prone to mistakes no matter the experience we have accumulated.
-
Your acquaintance complained way too much over the air for what amounted to approximately four extra nautical miles outside his preferred route.
Agreed, and there are a lot of guys on this forum who are getting their undies in a bunch over what is basically nothing more than what you just said. Calm down folks, you're acting like a mob! :-o
-
Agreed, and there are a lot of guys on this forum who are getting their undies in a bunch over what is basically nothing more than what you just said.
Hmmm... you got quite the spin going there. 19 distinct authors in this thread, including your moniker, of 6453 total forum members. Not a lot in my book. In my opinion the majority of those posters were simply engaging in intelligent discussion and really only perhaps three or so seemed a bit over the top.
Sorry your buddy was on the receiving end of this thread.
-
Not trying to spin anything, I should have said this 'thread' rather than 'forum'
As I'm new here I don't even know what's in this forum outside of this particular thread.
Not that my aquaintance didn't deserve his 15 minutes of flame but some of the remarks did seem over the top to me. I mean, looking up the guy's phone number and writing letters and really, really getting pissed off.... I don't see any of that as being called for.
I'm still laughing about it but I guess you'd have to know this guy to understand, he is quite a character.
-
Hey kcabpilot,
Just to be clear, the clip was edited for time, but not content. All of his transmissions are in there, they actually took place over a 10-15 minute period. He certainly has a right to complain that "sterilizing the airspace" was overkill, but disregarding instructions and then arguing with the tower controller while there's an emergency in progress was pretty poor judgment.
No, it doesn't warrant a lynching. ATC has his tail number, if he pissed them off enough they'll handle it.
I'm curious where you saw this blurb? And did the call the tower the next day? :)
-
Biff
I caught a link in one of the AOPA forums. I've been home with the flu past three days so have been browsing a lot of forums! I just saw the thing about Sanford and a seaplane pilot on the airwaves and thought 'Naw, it couldn't be' - but sure enough.
Knowing the area, the pilot and considering the situation as it was I think this is a big non-issue. I don't know if he called the tower but knowing him I'd guess that he probably did. I know that he has butted heads with a lot of folks that are constantly trying to close seaplane access to lakes in the area and like many general aviation pilots is frustrated with the over-reactionary methods of dealing with situations these days which seems to warrant a TFR at any politician's whim.
Still, I'll agree he was out of line on this one and should probably just put a sock in it :-D
-
... but disregarding instructions ...
Sure, he was a jerk to the controller, but he didn't disregard the instruction.
I still wonder why the controller didn't simply issue "Remain clear of the class C airspace" on his initial callup?
-Ben
-
Sure, he was a jerk to the controller, but he didn't disregard the instruction.
He certainly did. He was told three times: to circumnavigate the airspace, circumnavigate Lake Jessup, and remain east of the river. He ignored all three.
-
Yea, OK. I was thinking about the vector. I see your point.
Tell me though, if a controller tells you to circumnavigate the airspace, what does that mean exactly? In this case, does that mean that he could (absent the direction about the lake) fly at 500 feet and avoid the inner ring or must the pilot be outside of the entire ring? I'm not trying to find fault with the controller as he clearly did a good job, I'm just confused by what he meant with that instruction.
-Ben
-
Tell me though, if a controller tells you to circumnavigate the airspace, what does that mean exactly? In this case, does that mean that he could (absent the direction about the lake) fly at 500 feet and avoid the inner ring or must the pilot be outside of the entire ring?
The pilot must avoid the airspace, which means that if the airspace of the inner ring starts at ground level and goes to 3,000, then the pilot could overfly the airspace at 3,100 and be outside the airspace (however, in this particular case, Orlando class B starts at 3,001 feet so a clearance from that controller would be required - in the US and in most cases class C airspace does not have a class B right above it).
If the outer ring started at 1,300 feet and went to 3,000 feet, flying under this airspace at 500 feet complies with the "circumnavigate" and "remain clear of class C" instructions.
-
Wow. Didn't realize there was a Class B right above the Orlando Class C. I fly in the NYC area so I'm familiar with Class B protocol. I've never heard the phrase "circumnavigate" before so it confused me.
Looking at the sectional on page one of this thread I don't understand what the seaplane pilot was thinking. He keeps talking about the eastern vs. western shore of the lake yet either way he's violated their airspace. Being that there was an emergency in progress, I'm surprised they didn't violate him. I'll bet you a dozen donuts he would have been if that would have happened up here.
-Ben
-
For the record, no airspace was 'violated' because an acknowledgement of your transmission is clearance to enter class C. Yes, the controller asked him to 'circumnavigate' and as one other poster asked - what exactly does that mean? It's not entirely clear, the controller knew the exact position of the seaplane at all times, asked him to turn east and he complied. The only real issue here is a bit of complaining over the airwaves - nothing more, nothing less.
-
YWG Tower...I agree. From a perspective of heavy traffic or dealing with an emergency. I would have squashed this guy. Required transmissions on the radio...comments on the phone.
ATC'r
-
For the record, no airspace was 'violated' because an acknowledgement of your transmission is clearance to enter class C. Yes, the controller asked him to 'circumnavigate' and as one other poster asked - what exactly does that mean?
ยง 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=8542c60ad5c7868b2b73b6ce5161e647&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.12&idno=14), Paragraph B reads:
(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.
The pilot was asked to circumnavigate the airspace, as in go around it. If I were told to circumnavigate the class C airspace and I were approaching the inner ring as this pilot was, I would take that to mean fly around the inner ring. It is a pretty straight-forward instruction.
And while you are correct that callsign acknowledgement is all that is needed to enter class C airspace, that acceptance would be trumped by any ATC instruction that followed the callsign, as in "Seaplane XXX, circumnavigate the class C," or even better, "Seaplane XXX, remain clear of class Charlie airspace."
-
Neither of those instructions were given. The controller said 'we're gonna' have to ask you to circumnavigate at this time' and there indeed was a question as to what that meant. 'Sterilize the airspace' is also not am implicit instruction to remain clear of Class C.
I think my first assesment was correct. You guys are getting all wound up over nothing.
-
Neither of those instructions were given. The controller said 'we're gonna' have to ask you to circumnavigate at this time' and there indeed was a question as to what that meant.
And? Don't forget the rest: The pilot acknowledged that instruction (which normally means the pilot fully understood it), gave his plan, and the controller then replied, "As long as you go around our airspace, that'll be fine." When the pilot came back with a "You mean I can't even come into your class C?" the controller countered, "Circumnavigate around Lake Jessup and east of the river, will be fine, at or below 500 feet."
Now, could the controller have been more clear had he used better phraseology, as in "Remain clear of class C?" Sure, but there was no evidence in the clip that your pilot buddy was confused about what the controller needed, and the excess banter between the two of them presented a clear picture (at least to this low-time 1,200 hr pilot) of the requirement.
Furthermore, upon listening to this another time, it is apparent to me that your buddy was attempting to cut the corner back to the north well early of where the controller wanted him, as evidenced by the continual request by the controller to push him further east. In looking at the sectional chart, you will see that all but the eastern-most sliver of the lake is inside the class C inner ring and your buddy kept stating that he was over the water, which implies that he was well inside class C even though the controller stated, "as long as you go around our airspace, you'll be fine."
I think my first assesment was correct. You guys are getting all wound up over nothing.
And you are attempting to spin this incident in favor of your friend when clearly mistakes were made by him. In the end, what was he trying to protect? A $2.50 fuel savings? Please.
-
I don't know if 'circumnavigate' is approved phraseology (any controllers out there still reading this thread?), but any experienced pilot should know what it means.
Regardless, his instruction to stay "east of the river" was unambiguous.
I don't think his disregard of the instructions were nearly as big a deal as his attempts to argue over the freq.
-
Neither of those instructions were given. The controller said 'we're gonna' have to ask you to circumnavigate at this time' and there indeed was a question as to what that meant.
And? Don't forget the rest: The pilot acknowledged that instruction (which normally means the pilot fully understood it), gave his plan, and the controller then replied, "As long as you go around our airspace, that'll be fine." When the pilot came back with a "You mean I can't even come into your class C?" the controller countered, "Circumnavigate around Lake Jessup and east of the river, will be fine, at or below 500 feet."
Now, could the controller have been more clear had he used better phraseology, as in "Remain clear of class C?" Sure, but there was no evidence in the clip that your pilot buddy was confused about what the controller needed, and the excess banter between the two of them presented a clear picture (at least to this low-time 1,200 hr pilot) of the requirement.
Furthermore, upon listening to this another time, it is apparent to me that your buddy was attempting to cut the corner back to the north well early of where the controller wanted him, as evidenced by the continual request by the controller to push him further east. In looking at the sectional chart, you will see that all but the eastern-most sliver of the lake is inside the class C inner ring and your buddy kept stating that he was over the water, which implies that he was well inside class C even though the controller stated, "as long as you go around our airspace, you'll be fine."
I think my first assesment was correct. You guys are getting all wound up over nothing.
And you are attempting to spin this incident in favor of your friend when clearly mistakes were made by him. In the end, what was he trying to protect? A $2.50 fuel savings? Please.
If it was that cut and dry, why wasn't he violated?
-
If it was that cut and dry, why wasn't he violated?
Why should he be? You would need a controller's input to confirm the following but my understanding is that a controller's primary job does not involve policing aviation regulations and reporting those who break them. That's another branch of the FAA. As long as there was no loss of separation or other serious breach of safety, a controller will not typically report a tail id to the FAA for most infractions. In the case of this incident there was neither a loss of separation or a serious breach of safety.
For the record, what gets me slightly irked about this incident is nothing more than the fact that it comes off as an air version of road rage. In this day of growing impatience and increased narcissism, a pilot yelling over the frequency about something as trivial as an extra 4 mile, 2 minute, $2.50 beyond his preferred route embodies for a brief moment the direction our society is heading.
"ME. ME. ME. IT'S ALL ABOUT ME!"
Do I want him reported, harassed, or whatever else was suggested in this thread? Absolutely not. I just hope this gentleman's ego does get him into an aviation situation that gets him or someone else killed.
-
So now he was 'yelling'?
This just keeps getting better.....
Look, I know the guy, he wasn't 'enraged' and he isn't gonna 'hurt' anybody. This whole incident boils down to one simple thing and that is a supervisor going overboard and ordering the controllers to 'sterilize' the airspace. If that weren't the case that controller would have let that seaplane continue on it's course because it was in no way relevent to the emergency on hand. There was no conflict and he knew it. He even explained that he was just doing it because he was told to.
Classic case of micro management, supervisors getting in the way of the people who actually do the work. That's how I see it and I'm stickin' to it :-P
-
...As long as there was no loss of separation or other serious breach of safety, a controller will not typically report a tail id to the FAA for most infractions...
No sorry, that's not the way it works. Controllers can and do report violations even when there is no loss of separation and even when there is no breach of safety. Come down to NY and just clip the class B airspace and see what happens. I know of many cases where the controllers here report guys who they think are just barely inside the airspace. Many are now fighting back and winning their case with the FAA, thanks to GPS.
My point is, if he did something so drastically wrong, he would have been violated. Sure, he was a jerk, but that's it.
-Ben
-
This whole incident boils down to one simple thing and that is a supervisor going overboard and ordering the controllers to 'sterilize' the airspace.
So, now you are claiming the incident in question is not even the pilot's fault, it's the ATC supervisors fault? Now that is funny. Thanks for the laugh.
-
No sorry, that's not the way it works. Controllers can and do report violations even when there is no loss of separation and even when there is no breach of safety.
First hand, I can tell you it certainly isn't that common as you make it. I have made my share of mistakes in the Northeast and Eastern US airspace and have yet to been violated. One of the more blatant ones occurred last January when I was returning to NY from Florida. My autopilot disengaged while I was heads-down retrieving weather on the downlinked receiver. When I finally returned to scanning my instruments, I was 600 feet below my IFR altitude and descending. Just as I was moving to correct, the controller called and pointed this out. Had it been as strict as you claimed, I would have been violated.
In contrast, the controller was very polite and, after I had admitted the reason for the mistake, let it go at that. A day later I filed a NASA safety form as added protection.
I will agree that there seems to be certain (US) FAA hot buttons in any given year and perhaps I should have added that caveat. Obviously after 9/11 busting the ADIZ around Washington, DC, is a biggie and will most likely result in a violation 99.9% of the time, assuming the controller is able to identify the aircraft.
In your example, perhaps the FAA is trying to reduce the number of inadvertent NY class B airspace infractions by instructing controllers to report all cases since there are most likely a lot that occur in any given year. Runway incursions are another hot button. But to say that all regulation infractions are reported by controllers is, in my opinion and experience, overstating a controller's role.
And one more point: I am in total agreement with you that in the grand scheme of aviation mistakes, this pilot's attitude does not rank up there. And again, I do not believe he should be violated, even if he hypothetically or factually did go against the instructions of ATC. But that horse has been beaten to death.
-
... to say that all regulation infractions are reported by controllers is, in my opinion and experience, overstating a controller's role ...
I never said that.
-
Ok let me ask this. Would anyone stop and argue with a cop when he sends you on a detour around an accident up ahead of you? We've all been there. The accident is 2 miles ahead so the police move to the nearest perpendicular intersection and detour people around the trouble. Simply what was being done here. Costs about as much in gas to do it as this guy lost. But you DO IT because the people in charge TELL YOU TO DO IT. There are ramifacations if you dont. Whether or not the controller used the right phraseology is really a non factor. He was dealing with an emergency inbound and stated several times what he wanted the guy to do. The seaplane should've sucked it up and helped the situation and the controller by backing off or complying. He knew and understood what was wanted by the controller. Instead he showed his backside.
-
And again, I do not believe he should be violated, even if he hypothetically or factually did go against the instructions of ATC.
He probably put himself at greater risk of being deviated for his flying by his arguementative atitude--which I think was unquestionably an abuse of the communications frequency...
-
[So, now you are claiming the incident in question is not even the pilot's fault, it's the ATC supervisors fault? Now that is funny. Thanks for the laugh.
I'm saying - THERE WAS NO INCIDENT. Nothing but a complaint voiced over the airwaves. Get over it already.
One day, while the boy was away at school, his father decided to try an
experiment. He went into the boy's room and placed on his study table four objects - a
Bible, a silver dollar, a bottle of whiskey and a Playboy magazine. "I'll
just hide behind the door," the old preacher said to himself.
"When he comes home from school this afternoon, I'll see which object he
picks up. If it's the Bible, he's going to be a preacher like me, and what
a blessing that would be!
If he picks up the dollar, he's going to be a businessman, and that would
be OK.
But, if picks up the bottle, he's going to be a no-good drunkard; and Lord,
what a shame that would be!
Worst of all, if he picks up that magazine he's gonna be a skirt-chasin'
bum."
The old man waited anxiously, and soon heard his son's footsteps as he
entered the house, whistling and headed for his room. The boy tossed his
books on the bed, and as he turned to leave the room he spotted the objects
on the table. With curiosity in his eye, he walked over to inspect them.
The boy took a few moments as he examined the objects.
Finally, he picked up the Bible and placed it under his arm; picked up the
silver dollar and dropped it into is pocket; uncorked the bottle and took a
big drink while he admired this month's centerfold in Playboy.
"Lord have mercy," the old preacher whispered disgustedly, "he's gonna be a
pilot!"
-
I'm saying - THERE WAS NO INCIDENT. Nothing but a complaint voiced over the airwaves. Get over it already.
Will you lighten up a bit? "Incident" is not an official term here. It simply a word that is being used to describe this moment in time when the pilot was in contact with ATC.
Defintion number two from Dictionary.com
Incident (n)
2. a distinct piece of action, or an episode, as in a story or play.
-
For the record, no airspace was 'violated' because an acknowledgement of your transmission is clearance to enter class C. Yes, the controller asked him to 'circumnavigate' and as one other poster asked - what exactly does that mean? It's not entirely clear, the controller knew the exact position of the seaplane at all times, asked him to turn east and he complied. The only real issue here is a bit of complaining over the airwaves - nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, complaining over the airwaves while this same controller was trying to work an emergency. I was stunned by the harassing nature of the pilot's inquiries. While you attempt to defend the indefensible, I believe that if in the same position as the Sanford controller, I'd have violated that horse's rear end in a New York minute. Simply inexcusable behaviour, especially from one with so much aviation experience.
-
Hi folks,
Im newbie in this site.Usually writing on FS.nordic,cause Im Finnish...
Really enjoyable site for the aviation "freak" like me.. 8-)
-J
-
im glad it was ultimatley a safe landing.
good work cleaning up the mp3.
I wonder if the seaplane phoned in the day after.... he could surely have left his argument until the emergency had been dealt with.
-
I hope this is not the beginning of the end of the last bastion of common courtesy in this profession. What that pilot questioned was inexcusable and the Tower guy really kept his cool under very extreme flack from the pilot.