Could this be you ? READ & LISTEN & LEARN

[tkibob]

11.30.2015    KTKI   18:13:03z   14min @ normal speed    00:06:40 compressed

This controller tries to help a dangerous pilot and succeeds at making a bad situation worse by OMITTING critical graphical details from the HUBBARD EIGHT DEPARTURE (HUBB8.TTT)  

This exchange is an example of why pilots must ALWAYS comply with FAR 91.103 Preflight action and why ATC must NEVER attempt to interpret published procedures on behalf of any pilot.  There is no guarantee the controller will communicate all graphical details accurately or that the pilot will comprehend what is being said.

This pilot filed DIRECT.  He expected nothing more challenging than to push DIRECT on his GPS.  It is obvious this pilot did NOT have this SID in his possession.  He never articulated SOLDO correctly.  He always referred to it as So-Lo.  At one point, both pilot and controller block each other.

The controller omitted DME distances between waypoints, the MB FROM SOLDO to UIM, the crossing radial (to backup the GPS) from BYP to identify SOLDO, the coordinates of SOLDO and the L-17 chart reference.  The pilot tried to translate the controller's dictation onto an Enroute Low chart (I wonder if he really had one).  

Notice how desperate he is for Radar Vectors.  

SIDs & STARs are published separately for several reasons.  Not the least of which is to avoid a fiasco like this.    The enroute low chart is NOT an acceptable substitute.

Learn from the mistakes of others -- you will never get the chance to make them all yourself !!!  

[bigj93702]

Wow - that was painful to listen too...   

[JTS97Z28]

That was awesome!!!

[mtpiper]

Wow...

[davolijj]

This exchange is an example of why pilots must ALWAYS comply with FAR 91.103 Preflight action and why ATC must NEVER attempt to interpret published procedures on behalf of any pilot.  There is no guarantee the controller will communicate all graphical details accurately or that the pilot will comprehend what is being said.

Controllers interpret information on published procedures every day for pilots.  In many cases, it's the only thing that keeps some of these pilots alive.  I agree that pilots should comply with FAR91.103, but if (and when) they don't, what would you suggest controllers do instead of reading chart data to pilots in need?

[tkibob]

Controllers interpret information on published procedures every day for pilots.  In many cases, it's the only thing that keeps some of these pilots alive.  I agree that pilots should comply with FAR91.103, but if (and when) they don't, what would you suggest controllers do instead of reading chart data to pilots in need?

 

What I suggest is compliance with the FARs* !!!   

What this guy needs is to stay on the ground !!! 

Do you really think this guy understands: 
91.3
91.13
91.103
91.123
91.167 <<<<<<<<   886.0 NM non-stop:  Does the plane (M20M) have that much endurance INCLUDING alternate AND 45 min reserve ? 

Do you think any controller should enable a careless & reckless pilot to get off of the ground ? 

Do YOU want to share the sky with another pilot who is creating a hazard to YOUR safety ? 

The mission of ATC is LIMITED to:  Sequence and separate known and observed traffic on a first come first served basis. and that's IT !!! 

Read my post again. pull out the SID and follow along with the audio.  This well-meaning controller OMITTED very important details which easily could have contributed to an airspace violation or worse.  Is that doing anyone a favor ?

If you are a pilot, you earned the privilege to fly because you (supposedly) demonstrated your competence to the standard of the practical test.  Don't think for one second you are somehow excused from maintaining that competence after the ink dries.

I'm sure you do NOT what to make the next contribution to the NTSB archives. 

*ATC is(has) not (yet been) provided with the proper guidance to handle this type of situation.
AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE is described in the P/C glossary.  Within that definition is:  "...Pilots may also request clarification or amendment, as appropriate, any time a clearance is not fully understood..."  There has to be a practical limit on where clarification ends and interpretation begins.  ATC must not interfere with the aeronautical decision making (ADM) process or the command authority of the pilot.

IMHO This pilot violated:

§91.103   Preflight action.
Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.

BECAUSE:  This pilot accepted a SID (he could have refused it) and demonstrated the need to have someone else interpret the SID (incompletely) for him.  The only way to comply with 91.103 in this example is to have the SID in his possession and do the Preflight action himself.


§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.

BECAUSE:  When this pilot acquiesced to the controller's incomplete interpretation of a published procedure he relinquished his sole responsibility for the operation of that aircraft.


§91.13   Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

BECAUSE:  This pilot chose to depart without many details of the SID.  What is he going to do when the GPS looses RAIM ?  The controller did NOT provide this pilot with the details about BYP to identify SOLDO intersection (this pilot always calls it So-Lo).  SOLDO acts as a VOR changeover point between TTT and UIM.


§91.123   Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained...

BECAUSE:  Good luck with that one when you don't have the published, graphical procedure in front of you !


AIM 5-4-1
c. Use of STARs requires pilot possession of at
least the approved chart. RNAV STARs must be
retrievable by the procedure name from the aircraft
database and conform to charted procedure. As with
any ATC clearance or portion thereof, it is the
responsibility of each pilot to accept or refuse an
issued STAR. Pilots should notify ATC if they do not
wish to use a STAR by placing “NO STAR” in the
remarks section of the flight plan or by the less
desirable method of verbally stating the same to ATC.

An equivalent mention for the SID has disappeared from the current AIM for unknown reasons.  It is clear this pilot did not file a SID and was totally unaware of the need to have it available or his right to refuse it.  It is this ignorance that makes his competence highly suspect.

SIDs & STARs are published as stand-alone procedures to provide pilots with the detail necessary to make sound application decisions.  There is simply no excuse for not having the current, graphical procedure in front of you if you intend to use it.

[Rwsavory]

Bob apparently doesn't get out much, bless his heart.   The tape was amusing too.  Thanks.

[tkibob]

Quoting from JetScan1 above (before you pulled your post...I wonder why ?)

You're out to lunch as to what really happened here. The pilot clearly did have the SID chart and did infact file the SID in the flightplan. What happened was he missunderstood the controller when he said "Quitman" and "Thequitmantransission" thinking it was a point AFTER the SID, that's why he was looking for it on the LE chart. Once he realised the controller said "Quitman" and that it was "UIM" the confusion was cleared up. The pilot clearly said his understanding of the SID was SOLDO then UIM, which is the correct route.

You're insinuation that the pilot filed direct and planned to just ignore the SID is just nonsense.

I can also understand how SOLDO might get confused with SOLOO given the small text size on some charts. But I guess you're so perfect that you could never make a mistake like that.

Quote
This well-meaning controller OMITTED very important details which easily could have contributed to an airspace violation or worse.  Is that doing anyone a favor ?

More nonsense, all you need is the the two radials to identfy the intersection and the route, in fact the controller was reading "THE ROUTE DESCRIPTION" portion verbatim right off the approach chart.

"QUITMAN TRANSITION (HUBB8.UIM): From over TTT VOR/DME on TTT R-084 to SOLDO INT, then on UIM R-261 to UIM VOR/DME".

I think it's you that needs to listen to the recording again. Yeah it wasn't polished but all the pilot was guilty of here was not hearing the controller correctly on one of part the clearance. The pilot recognized the error and the confusion was cleared up.

You're out of line trying to start an internet witch hunt and accuse someone of incompetence when you clearly do not have a full understanding of the situation nor all the FACTS to make such grand accusations.

JetScan1,

Put on that Oxygen mask and open the flow.  You sound hypoxic or maybe it's just your hearing.

IF this pilot had actually filed the SID and IF he had it in front of him, I think he could read for himself whatever details appeared to be so confusing.  After all, had he complied with 91.103, he (just like you) would have been well briefed on all of the details before ever walking out to the plane and he WOULD have been EXPECTING exactly and I do mean precisely, the very clearance he got.  By the way, you do NOT have to file a SID to get assigned a SID.  The pilot has the option to refuse it when the clearance is delivered and/or file NO SID in the remarks section.  Either way, this pilot was clueless about either option.  Are YOU familiar with those options ?

Please explain to me why any responsible pilot (yourself, for example) would use an Enroute Low chart to verify SID details for a read-back when a SID is published as a stand-alone procedure ?  Unless of course, the pilot does NOT possess the SID at the time.  Furthermore, you will have to clarify whatever it is you mean by "...thinking it was a point AFTER the SID...".  All transitions end at a coincident waypoint where the enroute segment begins.  In this case, the UIM VOR hence, the name: QUITMAN TRANSITION (HUBB8.UIM).  It is logical (and convenient) to see UIM on BOTH the SID and L-17 and H-6.  Is that something YOU were taught ?

Amazingly, his FIRST read-back attempt was almost 50% correct (comprehension, not withstanding).  The other 50% or so was confused, transposed and not representative of a prepared pilot.
(That 91.103 getting in the way again, darn it !)

I did not insinuate or overtly suggest the pilot "...and planned to just ignore the SID..." (check your eyes after your hearing).  Please refer me to whatever text gives you that bizarre impression.

Confusing So-Lo with SOLDO ?  Now THAT is nonsense !  Unless of course, once again, the pilot did NOT possess the SID at the time.  Do YOU confuse 1 dot with 2 dots with 3 dots when inbound on the ILS ? (yikes !!!)   Those dots are pretty small as well and I know you have a CDI in front of you;  Assuming you look at it occasionally and hand-fly to maintain that strange thing known as: proficiency.

You are absolutely correct about one thing !!!  SOLDO can in fact be identified with a crossing radial...so long as it's the BYP R-181.  Unfortunately, our friendly and oh-so helpful controller neglected to mention:

BYP and/or
R-181 and/or
BYP frequency and/or
BYP Morse code identifier and/or
DME from TTT and/or
DME from UIM and/or
the geographic coordinates of these waypoints and/or
the Low and High chart references and/or
the MB FROM SOLDO to UIM and/or
anything else I may be missing:

WHEN THE PILOT DOES NOT HAVE THE SID IN FRONT OF HIM !!!
(read AIM 5-4-1c. just don't cry at me because it refers to a STAR)

Neglecting all of those details can not only lead to an airspace violation (on the pilot) but also a
"loss of separation" error (on the Center controller).  I hope for your sake, you are not the other aircraft that gets smacked by this guy because he thinks So-Lo is something or someplace else where YOU just happen to be.

Do you actually expect to identify SOLDO by the intersection of the TTT R-084 and UIM R-261 ?  The reciprocal of 261 is 081. That will provide YOU with all of 3° divergence. If that is how your ADM-mind works; Don't come to me for your next Flight Review, IPC, 135 or 121 sign-off.

Lastly, "The pilot recognized the error and the confusion was cleared up."  Is that a fact ?!? 
Scroll to 00:05:11 on the clock.  After the FIFTH attempt to deliver and read-back:

ATC:  "Mooney 0JP..that's correct as far as it goes..are you sure you have an understanding of this ?"

0JP:  "GPS and...n...ready to ah...follow direct...follow the radar vectors"

I don't hear a coherent read-back.  What I do hear is a desperate hope for Radar Vectors, but hey, what do I know ?  All I know is how I was taught and teach my students.  It all starts with:

§91.103 Preflight action:

>>>   Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.   <<<

Is it just possible those regulations exist for a reason, like, say, YOUR SAFETY ?!?!?
(And your spouse and your children and any other passengers trusting YOU with their lives.)

Please don't forget about the people on the ground you happen to fly over.  YOU and Rwsavory (who posted above you) can "amuse" yourselves with this:

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Funeral-Set-for-Sisters-Killed-in-Plane-Crash-219291611.html

Here's a thought.  Maybe if this pilot had the SID in front of him, there would be no tape and no discourse.
What do YOU think, Captain ?

Thank you for your comments and criticism.  I enjoy the challenge/response opportunity and I encourage you to keep it coming.  Maybe you will learn something in the process.  I think you need to.

[davolijj]

tkibob, I can't help but think that you're trolling, and this may be an exercise in futility, but I'm going to do my best to educate you anyway.

You didn't answer my question.  I asked you what you suggest controllers do when pilots don't comply with FAR91.103 and a pilot is clearly in need of guidance with a procedure.  You answered, "comply with the FARs."

Do you think any controller should enable a careless & reckless pilot to get off of the ground ? 

Do YOU want to share the sky with another pilot who is creating a hazard to YOUR safety ? 

The mission of ATC is LIMITED to:  Sequence and separate known and observed traffic on a first come first served basis. and that's IT !!! 

You're contradicting yourself here.  On the one hand you say the mission of ATC is limited to sequencing and separating know and observed traffic (a claim which I reject by the way.  What about issuing safety alerts?), and then you imply that the controller should not have enabled a careless and reckless pilot to get off the ground.  So are you saying ATC should also be policing pilot compliance with FARs before issuing a takeoff clearance?  That would be an impossible task, and the FAA knows this which is why the pilots and FSDO are responsible for ensuring this - not ATC. 

*ATC is(has) not (yet been) provided with the proper guidance to handle this type of situation.
AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE is described in the P/C glossary.  Within that definition is:  "...Pilots may also request clarification or amendment, as appropriate, any time a clearance is not fully understood..."  There has to be a practical limit on where clarification ends and interpretation begins.  ATC must not interfere with the aeronautical decision making (ADM) process or the command authority of the pilot.

You're all over the place here but explain to me how a controller clarifying a clearance or procedure is interfering with ADM or the command authority of the pilot.

Read my post again. pull out the SID and follow along with the audio.  This well-meaning controller OMITTED very important details which easily could have contributed to an airspace violation or worse.  Is that doing anyone a favor ?

I disagree.  This is a simple procedure and I fully understood the summation of it by the controller without being familiar with the area or even needing to look at the chart.  But at your request, I did so anyway and it was clear and complete.  Here is the textual route description directly from the chart:

QUITMAN TRANSITION (HUBB8.UIM): From over TTT VOR/DME on TTT R-084
to SOLDO INT, then on UIM R-261 to UIM VOR/DME.

Which very important details were OMITTED by the controller?

This pilot violated:

§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.

when he chose to allow that controller to spoon-feed him the INCOMPLETE DETAILS of the SID and then accepted the clearance as delivered.

No he did not.  A request for clarification on a procedure does not relinquish his pilot-in-command authority.  You don't know if he had the chart up in his possession or not.  I didn't hear him say he didn't have it, did you?

SIDs & STARs are published as stand-alone procedures to provide pilots with the detail necessary to make sound application decisions.  There is simply no excuse for not having the current, graphical procedure in front of you if you intend to use it.

Hey, how about that?  I finally found something we can agree on.

[tkibob]

davolijj,

Thank you for your comments.  I promise no futility here and I will endeavor to respond to your every concern as best as is possible. 

It may take around 10 hours from now to properly reply.  In the mean time I invite you to read the reply to JetScan1 immediately above your post.  Please check back later. 

[tyketto]

Wow - that was painful to listen too...   

This thread is painful to read.   

BL.

[tkibob]

Tyketto,

Discourse is rarely pleasant.

Did you listen to the tape and follow along with the SID ?

Your comments and criticism of me are always welcome.

[jdflyer]

This thread reminds me somewhat of the last time I placed an order at a fast food drive through.  It took 4 to 5 repetitions to get an order for 2 cheeseburger and 2 drinks correct.  Some people have very poor listening skills.  It is apparent to me that this pilot was poorly prepared for the flight and I agree with a lot of what the OP says except when he gets into declaring that ATC should become the FAR cops.  I think what the controller should have done here is insist that the pilot give him a correct read back of the correct clearance.  Hopefully in the near future, clearances will be delivered in a text form directly to the pilots FMC, laptop or pad to avoid all the problems associated with verbal communications over radio.

[tkibob]

jdflyer,

...I agree with a lot of what the OP says except when he gets into declaring that ATC should become the FAR cops.

Wrong.  Read it again: 

"What I suggest is compliance with the FARs* !!!"

"What this guy needs is to stay on the ground !!!"

BOTH are on the pilot...NOT ATC.    Did you notice the (*) ?    Read that please.

I think what the controller should have done here is insist that the pilot give him a correct read back of the correct clearance.

AIM
5−2−1. Pre-taxi Clearance Procedures

a. Certain airports have established pre-taxi clearance
programs whereby pilots of departing
instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft may elect to receive
their IFR clearances before they start taxiing for
takeoff. The following provisions are included in
such procedures:

1. Pilot participation is not mandatory.


Someday, perhaps.   

FAR
§91.123   Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory....When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.


Where does clarification end and interpretation begin ?   

[tkibob]

davolijj,

re:  "I can't help but think that you're trolling..."
Trolling ?  For what ?  Discourse ?  I am GUILTY as SIN and proud of it !!!  Your thoughts, comments and criticism are always welcome.  The best way to learn is from the mistakes of others.  That is how the FAR's, AIM and 7110.65 came into being and continue to evolve.

re:  "You didn't answer my question."
Read again my statement about the practical limit on where clarification ends and interpretation begins.  Unfortunately, the 7110.65 does not provide specific guidance an scope to ATC on this subject.  I am in no position to make policy.  However, I would suggest ATO take note of this problem and address it for ATC's benefit.  Let's look at what we have to work with so far:  When it "appears" (3-1-10) a pilot is unprepared to comprehend the specifics of a clearance (a judgment call to be certain), the clarification, if and when requested as no read-back of a routing is required, must be limited to restating the clearance as delivered.  For example, simply restate: "HUBBARD EIGHT DEPARTURE, QUITMAN TRANSITION".  The offer by this controller @ 00:02:17
"I can read that to you real quick if you need (sic)... it's real simple" is over the line, in my opinion.  It is at this point and across multiple exchanges with this pilot that the controller neglects to provide all of the graphical details contained within the SID (read my reply to JetScan1 immediately above your post).  The good intentions of this controller are acknowledged by me.  However, this controller is oblivious to the potential damaging consequences in the NAS outside of Class D airspace.  Consider the addition of this EXAMPLE solution to the 7110.65 :

x-x-x  CLEARANCE (DELIVERY) CONFUSION (SID/STAR, Approach procedure, Chart, etc.)

Determine if a pilot has the published SID/STAR in his/her possession
whenever a pilot requests you to interpret or comment on the content of
that SID/STAR.  Clarification of a pilot's confusion is to be limited to the
restatement of only the clearance items/components.  Respond to the
pilot's query whenever a request for clarification remotely suggests a
controller would have to subjectively interpret any clearance detail,
published procedure, chart, regulation, etc.

PHRASEOLOGY−
(Call sign), DO YOU HAVE THE (procedure name) SID/STAR (IN FRONT OF YOU ),(IN YOUR POSSESSION)?
(Call sign), ATC IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO MAKE (ANY) SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION(S) OF THE (procedure name) SID/STAR, CHART, etc., SAY INTENTIONS.

NOTE−
14 CFR Section 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command  places the direct responsibility for and the final authority of aircraft operation squarely on the PIC.
14 CFR Section 91.103 Preflight action requires each pilot in command , before beginning a flight, to become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.
14 CFR Section 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions requires the PIC not to deviate from an issued clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained.
ATC is obligated not to interfere with the preflight planning efforts and aeronautical (command) decision making process of the pilot.  ATC shall not make any subjective interpretation of any clearance detail that may be construed as a means to comply with that clearance.
(and/or)
It is incumbent upon ATC not to enable an unprepared pilot to operate within the NAS in lieu of the pilot's required preflight action to the extent possible.
(and/or)
It is inefficient and counterproductive to block the frequency with extraneous communications.  Controllers must be particularly mindful of  this issue when working combined positions.  Other aircraft with usual, urgent or emergency situations may need usual or priority access to a frequency and the controller's attention at any time.

REFERENCE−
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 3-1-10. OBSERVED ABNORMALITIES

I can't begin to count the number of times I have overheard a radar controller respond to an in-over-his-head pilot looking to be taken-by-the-hand around the weather with:

PHRASEOLOGY−
(Call sign), DEVIATIONS LEFT OR RIGHT OF COURSE APPROVED, WHEN ABLE, PROCEED DIRECT(VOR, Intersection, Waypoint, Airport, etc.) AND ADVISE.

The above phraseology is an established example of a controller correctly distancing himself from the ADM process reserved solely for the PIC.  That phraseology is also a strong reminder to the pilot that ATC does NOT exist to save his day.  The controller can inform a pilot of painted precip and suggest headings around the weather all day long.  Nevertheless, it's up to the pilot to make the final decisions about how to interpret and make practical use of that information.

re:  "You're contradicting yourself here."
There is no contradiction here.  2−1−6. SAFETY ALERT falls squarely within the context of "separation" from other traffic, obstacles and terrain.  ATC is not the "pilot police", that is what FSDO and the Regional Counsel is for.  ATC's best tools available, so far, is to decline to make any interpretation of published procedures and require the PIC to:  SAY INTENTIONS.  It is worth noting SAY INTENTIONS is NOT defined in the P/C Glossary.

What do you think of this for a NEW definition to be added to the P/C Glossary:

SAY INTENTIONS− A demand statement used by ATC to force the Pilot in Command to MAKE and COMMUNICATE a (command) decision concerning the continued operation of that aircraft.  ATC must not interfere with the aeronautical decision making (ADM) process or the command authority of any pilot.
{Refer to 14 CFR Part 91.3 (a.)}

That definition sounds no more complicated to me than gathering the dots to connect the dots.  Simple !

re:  "You're all over the place here but..."
You tell me.  Where do YOU draw the line between clarification and interpretation ?  When the controller injects his own interpretation of the SIDs details, he is corrupting the pilot's perspective.  The pilot must have this procedure in front of him to provide for immediate use AND future contingencies.  See my response to your very next question.

re:  "I disagree.  This is a simple procedure and I fully understood the summation...without ...even needing to look at the chart."
re:  "Which very important details were OMITTED by the controller?"
You must not be a pilot.
Was the crossing radial from BYP to SOLDO mentioned ?
Where any of the details about BYP mentioned ? (freq, id, etc.)
What about the distances from TTT and UIM to SOLDO ?
What about the numerous other details about this SID and transition the controller neglected to mention but which are all clearly published on the procedure ?
Do you know what RAIM is ?
Do you know what is required of a pilot when the GPS looses RAIM ?
Do you think the pilot will need to know this stuff if and when the GPS looses RAIM ?
Are you willing to guarantee RAIM will never be lost ?
Clearance Delivery is exactly what the name implies:  Delivery of a clearance.  Clarifying the details essential for read-back and NOT the interpretation or practical application of the procedural details !!!

re:  "No he did not."
re:  "A request for clarification on a procedure does not relinquish his pilot-in-command authority."
Yes he did.  When this pilot acquiesced to the controller's incomplete interpretation of a published procedure he relinquished his sole responsibility for the operation of that aircraft.  Did you ever hear an accurate read-back ?
I did not. Regardless of the fact none is required;  What I did hear @ 00:05:12 was:

"Mooney 0JP, that's correct as far as it goes...are you sure you have an understanding of this ?"

Think ahead to a possible airspace violation for the pilot or worse;  Loss of separation for the Center controller.  The pilot will attempt to deflect blame onto the LOCAL controller's "instructions".  I promise you that LOCAL controller (all positions combined at the time) will stand front and center, shoulder-to-shoulder with that pilot during the course of any investigation into any deviation.  The controller will be absolved of any wrongdoing, only because FAA did not provide him with specific policy guidance to work with.  This issue needs to be studied by the policy decision makers in ATO as are all issues that ultimately find there way into the 7110.65 and AIM.

re:  "You don't know if he had the chart up in his possession or not.  I didn't hear him say he didn't have it, did you?"
I did not. 
However, given this pilot's scatter-brain performance on the radio AND
his specific mention of:  "...I'm looking at my low altitude chart for that" @ 00:03:39 AND
"GPS and...n...ready to ah...follow direct...follow the radar vectors" @ 00:05:17 AND
the fact he never says SOLDO, it's always So-Lo makes it pitifully obvious to me (imho) this guy
did not have the SID in his possession.
(refer to AIM 5-4-1c. Similar context for SIDs is presently missing from the AIM)

Do you really believe this guy would have become so flustered @ 00:04:04-19 AND
again @ 00:05:04 "...and expect one-zero thousand...correction zero-nine-thousand" AND
had so much difficulty comprehending the details of that SID IF he was actually looking at it during all this time ?

I don't.

I hope I have addressed all of your concerns.  If all this is your idea of trolling, I'm loving it.

Keep the discourse coming !!!

[jdflyer]

Forgive me sir but you said something about whether ATC should allow a careless and imprudent pilot into the air.  Actually my comment is primarily that I agree that the controller should not have to (and it is probably not safe to) try to read out the SID to anyone.  I think he should read the correct clearance (and only the clearance) and insure that the pilot has read it back correctly.  Once he has insured that the pilot has received the correct clearance I don't think it is his place to make any further determination as to whether the pilot may or may not be able to fly the clearance.

[InterpreDemon]

Rw's post cracked me up; "Bob apparently doesn't get out much, bless his heart", both his brevity and sense of humor in stark contrast to those of the OP.

I would almost call the clearance delivery experience here to be within the scope of ordinary... I have witnessed far worse and unlike others that may have or could have resulted in tragedy in the end these guys did get it sorted out before takeoff... which is the prime directive. If you think that was bad, just try listening to international carrier clearances out of JFK or on the HF bands if you really want to torture yourself.

Bob reminds me of Aykroyd's portrayal of Sgt. Joe Friday upbraiding Tom Hanks about his shoddy attire or lambasting the dilapidated motel owner Kathleen Freeman about her foul mouthed language. I just hope that while he is flying along someday with his head buried in his FARs, AIM and charts, sequentially correcting his controllers regarding their phraseology and responsibilities, that he does not fail to notice his alternator has stopped charging, he forgot to switch tanks or the rapidly approaching balloon he's got bore-sighted.

I have always felt that threads where pilots talk about their own errors and the lessons they learned is far more useful than experts opining upon lessons that may or may not be learned from the misfortune of dead pilots and passengers. I was on a commercial flight years ago when a dead-heading captain I was seated next to was called to the flight deck to replace the original captain, who came back and assumed the seat. I asked him if he was just taking a break and he told me he had briefly experienced vertigo, basically taking himself out of the game permanently and ending his airline career. For him it was not a matter of regulations and procedures, it was concern for the safety of his passengers. I admired that man and have never forgotten him. I myself have learned from many mistakes and oversights, yet am still alive to type about them, possibly because of him.

Since Bob appears to be on a mission to save us all; a relentless, touch-typing "Nomad" roaming the vast space of accident reports and recordings intent upon "sterilizing all imperfection", as a surrogate Captain Kirk might I suggest that instead of talking about the errors of others he could open with a story of a mistake he has made and lesson learned as a PIC, if in fact that has ever happened... and then sterilize himself.

[airkiwi]

As an ATC'er at one of the busiest airports in the U.S., there are a few things that strike me after sadly wasting so much time reading the second guessing's and "analysis" by the person clearly with ample free time.

The first is that I'm not sure why someone would get a thrill out of picking apart a situation to such a degree. It may be framed as a teaching opportunity, but to this degree it's seen as a vilification of a controller and pilot. And the fact is, those involved don't deserve that level of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. It's disrespectful and rude - not educational.

The second is that pilots, much like controllers and people in general, are far from perfect. (Get it - far? Ha.) There are situations everyday where the AIM, FAR, and 7110.65 are not followed in favor of clear communication or to make traffic flow more expeditiously with safety not being compromised.

What I would say to student pilots who may read the aforementioned analysis is that don't be afraid to 'say' what it is you need or are asking for, and to ask a plain question if something is unclear. The phraseology may not be perfect, there may be a deviation from the rules, but this system often works because common sense can and does prevail over formality.

[StuSEL]

This thread is absolute nonsense.

The description provided by the controller is sufficient to execute the SID. There is no requirement for DME, nor for DME to be described, when involving an intersection (ie. an intersection of two different VOR radials). The pilot correctly read back the SID instructions as read back by the controller, and the controller verified with the pilot that he understood those instructions even after a proper readback.

Pilots have the privilege of rejecting a SID altogether, but they also have the authority to fly one without having the chart on board, so long as a textual description is provided by ATC.

Absolutely nothing in this exchange alludes to a lack of preflight preparation or regulatory violation whatsoever. Nada. In fact, one could make an easier argument that the OP's post constitutes slander against the pilot involved.

[tkibob]

Reply for StuSEL:

  "The description provided by the controller is sufficient to execute the SID. There is no requirement for DME, nor for DME to be described, when involving an intersection (ie. an intersection of two different VOR radials)."

Loss of RAIM makes navigating with GPS useless.  I beg your pardon, you already know that.

SOLDO would have to be identified by:

TTT R-084 36 DME  (36 DME was never mentioned by the controller)

UIM R-261 49 DME  (49 DME was never mentioned by the controller)

Which "two different VOR radials" do you have in mind in this scenario ?

TTT R-084 & UIM R-261 are just 3° apart at the intersection.  Is that acceptable to you ?

BYP R-181 was never mentioned by the controller.  Why do you suppose the BYP R-181 is detailed on the SID ?

The BONHAM VOR Name, 3-letter identifier, Morse Code identifier and Frequency were all never mentioned by this controller.  Does the absence of those details make for a "sufficient" "description provided by this controller" ?  Could this controller's dictation and omissions, unintentionally, create a problem for the next controller ?  If you were flying in the vicinity of that airplane, would a loss of separation between the two of you cause you any concern ?

"The pilot correctly read back the SID instructions as read back by the controller, and the controller verified with the pilot that he understood those instructions even after a proper readback."

Scroll to 00:05:11 on the clock.  After the FIFTH attempt to deliver and read-back:

ATC:  "Mooney 0JP..that's correct as far as it goes..are you sure you have an understanding of this ?"

0JP:  "GPS and...n...ready to ah...follow direct...follow the radar vectors"

Please indicate the time when your heard a "proper readback" CFII !  There were at least five attempts.  Which one or more of those read-backs are your suggesting was correct ?

"Pilots have the privilege of rejecting a SID altogether, but they also have the authority to fly one without having the chart on board, so long as a textual description is provided by ATC."

Did this pilot file the SID ?  If so, why all of the difficulty ?  If he really did comply with FAR 91.103 why would there be any confusion over so many distinct details ?

Was the SID really in front of him to read ? 

Why should there be any confusion over Quitman ?  The controller stated the word "Quitman" slowly, accurately and professionally ELEVEN separate times.

Regardless of how he acquired the textural description:

       QUITMAN TRANSITION (HUBB8.UIM): From over TTT VOR/DME on TTT R-084
       to SOLDO INT, then on UIM R-261 to UIM VOR/DME.

Why does he always say So-Lo and never SOLDO ?

Did this pilot know he could reject the SID ?  If not, why not ?

"Absolutely nothing in this exchange alludes to a lack of preflight preparation or regulatory violation whatsoever. Nada."

Well said !  By the tenor of your comments, I can clearly see how you arrive at that conclusion given the controller's dictation and this pilot's numerous read-back attempts.

"In fact, one could make an easier argument that the OP's post constitutes slander against the pilot involved."

Next time you land, look up the definition of libel and compare it to slander.  My comments address pilot performance IMO.  Did I post your real name anywhere ?  If I did, you have my sincerest apologies. 

Here is an interesting article I think you would enjoy reading:

http://twinandturbine.com/article/confirmation-bias/

To summarize the article:

"If information or an observation does not match our mindset, we tend to discount, or even completely ignore, the contrary evidence."

   Maybe that's why things like SIDs and STARs and Checklists are published separately and can only be of benefit when used as intended. 

[StuSEL]

The use of GPS is not remotely required to comply with this clearance. DME distance is also not necessary. This clearance and associated departure procedure may be flown entirely using only a single VOR receiver.

SOLDO is defined as the intersection of the Maverick 084 radial and the Quitman 261 radial. The Bonham radial is not required to identify SOLDO except if Maverick or Quitman are out of service. The name of the intersection is also unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

14 CFR Part 91.103 does not require pilots to brief every possible SID in anticipation that one may be assigned by clearance delivery. It is only required that if a pilot decides to accept a clearance for the SID, he must have a textual description available, which may be provided by a controller.

[tkibob]

"SOLDO is defined as the intersection of the Maverick 084 radial and the Quitman 261 radial. The Bonham radial is not required to identify SOLDO except if Maverick or Quitman are out of service. The name of the intersection is also unimportant in the grand scheme of things." 

What do you make of that article CFII ?

[StuSEL]

What do you make of that article CFII ?

The only person seeing things that are not there (ie. regulatory violations) is you. I have only stated factual information backed by evidence.

[tkibob]

"I have only stated factual information backed by evidence."

You would make a devastatingly effective expert witness ! 

[StuSEL]

"I have only stated factual information backed by evidence."

You must make a devastatingly effective expert witness ! 

And you make for one moronic prosecutor.