Sikorsky pilot can't take "no" for an answer during EWR shutdown

[Eric M]

Today while EWR was closed for a security alert, @NYCAviation tweeted about this exchange between a Sikorsky Helicopters pilot really, really wanting to land at EWR even though radar services were not available and the controller was ordering him to remain clear of class B airspace.

@NYCAviation thought the controller responded with "knock yourself out" after the last snippet where the pilot says "Mark the tape," but I couldn't find that last comeback in the recording.

This all happened over several minutes in between other arrivals and departures, condensed here for easy listening.

UPDATE: I took another listen and found the final missing tower instruction, and added it to the file. Please download the file in post #3 below.

[Phil D.]

Sad it wasn't in the tape, the controller replied with it immediately. Is it possible it gets censored at all?

[Eric M]

I just went back and listened again - and I found it! Not sure how I missed that the first time. I've added it to the recording, and am attaching a fresh copy here.

[notaperfectpilot]

probably one of those pesky news helicopters or something like that...can't take no for an answer!

[jclear]

probably one of those pesky news helicopters or something like that...can't take no for an answer!

The helicopter wanted to land at Signature, so probably VIP types on board, not newsies.

[svoynick]

Not sure whether this means anything, but the first call on that clip ("should we stay with you to, uh, land at Signature, sir?" was a different voice - possibily with a British accent? - from the remainder of the calls that come after.

[SASD209]

Today while EWR was closed for a security alert, @NYCAviation tweeted about this exchange between a Sikorsky Helicopters pilot really, really wanting to land at EWR even though radar services were not available and the controller was ordering him to remain clear of class B airspace.

@NYCAviation thought the controller responded with "knock yourself out" after the last snippet where the pilot says "Mark the tape," but I couldn't find that last comeback in the recording.

This all happened over several minutes in between other arrivals and departures, condensed here for easy listening.

UPDATE: I took another listen and found the final missing tower instruction, and added it to the file. Please download the file in post #3 below.

I'd like to take issue with a couple of things about this post. When I saw "Sikorsky pilot", I naturally assumed it was a pilot employed by Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. This is not the case, nor is it the case that the pilot was from "Sikorsky Helicopters", a company which does not exist. This was a pilot employed by a sub-company D/B/A follows:
Sikorsky Fractional Sales Inc
and Associated Aircraft Group Inc.

You would not say "a Boeing pilot went around at JFK today", you'd say "a 744 pilot went around" or even "a Boeing 744 pilot...". Notice the distinction and what it conveys to the reader? 
Also, although Sikorsky makes the S-76, neither them nor UTC (parent company) were operating this flight in this helicopter. So, in this case it would be more accurate to refer to "a (Sikorsky) S-76 operated by AAG" rather than "Sikorsky Helicopters" or Sikorsky Aircraft or UTC. Again, see the distinction?
True, this is a company owned by Sikorsky Aircraft Corp, but the employees are NOT Sikorsky Employees, but employees of AAG. This is where the concept and sometimes confusion about "wholly owned subsidiaries" arises and it's an easy thing to overlook. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I do want to make the record clear just who these pilots were working for and where their paycheck comes from. Thanks
~SASD209

[Eric M]

I could certainly edit the post if it would help you feel better about things.

[englishpilot]

Pilot sounded like a bit of a nob to me. 

[mielsonwheals]

What does the pilot mean by "mark the tape"?

[sykocus]

The pilot is saying he's going to be making a complaint. All frequencies and landline communications are recorded at an ATC facility. Way back in the day it was recorded on to reel-to-reel tape recorders. In order to review the tapes it was kind of a pain to try and find the event in question. If there was an incident they knew they wanted to review they would mark down where on the reel it occurred and go back to it once that reel was being recorded. Nowadays the recordings are digitized, time synced to a GPS clock and interfaced via a computer so all you need to know it the time an event happened and it's relatively simple to find.

[SASD209]

I could certainly edit the post if it would help you feel better about things.

It is not about me feeling better or worse about things, it's about accuracy and the thoughts that the post and title convey to people when they read it. I have done my research and think i'm spot on with my facts. If I have made any errors I certainly apologize and will be willing to correct them. Other than that, thanks much for the thread and the recording... I think we all agree that the pilot was a bit pissy and unprofessional in this situation.

~SASD209

[InterpreDemon]

Much ado about nothing.. but I am happy to add more doo-doo. I suppose Eric could have said "helicopter pilot"... unless of course he was flying an S-42 for Pan Am, in which case he would have been "clipper pilot". Since the only two possible states we could infer via his identification was that he was either the pilot of a Sikorsky manufactured aircraft or a "Sikorsky pilot" commanding an unknown aircraft, it comes down to which interpretation is more likely. Since to my knowledge Sikorsky does not operate a regularly scheduled airline it is not logical to assume his tail number was in fact a flight number, therefore as a GA flight one would have to assume "Sikorsky" characterized the equipment and not the owner or pilot. When somebody identifies himself as "Cherokee two four six eight" most of us correctly assume he is not flying for Cherokee Airlines and could be referred to as a "Piper pilot" without confusing any but the most pedantic and disputatious readers.

Even the master of branding and grandstanding is reduced to GA status when it comes to calls, few knowing that November Seven Five Seven Alpha Foxtrot is in fact driven by a "Trump Pilot".

[svoynick]

...without confusing any but the most pedantic and disputatious readers.

Heh... Well put.

I immediately assumed that the subject of this thread was a "pilot of a Sikorsky"; in that sense, the post and title conveyed an accurate picture to me.

[B16NCM]

Cant see the problem, Its a Sikorsky S-76 Pilot flying for sikorsky Fractions baha de bha, S76 so its a sikorsky pilot.

God, you lot,give the guy a break,

Althought the pilot had an attitude the Controller was having an Information is power moment,
and could have quite easy expanded on the situtuion , and by just stating a generic reason i.e you can land due to a security incident i suggest you replan your intentions and call me back in 30 minute, may have resulted in the "Sikorsky s-76 pilot responding more professionally."

[pwr2al4]

I could certainly edit the post if it would help you feel better about things.

It is not about me feeling better or worse about things, it's about accuracy and the thoughts that the post and title convey to people when they read it. I have done my research and think i'm spot on with my facts. If I have made any errors I certainly apologize and will be willing to correct them. Other than that, thanks much for the thread and the recording... I think we all agree that the pilot was a bit pissy and unprofessional in this situation.

~SASD209

Wow, calm down guy.

We are not children, we understand that it is not literally a Sikorsky company pilot, rather a pilot flying a Sikorsky type... There is no conspiracy, everyone loves your helicopters, relax and breathe.

[SASD209]

Yes, thank you. I believe this issue was put to rest before you decided to chime in. Thanks for your input though.