Going the Extra Mile

[GAHorn]

On another msg board it was discussed and revealed that the seaplane episode was not all it appeared to be in the MP3 audio. Firstly, it was not a real time audio. It had been severely edited to shorten it. The actual time that transpired was over a half hour.

A supervisor ATC reviewer judged the controller to be in error. The seaplane was well to the east (4 miles) of the "sterilized" runway, at 500 feet, and the inbound aircraft was several thousand feet above the seaplane. There was no conflict between them at all, and there was no need to re-route the seaplane. (The seaplane pilot may have been pushy, and may have used poor judgment in continuing to voice his complaint over the air... but it was also likely his best opportunity to discuss the matter directly with the ATC specialist who was directly involved.

Also... the audio leads one to believe it all occured on a single frequency.... Not the case, however. The emgergency aircraft and all emergency vehicles were on a different, discrete frequency, and being handled by a completely different controller. The controller redirecting the seaplane was not "handling" the emergency at all, and therefore was not being pulled away from any emergency duties by a conversational seaplane pilot. The seaplane was not interfereing with the emergency operation in any way.

The ATC reviewer also criticised the controller because (the edited MP3 file prevented this from being obvious)...the ATC controller actually had a very low workload, was not handling other traffic, and in fact the reason the audio file had been edited was in order to delete 15 minutes of silence! There was actually nothing else going on for that controller.

While the seaplane pilot certainly seemed obnoxious in the edited audio, the ATC reviewer did not fault him for his commentary or his actions. The reviewer did fault the ATC specialist for failing to manage a low level workload properly and expeditiously, and for including unrelated air traffic (the seaplane) operating in an unrelated area , in the sterilization of a runway which did not conflict with the seaplane traffic.

Finally, the person who made the recording of the ATC conversations, is also the person who edited it for brevity. He was disturbed by all the hoopla caused by this, and has subsequently stated that if he'd known the aviating public would have taken the event so wrongly and so castigated the seaplane pilot .... he would have edited the seaplane tail number completely out of the audio file before he released it to the public.

It sounds as if a lot of folks have "lept" to conclusions about this matter without really knowing all the facts. (A large email campaign against the pilot and the seaplane owner/rental facility has resulted, with large numbers of threats of "boycott" of the seaplane rental facility for having rented to the "offending" pilot.) The person who recorded the audio was appalled that a "vigilante" group has undertaken to ostrasize and monetarily injure the seaplane rental company and it's owner.

Not my opinon. Just repeating what was said elsewhere. Puts a slightly different slant on things.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Thanks George I'd not considered all the facts you point out and of course the editing that was possible of this medium.

[Plummit]

Deleted

[cessna170bdriver]

Regardless of the editing, it sounds like the controller was just doing what his supervisor told him to do. And the supervisor was probably just following a government procedure to the letter. Just another government specification to make things "better". The seaplane pilot got to pay (however little it might have been) for that small increment of safety.

Miles

[MeeksDigital]

Well I've held out long enough.

First the radio isn't the place to argue a point but I do understand the seaplane pilots frustration.

My story and there are many in the airspace around NYC that I fly.

I'm flying MedEvac with a patient on board using Life-flight as my call sign. East of North East Philaldephia Airport class D I call in as a MedEvac flight requesting transition through the north side of the class D airspace which happened to put me on a parallel course for the active runway in use.

The controller denied my request and told me to circumnavigate the airspace. This was totally unexpected. I repeated my request and made sure the controller understood I was on Life-flight status and requested directly through his airspace. He once again denied my request.

At this point I was at the edge so I had to make a 60 degree right turn and circle. Will I listened to the radio I heard the controller clear an airplane with a strange call sign (government) to depart. I immediately recalled the the First Lady Laura Bush was in town that day and surmised it was her departure that diverted my flight.

I immediately called the tower and asked who was so important on that departure that they had to put my patient at risk. He wouldn't say who it was but said he was directed to sterilize his airspace by his supervisor. I asked for and received his supervisors number and that was the end of our exchange but I'm sure he understood my message.

The next day I spoke with the tower supervisor and explained the situation. He advised me that in giving his directive he hadn't considered a MedEvac (Life-flight) flight. He said that any future directives will take them into consideration. It would have been a simple matter of holding his departing traffic for two minutes for my flight through the airspace. As it was, had he cleared me though the airspace at my altitude of 800 feet and also cleared the Jet to depart on it's parallel course there was no way in hell I could have hit them as the past through my altitude.

Don't argue over the radio but do follow up with a phone call. Remember the controller could be dealing with more than is apparent like a directive, but they and their supervisors are human and don't think of everything.

I've had a few controllers over the years tell me I had to comply with this or that and in some cases deny access to airspace. Many controllers are not pilots and as such are not responsible to know the FARs. they have their own regulations that they must follow (that I don't know) that are supposed to work with the FARs we follow.

Bottom line know the FARs and what you can legally do. What is your legal course of action is if given a directive by a controller. Comply at the moment if you can. Make a different request. Get a phone number. Argue later.

Marc if I where you and had been in VFR conditions I would have cancelled IFR and done my training that way back to my destination not allowing the controller to hold you hostage.

I completely sympathize with that situation - the fact that the controller's supervisor made the mistake of not considering Life Flight is something that could have been avoided but I also understand... they're just doing their job. Glad to hear that you got his attention though, and hopefully you should never have to put another patient's life at risk because of something like that again.

On the other hand... I still think that seaplane pilot was stupid and out of line to argue on the radio, especially for the purpose of... wait, what was he doing again? He sure as heck wasn't flying a critically injured passenger!

[lowNslow]

On the other hand... I still think that seaplane pilot was stupid and out of line to argue on the radio, especially for the purpose of... wait, what was he doing again? He sure as heck wasn't flying a critically injured passenger!

Agreed. Make your point, if the controller disagrees get the facilitie's phone number and the controllers operating intials, and call them on the phone.

[GAHorn]

I'm surprised that a patient with life-threatening injuries/illness doesn't qualify a Life-Flight aircraft for emergency-handling/expeditious treatment as well...

(And does anybody think for a moment that a so-called "emergency flight" would be shot down if it declared and headed into DCA? I hesitate to mention this on the www, but any terrorist would likely think of it anyway.... we've all got to get used to "thinking outside of the box." ... and the TSA/FAA had better get busy and lead the way, instead of only displaying the simple-minded "prohibited" thinking to which they are accustomed. It's like gun-control... does anybody think for a moment that a terrorist is not going to use the system improperly just to attain their goals? IMHO )

[Iceman07]

OK, My story:

One day on a IFR Flight plan from LGB to SBA, my student and I were cruising along in the clouds, LAX was just behind us, we are out over the ocean, approaching SMA, when SOCAL says: (sic) "Piper 12345, radar service terminated, squaq 1200." "WHAT!?" says I, "Sir, we are on a IFR foight plan, in IFR conditions". "Piper 12345, I don't have time to talk to you, maintain VFR" "Just what exactly do you want me to do?" "I don't have time to talk to you, try contacting Magoo approach in a few more miles..."

Ah, crap..... here I am in some of the busiest airspace in the country, in IFR conditions, and nobody wants to talk to me.

Well, before I tell you what I did, what would YOU have done?

A couple more facts, before you answer:

1) (If I remenber right) we were at 6000ft.

2) Ceilings around the basin were running in the 4-5000 ft range.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I would have declared an emergency, which you were now in, and stayed with him till he figured it out. I'm sure you would have gotten his full attention.

[GAHorn]

I would have CONFIRMED he was calling the correct tail number and told him I was UNABLE to comply until he GOT me into VFR conditions.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

OK George that works for me as well. Then if that didn't get his attention I'd have to declare an emergency.

[GAHorn]

Iceman07.... tell us the "rest of the story."...

[Plummit]

Post deleted

[GAHorn]

Wasn't that the old (now superceded) ID for Santa Maria?

[Plummit]

Post deleted