PilotEdge Forums

Recently on PilotEdge I experienced power loss en route in IMC. I informed ATC, which gave me vectors to the nearest airfield. But I was unable to maintain altitude, and once below the minimum vectoring altitude the controller said there was nothing more he could do beyond giving me the distance and bearing to the nearest airport. I ended up crash-landing on a city street somewhere in Long Beach. Being simulated, of course, pilot and plane were all okay.

I discovered afterward that the power loss was due to carburetor icing (stupid me). Applying carburetor heat would have solved the problem, but in my panic I didn't react properly. Given this, I was wondering about the controller's response. But there's more...

I was in a real-world situation where I overheard a pilot radio she had lost power. As with me, the controller gave her a vector to the nearest airfield, which she had a hard time finding because of the setting sun in her eyes and her growing panic she couldn't find the field. I heard another pilot on-air who recognized her voice and told her to "Switch tanks!!" but she apparently never heard him and ended up crashing into a neighborhood. She lived, but investigators discovered she ran a tank dry and failed to switch to a full tank. In retrospect, I wished I had chimed in and told her to switch tanks, also.

Given all this, I was wondering why the controller didn't do the same. Are FAA licensed controllers are forbidden/discouraged from offering advice to pilots in emergencies? Given that so many fatalities are the result of the same errors--fuel exhaustion, VFR into IMC, etc…--why aren't controllers trained and prompted to offer basic advice given that they know the aircraft type and basic weather conditions? Advice such as "Check your fuel" or "Check your carburetor heat", especially when it's clear the pilot needs help?

For example, at military airfields, all landing clearances are prefaced with the phrase "Check gear down." Is there a reason this isn't duplicated at civilian airports?

Yes, pilots have the ultimate responsibility for the safety of every flight, but given that safety is a universal outcome desired for everyone in aviation why aren't controllers trained to be more proactive? Is it because they are too busy? Or that any advice they might give is just as likely to be the wrong advice?

Just curious.

So in other words you're wondering why the controller didn't ask you to check your carb heat?

You'll hear controllers with pilot certificates asking pilots in emergencies to double check certain items. Controllers are trained on handling VFR-into-IMC situations. In fact, there's usually 2 or 3 of those occurrences each year that get featured in the controllers' union events and FAA safety briefings. What they're not trained on is systems operation, and why would they be?

Pilots are responsible for knowing how to operate the aircraft and how to respond to an emergency. In all Pipers I've flown, one of the first items on the engine failure checklist is to check the fuel tank selector. Another item is to apply carburetor heat. Having a well designed checklist, and taking 10 seconds to run the said checklist, could have solved the aforementioned emergencies.

The relationship between controller/pilot should be compared more to that of a police officer/911 dispatcher than a flight instructor/pilot. The controller on the other end of the mic is a resource for navigation in the NAS, not a flight instructor who should be expected to deliver advice about operating an aircraft. There's a certain degree of responsibility that comes with being a pilot, particularly when it comes to one's own aircraft.

That, and a controller is not going to know whether your plane has a carb or is fuel-injected.

True, and true. Pilots are ultimately responsible for the safety of every flight.

Perhaps more to the point: Neither I in the simulated situation nor the pilot I mentioned in the actual situation uttered the word "emergency" to controllers. If we had, how might that have changed the response of controllers? What would that have kicked into or gear? And how might that have changed the eventual outcome?

Thanks

My job as a controller in rw is to help keep the pilot calm during an inflight and not bombard them with too much info or distractions. If things get really dicey I'll throw out the basics to help pilot remember to fly the plane first.

We had an unusual emergency a few years ago. Weather was IFR almost VFR cigs, 2 mi vis... Malibu pilot tried putting his gear down and it wouldn't work (dang Malibu pilots!)... well he flew around the pattern on a special (SVFR) trying to get the gear down. Twice he almost went into the ground... I remember just saying, "sir just fly the plane first." I think it saved him. Finally he tried the nose over and pitch up and when they didn't work he decided to land gear up on our shorter runway (5700x150). At the last few seconds the gear magically dropped - it was bizarre. Anyway he was good to go, not sure what caused it in the first place. I was super nervous in my head but on the radio I was super calm just trying to allow this guy to work the problem but keep him from doing bad things when he got distracted. I have no problems suggesting basic pilot things to pilots either... I'm a pilot just not very current. But yep, PIC is responsible for the operation of the acft.

To answer your second question... maybe nothing would have changed. ATC can declare an emergency for the pilot if need be. Sometimes pilot's don't even say the E word... we just do it for them and do what is necessary on our end. I might inform a pilot I declared an emergency for them, or not, just depends on the situation. Either way, behind the scenes I can assure you that air traffic will get the ball rolling even if you don't declare.

Thanks Ryan,

Great explanation and anecdote. I have to say that I've learned about as much about flying via PilotEdge recently as I have through recurrent training. It's a great place to make mistakes and work through solutions.

Tom LeC