Does the NTSB not know what flight following is?

[NovemberEcho]

The most recent Kobe crash report is mind boggling in the ATC section. Not because of anything ATC did, but because of what the NTSB apparently expected them to be doing.

some highlights are...

1. Citing VNY for not telling him he’s radar contact. VNY is a class D tower, they don’t provide radar services.

2. Cited SCT for denying him flight following due to poor radar coverage. They claim SCT wasnt too busy to provide the service. This is true. But literally #3 in the list of reasons to deny FF is “quality of surveillance”.

3. Cited SCT for not telling him “radar services terminated” and that therefore the pilot though he was still receiving radar advisories. The pilot was never told radar contact at any point. He was given a code by BUR tower for the SVFR transition and then terminated and told to squawk vfr when it was over. SCT never radar identified him.

4. The NTSB seems to think that ATC will give you terrain warnings when your on flight following? Like, wtf? Hell the low altitude alert is by default disabled on VFR tags. If you’re flying VFR and need ATC to warn you of terrain you need to declare emergency.

https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=11922237&FileExtension=pdf&FileName=IEH%20Submission_Redacted-Rel.pdf

 

[SteveC]

The most recent Kobe crash report is mind boggling in the ATC section. Not because of anything ATC did, but because of what the NTSB apparently expected them to be doing.

some highlights are...

1. Citing VNY for not telling him he’s radar contact. VNY is a class D tower, they don’t provide radar services.

2. Cited SCT for denying him flight following due to poor radar coverage. They claim SCT wasnt too busy to provide the service. This is true. But literally #3 in the list of reasons to deny FF is “quality of surveillance”.

3. Cited SCT for not telling him “radar services terminated” and that therefore the pilot though he was still receiving radar advisories. The pilot was never told radar contact at any point. He was given a code by BUR tower for the SVFR transition and then terminated and told to squawk vfr when it was over. SCT never radar identified him.

4. The NTSB seems to think that ATC will give you terrain warnings when your on flight following? Like, wtf? Hell the low altitude alert is by default disabled on VFR tags. If you’re flying VFR and need ATC to warn you of terrain you need to declare emergency.

https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=11922237&FileExtension=pdf&FileName=IEH%20Submission_Redacted-Rel.pdf

Troubling...

 

[Space Monkey]

The most recent Kobe crash report is mind boggling in the ATC section. Not because of anything ATC did, but because of what the NTSB apparently expected them to be doing.

some highlights are...

1. Citing VNY for not telling him he’s radar contact. VNY is a class D tower, they don’t provide radar services.

2. Cited SCT for denying him flight following due to poor radar coverage. They claim SCT wasnt too busy to provide the service. This is true. But literally #3 in the list of reasons to deny FF is “quality of surveillance”.

3. Cited SCT for not telling him “radar services terminated” and that therefore the pilot though he was still receiving radar advisories. The pilot was never told radar contact at any point. He was given a code by BUR tower for the SVFR transition and then terminated and told to squawk vfr when it was over. SCT never radar identified him.

4. The NTSB seems to think that ATC will give you terrain warnings when your on flight following? Like, wtf? Hell the low altitude alert is by default disabled on VFR tags. If you’re flying VFR and need ATC to warn you of terrain you need to declare emergency.

https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=11922237&FileExtension=pdf&FileName=IEH%20Submission_Redacted-Rel.pdf

LOL!!!

You dudes are the "Controllers". Ergo, please control us pups! Bend us to your will. Fly our planes for us. Protect us from tragic fates!!!

This NTSB report is lowering my "pro"-rated life insurance premiums. In the spirit of the new entitled age, I'm all for blaming you guys for our failures!!!

Smooth hits, bra!

 

[scooter2525]

LOL!!!

You dudes are the "Controllers". Ergo, please control us pups! Bend us to your will. Fly our planes for us. Protect us from tragic fates!!!

This NTSB report is lowering my "pro"-rated life insurance premiums. In the spirit of the new entitled age, I'm all for blaming you guys for our failures!!!

Smooth hits, bra!

Uhhhh what?

 

[Space Monkey]

Uhhhh what?

Slow it down... Read it again. This time, consider context. To you, that's probably really B...I...G context. But, hemingway...

 

[nabbyfan]

I have no idea how anybody can look at any aspect of the Kobe crash and blame Socal for it. I work the center airspace above the crash, and I vividly remember that day, and morning driving up to 14 to work. It was Foggy AF.

Socal didnt force this guy to try to fly VFR through the 101 in clearly not VFR weather.

One of the others reports came out with the Helicopter company trying to say that Socal asking the guy to IDENT is what caused his disorientation, and now apparently its a lack of FF that did it too?

At least this time they didnt release the controllers names, like they did right after the crash. Pretty messed up.

 

[greg1016]

This is an affidavit from the helicopter charter company, is it not? This is just part of the docket, it is not the NTSB at all. Am I wrong about that?

 

[Fixtur]

I have no idea how anybody can look at any aspect of the Kobe crash and blame Socal for it. I work the center airspace above the crash, and I vividly remember that day, and morning driving up to 14 to work. It was Foggy AF.

So you're the guy I'm talking to when I'm on the Legos at about Bloxx or bldit?

 

[thepotato232]

Quick point of order folks, the document in question is from July 2020, specifically identified as the charter company CP's affidavit explaining how it was Totally Not His Company's Fault that the accident happened. It is *addressed* to the NTSB, and is thus part of the public record of the accident investigation.

The NTSB Final Report states in no uncertain terms that it was virtually all the pilot's fault.

A bit of an internet-grade reading comprehension miss going on here. Nevertheless, the charter company's statement deserves to be in the public domain, if only for the volume of rancid sleaze oozing from every word.

 

[NovemberEcho]

Quick point of order folks, the document in question is from July 2020, specifically identified as the charter company CP's affidavit explaining how it was Totally Not His Company's Fault that the accident happened. It is *addressed* to the NTSB, and is thus part of the public record of the accident investigation.

The NTSB Final Report states in no uncertain terms that it was virtually all the pilot's fault.

A bit of an internet-grade reading comprehension miss going on here. Nevertheless, the charter company's statement deserves to be in the public domain, if only for the volume of rancid sleaze oozing from every word.

yes. Apparently i mistook “ntsb submission” as it had been submitted BY the NTSB, not TO the NTSB

 

[thepotato232]

Thank you though. It was a grimly entertaining read, once properly identified. Can't help but wonder if that chief pilot still has his post, given his public take on the responsibilities of a Pilot in Command.

 

[fholbert]

yes. Apparently i mistook “ntsb submission” as it had been submitted BY the NTSB, not TO the NTSB

 

[hammerhat]

Out of curiosity, what constitutes "radar services"? I frequently transition class "d" in helicopters and tower controllers often call traffic and sometimes weather returns for me. But they never give me code or say "radar contact". OTOH class "c" approach always gives code. I understand "d" is not radar services, while "c" is? But practically speaking, services appear to be exactly the same.

 

[ChasenSFO]

Uhhhh what?

 

[NovemberEcho]

Out of curiosity, what constitutes "radar services"? I frequently transition class "d" in helicopters and tower controllers often call traffic and sometimes weather returns for me. But they never give me code or say "radar contact". OTOH class "c" approach always gives code. I understand "d" is not radar services, while "c" is? But practically speaking, services appear to be exactly the same.

basicallg at class d towers, if they even have a radar feed af all, aren’t certified on it and can only use it to help with situational awareness. @greg1016 can probsblg explain in more depth

 

[greg1016]

Out of curiosity, what constitutes "radar services"? I frequently transition class "d" in helicopters and tower controllers often call traffic and sometimes weather returns for me. But they never give me code or say "radar contact". OTOH class "c" approach always gives code. I understand "d" is not radar services, while "c" is? But practically speaking, services appear to be exactly the same.

basicallg at class d towers, if they even have a radar feed af all, aren’t certified on it and can only use it to help with situational awareness. @greg1016 can probsblg explain in more depth

Specifically, radar services mean you are being provided radar separation for the class of airspace you are operating in and the flight rules you are operating under. Most class D towers, which to ATC are also known as VFR towers, are equipped with some kind of tower radar display. As @NovemberEcho stated, they are mostly used for situational awareness purposes, a so-called "extension of our eyes." Their use varies from facility to facility. As you may know as a pilot, there is no separation standard for VFR to VFR or VFR to IFR aircraft in class D (and E & G) airspace. Pilots are EXPECTED to see and avoid in these classes of airspace in VMC. In practice, I do not know of any certified controller who would allow radar targets to merge without taking action, and that may lead pilots into a false sense of security while receiving VFR advisories. An easy way to determine if you are receiving radar services or not is the phraseology to issue turns. If you are NOT receiving radar services you will be offered suggestions instead of clearances (i.e. suggest you turn 30 degrees right, traffic 12 o'clock 3 miles yadda yadda).

At my former tower, we were not authorized to provide radar services under most situations. During normal VFR operations we used it to provide traffic calls and as a tool to formulate a landing/departure sequence. We had the ability to put VFR aircraft on a discreet code, but rarely did unless the aircraft was requesting advisories outside of our Class D. Our radar display was certified and in IMC we were authorized to provide arrival to departure initial separation per 7110.65

5-8-4 1. DEPARTURE AND ARRIVAL
TERMINAL. ...separate a departing aircraft from an arriving aircraft on final approach by a minimum of 2 miles if separation will increase to a minimum of 3 miles (5 miles when 40 miles or more from the antenna) within 1 minute after takeoff.

This situation rarely occurred due to our level of traffic especially during IMC. Most controllers never even cut it that close during IMC due to unfamiliarity with the rule. We were also required to issue low altitude alerts to IFR aircraft, but we were not trained on the minimum vectoring altitudes for the area and you would have never heard "radar contact" or "radar service terminated." If you were on a discreet code leaving the airspace you would merely hear "squawk VFR, frequency change approved"

 

[greg1016]

After re-reading @hammerhat 's comment, wanted to touch on VFR services in B and C airspace. There are specific separation requirements for VFR aircraft in those classes of airspace. In B airspace for light aircraft it is 500 feet and I believe 1.5 miles (I read a quarterly refresher on it the other day, but I have not been to that class yet). I do not know about C other than separation minima does exist.

 

[A300Capt]

If you’re flying VFR and need ATC to warn you of terrain you need to declare emergency.

if you’re flying VFR and need ATC to warn you about terrain then me thinks you aren’t VFR...

 

[fholbert]

if you’re flying VFR and need ATC to warn you about terrain then me thinks you aren’t VFR...

Because pilots blame the FAA when VFR aircraft hit a mountain?

 

[Prino]

After re-reading @hammerhat 's comment, wanted to touch on VFR services in B and C airspace. There are specific separation requirements for VFR aircraft in those classes of airspace. In B airspace for light aircraft it is 500 feet and I believe 1.5 miles (I read a quarterly refresher on it the other day, but I have not been to that class yet). I do not know about C other than separation minima does exist.

500’ or 1.5 miles and that depends on the weight of the aircraft involved. I think it’s something like 14,500. So basically all your light single guys are just target resolution in the B. But if it’s a 172 from a 737 it’s 1.5 miles. And You try not to use 500’ unless you want to yell across the room you just had an RA