Silvaire, from my single data point, but having flown in both the US and Europe, I would agree. In general US ATC seems better trained, and of a more even quality. There are some excellent ATC resources in Europe, but having experienced start up delays (which disappear if you are lucky to speak the local language fluently), left on a radar vector towards high ground, bossy ATC unsettling students, way too much verbiage on air ground facilities: however, flying in Europe has helped raise my situational awareness as I double check what ATC is asking me to do.
US ATC is way more helpful and less judgemental because pilots in the US have a predisposition towards distrusting them. Anybody who grew up in the US knows an agent of the Federal government is very likely to be perceived as an adversary, so ATC feels the need to go in the opposite direction and promote their willingness to serve. I think they feel slightly uneasy in their power, like necessary but distrusted intruders into daily life, and not so entitled as they might. In other words, precisely as the US founders intended that Federal government would feel. If only the same would apply to those working in Fortress Washington DC.
In my experience, that slight insecurity in being Federal employees does work as intended for the benefit of the pilot who chooses to contact FAA ATC.
alioth wrote:
too many people see ATC as “The Feds” and as an adversary who’s looking to bust them at the slightest sign of the most trivial transgression.
Funny, I’ve heard that too, however in my experience, US ATC is WAY more helpful than any European one I’ve ever encountered. No idea where that notion comes from, it’s certainly not borne out by reality.
Another thing I don’t quite understand – didn’t that guy have an AP? I mean, even if you’re not current, you can always set a heading on the AP and establish a shallow descent through cloud.
A very useful video, thanks for posting.
The other thing that sticks out – and I’ve come across it before when talking to other pilots in the US – is that there is a “them” and “us” attitude towards ATC: too many people see ATC as “The Feds” and as an adversary who’s looking to bust them at the slightest sign of the most trivial transgression.
This attitude towards ATC is sometimes seen here too, I’ve heard of people who won’t turn on their Mode-C transponders for fear of getting busted (personally, I don’t care where I’m flying – unless I’ve been told to turn it off, the transponder goes on before takeoff always).
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
The guy had an instrument rating. Why couldn’t he just descend through the layer?
He said that he was instrument qualified but not current. When he did descend into the cloud, ATC said that he had difficulty holding a constant heading. “He wasn’t really about to hold a good heading. He was able to hold a straight line, just not the straight line that we wanted him on.”
This perhaps suggests that he was very uncurrent, which is probably his reason.
A few things jump out at me, but of course could be the video editing.
He flew to his destination, then to his alternate, and then to once location that he could see from over his alternate. Then he contacted ATC and ran out of fuel 18 minutes later. I don’t thing his alternate was too far from his destination and he could see the spot he wanted to go to from there. It suggests that he wasn’t flying all that long after his destination before running out of fuel.
And presumably he wouldn’t plan to an airport that was right on the limits of his range, so it would suggest that he didn’t fill the tanks full before departure. The old adage of fuel in the bowser is one of the most useless things in aviation comes to mind.
He contacted ATC for help and ran out of fuel 18 minutes later. Without a totaliser, he really had no idea how much fuel he had left. ATC asked him how many minutes he had left and he told them the truth…he didn’t know. If he had only 18 minutes left when contacting ATC, it could have just as easily happened that he’d have ran out before contacting ATC is his estimate had been slightly out. So he left it WAY too late to ask for help.
A lot of emphasis was placed on the colour of the flags on his GPS. It seems to suggest that he planed the flight based on the flags on his GPS, rather than METARs TAFs and other weather reports. Maybe this is just because this was a video about the inflight section and the flight planning was done properly, but not part of the video.
On ATC’s side, two things come to mind.
I found it strange that, given they said he was having difficulty flying were they wanted him to go, that they asked him to fly to a VOR. That meant having to look up the frequency, enter the frequency, and set up the radial. I would have thought in this circumstance a radar vector would have been much more appropriate. Give him a heading to fly and leave ATC to worry about the navigation. But maybe, knowing he was IFR qualified, they might have given him more credit, even though he was having difficulty holding a heading.
The other thing that stuck me from ATC’s side, which might be considered irrelevant, but I find the phraseology frustrating in this circumstance. When you engine has quit, being told to “Descend and maintain 2000” isn’t helpful. There is no point in hurrying up a descent and you can’t maintain anything for very long. So you just maintain best glide speed, and whatever descent that gives you, you get. I’ve read other reports where such an instruction was given and the pilot then wasn’t sure that ATC understood the problem and felt the need to explain that they can’t maintain anything. Better not to issue such useless instructions when the pilot has no engine.
Many US pilots like he get an IR for just such a circumstance as this, not because they want or need to use it regularly. Notwithstanding that he may not have flown on instruments in decades (the rating doesn’t go away regardless of his instrument currency), I’m surprised he didn’t call Center earlier to keep him clear of other traffic in Class E while descending. The video also highlights to me that an inexpensive fuel totalizer gives you good data to ‘force’ more timely decisions. You can’t kid yourself so easily when the fuel remaining number is counting down in front of you.
The guy had an instrument rating. Why couldn’t he just descend through the layer?
… talk about a Christmas F-up
Thanks for posting, I like to think all ATC might be up to this challenge, but wonder whether in Europe they would vector a SE low on fuel towards a built up area. The original plan was a PFL into SeaTac which seemed ambitious.
Also making a Pan or Mayday call would have simplified communication.
Nice Super 21, and I believe they can be retrofitted with BRS. 
