DC ADIZ induced Fatality?

[Tiger815]

Apparently, the ADIZ rules have become a factor in a fatal airplane accident.

A transient pilot flew into the DC ADIZ presumably on an IFR plan, which would make the ADIZ procedure almost completely transparent. Unfortunately, they did not clearly understand the ADIZ rules, and departed VFR attempting to pick up their IFR clearance in the air.

A very busy Potomac TRACON controller advised the pilot he was violating the ADIZ and instructed him to land immediately at the airport he had just departed. In doing so, the pilot was stressed, lost SA and ended up crashing.

The ATC exchage was captured by live ATC and can be heard here:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kb...2006-1930Z.mp3

Its about 12 minutes into the recording.

An intial news report on the crash is available at:

http://wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=948908

Tipton is a smaller airport and doesn't have an RCO to obtain clearance on the ground. Since departing VFR and picking up your IFR is common in the rest of the country I can see how a pilot unfamiliar with the ADIZ could make this mistake. Especially, since it seems briefers outside the DC area are not as well versed on the ADIZ rules as the local briefers and may not have emphasised the requirement to obtain your IFR clearance on the ground.

I've always maintained that the ADIZ compromises saftey for a "feeling" of security. This accident tragically proves the point. I can't imagine how the family must feel.

[Hacker15e]

Originally Posted by Tiger815

I've always maintained that the ADIZ compromises saftey for a "feeling" of security. This accident tragically proves the point. I can't imagine how the family must feel.

So, you're saying that an exchange over the radio caused a pilot to lose his ability to fly his airplane? The pilot was unable to avoid hitting the ground because of ATC direction?

Not disputing your assertion that having the ADIZ is more feel-good than actually making the area more secure from attack...

...but to state that the existence of the ADIZ, and ATC's comm telling him to turn around and land was responsible for the crash is ridiculous.

[Timbuff10]

Originally Posted by Hacker15e

...but to state that the existence of the ADIZ, and ATC's comm telling him to turn around and land was responsible for the crash is ridiculous.

So let's say that this little radio exchange never happened and the guy flew on his way like we normally would. Would it have still happened? Doubt it.

Being told to return to the airport and that you just violated some airspace, along with getting the dreaded phone # to "Air Defense" is plenty to create a distraction for any pilot.

That being said, I am sure there were other factors that lead to the outcome but just like in nearly all accidents, you take one corrective measure to stop the "chain of events" and it prevents the accident usually. Just so happens that this ADIZ bust seems to be what put these guys on their final course.

Why not require a background check for all pilots in this country instead of an ADIZ? Maybe we should protect the whole country instead of one area in DC?

[falconvalley]

Yeah the ADIZ doesn't prove anything, doesn't stop anything. It just gets people in trouble. Everybody makes mistakes. That sorry-%$$ airspace is just the place where your mistakes could end up on national television.

[MFT1Air]

Sorry about the family loss.

[Hacker15e]

Originally Posted by Timbuff10

Being told to return to the airport and that you just violated some airspace, along with getting the dreaded phone # to "Air Defense" is plenty to create a distraction for any pilot.

The real title of this thread needs to be "inability to handle stress-induced fatality". Of course, we don't know that's what happened from the NTSB report, but it's closer to reality than the hypothesis in the first post in this thread. If that's the case, then the location (an ADIZ) is completely immaterial -- the ADIZ just happens to be where the incident took place. The "stress" of being told something by ATC can't possibly be as much as the stress of an engine fire, or a near midair, or any number of actual unusual things that could potentially happen to any pilot on any given day.

It's your job as a pilot to be able to handle "stress" like that. If you can't hack simply flying the airplane when your cage has been rattled, you don't have any business being up there in the first place.

[TXaviator]

terrorists follow airspace rules very nicely, duh.

[SpiraMirabilis]

Originally Posted by Hacker15e

It's your job as a pilot to be able to handle "stress" like that. If you can't hack simply flying the airplane when your cage has been rattled, you don't have any business being up there in the first place.

Why doesn't everyone fly in stressful situations 24/7 then, if we're supposed to be able to handle them? The fact that it was the pilot is responsible for this accident doesn't mean that the ADIZ or ATC could not have been a contributing factor.

[averyrm]

If it was a contributing factor, then it's just more his fault. I competely agree with Hacker.

Also, what does, "Why doesn't everyone fly in stressful situations 24/7 then, if we're supposed to be able to handle them?" mean?

[Timbuff10]

Sorry, I didn't realize you guys were "robopilots" and feelings and stress has no impact on how you fly or perform in other situations.

For me, if someone just told me that your trip is cxld, you need to return to the airport, and call ATC so they can arrange to take away your livelyhood, yeah that would be weighing on my mind as I try to turn back.

You can't deny that for some people, this could easily turn into a contributing factor. Not saying, that this is what happened here, but I wouldn't be shocked if something like this were to happen.

[tonyw]

I'm with Tim. Sure, you SHOULD be able to set aside your feelings and just fly the airplane right back to the airport, but guess what?

We're all human. And wondering, things like, oh crap, is an F-16 going to shoot me down? What's going to happen to my ticket? Will I be doing jail time and the like is NOT conducive to successfully completing your mission of getting that plane on the ground safely.

Besides, if anyone thinks the ADIZ is doing one bit of good to protect us, they're smoking something that the FAA doesn't allow.

On September 11, the Pentagon was a no fly zone. Well, that did a lot of good.

[Hacker15e]

Originally Posted by Timbuff10

Sorry, I didn't realize you guys were "robopilots" and feelings and stress has no impact on how you fly or perform in other situations.

Nobody said that a pilot couldn't feel stress, or that stress could not have some kind of impact on his performance -- that is human nature.

HOWEVER...

As pilots, we have ONLY ONE THING THAT WE MUST DO. That is DO NOT HIT THE GROUND OR ANYTHING ATTACHED TO IT. Remember that whole "aviate, navigate, communicate" thing? One of your main responsibilities as an aviator is to be able to handle unusual situations (especially emergencies) while not relinquishing your ability to fly the airplane.

Again, if something heard over the radio is enough to rattle you to the point that you no longer operate the aircraft safely, then what is going to happen when something really serious happens. If you are unable to keep your aircraft from impacting the ground while you are under stress, then you shouldn't be flying.

If that point isn't clear to anyone in the flying business, then they need to re-focus their priorities as an aviator.

Originally Posted by tonyw

We're all human. And wondering, things like, oh crap, is an F-16 going to shoot me down? What's going to happen to my ticket? Will I be doing jail time and the like is

All perfectly valid thoughts...but ones that need to be kept under control until safely on the ground.

Stress management is a vital skill for a pilot. It's a mindset more than anything else.

[Rocketman99]

I personally hate the ADIZ idea and how ridiculously difficult it makes normal everyday flying around DC. I don't think it serves any useful purpose - just like the TSA. That being said...

I agree with Hacker on this one. If you can hack flying a plane and turning aorund and landing because you had your cage a bit rattled by being told you've violate airspace and need to turn around and land back where you came from immediatley I don't think you should be flying either.

Granted, flying is something people sometimes do to escape stresses of everyday life (well, it is for me and so imagine for others as well). However, in learning to fly we are taught to deal things that create stress and distractions. Do you folks not remember flying with distractions (CFI's oops I dropped my pen can you grab it for me) or handling stressful situations (power pulled, you just lost an engine, your aircraft) in going for your PPL? I do. We ALL had to be able to handle those situations and still aviate safely to earn our license.

It is unfortunate that someone lost his life in this instance. I also don't know all the details such as wx or other mitigating cicrumstances but taken at face value, if a major causal factor really does turn out to be the stress/upset of news of violating airspace or potential to possibly lose a license then he should not have been flying in the first place.

My $.02. Flame away.

[mtsu_av8er]

I'm not sure what you guys are whining about. In the name of security, I'm willing to sacrifice a few lives now and then . . .

[Rocketman99]

But of course, for without security I would just feel so...insecure!

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by mtsu_av8er

I'm not sure what you guys are whining about. In the name of security, I'm willing to sacrifice a few lives now and then . . .

if it wasn't for that

[mtsu_av8er]

[JaceTheAce]

Originally Posted by TXaviator

terrorists follow airspace rules very nicely, duh.

the same reason why criminals strictly follow gun control laws.

[Tiger815]

Originally Posted by Rocketman99

I personally hate the ADIZ idea and how ridiculously difficult it makes normal everyday flying around DC. I don't think it serves any useful purpose - just like the TSA. That being said...

I agree with Hacker on this one. If you can hack flying a plane and turning aorund and landing because you had your cage a bit rattled by being told you've violate airspace and need to turn around and land back where you came from immediatley I don't think you should be flying either.

Granted, flying is something people sometimes do to escape stresses of everyday life (well, it is for me and so imagine for others as well). However, in learning to fly we are taught to deal things that create stress and distractions. Do you folks not remember flying with distractions (CFI's oops I dropped my pen can you grab it for me) or handling stressful situations (power pulled, you just lost an engine, your aircraft) in going for your PPL? I do. We ALL had to be able to handle those situations and still aviate safely to earn our license.

It is unfortunate that someone lost his life in this instance. I also don't know all the details such as wx or other mitigating cicrumstances but taken at face value, if a major causal factor really does turn out to be the stress/upset of news of violating airspace or potential to possibly lose a license then he should not have been flying in the first place.

My $.02. Flame away.

We train to handle distractions because even minor ones kill pilots all the time. How many pilots have crashed because a door popped open? It's real easy to say they shouldn't be flying, but the fact is we are all subject to task saturation and it could happen to any one of us. To say otherwise is a form of denial that is all too common in the pilots I've done BFR's with. I'll wager darn few of us are as good as we think we are.

Whatever else was going on, this guy would not have been directed to land immediately anywhere else in the country and it seems likely it was the unexpected RTB that overwhelmed him. The book "They called it pilot error" contains case studies of accidents and how ATC sometimes contributed by requiring addtional tasks of pilots when there were plenty of indications they were over their heads already. They have done research on how the WAY ATC says things can add stress. I think the way this guy said to land was about as bad as it could get. A more low key approach may not have set the guy off. In defense of the Controller he was very busy.

[Rocketman99]

Originally Posted by Tiger815

They have done research on how the WAY ATC says things can add stress. I think the way this guy said to land was about as bad as it could get. A more low key approach may not have set the guy off. In defense of the Controller he was very busy.

I don't know about that. The call from ATC sounded fairly docile to me and not particularly harsh. I talk to DC ADIZ controllers everyday when I'm working, I've heard them be not so nice plenty of times. Were it me flying, I wouldn't have thought twice about the tone of the radio call and would have assumed I was getting away with it completely. Different strokes I guess.

[Hacker15e]

Originally Posted by Tiger815

The book "They called it pilot error" contains case studies of accidents and how ATC sometimes contributed by requiring addtional tasks of pilots when there were plenty of indications they were over their heads already. They have done research on how the WAY ATC says things can add stress. I think the way this guy said to land was about as bad as it could get. A more low key approach may not have set the guy off. In defense of the Controller he was very busy.

We are venturing far from the original concept of the first post. The subject of the thread, "ADIZ Induced Fatality", implies that a piece of airspace was somehow at fault for the crash. I think that's a ludicrous hypothesis, as the ADIZ just happened to be the mechanism that created an unexpected situation for the pilot. The same thing could happen with a bird strike, the engine coughing, a sick passenger, a burned out light on the instrument panel, etc.

Now you're suggesting that the way ATC talked to the pilot was responsible for the crash?

The simple core concept here (again, we don't KNOW this from the accident report, but we're implying this based on the lack of other evidence) is that the pilot in command violated rule #1 of flying -- he didn't fly his aircraft in accordance with the technical data. Doesn't matter if he stalled while turning around or was simply so distracted by the events that he hit the dirt short of the runway -- he didn't fly the airplane correctly. As a result he, and passenger, died. There's a phrase for this, and it's called pilot error.

No matter what else is happening, you have to fly the aircraft. This is a core aviation concept that should be taught (and continually emphasized) to every pilot right from the beginning. My CFI taught me "aviate, navigate, communicate" on my very first lesson. It's a point that never gets old and never loses relevance no matter what your experience level. I have been flying USAF fighters for 8 years, and in EVERY preflight briefing I still talk about human factors -- task saturation, prioritization, complacency -- with the basic point being that in any situation your primary job is to avoid hitting the ground or anything attached to it. In an airline captain's briefing he undoubtedly specifically mentions who will be responisble for just flying the aircraft in the event of an emergency.

If you want to look for causes of the accident, then this is the avenue you need to look at...and not wacky airspace or the harsh tone used on the radio.

<BREAK, BREAK>

Now, I am guessing the the original intent of this thread was to show that the DC ADIZ is harmful, and be an argument for doing away with it. I agree that the ADIZ does nothing to make the area more secure AND creates more hassle for General Aviation operating in the area.

This crash case study, however, does nothing to add to that argument. Apples and oranges in my opinion.

[Timbuff10]

I don't think anyone is saying that the ADIZ was the sole thing that made this guy put his plane in the ground.

What we are saying is that if he did this flight a few years ago before the ADIZ was around, chances are very good he would not have made the news. Looks like the ADIZ snafu was the first step in the chain of events that ended life. Should he have been able to handle it? Sure, but something went wrong and it would be nice to prevent stuff like that from happening again. Afterall, it might be you or me that makes the headlines next.

[mtsu_av8er]

Freedom isn't free, and this guy made a down payment! I'm just thankful that we have the ADIZ, keeping us safe from those that want to harm us!

[nosehair]

Originally Posted by Hacker15e

The same thing could happen with a bird strike, the engine coughing, a sick passenger, a burned out light on the instrument panel, etc.

Now you're suggesting that the way ATC talked to the pilot was responsible for the crash?

I don't think he was saying the airspace was 'responsible' as much as saying it was a 'contributing factor' the same as your examples, ie., bird strike, engine cough, etc.

I am in agreement with everyone that the pilot of the aircraft must never let any distraction cause him to lose control and fly into the ground, but we all know that it happens, and when we see a trend, for example, strobe lights in the eyes at night on final, we adopt an operating policy to reduce those high-risk areas.

He is saying that the ADIZ causes undue stress, and there is no advantage, such as an increase in security to justify the increased stress imposed on the unwary pilot.

[GaTechKid]

I just listened to the ATC transmission and it seems to me that the controller was pretty cool about this. Didn't he instruct the pilot to turn his transponder off, land immediately at Tipton, and that he would probably get away with this?