Most of what I write in this space appears to be about aviation. In truth, it’s not.
Sure, it’s about aviation, but it’s not specifically about aviation. There is a correlation between what I write here and the wider world. The concepts expressed here often connect and reflect our aeronautical endeavors to other facets of our lives.
We who participate in aeronautical pursuits do not exist in a vacuum.
When I opine on the topics of customer service, personal responsibility, economic potential, political activism, or aeronautical decision making, those topics relate to us as people. People who concern themselves with all the various interests, hobbies, concerns, and challenges any Jane or Joe Public deals with, whether they’ve got a connection to aviation or not.
I write about people and possibilities. Aircraft, airports, and events are merely the vehicles I choose as a means of telling those stories.
This past week an inexcusably argumentative exchange between a controller and a pilot, a Certificated Flight Instructor, made its way onto social media. Aside from the entertainment value some may find in this exchange, it gives aviation a black eye by linking us to the worst characteristics of humans. Arrogance, resistance to authority, complacency, deflection of blame, refusal to accept responsibility, and as if that isn’t bad enough, this all took place during an instructional flight with what we can reasonably assume was a primary student.
The transfer of knowledge that student gained from this experience was almost entirely negative. The only potential for a positive would be if the student realized independently, or after having it pointed out to them, that this was a prime example of how not to act when serving as PIC.
The issue at the heart of this messy interaction was simple enough. A student doing pattern work with their CFI aboard apparently overshot final, making the pilot of another aircraft using the parallel runway uncomfortable enough to report the overshoot to the tower.
“…be careful on your base legs,” says the controller to the offending aircraft. “I’ve got a complaint that you spilled over and you got really close to the aircraft on the other runway. Runway 10R, cleared for the option.”
This instruction is clear, non-combative, and reasonable. It’s merely a clearance for the option on Runway 10R, with a warning to tighten up the pattern to avoid a potential collision hazard. Totally professional.
Yet, that’s where the trouble starts. Rather than accept the clearance without extraneous comment, the CFI replies with the excuse that they’d overshot by only about 20 feet. The implication being yeah, we overshot final, but it’s no big deal.
This pointless deflection of responsibility ignores that the controller is relaying a complaint, not independently admonishing the pilot. In non-pilot speak: “Hey, someone else felt unsafe because of your sloppy flying. You’re cleared for the option. Be more careful, okay?”
Everything about the exchange goes downhill from there. The controller stands his ground. Overshooting final when traffic is using parallel runways is a bad thing. Don’t do it. The CFI continues to argue that he only overshot by a little, or maybe didn’t overshoot at all, and he was never close enough to the other traffic to create an issue, besides it might have been the other airplane that overshot, putting them too close to us.
All deflection all the time, until he ratchets the debate down to an even lower level.
After considerable back and forth between the tower and the CFI, almost all of it unnecessary and unrelated to the safety of flight, the controller finally tries to shut down the exchange with an admonishment, “Okay, stop arguing about a complaint, sir.”
And that’s where the CFI’s inability to accept responsibility departs from anything that approximates a reasonably productive exchange and degenerates into an extended argument.
What follows is not a remotely educational exchange that benefits the student, it’s not a quick apology followed by a commitment to keep a closer eye on his student, he doesn’t simply remain silent and limit his calls to those that are necessary for an aircraft operating in busy Class D airspace that underlies even busier Class B airspace. No, this particular CFI doubles down and locks into an actual debate on the frequency in an effort to define what an overshoot is to prove that he is blameless. He even lodges a complaint against the other pilot with the suggestion that it was the other aircraft that overshot final on the parallel runway.
This is all bad.
It’s bad from an educational standpoint. The argumentative CFI’s student is seeing blatant examples of irrational behavior in a high-workload environment, but may mistake that for appropriate behavior because it is his CFI’s manner of working.
It’s bad from a safety standpoint. The CFI is spending an inordinate amount of time on the radio trying to prove himself right, rather than focusing on working with his student, flying the aircraft, and working within the system as advised by ATC. Not to mention his abuse of the available bandwidth for communication from pilots in other aircraft.
It’s bad from a public relations standpoint. In an industry with a drop-out rate of nearly 80%, this exchange provides an excellent example of how a hopeful student can waste many dollars at the hands of an unprofessional CFI who puts the value of his instruction in the back-seat while his commitment to defending his own ego is a primary concern.
The low point in an already despicable exchange comes several minutes into the argument when the CFI refuses to accept instructions for a full-stop taxi-back, insisting on being cleared for the option. He even goes so far as to question whether his exchange is with the tower at all or someone else.
This is not an incident that happens in isolation. There are many. The pilot who busted the Las Vegas Class B, then refuses to leave, comes to mind.
Clearly, those of us who share the skies do not all value the privilege equally. Much as those of us who populate the cities and towns of our nation do not all feel the need to follow the established rules of the road, or anywhere else.
We would do well to be a little selfless, a bit more self-aware, willing to accept criticism, and willing to commit to a safer environment. The easiest way to do that is to start with ourselves — although, I wouldn’t be disappointed if the FAA stepped in to take action in blatant cases such as this one.
We all deserve better. In the air and on the ground, whether we’re in an aircraft, a car, or just walking down the sidewalk on a sunny day.
This kinda behavior unbecoming isn’t tolerated in my neck of the woods, nor by our FSDO…
Sorry Jamie…but we can figure on being contestant in this environment today…add ego and a sense of entitled privilege and young minds grow arrogant…shame.
Back in the day you’d ask ” do you think you can do it…fly?”…and if the response was “ya” a chuckle and an enthusiastic “…well let’s go!” was all.
I’m starting to think that the honor of all pilots that went before, and their honor, has no place in the minds of today’s youth.
Ask who’s Yeager…could be easy.
Ask who’s Hoover…maybe…OK.
Ask what about Langley…u might have bupkiss.
Was that overshoot TO final cuz I’m not visualizing “overshooting a final…”
Sorry about the syntax check …but
It makes a difference in the case of parallel RWYs.
Analyz it to death , the bottom line here is the instructor was too big for his britches at this point. He needs a little education or to get out of Aviation.
This instructor needs formal discipline in the form of a suspension and re-examination of his certificate. Everything he did in this exchange was wrong and shows an attitude not conducive to safety. What a poor example he is for his students.
Maybe it’s comparing mangoes & bananas. But I wonder how this squares with the attempted Red Bull Plane Swap stunt…which they proceeded to try, even though the FAA said “Don‘t”. With as many folks calling them Heroes for trying…as those calling them the opposite (using a variety of derogatory terms) for being “careless and reckless“ …among other things …seems like we’re not all on the “same sheet”.
I realize the issues & circumstances surrounding the Plane Swap and the CFI Meltdown are not the same. But it makes me wonder where we’re going when this stuff happens:
Not recognizing authority and following “The Rules”, whether we agree with them or not?
Displaying extremely unprofessional conduct in the cockpit, possibly to the detriment of those in other cockpits?
Operating at airports and in the airspace as if we own them?
I dunno: Aviation anarchy?
BTW: I chose not to listen to the audio; I don’t need the aggravation.
99.99999% of the interaction I’ve ever had with ATC/towers etc. has been totally professional, even when I have been the one who was not totally up to speed on some new or changed procedure or something. I try, I really do, but they are the professionals, not me, I’m an amateur. I did get the “call this number” once, seems I was having an intermittent radio problem in a rather tired flying club airplane and couldn’t hear ATC’s instructions near a fairly busy airport, but it was cleared up promptly (and I got a reminder of “Aviate, navigate, communicate” that day).
I can only think of ONE TIME that a controller was less than professional. I wanted to stop for fuel at (redacted), which was a fairly quiet GA airport in rural Florida. I made my radio call and got a VERY condescending reply “(Airport) is a non-federal control tower, you need to ask for landing instructions!!!” I said thank you, see ya, and refueled somewhere else that day.
If you haven’t heard the exchange, which I find disgusting, it is on the YouTube channel VASAviation.
I’ve listened to the exchange. I got the feeling that this wasn’t the first time these two had had issues. The controller said something to the effect of “you’re always so defensive”. While the CFI was clearly out of line, the controller let it go far too long.
Well, ATC has the phrase “Call this number when on the ground”, which used to be rather humbling. Seems it was avoided. Professional diplomacy by this controller was most apparent. The offending CFI would benefit from a serious organized “charm school”, social etiquette class, and review of good manners…character traits sadly “gone with the wind” in this modern era of prime time entertainment.
As written, the CFI should be investigated and receive FAA attention. Resolve the issue on the ground and not in the air.
What is the outcome of all this?
Did the CFI get written up and/or reprimanded?
From a father of a son getting his ratings, hoping for a flying career…
Makes me thankful I fly in hundreds of square miles where I don’t need a radio. Been there, done that …
Accept it and move on. If you think the controller was in error, go up and talk to him/her, or is it ‘they’ now, and work it out.
As a 43 year pilot and 37 year airline guy I’ve heard and seen a lot. This kind of arrogance and deflection of blame rankles my arse, and fortunately is not the norm. CFI needs his chops busted.
Welcome to the Age of the Punk and punkery can exist amongst all age groups…….but lets face it, most it is an affliction of the young. I don’t know if this CFI was a young time builder but his behavior was certainly malpractice (if such a thing exists in the CFI world).
Agreed. Dangerous misuse of frequency and ATC time. Puts everyone at risk. I hope ATC reported it, if only to cya.
The controller was clearly acting properly and the CFI was Not. If you fly in the system long enough (56 years for me) occasionally pilots will snap back at controilers and controllers at pilots for a variety of reasons. For the pilot I have found a simple Roger is 99% of the time the best pilot response. If your on the frequency just acknowledege don’t say “you gave me that frequency twice alreaady.” Or alternatively if the pilot is being directed to do something unsafe, ill advised from the pilots standpoint or simply not possible an unable generally will suffice. If the controller was clearly out of line then take it up on the ground with a supervisor. In our area for a number of years we had a very grumpy sour controller working in the approach facility. Most pilots got used to just ignoring his tone of voice and reporting his more eggregious acts. Eventually it caught up with him and he moved on.
Jamie—Great article!
I would venture to say that we all have done “inappropriate” actions that once we analyze the action; we wish we could have done “it differently”—-I know I have!!!! As “professional” in life (yes– we all should view ourselves as professionals in all we do—ESPECIALLY AS FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR–servers to the community) we should make every effort to put our best foot forward and treat those as we would want to be treated.
I just listened to the entire conversation on YouTube, thanks to a posting above.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SYOIHucHls
There is much more to the story than what you “opined” on. “It takes two to tango,” my old boss once told me after a guy “attacked me” verbally, seemingly for no reason. He (my boss) was right, and same here. Just listen to the recording. It’s MUCH better than reading about someone’s opinion of what was said. THIS is what was said, on YouTube. You can hear all the emotion, the subtle nuances, the tone of voice. True, a guy might still say the pilot was 100% wrong (like a lot of the YouTube commenters, full of “keyboard courage,” said. “THAT PILOT SHOULD LOSE HIS LICENSE,” etc. Spare me.