Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This is a situation that I witnessed; and do not think a [report] was filed. I feel it pertinent to bring up. Aircraft X was flying at the lowest assignable attitude (16000 feet) over the Sierra Nevada. The Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA) in that area is 15200 feet. The aircraft experienced serious downdrafts; and lost over 1200 feet of altitude in only 2-3 radar returns. The aircraft asked for help; and the controller working the sector initially responded with 'you're below my MIA; I can't vector you below the MIA.' The controller asked if he was getting icing; but the pilot said negative. When he finally gave suggested headings; the controller was saying things like maybe this heading or maybe that heading. Nothing concrete that would invoke any sort of confidence in the pilot. I feel that the controller did a terrible job helping the pilot. He did not issue a low altitude alert or even find out if he was IMC until 10 minutes after the issue started. It took another controller to make him ask the pilot if he was IMC; and issue a safety alert. The controller gave a much better service to another aircraft that was not in an emergency situation than he gave this aircraft. When the Operations Manager came in the area he asked if the pilot was getting carb icing (a very good question); and the controllers response was 'he is not getting icing.' The controller NEVER asked the pilot if he was getting carb icing. While this was probably not a contributing factor; this was pertinent information that could have helped the pilot get more power out of his engine. This particular controller has many difficulties working normal traffic; and a situation like this put him over the edge. This was a very unsafe situation; and I feel that if the pilot had not kept his cool he may have crashed. I feel that situations like these; that do not show up as a loss of separation; airspace violation; or incident are not looked at very seriously at our facility. Management filed an incident report but it was very vague and did not properly narrate the situation. I don't even think management listened to the tape. I do not want someone to be penalized; but I think we need to engage this controller; and offer him more training on these types of situations. In fact; every controller; including myself should be 'called out' if they do not provide enough service to an aircraft in need. We do run simulations with scenarios like this during our 'recovery' training; but I feel this exact situation should be re-created. We need to focus on all safety issues; not just separation loss or airspace violations.




Synopsis: ZOA Controller reported observing another Controller work an aircraft in downdrafts over mountains; but did not handle the situation according to standards.