Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Bit of a barney with ATC today, what would you have done?

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Bit of a barney with ATC today, what would you have done?

Old 29th Mar 2016, 19:17
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Temporarily Unsure!
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Private jet
As the captain of the aircraft YOU are responsible for the safe conduct of a flight, and you are perfectly entitled to question or deviate from any clearance or instruction from ATC if you believe the safety of the flight is or potentially will be comprimised. In that sense ATC is only an "advisory" service, the buck stops with the PIC, however you must be able to reasonably justify your actions afterwards!
Yup. Which starts with planning properly before take off. If you've done that and the subsequent perf means you're not going to make it, aviate and talk. It seems the knee jerk on here is to ignore poor airmanship.

Hat off to the OP for owning up to not planning before take off. The ILAFT is 'do the planning on the ground to avoid avoidable problems in the air'.
rarelyathome is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2016, 19:30
  #42 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cascais to Malaga velez , they told me to refile the flight plan and suggested that MINTA be chosen as a designated FIR crossing point in the new plan.

Hat off to the OP for owning up to not planning before take off. The ILAFT is 'do the planning on the ground to avoid avoidable problems in the air'.
As I said, I should have talked to them, looking at the numbers now the take off elevation was 1800, the top of the hill was 5200 so I would need at least 6200 for safe clearance due to the northerly wind I was getting which probably explains the lack of climb performance. The visuals and the gut feeling just weren't right and It kind of reminded me of a few years back when flying over Loch Tay towards an approximately 4000 foot ridge and I got one hellacious down draft/mountain wave which pegged the VSI, I managed to get turned around and away, a couple of micro lighters a little further along the range weren't so lucky. I think I had an instinct that was what I could have been about to fly into so immediately turned a bit. Again, I should have talked to them.
piperboy84 is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 00:13
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Midlands
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bit of a Barney.....

Happy Easter all.

Late on this thread and apologies if I'm repeating others' views.

I hope I'm allowed to share an opinion with such little experience.

Piperboy84, I have been very impressed with your recent (last 3 years or so) experience/exploits and looked forward to your posts (I must admit I have not read ALL 1165 of them!) until the attitude portrayed in the start of this thread.

We all make mistakes or just get it wrong (hand up/cap-in-hand etc) but, complete lack of planning (admitted) then complete lack of standard (comms.) procedure (admitted), followed by the implication that ATC were a nuisance (my interpretation) is not something prevalent in your hitherto profile!

Bad day at the office, yes, but the rest....?

Can't really understand your sharing the experience in this manner.

Back to the good stuff please (1165 onwards)

I'd also, of course, take a bollocking in one piece!

JJOE
jjoe is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 09:46
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have thought about this posting and think piper boy has inadvertently opened up a discussion which should highlight an area which is often disregarded but can have disasterous results and that is departures in mountainous areas with vital climb gradient requirements
Frankly ok he was a naughty boy not checking the departure requirements and taking a turn without permission but we all make mistakes and I am sure he won't make that one again
Even ATC make mistakes
I remember flying IFR in IMC into Bilbao and being cleared in the descent to below the MSA which I rejected and then got an apology(
But this is about big mountain flying something we are not used to in the UK and weather considerations become part of the decision making including severe downdraughts especially in low powered singles or light twins
I don't know if anyone has flown into LJLJ with a 10,000 foot mountain on the side of the runway ?
But PPLs also hold IRs and while this flight was VFR it highlights the dangers of flying limited performance light aircraft in IFR IMC conditions and climb gradients
Where CFIT accidents were highlighted in the USA in extra training and awareness

Seeing the terrain is no big shakes not seeing the terrain because you are IMC or also dealing with sinking air is another much more serious threat
So for me this fairly mild mistake highlights a potential much more serious consideration

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 09:59
  #45 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14,202
Received 46 Likes on 24 Posts
The other very valuable point here is VFR pilots inadvertently straying into, or towards, instrument patterns.

At Grenada there's actually a very useful clue - a VOR aligned with the main runway screams IAP at you, and it's obvious to most people that there's likely to be instrument traffic in that vicinity - if there's any at-all. This may often not be the case however - not all charts show all NDBs, or an approach may be aligned with a beacon the other side of the airport (or slowly, they are GPS based, which means that standard charts may tell you nothing at-all).

The UK/ICAO chart chevvron tells you little of value, as it's only shown for the ILS on one runway normally, and tells you nothing about the likely location of holding or outbound/base/departing IFR traffic, nor whether there are approaches on more than one runway.

There would be a lot of value (and yes, I know that our charts are quite cluttered enough already!) in some symbology on standard VFR charts that just shows where instrument traffic is most likely to be.

A parallel in the UK is the MATZ - shown on charts, it's where high energy military traffic is most likely to be around military airfields, it's not mandatory to avoid it - but we all know that at the very least asking for a MATZ penetration before entering that is a very good idea. Something "MATZish" around the standard holds and outbound/inbound tracks of IAPs shown on the chart, that gives VFR traffic a caution, would in my opinion be useful and support safety.

VFR pilots, who are (or have) hold/held IFR qualifications will at least understand the issues and know where to look for this information - but "vanilla" VFR pilots do not, and in any case, having it all on the single VFR chart makes more sense than not.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 10:00
  #46 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's Sean's turn
Posts: 1,870
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Pace
I remember flying IFR in IMC into Bilbao and being cleared in the descent to below the MSA which I rejected and then got an apology
Unless you're leaving out some pertinent details then I don't see the problem.
Chesty Morgan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 12:16
  #47 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14,202
Received 46 Likes on 24 Posts
Surely you should normally only descend below MSA in IMC/IFR as part of a procedure designed to ensure adequate terrain separation? Not en--route.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 13:19
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely you should normally only descend below MSA in IMC/IFR as part of a procedure designed to ensure adequate terrain separation? Not en--route
.


100% agree and hence my surprise at being given a descent clearance below the MSA way outside the procedure which I questioned and had rectified and an apology. But its shows you need to double check and don't trust anything as I have had ATC mistakes in both Italy and Spain

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 14:33
  #49 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's Sean's turn
Posts: 1,870
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
What's wrong with radar control then?

Minimum vectoring altitude can be lower than MSA if necessary and thousands of aircraft every day are cleared below MSA in IMC.
Chesty Morgan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 14:39
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What's wrong with radar control then?
Because it was acknowledged as a mistake and rectified when I queried it

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 14:47
  #51 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's Sean's turn
Posts: 1,870
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Yes, that's some of the pertinent information you missed out.

However, you've just 100% agreed that you can only descend below MSA when you're on a procedure. That is incorrect.
Chesty Morgan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 14:50
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK CM you win on pedantics But still don't trust anyone ATC included

MSA when you're on a procedure.
I was not on a procedure )

Surely you should normally only descend below MSA in IMC/IFR as part of a procedure designed to ensure adequate terrain separation? Not en--route.
That is what I agreed 100% )

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 15:03
  #53 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's Sean's turn
Posts: 1,870
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
There's nothing pedantic about it. Being procedural isn't the only way you can legally descend below MSA. To state otherwise just highlights the general misunderstanding of minimum altitudes. People do come to this site to learn things, unfortunately, so it's important to be correct when stating facts.

Point in case I reckon you didn't actually mean MSA because at Bilbao it's 7000'. It'd be difficult to land if you couldn't go below that unless you're flying the entire procedure...and I bet you weren't.

I was not on a procedure )
You don't have to be. But--------->

That is what I agreed 100%
That is where you are 100% wrong.
Chesty Morgan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 15:15
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chesty M it was sometime back but the procedure itself was a step down onto eventually the ILS. This was a mistaken instruction, rectified on QUERRY and way before the procedure commenced

What you are saying is that you can in IMC IFR be instructed to descend to below the MSA en route ? Is that what you are saying ? Clarify ? Give an example ?

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 15:48
  #55 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's Sean's turn
Posts: 1,870
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Of course you can (but I'd say cleared not instructed). I've already clarified.

An example would be EMA. ILS 27 platform altitude is 2000' but the MSA is 2700' worst case and 2500' in the east sectors.

Do you suggest every arrival and approach is flown procedurally if it's IMC?
Chesty Morgan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 16:09
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CM

Of course not every approach procedure is procedural some are to touchdown pilot interpretated some are radar vectors to an instrument landing some are vectors to landing in the form of a PAR or SRA
But again I asked the question and have no answer please give an example of where under radar control you are instructed to descend below the MSA say 50 or 70 miles out en route and way before any procedure procedural or vectored ?

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 19:33
  #57 (permalink)  
Gender Faculty Specialist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Stop being so stupid, it's Sean's turn
Posts: 1,870
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Again! You haven't asked that question the first time yet.

Still the MSA only extends to 25 miles so what relevance would it have 50 miles out? Perhaps understanding what you're talking about might help.
Chesty Morgan is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 19:50
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CM

My typo MEA if it makes you happy? But whats in your caustic responses ?
Pace is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2016, 06:47
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Delsey
Posts: 744
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No Spanish minimum radar vectoring altitudes [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

The above link contains a similar 'debate' over Spanish ATC and descent clearances. We used to operate in to Bilbao regularly, and I have my own opinion of their service...

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-458158.html
500 above is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2016, 09:38
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: EGPT/ESVS
Posts: 755
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Me too, although it's 10 years since I flew down that way. Maybe it's changed. Maybe not. Quote from the archive link above...
Trust Spanish ATC at your peril
Was always good advice. I had 5 TCAS RAs in my 757 career, 4 of them in Spain.

This from Timothy, post 338 on the ATC humour thread. Those of us who flew down there weren't surprised to read it.

ME (flying HS125 in Spain): Pan Pan Pan xxx123 No 2 Engine failure out of 390 we can probably hold about 220 on reaching. We'll go to Madrid. Services at Madrid please.
HER: xxx123 Negative you must maintain 390 acknowledge
ME: Unable comply, engine failure, we are in the float down passing 370.
HER: NEGATIVE NEGATIVE Climb immediately 390
ME: WE HAVE LOST AN ENGINE WE ARE DESCENDING THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. JUST GET YOUR SUPERVISOR ON THE RADIO IF YOU CANNOT COPE
HER: IT IS VERY DANGEROUS WHAT YOU ARE DOING, YOU MUST RETURN TO YOUR ASSIGNED ALTITUDE.
ME: Please will someone explain to her what's going on.
<some words spoken in Spanish>
HER(all said as if nothing had happened): xxx123 Continue descent. Make your heading 350. Expect Radar vectors to runway xx at Madrid.
Floppy Link is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.