"More to the point, rather than be allowed to overfly Sydney at 8500ft, where an engine failure would have allowed me to land on at least one of five possible runways, I was forced to track over the densely populated northern suburbs where a safe forced landing would be highly unlikely," Mr Smith said.
"I am outraged this unnecessary risk was forced on myself and my family for no apparent reason."
Then Jane said:
Dick points out that he asked ATC whether an IFR clearance would be available and was told it would be. It appears that even though it was severe clear day only by filing IFR and paying the enroute charges would he be accepted.
So,
if what Smith says is true (past performance and lies on these forums notwithstanding), he, by his own admission, wilfully
refused clearance (because it did not suit him to fly IFR), thus deliberately exposing his family to the “unnecessary risk”, rather than accept that he would have to take the “safe” option but under IFR conditions.
If what Smith says is true, it seems to me that he is playing political games here and using his family’s lives as a pawn.
If what Smith says is true, his family’s lives were "risked" for sake of
$33.17
IFR would have cost him:
Terminal Nav ($29.45) Rescue & Fire ($0.00) En-route ($30.88) Met Service ($2.29) Noise levy ($0.00)
Total ($62.62)
A VFR plan would have cost him:
Terminal Nav ($29.45) Rescue & Fire ($0.00) En-route ($0.00) Met Service ($0.00) Noise levy ($0.00)
Total ($29.45)
I’d like to see him explain that one in court!!!
Let's settle out of court and send him his $33.17 immediately. He can show the cheque to his family and tell them that is what he believes they are worth.