Back to the original question and, if the CHIRP report is accurate, the ATCO in this instance acted totally without legal authority in requiring the pilot to return to the aerodrome of departure. In addition to acting
ultra vires in this respect, the ATCO concerned should also realise that there is no provision for ATS to cancel a SVFR clearance which is already being flown, without providing a mutually acceptable alternative. However, perhaps the pilot should also shoulder some blame in accepting a modified clearance (or, as he took it, an instruction) which involved a need to fly outside his comfort zone and, by the sound of it, outside his licence qualifications.
In cases such as Hijacking or Unlawful Interference ATC may exceptionally issue a formal refusal of airspace entry or landing clearance and then standard phraseology begins
"I am instructed by Her Majesty’s Government to ... " However, even then, such refusals are still followed by the phrase
"What are your intentions?" So, in the normal course of events (as this event should have been), it is totally inappropriate for the ATCO to instruct the pilot where or how to land. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, the clue is in the third word of the organisation title of
Air Traffic Services.
On this occasion, a more appropriate transmission might have been
"For information, weather at HHH is now below SVFR limits, what are your intentions?" At this stage of flight, the pilots responsibility is to remain within flight conditions appropriate to both his licence qualifications and his clearance. ATC's responsibility is simply to provide information and (if appropriate) separation.
I think both pilot and ATCO here need to review their respective responsibilities and understand that they were both, to different degrees, to blame for a potential incident. However, because the ATCO must have been a professional licence holder and the pilot appears to have been a PPL, I do think that the ATCO must bear most of the responsibility for the incident and it seems would certainly benefit from being reminded of some of the basics contained in MATS Part 1.
Let's hope this is an isolated incident - if not, maybe an ATSIN is called for ...
JD
