Spitoon, very well stated...
bookworm, actually I mean the exact opposite, that the pilot is always responsible.
In the design of RNP procedures, I must generate my own terrain model and obstacles, as the procedures are virtually never along an established corridor, and extend much further than the 25nm MSA circle, so I am more sensitive to terrain and obstacles, how they have been or have not been generated, the adherence of the State to ICAO requirements, and especially the obstacle gathering mechanisms. I know that there is little pro-active activity by the country for obstacles, and obstacle databases are non-existent in most countries, so for one to absolutely rely on ATC to have the correct information on MOC is a stretch..
I would add that there are very, very few aerodromes that have the ICAO certified obstacle clearance zones surveyed (as the standard is a moving target) and that the FAA part 77 surveys are not the same as the ICAO. So, if the overarching premise of the ICAO requirement for ATC to provide obstacle clear vectoring, is that the aerodrome has the certified ICAO zone survey, then the argument falls apart from the beginning.
As an example, I would point to the NOTAM's that are issued. I always wonder when I pilot sees a NOTAM that states a mobile crane, 200 feet tall, located 849 m, bearing 28 degrees from ARP...what does that really mean to the pilot?
That is why I will always try to elaborate on responsibilities and the pilot always is responsible, and leave nothing for granted.
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 21st May 2011 at 21:04.
Reason: added clarifiaction