@ aterpster - first understand that I generally always appreciate your comments and experience.
However, in this case, I really have to question why you say:
The BE1900 crash at Dillingham..... was a gross, fundamental screw up by a government employee; the controller.
Here are stated FAA policies, from both before the Dillingham accident, and after, regarding ATC responsibility for terrain avoidance.
FAA emphasis - ALL CAPS
My emphasis -
underlined and or
bold
From Air Traffic Bulletin - April 2004:
U
Minimum Altitude Emergencies
/*TER/ Controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents, departure accidents, and approach accidents sometimes occur even though the crew was always in complete control of the aircraft. These accidents and minimum altitude emergencies often stimulate heated discussions of who really was responsible for terrain and obstruction separation when the accident occurred.
Pilots always share responsibility for terrain and obstacle avoidance. A flightcrew should be generally aware of terrain and obstruction elevations and should never accept instructions that do not ensure adequate terrain clearance. A controller is required to issue a safety alert to an aircraft if the controller is aware the aircraft is in a position/attitude that, in his/her judgment, places the aircraft in unsafe proximity to terrain or obstructions. Air traffic controllers issuing specific** altitude instructions and clearances accept responsibility for terrain avoidance.
Pilot charts depict minimum en route altitudes, minimum obstruction clearance altitudes, off route obstruction clearance altitudes, and other altitudes. Minimum vectoring altitudes, available only to ATC, can sometimes be the best and lowest altitudes available for instrument flight. Pilots receiving altitude assignments below charted altitudes typically assume they are being assigned the minimum vectoring altitude.
There should be no confusion as to whether ATC is assuming responsibility for terrain clearance.
From FAA AIM revison dated 8/22/2013 - Section 4. ATC Clearances and Aircraft Separation:
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...m/aim0404.html
4-4-1. Clearance
a. A clearance issued by ATC is predicated on known traffic and known physical airport conditions. An ATC clearance means an authorization by ATC, for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified conditions within controlled airspace. IT IS NOT AUTHORIZATION FOR A PILOT TO DEVIATE FROM ANY RULE, REGULATION, OR MINIMUM ALTITUDE NOR TO CONDUCT UNSAFE OPERATION OF THE AIRCRAFT.
b. 14 CFR Section 91.3(a) states: “The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.” If ATC issues a clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule or regulation, or in the pilot's opinion, would place the aircraft in jeopardy, IT IS THE PILOT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO REQUEST AN AMENDED CLEARANCE.
It seems to me the FAA is clearly telling their own staff - and pilots - that ATC responsibility for terrain avoidance is, at most, "advisory." While one can certainly question the FAA policy, I don't see where a controller who follows that policy can be said to have "screwed up."
It wouldn't surprise me if the delay in issuing a report on Dillingham is more due to an interagency wrangle than a top-down politics issue. The NTSB is arguing (as you have) that the controller flew the plane into the hill, while the FAA is maintaining (strongly - as emphasized in the August document) - "That ain't our job!"
**editorial question: is "maintain at
or above" a
specific altitude instruction?