Clearance cancelled once airborne . . . . .

[AMEandPPL]

This is a report in the latest CHIRP, mainly to do with air transport, but this GA occurrence has been included as it has obvious ATC implications

http://www.chirp.co.uk/Downloads/ATFB/ATFB88.pdf

The story is on page 7, entitled "Cancelled Clearance".

How many of us would challenge an ATCO's instructions, especially while in CAS ?

[Fuji Abound]

Someone once told me the realtionship between the pilot and ATC is that of a partnership. If you firmly establish this concept in your mind you will not go wrong.

As with any partnership, if you are not happy doing something - say so. Your partner is not your boss, unless perhaps in some cases you are married to her / him!

In CAS, regardless of what ratings you have, there is one boss you must obey - the weather, so if you dont like the look of it tell ATC that you dont want to comply with their instruction and leave them to give you an alternate.

[IO540]

That CHIRP document makes scary reading.

On the cancelled SVFR clearance the pilot should have politely told ATC to stick the cancellation somewhere warm and dark. It is utterly ludicrous to cancel a clearance when airborne. I got that in Italy once (had a cleared route truncated, in effect) and had to fly a dogleg way out over the sea to get out of CAS.... but that was Italy where most ATCOs barely speak English and one is not well placed to argue. In the UK, this incident is appalling.

There is other more scary stuff in that report, like the airliner which descended to 2400ft (apparently knowing it was below the MSA) because they could not understand the (crappy) Indonesian ATC instructions.

Always keep decisionmaking in the cockpit.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Many GA pilots would be reluctant to challenge an ATC instruction particularly within Controlled Airspace, but this report serves as a useful reminder to both pilots and ATCOs that the pilot is ultimately responsible for the safety of the aircraft and may elect to decline an ATC instruction, if the circumstances justify such a course of action.


Says it all really. The PiC is the only one qualified to juge his own WX conditions. He's also the one who's skin is in danger.

[Saab Dastard]

Many GA pilots would be reluctant to challenge an ATC instruction

Especially students and low-hours pilots, as was the case a couple of years ago at Southend when a student pilot was most unfortunately put into a situation by ATC which (according to the AAIB report) ultimately led to the student fatally losing control of the aircraft.

I believe that some recommendations regarding how ATC should handle inexperienced pilots were made in the AAIB report - although I'm not suggesting that the pilot was inexperienced in the Chirp report under discussion here.

As Fuji says, a partnership between ATC and the pilot is important - the Communication bit (of Aviate, Navigate, Communicate) is a 2-way thing, not just following orders, but also a mechanism for the pilot to tell ATC his circumstances and intentions.

SD

[IO540]

I agree about the partnership bit, but this is feasible only if the ATCO can speak conversational English, which many outside the UK cannot, and if you say something outside their sometimes severely limited aviation-English they usually just pretend they never heard you.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

this is feasible only if the ATCO can speak conversational English, which many outside the UK cannot, and if you say something outside their sometimes severely limited aviation-English they usually just pretend they never heard you.
Wot, you mean like Lakenheath for example, and the time when I really couldn't understand a word they were saying, so just told them how I was flying through their MATZ?

[Airbus Girl]

Air Traffic Services are just that - a service. Pilots being the customer.

Obeying ATC instructions does not absolve you from the responsibility to maintain safe flight. ATC can and do sometimes get it wrong. If they want to send you into IMC and you don't have a rating then you need to tell them, not blindly follow their instructions.

However, reading that report two things concerned me. 1/ the pilot flew into cloud even though he was not Instrument Rated. Why? and 2/ did the pilot not assess the local weather conditions himself prior to taking off?

I have flown in Turkey and believe me, if you were to blindly follow ATC instructions, even when under full ATC control, you probably will end up in the side of a mountain (I have had such an instruction!!).

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Many GA pilots would be reluctant to challenge an ATC instruction

Especially students and low-hours pilots

Many, many years ago at Manch, a "resident" and competent PPL took the wise move of submitting a flight plan for his land-away. For however and whatever reason, the controller under supervision (working towards his Tower validation and, before you ask, Chevvron, it wasn't me) read him a SID for his clearance. Well into the TMA, the aforesaid PPL decided he was getting too close to clag for comfort and reported that he wasn't instrument rated. The situation was quickly recovered and no harm done.

Perhaps sometimes one can sound too profesional on the RTF.

[bookworm]

2/ did the pilot not assess the local weather conditions himself prior to taking off?

I think the report makes clear that he did, and that the problem encountered with low cloud was associated with the return to land, not the departure from the zone.

This is a particularly worrying incident and procedural lessons need to be learnt from it and incorporated into MATS Part 1 as clarification. MATS Part 1 places restrictions on met conditions for the issue of a SFVR clearance. It does not require cancellation of the clearance under any circumstances and it is not a requirement on the pilot to maintain a particular in flight visibility. If the pilot's recollection of this incident is accurate, ATC may have inadvertently endangered the flight for reasons that were not obvious to the controller at the time, and there is an opportunity to avoid reccurence.

[Toadpool]

First of all let me say that, as an ATCO I disagree entirely with the actions of ATC in this incident.

But with respect to this statement:

Says it all really. The PiC is the only one qualified to juge his own WX conditions. He's also the one who's skin is in danger.

I have regularly had Pilots, particularly GA and Military, that seem to think it's OK to fly VFR in IMC, even in cloud on occasion. Is it surprising that ATC sometimes take a cynical view when a pilot states that they are VFR in marginal conditions?

[ShyTorque]

I cannot understand how this occurred; I've never heard of something like this in over thirty years of aviation. A SVFR clearance is issued so that a pilot can depart visually in circumstances where IFR would otherwise apply.

If the weather at the field seriously deteriorates after the aircraft departs, I would say that it's irrelevant to ATC unless the pilot himself requests assistance. An ATCO should only ask the pilot if he is still able to continue under SVFR or continue under IFR. Effectively this unrated PPL was ordered to return (from acceptable VMC) to attempt VFR flight in IMC.

I hope this was a one-off incident, never to be repeated and that it has been fully publicised around all ATC units. Obviously, it could have resulted in an aircraft accident and the pilot has obviously learned his personal lesson from the incident.

One thing that could have helped ATC here. Do all ATC units determine if all pilots are IMC rated at time of booking out if a SVFR clearance is requested or deemed necessary by ATC? I don't think they do; I think they should do so.

[Fuji Abound]

Do all ATC units determine if all pilots are IMC rated at time of booking out if a SVFR clearance is requested or deemed necessary by ATC? I don't think they do; I think they should do so.

I dont.

AT are a service providers, not the air police.

If they were (the air police) they would be asking before every flight at sunset whether the pilot had a night rating in case he arrived back after dark, or whether the pilot had a current C of A.

It is not their job.

It is the job of the pilot to ensure all the appropriate bits of paper are in place to make the flight.

On another note - the thought occurred whether the aircraft was rented from a school. No excuse, but I have know the club to get onto AT and ask them to tell XYZ to return to the field (for various reasons) including knowing the weather had become outside the pilot's limits / rating. No excuse of course for AT dealing with it in the way they did - I was just wondering about the background.

[Toadpool]

I agree 100% with Fuji on this. ATC are not there to police the sky.

As for: Effectively this unrated PPL was ordered to return (from acceptable VMC) to attempt VFR flight in IMC.

I would suggest that as SVFR clearances were being issued, conditions were certainly not "acceptable VMC".

[Toadpool]

Thinking about this further, if SVFR clearances were being issued, that would indicate that the weather conditions were below those that would permit ATC to issue a VFR clearance, normally visibility less than 5km.

If the pilot did not hold any instrument qualifications, then he would require a minimum visibility of 10km to accept a SVFR clearance. Was he not already operating outside the limits of his licence in accepting the SVFR clearance?

[Johnm]

Thinking about this further, if SVFR clearances were being issued, that would indicate that the weather conditions were below those that would permit ATC to issue a VFR clearance, normally visibility less than 5km.

If the pilot did not hold any instrument qualifications, then he would require a minimum visibility of 10km to accept a SVFR clearance. Was he not already operating outside the limits of his licence in accepting the SVFR clearance?

From the circumstances I suspect the SVFR was required 'cos the flight was in Class A airspace, an IMCR in UK Class A will get you in and out in 3km vis and is a boon. This is another example of why IMCR is such a good thing.

[ShyTorque]

Thinking about this further, if SVFR clearances were being issued, that would indicate that the weather conditions were below those that would permit ATC to issue a VFR clearance, normally visibility less than 5km.


Not necessarily so.

I wasn't asking ATC to police anything. My suggestion was for a relevant piece of background information for ATC to be aware of, hopefully in order to help their decision making in cases like this. If it's not welcome, so be it, forget my suggestion.

The major airfield I operate from asks for licence type on booking out, it wouldn't cost anything to translate that across to IMC qualified or not. If a pilot calls up for a clearance only to be given something that he cannot comply with, it has wasted ATC time.

[Jumbo Driver]

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
:)

[IO540]

IMHO any met conditions in which one is going to actually get an SVFR clearance are actually perfectly flyable under VFR rules (clear of cloud, etc).

One might meet the vis rules but not having a horizon to work to one would be effectively instrument flying but hey this is legal VFR so let's not go down there :)

Is it surprising that ATC sometimes take a cynical view when a pilot states that they are VFR in marginal conditions?

That is another huge can of worms. How does ATC know what the pilot actually sees? Even in the "extremely obvious" case of "illegal VFR" of the airport being OVC003, you don't actually know that the pilot is not descending through a hole somewhere. This is why it is not ATC's job to police this, and IMHO this is as it should be. The ATCO would be in a very poor position to revoke some clearance on the basis of thinking he can see something the pilot cannot.

I believe there have been prosecutions in the USA for VFR flight into IMC, but these were (one hopes) departures into immediate solid IMC witnessed by others. Still, it is an iffy area. Not as iffy as doing somebody for flight into 'known icing' :)

[VFE]

The PIC in this case was asking for trouble setting off in conditions that were so obviously marginal considering his experience level. If the weather deteriorated to the extent that returning to the field placed him in danger he should never have taken off. Sounds like his handling of the incident was bad (probably panicked) to such an extent that his passenger refused to get airbourne again. As PIC it could all have been avoided had he done the sensible thing and left the AC in the hanger.

Aviatate
Navigate
Communicate

It's pretty basic stuff to be honest.

VFE.

[Fuji Abound]

Please do not take every opportunity to trundle out mnenmonics.

This is what the pilot said.

There was some low cloud in the vicinity of the airfield, but I was not worried as I had heard one of the club instructors telling a colleague that there was a bit of cloud to the south, but it wasn't a problem elsewhere.

We have no idea of the experience of this pilot but that didnt seem an unreasonable basis on which to depart, particularly if the pilot had obtained further on route weather (which we dont know).

Speculate as you will but we have very little idea whether it was reasonable for the pilot to accept a SVFR departure in the first place.

[Jumbo Driver]

The PIC in this case was asking for trouble setting off in conditions that were so obviously marginal considering his experience level.

I don't think you are right at all to infer this, VFE; that would be to mis-read the report.

I believe the primary responsibility for the incident lay with the ATCO who stepped outside his professional responsibilities in both cancelling the SVFR clearance and then instructing the pilot to return. Neither IMHO was within his remit.

The pilot should be congratulated for submitting the CHIRP report.


JD
:)

[VFE]

I have all the information I need thanks Mr.Fuji - the pilot was not IMC rated, according to my copy of CHIRPS anyway, henceforth the weather was clearly not suitable for him as on returning to the field (a short space of time after departure) he entered cloud, not just any old cloud but low cloud! The PIC was obviously not anticipating an unscheduled diversion back to the field - a bit of an elementary mistake wouldn't you say? In my copy of CHIRPS he alludes to the fact that it was a bit of a "Tally Ho" seeing as wx ahead was perfect. Big mistake. I am glad he made the report because it's a classic Human Factors case if ever I saw one, but not for the reasons intended one suspects (apart from his admitance that he should've refused ATC's instruction to land).

The PIC also says he overheard an instructor talking to another instructor and following that eavesdrop suddenly assumed the same level of competancy as those he overheard talking (one professional to another). I say a lesson in not assuming everyone has the same weather threshold and experience level as you has been learned here too - but seeing as they were instructors I'd expect that to most people this would be obvious.

VFE.

PS: It is 'mnemonic' not 'mnenmonic'. ;)

[Fuji Abound]

VFE

You may find it interesting to spend some time at an airfield the next time there is an advancing front. It is worth noting that you can see the advancing base from some way a way. It is also worth noting that you have a pretty good idea of the departing conditions - a sort of crystal ball into the future.

HHH to Southern Europe.

.. .. .. which might lead one to suspect we are dealing with a pilot with some experience.

as might

I estimate that I had been in cloud for about 1 to 1½ minutes.

In short, I find little evidence one way or the other - but then I neither have your crystal ball, nor was I there.

PS You may want to look up admitance and competancy. :)

Anyway it was your comment that the pilot should have left his aircraft in the hangar, followed by aviate, navigate, communicate - even the first part is going to be a challenge within the confines of hangar.

Tell you what, how about we settle on:

Better to be down here .. .. ..

I always like that one. :)

[VFE]

Now, now Mr.Fuji, please don't turn this into a (to quote Capt.PPRuNe!) "willy waving contest" by means of subjective spin and hyperbole! I merely desired to raise the issues one felt may have been overlooked in this example from CHIRPS... readers are free to take away what they wish, needless to say that's unlikely to be your interpretations of mnenmonics [sic]! ;)

VFE.

PS: Advancing fronts imply scattered low cloud ahead of the front so your point is?

[IO540]

HHH to Southern Europe. .. .. .. which might lead one to suspect we are dealing with a pilot with some experience.The top 1% or less, probably. I agree one should not assume this pilot had insufficient experience. He may also have been a foreigner, to whom the IMCR is not an option.

[Fuji Abound]

Now, now Mr.Fuji, please don't turn this into a (to quote Capt.PPRuNe!) "willy waving contest"

I can assure you that is rarely my style - and was certainly not on this occasion.

It was you that bluntly said "the weather was clearly not suitable" and I that pointed out I thought your conclusion was unsafe and unfounded based on the evidence we have.

I find it frustrating when people jump to conclusions. Speculate by all means - but a great worry when pilots rush into reaching conclusions without ensuring they first have the facts.

(one professional to another).

Now there truly are some human factors at work rather thinly disguised me thinks. :)

[VFE]

I was under the impression following CHIRPS that the PIC was not IMC/IR/Instrument (call it what you like) rated hence the entire reasoning behind his letter? Was that not the point?? ATC issued an instruction that placed him in a dangerous and worrying position??? Or am I missing something here???? Please.

VFE.

[Saab Dastard]

VFE, your confusion is understandable! The report makes no mention of any instrument rating, and that would seem to be the whole point!

However, many people have taken the fact that he was undertaking a trip to Southern Europe as indicative of a reasonably high level of experience.

So, in summary, experience assumed high, qualifications beyond PPL - NIL.

SD

[VFE]

Oh I see. Thanks for clearing that up SD!

Get there-itis perhaps?

VFE.

[Fuji Abound]

So, in summary, experience assumed high, qualifications beyond PPL - NIL

Ah yes, so that could be better qualified by experience, but, of course experience doesnt count.

Why does a thrity something surgeon charge £2,500 for the eye op and the 45 something consultant charge £5,000 - ah yes, that would be experience, and then again, perhaps not, funny how people are queuing up to pay double.

Get there-itis perhaps?

Please - if you are ever called for jury service do think of some reason for being indisposed.

The report makes no mention of any instrument rating, and that would seem to be the whole point!

If that is really what you think - then I am afraid you have missed the point.

[Lost man standing]

VFE

From my reading of the report I have no doubt that the the weather was suitable for the decisions the pilot made up until ATC made a human error (something to learn from, not to apportion blame). He took off in conditions suitable for SVFR. It appears that in the direction he intended to fly the weather was suitable. The weatehr at his point of departure did deteriorate to an unsafe degree, however there was no actual need for him to return. There are plenty of other options around there had he a problem and wished to land. Some of those are in the direction in which he was flying, where he said the weather was good.

[Fuji Abound]

LMS

Yes, thank you, another sound point - "where he said the weather was good".

I respect the pilot for making the report (he didnt have to) and he had no reason to lie.

I am rather unhappy when other pilots imply he had no business flying in those conditions. I am willing to take the pilot at his word unless there is clear evidence to the contrary - unless I am very much mistaken, from what we know, there is not.

If you want to make it up as you go along that is up to you but it usually makes more sense to stick with the facts. :)

PS Am I reading too much into your post - or do you know where the "incident" took place?

[Saab Dastard]

Fuji,

Calm down there, mate.

I think that what I wrote is technically correct. No instrument or IMC rating (at least that's what the report said) with the general assumption among posters being that he had a fair amount of experience, based on the fact that a long international flight or series of flights was intended - and that he managed about 90 seconds in IMC without crashing.

I am in no way decrying experience, but the fact is that experience does not of itself confer qualifications or certifications. It makes it far easier to obtain them, of course.

In your medical example, both can have identical qualifications, but one is considerably more experienced than the other. No argument with that. But please accept that there is a difference between experience and an actual qualification / certification. 15 years experience (hopefully of successful operations) may give patients a warm feeling as they pay top whack, but it doesn't actually put any more letters after the surgeon's name.

As to missing the point - well I thought it was about the pilot being put by ATC into a situation beyond the remit of his license that could (depending on his experience) have also been beyond his ability to safely complete the flight.

SD

[Jumbo Driver]

I think recent contributors to this thread are spending far too much time and effort criticising or trying to second-guess the actions and decisions of the pilot.

As I have said earlier, I believe the principal cause of the incident was the inappropriate action of the ATCO in i) cancelling the SVFR clearance and then ii) requiring the pilot to return to the airfield. Neither action was within his remit.

It was only secondary to this that the pilot, by choosing to accept the unauthorised instructions, found himself (albeit partly of his own doing) in conditions outside his licence qualifications. However, to his credit, he has reported the incident to CHIRP and I respect him for that. I have much more concern that the ATCO does not appear to have reported the incident - even more concerning, he may not even realise that he acted beyond his legal duty and thereby contributed to a potential incident by his inappropriate actions.

I'm becoming weary of hearing all this criticism of the pilot, who at least had the courage and integrity to report the events to CHIRP. It was the ATCO's inappropriate actions that were the trigger point for this series of events and that is where I believe the main responsibility must lie in this case - with ATC.


JD
:)

[Lost man standing]

Fuji

I am making a few assumptions, but I think I have guessed, at least down to two possibilites ;)

[ShyTorque]

I'm sure the pilot realises that now even if he didn't before.

I think the advice is: "If in doubt about an ATC instruction, communicate and clarify".

[Fuji Abound]

Some of you must really beleive you are reading something not there.

CHIRP Narrative: The following General Aviation report has been included as it has obvious ATC implications:

That was the introduction. No mention thee of a pilot exceeding his license privilges.

CANCELLED CLEARANCE

That was the title - no mention of Get-home-itis.

CHIRP Comment: The cancellation of the Special VFR clearance by ATC would have been appropriate if the reporter was awaiting departure. However, once airborne the instruction to return to land should not have been issued and in the particular circumstances could have led to a much more serious outcome. The pilot should have been advised of the weather deterioration at the airport and asked what his intentions were.

Many GA pilots would be reluctant to challenge an ATC instruction particularly within Controlled Airspace, but this report serves as a useful reminder to both pilots and ATCOs that the pilot is ultimately responsible for the safety of the aircraft and may elect to decline an ATC instruction, if the circumstances justify such a course of action.

That was the comment - not even a hint that the pilot was wrong to depart.

The ATCO sc**ed up, amd possibly so did the pilot by accepting his "instruction". Thats it.

The pilot departed within his license priviliges, thats it.

SD - it is not that I disagree with your post but the pilot ended up in IMC for two reasons - the instruction given to him, and his "willingness" to comply with the instruction. My point was he may well have had the experience to depart in VFR conditions that complied with a SVFR clearance - there is a hint he did, hence my alluding to a pilot with lots of experience being safe and comfortable flying in more marginal VMC than one with much less experience.

As JD says a far more interesting point of discussion is why the ATCO did not fess up!

I think I might well know why some of you would prefer to see the discussion take another course - but I am done.

[Final 3 Greens]

In debating this incident, one must allow for the "authority" factor of an ATCO in controlled airspace.

The pilot was in a busy flight phase and then received an instruction that he followed.

To Monday Morning Quarterbacks, it is easy to say the ATCO exceeded his authority, but to a busy PPL, there would be a great pressure to obey an authority figure.

We saw this before with the student pilot at SND.

Bad stuff and well done to the reporter, I hope the ATCO involved has been through a retraining regime covering both the relevant law AND human factors.

[dublinpilot]

I'm not wholly sure that the experience of the pilot is all that relevant.

What I see, is a pilot who clearly took off in acceptable SVFR weather, (otherwise he wouldn't have got the take off clearance) who claims that inflight weather was within his abilities and privlidiges, being asked to return to an airport with weather that was unacceptable?

Why would ATC ask someone to return to an airfield with unsuitable weather? Why ask someone to make an illegal flight into deteriating conditions?

If he had real concern for the flight, he should have sought to find an alternative airport with better conditions! He should never has sought to bring an aircraft into an airport with unacceptable weather conditions!

Yes, the pilot bears a certain responsibility for flying into cloud without advising ATC of the problem, but to focus on that, ignores the other issue.

dp

[IO540]

It may not make sense in the context of U.S. training (of which I must say I have only limited experience, having done my IR at Phoenix AZ) but it does make sense in the context of UK PPL training.

Here, PPL holders are traditionally scared s**tless of authority of all types. Just read some of the UK pilot forums.... loads of reported "meetings without tea and biscuits" with the CAA if you do this and that, loads of claimed CAA prosecutions for this and that (never substantiated by the summaries of successful prosecutions on the CAA website, hey what suprise), so many claims of this and that being illegal (the use of GPS for primary/sole [delete as appropriate according to your taste] navigation), etc etc etc etc.

Witness a typical bunch of PPLs who flew to another airfield for the customary $100 tea and chocolate cake. They sit around the table debating whether this or that is illegal, whereas I suspect U.S. pilots would be tucking into their equally customary $100 burger while eyeing up the girl behind the bar.

To be fair, having been reading U.S. aviation Usenet for some years (rec.aviation.*) I see Americans are also very regulation aware, but nobody is as anally retentive about it as the Brits.

And that's before you get me talking about over-interpretation of real and imaginary regulations by maintenance/aviations shops....

I reckon 99% of UK PPL would do exactly as ATC tells them, first, and only afterwards wonder why they are heading for a cloud, or a mountain. Just as well UK ATC is normally excellent.

[Fuji Abound]

IO540

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

In fact you only have to read these forums to understand our complete obsession with the smallest detail of the legislation - and perhaps more to the point, ways around the legislation. You also only have to read these forums to see that a few take every opportunity to point out that clearly the pilot is inadequately qualified for the task in hand unless he is a “professional” pilot with a CPL and IR - of the JAA complexion of course - as you know you really don’t measure up with your FAA IR!

Whether or not this is a peculiarly British disease or a peculiar disease of British aviators I am not sure. It is not something I experience in the wider world to any significant degree. Of course it is widely reported the Germans are worse than us, but I couldn’t possibly comment.

Just look at this thread - everyone wanting to dissect the minutest detail of whether or not the pilot should have accepted a special VFR departure, even in circumstances when they have absolutely do idea what the weather was like just outside the ATZ and on the route the pilot proposed to take.

With regards the pilots willingness to enter cloud I also agree with you that pilots are infrequently taught to think for themselves to such an extent that they will follow every procedure and every instruction to the nth degree.

It amazes me that a pilot would enter cloud because he was told to do so, in the same way that anyone would jump off a building if told to do so! However it shouldn’t amaze me, because I can relate to this pilot.

Not long after I finished my PPL I recall flying with my fast jet mate. As we trundled downwind there was some low cloud ahead. It had been drummed into to me so many times that I should stay at circuit height in the correct place in the circuit that there I was trundling into the cloud. Of course we had an interesting chat after the flight. Some years after there I was in the same situation with a mate of mine with low cloud in the “normal” base leg position. My mate had a more than a good few hours. As it was clear we were shortly to enter the cloud with some unsuspecting hills and a mast beneath I asked what he intended to do next.

It seems a trap many can fall into and clearly it is an even better set trap when it appears that someone in “authority” is telling you to do so. In that respect there is another lesson to be taken from this report and well learned - don’t enter cloud unless you know what is in side it, and then only if you are certain you can fly the aircraft in it!!

[Fuji Abound]

Oh just to add, these are a few of the lessons I have learned over the years to which others might want to add in so far as AT instructions are concerned:

Line up - no thanks, there is already an aircraft on final that is just about to land

Turn left 30 - no thanks there is a bl**dy great down poor going on in that bit of the air.

You are cleared to the beacon at 4,500 feet - no thanks you just cleared someone else to the beacon at the same height

Remain clear of CAS - 15 minutes later, I am remaining clear of CAS but it would be nice if you would let me know if you have any intention of clearing me through some time this week.

You are in CAS, you were told to remain clear, turn left 30 degrees immediately - actually I know that I am not inside CAS unless both my Garmins are telling me fibs, are you sure you want me to turn 30 left.

I am sure you could add a few more. :)

[dublinpilot]

In all fairness to the pilot, he may not have seen the cloud until it was too late. If conditions were below SVFR, the viz may have been very poor, and he may not have been able to see the cloud in time to avoid it.

Of course he should never have put himself into that position in the first place.

But it is equally true that ATC should never have instructed him to return to an aiport where the conditions had deteriated so badly. The bit that I don't understand is the fact that ATC instructed him to return BECAUSE the conditions had become so bad!

Why instruct some to turn towards bad weather, because it had gotten so bad?

dp

[Pace]

I would add that as commander to try and comply with ATC instructions but if it it something you are uncomfortable with to refuse and expalin why!

When you fly into Europe or further and experience not so good ATC you start to question instructions to make sure they make sense.

I can remember flying into San Sebastian and being cleared to descend below the SSA in 7000 foot mountains solid IMC.
Over Africa in Nigeria dealing with a controller who couldnt even get the Phonetic alphabet right and refusing his instructions.

I appreciate especially when the pilot is not experienced that controllers are viewed as an authority to be obeyed without question.

It is important for the PPL to state firmly that he is not instrument capable.
ATC can not always determine weather I can only too well remember being asked to turn directly into a large CB. The female controller stated firmly that nothing was showing on her screen. What do you do turn directly into what you can see is an active CB in front of your eyes to keep the controller happy?

The pilot is best placed to evaluate an instruction and conditions and with discussion with ATC to find a solution which suits both.

It is the captain mentality amd not the student awaiting instructions from an instructor or a co-pilot awaiting instructions from his Captain which can follow low time pilots who are used to others making descisions.
When alone even in a small aircraft you are the Capatain and need to act like one.
That is the case even more so when conditions deteriorate below your ability and make you feel less like a captain and more like some insecure individual waiting for someone to tell you what to do.


Pace

[Final 3 Greens]

It is the captain mentality

I absoutely agree with this statement.

And don't believe that there is enough emphasis on it in the PPL syllabus.

I was lucky, I learned at a good club where command decision making was promoted heavily and I remember refusing an instruction from the examiner on my GFT when he asked me to demonstrate a stall at 1,500', above a power station :=

He did say afterwards that he expected no less of me!

[WindSwept]

I think you are very right on the points about ATC, especially in the UK.

ATCO's and MATS's along with pilot license holders discuss all the time in the UK about fiddly little bits of legislation that defy common sense just so that they can be doing it acording to the books. However in the MATS part 1 on the very first page of text it says that nothing in the book should discourage a controller from acting in a way that they believe is the safest way that is justifiable. Or some such nonsense. Yet they still get tied down to nitty gritty bits of stuff that helps no one.

Controllers often file on people to make a point, rather than actually asking them to call the unit and having a quick word with the pilot. This happens to trainees alot.

Now i work in air traffic and am also studying for my PPL/CPL(H), i meet students like myself even those studing for CPL who are frit to death of air traffic control, they don't challange any clearance or even request something they want to do. Ive sat in the cockpit with people who have recieved an instruction from air traffic of which they are confused by and they just guess what they meant instead of asking. Or they would like a direct approach to the apron rather than the manovering area for helicopters at the other side of the active, request it! like people say ATC is a service, they are human beings, they know their limitations even if they might 'forget' sometimes, you have to be 2 way with them.

I can easily see why a pilot would comply with ATC, i know i never would in that situation but i know people who are so intimidated by ATC they dare not question an instruction. Hence why most PPL students find the radio the hardest after the skill of learning to fly. I try and take every student and instructor i meet or speak to around the tower and radar to meet the controllers because thats what helps in situations like this, that you know there is a human at the end of the radio who's primary responsability is saftey. If you say its unsafe, they will go and rethink.

Instructors especially need to drill this into their students, once they have 'control' they are responsable for making sure they conduct that flight safely, they are the 'captain' 'commander' whatever you call it. They can't pass that responsability on because they are talking to air traffic control, equally they should COMMUNICATE with air traffic control to maintain flight saftey. If theres a huge CB you've been asked to turn into, report its position and request a turn in the opposite direction etc... This helps everyone and you got out of flying into it!


Now for a moment example!

A student helicopter pilot on his first solo at EGBE was in the helicopter circuit. Due to IFR traffic he was asked to 'hold midpoint downwind' being an inexperienced pilot he wasn't sure whether he could orbit, instead of asking he took the literal meaning so as not to piss the ATC off and he litrally held position in the hover at 700ft, at which point he fell into vortex ring and by some fluke managed to save it by 200ft. If he had communicated properly and ATC had realised what was happening they could have prevented this.

[IO540]

Why instruct some to turn towards bad weather, because it had gotten so bad?

The man in the tower can see only the bit of wx around the tower. He cannot know what the pilot sees once the pilot is some tens of seconds, never mind minutes, down the road.

Pace - your example of Spain is very good; the worst ever ATC service I have ever had was in Spain this year. And arrogance over PPR issues rivalling Italy. I think pilots flying into these places really need to grab the bull (no pun intended) by the horns and be prepared to take on ATC if the instruction is unsafe. I had Spanish ATC ignore me when I requested a 30 right due to weather, and eventually I did a Pan and got on with it. You would have done the same. But all that is a world away from the UK PPL scene where all authority is taken as emanating straight from god.

[Fuji Abound]

So why is it "we" are so inclined to do whatever AT instructs?

Is the relationship between ATC and pilots poorly taught?

Is it more symptomatic of our culture?

[dublinpilot]

Why instruct some to turn towards bad weather, because it had gotten so bad?

The man in the tower can see only the bit of wx around the tower. He cannot know what the pilot sees once the pilot is some tens of seconds, never mind minutes, down the road.

IO,

I'm not talking about the particular cloud, but the general prevaling conditions at the airport.

The Pilot departed weather that was acceptable for SVFR.

The conditions then deteriated at the airport. As a result of this deteration, ATC asked the pilot to return to the airport.....the only place that they knew that conditions were not suitable.

Why ask someone to leave their current position, and go to the only place that you know is not suitable?

dp

[Final 3 Greens]

Is it more symptomatic of our culture?

Although I don't buy into this alone, when I visit the UK I do see a place where people are cowed by authority.

E.g. all the signs that"our staff have the right to a great life whilst they d!ck you around" type of trash, loads of cameras.

Plus, the British are by nature a tolerant race, who don't wish to make a fuss.

So you may have hit a raw nerve here.

[C172 Hawk XP]

It's a while now since I have flown in CAS, but I used to fly regularly within the Manchester CTZ. I seem to remember that the ATCO's usually asked me to "advise at any time if unable to maintain VFR".

That would seem much more sensible than this one.

[dublinpilot]

You are assuming again based on reading only one side of the version of the report.

So Cal,

I'm not sure which part you are suggesting that I am assuming.

The controller obviously asked the pilot to return to the airport. If they didn't then there would have been no point in the whole CHIRP report, and the pilot is unlikey to have decided of their own accord to return to the airport, than then submit a CHIRP complaining that they were instructed to.

If it's the part about the weather deteriating at the airport that you are suggesting that I am assuming, well, I'm basing this on the fact that the controller wished to cancel SVFR based on their observations of the weather at the airport. Obviously they would only know the weather conditions at the airport.

Is it something else that I've missed, that you're suggesting? :confused:

dp

[Pace]

DublinPilot

Either the weather was suitable for a SVFR departure or not. Having then decided the weather had deteriorated to below SVFR limits ATC should have checked whether the pilot was instrument qualified. If he responded in the negative then they would have had an emergency situation on their hands.

To recommend the pilot returns into sub SVFR weather without then giving an IFR clearance and subsequent vectors to the ILS would be a nonsense.

If the conditions were SVFR then why ask him to return? If they were sub SVFR ATC had no rights to request a non IR pilot to land in sub SVFR conditions.

Had the pilot been uncomfortable with the weather and requested a return then ATC should have dealt with the situation as an emergency and dealt with it accordingly.

Sometimes presumptions are made by ATC by the fact that the pilot does not sound in control of the situation or does not respond in a clear way leading ATC to believe that the pilot is loosing the plot.

The keyword had to be clarity in communications between ATC and the pilot and on the pilots side that he appears to be in command of himself and his aircraft.

I have heard communications in bad weather between ATC and a pilot on a number of occasions where the pilot does not respond or responds in a vague uncertain way which is enough to set alarm bells ringing with ATC that a situation is developing which is out of the pilots ability.

Pace

[dublinpilot]

If the conditions were SVFR then why ask him to return? If they were sub SVFR ATC had no rights to request a non IR pilot to land in sub SVFR conditions.

Pace,

That is exactly the point that I have been making.

I said the same thing in a different way, when I said
The conditions then deteriated at the airport. As a result of this deteration, ATC asked the pilot to return to the airport.....the only place that they knew that conditions were not suitable.

Why ask someone to leave their current position, and go to the only place that you know is not suitable?


SoCal then said that I was assuming too much, but I don't know what he thinks I'm assuming.

dp

[Jumbo Driver]

I agree with dp - I am also unclear what SoCal thinks he is assuming.

However, I believe we are again getting in to this far too deep. The function of ATC in these circumstances should have been to inform and assist, not dictate. The pilot was cleared SVFR and, by the sound of it, was perfectly happy flying as cleared, until ATC took it upon themselves to intervene - maybe with the best of intentions but actually as it turned out in a totally counter-productive way. While the pilot was probably incorrect in accepting the ATC instruction to return, ATC had no authority to issue it in the first place. Neither did they have the authority to cancel the SVFR clearance while it was being flown. It was principally these two actions that provoked the subsequent hazard to the flight, which would otherwise in all probability continued perfectly safely. Unfortunately this was compounded by the pilot (unwisely) accepting the unauthorised instructions and therefore, to this extent, must take some share of the responsibility for what ensued. However the trigger for the incident surely remains the inappropriate action of ATC.


JD
:)

[Pace]

However the trigger for the incident surely remains the inappropriate action of ATC.

This is pedantic but something I cannot accept as a pilot. It is the total responsability of the commander/Captain to accept a clearance or instruction from ATC.

If he is unhappy with that request/instruction it is the commanders duty to state so and to make a judgement on whether accepting an ATC instruction would jeopordise the safety of his aircraft and passengers.

To tip the fault at the door of ATC is accepting a failing in the ability of the pilot to act as a Captain/commander so in my eyes the failing is in the actions of the pilot not ATC.

Had the pilot informed ATC that he was in a situation beyond his abilities or he would be accepting a clearance which he was not legally able to accept then ATC could take some responsability in trying to get him out of an emergency situation.

In this case it was the pilots failure to act as a proper Captain/commander which allowed this situation to occur.

Pace

[Jumbo Driver]

Pace, I'm afraid I don't agree. Situations like this are not usually as black-and-white as you suggest and there are usually several contributory factors - hence the often-used swiss cheese analogy ...

In this case, I accept there would appear to be shortcomings on both sides. I am not trying to lay blame so much as to learn from the reported experience. That is also the stated function of CHIRP.

The pilot's CHIRP report sets out the sequence of events - and he should be congratulated for submitting it, especially because it is to some degree critical of himself. All I am saying is that, but for the inappropriate intervention of ATC in this case, the event would not have occurred and that intervention was therefore, IMHO, the causal factor for the sequence of events. That is not the same as saying that only one party is to blame; I believe (as is often the case in aviation events) that both parties involved would benefit from reviewing their actions and responsibilities.


JD
:)

[Pace]

The pilot's CHIRP report sets out the sequence of events - and he should be congratulated for submitting it, especially because it is to some degree critical of himself. All I am saying is that, but for the inappropriate intervention of ATC in this case, the event would not have occurred and that intervention was therefore, IMHO, the causal factor for the sequence of events. That is not the same as saying that only one party is to blame; I believe (as is often the case in aviation events) that both parties involved would benefit from reviewing their actions and responsibilities.

Jumbo Pilot

I agree with you that both parties would benefit from reviewing their actions.
Very often things like this happen because of poor communication. What I cannot stress enough is the role of the pilot as a commander and ATC as his servant not ATC as the commander and the pilot as a servant. Ok ATC give commands every day of the week which we comply with but it is ultimately the Captains descision to accept that command He has the ultimate authority.

So yes I am being pedantic hairsplitting or whatever and yes both parties were at fault but the pilot having the ultimate authority has the ultimate responsability.

It is for whatever reasons his failure to take that ultimate responsability which allowed the situation to develop. He had the power to stop the situation but didnt.

I am making this point because only too often pilots are in awe of what they percieve of authority and only too readily accept instructions. They are the ones flying the aircraft, they are the ones who will hit a hill, fly into a storm not the guy in the warmth of the control tower sipping a coffee.

Flying involves so much instruction that we are almost taught to wait for someone to tell us what to do.

Even going into commercial flying as a co pilot/ first officer it becomes inground into us to turn to the Captain for a decision. Nowadays it is becoming more common for co-pilots/first officers to be encouraged to challenge and be more involved in the descision making.

It is that mental attitude change which is all important in making a pilot into a Captain whether he/she flies a Piper Cub or a 747.



Pace

[Jumbo Driver]

Pace, I agree much more with that post ...

JD
;)

[AMEandPPL]

there is nothing to suggest that there was any opportunity for the ATC unit involved to respond

In this case that is quite true - nothing in the printed report about any input or response from the ATC side.

However, it must be said that CHIRP reports are more usually published only when information has been sought from all parties involved ( I'm hesitant to say from all sides !). They do try to acknowledge that there are always at least two views of every situation.

It's really strange that this one has been published without any comment from NATS (or whoever employs the ATCO's at HHH ).

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

Ok ATC give commands every day of the week

Since we are being pendatic, I am not certain about the use of the word "command".

Commanding someone to doing something implies something beyond an authorative instruction.

Not the official wording but in the case of soemthing like 9/11 you can imagine AT saying "you are commanded by HM Government to land at the nearest airport .. .. .." viz via unless you have a very good reason not to comply with the command you might not live to regret it, as compared with in my authorative opinion based on the information I have you should turn 30 right (but if that is going to take you into something you are not going to like, that I cant see on my radar) then by all means question the instruction.

[AMEandPPL]

Since we are being pedantic, I am not certain about the use of the word "command". Commanding someone to doing something implies something beyond an authoritative instruction

Not really. In this kind of situation these words are really synonymous.

In CAS the ATCO is "authorised" to give instructions, and the vast majority will be obeyed without question. Command means just that. There are even times in military situations when a command may be queried, or refused.

[dublinpilot]

SoCal,

Thanks for that. I now understand where you are coming from.

You are correct of course, in that the story only shows one parties interpertitation of it.

Is is possible that that ATC simply advised the pilot that conditions were below SVFR at the airport and asked them what their intensions where, and the pilot was inexperienced and understood this to be an implication that if they didn't return ASAP that they would be in trouble for flying illegaly. Unlikely in my view, but I take your point that something like that is possible.

However, as the ATC in question is left confidential, I don't think it matters to much. All we can do is learn from the incident as reported. If the facts reported are incorrect, it doesn't stop us learning from it. As noone knows who's involved, we are not damaging anyones reputation by discussing it.

Anyone who had thought otherwise, will hopefully have learnt from reading this that if they aren't happy with something they have been asked to do by ATC (on safety grounds) then they should question it. The CHIRP repot will have served it's purpose even if the facts weren't 100% correct.

dp

[Fuji Abound]

dp

I think that is the key.

The purpose of the report was exactly as you state - anything beyond that is a matter of speculation - which was incidentally what got me posting in the first place when it was suggested it was the pilot's fault for departing in those conditions!

AMEandPPL

Semantics I know but if you will forgive me I prefer to think in terms of AT giving me instructions rather than commanding me to follow a course of action. Perhaps it is simply because I am ultimately in command - and there can only be one commander! I agree I will almost always follow their instructions but I am never going to relinquish command to them.

[AMEandPPL]

Apologies in advance for digressing briefly from the aviation theme . . . .

Found this entry relating to the verb "command" in an internet dictionary


synonyms command (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/command) , order (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/order) , bid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bid) , enjoin (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enjoin) , direct (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/direct) , instruct (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instruct) , charge (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charge) mean to issue orders. command (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/command) and order (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/order) imply authority and usually some degree of formality and impersonality. command (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/command) stresses official exercise of authority <a general commanding troops>. order (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/order) may suggest peremptory or arbitrary exercise <ordered his employees about like slaves>. bid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bid) suggests giving orders peremptorily (as to children or servants) <she bade him be seated>. enjoin (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enjoin) implies giving an order or direction authoritatively and urgently and often with admonition or solicitude <a sign enjoining patrons to be quiet>. direct (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/direct) and instruct (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instruct) both connote expectation of obedience and usually concern specific points of procedure or method, instruct (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instruct) sometimes implying greater explicitness or formality <directed her assistant to hold all calls> <the judge instructed the jury to ignore the remark>. charge (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charge) adds to enjoin (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enjoin) an implication of imposing as a duty or responsibility <charged by the President with a secret mission>

In linguistic terms, no really significant differences, I'd beg to suggest.

Personal interpretation ? That, of course, is something else !

Now back to the aeronautical debate . . . . . . ! !

[Jumbo Driver]

Aaahh...

AMEandPPL ... and lexicographer ...

JD
;)

[AMEandPPL]

and lexicographer ...

You are too kind, Sir !

When I'm flying my C172 in the left seat I'm referred to as the Commander, but I'm happy (mostly) to accept and act upon instructions from an ATCO if I'm within CAS. I'm even happy to accept information and advice at my home airfield (EGCB) from an AFISO; it's not a "controlled" environment.

I agree with whoever it was who said it's a pity there is not an ATC response to this story for us to consider, along with the pilot's account. Does anyone know why there is no ATC input ? I thought that CHIRP usually tried to get both "sides" before publishing.

[AMEandPPL]

Anonymous reports are not normally acted upon as they cannot be validated

Yes, I see what you are saying. If the pilot's original report to CHIRP was anonymous, and they could therefore not make contact with him to check the location and further details. If that is genuinely the case, however, I'm surprised that they have not made that a bit clearer in this report.

The departure airfield is referred to just as HHH. Yet also in issue 88 is a reference to airport AAA (p.2) where it is clear that they ARE aware of its true identity ("reports that we have received with regard to the airport location").

I wonder if any CHIRP insiders actually read PPRuNe, and could enlighten us any more on this ?

[AMEandPPL]

Going on from that last post, I looked again at the actual CHIRP report forms, and found this at the top of each of them

1. Your personal details are required only to enable us to contact you
for further details about any part of your report. Please do not submit
anonymous reports.
2. On closing, this Report Form will be returned to you.



So, it would appear that they prefer to have details, in order to clarify reports if so required. Anonymous reports are discouraged, but not completely forbidden or discarded.

In a case such as this they might well have decided that publicising the principle, even without input from both sides, would probably contribute to a general increase in awareness and therefore in safety.

Have to say I'd agree with that view.