Bit of a barney with ATC today, what would you have done?

[piperboy84]

Was cleared for TO from 27 at Granada today departing via the W VRP( located on top of a mountain) it was hot and I was heavy ( at gross)realised during the climb that I didn't fancy continuing making straight for the mountain so turned about 15 degrees left ATC insisted I turn back on heading, I refused and explained that I wasn't happy with the clearance I would achieve and asked for an alternative departure route, she said it was a W departure I was given and it is W departure I shall fly, Told her "no can do and I ain't flying into a mountain to keep her happy" she was pissed off and handed me off to a radar service early to get rid of me. . There was only one other aircraft in the area a guy practicing ILS approaches that was nowhere near me.

I suppose I should have done my calcs prior to take off but didn't . What wild u have done ?

[mary meagher]

You are the captain. In a hot and heavy craft with a mountain in the way, avoiding action is certainly a good idea. I find three terms useful in dealing with ATC. Unable. Stand by. and Cancelling IFR!

[patowalker]

It is not "Granada tierra ensangretada ..." for nothing. :)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

In a situation like that you TELL them what you are doing; which you did!

[Una Due Tfc]

As Mary says, "unable" is good. As for the miscalculation, we mess up just as much as anyone, just say, "apologies sir/madam, temps are much higher than forecast" (we get that a lot in high level) etc. If you're polite then the person on the other end should be too. Then again we all have our bad days I guess. The safety of the aircraft is your responsibility, separation of traffic is ours. If you can't comply with a method of separation then it's a pain but get in early what you need and it's rarely an issue.

[AtomKraft]

The best thing to say, is the simple truth.

In your case, "we are too heavy to follow the SID climb profile, request heading xxx immediately in order to remain clear of the high ground" or words to that effect.

I find that arguments with ATC inevitably end with one wishing one hadn't.

[xrayalpha]

I don't think you can argue with ATC. It takes two sides to argue.

And you are the captain. You don't argue with the captain.....

Although he may have some explaining to do afterwards!

[Genghis the Engineer]

You accepted a clearance you couldn't fly then changed your route without first confirming this with ATC? I can see why they were a bit grumpy with you.

You should of course have done your climb performance calcs, but even having failed to do that a simple call of "climb performance limited request alternative routing to avoid rising ground " would have given them a chance to route you away from the mountain without your getting in anybody's way - which presumably was the issue.

The biggest offence against protocol was certainly changing route within controlled airspace without clearing it with ATC.

G

[Capt Kremmen]

piperboy84

Your actions absolutely correct.

[Fly4Business]

First @piperboy84 my respect for posting your mistake!
It makes me feel better whenever I see mistakes still be discussed openly.
You did not do your math and that is something we all are able to learn from and alter.

Did you turn that 15 degrees before talking to Granada? Nothing wrong to radio "unable, turn heading x to keep clear of terrain", but your flight should be executed in a way to be able to get a clearance in controlled airspace first or in case of urgency, announce prior to, or at really latest at turning. Turn first and than radio sounds a little like urgency turned emergency to me. In that case fly the aircraft first is absolutely correct, but should be subject for critical self review, what you do by also posting here, fine!
What kind of aircraft did you fly? For BA or airliner it is sometimes not easy to get the weight correct and if on the edge, you are easily over calculated weight special when getting into hotter then expected air layers. So, even if you did your math according to company rules, you may encounter insufficient climb performance.

Trying not be be rude, if this was in a GA aircraft, you derived first from your flight path and than called, I see why they were upset. In that case I would conclude for the lessons to learn: do your math, think ahead in flight, request or call early and prior to action.

[Talkdownman]

'Pan Pan, turning left...'

[rjtjrt]

The word to use is "require" when asking/telling ATC in such circumstance.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I did once turn before telling ATC what I was doing, in class D. (They did know I was running away from thunderstorms.)


When I told them what I'd decided they started saying "cleared to ..." and then interrupted themselves with "... ah, I see you've already started turning".

[AnglianAV8R]

Genghis, I beg to differ.
The Captain applied the much vaunted and worthy maxim of 'aviate, navigate and communicate'. He made a safety driven decision, took appropriate action and then communicated the fact.
I wouldn't dare to criticise him from the luxury of my armchair.

[Jetblu]

Piperboy84 said...

" Told her "no can do and I ain't flying into a mountain to keep her happy" she was pissed off and handed me off"


What a cow, eh. It would have ended in tears if you had listened to her you know.

:-)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The Captain applied the much vaunted and worthy maxim of 'aviate, navigate and communicate'. He made a safety driven decision, took appropriate action and then communicated the fact.That's how I saw what I did. The controller didn't get upset.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The biggest offence against protocol was certainly changing route within controlled airspace without clearing it with ATC.

Negative. First FLY THE AEROPLANE. That includes not hitting rising ground you can't out-climb.

TELL Air Traffic you are doing that. YOU are flying the aeroplane, not them. YOU will die when you hit the mountain while they go home to the wife and kids.

They are down on the ground in their safe little tower because YOU are up in the air in a potentially lethal flying machine; not the other way around. I detect a trend in PPLs these days that seems to have forgotten that. Some even seem to think the radio is a primary flying control.

Flying into a mountain because you didn't yet have clearance to turn is the act of a Darwin-dick-of-the-year candidate; if you are daft enough to do it you will improve the human gene pool by your act.

[BEagle]

Stupid not to have planned correctly, but when the performance limitation was recognised, the reason for an immediate need to change the clearance should have been stated clearly and without such puerile comments as "No can do and I ain't flying into a mountain to keep her happy...."

:rolleyes:

[Genghis the Engineer]

'Wot Beagle said.

This is a VFR flight - so 3nm+ visibility (and in Spain, usually much better than that). Grenada point W is 9nm from the airport, and about, what, 2,0000ft above the airport elevation?

This is not a sudden avoid on a mid air collision we're talking about here, it's an event well ahead of time. At, say, 90kn or less climb speed, that's 6 minutes or longer and allowing 1000ft vertical separation, the aeroplane needs a climb rate of 500fpm or better. The pilot can see at-least 2 minutes ahead of themselves, probably rather further.

I can absolutely see why, seeing anything below 500fpm RoC the pilot needs to ask for an alternative routing. But there's all the time in the world to declare an inability to follow the previously accepted clearance, request an alternative routing, and accept it. There's nothing I'm reading here which justifies unilaterally changing routing without previously agreeing this with ATC.

Plus, at risk of stating the obvious, 15 degrees left of a straight track to point W from LEGR, takes him towards the holding pattern around GDA VOR and/or the outbound track for the ILS from GDA (there's only an ILS on 09, followed presumably by a circling approach, according to the Spanish AIP), which is probably where the chap "practicing ILSs" was, and will have degraded that pilot's IFR separation minima.

And maintaining safe separation of this erratic VFR flight from the IFR flight, is probably exactly why our man was handed over to the radar controller, who'll already be controlling and/or monitoring anything on the ILS or hold. That's not them being difficult, that's them ensuring safety.

G

[AnglianAV8R]

All fine and dandy on paper.
So, we have an aircraft climbing towards high ground without a reserve of power if mother nature starts chucking it about......
Pilot is concerned about likely clearance over the high ground. He makes a decision of taking a safer routing and explains why.
This reminds me of how a Police Officer can have to make a split second decision which a QC will have the luxury of dismantling at his leisure in Court, with volumes of legalese paperwork to back him up.

[Genghis the Engineer]

But it's not how we're trained to fly in controlled airspace? And it's not a split second decision - it's a "in 2 or more minutes" decision. And hence, it's unsurprising that ATC got a bit unhappy - and moved the pilot to the same controller as their procedural IFR traffic to ensure best co-ordination.

G

[Pace]

"Normal" SID's are designed in such a way that a climb gradient of 3,3 % (201 ft climb per nautical mile of distance) will keep you clear of all obstacles in the departure path.

Sometimes, in mountainous areas or for ATC-reasons, a bigger climb is necessary. If the required climb gradient is bigger then 3,3 %, this will be said in the SID procedure itself. For instance: 5,4 % climb required until passing a certain point. In this case if you were climbing at a groundspeed of 160 knots you would need a climb ratio of about 864 ft/min. (160 *5,4 (rule of thumb))

It is up to the pilot to insure that the aircraft performance can confirm to the SID gradient requirements before accepting the SID

There were some accidents due to failure to fly climb gradients and this caused the FAA to highlight the requirements in recurrent training
And of course IFR always ask for a turn to avoid but the point is you should not have been in that situation in the first place ))

It wouldn't go down very well with ATC if you accepted a SID with an aircraft which was not capable of meeting the SID requirements and then made a turn off the SID without asking them.

I go with G on this one

But you were IFR, Just imagine you climbed into solid cloud at 200 feet and were not visual with the terrain? That shows how serious meeting those climb gradients are as without ATC intervention and a warning on your altitude readout and track you would not have made the turn and flown straight into the mountain

Anyway its all a learning curve and if I think of all my mistakes you won't make it again :ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Presumably via W, it was a VFR departure?

G

[Fly4Business]

I guess we start to chase an important point, which bothers me for quite some time. The mutual understanding of VFR and IFR.

If I read @piperboy84:
Was cleared for TO from 27 at Granada today departing via the W VRP ... a W departure I was given ...
I am assuming a VFR flight.

If I read the very important hint of @Genghis the Engineer:
Plus, at risk of stating the obvious, 15 degrees left of a straight track to point W from LEGR, takes him towards the holding pattern around GDA VOR and/or the outbound track for the ILS from GDA (there's only an ILS on 09, followed presumably by a circling approach, according to the Spanish AIP), which is probably where the chap "practicing ILSs" was, and will have degraded that pilot's IFR separation minima.
he is talking of risks related to IFR procedures.

An ordinary VFR pilot conducting a VFR flight seldom looks at the IFR procedures of the airport taken off. I have to admit, me too. Visual routes may be set by VRP and sometimes arrows on the plates, but the VFR charts won't give you ideas where the IFR routes and procedures are. If flying VFR in a control zone, I have to rely on tower to separate me from IFR and they have to rely on me to talk early as possible when doing something unexpected. The ordinary VFR pilot, most of the times, will have no clue what and where the SID climbout for IFR departure is.

Given the vast addiction to electronic moving map solutions, it may be wise to discuss adding an overlay of the IFR procedures also to electronic VFR solutions ?!

[Pace]

Apologies I posted late last night and thought you were in an IFR departure

[Piltdown Man]

You will not always please everybody, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that you always fly in such a way that you can get a bollocking in one piece. From the story you told, only bit that you probably could have improved was the comment and possibly the explanation. Had you said you earlier that your performance was less than anticipated, request... If no solution was forthcoming, you then declare an emergency. Either way you do as you did. Saying you would fly into a mountain to please her almost certainly p!ssed her off. The next bit is calculating your performance. I can find out my aircraft's climb performance, but it's a lot of work. So the question is, do you actually have the numbers to work out your climb performance? If you don't, it doesn't really matter but make sure that you give ATC the heads up a little earlier to allow them to plan with you in mind. Either way, you did the right thing on this trip.

PM

[Jonzarno]

Always fly in such a way that you can get a bollocking in one piece.

PM

Well put: I intend to steal that quite unashamedly! :D

As regards handling this situation, I'm with GTE on this.

The pilot must have had several minutes between realising he wasn't going to make the climb and a potential impact with terrain. IMO, assuming totally uncooperative ATC (which probably wouldn't have been the case anyway) the sequence of events should have been:

G-XXXX: G-XXXX request 15 degrees left for terrain avoidance

ATC: Negative, maintain standard departure

(Assuming there's time for this) G-XXXX: G-XXXX requires 15 left for terrain avoidance, will declare emergency if necessary

If time not available or if:

ATC: Negative, maintain standard departure

G-XXXX: G-XXXX declares emergency, squawking 7700 turning 15 degrees left.


I have to say that, despite having been trained to do that, in all the times I've ever asked for a deviation (albeit never on a SID or standard VFR departure) I've never even got to stage two of that process.

In reality, by the time you got to stage two, ATC would almost certainly give you a vector to stay clear of terrain and away from other traffic.

[Fly4Business]

PM: So the question is, do you actually have the numbers to work out your climb performance?
Yes, you may have a lot of work to calculate your climb performance and you may be lucky the aircraft decides to follow the number. But, you can not rely on it and that's why I appreciate this thread. Similar situation may happen to everybody and if I remember this, it'll help.

Just yesterday, I had all calculations done well, fed the iPad with all usual numbers and guess what, the aircraft decided to climb only about half calculated performance. It was on flat shoreland, so no problem at all and the flight was never in danger, but if it would have been in mountains, it would have been troublesome. After landing I checked everything I could guess, but found really not a single bit unusual, so lack of performance is a complete mystery to me.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I once left my biennial review a bit late to book my usual aeros instructor in our Chippy for an hour, so took a PA38 and a flying-school instructor. No aeros of course (him or the PA38), so we did instrument flying. At one point I noticed that despite cruise power set, speed correct, and attitude as it should be, we were descending. The instructor could not explain it.

I had a look outside. Socking great Welsh hill a few miles upwind of us; lee side sink.

There's more to aeroplane performance than feeding numbers from the manual into an i thingy.

[Jonzarno]

I had a look outside. Socking great Welsh hill a few miles upwind of us; lee side sink.

I believe a more extreme form of this is what killed Steve Fosset (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fossett).

[airpolice]

When you are flying in controlled airspace, well.... there's a clue in the name. We all rely on each other sticking to the rules, and when you make a contract with the controller, and with other aircraft, you need to keep to your side of the bargain or it all breaks down.

It's really not for you to decide that you know what other aircraft are or are not in the vicinity, that's the controller's job, and she might well be working more than one frequency.

I'm sure that none of us think you need to fly into the hillside, but as GtE points out, you had plenty of time to avoid this situation, probably about four hours.

Once you find yourself needing to deviate from what you have agreed with ATC, speaking up early is vital, but nobody wins if you have an argument on the R/T.

[A le Ron]

For what it's worth, I'm absolutely with Genghis on this one. Safety first, yes; in this situation, in controlled airspace, with time to sort out the course issue, the greater safety issue could easily have been related to separation, other traffic you were unaware of, stuff the controller was coordinating on the land-line etc. GIving them a quick call before changing heading would hardly have compromised you, IMHO, and certainly avoided irritating the controller.

[Jetblu]

Yeah! Come on piperboy, we're all with Genghis. You should know that paper beats rock.

and no water skiing on the way home either!

:-)

[Private jet]

As the captain of the aircraft YOU are responsible for the safe conduct of a flight, and you are perfectly entitled to question or deviate from any clearance or instruction from ATC if you believe the safety of the flight is or potentially will be comprimised. In that sense ATC is only an "advisory" service, the buck stops with the PIC, however you must be able to reasonably justify your actions afterwards!

[2 sheds]

A few observations on the facts as reported by the OP:


The title refers to a “barney” with ATC - as has been previously highlighted, it takes two to tango, and it achieves nothing by being abrasive (pilots or ATC) but everything by knowing procedures and adhering to standard communications.



Turned left, apparently without informing ATC - moral, request or inform ATC (depending on the perceived urgency) before the event - e.g. “request turn left maximum 20 degrees for terrain clearance” - that would immediately keep ATC informed of the maximum required track deviation and give the explanation in the same transmission. Clearly, if that were still refused, it would then justify an urgency call.


ATC insisted turn back on track - would have been useful if ATC had specified a reason or passed relevant traffic information, BUT perhaps the reason was pressing at that particular moment, e.g. co-ordination of following departing traffic or other potential conflicting traffic on a different frequency.


“I wasn't happy with the clearance I would achieve” - perhaps this was misunderstood - did you specify terrain clearance; would a mention of rate of climb or anything including unable have been more emphatic? Remember that ATC was not operating in her first language; you, presumably were and also deviated from appropriate communications by making a remark about “flying into a mountain to keep her happy.” How would that sort of response sit with you if communications had to be in Spanish by both parties - even if understood, how does this contribute to a safe operation?


“She was pissed off...” - by your remark, quite possibly, BUT how do you know that? What might have been evident in her tone was concern about some urgent unexpected co-ordination that she needed to effect.


“Handed me off to a radar service early to get rid of me...” Should you not be grateful? It sounds as if the aerodrome controller (who would not necessarily be aware of all potential conflicting traffic on your new track) effected some swift co-ordination of your revised requirements and transferred you to the more appropriate frequency, i.e. for a potential radar service, in a very timely fashion.



“There was only one other aircraft in the area a guy practicing ILS approaches that was nowhere near me”. Situational awareness is one thing, but you cannot know that - or know what else might be nearby in a few miles’ time.


“I suppose I should have done my calcs prior to take off but didn't”. No comment.

2 s

[Pace]

Also remember especially in cloud on an IFR IMC Departure that in a twin the single engine performance has to be factored in.
Usually OK in a jet but not so in a light twin piston.

On a VFR departure especially in a light twin also consider an engine failure and the effect on a decision to force land.

Pace

[riverrock83]

Often Tower controllers have agreement to be able to give clearances in / out of an airport within certain parameters without having to coordinate with an approach controller. Typically that would include VFR entry / Exit lanes - or in your case, to a specific VRP. At my local, that means below 2000 feet via one of 4 VRPs.
Anything else requires coordination.
So your re-positioning means that you will be moving into airspace controlled by someone else and the controller will need to coordinate that, at short notice.
The person you are talking to likely wont be able to give you that clearance straight away, and you may be routing yourself into the path of other aircraft.

There was another frequency in use, so how did you know that there weren't other aircraft around?

Yep - I'm another with GtE on this. If it wasn't an emergency (and it sounds like it wasn't) then you could have handled this better.

[airpolice]

Bit of a barney with ATC today, what would you have done?
Was cleared for TO from 27 at Granada today departing via the W VRP( located on top of a mountain) it was hot and I was heavy ( at gross)realised during the climb that I didn't fancy continuing making straight for the mountain so turned about 15 degrees left ATC insisted I turn back on heading, I refused and explained that I wasn't happy with the clearance I would achieve and asked for an alternative departure route, she said it was a W departure I was given and it is W departure I shall fly, Told her "no can do and I ain't flying into a mountain to keep her happy" she was pissed off and handed me off to a radar service early to get rid of me. . There was only one other aircraft in the area a guy practicing ILS approaches that was nowhere near me.

I suppose I should have done my calcs prior to take off but didn't . What wild u have done ?


That was the original post:


PrivateJet wrote:
As the captain of the aircraft YOU are responsible for the safe conduct of a flight, and you are perfectly entitled to question or deviate from any clearance or instruction from ATC if you believe the safety of the flight is or potentially will be comprimised.

I think we would all agree with the sentiment (if not the spelling) there. What I can't figure out is how you can reconcile the safe conduct of the flight with a deliberate contradiction of an agreed service in controlled airspace involving sarcastic dialogue on the R/T.

Turning is certainly better than crashing, but communication, early on, is vital. If you had caused a loss of separation, how is that better than asking for an alternative? She might have been able to turn you in the opposite direction without any conflict. While you have the "best view" of the scenery, from the cockpit, the controller usually has a better "over view" of the situation.

[piperboy84]

Yeah, in hindsight I should have given her a heads up sooner, in the end all's well that ends well, had a excellent flight to Cascais outside Lisbon, stuffed myself full of excellent food and got minced on their outstanding beer for a few days and learned a few things on the flight back to Malaga Velez. I wasn't aware that you had to have an IFR intersection on your flight plan as a FIR crossing point on a VFR flight.

Onward tomorrow back up the road from Velez direct Jersey with what looks like a 20 knot draft up my arse which should make the 100 knot IAS of the trusty old Maule slightly less intolerable. Scoring some cheap Jersey avgas will be a welcome break from the 3 euro a litre I've been jacked for in Southern Spain. Then the final leg of Jersey to Forfar and see if the port cops want to meet me on my arrival to inspect my 2 cartons of Marlboro.

Another great VFR flying adventure round Portugal, Spain and France with about 35 flying hours all in and a few lessons learned along the way. It's all good !

Oh and even seen 3 turbine prop Dornier sky servants in Portomao down from Hull for a big skydiving gig.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I wasn't aware that you had to have an IFR intersection on your flight plan as a FIR crossing point on a VFR flight.

I've done this a few times for administrative convenience, but I've never known it to be insisted upon. Where was that?

G

[rarelyathome]

As the captain of the aircraft YOU are responsible for the safe conduct of a flight, and you are perfectly entitled to question or deviate from any clearance or instruction from ATC if you believe the safety of the flight is or potentially will be comprimised. In that sense ATC is only an "advisory" service, the buck stops with the PIC, however you must be able to reasonably justify your actions afterwards!
Yup. Which starts with planning properly before take off. If you've done that and the subsequent perf means you're not going to make it, aviate and talk. It seems the knee jerk on here is to ignore poor airmanship.

Hat off to the OP for owning up to not planning before take off. The ILAFT is 'do the planning on the ground to avoid avoidable problems in the air'.

[piperboy84]

Cascais to Malaga velez , they told me to refile the flight plan and suggested that MINTA be chosen as a designated FIR crossing point in the new plan.


Hat off to the OP for owning up to not planning before take off. The ILAFT is 'do the planning on the ground to avoid avoidable problems in the air'.

As I said, I should have talked to them, looking at the numbers now the take off elevation was 1800, the top of the hill was 5200 so I would need at least 6200 for safe clearance due to the northerly wind I was getting which probably explains the lack of climb performance. The visuals and the gut feeling just weren't right and It kind of reminded me of a few years back when flying over Loch Tay towards an approximately 4000 foot ridge and I got one hellacious down draft/mountain wave which pegged the VSI, I managed to get turned around and away, a couple of micro lighters a little further along the range weren't so lucky. I think I had an instinct that was what I could have been about to fly into so immediately turned a bit. Again, I should have talked to them.

[jjoe]

Happy Easter all.

Late on this thread and apologies if I'm repeating others' views.

I hope I'm allowed to share an opinion with such little experience.

Piperboy84, I have been very impressed with your recent (last 3 years or so) experience/exploits and looked forward to your posts (I must admit I have not read ALL 1165 of them!) until the attitude portrayed in the start of this thread.

We all make mistakes or just get it wrong (hand up/cap-in-hand etc) but, complete lack of planning (admitted) then complete lack of standard (comms.) procedure (admitted), followed by the implication that ATC were a nuisance (my interpretation) is not something prevalent in your hitherto profile!

Bad day at the office, yes, but the rest....?

Can't really understand your sharing the experience in this manner.

Back to the good stuff please (1165 onwards)

I'd also, of course, take a bollocking in one piece!

JJOE

[Pace]

I have thought about this posting and think piper boy has inadvertently opened up a discussion which should highlight an area which is often disregarded but can have disasterous results and that is departures in mountainous areas with vital climb gradient requirements
Frankly ok he was a naughty boy not checking the departure requirements and taking a turn without permission but we all make mistakes and I am sure he won't make that one again
Even ATC make mistakes
I remember flying IFR in IMC into Bilbao and being cleared in the descent to below the MSA which I rejected and then got an apology(
But this is about big mountain flying something we are not used to in the UK and weather considerations become part of the decision making including severe downdraughts especially in low powered singles or light twins
I don't know if anyone has flown into LJLJ with a 10,000 foot mountain on the side of the runway ?
But PPLs also hold IRs and while this flight was VFR it highlights the dangers of flying limited performance light aircraft in IFR IMC conditions and climb gradients
Where CFIT accidents were highlighted in the USA in extra training and awareness

Seeing the terrain is no big shakes not seeing the terrain because you are IMC or also dealing with sinking air is another much more serious threat
So for me this fairly mild mistake highlights a potential much more serious consideration

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

The other very valuable point here is VFR pilots inadvertently straying into, or towards, instrument patterns.

At Grenada there's actually a very useful clue - a VOR aligned with the main runway screams IAP at you, and it's obvious to most people that there's likely to be instrument traffic in that vicinity - if there's any at-all. This may often not be the case however - not all charts show all NDBs, or an approach may be aligned with a beacon the other side of the airport (or slowly, they are GPS based, which means that standard charts may tell you nothing at-all).

The UK/ICAO chart chevvron tells you little of value, as it's only shown for the ILS on one runway normally, and tells you nothing about the likely location of holding or outbound/base/departing IFR traffic, nor whether there are approaches on more than one runway.

There would be a lot of value (and yes, I know that our charts are quite cluttered enough already!) in some symbology on standard VFR charts that just shows where instrument traffic is most likely to be.

A parallel in the UK is the MATZ - shown on charts, it's where high energy military traffic is most likely to be around military airfields, it's not mandatory to avoid it - but we all know that at the very least asking for a MATZ penetration before entering that is a very good idea. Something "MATZish" around the standard holds and outbound/inbound tracks of IAPs shown on the chart, that gives VFR traffic a caution, would in my opinion be useful and support safety.

VFR pilots, who are (or have) hold/held IFR qualifications will at least understand the issues and know where to look for this information - but "vanilla" VFR pilots do not, and in any case, having it all on the single VFR chart makes more sense than not.

G

[Chesty Morgan]

I remember flying IFR in IMC into Bilbao and being cleared in the descent to below the MSA which I rejected and then got an apology

Unless you're leaving out some pertinent details then I don't see the problem.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Surely you should normally only descend below MSA in IMC/IFR as part of a procedure designed to ensure adequate terrain separation? Not en--route.

G

[Pace]

Surely you should normally only descend below MSA in IMC/IFR as part of a procedure designed to ensure adequate terrain separation? Not en--route.


100% agree and hence my surprise at being given a descent clearance below the MSA way outside the procedure which I questioned and had rectified and an apology. But its shows you need to double check and don't trust anything as I have had ATC mistakes in both Italy and Spain

Pace

[Chesty Morgan]

What's wrong with radar control then?

Minimum vectoring altitude can be lower than MSA if necessary and thousands of aircraft every day are cleared below MSA in IMC.

[Pace]

What's wrong with radar control then?

Because it was acknowledged as a mistake and rectified when I queried it

Pace

[Chesty Morgan]

Yes, that's some of the pertinent information you missed out.

However, you've just 100% agreed that you can only descend below MSA when you're on a procedure. That is incorrect.

[Pace]

OK CM you win on pedantics :ok: But still don't trust anyone ATC included


MSA when you're on a procedure.
I was not on a procedure )

Surely you should normally only descend below MSA in IMC/IFR as part of a procedure designed to ensure adequate terrain separation? Not en--route.

That is what I agreed 100% )

Pace

[Chesty Morgan]

There's nothing pedantic about it. Being procedural isn't the only way you can legally descend below MSA. To state otherwise just highlights the general misunderstanding of minimum altitudes. People do come to this site to learn things, unfortunately, so it's important to be correct when stating facts.

Point in case I reckon you didn't actually mean MSA because at Bilbao it's 7000'. It'd be difficult to land if you couldn't go below that unless you're flying the entire procedure...and I bet you weren't.


I was not on a procedure )

You don't have to be. But--------->

That is what I agreed 100%

That is where you are 100% wrong.

[Pace]

Chesty M it was sometime back but the procedure itself was a step down onto eventually the ILS. This was a mistaken instruction, rectified on QUERRY and way before the procedure commenced

What you are saying is that you can in IMC IFR be instructed to descend to below the MSA en route ? Is that what you are saying ? Clarify ? Give an example ?

Pace

[Chesty Morgan]

Of course you can (but I'd say cleared not instructed). I've already clarified.

An example would be EMA. ILS 27 platform altitude is 2000' but the MSA is 2700' worst case and 2500' in the east sectors.

Do you suggest every arrival and approach is flown procedurally if it's IMC?

[Pace]

CM

Of course not every approach procedure is procedural :ugh::suspect: some are to touchdown pilot interpretated some are radar vectors to an instrument landing some are vectors to landing in the form of a PAR or SRA
But again I asked the question and have no answer please give an example of where under radar control you are instructed to descend below the MSA say 50 or 70 miles out en route and way before any procedure procedural or vectored ?

Pace

[Chesty Morgan]

Again! You haven't asked that question the first time yet.

Still the MSA only extends to 25 miles so what relevance would it have 50 miles out? Perhaps understanding what you're talking about might help.

[Pace]

CM

My typo MEA if it makes you happy? But whats in your caustic responses ?

[500 above]

No Spanish minimum radar vectoring altitudes [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-297854.html)

The above link contains a similar 'debate' over Spanish ATC and descent clearances. We used to operate in to Bilbao regularly, and I have my own opinion of their service...

http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-458158.html

[Floppy Link]

Me too, although it's 10 years since I flew down that way. Maybe it's changed. Maybe not. Quote from the archive link above...
Trust Spanish ATC at your peril
Was always good advice. I had 5 TCAS RAs in my 757 career, 4 of them in Spain.

This from Timothy, post 338 on the ATC humour thread. Those of us who flew down there weren't surprised to read it.

ME (flying HS125 in Spain): Pan Pan Pan xxx123 No 2 Engine failure out of 390 we can probably hold about 220 on reaching. We'll go to Madrid. Services at Madrid please.
HER: xxx123 Negative you must maintain 390 acknowledge
ME: Unable comply, engine failure, we are in the float down passing 370.
HER: NEGATIVE NEGATIVE Climb immediately 390
ME: WE HAVE LOST AN ENGINE WE ARE DESCENDING THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. JUST GET YOUR SUPERVISOR ON THE RADIO IF YOU CANNOT COPE
HER: IT IS VERY DANGEROUS WHAT YOU ARE DOING, YOU MUST RETURN TO YOUR ASSIGNED ALTITUDE.
ME: Please will someone explain to her what's going on.
<some words spoken in Spanish>
HER(all said as if nothing had happened): xxx123 Continue descent. Make your heading 350. Expect Radar vectors to runway xx at Madrid.

[Pace]

Chesty Morgan

FAA definition[edit]
In the United States in particular, the Federal Aviation Administration calls this concept the minimum safe altitude (MSA), and specifically defines it as follows in §119 of Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR):

Anywhere: an altitude allowing a safe emergency landing without undue hazard to person or property on the ground;
Over Congested Areas: an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of less than 2,000 feet;
Over Populated Areas: an altitude of 500 feet AGL;
Over Open Water or Sparsely Populated Areas: an altitude allowing for a linear distance greater than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure;
Helicopters: If without hazard to persons or property on the surface, an altitude lower than in definitions 2, 3, and 4 above, provided in compliance with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA.

If you google MSA you will find a few descriptions some non standard so apologies for using the term loosely :E

As to the above posts I also agree do not trust Spanish controllers or Italian
In Italy it is common to be put on a radar heading and forgotten so its a case of reminding the controller when things don't look right :E

[2 sheds]

[QUOTE]As to the above posts I also agree do not trust Spanish controllers or Italian[/QUOTE
Isn't this getting rather generically insulting?


2 s

[Pace]

2 Sheds

Its always a relief coming back into UK airspace where firstly you can understand whats being said rather than asking ten times to spell the waypoint and everything is so precise
There are differences between the quality of ATC as there would be discussing the quality of different airlines from different countries?

Pace

[Fly-by-Wife]

Quite right 2sheds - based on the evidence provided, Pace should, of course, have said "do not trust controllers in Spain or Italy".

After all, they could be of any nationality, just working in Spain or Italy, so rephrasing it thus would no longer be possibly offensive to native Spaniards or Italians (whether or not they are ATCOs).

FBW.

[Genghis the Engineer]

2 Sheds

Its always a relief coming back into UK airspace where firstly you can understand whats being said rather than asking ten times to spell the waypoint and everything is so precise
There are differences between the quality of ATC as there would be discussing the quality of different airlines from different countries?

Pace
I think that on net, I slightly prefer German controllers.

G