PDA

View Full Version : KoreanAir ATC violation


prodigykim
8th May 2016, 11:33
Korean Air KE929 has entered rwy without ATC clearance and SQ 9016 made RTO to avoid collision.
Due to RTO, SQ 9016(bound for SFO) had flat tires and had significant delay of 19 hours at incheon airport, Korea.

Airbubba
8th May 2016, 23:12
Did this occur around 0900Z on Thursday, 5 May 2016, perhaps?

Looks like Korean got airborne on time even if SQ had to get new tires.

p.j.m
9th May 2016, 07:33
Kudos to the Singapore Air pilots for averting that disaster!

https://i.imgur.com/nssWIA5.jpg

Friday, Singapore Airlines flight SQ16 to San Francisco was forced to make an emergency stop during takeoff when the controller told the pilots that Korean Air flight KE929 (Airbus A330-200) to St Petersburg (Russia) was crossing the runway without permission.

http://www.airlive.net/breaking-singapore-airlines-sq16-interrupted-takeoff-to-avoid-collision-at-seoul/

CCA
9th May 2016, 13:49
Any truth that SQ was taxiing back for a second takeoff when the plugs began to melt?

etops777
11th May 2016, 16:12
CCA

Not true. The 77W had to replace those tires and it was delayed for 19 hours.

ATC Watcher
11th May 2016, 16:31
Was told that it was ATC that told SQ to abort T/O as KE passed over a red bar.
Not confirmed however.

z80
12th May 2016, 02:11
I heard that the KE crew that caused this where not replaced and continued the flight to St Petersburg.

Airbubba
12th May 2016, 02:29
I heard that the KE crew that caused this where not replaced and continued the flight to St Petersburg.

I can't read the Korean in the diagram posted above but I believe that this was the KE flight involved in the runway conflict:

Korean Air Lines Co. (KE) #929 05-May-2016 ICN / RKSI - LED / ULLI FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/KAL929/history/20160505/0855Z/RKSI/ULLI)

martynj3
12th May 2016, 08:53
Out of interest, is there an official form of words for ATC to use in these circumstances?

zonoma
12th May 2016, 09:15
Out of interest, is there an official form of words for ATC to use in these circumstances?
The UK CAP413 here (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiwrMOYmNTMAhUDlxoKHYybBasQFgggMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublicapps.caa.co.uk%2Fdocs%2F33%2FCAP413v 21_6.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHqJKrzwSQi-70fstkGxDyVW6HcOw&sig2=APftMc1MIOukzGe6VubP5A) (PDF download link) details the phraseology to be used in Chapter 4, point 4.41 (page 18) and states:
When an aircraft is about to take-off or has commenced the take-off roll, and it is necessary that the aircraft should abandon take-off, the aircraft will be instructed to cancel take-off or stop immediately; these instructions will be repeated.

G-CD, hold position, cancel take-off I say again cancel take-off, acknowledge

BIGJET 347, stop immediately I say again, BIGJET 347, stop immediately, acknowledge

360BakTrak
12th May 2016, 09:36
I doubt they use CAP413 in Korea..........!

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
12th May 2016, 09:36
I find it interesting that the Military take a completely different approach.

Civil ATCO cancels clearance or instructs the pilot to stop immediately.
Mil ATCO cancels clearance or informs the pilot for him to decide.

I always thought that it was a/c captain that had the final say, if so, why the directive STOP IMMEDIATELY from ATC with no info as to why.

Phileas Fogg
12th May 2016, 09:51
When I did ATC it was ATC in overall charge of an airfield and not 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 etc. aircraft commanders.

I dread to imagine 2 or more commanders realising there is a problem and both making conflicting decisions whereas ATC is in a position to make one decision upon behalf of everybody concerned.

Bula
12th May 2016, 11:27
Your Call, My Ass :)

Bluescan
12th May 2016, 17:07
Out of interest, is there an official form of words for ATC to use in these circumstances?

Here's a snapshot from the ICAO Doc 9432 "Manual of Radiotelephony".

:ok:

llondel
13th May 2016, 16:33
Civil ATCO cancels clearance or instructs the pilot to stop immediately.
Mil ATCO cancels clearance or informs the pilot for him to decide.

I always thought that it was a/c captain that had the final say, if so, why the directive STOP IMMEDIATELY from ATC with no info as to why.

Isn't it a bit like when you're on finals and PNF suddenly says "Go Around"? It's not something that would be said without good reason so the default is to do as instructed and sort out the reason why later. In this case the reason might have been apparent by looking out the front, assuming visibility was adequate but the extra second required to do that, identify the problem and then act might be the difference between a simple change of underwear and waking up the fire department.

If ATC had to give the reason for the instruction before the flight crew acted then the delay might be critical.

Capn Bloggs
14th May 2016, 00:36
Isn't it a bit like when you're on finals and PNF suddenly says "Go Around"? It's not something that would be said without good reason so the default is to do as instructed and sort out the reason why later.
Precisely.

Geebz
14th May 2016, 03:33
19 HR delay. Ridiculous on the part of SQ.

I thought my airline was bad and alienating the public with our delays. 19 hrs for tires. Either it had to be something larger or that company suffers from serious operational mis-management.

parabellum
14th May 2016, 03:42
Damage assessment, source and supply possibly 12 new wheels, transport to Korea, ( 6 hours), and fix, 19 hours sounds fair to me, what is your gripe Geebz?

Rwy in Sight
14th May 2016, 05:22
I thought there are agreements on technical support so damage assessment and a handling of AOG would take less than that. Maybe get the new tires from a source closer Singapore.

8che
14th May 2016, 05:29
Phileas Fogg.....lets just clear that one up. Not in the history of professional aviation has ATC ever been "in charge" of an aeroplane.

Every single ATC instruction whatever it may be is OPTIONAL for the Captain who is the only person legally in charge of an aircraft.

jmmoric
14th May 2016, 12:16
I've read a few AIP's where they'll behead you and drop you in the sea if you don't follow instructions from ATC :)

eastern wiseguy
14th May 2016, 15:13
Phileas Fogg.....lets just clear that one up. Not in the history of professional aviation has ATC ever been "in charge" of an aeroplane.

Every single ATC instruction whatever it may be is OPTIONAL for the Captain who is the only person legally in charge of an aircraft.
And as has been stated above...better to adhere to the instructions of someone with the FULL knowledge of what is occurring on the maneuvering area and sort it out later. ATC KNOWS that you are in command. I know that the AIRFIELD is mine and you would be bloody foolish to disregard my instructions.

Teamwork.

eppy
14th May 2016, 15:53
Phileas Fogg.....lets just clear that one up. Not in the history of professional aviation has ATC ever been "in charge" of an aeroplane.

Every single ATC instruction whatever it may be is OPTIONAL for the Captain who is the only person legally in charge of an aircraft.

8CHE - Not every instruction. By law, ATC instructions must be obeyed except in emergencies. As per 14 CFR 91.123 - Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions:

"Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.123

DaveReidUK
14th May 2016, 15:59
As per 14 CFR 91.123 - Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions

Though of course 14 CFR (aka FARs) only applies to the US.

YMMV.

Chesty Morgan
14th May 2016, 17:15
And as has been stated above...better to adhere to the instructions of someone with the FULL knowledge of what is occurring on the maneuvering area and sort it out later. ATC KNOWS that you are in command. I know that the AIRFIELD is mine and you would be bloody foolish to disregard my instructions.

Teamwork.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment I have to disagree that you have "FULL" knowledge of what's going on on the MA - you can't see into the flight deck.

Would I still be foolish if I didn't stop above V1 when you ask me to?

Teamwork - you do the strategy, I'll do the tactics.

BuzzBox
14th May 2016, 21:48
19 HR delay. Ridiculous on the part of SQ.

Really? I don't think so. As parabellum said, it would have taken some time to source a significant number of wheel units, plus time to move the aircraft, plus time to wait for the wheels to cool, plus time to change the wheels, etc, etc. By the time all that was done, the crew had probably run out of duty time to get to SFO, so off to the hotel for min rest before continuing. Not ridiculous at all.

sb_sfo
15th May 2016, 14:00
19 HR delay. Ridiculous on the part of SQ.
Not to mention that since there are 180 transit pax with no home to go to, they were hopefully put up in hotels near the airport. When you have to round them all up after repairs, you're probably going to need to set a departure time that is quite conservative, and lets them get some rest as well.

Edit to say that there may have been some ICN-originating pax, have no idea how many

TypeIV
15th May 2016, 15:44
Damage assessment, source and supply possibly 12 new wheels, transport to Korea, ( 6 hours), and fix, 19 hours sounds fair to me, what is your gripe Geebz?

Just towing the A/C back, cooling brakes, deboarding, unloading etc could take some time. If more fuel uplift or even worse, defuelling before replacing tires was needed, the delay sounds fair to me as well.

As a pilot, if the ATC tells me to stop immediately, I can count on the reason being a runway incursion.
With speeds of up to 300 feet per second, a p1ss1ng contest of who's in charge would be the last thing on my mind :E

8che
16th May 2016, 20:21
P1ss1ng contest ? I haven't for 1 second suggested it was wrong to follow ATC instruction in this case. My issue is the thought that some ATC's think they are in charge of aircraft. The point is that its always a choice for the Captain to follow ATC or not.

EPPY you must be a career FO......By international law the Captain has sole responsibility for the safety of the aircraft period.

As per 14 CFR 91.123....... You have to be kidding.. So when ATC make a mistake and try and vector you into a mountain after departure because they forgot about a runway change, your just going to do what they say ??? When ATC use your callsign by mistake your just going to follow14 CFR 91.123 ??

A concerning lack of self preservation.

IcePack
16th May 2016, 22:13
.By international law the Captain has sole responsibility for the safety of the aircraft period.
Umm! Yes but certainly some Australian ATC officers think other wise. Along with other rather set minded nations.

Una Due Tfc
16th May 2016, 23:55
At the end of the day, all I want is to get to my days off without having to fill out paperwork and get the whole "tea no biscuits" chat, and I want to do everything in my power to help pilots do the same.

We all eff up, whether it be something relatively small like giving the wrong freq and spotting it in the read back-hear back or whatever to something larger. Thankfully one side of the conversation or the person plugged in next to me or other pilot up there with you spots our mistakes more often than not. We watch each other's backs, that's why it works.

Phileas Fogg
18th May 2016, 10:52
Phileas Fogg.....lets just clear that one up. Not in the history of professional aviation has ATC ever been "in charge" of an aeroplane.

Every single ATC instruction whatever it may be is OPTIONAL for the Captain who is the only person legally in charge of an aircraft.

Thanks to others for your support ...

It's some 37 years since I did ATC, so I don't take it personally any longer, but let's just make this clear 'bche' ... If there is an aircraft already on the active runway and I instruct you to perform a 'go around' then you do the damn hell as I tell you or you can foxtrot oscar to some type of Ryanair airfield that might accept your "I am god" type attitude!

Amen :)

8che
18th May 2016, 13:09
Well its been 24 hours since I last commanded a wide body jet and you clearly are taking it personally, you can paint a warped picture of god like attitudes if you wish too but its a simple fact of international law and a fundamental basis of self preservation that the guy sat in the cockpit has the final say. There is only one person in command of an aeroplane and unlike ATC whatever decision the Captain takes he/she literally lives or dies by that decision.

Bula's post 14 says it all.

The fact you might get upset by our choice to follow instruction or not is frankly irrelevant to our decision making process and irrelevant to the law.

Yes we are team and both ATC and pilots get things wrong and hopefully catch each others mistakes but lets be crystal clear the buck always stops with the Captain both on a legal and mortal basis. Ultimately Captains have to sit down and justify every decision/action they take....if were lucky enough to be still be alive.

Ex Cargo Clown
18th May 2016, 17:35
This is daft. It is teamwork. I don't know why the Skygods are at it. Who legally puts their legal risk on the line when they sign a DGR check/NOTOC/Loadsheet etc. Best pilots I know are the ones who say "What do you think"

Phileas Fogg
19th May 2016, 01:53
This reminds me of the story of a Birdseed B747 on approach to LHR.

ATC had, more than once, asked the B747 to reduce it's speed and the B747 had complied, when ATC once more asked the B747 to reduce it's speed the somewhat pompous reply came back, something to the effect, "My dear chap, are you aware of the stalling speed of a B747?" ... As quick as anything the controller replied "No sir, but if you ask your First Officer I'm sure that he'll be able to tell you" :)

MrSnuggles
23rd May 2016, 12:24
Please everybody. I am just sitting behind you. Maybe I am crammed in the aisle seat. I have no idea what is going on on the runway, I am just thinking of my nice vacation, visiting a dear friend. I have listened to your safety instructions and put my seat belt on. In the cupboard above my head lays a gift I made in pottery class, glazed in royal blue.

So have this in mind, if ATC hollers at you to STOP! RIGHT! NOW!

That is not the time, nor the place to rattle around how many stripes you have on your shoulders. I trust you to stop. I trust you to save my life. I know the dangers of runway collisions, but I trust you to adhere to the ATC emergency call. Because I want to visit my friend. And I am sure you as a pilot have your own friends you want to visit.

I don't care about your stripes. I care about my life, and yours - because you are the one responsible for mine in this situation. So just stop the plane if possible (have you reached V1 just do what's necessary to avoid trouble). Please. I beg you.

Capn Bloggs
23rd May 2016, 13:01
Well said, Snuggles. I see we have a few "Captain Americas" here...

Bula
23rd May 2016, 13:41
Seriously, I find it hard to fathom a reason why one would not stop if ATC say "stop stop stop"? Above V1 would just about be it, technical malfunction with a go decision, tyre burst with no engine abnormal approaching V1.

I can quite honestly say during the task off roll I'm fairly task saturated , so to be able to perceive all elements to maintain complete airfield situational awareness is sometimes just not possible. I know my limits, though we sometimes need a little reminder that we are there when we reach them.

As PIC, my job is safety, which includes using all available resources. ATC being very high on the input level.

Those who are flouting the SkyGod concept need to realise the above, that the PIC has complete responsibility. In saying that, one would be selling tickets on themselves to not stop without true safety reasons that ATC may not be aware of.

CCA
23rd May 2016, 13:55
Incident: Korean A332 at Seoul on May 5th 2016, runway incursion forces SQ-16 to reject takeoff (http://avherald.com/h?article=497f7b0f)

QAR data indicates that the ground speed at the time of the RTO was 139kts (CAS 146kts). Reverse thrust was not used during the maneuver as in the crew’s opinion, the rate of deceleration was high and there was sufficient runway remaining.

ATC Watcher
23rd May 2016, 17:33
Reading the AvHerald link posted by CCA, and assuming what is in there is correct , KE incursion is at G which is at the opposite end of the runway , the SQ T/O was rejected @145 Kts , so very close to VR and when rejected stopped 1500m before G.
Not nice , but hardly a near collision situation , even if they had let the SQ continue T/O.

msbbarratt
23rd May 2016, 18:04
And I don't suppose pilots are given to doing gentle rejected take offs either.

1500m sounds like a lot, but that would have shrunk quickly had anything gone wrong with either the RTO or, if they had proceeded with it, getting into the air. 1500m - that's about 22 seconds at 145 kts.

jmmoric
23rd May 2016, 18:16
Sometimes I'd wish we could use the phrase "jump 50 feet into the air and fly.....", unfortunately pilots don't comply to that one....

MD80767 Driver
23rd May 2016, 20:43
Phileas Fogg.....lets just clear that one up. Not in the history of professional aviation has ATC ever been "in charge" of an aeroplane.

Every single ATC instruction whatever it may be is OPTIONAL for the Captain who is the only person legally in charge of an aircraft.

Run that by me again please.... So when ATC instructs you to hold short of the runway..if you don't feel like it - there you go. Lining up anyway😊

If any ATC or FO shouts "stop immediately" of "reject t/o" ......you bet your sweet a.. I stop. We can talk about why - over a beer later.

Now...not knowing where you are, letting ATC turn you towards a mountain, is a different kind of fish, and you know it 8che

8che
25th May 2016, 18:49
Do I really have to ? If you took the time to read the two other posts I couldn't have made it clearer....

The Captains decisions have to be justifiable. Lining up because you feel like it isn't justifiable is it..(however many smiley faces you post to make it clever and funny)

If you (and a few others) took the time to read the other posts you might also have noticed I agreed completely that stopping was the right decision in this case. Of course it was !

The reason for jumping into this debate was because of the undercurrent of Post 13 by Phileas Fogg. We don't want Captains making decisions. ATC are in charge. An incredibly dangerous and illegal proposition.

I was never referring to this particular Korean incident. At initial face value my first post may look blunt and perhaps be taken the wrong way but it is the absolute essence of a command course. Yes of course you must have a very good reason not to follow an ATC instruction but as the buck stops with you by default that means every instruction to you is optional. This industry has a habit of biting badly if you stop asking questions and wander off into rabbit holes.

It absolutely clear..."The PIC has complete responsibility"

The point in general is that the last thing you want in the front left seat is someone who just does as their told and questions nothing. The good guys use everything at their disposal to improve the quality of the decision and question everything (including themselves). That's the entire concept of CRM. To improve the quality of the decision and what we refer to as "building resistance" to handle occasions outside of the books. That decision may require bravery, be unpopular or need serious lateral thinking. The decision however always rests on one set of shoulders and they are not sitting in an Air traffic control room, CAA office or directors board room.

Chesty Morgan
25th May 2016, 20:18
Well. Said.

4runner
25th May 2016, 23:30
No one likes being told that they're not getting a participation trophy these days....

neila83
25th May 2016, 23:41
I must say I'm astonished they could get up to 145 knots on a trans pacific flight on a 77W, stop, and still have 1500m of runway left!

Not doubting the numbers, it's incredible performance. I'd have imagined it being much closer from watching heavies taking off and using a fair bit of runway to get to Vr.

Old Carthusian
27th May 2016, 04:17
8che
I think most would take issue with your statement that 'every instruction to you is optional'. Even though I understand your logic and argument your elucidation of the concept is too crude. One has to realize that ATC has the complete picture and that if they issue an instruction they do so with a better picture of the entire situation than you. Given that this is the situation you follow the instruction - you do not deviate from it unless there is an emergency. With regard to your final paragraph I think one word is enough - Tenerife.

ATC Watcher
27th May 2016, 08:57
Old Carthusian, very well said. But as the saying goes , you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Bringing the discussion to the legal level. In the AIP I used to work with in my previous life , the rules are very clearly stated : in a controlled flight ,a pilot may not deviate from an ATC clearance unless he has received a new one or unless he is in an emergency situation requiring immediate action , in which case he must notify ATC to get an amended clearance.
I believe , but not sure, that is even a standard EASA wording.

We can debate as long as you wish, those are the rules we both , controllers and pilots have to work and live with in that particular airspace . I very much doubt that any airline will accept/allow that one of his crews deviate from this, because if they do and something goes wrong, the costs of the mess will fall on the airline insurance shoulders.

rob_ginger
27th May 2016, 09:25
Oh - Puhleeeeeeeeeeeeeez. Whatever has happened to reading and comprehension? 8che is NOT saying that the PIC can do what he pleases. He's just saying that he has the ultimate decision on what is sensible and what isn't - because it's his life and the lives of his passengers on the line. So everybody that's criticising him - READ WHAT HE SAYS, not what you think he said.

Chesty Morgan
27th May 2016, 11:05
Bringing the discussion to the legal level. In the AIP I used to work with in my previous life , the rules are very clearly stated : in a controlled flight ,a pilot may not deviate from an ATC clearance unless he has received a new one or unless he is in an emergency situation requiring immediate action , in which case he must notify ATC to get an amended clearance.
I believe , but not sure, that is even a standard EASA wording.

So in the event you tell us to stop but we can't (and no, you won't know if we can or can't when you issue your request) what you want us to do is to get a reclearance to not stop or declare an emergency? Meantime the end of the Tarmac is approaching rather quickly...

Now, I will stop if I can but if, in my judgement, I can't all you will get silence.

Stone_cold
27th May 2016, 11:40
OLD C .

A little more than one word :

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 757-23APF A9C-DHL Überlingen (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20020701-1) , so it appears that ATC does not always have the entire picture , does it ? With ref to Tenerife , did anyone have the complete picture ? Your analogy is poor . However , you do state " you do not deviate unless there is an emergency " , which is 8che's point .

ATC W : these have never changed .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_in_command

An Emergency situation NEVER requires an amended clearance .

While 8che words are a little rough around the edges , they are fact and law . Whether it is wise to exclude any resource from the decision making process is another discussion entirely . That would have to be explained at a later date and not to ATC .

ATC Watcher
27th May 2016, 16:16
OK, glass of cold water everybody and a deep breath.

This discussion , as I understand it, did not start about who has final authority ( the PIC has we agree ) but about following or not an ATC instruction to stop or cancelling a Take off clearance . These are 2 different things.

Stone cold : When I work(ed) I did not look at Wikepedia but at my Ops Manual , which is based on the AIP of the FIR I operate(d)
Just checked, still there , google the AIP GERMANY , ENR 1.1-16. pilots guidance.

Chesty Morgan : Do not shoot the messenger I did not write this.
But in my 35 years experience as a controller , in a quite busy piece of airspace, I never , ever encountered anyone refusing to follow my instructions. Nor I have heard of one . So we are here debating about the sex of the angels ( French expression ). This does not happen in reality and neither it did in this case ( the SQ stopped as instructed )

Stone cold again : If you want to discuss ueberlingen read the official BFU report , not ASN...it will save you embarrassing yourself.

Chesty Morgan
27th May 2016, 20:02
In other places, like Ops manuals, things like this are written.

In an emergency situation, which requires immediate decision and action, he is to take any action he considers necessary under the circumstances. In such circumstances, he may deviate from rules, operational procedures and practices in the interests of safety.

Just a small part of the many pages of "Commander's Respnsibilities".

Herod
27th May 2016, 20:14
As you say Chesty, the captain can deviate from any rules in the interests of safety. If you consider it necessary to fly inverted under the Golden Gate, you are perfectly entitled to do so. However, you must expect to justify your actions subsequently. Those are the privileges and responsibilities of command. Anyone ignoring ATC instructions has the same requirement to justify. Back in the days when I was young enough to command an airliner, if ATC called "stop" (which they never did) or "Go around" (which they did several times), I always felt they knew better than me what was going on.

Stone_cold
27th May 2016, 21:11
We agree that the Commander may deviate as necessary , whether it be a "Stop" or " Go around " . It may not be wise and I also mentioned that an explanation of such actions would be necessary .

A little condescending ATC W, but as various countries Airlaw are not readily at hand and are onerous to navigate I chose a simple route to refer to WIKI , which has some references which could have been referred to .

ATC , re : Uberlingen : quote from your BFU .
3.2 Causes .
The following immediate causes have been identified :
. the imminent separation infringement was not noticed by ATC in time . The instruction for the Tu154M to descend was given at a time when the prescribed separation to the B757-200 could not be assured anymore . End quote .
A rebuttal to the broad statement that Air Traffic control knows all . They obviously didn't know all here . So go ahead , embarrass me , I can take it .

eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5&node=14:2.0.1.3.10#se14.2.91_13) Subpart A General 91.3 . Also if you wish ICAO Annex 2 also references this and I believe that Germany is a signatory .

Chesty Morgan
27th May 2016, 22:14
As you say Chesty, the captain can deviate from any rules in the interests of safety. If you consider it necessary to fly inverted under the Golden Gate, you are perfectly entitled to do so. However, you must expect to justify your actions subsequently. Those are the privileges and responsibilities of command. Anyone ignoring ATC instructions has the same requirement to justify. Back in the days when I was young enough to command an airliner, if ATC called "stop" (which they never did) or "Go around" (which they did several times), I always felt they knew better than me what was going on.

Of course, and the justification (if it's necessary) will be to my relevant superiors or flight safety department and is a separate point.

I'm not sure, however, how ATC can know what's going on in each individual aircraft better than the individual commander of those aircraft.

ATC Watcher
28th May 2016, 05:13
Stone cold, Apologies, yes I was a bit condescending I agree. Just when I see Wikipedia and Ueberlingen used to justify an argument I tend to get annoyed.

UEBERLINGEN was a total failure of nearly all the actors that day . So you can pick up an extract and use it to justify anything .Only if you follow the timeline and get the 13 consecutive failures that day you get to understand what Systemic failures are , and that night the system failed , Not an individual.
The Report quote you used in your reply is also biased because it refer to required separation ( 7NM instead or the normal 5 Nm because someone had turned off his main radar and he was working on the back up system ). The initial instruction given was more than enough to prevent a collision.
I send you a PM explaining the rest .
This is a little off topic

Aluminium shuffler
29th May 2016, 17:10
I can't say the two individuals banging the "I'm in charge and you'd better not forget it" drum are impressing me with their attitude. ATC don't know the detail of what is going on in any cockpit, but they have a better overview (normally) of what is going on outside of it, and they don't issue instructions pointlessly. Of course the final decision rests with the pilots, especially the commander, allowing you to ignore an instruction that is dangerous, but that is about it - if you can't justify the refusal on safety grounds, then you will quite reasonably be in a world of trouble. Some ATC units are better than others and more error prone. Some are overzealous. But all need compliance unless they are endangering you. The bad ones also need tolerance or even sufferance, but not some arrogant buffoon ignoring their instructions.

ATC Watcher
31st May 2016, 15:06
Not only "in the heads" when you've been reading this kind of statements in a so called Professional Pilots forum:
Posted by 8Che :
Every single ATC instruction whatever it may be is OPTIONAL for the Captain who is the only person legally in charge of an aircraft.

Let me extend this to runway stop bars. They are activated by the same ATC guy at his own discretion. Would you also say stopping here is optional ?

In complex airspace or airports, safety is based on certain regulations and rules that must be followed . Period. Safety is not only for you and your aircraft, it is definitively that of the others around you too.

Chesty Morgan
31st May 2016, 16:43
That's the law, not chest beating.

Stop bars - as optional as voice requests.

I think some of you are getting the wrong idea. We don't fly around ignoring you just because we feel like it - in fact it's a (very) rare occurrence and when it happens it's because the alternative is safer.