Mooney accident pilot refused a clearance at 6,500'

[Lead Balloon]

But you're never going to be able to totally eliminate "clearance not available", so there will always be a need for pilots to action.I agree.
Saying "no" must be a tool that's available to controllers.I agree.
Trainees get flustered & bugger things up & do things a rated controller wouldn't do. That's just the nature of training.Say what?

Are you saying, in effect, that those who happen to be flying in the system, when a trainee happens to be behind the mic, just have to wear the consequences of the trainee's lack of competence? The training system allows aircraft to be the subject of ATC decisions that a competent controller wouldn't make?

Yer kidding, surely.

And, I'll make the point a final time: We don't know that in this specific case the trainee was flustered and buggered things up. If s/he was, the report should say that. For all we know, the trainee's supervisor said: Tell him: "'Clearance unavailable'. Ya gotta teach these pop-up nobodies a lesson."

If it was a report about an accident involving a student pilot who was flustered and buggered things up, the report would say that (in modern day euphemisms) and - hopefully - analyse why the instructor did not intervene at the point things started to form the shape of a pear.
How hard is it to train pilots that if they're intending to request a clearance that they need a contingency plan in case they're knocked back? You have plan Bs for every phase of flight - abort the take-off, avoid that large patch of cloud, go around to avoid that cow. How hard is it to ask the trainee pilot to explain & implement what they'll do if denied a clearance?Not hard in theory, but sometimes people ask: Why would we be denied a clearance?

Now I can add to the usual explanation, which is usually already very surprising to punters: "There could be a trainee on duty who's flustered and buggering things up. They could say 'no', even if there's not another aircraft for miles, and the supervisor will just watch it all happen."

This is part of the reason for some private pilots having a fear of controlled airspace.

[Lookleft]

Now I can add to the usual explanation, which is usually already very surprising to punters: "There could be a trainee on duty who's flustered and buggering things up. They could say 'no', even if there's not another aircraft for miles, and the supervisor will just watch it all happen."

Then your punters will never fly again if they knew the experience and competence of some of the trainee F/O's that would be receiving training on RPT jet aircraft. ATC is not different to flying in that regard. You have to let the trainee make their own decisions. The OTJI may have thought the denial of clearance was a bit harsh but would have covered that in a debrief. There was no safety issue at the time only a procedural issue. The OTJI and trainee could not have forseen what the pilot was going to do.

Are you saying, in effect, that those who happen to be flying in the system, when a trainee happens to be behind the mic, just have to wear the consequences of the trainee's lack of competence?


The trainee would have demonstrated "competence" during their training in ATC school. Those who happen to be flying in the system have to cope with the trainees's lack of experience. No one, either pilot, ATC, doctor, dentist, lawyer, engineer etc is competent to the same level as those who have been doing the job for years when they first start. To expect otherwise is ridiculous.

analyse why the instructor did not intervene at the point things started to form the shape of a pear.

It didn't go pear shaped for ATC! Once the pilot diverted OCTA the ATC responsibility was finished. According to the report the descent was at a controlled rate so I can only imagine that the pilot didn't realise that it had all gone pear shaped until the trees started to appear.

I get the frustration with ATC and controlled airspace but as LePing rightly asks, what is the difference between unable to fly a particular route because of weather and unable due to airspace? I get that in the USA pilots have a greater degree of airspace freedom but right here, right now in this country the system is different and pilots have to operate in what exists now. Rant and rave about why we have the current system but when you get airborne none of that matters, its now time to deal with the real world and all its imperfections.

[Maggie Island]

Are you saying, in effect, that those who happen to be flying in the system, when a trainee happens to be behind the mic, just have to wear the consequences of the trainee's lack of competence? The training system allows aircraft to be the subject of ATC decisions that a competent controller wouldn't make?

Yer kidding, surely.

And, I'll make the point a final time: We don't know that in this specific case the trainee was flustered and buggered things up. If s/he was, the report should say that. For all we know, the trainee's supervisor said: Tell him: "'Clearance unavailable'. Ya gotta teach these pop-up nobodies a lesson."

If it was a report about an accident involving a student pilot who was flustered and buggered things up, the report would say that (in modern day euphemisms) and - hopefully - analyse why the instructor did not intervene at the point things started to form the shape of a pear.
Not hard in theory, but sometimes people ask: Why would we be denied a clearance?


I’m surprised this hasn’t been mentioned more, no one expects a trainee controller/pilot to deliver a champagne quality experience - but the training system must be robust enough to ensure a minimum standard of service is consistently delivered.

Looking at the details of this report I’m not entirely sure a clearance through Coffs airspace could’ve changed the tragic situation - but hopefully this will at least start the conversation of making sure the wheels don’t fall off while training.

[B772]

The PIC was responsible for keeping himself and all his passengers alive no matter what curve balls ATC threw at him.

An option of last resort would have been for him to climb to 6500 and proceed as planned. Let ATC sort the mess out. Better to be alive and answering to panel of armchair experts the next day than not. This is an option that should not be abused but should always be in the back of any PICs mind. We are not there to make ATC’s life “easier”, rather it’s their rather highly paid job to sort our mess out.
I agree entirely. I have witnessed this in the US. Just declare an emergency or call Mayday and advise what you are doing or planning to do.

[Lead Balloon]

Then your punters will never fly again if they knew the experience and competence of some of the trainee F/O's that would be receiving training on RPT jet aircraft. ATC is not different to flying in that regard. You have to let the trainee make their own decisions.
Yeah, right. A PIC of an RPT jet will watch while the F/O flies the aircraft into terrain as part of a learning opportunity. C'mon LL, you're better than that.

We get it: ATC has no responsibility once it says "go away". I hope it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy for a job well done.

As a matter of interest, why do I frequently hear Centre broadcast safety alerts for unidentified aircraft in proximity in G? Why are those broadcasts proactively made, but apparently a transponder altitude for an aircraft that's been rejected a clearance will be watched in silence by ATC as it blips its way towards terrain that is higher than what the transponder's reporting? Dead due CFIT is just as dead due mid-air collision.

[Lookleft]

Yeah, right. A PIC of an RPT jet will watch while the F/O flies the aircraft into terrain as part of a learning opportunity. C'mon LL, you're better than that.

I'm just responding to your wrong assertions about how a trainee ATCO should be trained. An OJTI will not allow a trainee to put two aircraft on a collision course! I will however allow a trainee to stuff up the profile on a descent or allow them to configure way too early if it helps them understand the aircraft better. I think you are letting hyperbole guide your otherwise considered posts.

As to why Centre broadcast safety alerts I can't answer that. The same way I don't understand why sometimes they advise us in case of a TCAS alert that an aircraft will be passing head on 1000' below when we are in class A. Probably they think its helpful but its not a requirement.

[megan]

How hard is it to train pilots that if they're intending to request a clearance that they need a contingency plan in case they're knocked backBetter yet, how hard is it to train VMC pilots to not proceed into IMC, been an issue since the Wright brothers but we still haven't learnt the lesson. Rather like the way junior put it,Why would any clearance or instruction in any airspace warrant a VFR aircraft descending into IMC?........This thread is the equivalent of a car speeding through a red light and crashing in the middle of the intersection and then focusing on why the light was red

[Squawk7700]

As a matter of interest, why do I frequently hear Centre broadcast safety alerts for unidentified aircraft in proximity in G? Why are those broadcasts proactively made, but apparently a transponder altitude for an aircraft that's been rejected a clearance will be watched in silence by ATC as it blips its way towards terrain that is higher than what the transponder's reporting? Dead due CFIT is just as dead due mid-air collision.

Spot on.

I get this all the time in the middle of nowhere in central NSW, but two IFR aircraft can collide near Mangalore. Presumably just controller workload one must assume.

[Lead Balloon]

Maybe a trainee who was flustered just buggered it up...

[le Pingouin]

And now we've descended back into the peanut gallery

[Lead Balloon]

Speak for yourself. It's a serious question.

[le Pingouin]

Snide & snarky is a serious question? I'm done. You aren't wanting a serious discussion,

[Squawk7700]

Professional consistency is an issue across most service organisations.

Try calling 3 different police stations, ask them something and see how many different answers you get. Why? Because the chances are that you’re speaking to someone that his half way through their 7 months of training.

You then take their advice and run with it, not knowing that it may be sub-optimal, factually or legally incorrect.

It’s difficult to manage this and I can’t see ASA being immune from it. Rules are rules you think, but it’s not always that simple and no two employees are the same.

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

I’m surprised this hasn’t been mentioned more, no one expects a trainee controller/pilot to deliver a champagne quality experience - but the training system must be robust enough to ensure a minimum standard of service is consistently delivered.

Looking at the details of this report I’m not entirely sure a clearance through Coffs airspace could’ve changed the tragic situation - but hopefully this will at least start the conversation of making sure the wheels don’t fall off while training.

Maybe the controller would have then been strung up for issuing a clearance when the ARFOR suggested VMC on the route was doubtful

[Maggie Island]

Maybe the controller would have then been strung up for issuing a clearance when the ARFOR suggested VMC on the route was doubtful

The trainee may have voiced that exact concern, at which point it would be the OJTI’s job to remind them that it’s the VFR pilot’s responsibility to remain VMC.

There’s not enough detail in the report to suggest that there was any failure in the training team’s part - I just hope that this example among others are used to review the training system to explore if improvements can be made.

[Lead Balloon]

Snide & snarky is a serious question?My apologies if that's the way it comes across.

I use various techniques to try to make the serious points I'm trying to make - evidently unsuccessfully.

S7700 makes what is in my view a factual point: Inconsistency. Serious question Le P: How often do you fly in different geographical locations across Australia and interact with ATC/Centre in e.g. east coast v west coast; e.g. YPPF v YBAF; e.g. YMAY v YSBK?

Maggie Island makes what is in my view a factual point that some of us think is serious: The lack of detail in the report.

[McLimit]

Maybe the controller would have then been strung up for issuing a clearance when the ARFOR suggested VMC on the route was doubtful

No, once again it is the pilots responsibility to remain clear of cloud, or inform the controller that they are approaching cloud, need to turn, descend, climb etc.

[Rec_flyer]

I think we're all missing the point here that regardless of the ATC interaction, he was clear of the step after no time and could have climbed back up. The accident site looks a long way away from cta. Not sure in minutes.

[Pinky1987]

Jabber. Why don’t you explain the reason for the upside down airspace?

It could have a link to this accident.

If it had remained class E the pilot would not have been forced to a lower altitude.
so it's 2021 and ATSB report is out. Pilot not licenced to fly due lack of renewal, no evidence of weather, briefing , no maps or navigation equipment including EFB on board and no Pan call.
Class E would have allowed the pilot to stay in the air at 6500 for sure , but what was he doing in the air in the first place?
lack of airpersonship and illegal operation of an aircraft caused this not class of airspace.

[Dick Smith]

There was only one reason the pilot was forced to descend below 6500’ - the class C airspace

No other country I know of has C in link airspace above D.

The lack of a bi annual doesn’t force you down into the bad Wx and mountains.

It’s clearly “road block” airspace that was the prime cause of the accident!

If he had his bi annual up to date would he have missed the mountain?

[le Pingouin]

He was flying visually and could easily have deviated a few miles off track. There was nothing forcing the pilot to descend as low as he did.

[deja vu]

so it's 2021 and ATSB report is out. Pilot not licenced to fly due lack of renewal, no evidence of weather, briefing , no maps or navigation equipment including EFB on board and no Pan call.
Class E would have allowed the pilot to stay in the air at 6500 for sure , but what was he doing in the air in the first place?
lack of airpersonship and illegal operation of an aircraft caused this not class of airspace.
I think the "airpersonship" thing did it for me. Nothing has changed in 50 years. Flying schools are still teaching new pilots that ATC is God and to be feared. This is a case where a pilot has to ask "are you here for me or am I here for you". With no traffic he could have been given a clearance at 6500 and maintain VFR, simple. All this argy bargy about maps, reviews and who gets a weather briefing any more, its all online, is just typical deflection. Disappointing Pinky 1987, very disappointing.

[Pinky1987]

I think the "airpersonship" thing did it for me. Nothing has changed in 50 years. Flying schools are still teaching new pilots that ATC is God and to be feared. This is a case where a pilot has to ask "are you here for me or am I here for you". With no traffic he could have been given a clearance at 6500 and maintain VFR, simple. All this argy bargy about maps, reviews and who gets a weather briefing any more, its all online, is just typical deflection. Disappointing Pinky 1987, very disappointing.
my flying school did not teach me to fear ATC. I had a tour at brisbane and a tower a few years ago. They were really lovely and so professional. My flying school taught me to do my biannual, brief wx plan and carry maps docs and nav gear. They also said if you are ever in trouble contact atc on radio and communicate. They will never put up a roadblock if you let them know you need assistance
sorry I disappointment you. No offence ever meant by my posts.

[le Pingouin]

As I've asked repeatedly, how is this any different to avoiding cloud?

[Dick Smith]

Pinky. Can you remember where you were refused clearance into C?

[Pinky1987]

Pinky. Can you remember where you were refused clearance into C?
it's been a while but out of a GAAP and overflying a D. It was never a problem as I flew under the steps. But I definitely agree that e over d makes a lot of sense especially if everyone has a transponder so ATC can see the VFR to assist in traffic avoidance for the IFR.
I understand you suggest they are not needed as everyone must look out and see and avoid, but that fails from time to time. That is why advanced aircraft have warning systems as a fail-safe for pilot error. That is why TCAS exists and gear warning horns exist etc so a transponder adds a layer of protection for everyone. Bit like reversing cameras in cars, they are a great control when see and avoid fails to work from time to time.

[Dick Smith]

But why were you refused clearance into the C that was above D?

Could it have been because the airspace did not have a dedicated approach radar facility as per the Anderson binding directive?

In effect were you trying to get through “ giant roadblock airspace “

Do you realise that no other country has C over D?

Why do you reckon that would be so?

[BlackPanther]

Stupid question perhaps - but has anyone actually pointed out the "Anderson directive" to Airservices? Have they provided a response?

[CaptainMidnight]

Stupid question perhaps - but has anyone actually pointed out the "Anderson directive" to Airservices? Have they provided a response?
My recollection is that this directive was issued to Airservices a couple of hours prior to the commencement of the caretaker period prior to an election. I also recall that after the election Airservices referred the issue to CASA, to assess and advise if SSR was really required for all Class C airspace where established that did not have coverage.

CASA's response in due course was no, not required. I assume the minister was advised accordingly and decided not to pursue the matter.

There is probably a thread on here, would have been early 2000's.

Edit: found this (one of these should work, depending if you are logged in or not):

PPRuNe Archives: Class C radar direction (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/251146-class-c-radar-direction.html)
PPRuNe Archives plain text: Class C radar direction (https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-251146.html)

[Pinky1987]

But why were you refused clearance into the C that was above D?

Could it have been because the airspace did not have a dedicated approach radar facility as per the Anderson binding directive?

In effect were you trying to get through “ giant roadblock airspace “

Do you realise that no other country has C over D?

Why do you reckon that would be so?
not sure why a clearance was not available. I assume atc had good reasons.
yes we are the only country to have c over d. I have flown extensively overseas. are you aware we had e over d once?
I think we are in agreement Mr Smith. Coffs harbour radar approach sounds like a good idea. Do you think that would be class d like they have at Heathrow? I believe the d tower in Australia does approach at the moment but not using radar. Would I need a transponder into a class d if it became a radar approach, as they are not required into coffs today?
great to chat, I like your position on all this

[Dick Smith]

Yep. I seem to remember in a former lifetime we had E over D just like the USA and Canada!

And Broome and Karratha!

How ever did we end up with the giant roadblock airspace?

Now two unnecessary deaths!

So sad

[Pinky1987]

Yep. I seem to remember in a former lifetime we had E over D just like the USA and Canada!

And Broome and Karratha!

How ever did we end up with the giant roadblock airspace?

Now two unnecessary deaths!

So sad
that's a point Broome is e over d.
So do you think a d surveillance approach at coffs would be good?

[Dick Smith]

Not a good way to allocate finite safety resources

The radar direction was not intended to have millions spent on a terminal radar facility.

It was to focus AsA to put the correct airspace above D.

[Pinky1987]

Not a good way to allocate finite safety resources

The radar direction was not intended to have millions spent on a terminal radar facility.

It was to focus AsA to put the correct airspace above D.what airspace did the minister Anderson want. We had e over d at the time. Didn't he say a radar service had to be put in. I just googled it and it seems he wanted radar services. Coffs has good radar coverage and probably good adsb as well so it seems ready to go?
do you fly much these days? I used to follow your adventures when I was a kid. Very inspirational and got me interested in flying. Could not afford choppers though.

[Lead Balloon]

As I've asked repeatedly, how is this any different to avoiding cloud?
Cloud isn’t created by legislation to provide a ‘service’ that is supposedly about ‘safety’. Air ‘services’ is.

A pilot can’t talk to cloud and request it do anything - at least not to any effect. Pilots can talk to Air ‘services’ and request clearances through gin-clear, empty airspace.

And clouds don’t behave in arbitrary and unpredictable ways that confuse and exasperate people with knowledge of meteorology. The differences in behaviour and outcomes in different parts of the Air ‘services’ system are manifest, confusing and exasperating, and denied only by those who’ve been on the Air ‘services’ KoolAide for way too long.

[Pinky1987]

Yep. I seem to remember in a former lifetime we had E over D just like the USA and Canada!

And Broome and Karratha!

How ever did we end up with the giant roadblock airspace?

Now two unnecessary deaths!

So sad
it is sad. i think his passenger was his son. Apart from the lack of clearance, do you think it was avoidable. He was not licenced to fly, so perhaps a road trip from Murwillumbah to Coffs would have been more appropriate until he was checked as competent for a renewal and he had the appropriate briefings and nav planning like a map or EFB.
would anyone here really fly an aircraft unlicensed with no met briefing, no nav gear and fly over high country in marginal weather? Would anyone take their child up without the legal authorisation to fly and without the required paperwork and nav gear. And you sir have the gall to focus on the airspace as the cause? If he used an EFB App for a couple of hundred bucks, he would have had terrain alerts like I have on my Ipad.
but if he stayed on the ground as he was legally bound to they would have been alive today.
If he had of survived, he would have been charged with illegal operation of an aircraft. If he had of advised ATC he required the clearance due wx, he would have saved himself and his poor son.
Do you acknowledge this pilot should have never started the engine that day due to the findings of ATSB stating multiple breaches of the legislation?

[Dick Smith]

The prime cause of the accident was that the pilot was prevented from flying en route at 6500 above all the hills on his way to Taree.

If the NAS airspace had been in place he would not have been forced to descend into a mountain.

Having a current bi annual would not have allowed the pilot to remain at 6500’.

The ATSB were dishonest for not mentioning that the airspace had been reversed from E to C without any valid safety study and also failing to mention that the radar direction had not been complied with by AsA.
If the radar direction had been complied with it would have been most likely the aircraft would have remained at 6500’ above the mountains!

Its not called “ road block” airspace for no reason.

[Pinky1987]

The prime cause of the accident was that the pilot was prevented from flying en route at 6500 above all the hills on his way to Taree.

If the NAS airspace had been in place he would not have been forced to descend into a mountain.

Having a current bi annual would not have allowed the pilot to remain at 6500’.

The ATSB were dishonest for not mentioning that the airspace had been reversed from E to C without any valid safety study and also failing to mention that the radar direction had not been complied with by AsA.
If the radar direction had been complied with it would have been most likely the aircraft would have remained at 6500’ above the mountains!

Its not called “ road block” airspace for no reason.
no one is ever forced to fly into a mountain. If you were flying illegally and ill prepared and you were denied a clearance, would you just descend into a mountain at Dorrigo or would you advise ATC you require a clearance and stay at 6500ft? Would you really fly down into the stratus that was obscuring the terrain as the report states or would call pan. Never in the history of ATC has a clearance been denied if the pilot advises they are in trouble. I was denied a clearance in C once over terrain and I advised I had a sick passenger due turbulence and requested climb due to the mountain waves. Slight delay of about 1 minute then clearance was provided. I had a flight plan in the system which expedited the clearance. If you need help you ask. If you don't then OCTA is safe... if you are licenced to fly and you have appropriate maps and nav gear for a cross country over the great dividing range and if you log on to NAIPS and check the forecast for low cloud on your route then a denial of a clearance will not kill you and your passengers.

[dysslexicgod]

Pinky, do you really think that compliance with legislation will save you? Even if this bloke had complied, he was still denied clearance.

[Dick Smith]

Come on. If it was E airspace as per Government NAS policy its most likely we would not be discussing this now.

In the USA and Canada VFR aircraft are not forced to lower levels when flying en route over D airspace.

Why does it happen here? Do you know why the E over D was reversed?

[Pinky1987]

Come on. If it was E airspace as per Government NAS policy its most likely we would not be discussing this now.

In the USA and Canada VFR aircraft are not forced to lower levels when flying en route over D airspace.

Why does it happen here? Do you know why the E over D was reversed?
from what I have read is that ATC have been trying to lower E and change to E over D but airlines and GA have said no. I googled the changes proposed and they are rejected by GA
didn't the regulator change e over d to c over d in the early 2000s.?
it's all very confusing.

[Pinky1987]

Pinky, do you really think that compliance with legislation will save you? Even if this bloke had complied, he was still denied clearance.
hey mate. I do think that being legal to fly, planning and having a safe plan b goes a long way. He could have forced the clearance by calling pan.
he had not done an AFR for years as the report states and was not flying with any reference to charts. Had no situstional awareness if position, terrain and weather.. that is why we have regulations

[Dick Smith]

All the minute detail about the pilot in the ATSB report was to take away any attention to the fact that the airspace had been reversed and that no other country had similar airspace.

How could they ever do an honest investigation without mentioning this?

If they mentioned that the airspace had been reversed they would have had to cover “ why”?

It could be a career limiting move to have covered this!

So much for honesty and openness in safety investigation.

[MarcK]

Do you realise that no other country has C over D?
I live in the US, so I'm just a lurker here. But take a look at KHWD (Hayward) in California. KHWD is Class D to 1500, then class C (for KOAK) to 2100, then class B (for KSFO) to 10000, then Class E above that (to 18000).

[CaptainMidnight]

I live in the US, so I'm just a lurker here. But take a look at KHWD (Hayward) in California. KHWD is Class D to 1500, then class C (for KOAK) to 2100, then class B (for KSFO) to 10000, then Class E above that (to 18000).

Thanks for the insight Marc :ok:

Welcome.

[Dick Smith]

Ok. I will re phrase. No country in the world has an isolated country town class D airport with C above.

The airport being referred to is clearly under the steps of C airspace in the high traffic density area of San Francisco. Similar to Bankstown.

The C airspace mentioned clearly follows the ministers directive by having an approach radar control service.

No such thing at Coffs. It was clearly the prime reason the pilot was forced down to his and his sons death!

[Pinky1987]

Ok. I will re phrase. No country in the world has an isolated country town class D airport with C above.

The airport being referred to is clearly under the steps of C airspace in the high traffic density area of San Francisco. Similar to Bankstown.

The C airspace mentioned clearly follows the ministers directive by having an approach radar control service.

No such thing at Coffs. It was clearly the prime reason the pilot was forced down to his and his sons death!
great point. What class of airspace should a radar approach service be at Coffs in your mind sir?

[megan]

It was clearly the prime reason the pilot was forced down to his and his sons deathWith the greatest of respect no pilot is forced to do anything, two words suffice, "unable" and "require", if your back is to the wall you can legally throw all the regulations out the window.

[Dick Smith]

If AsA is going to spend the money to install an approach radar control service at Coffs Harbour the allocated airspace would be class C.

However this would clearly be a gross mis allocation of finite safety resources.

Coffs should be D with E above as per the accepted NAS policy. Just like Karatha and Broome.

The pilot would have kept flying en route at 6500’ above the clouds and mountains. It was only a line and a letter C on a map that resulted in him being forced to descend by ATC into the bad wx and a mountain.

He must have had some form of a chart as he knew where to call for a clearance!

[Pinky1987]

With the greatest of respect no pilot is forced to do anything, two words suffice, "unable" and "require", if your back is to the wall you can legally throw all the regulations out the window.
spot on. The safety of all souls rests with the PIC and that includes ignoring ATC clearance or no clearance to ensure you don't fly into terrain.

[Pinky1987]

If AsA is going to spend the money to install an approach radar control service at Coffs Harbour the allocated airspace would be class C.

However this would clearly be a gross mis allocation of finite safety resources.

Coffs should be D with E above as per the accepted NAS policy. Just like Karatha and Broome.

The pilot would have kept flying en route at 6500’ above the clouds and mountains. It was only a line and a letter C on a map that resulted in him being forced to descend by ATC into the bad wx and a mountain.

He must have had some form of a chart as he knew where to call for a clearance!
question for you Mr Snith. If you only held VFR licence and were in the situation at Coffs, would you have descended into the bad wx or would you have advised ATC that you require to stay at 6500 due wx and require a clearance?
would you really have said to your passenger, sorry mate, there is a roadblock ahead and ATC are forcing me to fly into the low cloud below and I think we could end up hitting the ground at 160mph, I am so sorry, I did not self brief on this flight and we have to go down because the consequences of calling pan are greater than our imminent death. Or would you have said, don't worry mate, I'll let ATC know I can't descend due low cloud and I am going to maintain my present altitude so we don't hit the ground. Pan Pan Pan require clearance! Roger Pan Understood cleared 6500 track .....
seriously Sir, would you not have used the second scenario?

[Car RAMROD]

Give up pinky, you won’t get thru to Dick. He has a bee in his bonnet about this and won’t change his opinion, nor accept that the pilot could have done something better. The pilot wasn’t “forced”- its just emotive language that’s unnecessary; and honestly it detracts from the point he is trying to make.

did the lack of clearance affect the outcome of the flight? Yes.
but does the lack of a clearance in general cause a fatal accident? No. I imagine there are probably many denials of clearances in a day. Yet they don’t end up in fatal.

could the pilot have done something else? Yeah. Definitely. We all know that, but some don’t admit it because doing so doesn’t help their cause.
It’s up to us driving the things to be safe, regardless of ATC. Maybe if he had a current biannual that point could have come up and we’d never be talking about this accident.

[Dick Smith]

It’s well known as “road block” airspace.

Why is it called that? Because it can act as a road block even in perfect VMC.

Twist it any way you want but the pilot was clearly forced to leave 6500’ on that track.

It is highly likely if the E existed they would both be alive today.

The ATSB report claimed that AsA are changing that C to E! Wonder when? Bit late for those two.

And he had two separate GPS units which showed airspace.

[Squawk7700]

It’s well known as “road block” airspace.

Why is it called that? Because it can act as a road block even in perfect VMC.

Twist it any way you want but the pilot was clearly forced to leave 6500’ on that track.

It is highly likely if the E existed they would both be alive today.

The ATSB report claimed that AsA are changing that C to E! Wonder when? Bit late for those two.

And he had two separate GPS units which showed airspace.


The two GPS units are quite a curve-ball really. Both showed airspace and terrain and also had terrain warnings.

[Car RAMROD]

It is highly likely if the E existed they would both be alive today.

It is highly likely that if he chose to turn around or take some other safe course of action they would both be alive today, no?

Will you at least admit that?
probably not.

[Squawk7700]

It is highly likely that if he chose to turn around or take some other safe course of action they would both be alive today, no?

Will you at least admit that?
probably not.

It’s a bit like saying if the pilot got out of bed 5 minutes later, it wouldn’t have happened, or if he had taken a different longer route to the airport or got a coffee on the way, it wouldn’t have happened. They could have also been broadsided by a semi trailer on the way to the airport.

Swiss cheese.

If the road block airspace wasn’t there, this *most* likely wouldn’t have happened.

You can change some things and others you can’t.

If you can change things for the better by a procedural or administrative change, then make the change to the airspace so that this hole in the Swiss cheese is closed off and the holes don’t line up for the next guy who comes along.

So what if the next guy hasn’t done his BFR and isn’t carrying a WAC, we can’t control that other than through punitive measures, but what we can control is the roadblock ahead. Why have a freeway in the sky that nobody can use when somebody else is using it?

[Dick Smith]

Now here’s a challenge.

The ATSB report stated that AsA plan to change the C above Coffs Harbour back to E.

What was the reason for the change from E to C at Coffs?

Ten points to the closest correct answer!

Remember if it had remained E the two would most likely still be alive today!

[Squawk7700]

What was the reason for the change from E to C at Coffs?



Surely it has to be about cost or someone’s position of power, with the two usually being closely related.

[Dick Smith]

Are you telling me he did not descend below 6500 because he was refused clearance through the road block airspace? Is so why didn’t the ATSB say this?

If there was such a small amount of C why wasn’t he given a clearance?

Surely it’s clear that it was the C that forced the descent.

[andrewr]

The unlicensed pilot with no weather and no maps could have called Pan or mayday and roadblock would have been removed instantly. I wonder if lack of licence was a reason not to call urgency of situation as this would have cause pilot some issues when paperwork was submitted.

There wasn't really any evidence that produced that he hadn't completed a flight review. More like no evidence was found that he had. They didn't find his logbook, they asked 2 flight schools, and CASA did not have a record of a flight review. Submitting the notification to CASA is the responsibility of the instructor, and last flight review I was told to check after a few weeks because CASA apparently have a tendency to lose them. (Have you checked yours?)

He did have a valid medical - I wonder why an active pilot would renew their medical, but ignore the flight review?

As discussed previously in this thread, it appears that there was a misunderstanding between the pilot and ATC. ATC told him a clearance was available through the Class D not above 1000'. No tracking instructions were given. The pilot appears to have read that back as a clearance. Technically it does constitute a class D clearance i.e. 2 way communication.

It appears to me that the pilot believed he had been instructed to descend to 1000' on track.

He didn't want to descend. He had an alternative - divert around the airspace at 6500 - which he was in the process of implementing. But I suspect that after being bounced between controllers and making 4 requests for clearance, he felt that he couldn't say "Sorry, I don't want the clearance after all" and felt obligated to proceed as instructed.

The GPS would show the boundaries of the airspace, but it is probably difficult to interpret the vertical limits. The pilot probably assumed that if ATC instructed him to descend to 1000, the airspace went down to that level. Then the GPS reported clear of the airspace and he stopped his descent, until the GPS warned that he was about to enter airspace again on the opposite side. At that point he resumed his descent to 1000' as (he believed) instructed.

As for descending into IMC - if the cloud is building up against the hills, there might be a hole where you can see clear air underneath, but the cloud obscures the hill beyond the hole until after you descend through it. If he believed he had been instructed to descend to 1000' on track, he may have assumed that he was clear of the hills and could safely descend through a hole and the clear air would continue underneath.

The communication between the pilot and ATC is critical to this report. I question why the transcript was not provided. I also wonder whether the focus on the pilot's flight review is intended to divert questions away from the ATC role.

[andrewr]

he felt like he couldn't say sorry I don't want the clearance. Oh my goodness, I am going to bed now. I need to sleep on that statement. I hope I wake up and it was a dream
nighty night.

Haven't you done your human factors? He asked 4 times, switching between 2 different controllers. Do you think that maybe he would have felt a bit stupid turning around and saying "Actually, I'll just go around the airspace"?

Fear of looking like an idiot must rank as a leading cause of death through all of history. (Get-there-itis is one particular sub-genre of it).

[Lead Balloon]

Well argued, andrewr.

Another hatchet job by ATSB/CASA/Airservices to bury some inconvenient truths.

We’re starting to get some telling glimpses into Pinky’s true colours.

[Recre8ional]

As an RAA pilot I'm used to dodging cta. Including going below, then climbing up when clear.

But in all of this. Isn't the accident site 15 or 20 minutes past cta? Regardless of the clearance how long past cta does the responsibility return to the pilot
Or am I missing something.

[Lead Balloon]

In the thread about Class E, you said, among other things:I reckon I may just give Ballina a miss for a while.On my reading, you said that because of concerns you have about the different risks arising from CAGRO arrangements versus AFIS arrangements.

Is my reading correct?

If yes, you seem to be conceding - in my view perfectly reasonably - that systemic issues may create risks that contribute to accidents: A bunch of little 'problems' lead to a big problem. Indeed, in more enlightened times Australia's transport safety investigations bodies seemed to understand the concept that systemic issues could contribute to accidents - the 'Swiss Cheese' concept.

Do you believe that the one and only cause of the Coffs Harbour Mooney accident was - let's call it - 'poor airmanship'? Yes or no?

Let's take one issue: If the pilot was in fact flying around 'illegally' - that is, without having completed the required aeroplane flight review within the previous two years - why was that not detected by the safety regulator and addressed before the accident? My guess - I have no knowledge of the specific pilot's specific circumstances - is that the review was in fact completed but, as a consequence of the clusterf*ck that is CASA's implementation of Part 61 - of which I do have first-hand knowledge - the 'paperwork fell through the cracks'.

But it's so, so easy and so, so convenient (for Airservices, ATSB and CASA) to give the impression that the pilot was flying 'illegally'. (Again, so much for the 'rule of law'...)

Do you believe that the one and only cause of the Coffs Harbour Mooney accident was - let's call it - 'poor airmanship'? Yes or no?

[Lead Balloon]

My recollection is that this directive was issued to Airservices a couple of hours prior to the commencement of the caretaker period prior to an election. I also recall that after the election Airservices referred the issue to CASA, to assess and advise if SSR was really required for all Class C airspace where established that did not have coverage.

CASA's response in due course was no, not required. I assume the minister was advised accordingly and decided not to pursue the matter.

There is probably a thread on here, would have been early 2000's.

Edit: found this (one of these should work, depending if you are logged in or not):

PPRuNe Archives: Class C radar direction (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/251146-class-c-radar-direction.html)
PPRuNe Archives plain text: Class C radar direction (https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-251146.html)That's about right.

The Direction was issued as the usual pre-election Dick-distractor.

CASA's opinion on the matter was irrelevant to Airservices' obligation to comply with the Direction, but great raw material for the usual smoke and mirror tricks.

[Lead Balloon]

Agreed!

And what would you say are the main 'elements' of the ones that 'lined up' here?

[Dick Smith]

How do you know that the pilot did not obtain a weather briefing?

How do you know he did not plan appropriately?

[On eyre]

How do you know that the pilot did not obtain a weather briefing?

How do you know he did not plan appropriately?

We indisputably know he did not plan appropriately as he crashed fatally.
Pinky is on the money all the way.

[Squawk7700]

As discussed way earlier in this thread, we need to read the transcript or hear the recordings to make our own judgement on whether the pilot interpreted the clearance availability to be below 1,000 as a recommendation, or as a direction.

ATC: Mooney you are cleared not above 1,000ft

or

ATC: Mooney, a clearance will be available if you are not above 1,000 ft

Etc etc

This is one of the very few possibilities as to why the pilot descended into terrain on his way to 1,000ft.

[missy]

As discussed way earlier in this thread, we need to read the transcript or hear the recordings to make our own judgement on whether the pilot interpreted the clearance availability to be below 1,000 as a recommendation, or as a direction.

ATC: Mooney you are cleared not above 1,000ft

or

ATC: Mooney, a clearance will be available if you are not above 1,000 ft

Etc etc

This is one of the very few possibilities as to why the pilot descended into terrain on his way to 1,000ft.

I fail to see how a clearance Not Above 1000ft is legal?

[andrewr]

It is clear the pilot wanted to be at 6500 - the only plausible reason for the descent is that he believed that was an instruction from ATC. Otherwise he would have continued tracking around the western side OCTA at 6500 rather than turning back on track and descending.

If he knew the terrain was there presumably he wouldn't have flown into it. It seems likely that, believing he had an instruction from ATC to descend on track, he assumed that terrain clearance existed to do that.

It does raise an interesting point:
If ATC issue a clearance at a level different to your current level, without a specific instruction to enter CTA at that level, do they expect you to continue on track and descend to the cleared level, or are you expected to circle or whatever it takes until you can enter at the cleared level?

[Squawk7700]

... hence why it would be good to see the transcript or hear the exchange.

Like what did he say in return?

For all intents and purposes he was making a beeline to 1,000ft under the impression that there was a not a mountain in the way.

[Manifold Pressure]

How do you know that the pilot did not obtain a weather briefing?

I have often wondered about this as ATSB reports involving weather incidents usually seem to comment on whether or not the pilot accessed weather information via NAIPS.

I personally get NOTAM from NAIPS but then GAF, GPWT, TAF, Area QNH etc. from the BOM Aviation Weather Services website directly... so my NAIPS account would indicate I didn't get a weather briefing even though quite the opposite is true.

[Lead Balloon]

How many years have you spent flying private operations, VFR, in the Australian ‘system’, Pinky?

Now that you’re using the “OMG”’s, the multiple punctuations, the multiple unnecessary letters, you’re showing more of your colours.

[Lead Balloon]

Really? I’ve spent 35 years flying singles in private VFR operations in Australia, and I’ve yet to make a post like yours.

Perhaps you’ve been to ‘Let’s Talk Like Funky Dudes On Line’ class?(????)

[Lead Balloon]

Just name the (deceased) instructor who taught you, as a private VFR pilot, to plot IAP waypoints on VFR charts.

[Lead Balloon]

Not disrespectful at all. You extolled the virtues and benefits of the practice advocated by the person. The person deserves recognition. We can invite the views and experiences of others trained by the same instructor.

[On eyre]

Not disrespectful at all. You extolled the virtues and benefits of the practice advocated by the person. The person deserves recognition. We can invite the views and experiences of others trained by the same instructor.

Keep going LB - you’re writing more like a goose with every post.

[Pinky1987]

Keep going LB - you’re writing more like a goose with every post.
thanks eyre. I am fairly new to this forum and I must say I surprised at the comments. I just want people to fly safely and am a strong advocate for safe flying practices in GA and RA. Not sure why there is this passive aggressive commentary when we are all surely in agreement that safety ultimately rests with the pilot in command whether that be a C152, a glider or an A380.
think I might just check out now. It's been interesting and eye opening
take care

[Lead Balloon]

You’re advocating for safety. Thank God!

For whom are you running interference? I’m guessing the trainee ATC. Maybe bis/her supervisor? Maybe Airservices?

I suppose it will all come out in the subsequent litigation (subject of course to the potential for a confidential settlement).

[On eyre]

You’re advocating for safety. Thank God!

For whom are you running interference? I’m guessing the trainee ATC. Maybe bis/her supervisor? Maybe Airservices?

I suppose it will all come out in the subsequent litigation (subject of course to the potential for a confidential settlement).

Litigation ? What litigation ? Or are you an ambulance chaser ? That highlights one of the biggest problems in this country at the moment - the lack of personal responsibility for one’s actions.

[Squawk7700]

Pinky, this forum works best when you don’t delete your posts. It makes it disjointed when you do so and looks like LB is replying to himself or Michael Knight, someone who does not exist.