MIKE DELTA X-RAY
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hart to Hart
Agreed!!!
Let's get back to Mikes original post.
For those not fully across the background of Mr Hart I have posted below just a brief snippet of his background and career;
Michael Hart was well respected by many CAsA employees, a lot of industry and certainly a number of IOS who would have been completed pineappled by the Iron Ring had Mr Hart not been the ICC Commissioner. He was a fair man, guided by principles. He could be tough at times, but always fair.
I'm not going to speak on his behalf, but I wouldn't mind betting that one of the reasons he resigned from CAsA was because his moral compass pointed in a different direction than the rest of CAsA's executive muppets. In my honest opinion if CAsA's structure was filled by people with a similar mindset as Mr Hart then the industry would be in much better shape. Maybe, just maybe, some of that mutual understanding, respect, and a half decent working relationship that Mr Forsyth is recommending in his Wet Lettuce Review would exist today?
I will tell you this - there ain't a lot of current or former CAsA employees that I would gladly and willingly have a beer with, but Mr Hart is an exception to the rule. In fact it would be my shout
It's a crying shame you retired Mike, but who could blame you? Best wishes in all that retirement brings you.
Regards
A supportive IOS member
We can't even respect someone who wanted to say their piece and be done with it. Before anyone blink, the sh*t slinging and finger pointing and circular arguments start again, when there's already another dedicated thread where people have already said their fair share - and then some.
Let's get back to Mikes original post.
For those not fully across the background of Mr Hart I have posted below just a brief snippet of his background and career;
Michael Hart—Industry Complaints Commissioner
Michael Hart joined CASA in June 2007. He gained wide experience in the management of complaints and complex investigations involving the public sector through positions at the NSW Attorney General’s Department, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption. He was the general manager for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association in 1999 during the (Mobil) Avgas fuel contamination crisis.
Mr Hart has flown more than 6,000 hours in his flying career and has held aviation industry positions including qualified flying instructor with the RAAF, and check and training captain with Coastwatch.
Michael Hart joined CASA in June 2007. He gained wide experience in the management of complaints and complex investigations involving the public sector through positions at the NSW Attorney General’s Department, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, and the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption. He was the general manager for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association in 1999 during the (Mobil) Avgas fuel contamination crisis.
Mr Hart has flown more than 6,000 hours in his flying career and has held aviation industry positions including qualified flying instructor with the RAAF, and check and training captain with Coastwatch.
I'm not going to speak on his behalf, but I wouldn't mind betting that one of the reasons he resigned from CAsA was because his moral compass pointed in a different direction than the rest of CAsA's executive muppets. In my honest opinion if CAsA's structure was filled by people with a similar mindset as Mr Hart then the industry would be in much better shape. Maybe, just maybe, some of that mutual understanding, respect, and a half decent working relationship that Mr Forsyth is recommending in his Wet Lettuce Review would exist today?
I will tell you this - there ain't a lot of current or former CAsA employees that I would gladly and willingly have a beer with, but Mr Hart is an exception to the rule. In fact it would be my shout
It's a crying shame you retired Mike, but who could blame you? Best wishes in all that retirement brings you.
Regards
A supportive IOS member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick and FSOs with radar
I cannot believe your gall. You openly admit that you deliberately made damning allegations against the RAAF controllers just to gain publicity for your own agenda. Crocodile tears and all, riding on the misery and grief of those families that lost loved ones in the crash of MDX just to further your case.
Then a tangental regurgitation of you radar for FSOs idea. As an ex FSO and a pilot I can tell you it would not have helped one iota. FSOs did not exercise any "control" over aircraft let alone operational control. Conduct of the flight is finally the responsibility of the pilot in "Command". I have had controllers try to vector me into thunderstorms within approach radar coverage. The solution? Exercise "Command" and tell the controller where you are going. They are Air Traffic Controllers NOT Aircraft Controllers i.e. Pilots
Then a tangental regurgitation of you radar for FSOs idea. As an ex FSO and a pilot I can tell you it would not have helped one iota. FSOs did not exercise any "control" over aircraft let alone operational control. Conduct of the flight is finally the responsibility of the pilot in "Command". I have had controllers try to vector me into thunderstorms within approach radar coverage. The solution? Exercise "Command" and tell the controller where you are going. They are Air Traffic Controllers NOT Aircraft Controllers i.e. Pilots
Flying spike. I can't accept what you are saying
Are you telling me if the person the pilot was communicating to that night had a radar screen that showed the aircraft clearly heading west from CRAVEN instead of south towards Singleton that this would have not been conveyed to the pilot because the Ground operator did not exercise "control" of the aircraft.
Could this be the reason that the BASI did not recommend after the accident that pilots in radar covered airspace should be communicating to a person with a radar screen.?
Are you telling me if the person the pilot was communicating to that night had a radar screen that showed the aircraft clearly heading west from CRAVEN instead of south towards Singleton that this would have not been conveyed to the pilot because the Ground operator did not exercise "control" of the aircraft.
Could this be the reason that the BASI did not recommend after the accident that pilots in radar covered airspace should be communicating to a person with a radar screen.?
Dick, your question is so hypothetical that it is beyond answering. Who knows what flight following procedures would have been in place in the early 80's if FS had access to radar. I would hazard a guess that it would have been so restrictive so as to not allow for any hint of a "control" function. Don't forget, prior to that time FSU's were built so that the FSO's providing an AFIS service at an outstation could not actually see the aerodrome, in case that might happen. There was an immense divide between ATC and FS functions and responsibilities.
Perhaps BASI came to the appropriate conclusion that not every pilot in radar covered airspace needed to communicate with a person with a radar screen. Perhaps changing the entire Australian Air Traffic system because 1 pilot went the wrong way was seen as an over-reaction.
Perhaps BASI came to the appropriate conclusion that not every pilot in radar covered airspace needed to communicate with a person with a radar screen. Perhaps changing the entire Australian Air Traffic system because 1 pilot went the wrong way was seen as an over-reaction.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MDX AND DICK SMITH'S COMMENTS
Dear Dick - it disappoints be greatly that a man who has done so much good for other people and institutions throughout his life, completely drops the ball when it comes to all matters aviation. By implication, you have asserted that "people being resistant to change" has been a major part of the problem in Australian aviation.
With the greatest of respect Dick, could you please cast your mind back to your beloved "G" Airspace trial about 15 years ago when you were chairman of the CAA or whatever it was called in those days. Your insistance on proceeding with the trial met with the strongest of opposition from the entire aviation industry, those same people that you would refer to as being "reistant to change". Nevertheless, the trial went ahead.
Within a week of your trial commencing, there were no less than 3 serious mid-air conflicts directly as a result of the trial procedures, procedures that "those resistant to change" warned you about. The Chief Pilot of Impulse Airlines, who was probably the most outspoken person on the trial, was terminated because of his public opposition to the trial on saftey grounds; 3 days after his sacking, the ATSB stepped in and cancelled the trial overnight because of serious safety concerns.
Dick, not all those that are resistant to change are the enemy - please remember that, and with respect, continue to devote your well-intentioned and generous energies to areas other than aviation.
With the greatest of respect Dick, could you please cast your mind back to your beloved "G" Airspace trial about 15 years ago when you were chairman of the CAA or whatever it was called in those days. Your insistance on proceeding with the trial met with the strongest of opposition from the entire aviation industry, those same people that you would refer to as being "reistant to change". Nevertheless, the trial went ahead.
Within a week of your trial commencing, there were no less than 3 serious mid-air conflicts directly as a result of the trial procedures, procedures that "those resistant to change" warned you about. The Chief Pilot of Impulse Airlines, who was probably the most outspoken person on the trial, was terminated because of his public opposition to the trial on saftey grounds; 3 days after his sacking, the ATSB stepped in and cancelled the trial overnight because of serious safety concerns.
Dick, not all those that are resistant to change are the enemy - please remember that, and with respect, continue to devote your well-intentioned and generous energies to areas other than aviation.
Molsie
It’s great that you brought the Class G trial up because it’s so relevant to the MDX accident.
You may not remember, but the Glass G trial was to give a radar service for the first time in Class G airspace between Canberra and Ballina. Even after the AMATS changes I was responsible for in 1991, we still had flight service running the busiest uncontrolled airspace in Australia but having no access to radar screens.
The plan was quite simple – drop the responsibility of the Air Traffic Controllers down so at any place any pilot would be able to talk directly to a person who had a radar screen.
One hiccup was that Airservices swore black-and-blue that their Controllers were too busy and couldn’t possibly give a traffic information service down low. This didn’t concern me that much because I felt sure that orders would come from above to adequately man the sector so a service could be given.
Once the trial started, if I remember correctly, it was FSO standing behind an Air Traffic Controller at the radar screen who notified of the “horrendous conflicts” that were occurring – no doubt similar to the conflicts that had been happening for the last forty years but couldn’t be seen by the FSO with a microphone and a few flight strips.
I remember when Mick Toller phoned me (I was Chairman at the time) and said that after a recommendation from BASI he was going to stop the trial. I said to him, “and Mick, what? Give the airspace back to the Flight Service Operators who have no radar?”. There was a long silence as he realised that this was what was going to happen.
Yes, the airspace went back to the Flight Service Officers; all the stick-in-the-mud pilots had their system of radio arranged separation but with no radar assistance at all. Behind the scenes over the next two years, I and others managed to get this corrected so it’s the airspace we have now, i.e. Pilots in radar covered airspace can talk directly to the Controller with the radar screen, ask for a workload permitting “flight following” or to request a clearance into controlled airspace. Most importantly, if a Pilot has been in communication with Air Traffic Control requesting a clearance and then heads on a stormy winter's night at right-angles to his planned route, there is a very good chance the Controller who he has been communicating with will tell him.
It’s great that you brought the Class G trial up because it’s so relevant to the MDX accident.
You may not remember, but the Glass G trial was to give a radar service for the first time in Class G airspace between Canberra and Ballina. Even after the AMATS changes I was responsible for in 1991, we still had flight service running the busiest uncontrolled airspace in Australia but having no access to radar screens.
The plan was quite simple – drop the responsibility of the Air Traffic Controllers down so at any place any pilot would be able to talk directly to a person who had a radar screen.
One hiccup was that Airservices swore black-and-blue that their Controllers were too busy and couldn’t possibly give a traffic information service down low. This didn’t concern me that much because I felt sure that orders would come from above to adequately man the sector so a service could be given.
Once the trial started, if I remember correctly, it was FSO standing behind an Air Traffic Controller at the radar screen who notified of the “horrendous conflicts” that were occurring – no doubt similar to the conflicts that had been happening for the last forty years but couldn’t be seen by the FSO with a microphone and a few flight strips.
I remember when Mick Toller phoned me (I was Chairman at the time) and said that after a recommendation from BASI he was going to stop the trial. I said to him, “and Mick, what? Give the airspace back to the Flight Service Operators who have no radar?”. There was a long silence as he realised that this was what was going to happen.
Yes, the airspace went back to the Flight Service Officers; all the stick-in-the-mud pilots had their system of radio arranged separation but with no radar assistance at all. Behind the scenes over the next two years, I and others managed to get this corrected so it’s the airspace we have now, i.e. Pilots in radar covered airspace can talk directly to the Controller with the radar screen, ask for a workload permitting “flight following” or to request a clearance into controlled airspace. Most importantly, if a Pilot has been in communication with Air Traffic Control requesting a clearance and then heads on a stormy winter's night at right-angles to his planned route, there is a very good chance the Controller who he has been communicating with will tell him.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DICK
Dick - you obviously did not read my post very carefully, but chose to shoot off on a tangent and twist my words and the facts to suit your own argument ( as I seem to recall you have done on countless occasions in the past ) Either you have a very selective memory or a short one, or perhaps both.
The point that I stressed in my previous post was that the trial PROCEDURES were what caused the problem, not the concept itself. You were happy to have directed traffic information taken away from IFR aircraft and replace it with a radar service that 1) lacked the required radar coverage and 2) lacked the manpower to provide it. In addition, the communication procedures and processes implemented to run the system were fundamentally flawed, and you were warned of all of this by "those resistant to change".
Dick, please for once in your life, listen and consider what OTHER people have to offer in the way of opinions on aviation matters - those of us who are sometimes "resistant to change" have an absolute wealth of experience in the industry, and their opinions should be respected accordingly.
The point that I stressed in my previous post was that the trial PROCEDURES were what caused the problem, not the concept itself. You were happy to have directed traffic information taken away from IFR aircraft and replace it with a radar service that 1) lacked the required radar coverage and 2) lacked the manpower to provide it. In addition, the communication procedures and processes implemented to run the system were fundamentally flawed, and you were warned of all of this by "those resistant to change".
Dick, please for once in your life, listen and consider what OTHER people have to offer in the way of opinions on aviation matters - those of us who are sometimes "resistant to change" have an absolute wealth of experience in the industry, and their opinions should be respected accordingly.
Does anyone with a “wealth of experience” outside Australia consider Australian aviation procedures and infrastructure anything other than a quaint remnant of the 1960s? It’s caused mostly by the absence of concrete (runways) and technology (e.g. ILS and radar), but a consequence seems to be an attitude that Australia’s procedures and infrastructure are somehow the product of a country with moderate to high air traffic densities and challenging topography and weather, at the forefront of aviation regulation. That attitude is, frankly, laughable.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHAT-THA - hey dude, stick to the topic why dont you - nobody has ever suggested that Australians have a monoploy on good ideas - nobody has ever implied that we have the busiest, most complex traffic situation in the world - all this thread is about is to ask our good "friend" Dick not to continually slander other people just because they have a different opinion to his, and not to regard those that are resistant to change as being stubborn old mules living in the past, but to actually LISTEN to their opinions and give them due consideration before mouthing off.
I agree that Dick has an unfortunate knack of blaming and therefore offending individuals who have no control over ‘the system’ about which he is complaining. It would be better if he concentrated on attacking those who actually run ‘the system’, and that ain’t anyone from the RAAF or Airservices.
However, and unfortunately, the stark reality is that the people who actually run ‘the system’ are driven by populism, not principle. Dick knows this. Scare or anger enough punters and the pollies will respond, irrespective of the objective merits of the issue.
Means/ends and all that…
However, and unfortunately, the stark reality is that the people who actually run ‘the system’ are driven by populism, not principle. Dick knows this. Scare or anger enough punters and the pollies will respond, irrespective of the objective merits of the issue.
Means/ends and all that…
Moisie.
You are probably correct re lack of manpower- however how were we going to get there ?
When I came back as chairman of CASA it looked to me if Flight Service would hold that Canberra to Ballina non controlled airspace forever.
At least I supported the first move away from that. I have a feeling the change would have never taken place without that trial.
And I am not slandering other people.
I have made it clear that it's the RAAF as an organisation I am critical of. I feel sorry for those who work for the organisation. It must be almost impossible to get innovations in.
I know you must feel angry that most of the changes that I brought in are all still there! Semi- circular rule , ATC's operate all airspace , Operational Control by the government removed, CTAF 's , straight in approaches , no RFFS costs at Secondary Airports , removal of unique and expensive "first of type" certification requirements ,ICAO Airspace to name a few.
You are probably correct re lack of manpower- however how were we going to get there ?
When I came back as chairman of CASA it looked to me if Flight Service would hold that Canberra to Ballina non controlled airspace forever.
At least I supported the first move away from that. I have a feeling the change would have never taken place without that trial.
And I am not slandering other people.
I have made it clear that it's the RAAF as an organisation I am critical of. I feel sorry for those who work for the organisation. It must be almost impossible to get innovations in.
I know you must feel angry that most of the changes that I brought in are all still there! Semi- circular rule , ATC's operate all airspace , Operational Control by the government removed, CTAF 's , straight in approaches , no RFFS costs at Secondary Airports , removal of unique and expensive "first of type" certification requirements ,ICAO Airspace to name a few.
Creampuff. You are on the correct track however in my defense in each interview I make it very clear that I do not believe that work face controllers are/were responsible.
This was edited out of the Sunday show but left in on Sunrise as it was live.
I have spent so much time behind the scenes trying to get fundamental change on these important issues and have had top people say they agree and change will come in. However it never does. What would you do- just give up?
This was edited out of the Sunday show but left in on Sunrise as it was live.
I have spent so much time behind the scenes trying to get fundamental change on these important issues and have had top people say they agree and change will come in. However it never does. What would you do- just give up?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick - no I am definitely not angry at the good things you have achieved, not just in aviation, but in your life overall. The ONLY thing I'm angry at is that in aviation matters, you only ever see things your way and don't give due consideration to other's opinions, that's all. As a complete change of subject, why don't you channel all your energy and good will into changing the way Sydney Airport has to be run by politicians hell-bent on retaining curfews and all the other noise-abatement restrictions that do nothing else except stifle the NSW and Australian economy. Now there's a good idea Dick, and for once you'd have my complete backing. Food for thought ?
Molsie. Give me a ring then and I will have a go.
By the way - the most erroneous thing that is said about me is that I don't take advice. In fact any success I have received in life is through asking advice from as many as possible and then deciding on which advice is likely to be the best and acting on it.
Of course there is a problem with this - those who's advise you did not accept then say you " Don't give consideration to others opinions"
I wonder if you have worked closely with me - maybe not - so you could be relying on advice that is here say .
By the way - the most erroneous thing that is said about me is that I don't take advice. In fact any success I have received in life is through asking advice from as many as possible and then deciding on which advice is likely to be the best and acting on it.
Of course there is a problem with this - those who's advise you did not accept then say you " Don't give consideration to others opinions"
I wonder if you have worked closely with me - maybe not - so you could be relying on advice that is here say .
Without getting into specifics Airspace 2000 was a complete joke. RPT Aircraft lined up at a controlled aerodrome simply wouldn't depart if unannounced aircraft in Class 'E' were present. It didn't work then as it wasn't safe. Standby for war story.. Once I remember a Citation pilot who was advised that to get visual on a certain radial they would need to follow the DME steps. They then complained that because of the turbulence they couldn't follow the steps and were then surprised when they didn't get visual, the whingeing in the missed approach was colossal. clearly my fault as I didn't use my ecclesial digit to remove the cloud.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to Dick
What I am saying Dick is that all the person with the radar could have done is advise him he was off track and that the pilot was probably aware of that anyway. What he seemed to be incapable of due to either the u/s gyro instruments or turbulence or both was making a semi precision turn to rejoin his track. Even when in controlled airspace before giving radar vectoring controllers ask for "present heading", nigh on impossible to give if you are being bounced around and have no gyro instruments. Giving him course corrections, a bloody big no-no for flight service officers, based on erroneous information from the pilot could have at best frustrated the crap out of him in an already tense situation and at worst led to him being vectored into high ground. Remember, ATC radar at that time was very poor at picking up weather returns and weather avoidance was and still is up to the pilot excersizing Command decision making. A skill that would unfortunately appear to be lacking prior to even departing OOL.
I have no wish to denigrate the pilot however the lessons to be learned out of this accident (all of them, not just tenuous arguments about airspace restrictions) need to be learned if not the tragic deaths of these 6 people will be in vain.
I have no wish to denigrate the pilot however the lessons to be learned out of this accident (all of them, not just tenuous arguments about airspace restrictions) need to be learned if not the tragic deaths of these 6 people will be in vain.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Saying things to be provocative in order to get a reaction is merely trolling. look it up, trolls arent nice people on the internet, nor are they in real life.
Saying you dont blame the cold face controllers that it happened in one breath and saying that they killed 5 people in the next, knowing the people that were involved I know that it impacted them greatly and that words like this hurt and furthermore, wont help anything or anyone.
The military airspace at WLM back in the day was only activated when it was being used, and would deactivate when it wasnt (even over lunch!) the reason the aircraft would have been denied a clearance was.......traffic! not the evil RAAF heirachy, not the fact he didnt flight plan, he didnt get a clearance, because aircraft were already operating in the area in which he wanted a clearance.
Being an EX mil WLM controller I can tell you that clearances will always be available to aircraft (even those who dont have the courtesy to flight plan!) if the requested clearance is available, and if not alternatives could be sought, but if you want to go through the area when it is busy....expect to wait, and if you have planned that way and dont have the fuel/endorsements to hold, well the PiC is to blame, not ATC when clearance is not obtained, man up declare an emergency and then you will get what you need, but expect repercussions.
Dick, I have controlled you more than once at WLM and I remember having to ask you to orbit once at Anna Bay before going southbound because I had aircraft on final for runway 30, and I got bile from you, because I was trying to separate you from aircraft, I got bile from you...for 1 orbit, which ensured your safe passage down the coast.
Finally Dick, because you may not understand this, please listen. Your ideas you love so much that didnt get implemented...they didnt get implemented because they are bad ideas, now its hard to tell the chairman of the board that, so they more or less ignored you till you left. The US, the UK all the ATC systems you loved whilst being privileged enough to fly your aircraft around the world...they arent Australia. Australia has its own challenges, we dont have great Radar coverage outside the J curve, we have lots of wide open space were nobody lives and over 90% of our population is coastal. So your solutions that you want to copy for Aus, wont work, cant work. Thats why we are world leaders at implementing ADS-B, and thats why you cant work out why you cant fly in RVSM airspace outisde radar coverage without ADS-B in your citation.
You fundamentally lack the understanding of the points you are trying to prove, Australian aviation laughs at you being as outlandish and outspoken as you are, I think you are the only person in aviation that doesnt realise, you are just a forum troll.
Saying things to be provocative in order to get a reaction is merely trolling. look it up, trolls arent nice people on the internet, nor are they in real life.
Saying you dont blame the cold face controllers that it happened in one breath and saying that they killed 5 people in the next, knowing the people that were involved I know that it impacted them greatly and that words like this hurt and furthermore, wont help anything or anyone.
The military airspace at WLM back in the day was only activated when it was being used, and would deactivate when it wasnt (even over lunch!) the reason the aircraft would have been denied a clearance was.......traffic! not the evil RAAF heirachy, not the fact he didnt flight plan, he didnt get a clearance, because aircraft were already operating in the area in which he wanted a clearance.
Being an EX mil WLM controller I can tell you that clearances will always be available to aircraft (even those who dont have the courtesy to flight plan!) if the requested clearance is available, and if not alternatives could be sought, but if you want to go through the area when it is busy....expect to wait, and if you have planned that way and dont have the fuel/endorsements to hold, well the PiC is to blame, not ATC when clearance is not obtained, man up declare an emergency and then you will get what you need, but expect repercussions.
Dick, I have controlled you more than once at WLM and I remember having to ask you to orbit once at Anna Bay before going southbound because I had aircraft on final for runway 30, and I got bile from you, because I was trying to separate you from aircraft, I got bile from you...for 1 orbit, which ensured your safe passage down the coast.
Finally Dick, because you may not understand this, please listen. Your ideas you love so much that didnt get implemented...they didnt get implemented because they are bad ideas, now its hard to tell the chairman of the board that, so they more or less ignored you till you left. The US, the UK all the ATC systems you loved whilst being privileged enough to fly your aircraft around the world...they arent Australia. Australia has its own challenges, we dont have great Radar coverage outside the J curve, we have lots of wide open space were nobody lives and over 90% of our population is coastal. So your solutions that you want to copy for Aus, wont work, cant work. Thats why we are world leaders at implementing ADS-B, and thats why you cant work out why you cant fly in RVSM airspace outisde radar coverage without ADS-B in your citation.
You fundamentally lack the understanding of the points you are trying to prove, Australian aviation laughs at you being as outlandish and outspoken as you are, I think you are the only person in aviation that doesnt realise, you are just a forum troll.
Last edited by Duane; 15th Jun 2014 at 18:43. Reason: Words
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too few pilots understand command responsibility (I'm talking more GA than RPT). I was lucky enough to be in the ATC system as a young pilot. I learn't very early that ATC are trained to deal with pilots requirements, i.e. them being unable to comply with some instructions (weather etc).
I was flying south down the coast and requested a clearance from Willy Approach, they denied it. I couldn't hold outside as there was lightning and storms behind me. I told them I required a clearance due weather, they gave it to me.
I was flying south down the coast and requested a clearance from Willy Approach, they denied it. I couldn't hold outside as there was lightning and storms behind me. I told them I required a clearance due weather, they gave it to me.
flight service running the busiest uncontrolled airspace
Trouble was, the system seemed to work. Don't recall too many stories of neverending aluminium rain.
One hiccup was that Airservices swore black-and-blue that their Controllers were too busy and couldn’t possibly give a traffic information service down low. This didn’t concern me that much because I felt sure that orders would come from above to adequately man the sector so a service could be given.
Pilots in radar covered airspace can talk directly to the Controller with the radar screen, ask for a workload permitting “flight following”
Most importantly, if a Pilot has been in communication with Air Traffic Control requesting a clearance and then heads on a stormy winter's night at right-angles to his planned route, there is a very good chance the Controller who he has been communicating with will tell him.