Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Mooney accident pilot refused a clearance at 6,500'

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Mooney accident pilot refused a clearance at 6,500'

Old 22nd Jan 2021, 02:33
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,712
I know it’s always the fault of the pilot. There will never be any other contributing factor in any aviation accident or incident.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 02:36
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Age: 29
Posts: 482
Itís actually incredible watching you wheel this out where two posts above I have said verbatim:

ďIf better procedures come as a result of this, then thatís good, and itís good that the report has spent considerable time detailing the failings in ASAís processes.Ē

😂

But thanks anyway for your informative answers to my above questioning. Itís clear you have no agenda to push.

junior.VH-LFA is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 03:12
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,056
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post

And I know, from personal experience, how dangerously incompetent I become the day after my BFR falls due.
I seriously doubt Iíve taken away any skill that I didnít posses before, by doing my last 3 BFRís or more.

Many pilots take their learning from their original instructors and complement that over the years with idle gossip from the airport about changes to procedures, plus possibly the odd email from CASA about rule changes and possibly if they are lucky, may take something away from their AFR.

The one hour flight time for the AFR and the little quiz that some offer is arguably a waste of time and purely a box-ticking exercise.

Maybe Iíve been doing mine with the wrong operators...

I am confident that for IFR pilots that the story is quite different, however old-mate with his 1,000 hours and his Garmin Aera has probably been flying this way and hasnít changed since his licence test, like many other pilots out there.

Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 03:22
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,712
Yep. Spot on. If AFRs achieved anything substantial, there’d be consistency in radio broadcasts.

Junior: My ‘agenda’ is safety.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 08:11
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,875
Maybe all the Chuck Yeagers out there can maintain all the skill they need without needing AFRs, but I'm not ashamed to say that having to get a bit of critical scrutiny from an instructor for a check flight (and then only every two years!) is beneficial for me, and a good reality check to remind me that I can **** up in new and interesting ways even after decades in the seat.
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 08:51
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 0
The one hour flight time for the AFR and the little quiz that some offer is arguably a waste of time and purely a box-ticking exercise.
Maybe CASA should be having a chat to any instructor that is merely ticking boxes.

Maybe I’ve been doing mine with the wrong operators...
I reckon you probably are.

The Flight Review can also (and should) be a training exercise. An opportunity for the candidate to ask 'WTF goes on in these Class D volumes?' or 'can you run through some radio calls with me' or 'I do a regular flight from Glen Innes to Taree but the track I take is a pain in the arse, your thoughts?' But more often than not you get a phone call saying 'how much will a Flight Review cost me??'

It doesn't matter what class of airspace you are in, as a pilot, it's your responsibility to not hit anything, regardless of any thing a controller says to you or tells you what to do.

Last edited by McLimit; 23rd Jan 2021 at 00:02.
McLimit is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 12:26
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 44
Posts: 498
How do they handle VFR traffic in class D airspace in Australia?

I mean, in some places they're very much unrestricted, providing a clearance and then traffic information if conflicting traffic should happen making the pilots themselves responsible for the separation (updating if necessary to avoid collision).
jmmoric is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 12:32
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,144
ATC in Class D tend to be a bit more bossy, which is fine by me. The last thing I need is to be negotiating with a VFR about the landing sequence in a control zone.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 21:39
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 0
How do they handle VFR traffic in class D airspace in Australia
There are eerie similarities to the old GAAP control zones. I liked GAAP, didn't see the need for change to Class D. However, if you're going to call it Class D shouldn't it be run that way? Another problem with them here is that they all seemed to have developed their own special procedures. Flying in one Class D procedure wise can be significantly different to another. How are you supposed to be consistent as a pilot in the way you operate?

The last thing I need is to be negotiating with a VFR about the landing sequence in a control zone.
You as a pilot will not be negotiating a landing sequence with another pilot in ANY Australian control zone.
McLimit is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2021, 23:54
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 737
Circumstances in which a “controller” is not in control. What possible confusion could arise from that?
That is the problem. The pilot thought that ATC was in control. ATC are never in control of your aircraft and the way it is operated. If thats the prevailing attitude in GA then good luck you are going to need it. If your attitude towards a BFR is that it is just a box ticking exercise then it is your attitude that is the problem not the rules. I am in the simulator 4 times a year and never do I take the attitude that it is a box ticking exercise and that I have nothing to learn. If you think you have nothing to learn then "its your attitude stoopid" If you think getting a weather forecast is a waste of time then"its your attitude stoopid". If you think that technology has made proper flight planning redundant then "its your attitude stoopid". If you think that safety is all about the system then...you know the rest. Safety starts with your attitude towards flying. Your attitude to obtaining information, your attitude towards using a mandated check flight as a learning opportunity, your attitude towards applying the fundamentals of operating an aircraft i.e planning, weather, fuel. This report states that ATC could have handled the original clearance request differently and Airservices are addressing that through additional training of its controllers. It also very clearly states the PIC was not required to or issued a clearance to descend into the ground. Once he decided that he was required to descend because ATC told him and did not clarify that instruction then the outcome was inevitable. I hope that GA pilots will take some important lessons from this tragedy but from some of what I have seen posted I don't think they will.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2021, 02:10
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,144
Originally Posted by MCLimit
You as a pilot will not be negotiating a landing sequence with another pilot in ANY Australian control zone.
Precisely my point. But IFR is theoretically given Traffic on VFR (and vv). So what is it? Do I then have to negotiate with the VFR re tracking, or is ATC just giving me traffic so I can take evasive action if I see fit?

A control zone should be a control zone with all aircraft under air traffic control; none of this "traffic" nonsense. This is, of course, generally the way Australian ATC operate our Class D. Make it Class C and be done with it.

Controlled or Uncontrolled. Sound familiar, Griffo?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2021, 04:42
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,712
ATC are never in control of your aircraft and the way it is operated.
Are they never in control of where your aircraft may lawfully be operated?

If yes, best to change the name.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2021, 06:36
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 737
Declare a MAYDAY and you go where you need to go. As a PIC you are always in control of where your aircraft may be lawfully operated. I don't imagine for one minute LB that you ever fly an aircraft where you do what ATC instruct you to do if it conflicts with the operation of your aircraft. I also dont imagine that you have ever rocked up to Controlled Airspace not having an alternate plan if a clearance is not available.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2021, 06:38
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,305
Here's my question to the masses here that doesn't seem to have been actually answered so far, WHY was this Pilot denied a clearance through Class D Airspace in this circumstance? And No, I don't think "Workload" in this case is a valid reason and seems to be some kind of coverall being used.

In Aviation we have many safety nets, everyone knows the swiss cheese model, in this case, the Pilot basically bore themselves a hole halfway through the swiss cheese by not being prepared or legal for this flight, there's NOTHING REASONABLE that can be done about this now without a time machine to go back and force them to take the proper steps, there is also very little I think that can be done in the future to stop someone else making similar decisions. What we can do is look at the layer that does currently still exist and focus on making that better in the future. All the talk about a valid AFR and planning IMHO are moot at this point, they've been put out there and should serve as a warning for all Pilots to not take these things likely but the ones reading it are likely the diligent ones that don't need to be told anyway.

Can we focus on the question of why this clearance for what seems to be a few minutes of transition was denied and thusly this last safety net that could have prevented this and other accidents in the future failed? If we can ignore the other parts we can't really fix and focus on this question then we can get to the heart of trying to find solutions for the future.
Ixixly is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2021, 06:39
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 0
I agree with you Lookleft, safety is an attitude. I do all the things you mention religiously and try to apply common sense. It’s a pity that CASA, AsA and ATSB don’t appear to do the same.

‘’To put that another way, who trained that pilot? What was his attitude? Why was that his attitude? What series of errors caused the accident? It’s never one thing like “missing a BFR’ there is always more to it. However the ATSB is unlikely to delve deep enough because I suspect the answer would be unpalatable.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2021, 07:21
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,737
The controller was an early phase trainee so it's hard to label it a systemic issue. "Workload" is a somewhat personal perception - he may have been preoccupied with thinking of other issues he perceived to be more important, got flustered & chose the easy solution of denying a clearance. Was there any indication to the controller that this course of action would be in any way dangerous? I very much doubt it. Trainees in any field often choose less than optimal solutions, provide a less than ideal service & just plain screw up, it's all part of the learning process. The instructor probably saw it as a minor inconvenience for the pilot that wasn't unsafe so didn't intervene - to be discussed later.

Why didn't the pilot simply deviate around the airspace? He'd deviate around weather so why is this any different? Or would that have presented a problem for this pilot as well?

P.S. it was "C" the pilot was denied the clearance for.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2021, 07:46
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 370
Originally Posted by Ixixly View Post
Here's my question to the masses here that doesn't seem to have been actually answered so far, WHY was this Pilot denied a clearance through Class D Airspace in this circumstance? And No, I don't think "Workload" in this case is a valid reason and seems to be some kind of coverall being used.
As I read it he wasn't denied a clearance through D. The D controller offered a VFR clearance but at 1000' (I assume due cloud - the controller cannot offer a clearance if it would put a VFR aircraft in cloud so offered a clearance that would keep him VMC). I interpreted it as the D controller trying to appropriately accomodate the request by the pilot.

It was the C controller who didn't give the clearance (why he was talking to the D controller). I agree it probably would have ended differently had a clearance in C been given and the denial is a factor and should be addressed.

However the pilot still (IMO) bears a larger responsibility, being denied a clearance should not have been a big deal - a prudent diversion should also have resulted in a safe outcome - or even some polite negotiation ("eg is there an alternative clearance available at a different altitude or track or can I hold until clearance will become available? I need to avoid weather"). The pilot seemed to have had a strong case of push-on-itis which is sadly one very repeated cause of VFR->IMC->accident since aviation began.

As far as no flight review goes - seems more a symptom than a cause. I doubt a recent FR would have changed much for this accident but by avoiding it that raises (to me) a red flag about the pilot's attitude which I do think is a significant factor in the accident.

We all (I assume) agree accidents have multiple causes and establishing them and looking at ways of mitigating them helps improve safety - little can be done to change the pilot's actions in this case however certainly worth asking about any reluctance to give clearances and if this is a problem and if it can be handled better.

jonkster is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2021, 09:00
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 0
Am I right in thinking that a pilot cleared through airspace at a thousand feet would assume that such a flight path at that level was safe? If it wasnít, what is the point of having ATC if you are not RPT heavy iron?

This dovetails with the class E paper, ADSB, and airspace reform? What responsibility for the mangalore midair? Whatís the point if AsA does not take any responsibility the ATSB always blames the pilot and CASA helpfully catalogues all the regulations the pilot broke?

What happens when the non rpt pilot population perhaps one day decides that the regulations are a joke, enforcement is a joke, AsA is a joke and the ATSB is a joke? If we do not have a consistent set of regulations that are grounded in good airmanship, enforced fairly, an ATC system and airspace design that is both efficient, safe and equitable and an ATSB that reports without fear or favor we are asking for trouble.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2021, 09:00
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Originally Posted by jonkster View Post
being denied a clearance should not have been a big deal - a prudent diversion should also have resulted in a safe outcome
He had a good second option. He could divert 5 miles right of track and avoid the CTA while remaining at cruising altitude. He had turned right, it appears that is what he was doing.

However, he had requested clearance 4 times bouncing between 2 different controllers. Perhaps when the Class D controller came back with "at or below 1000 feet" he didn't feel like he could say "You know what, I don't need clearance after all." Perhaps he felt obligated to accept what he understood to be a clearance and descend.
andrewr is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2021, 09:12
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,875
Not saying airspace and controllers didn't contribute to the tragic outcome, but put yourselves in the pilot's position - any VFR pilot knows he has to maintain, if not AIP stated vis and distance from cloud conditions to the metre or foot, at least a decent bit of clear airspace out front to continue into and, let's hope, room to turn around if it clags in too much. The investigators found that the aircraft was descending clean in a straight line with cruise power set, not weaving around as you would if you were trying to scud run under low stratus through some hills. I cannot visualise a situation where as a VFR pilot I'd descend into, if not cloud, then at least conditions of such reduced visibility that I couldn't see far enough in front of me to know whether or not there was anything to hit, can you? - and he must have known there was cumulo granite there, surely.
Arm out the window is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.