Mooney accident pilot refused a clearance at 6,500'
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
... 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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Now that you’re using the “OMG”’s, the multiple punctuations, the multiple unnecessary letters, you’re showing more of your colours.
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?(????)
Perhaps you’ve been to ‘Let’s Talk Like Funky Dudes On Line’ class?(????)
Just name the (deceased) instructor who taught you, as a private VFR pilot, to plot IAP waypoints on VFR charts.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
think I might just check out now. It's been interesting and eye opening
take care
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.
