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 8th Nov 2019, 09:31
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,809
Originally Posted by Squawk
That’s BS and you know it.
That's a bit harsh. Actually, I don't know. Do you? Given Coffs has a tower, I imagine that it's a reasonably busy airport. Perhaps there was arriving or departing traffic from the north or the south?

Originally Posted by Dick
Its clear that C requires a terminal radar system to operate correctly.
No Dick, it's clear that C has to have radar so it'll produce the results you want. As for upside down, this just highlights the absurdity of 7 alphabets of airspace. A>D, B>D, C>D, E>D, what's the point?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 09:31
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 209
As said before, speculation without facts is pointless. Was it a plan, was a flight plan submitted to give ATC prior notice, what was the IFR traffic at the time, what separation standards were in use? Why plan over high country with the weather forecast when coastal might have been better? No one here knows so stop blaming the absence of your views on airspace and ATC procedures until the facts are known.
Vag277 is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 09:39
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,170
Unbelievable, we have an outdated and over regulated bunch of airspace in this country where it is virtually impossible to get a VFR clearance at any sensible level. Dick is here pointing that out and you blokes are mostly so apethetic that you shoot the messenger and support the system.

That said, it is still my opinion that when you pilot an aircraft, more than most pursuits, you are responsible for yourself.
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 09:47
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 209
Clearly the clearance for a formation of 6 light VFR aircraft coastal through the YBSU zone yesterday did not happen. Wait - I was in the formation!
Vag277 is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 09:50
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Richmond
Age: 65
Posts: 107
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post
Unbelievable, we have an outdated and over regulated bunch of airspace in this country where it is virtually impossible to get a VFR clearance at any sensible level. Dick is here pointing that out and you blokes are mostly so apethetic that you shoot the messenger and support the system.

That said, it is still my opinion that when you pilot an aircraft, more than most pursuits, you are responsible for yourself.

Bob,
That is my my problem with Dicks approach to all of this.
At the end of the day it is the pilots responsibility. He has to keep the aircraft safe. Whatever shite is thrown at him/ her. He has to deal with. Clearances and al, that crap are about what youíd like todo not what you have to deal with. Iíve always had the view that Dickís approach to the rules is that he should be allowed to fly his aircraft anywhere at anytime anyway he wants. The rules should be adjusted to allow this.
JamieMaree is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 09:55
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Age: 27
Posts: 349
You can advocate for airspace change without having to leverage on the death of fellow aviators in order to justify your argument, particularly when it's a long bow at best to correlate the relevance of that issue. There's two separate thread right now doing exactly that.
junior.VH-LFA is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 10:13
  #27 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,187
Come on. I and others have campaigned relentlessly against C over D for 15 years.

AsA have operated by stating ď clearance not available ď
Are you suggesting that by refusing the pilot clearance at 6500í and forcing him into bad weather at a lower level there is no accountability?


Dick Smith is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 10:32
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Age: 27
Posts: 349
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Come on. I and others have campaigned relentlessly against C over D for 15 years.

AsA have operated by stating ď clearance not available ď
Are you suggesting that by refusing the pilot clearance at 6500í and forcing him into bad weather at a lower level there is no accountability?


No; I'm suggesting that if the weather prevents doing that you declare a pan and make the controllers work for you. That's how it works when you're in danger.

There is always scope to talk about airspace change. This is a perfect forum for that. Make a thread about it and stop hijacking accident threads to push your agenda.
junior.VH-LFA is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 11:43
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: sierra village
Posts: 156
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.
lucille is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 12:23
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Le Pingouin, you say that aircraft frequently fade from radar. How often does an aircraft fade from radar that requested a clearance at 6,500 feet Ė probably above the weather and certainly above the mountain range Ė and is then forced down into bad weather, without anyone being interested?
Correct. Why would we be? They're VFR so responsible for terrain and weather avoidance. If there's a problem speak up. We aren't mind readers and aren't looking out the aircraft windscreen. I see numerous VFR paints flying around when the weather seems totally foul, yet the ground isn't littered with crashed aircraft.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 14:57
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 43
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by le Pingouin View Post
Correct. Why would we be? They're VFR so responsible for terrain and weather avoidance. If there's a problem speak up. We aren't mind readers and aren't looking out the aircraft windscreen. I see numerous VFR paints flying around when the weather seems totally foul, yet the ground isn't littered with crashed aircraft.
Maybe not, but there are definately more aircraft spread around outside airports after bad weather.... the amount of traffic taken into comparison...

Some pilots just does not know when to turn around...
jmmoric is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 15:08
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 43
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Come on. I and others have campaigned relentlessly against C over D for 15 years.

AsA have operated by stating ď clearance not available ď
Are you suggesting that by refusing the pilot clearance at 6500í and forcing him into bad weather at a lower level there is no accountability?
You're forgetting that ATC is not there to make anything harder for the pilots, we're here to make the skies safer first, then more efficient.... saying no to a pilot, does not mean it cannot be changed, if the pilot would be so kind as to inform about the necessity for the request.

But I have no clue how it works "down under", but high traffic load, especially in C airspace can be a good reason to say "no", and especially if there's no radar service provided. Ask again and stress the importance, you may have to wait a bit, then you'd get your clearance. That C airspace is made to make the life of airliners safer, you know those boxes that runs at 250+ knots and sweeps though clouds doing a lot of other things besides looking out windows, and carries 200+ people onboard.... Though I have no clue about the mentioned airspace, and airport for that matter.
jmmoric is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 19:30
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,532
But wasn’t ADSB supposed to make separation practicable without radar? I’m more confused.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 19:58
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Vagg. All very well however how about coming up with a suggestion on why the pilot was refused clearance at 6500í.
An educated guess would be that the airspace was being used at the time. The bush fires we were working on that day in the Doreigo area provided horrible visibility and the weather did not help at all. it was hard enough to nav low level in a helicopter...
We had the LAT coming in a lot and it probably didnít help with all the other AC that would have been in C class airspace; Airmed, bird dogs, LAT, Linescan AC.
its a tragic result but something that I really donít think is anything of a ATC cause.
the pilot in command can always turn back.
Jabberwocky82 is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 20:20
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,325
An educated guess would be that the airspace was being used at the time.
You can fit many aircraft in a piece of airspace at the same time. You can funnel them through, they can change speeds to better allow transit, delay, provide vectoring, hold or otherwise, different altitudes, VFR and IFR... like I said, itís not like itís special VFR where only one can be there at any one time. If itís too much workload for one controller, then there is a problem with the system, split it up and find another controller. Itís not rocket science!

Yes it is up to the pilot to turn back, but forcing them to take alternate routes down lower, possibly in turbulence, closer to cloud, over tiger country,
or perhaps precipitation is not ideal and carries a greater degree of risk. Why take the backroads when thereís an 8 lane freeway available.... but you canít, because thereís another car on it.

Donít just accept the status quo because itís always been that way. Stir things up to make a change for better for all of us!

Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 20:55
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 40
I would not be surprised at all if it was Special VFR conditions...

My other point was you do not need to continue in to Shit conditions. Itís not that hard. Perhaps we need more education in that and these sorts of things might start to become less frequent.
Jabberwocky82 is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 21:19
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,170
Having once pushed on through a restricted area due to weather and in direct defiance of a “clearance unavailable, remain outside Romeo .... “ directive, I can report that the repercussions I anticipated came to a big fat nothing. Nada, zip, no call, no action, nil communication afterwards. I would do it again in a heartbeat.
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2019, 23:52
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sunny Oz
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
If itís too much workload for one controller, then there is a problem with the system, split it up and find another controller. Itís not rocket science!
Absolutely true. Unfortunately, the system does not allow to 'split it up' like you suggest. A combination of both TAAATS limitations and staffing numbers don't allow stuff like this to be split. The controller would have been responsible for a large piece of airspace, which included Coffs steps. You can't just pull out the C steps into a different controllers jurisdiction.

We are going in the wrong direction whilst the industry demands more 'efficiency', and the government demands more dividends from Airservices.

Last edited by BlackPanther; 10th Nov 2019 at 23:56.
BlackPanther is online now  
Old 9th Nov 2019, 01:21
  #39 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,187
Now some important facts are coming out.

Thanks Prune!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2019, 01:52
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,923
As many have said as PIC it's your task to ensure the safety of your aircraft and pax. If ATC direct you to some unsafe condition, eg VFR into IMC, there is the phrase "unable". If you've really ballsed up, a PAN will get the desired help. A PIC can break every regulation and rule in the book to ensure his safe arrival on terra firma. Too many think a controller has an overarching command of an aircraft, s/he is a helper not a controller , remember the statement "are you down there because I'm up here, or am I up here because you're down there?". It's a joint effort to keep us from bumping into each other.
megan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.