Mooney accident pilot refused a clearance at 6,500'
Originally Posted by Squawk
That’s BS and you know it.
Originally Posted by Dick
Its clear that C requires a terminal radar system to operate correctly.
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.
Unbelievable, we have an outdated and over regulated bunch of airspace in this country where it is virtually impossible to get a VFR clearance at any sensible level.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.
That said, it is still my opinion that when you pilot an aircraft, more than most pursuits, you are responsible for yourself.
Unbelievable, we have an outdated and over regulated bunch of airspace in this country where it is virtually impossible to get a VFR clearance at any sensible level.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.
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 ****e is thrown at him/ her. He has to deal with. Clearances and al, that crap are about what you’d like todo not what you have to deal with. I’ve always had the view that Dick’s 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.
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.
Thread Starter
Come on. I and others have campaigned relentlessly against C over D for 15 years.
AsA have operated by stating “ clearance not available “
Are you suggesting that by refusing the pilot clearance at 6500’ and forcing him into bad weather at a lower level there is no accountability?
AsA have operated by stating “ clearance not available “
Are you suggesting that by refusing the pilot clearance at 6500’ and forcing him into bad weather at a lower level there is no accountability?
Come on. I and others have campaigned relentlessly against C over D for 15 years.
AsA have operated by stating “ clearance not available “
Are you suggesting that by refusing the pilot clearance at 6500’ and forcing him into bad weather at a lower level there is no accountability?
AsA have operated by stating “ clearance not available “
Are you suggesting that by refusing the pilot clearance at 6500’ and forcing him into bad weather at a lower level there is no accountability?
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.
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.
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.
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 – probably above the weather and certainly above the mountain range – and is then forced down into bad weather, without anyone being interested?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Some pilots just does not know when to turn around...
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on. I and others have campaigned relentlessly against C over D for 15 years.
AsA have operated by stating “ clearance not available “
Are you suggesting that by refusing the pilot clearance at 6500’ and forcing him into bad weather at a lower level there is no accountability?
AsA have operated by stating “ clearance not available “
Are you suggesting that by refusing the pilot clearance at 6500’ and forcing him into bad weather at a lower level there is no accountability?
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.
We had the LAT coming in a lot and it probably didn’t 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 don’t think is anything of a ATC cause.
the pilot in command can always turn back.
An educated guess would be that the airspace was being used at the time.
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 there’s an 8 lane freeway available.... but you can’t, because there’s another car on it.
Don’t just accept the status quo because it’s always been that way. Stir things up to make a change for better for all of us!
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 **** conditions. It’s not that hard. Perhaps we need more education in that and these sorts of things might start to become less frequent.
My other point was you do not need to continue in to **** conditions. It’s not that hard. Perhaps we need more education in that and these sorts of things might start to become less frequent.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sunny Oz
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 22:56.
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.
, 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.
