Mooney accident pilot refused a clearance at 6,500'
I know it’s always the fault of the pilot. There will never be any other contributing factor in any aviation accident or incident.
It’s actually incredible watching you wheel this out where two posts above I have said verbatim:
“If better procedures come as a result of this, then that’s good, and it’s good that the report has spent considerable time detailing the failings in ASA’s processes.”
😂
But thanks anyway for your informative answers to my above questioning. It’s clear you have no agenda to push.
“If better procedures come as a result of this, then that’s good, and it’s good that the report has spent considerable time detailing the failings in ASA’s processes.”
😂
But thanks anyway for your informative answers to my above questioning. It’s clear you have no agenda to push.
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 I’ve 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 hasn’t changed since his licence test, like many other pilots out there.
Yep. Spot on. If AFRs achieved anything substantial, there’d be consistency in radio broadcasts.
Junior: My ‘agenda’ is safety.
Junior: My ‘agenda’ is safety.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 I’ve been doing mine with the wrong operators...
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.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do they handle VFR traffic in class D airspace in Australia
The last thing I need is to be negotiating with a VFR about the landing sequence in a control zone.
Circumstances in which a “controller” is not in control. What possible confusion could arise from that?
Originally Posted by MCLimit
You as a pilot will not be negotiating a landing sequence with another pilot in ANY Australian control zone.
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?
ATC are never in control of your aircraft and the way it is operated.
If yes, best to change the name.
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.
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.
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.
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.
‘’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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 wasn’t, 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? What’s 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.
This dovetails with the class E paper, ADSB, and airspace reform? What responsibility for the mangalore midair? What’s 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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.