Mooney accident pilot refused a clearance at 6,500'
Speak for yourself. It's a serious question.
Professional consistency is an issue across most service organisations.
Try calling 3 different police stations, ask them something and see how many different answers you get. Why? Because the chances are that you’re speaking to someone that his half way through their 7 months of training.
You then take their advice and run with it, not knowing that it may be sub-optimal, factually or legally incorrect.
It’s difficult to manage this and I can’t see ASA being immune from it. Rules are rules you think, but it’s not always that simple and no two employees are the same.
Try calling 3 different police stations, ask them something and see how many different answers you get. Why? Because the chances are that you’re speaking to someone that his half way through their 7 months of training.
You then take their advice and run with it, not knowing that it may be sub-optimal, factually or legally incorrect.
It’s difficult to manage this and I can’t see ASA being immune from it. Rules are rules you think, but it’s not always that simple and no two employees are the same.
I’m surprised this hasn’t been mentioned more, no one expects a trainee controller/pilot to deliver a champagne quality experience - but the training system must be robust enough to ensure a minimum standard of service is consistently delivered.
Looking at the details of this report I’m not entirely sure a clearance through Coffs airspace could’ve changed the tragic situation - but hopefully this will at least start the conversation of making sure the wheels don’t fall off while training.
Looking at the details of this report I’m not entirely sure a clearance through Coffs airspace could’ve changed the tragic situation - but hopefully this will at least start the conversation of making sure the wheels don’t fall off while training.
Last edited by TwoFiftyBelowTen; 25th Jan 2021 at 05:12.
There’s not enough detail in the report to suggest that there was any failure in the training team’s part - I just hope that this example among others are used to review the training system to explore if improvements can be made.
Snide & snarky is a serious question?
I use various techniques to try to make the serious points I'm trying to make - evidently unsuccessfully.
S7700 makes what is in my view a factual point: Inconsistency. Serious question Le P: How often do you fly in different geographical locations across Australia and interact with ATC/Centre in e.g. east coast v west coast; e.g. YPPF v YBAF; e.g. YMAY v YSBK?
Maggie Island makes what is in my view a factual point that some of us think is serious: The lack of detail in the report.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the controller would have then been strung up for issuing a clearance when the ARFOR suggested VMC on the route was doubtful
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we're all missing the point here that regardless of the ATC interaction, he was clear of the step after no time and could have climbed back up. The accident site looks a long way away from cta. Not sure in minutes.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E would have allowed the pilot to stay in the air at 6500 for sure , but what was he doing in the air in the first place?
lack of airpersonship and illegal operation of an aircraft caused this not class of airspace.
Thread Starter
There was only one reason the pilot was forced to descend below 6500’ - the class C airspace
No other country I know of has C in link airspace above D.
The lack of a bi annual doesn’t force you down into the bad Wx and mountains.
It’s clearly “road block” airspace that was the prime cause of the accident!
If he had his bi annual up to date would he have missed the mountain?
No other country I know of has C in link airspace above D.
The lack of a bi annual doesn’t force you down into the bad Wx and mountains.
It’s clearly “road block” airspace that was the prime cause of the accident!
If he had his bi annual up to date would he have missed the mountain?
so it's 2021 and ATSB report is out. Pilot not licenced to fly due lack of renewal, no evidence of weather, briefing , no maps or navigation equipment including EFB on board and no Pan call.
Class E would have allowed the pilot to stay in the air at 6500 for sure , but what was he doing in the air in the first place?
lack of airpersonship and illegal operation of an aircraft caused this not class of airspace.
Class E would have allowed the pilot to stay in the air at 6500 for sure , but what was he doing in the air in the first place?
lack of airpersonship and illegal operation of an aircraft caused this not class of airspace.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the "airpersonship" thing did it for me. Nothing has changed in 50 years. Flying schools are still teaching new pilots that ATC is God and to be feared. This is a case where a pilot has to ask "are you here for me or am I here for you". With no traffic he could have been given a clearance at 6500 and maintain VFR, simple. All this argy bargy about maps, reviews and who gets a weather briefing any more, its all online, is just typical deflection. Disappointing Pinky 1987, very disappointing.
sorry I disappointment you. No offence ever meant by my posts.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's been a while but out of a GAAP and overflying a D. It was never a problem as I flew under the steps. But I definitely agree that e over d makes a lot of sense especially if everyone has a transponder so ATC can see the VFR to assist in traffic avoidance for the IFR.
I understand you suggest they are not needed as everyone must look out and see and avoid, but that fails from time to time. That is why advanced aircraft have warning systems as a fail-safe for pilot error. That is why TCAS exists and gear warning horns exist etc so a transponder adds a layer of protection for everyone. Bit like reversing cameras in cars, they are a great control when see and avoid fails to work from time to time.
I understand you suggest they are not needed as everyone must look out and see and avoid, but that fails from time to time. That is why advanced aircraft have warning systems as a fail-safe for pilot error. That is why TCAS exists and gear warning horns exist etc so a transponder adds a layer of protection for everyone. Bit like reversing cameras in cars, they are a great control when see and avoid fails to work from time to time.
Thread Starter
But why were you refused clearance into the C that was above D?
Could it have been because the airspace did not have a dedicated approach radar facility as per the Anderson binding directive?
In effect were you trying to get through “ giant roadblock airspace “
Do you realise that no other country has C over D?
Why do you reckon that would be so?
Could it have been because the airspace did not have a dedicated approach radar facility as per the Anderson binding directive?
In effect were you trying to get through “ giant roadblock airspace “
Do you realise that no other country has C over D?
Why do you reckon that would be so?
CASA's response in due course was no, not required. I assume the minister was advised accordingly and decided not to pursue the matter.
There is probably a thread on here, would have been early 2000's.
Edit: found this (one of these should work, depending if you are logged in or not):
PPRuNe Archives: Class C radar direction
PPRuNe Archives plain text: Class C radar direction
Last edited by CaptainMidnight; 5th Apr 2021 at 05:48.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why were you refused clearance into the C that was above D?
Could it have been because the airspace did not have a dedicated approach radar facility as per the Anderson binding directive?
In effect were you trying to get through “ giant roadblock airspace “
Do you realise that no other country has C over D?
Why do you reckon that would be so?
Could it have been because the airspace did not have a dedicated approach radar facility as per the Anderson binding directive?
In effect were you trying to get through “ giant roadblock airspace “
Do you realise that no other country has C over D?
Why do you reckon that would be so?
yes we are the only country to have c over d. I have flown extensively overseas. are you aware we had e over d once?
I think we are in agreement Mr Smith. Coffs harbour radar approach sounds like a good idea. Do you think that would be class d like they have at Heathrow? I believe the d tower in Australia does approach at the moment but not using radar. Would I need a transponder into a class d if it became a radar approach, as they are not required into coffs today?
great to chat, I like your position on all this
