Mooney accident pilot refused a clearance at 6,500'
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If AsA is going to spend the money to install an approach radar control service at Coffs Harbour the allocated airspace would be class C.
However this would clearly be a gross mis allocation of finite safety resources.
Coffs should be D with E above as per the accepted NAS policy. Just like Karatha and Broome.
The pilot would have kept flying en route at 6500’ above the clouds and mountains. It was only a line and a letter C on a map that resulted in him being forced to descend by ATC into the bad wx and a mountain.
He must have had some form of a chart as he knew where to call for a clearance!
However this would clearly be a gross mis allocation of finite safety resources.
Coffs should be D with E above as per the accepted NAS policy. Just like Karatha and Broome.
The pilot would have kept flying en route at 6500’ above the clouds and mountains. It was only a line and a letter C on a map that resulted in him being forced to descend by ATC into the bad wx and a mountain.
He must have had some form of a chart as he knew where to call for a clearance!
would you really have said to your passenger, sorry mate, there is a roadblock ahead and ATC are forcing me to fly into the low cloud below and I think we could end up hitting the ground at 160mph, I am so sorry, I did not self brief on this flight and we have to go down because the consequences of calling pan are greater than our imminent death. Or would you have said, don't worry mate, I'll let ATC know I can't descend due low cloud and I am going to maintain my present altitude so we don't hit the ground. Pan Pan Pan require clearance! Roger Pan Understood cleared 6500 track .....
seriously Sir, would you not have used the second scenario?
Last edited by Pinky1987; 6th Apr 2021 at 04:20.
Give up pinky, you won’t get thru to Dick. He has a bee in his bonnet about this and won’t change his opinion, nor accept that the pilot could have done something better. The pilot wasn’t “forced”- its just emotive language that’s unnecessary; and honestly it detracts from the point he is trying to make.
did the lack of clearance affect the outcome of the flight? Yes.
but does the lack of a clearance in general cause a fatal accident? No. I imagine there are probably many denials of clearances in a day. Yet they don’t end up in fatal.
could the pilot have done something else? Yeah. Definitely. We all know that, but some don’t admit it because doing so doesn’t help their cause.
It’s up to us driving the things to be safe, regardless of ATC. Maybe if he had a current biannual that point could have come up and we’d never be talking about this accident.
did the lack of clearance affect the outcome of the flight? Yes.
but does the lack of a clearance in general cause a fatal accident? No. I imagine there are probably many denials of clearances in a day. Yet they don’t end up in fatal.
could the pilot have done something else? Yeah. Definitely. We all know that, but some don’t admit it because doing so doesn’t help their cause.
It’s up to us driving the things to be safe, regardless of ATC. Maybe if he had a current biannual that point could have come up and we’d never be talking about this accident.
Thread Starter
It’s well known as “road block” airspace.
Why is it called that? Because it can act as a road block even in perfect VMC.
Twist it any way you want but the pilot was clearly forced to leave 6500’ on that track.
It is highly likely if the E existed they would both be alive today.
The ATSB report claimed that AsA are changing that C to E! Wonder when? Bit late for those two.
And he had two separate GPS units which showed airspace.
Why is it called that? Because it can act as a road block even in perfect VMC.
Twist it any way you want but the pilot was clearly forced to leave 6500’ on that track.
It is highly likely if the E existed they would both be alive today.
The ATSB report claimed that AsA are changing that C to E! Wonder when? Bit late for those two.
And he had two separate GPS units which showed airspace.
It’s well known as “road block” airspace.
Why is it called that? Because it can act as a road block even in perfect VMC.
Twist it any way you want but the pilot was clearly forced to leave 6500’ on that track.
It is highly likely if the E existed they would both be alive today.
The ATSB report claimed that AsA are changing that C to E! Wonder when? Bit late for those two.
And he had two separate GPS units which showed airspace.
Why is it called that? Because it can act as a road block even in perfect VMC.
Twist it any way you want but the pilot was clearly forced to leave 6500’ on that track.
It is highly likely if the E existed they would both be alive today.
The ATSB report claimed that AsA are changing that C to E! Wonder when? Bit late for those two.
And he had two separate GPS units which showed airspace.
The two GPS units are quite a curve-ball really. Both showed airspace and terrain and also had terrain warnings.
Swiss cheese.
If the road block airspace wasn’t there, this *most* likely wouldn’t have happened.
You can change some things and others you can’t.
If you can change things for the better by a procedural or administrative change, then make the change to the airspace so that this hole in the Swiss cheese is closed off and the holes don’t line up for the next guy who comes along.
So what if the next guy hasn’t done his BFR and isn’t carrying a WAC, we can’t control that other than through punitive measures, but what we can control is the roadblock ahead. Why have a freeway in the sky that nobody can use when somebody else is using it?
Thread Starter
Now here’s a challenge.
The ATSB report stated that AsA plan to change the C above Coffs Harbour back to E.
What was the reason for the change from E to C at Coffs?
Ten points to the closest correct answer!
Remember if it had remained E the two would most likely still be alive today!
The ATSB report stated that AsA plan to change the C above Coffs Harbour back to E.
What was the reason for the change from E to C at Coffs?
Ten points to the closest correct answer!
Remember if it had remained E the two would most likely still be alive today!
Thread Starter
Are you telling me he did not descend below 6500 because he was refused clearance through the road block airspace? Is so why didn’t the ATSB say this?
If there was such a small amount of C why wasn’t he given a clearance?
Surely it’s clear that it was the C that forced the descent.
If there was such a small amount of C why wasn’t he given a clearance?
Surely it’s clear that it was the C that forced the descent.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The unlicensed pilot with no weather and no maps could have called Pan or mayday and roadblock would have been removed instantly. I wonder if lack of licence was a reason not to call urgency of situation as this would have cause pilot some issues when paperwork was submitted.
He did have a valid medical - I wonder why an active pilot would renew their medical, but ignore the flight review?
As discussed previously in this thread, it appears that there was a misunderstanding between the pilot and ATC. ATC told him a clearance was available through the Class D not above 1000'. No tracking instructions were given. The pilot appears to have read that back as a clearance. Technically it does constitute a class D clearance i.e. 2 way communication.
It appears to me that the pilot believed he had been instructed to descend to 1000' on track.
He didn't want to descend. He had an alternative - divert around the airspace at 6500 - which he was in the process of implementing. But I suspect that after being bounced between controllers and making 4 requests for clearance, he felt that he couldn't say "Sorry, I don't want the clearance after all" and felt obligated to proceed as instructed.
The GPS would show the boundaries of the airspace, but it is probably difficult to interpret the vertical limits. The pilot probably assumed that if ATC instructed him to descend to 1000, the airspace went down to that level. Then the GPS reported clear of the airspace and he stopped his descent, until the GPS warned that he was about to enter airspace again on the opposite side. At that point he resumed his descent to 1000' as (he believed) instructed.
As for descending into IMC - if the cloud is building up against the hills, there might be a hole where you can see clear air underneath, but the cloud obscures the hill beyond the hole until after you descend through it. If he believed he had been instructed to descend to 1000' on track, he may have assumed that he was clear of the hills and could safely descend through a hole and the clear air would continue underneath.
The communication between the pilot and ATC is critical to this report. I question why the transcript was not provided. I also wonder whether the focus on the pilot's flight review is intended to divert questions away from the ATC role.
Last edited by andrewr; 6th Apr 2021 at 11:04. Reason: formatting
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fear of looking like an idiot must rank as a leading cause of death through all of history. (Get-there-itis is one particular sub-genre of it).
Well argued, andrewr.
Another hatchet job by ATSB/CASA/Airservices to bury some inconvenient truths.
We’re starting to get some telling glimpses into Pinky’s true colours.
Another hatchet job by ATSB/CASA/Airservices to bury some inconvenient truths.
We’re starting to get some telling glimpses into Pinky’s true colours.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an RAA pilot I'm used to dodging cta. Including going below, then climbing up when clear.
But in all of this. Isn't the accident site 15 or 20 minutes past cta? Regardless of the clearance how long past cta does the responsibility return to the pilot
Or am I missing something.
But in all of this. Isn't the accident site 15 or 20 minutes past cta? Regardless of the clearance how long past cta does the responsibility return to the pilot
Or am I missing something.
In the thread about Class E, you said, among other things:
On my reading, you said that because of concerns you have about the different risks arising from CAGRO arrangements versus AFIS arrangements.
Is my reading correct?
If yes, you seem to be conceding - in my view perfectly reasonably - that systemic issues may create risks that contribute to accidents: A bunch of little 'problems' lead to a big problem. Indeed, in more enlightened times Australia's transport safety investigations bodies seemed to understand the concept that systemic issues could contribute to accidents - the 'Swiss Cheese' concept.
Do you believe that the one and only cause of the Coffs Harbour Mooney accident was - let's call it - 'poor airmanship'? Yes or no?
Let's take one issue: If the pilot was in fact flying around 'illegally' - that is, without having completed the required aeroplane flight review within the previous two years - why was that not detected by the safety regulator and addressed before the accident? My guess - I have no knowledge of the specific pilot's specific circumstances - is that the review was in fact completed but, as a consequence of the clusterf*ck that is CASA's implementation of Part 61 - of which I do have first-hand knowledge - the 'paperwork fell through the cracks'.
But it's so, so easy and so, so convenient (for Airservices, ATSB and CASA) to give the impression that the pilot was flying 'illegally'. (Again, so much for the 'rule of law'...)
Do you believe that the one and only cause of the Coffs Harbour Mooney accident was - let's call it - 'poor airmanship'? Yes or no?
I reckon I may just give Ballina a miss for a while.
Is my reading correct?
If yes, you seem to be conceding - in my view perfectly reasonably - that systemic issues may create risks that contribute to accidents: A bunch of little 'problems' lead to a big problem. Indeed, in more enlightened times Australia's transport safety investigations bodies seemed to understand the concept that systemic issues could contribute to accidents - the 'Swiss Cheese' concept.
Do you believe that the one and only cause of the Coffs Harbour Mooney accident was - let's call it - 'poor airmanship'? Yes or no?
Let's take one issue: If the pilot was in fact flying around 'illegally' - that is, without having completed the required aeroplane flight review within the previous two years - why was that not detected by the safety regulator and addressed before the accident? My guess - I have no knowledge of the specific pilot's specific circumstances - is that the review was in fact completed but, as a consequence of the clusterf*ck that is CASA's implementation of Part 61 - of which I do have first-hand knowledge - the 'paperwork fell through the cracks'.
But it's so, so easy and so, so convenient (for Airservices, ATSB and CASA) to give the impression that the pilot was flying 'illegally'. (Again, so much for the 'rule of law'...)
Do you believe that the one and only cause of the Coffs Harbour Mooney accident was - let's call it - 'poor airmanship'? Yes or no?
My recollection is that this directive was issued to Airservices a couple of hours prior to the commencement of the caretaker period prior to an election. I also recall that after the election Airservices referred the issue to CASA, to assess and advise if SSR was really required for all Class C airspace where established that did not have coverage.
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
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
The Direction was issued as the usual pre-election Dick-distractor.
CASA's opinion on the matter was irrelevant to Airservices' obligation to comply with the Direction, but great raw material for the usual smoke and mirror tricks.
Agreed!
And what would you say are the main 'elements' of the ones that 'lined up' here?
And what would you say are the main 'elements' of the ones that 'lined up' here?
As discussed way earlier in this thread, we need to read the transcript or hear the recordings to make our own judgement on whether the pilot interpreted the clearance availability to be below 1,000 as a recommendation, or as a direction.
ATC: Mooney you are cleared not above 1,000ft
or
ATC: Mooney, a clearance will be available if you are not above 1,000 ft
Etc etc
This is one of the very few possibilities as to why the pilot descended into terrain on his way to 1,000ft.
ATC: Mooney you are cleared not above 1,000ft
or
ATC: Mooney, a clearance will be available if you are not above 1,000 ft
Etc etc
This is one of the very few possibilities as to why the pilot descended into terrain on his way to 1,000ft.
As discussed way earlier in this thread, we need to read the transcript or hear the recordings to make our own judgement on whether the pilot interpreted the clearance availability to be below 1,000 as a recommendation, or as a direction.
ATC: Mooney you are cleared not above 1,000ft
or
ATC: Mooney, a clearance will be available if you are not above 1,000 ft
Etc etc
This is one of the very few possibilities as to why the pilot descended into terrain on his way to 1,000ft.
ATC: Mooney you are cleared not above 1,000ft
or
ATC: Mooney, a clearance will be available if you are not above 1,000 ft
Etc etc
This is one of the very few possibilities as to why the pilot descended into terrain on his way to 1,000ft.