"a fiery plane crash" eh, Georgia Clark?
I'm pretty sure there wasn't a fire.
(But this was from the Daily Telegraph.)

Those aspects were quite well covered in the report. However, accidents rarely have one cause and it's worth looking into other contributing factors.

The pilot wanted to stay at 6500, and the simple way to remain OCTA was to divert about 5 miles right of track. After the initial clearance was denied, the pilot did turn right, presumably that was their intention.

Then the Class D controller provides a clearance into class D (2 way communication constitutes a clearance) with the instruction "at or below 1000 feet" but no tracking instructions. The pilot reads back "At or below 1000 feet", turns back on track and begins descending. There was no reason the pilot would descend other than to comply with the "at or below" instruction.

If there was a communication misunderstanding between the pilot and ATC that resulted in the aircraft descending into the ground in bad weather, is that aspect worth investigating? Or do we just put it down to the fact that he didn't do a BFR?

Nothing to do with paying, everything to do with being VFR.

You all know where this ends up, don't you?

Read the report andrew! The pilot was not given a clearance to descend to 1000', he was advised that if he wanted to transit the CTZ VFR he would have to descend to 1000'

I'm not sure where you get this from:. A clearance to descend would have been prefixed by "You are cleared to...." He was OCTA he didn't need a clearance but if he wanted to transit the Coffs control zone he would only get one at not above 1000'.

The lack of a BFR was an indication of the pilots attitude to his responsibilities as was the lack of planning and obtaining a weather forecast. When will the GA population of Australia stop thinking that if only ATC were better then VFR into IFR accidents wouldn't happen?

Lookleft: When will the BFR be more than an expensive box ticking exercise (unfair to some)? When will the regulations actually encourage safe behaviours? When will enforcement encourage safe behaviour? When will accident analysis and reporting encourage safe behaviour? However that is actually irrelevant.

To put that another way, suppose the pilot was an ab initio student high on drugs and alcohol in a stolen aircraft. Does that absolve Airservices? Of course not! They have no way of knowing the state of the pilot unless she tells them!

The idea that a BFR and a map may have saved them from Airservices is a fantasy.

Thanks Sunfish you have made my point for me. To paraphrase Clinton "Its your attitude stoopid."

Nailed it Squawk! Ahh yes the spite or tone in the reply, maybe even a sigh if you’re lucky hahaha. Love that you don’t let them off that easy with an offer of complete flexibility.... must remember that reply next time!

From the final report:
"At altitudes less than 1,000 ft along a track between the aircraft’s position and Coffs Harbour Airport and more significantly, along a continuation of the direct track to Taree, terrain clearance was not possible. However, the pilot did not voice any concerns with the advice provided and the flight descended on the direct track to Taree." (my emphasis)
Quite interesting.

Is the inclusion of the following a deference to this thread?
"Future Coffs Harbour airspace reclassification
Prior to the accident, Airservices commenced the Airspace Modernisation Program. This program will reclassify the Class C airspace above Coffs Harbour to Class E. At the time of writing, the timeframe for the completion of this program was not available.
Undertaking a VFR transit of the Class E airspace will not require a clearance."

Lookleft- 'I'm not sure where you get this from'

AIP 2.2.12.2 'For entry into Class D airspace establishment of two way communications between an aircraft & ATC constitutes a clearance for the pilot to enter the Class D airspace'

Thanks OH for the reference. It certainly doesn't constitute a clearance to anything else such as climb or descend. For that you need a very specific clearance.

Imported directly from Yanksville, Of course it doesn't need to make sense, as long as they do it it must be OK.

2.2.12.2 needs to be read in conjunction with the table in 2.2.12.3.

If you state your intentions and ATC *acknowledge* your call and give nothing else, you must comply with your stated intentions (ie although they haven't said 'you are cleared', you have been cleared to enter D and your 'clearance' is effectively 'do what you said you would do'). Also you *can* descend to join the circuit if no altitude instructions subsequently given.

If ATC give you specific instructions (which seems to be the more common case), you are cleared to enter D and your clearance is to do what you were instructed (although you *can* descend if no altitude instructions given by ATC).

Also VFR aircraft operating in D are responsible for maintaining themselves in VMC.

What the controller expected and what the pilot understood seem to have been different. I am suggesting that this should have been explored more in the report.

A full transcript of the communications would be useful. The communications that are included are short excerpts out of context so it is hard to be sure what was meant. Listing the events in sequence with timestamps would be useful.

The airspace steps that the pilot wanted to transit were Class D below Class C. He was told to request clearance from the Class D controller.

It appears he had 2 way communication and wasn't told to stay OCTA, so technically had clearance to enter Class D (but the controller may not have expected that).

He didn't receive tracking instructions from ATC, so he was REQUIRED to track according to his request. The controller said clearance was available at or below 1000 feet. The pilot read back "at or below 1000 feet" i.e. he appeared to interpret that as an instruction, and began to descend. He didn't want to descend, which supports the idea that he viewed it as an instruction.

Misunderstandings between pilots and ATC are one of the more useful areas to investigate, because there are often things that can be changed.

As another has stated, the ATC/Pilot comms quoted are out of context and not in their entirety, it is difficult to get a handle on the exact sequence of events. The ATC work does appear to be sloppy though and Airservices response is an attempt to pull the wool over your eyes. Class D Towers in Australia are not operated as to how ICAO intended and if they were modelled on the way the US runs them? Well, yet more wool pulling.

Having said that, any attempt at apportioning blame to ATC for this accident is spurious and deflection at its best. It may be how the legal system works in Australia? Or how accident investigation works?

Intentional flight into IMC by an unqualified pilot, blatant and intentional rule breaches by the PIC, the ones that can (and did) kill people. Clearly no understanding of LSALT, the list goes on.

He would have had to have been in contact with the Class D controller i.e. Coffs Tower for that statement to be correct. Had he descended to 1000' coastal and contacted the Tower for a clearance to transit the Class D control zone it is highly likely that would have been given. don't forget that the controller he was in contact with was a trainee.

I think that is absolutely what happened but we will never know what the pilot understood. I'm not sure that having the full transcript would clarify it either as it can't inform the reader as to nuance and tone of the communication.

As a PIC you are responsible for clearing up any misunderstanding that you may have with an ATC instruction especially if you think it is going to lead to a dangerous situation. It is beyond comprehension as to why the pilot thought that ATC were telling him to descend to 1000' over high terrain. All he had to do was ask for clarification of the instruction. The report stated

Possibly he did have doubts which is why he climbed back up to 4,500'. That was the time to speak up but he then started a descent. I stated in a previous post that ATC will kill you but only if you let them. Despite what some of them think they are not in the cockpit and do not have the authority to make you do anything that you consider will affect the safety of your aircraft and passengers. The main reason these reports are published is to hopefully educate other pilots on how to avoid a similar situation. I would be interested in peoples response as to how this accident might change the way they operate. I would hope that the big lesson learnt is to always be in control of your situation when operating as a PIC.

That’s why the actual recordings of comms, and not selective, mistake-ridden transcripts or summaries of them, should be made available as part of these reports. I agree with the points being made by andrewr.

Controllers in Class D airspace do not have responsibility for terrain clearance. Regardless of what clearance you receive in class D, it’s your responsibility as the driver to keep yourself alive.

A pilot without a valid license, BFR, seemingly unprepared and out of their depth allowed themselves to descend into terrain.

Would a clearance have prevented this? Yes, of course. Should not getting a clearance have been a reason to descend into terrain as a VFR aircraft? No. There was a multitude of other options available to the pilot rather than just accepting a descent to below 1000ft, one must ask if they were even in VMC conditions at all when they commenced that.

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. It’s not the silver bullet though for what seems to be a continuing list of accidents where VFR pilots allow themselves to hit the ground in IMC. By the letter of the law, the pilot had no business being in an aeroplane that day at all.

Circumstances in which a “controller” is not in control. What possible confusion could arise from that?

And I know, from personal experience, how dangerously incompetent I become the day after my BFR falls due.

Probably minimal confusion if you had read about Class D airspace or done some preparation before expecting to fly into it. If you haven’t been identified, how is a controller supposed to provide you with terrain clearance? Seems like a pretty common sense thing really, wouldn’t you say?

Is the day after the same as 5 years? Just clarifying.