Clearance cancelled once airborne . . . . .
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please do not take every opportunity to trundle out mnenmonics.
This is what the pilot said.
There was some low cloud in the vicinity of the airfield, but I was not worried as I had heard one of the club instructors telling a colleague that there was a bit of cloud to the south, but it wasn't a problem elsewhere.
We have no idea of the experience of this pilot but that didnt seem an unreasonable basis on which to depart, particularly if the pilot had obtained further on route weather (which we dont know).
Speculate as you will but we have very little idea whether it was reasonable for the pilot to accept a SVFR departure in the first place.
This is what the pilot said.
There was some low cloud in the vicinity of the airfield, but I was not worried as I had heard one of the club instructors telling a colleague that there was a bit of cloud to the south, but it wasn't a problem elsewhere.
We have no idea of the experience of this pilot but that didnt seem an unreasonable basis on which to depart, particularly if the pilot had obtained further on route weather (which we dont know).
Speculate as you will but we have very little idea whether it was reasonable for the pilot to accept a SVFR departure in the first place.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the primary responsibility for the incident lay with the ATCO who stepped outside his professional responsibilities in both cancelling the SVFR clearance and then instructing the pilot to return. Neither IMHO was within his remit.
The pilot should be congratulated for submitting the CHIRP report.
JD
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have all the information I need thanks Mr.Fuji - the pilot was not IMC rated, according to my copy of CHIRPS anyway, henceforth the weather was clearly not suitable for him as on returning to the field (a short space of time after departure) he entered cloud, not just any old cloud but low cloud! The PIC was obviously not anticipating an unscheduled diversion back to the field - a bit of an elementary mistake wouldn't you say? In my copy of CHIRPS he alludes to the fact that it was a bit of a "Tally Ho" seeing as wx ahead was perfect. Big mistake. I am glad he made the report because it's a classic Human Factors case if ever I saw one, but not for the reasons intended one suspects (apart from his admitance that he should've refused ATC's instruction to land).
The PIC also says he overheard an instructor talking to another instructor and following that eavesdrop suddenly assumed the same level of competancy as those he overheard talking (one professional to another). I say a lesson in not assuming everyone has the same weather threshold and experience level as you has been learned here too - but seeing as they were instructors I'd expect that to most people this would be obvious.
VFE.
PS: It is 'mnemonic' not 'mnenmonic'.
The PIC also says he overheard an instructor talking to another instructor and following that eavesdrop suddenly assumed the same level of competancy as those he overheard talking (one professional to another). I say a lesson in not assuming everyone has the same weather threshold and experience level as you has been learned here too - but seeing as they were instructors I'd expect that to most people this would be obvious.
VFE.
PS: It is 'mnemonic' not 'mnenmonic'.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFE
You may find it interesting to spend some time at an airfield the next time there is an advancing front. It is worth noting that you can see the advancing base from some way a way. It is also worth noting that you have a pretty good idea of the departing conditions - a sort of crystal ball into the future.
.. .. .. which might lead one to suspect we are dealing with a pilot with some experience.
as might
In short, I find little evidence one way or the other - but then I neither have your crystal ball, nor was I there.
PS You may want to look up admitance and competancy.
Anyway it was your comment that the pilot should have left his aircraft in the hangar, followed by aviate, navigate, communicate - even the first part is going to be a challenge within the confines of hangar.
Tell you what, how about we settle on:
Better to be down here .. .. ..
I always like that one.
You may find it interesting to spend some time at an airfield the next time there is an advancing front. It is worth noting that you can see the advancing base from some way a way. It is also worth noting that you have a pretty good idea of the departing conditions - a sort of crystal ball into the future.
HHH to Southern Europe.
as might
I estimate that I had been in cloud for about 1 to 1½ minutes.
PS You may want to look up admitance and competancy.
Anyway it was your comment that the pilot should have left his aircraft in the hangar, followed by aviate, navigate, communicate - even the first part is going to be a challenge within the confines of hangar.
Tell you what, how about we settle on:
Better to be down here .. .. ..
I always like that one.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, now Mr.Fuji, please don't turn this into a (to quote Capt.PPRuNe!) "willy waving contest" by means of subjective spin and hyperbole! I merely desired to raise the issues one felt may have been overlooked in this example from CHIRPS... readers are free to take away what they wish, needless to say that's unlikely to be your interpretations of mnenmonics [sic]!
VFE.
PS: Advancing fronts imply scattered low cloud ahead of the front so your point is?
VFE.
PS: Advancing fronts imply scattered low cloud ahead of the front so your point is?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HHH to Southern Europe. .. .. .. which might lead one to suspect we are dealing with a pilot with some experience.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, now Mr.Fuji, please don't turn this into a (to quote Capt.PPRuNe!) "willy waving contest"
It was you that bluntly said "the weather was clearly not suitable" and I that pointed out I thought your conclusion was unsafe and unfounded based on the evidence we have.
I find it frustrating when people jump to conclusions. Speculate by all means - but a great worry when pilots rush into reaching conclusions without ensuring they first have the facts.
(one professional to another).
Now there truly are some human factors at work rather thinly disguised me thinks.
Dancing with the devil, going with the flow... it's all a game to me.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression following CHIRPS that the PIC was not IMC/IR/Instrument (call it what you like) rated hence the entire reasoning behind his letter? Was that not the point?? ATC issued an instruction that placed him in a dangerous and worrying position??? Or am I missing something here???? Please.
VFE.
VFE.
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
VFE, your confusion is understandable! The report makes no mention of any instrument rating, and that would seem to be the whole point!
However, many people have taken the fact that he was undertaking a trip to Southern Europe as indicative of a reasonably high level of experience.
So, in summary, experience assumed high, qualifications beyond PPL - NIL.
SD
However, many people have taken the fact that he was undertaking a trip to Southern Europe as indicative of a reasonably high level of experience.
So, in summary, experience assumed high, qualifications beyond PPL - NIL.
SD
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, in summary, experience assumed high, qualifications beyond PPL - NIL
Why does a thrity something surgeon charge £2,500 for the eye op and the 45 something consultant charge £5,000 - ah yes, that would be experience, and then again, perhaps not, funny how people are queuing up to pay double.
Get there-itis perhaps?
The report makes no mention of any instrument rating, and that would seem to be the whole point!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VFE
From my reading of the report I have no doubt that the the weather was suitable for the decisions the pilot made up until ATC made a human error (something to learn from, not to apportion blame). He took off in conditions suitable for SVFR. It appears that in the direction he intended to fly the weather was suitable. The weatehr at his point of departure did deteriorate to an unsafe degree, however there was no actual need for him to return. There are plenty of other options around there had he a problem and wished to land. Some of those are in the direction in which he was flying, where he said the weather was good.
From my reading of the report I have no doubt that the the weather was suitable for the decisions the pilot made up until ATC made a human error (something to learn from, not to apportion blame). He took off in conditions suitable for SVFR. It appears that in the direction he intended to fly the weather was suitable. The weatehr at his point of departure did deteriorate to an unsafe degree, however there was no actual need for him to return. There are plenty of other options around there had he a problem and wished to land. Some of those are in the direction in which he was flying, where he said the weather was good.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LMS
Yes, thank you, another sound point - "where he said the weather was good".
I respect the pilot for making the report (he didnt have to) and he had no reason to lie.
I am rather unhappy when other pilots imply he had no business flying in those conditions. I am willing to take the pilot at his word unless there is clear evidence to the contrary - unless I am very much mistaken, from what we know, there is not.
If you want to make it up as you go along that is up to you but it usually makes more sense to stick with the facts.
PS Am I reading too much into your post - or do you know where the "incident" took place?
Yes, thank you, another sound point - "where he said the weather was good".
I respect the pilot for making the report (he didnt have to) and he had no reason to lie.
I am rather unhappy when other pilots imply he had no business flying in those conditions. I am willing to take the pilot at his word unless there is clear evidence to the contrary - unless I am very much mistaken, from what we know, there is not.
If you want to make it up as you go along that is up to you but it usually makes more sense to stick with the facts.
PS Am I reading too much into your post - or do you know where the "incident" took place?
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
Fuji,
Calm down there, mate.
I think that what I wrote is technically correct. No instrument or IMC rating (at least that's what the report said) with the general assumption among posters being that he had a fair amount of experience, based on the fact that a long international flight or series of flights was intended - and that he managed about 90 seconds in IMC without crashing.
I am in no way decrying experience, but the fact is that experience does not of itself confer qualifications or certifications. It makes it far easier to obtain them, of course.
In your medical example, both can have identical qualifications, but one is considerably more experienced than the other. No argument with that. But please accept that there is a difference between experience and an actual qualification / certification. 15 years experience (hopefully of successful operations) may give patients a warm feeling as they pay top whack, but it doesn't actually put any more letters after the surgeon's name.
As to missing the point - well I thought it was about the pilot being put by ATC into a situation beyond the remit of his license that could (depending on his experience) have also been beyond his ability to safely complete the flight.
SD
Calm down there, mate.
I think that what I wrote is technically correct. No instrument or IMC rating (at least that's what the report said) with the general assumption among posters being that he had a fair amount of experience, based on the fact that a long international flight or series of flights was intended - and that he managed about 90 seconds in IMC without crashing.
I am in no way decrying experience, but the fact is that experience does not of itself confer qualifications or certifications. It makes it far easier to obtain them, of course.
In your medical example, both can have identical qualifications, but one is considerably more experienced than the other. No argument with that. But please accept that there is a difference between experience and an actual qualification / certification. 15 years experience (hopefully of successful operations) may give patients a warm feeling as they pay top whack, but it doesn't actually put any more letters after the surgeon's name.
As to missing the point - well I thought it was about the pilot being put by ATC into a situation beyond the remit of his license that could (depending on his experience) have also been beyond his ability to safely complete the flight.
SD
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think recent contributors to this thread are spending far too much time and effort criticising or trying to second-guess the actions and decisions of the pilot.
As I have said earlier, I believe the principal cause of the incident was the inappropriate action of the ATCO in i) cancelling the SVFR clearance and then ii) requiring the pilot to return to the airfield. Neither action was within his remit.
It was only secondary to this that the pilot, by choosing to accept the unauthorised instructions, found himself (albeit partly of his own doing) in conditions outside his licence qualifications. However, to his credit, he has reported the incident to CHIRP and I respect him for that. I have much more concern that the ATCO does not appear to have reported the incident - even more concerning, he may not even realise that he acted beyond his legal duty and thereby contributed to a potential incident by his inappropriate actions.
I'm becoming weary of hearing all this criticism of the pilot, who at least had the courage and integrity to report the events to CHIRP. It was the ATCO's inappropriate actions that were the trigger point for this series of events and that is where I believe the main responsibility must lie in this case - with ATC.
JD
As I have said earlier, I believe the principal cause of the incident was the inappropriate action of the ATCO in i) cancelling the SVFR clearance and then ii) requiring the pilot to return to the airfield. Neither action was within his remit.
It was only secondary to this that the pilot, by choosing to accept the unauthorised instructions, found himself (albeit partly of his own doing) in conditions outside his licence qualifications. However, to his credit, he has reported the incident to CHIRP and I respect him for that. I have much more concern that the ATCO does not appear to have reported the incident - even more concerning, he may not even realise that he acted beyond his legal duty and thereby contributed to a potential incident by his inappropriate actions.
I'm becoming weary of hearing all this criticism of the pilot, who at least had the courage and integrity to report the events to CHIRP. It was the ATCO's inappropriate actions that were the trigger point for this series of events and that is where I believe the main responsibility must lie in this case - with ATC.
JD
Last edited by Jumbo Driver; 10th Nov 2008 at 21:46. Reason: typo
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,586
Received 443 Likes
on
235 Posts
I'm sure the pilot realises that now even if he didn't before.
I think the advice is: "If in doubt about an ATC instruction, communicate and clarify".
I think the advice is: "If in doubt about an ATC instruction, communicate and clarify".
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you must really beleive you are reading something not there.
CHIRP Narrative: The following General Aviation report has been included as it has obvious ATC implications:
That was the introduction. No mention thee of a pilot exceeding his license privilges.
That was the title - no mention of Get-home-itis.
CHIRP Comment: The cancellation of the Special VFR clearance by ATC would have been appropriate if the reporter was awaiting departure. However, once airborne the instruction to return to land should not have been issued and in the particular circumstances could have led to a much more serious outcome. The pilot should have been advised of the weather deterioration at the airport and asked what his intentions were.
Many GA pilots would be reluctant to challenge an ATC instruction particularly within Controlled Airspace, but this report serves as a useful reminder to both pilots and ATCOs that the pilot is ultimately responsible for the safety of the aircraft and may elect to decline an ATC instruction, if the circumstances justify such a course of action.
That was the comment - not even a hint that the pilot was wrong to depart.
The ATCO sc**ed up, amd possibly so did the pilot by accepting his "instruction". Thats it.
The pilot departed within his license priviliges, thats it.
SD - it is not that I disagree with your post but the pilot ended up in IMC for two reasons - the instruction given to him, and his "willingness" to comply with the instruction. My point was he may well have had the experience to depart in VFR conditions that complied with a SVFR clearance - there is a hint he did, hence my alluding to a pilot with lots of experience being safe and comfortable flying in more marginal VMC than one with much less experience.
As JD says a far more interesting point of discussion is why the ATCO did not fess up!
I think I might well know why some of you would prefer to see the discussion take another course - but I am done.
CHIRP Narrative: The following General Aviation report has been included as it has obvious ATC implications:
That was the introduction. No mention thee of a pilot exceeding his license privilges.
CANCELLED CLEARANCE
CHIRP Comment: The cancellation of the Special VFR clearance by ATC would have been appropriate if the reporter was awaiting departure. However, once airborne the instruction to return to land should not have been issued and in the particular circumstances could have led to a much more serious outcome. The pilot should have been advised of the weather deterioration at the airport and asked what his intentions were.
Many GA pilots would be reluctant to challenge an ATC instruction particularly within Controlled Airspace, but this report serves as a useful reminder to both pilots and ATCOs that the pilot is ultimately responsible for the safety of the aircraft and may elect to decline an ATC instruction, if the circumstances justify such a course of action.
That was the comment - not even a hint that the pilot was wrong to depart.
The ATCO sc**ed up, amd possibly so did the pilot by accepting his "instruction". Thats it.
The pilot departed within his license priviliges, thats it.
SD - it is not that I disagree with your post but the pilot ended up in IMC for two reasons - the instruction given to him, and his "willingness" to comply with the instruction. My point was he may well have had the experience to depart in VFR conditions that complied with a SVFR clearance - there is a hint he did, hence my alluding to a pilot with lots of experience being safe and comfortable flying in more marginal VMC than one with much less experience.
As JD says a far more interesting point of discussion is why the ATCO did not fess up!
I think I might well know why some of you would prefer to see the discussion take another course - but I am done.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In debating this incident, one must allow for the "authority" factor of an ATCO in controlled airspace.
The pilot was in a busy flight phase and then received an instruction that he followed.
To Monday Morning Quarterbacks, it is easy to say the ATCO exceeded his authority, but to a busy PPL, there would be a great pressure to obey an authority figure.
We saw this before with the student pilot at SND.
Bad stuff and well done to the reporter, I hope the ATCO involved has been through a retraining regime covering both the relevant law AND human factors.
The pilot was in a busy flight phase and then received an instruction that he followed.
To Monday Morning Quarterbacks, it is easy to say the ATCO exceeded his authority, but to a busy PPL, there would be a great pressure to obey an authority figure.
We saw this before with the student pilot at SND.
Bad stuff and well done to the reporter, I hope the ATCO involved has been through a retraining regime covering both the relevant law AND human factors.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not wholly sure that the experience of the pilot is all that relevant.
What I see, is a pilot who clearly took off in acceptable SVFR weather, (otherwise he wouldn't have got the take off clearance) who claims that inflight weather was within his abilities and privlidiges, being asked to return to an airport with weather that was unacceptable?
Why would ATC ask someone to return to an airfield with unsuitable weather? Why ask someone to make an illegal flight into deteriating conditions?
If he had real concern for the flight, he should have sought to find an alternative airport with better conditions! He should never has sought to bring an aircraft into an airport with unacceptable weather conditions!
Yes, the pilot bears a certain responsibility for flying into cloud without advising ATC of the problem, but to focus on that, ignores the other issue.
dp
What I see, is a pilot who clearly took off in acceptable SVFR weather, (otherwise he wouldn't have got the take off clearance) who claims that inflight weather was within his abilities and privlidiges, being asked to return to an airport with weather that was unacceptable?
Why would ATC ask someone to return to an airfield with unsuitable weather? Why ask someone to make an illegal flight into deteriating conditions?
If he had real concern for the flight, he should have sought to find an alternative airport with better conditions! He should never has sought to bring an aircraft into an airport with unacceptable weather conditions!
Yes, the pilot bears a certain responsibility for flying into cloud without advising ATC of the problem, but to focus on that, ignores the other issue.
dp