Clearance cancelled once airborne . . . . .
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
It may not make sense in the context of U.S. training (of which I must say I have only limited experience, having done my IR at Phoenix AZ) but it does make sense in the context of UK PPL training.
Here, PPL holders are traditionally scared s**tless of authority of all types. Just read some of the UK pilot forums.... loads of reported "meetings without tea and biscuits" with the CAA if you do this and that, loads of claimed CAA prosecutions for this and that (never substantiated by the summaries of successful prosecutions on the CAA website, hey what suprise), so many claims of this and that being illegal (the use of GPS for primary/sole [delete as appropriate according to your taste] navigation), etc etc etc etc.
Witness a typical bunch of PPLs who flew to another airfield for the customary $100 tea and chocolate cake. They sit around the table debating whether this or that is illegal, whereas I suspect U.S. pilots would be tucking into their equally customary $100 burger while eyeing up the girl behind the bar.
To be fair, having been reading U.S. aviation Usenet for some years (rec.aviation.*) I see Americans are also very regulation aware, but nobody is as anally retentive about it as the Brits.
And that's before you get me talking about over-interpretation of real and imaginary regulations by maintenance/aviations shops....
I reckon 99% of UK PPL would do exactly as ATC tells them, first, and only afterwards wonder why they are heading for a cloud, or a mountain. Just as well UK ATC is normally excellent.
Here, PPL holders are traditionally scared s**tless of authority of all types. Just read some of the UK pilot forums.... loads of reported "meetings without tea and biscuits" with the CAA if you do this and that, loads of claimed CAA prosecutions for this and that (never substantiated by the summaries of successful prosecutions on the CAA website, hey what suprise), so many claims of this and that being illegal (the use of GPS for primary/sole [delete as appropriate according to your taste] navigation), etc etc etc etc.
Witness a typical bunch of PPLs who flew to another airfield for the customary $100 tea and chocolate cake. They sit around the table debating whether this or that is illegal, whereas I suspect U.S. pilots would be tucking into their equally customary $100 burger while eyeing up the girl behind the bar.
To be fair, having been reading U.S. aviation Usenet for some years (rec.aviation.*) I see Americans are also very regulation aware, but nobody is as anally retentive about it as the Brits.
And that's before you get me talking about over-interpretation of real and imaginary regulations by maintenance/aviations shops....
I reckon 99% of UK PPL would do exactly as ATC tells them, first, and only afterwards wonder why they are heading for a cloud, or a mountain. Just as well UK ATC is normally excellent.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
IO540
Yes, you are absolutely correct.
In fact you only have to read these forums to understand our complete obsession with the smallest detail of the legislation - and perhaps more to the point, ways around the legislation. You also only have to read these forums to see that a few take every opportunity to point out that clearly the pilot is inadequately qualified for the task in hand unless he is a “professional” pilot with a CPL and IR - of the JAA complexion of course - as you know you really don’t measure up with your FAA IR!
Whether or not this is a peculiarly British disease or a peculiar disease of British aviators I am not sure. It is not something I experience in the wider world to any significant degree. Of course it is widely reported the Germans are worse than us, but I couldn’t possibly comment.
Just look at this thread - everyone wanting to dissect the minutest detail of whether or not the pilot should have accepted a special VFR departure, even in circumstances when they have absolutely do idea what the weather was like just outside the ATZ and on the route the pilot proposed to take.
With regards the pilots willingness to enter cloud I also agree with you that pilots are infrequently taught to think for themselves to such an extent that they will follow every procedure and every instruction to the nth degree.
It amazes me that a pilot would enter cloud because he was told to do so, in the same way that anyone would jump off a building if told to do so! However it shouldn’t amaze me, because I can relate to this pilot.
Not long after I finished my PPL I recall flying with my fast jet mate. As we trundled downwind there was some low cloud ahead. It had been drummed into to me so many times that I should stay at circuit height in the correct place in the circuit that there I was trundling into the cloud. Of course we had an interesting chat after the flight. Some years after there I was in the same situation with a mate of mine with low cloud in the “normal” base leg position. My mate had a more than a good few hours. As it was clear we were shortly to enter the cloud with some unsuspecting hills and a mast beneath I asked what he intended to do next.
It seems a trap many can fall into and clearly it is an even better set trap when it appears that someone in “authority” is telling you to do so. In that respect there is another lesson to be taken from this report and well learned - don’t enter cloud unless you know what is in side it, and then only if you are certain you can fly the aircraft in it!!
Yes, you are absolutely correct.
In fact you only have to read these forums to understand our complete obsession with the smallest detail of the legislation - and perhaps more to the point, ways around the legislation. You also only have to read these forums to see that a few take every opportunity to point out that clearly the pilot is inadequately qualified for the task in hand unless he is a “professional” pilot with a CPL and IR - of the JAA complexion of course - as you know you really don’t measure up with your FAA IR!
Whether or not this is a peculiarly British disease or a peculiar disease of British aviators I am not sure. It is not something I experience in the wider world to any significant degree. Of course it is widely reported the Germans are worse than us, but I couldn’t possibly comment.
Just look at this thread - everyone wanting to dissect the minutest detail of whether or not the pilot should have accepted a special VFR departure, even in circumstances when they have absolutely do idea what the weather was like just outside the ATZ and on the route the pilot proposed to take.
With regards the pilots willingness to enter cloud I also agree with you that pilots are infrequently taught to think for themselves to such an extent that they will follow every procedure and every instruction to the nth degree.
It amazes me that a pilot would enter cloud because he was told to do so, in the same way that anyone would jump off a building if told to do so! However it shouldn’t amaze me, because I can relate to this pilot.
Not long after I finished my PPL I recall flying with my fast jet mate. As we trundled downwind there was some low cloud ahead. It had been drummed into to me so many times that I should stay at circuit height in the correct place in the circuit that there I was trundling into the cloud. Of course we had an interesting chat after the flight. Some years after there I was in the same situation with a mate of mine with low cloud in the “normal” base leg position. My mate had a more than a good few hours. As it was clear we were shortly to enter the cloud with some unsuspecting hills and a mast beneath I asked what he intended to do next.
It seems a trap many can fall into and clearly it is an even better set trap when it appears that someone in “authority” is telling you to do so. In that respect there is another lesson to be taken from this report and well learned - don’t enter cloud unless you know what is in side it, and then only if you are certain you can fly the aircraft in it!!
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Oh just to add, these are a few of the lessons I have learned over the years to which others might want to add in so far as AT instructions are concerned:
Line up - no thanks, there is already an aircraft on final that is just about to land
Turn left 30 - no thanks there is a bl**dy great down poor going on in that bit of the air.
You are cleared to the beacon at 4,500 feet - no thanks you just cleared someone else to the beacon at the same height
Remain clear of CAS - 15 minutes later, I am remaining clear of CAS but it would be nice if you would let me know if you have any intention of clearing me through some time this week.
You are in CAS, you were told to remain clear, turn left 30 degrees immediately - actually I know that I am not inside CAS unless both my Garmins are telling me fibs, are you sure you want me to turn 30 left.
I am sure you could add a few more.
Line up - no thanks, there is already an aircraft on final that is just about to land
Turn left 30 - no thanks there is a bl**dy great down poor going on in that bit of the air.
You are cleared to the beacon at 4,500 feet - no thanks you just cleared someone else to the beacon at the same height
Remain clear of CAS - 15 minutes later, I am remaining clear of CAS but it would be nice if you would let me know if you have any intention of clearing me through some time this week.
You are in CAS, you were told to remain clear, turn left 30 degrees immediately - actually I know that I am not inside CAS unless both my Garmins are telling me fibs, are you sure you want me to turn 30 left.
I am sure you could add a few more.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
From: Dublin
In all fairness to the pilot, he may not have seen the cloud until it was too late. If conditions were below SVFR, the viz may have been very poor, and he may not have been able to see the cloud in time to avoid it.
Of course he should never have put himself into that position in the first place.
But it is equally true that ATC should never have instructed him to return to an aiport where the conditions had deteriated so badly. The bit that I don't understand is the fact that ATC instructed him to return BECAUSE the conditions had become so bad!
Why instruct some to turn towards bad weather, because it had gotten so bad?
dp
Of course he should never have put himself into that position in the first place.
But it is equally true that ATC should never have instructed him to return to an aiport where the conditions had deteriated so badly. The bit that I don't understand is the fact that ATC instructed him to return BECAUSE the conditions had become so bad!
Why instruct some to turn towards bad weather, because it had gotten so bad?
dp
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
I would add that as commander to try and comply with ATC instructions but if it it something you are uncomfortable with to refuse and expalin why!
When you fly into Europe or further and experience not so good ATC you start to question instructions to make sure they make sense.
I can remember flying into San Sebastian and being cleared to descend below the SSA in 7000 foot mountains solid IMC.
Over Africa in Nigeria dealing with a controller who couldnt even get the Phonetic alphabet right and refusing his instructions.
I appreciate especially when the pilot is not experienced that controllers are viewed as an authority to be obeyed without question.
It is important for the PPL to state firmly that he is not instrument capable.
ATC can not always determine weather I can only too well remember being asked to turn directly into a large CB. The female controller stated firmly that nothing was showing on her screen. What do you do turn directly into what you can see is an active CB in front of your eyes to keep the controller happy?
The pilot is best placed to evaluate an instruction and conditions and with discussion with ATC to find a solution which suits both.
It is the captain mentality amd not the student awaiting instructions from an instructor or a co-pilot awaiting instructions from his Captain which can follow low time pilots who are used to others making descisions.
When alone even in a small aircraft you are the Capatain and need to act like one.
That is the case even more so when conditions deteriorate below your ability and make you feel less like a captain and more like some insecure individual waiting for someone to tell you what to do.
Pace
When you fly into Europe or further and experience not so good ATC you start to question instructions to make sure they make sense.
I can remember flying into San Sebastian and being cleared to descend below the SSA in 7000 foot mountains solid IMC.
Over Africa in Nigeria dealing with a controller who couldnt even get the Phonetic alphabet right and refusing his instructions.
I appreciate especially when the pilot is not experienced that controllers are viewed as an authority to be obeyed without question.
It is important for the PPL to state firmly that he is not instrument capable.
ATC can not always determine weather I can only too well remember being asked to turn directly into a large CB. The female controller stated firmly that nothing was showing on her screen. What do you do turn directly into what you can see is an active CB in front of your eyes to keep the controller happy?
The pilot is best placed to evaluate an instruction and conditions and with discussion with ATC to find a solution which suits both.
It is the captain mentality amd not the student awaiting instructions from an instructor or a co-pilot awaiting instructions from his Captain which can follow low time pilots who are used to others making descisions.
When alone even in a small aircraft you are the Capatain and need to act like one.
That is the case even more so when conditions deteriorate below your ability and make you feel less like a captain and more like some insecure individual waiting for someone to tell you what to do.
Pace
Guest
Posts: n/a
It is the captain mentality
And don't believe that there is enough emphasis on it in the PPL syllabus.
I was lucky, I learned at a good club where command decision making was promoted heavily and I remember refusing an instruction from the examiner on my GFT when he asked me to demonstrate a stall at 1,500', above a power station
He did say afterwards that he expected no less of me!
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
From: UK
I think you are very right on the points about ATC, especially in the UK.
ATCO's and MATS's along with pilot license holders discuss all the time in the UK about fiddly little bits of legislation that defy common sense just so that they can be doing it acording to the books. However in the MATS part 1 on the very first page of text it says that nothing in the book should discourage a controller from acting in a way that they believe is the safest way that is justifiable. Or some such nonsense. Yet they still get tied down to nitty gritty bits of stuff that helps no one.
Controllers often file on people to make a point, rather than actually asking them to call the unit and having a quick word with the pilot. This happens to trainees alot.
Now i work in air traffic and am also studying for my PPL/CPL(H), i meet students like myself even those studing for CPL who are frit to death of air traffic control, they don't challange any clearance or even request something they want to do. Ive sat in the cockpit with people who have recieved an instruction from air traffic of which they are confused by and they just guess what they meant instead of asking. Or they would like a direct approach to the apron rather than the manovering area for helicopters at the other side of the active, request it! like people say ATC is a service, they are human beings, they know their limitations even if they might 'forget' sometimes, you have to be 2 way with them.
I can easily see why a pilot would comply with ATC, i know i never would in that situation but i know people who are so intimidated by ATC they dare not question an instruction. Hence why most PPL students find the radio the hardest after the skill of learning to fly. I try and take every student and instructor i meet or speak to around the tower and radar to meet the controllers because thats what helps in situations like this, that you know there is a human at the end of the radio who's primary responsability is saftey. If you say its unsafe, they will go and rethink.
Instructors especially need to drill this into their students, once they have 'control' they are responsable for making sure they conduct that flight safely, they are the 'captain' 'commander' whatever you call it. They can't pass that responsability on because they are talking to air traffic control, equally they should COMMUNICATE with air traffic control to maintain flight saftey. If theres a huge CB you've been asked to turn into, report its position and request a turn in the opposite direction etc... This helps everyone and you got out of flying into it!
Now for a moment example!
A student helicopter pilot on his first solo at EGBE was in the helicopter circuit. Due to IFR traffic he was asked to 'hold midpoint downwind' being an inexperienced pilot he wasn't sure whether he could orbit, instead of asking he took the literal meaning so as not to piss the ATC off and he litrally held position in the hover at 700ft, at which point he fell into vortex ring and by some fluke managed to save it by 200ft. If he had communicated properly and ATC had realised what was happening they could have prevented this.
ATCO's and MATS's along with pilot license holders discuss all the time in the UK about fiddly little bits of legislation that defy common sense just so that they can be doing it acording to the books. However in the MATS part 1 on the very first page of text it says that nothing in the book should discourage a controller from acting in a way that they believe is the safest way that is justifiable. Or some such nonsense. Yet they still get tied down to nitty gritty bits of stuff that helps no one.
Controllers often file on people to make a point, rather than actually asking them to call the unit and having a quick word with the pilot. This happens to trainees alot.
Now i work in air traffic and am also studying for my PPL/CPL(H), i meet students like myself even those studing for CPL who are frit to death of air traffic control, they don't challange any clearance or even request something they want to do. Ive sat in the cockpit with people who have recieved an instruction from air traffic of which they are confused by and they just guess what they meant instead of asking. Or they would like a direct approach to the apron rather than the manovering area for helicopters at the other side of the active, request it! like people say ATC is a service, they are human beings, they know their limitations even if they might 'forget' sometimes, you have to be 2 way with them.
I can easily see why a pilot would comply with ATC, i know i never would in that situation but i know people who are so intimidated by ATC they dare not question an instruction. Hence why most PPL students find the radio the hardest after the skill of learning to fly. I try and take every student and instructor i meet or speak to around the tower and radar to meet the controllers because thats what helps in situations like this, that you know there is a human at the end of the radio who's primary responsability is saftey. If you say its unsafe, they will go and rethink.
Instructors especially need to drill this into their students, once they have 'control' they are responsable for making sure they conduct that flight safely, they are the 'captain' 'commander' whatever you call it. They can't pass that responsability on because they are talking to air traffic control, equally they should COMMUNICATE with air traffic control to maintain flight saftey. If theres a huge CB you've been asked to turn into, report its position and request a turn in the opposite direction etc... This helps everyone and you got out of flying into it!
Now for a moment example!
A student helicopter pilot on his first solo at EGBE was in the helicopter circuit. Due to IFR traffic he was asked to 'hold midpoint downwind' being an inexperienced pilot he wasn't sure whether he could orbit, instead of asking he took the literal meaning so as not to piss the ATC off and he litrally held position in the hover at 700ft, at which point he fell into vortex ring and by some fluke managed to save it by 200ft. If he had communicated properly and ATC had realised what was happening they could have prevented this.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Why instruct some to turn towards bad weather, because it had gotten so bad?
Pace - your example of Spain is very good; the worst ever ATC service I have ever had was in Spain this year. And arrogance over PPR issues rivalling Italy. I think pilots flying into these places really need to grab the bull (no pun intended) by the horns and be prepared to take on ATC if the instruction is unsafe. I had Spanish ATC ignore me when I requested a 30 right due to weather, and eventually I did a Pan and got on with it. You would have done the same. But all that is a world away from the UK PPL scene where all authority is taken as emanating straight from god.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
From: Dublin
Why instruct some to turn towards bad weather, because it had gotten so bad?
I'm not talking about the particular cloud, but the general prevaling conditions at the airport.
The Pilot departed weather that was acceptable for SVFR.
The conditions then deteriated at the airport. As a result of this deteration, ATC asked the pilot to return to the airport.....the only place that they knew that conditions were not suitable.
Why ask someone to leave their current position, and go to the only place that you know is not suitable?
dp
Guest
Posts: n/a
Is it more symptomatic of our culture?
E.g. all the signs that"our staff have the right to a great life whilst they d!ck you around" type of trash, loads of cameras.
Plus, the British are by nature a tolerant race, who don't wish to make a fuss.
So you may have hit a raw nerve here.
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: long left base EGCC
ATCO should be aware . . . . . .
It's a while now since I have flown in CAS, but I used to fly regularly within the Manchester CTZ. I seem to remember that the ATCO's usually asked me to "advise at any time if unable to maintain VFR".
That would seem much more sensible than this one.
That would seem much more sensible than this one.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
From: Dublin
You are assuming again based on reading only one side of the version of the report.
I'm not sure which part you are suggesting that I am assuming.
The controller obviously asked the pilot to return to the airport. If they didn't then there would have been no point in the whole CHIRP report, and the pilot is unlikey to have decided of their own accord to return to the airport, than then submit a CHIRP complaining that they were instructed to.
If it's the part about the weather deteriating at the airport that you are suggesting that I am assuming, well, I'm basing this on the fact that the controller wished to cancel SVFR based on their observations of the weather at the airport. Obviously they would only know the weather conditions at the airport.
Is it something else that I've missed, that you're suggesting?
dp
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
DublinPilot
Either the weather was suitable for a SVFR departure or not. Having then decided the weather had deteriorated to below SVFR limits ATC should have checked whether the pilot was instrument qualified. If he responded in the negative then they would have had an emergency situation on their hands.
To recommend the pilot returns into sub SVFR weather without then giving an IFR clearance and subsequent vectors to the ILS would be a nonsense.
If the conditions were SVFR then why ask him to return? If they were sub SVFR ATC had no rights to request a non IR pilot to land in sub SVFR conditions.
Had the pilot been uncomfortable with the weather and requested a return then ATC should have dealt with the situation as an emergency and dealt with it accordingly.
Sometimes presumptions are made by ATC by the fact that the pilot does not sound in control of the situation or does not respond in a clear way leading ATC to believe that the pilot is loosing the plot.
The keyword had to be clarity in communications between ATC and the pilot and on the pilots side that he appears to be in command of himself and his aircraft.
I have heard communications in bad weather between ATC and a pilot on a number of occasions where the pilot does not respond or responds in a vague uncertain way which is enough to set alarm bells ringing with ATC that a situation is developing which is out of the pilots ability.
Pace
Either the weather was suitable for a SVFR departure or not. Having then decided the weather had deteriorated to below SVFR limits ATC should have checked whether the pilot was instrument qualified. If he responded in the negative then they would have had an emergency situation on their hands.
To recommend the pilot returns into sub SVFR weather without then giving an IFR clearance and subsequent vectors to the ILS would be a nonsense.
If the conditions were SVFR then why ask him to return? If they were sub SVFR ATC had no rights to request a non IR pilot to land in sub SVFR conditions.
Had the pilot been uncomfortable with the weather and requested a return then ATC should have dealt with the situation as an emergency and dealt with it accordingly.
Sometimes presumptions are made by ATC by the fact that the pilot does not sound in control of the situation or does not respond in a clear way leading ATC to believe that the pilot is loosing the plot.
The keyword had to be clarity in communications between ATC and the pilot and on the pilots side that he appears to be in command of himself and his aircraft.
I have heard communications in bad weather between ATC and a pilot on a number of occasions where the pilot does not respond or responds in a vague uncertain way which is enough to set alarm bells ringing with ATC that a situation is developing which is out of the pilots ability.
Pace
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
From: Dublin
If the conditions were SVFR then why ask him to return? If they were sub SVFR ATC had no rights to request a non IR pilot to land in sub SVFR conditions.
That is exactly the point that I have been making.
I said the same thing in a different way, when I said
The conditions then deteriated at the airport. As a result of this deteration, ATC asked the pilot to return to the airport.....the only place that they knew that conditions were not suitable.
Why ask someone to leave their current position, and go to the only place that you know is not suitable?
Why ask someone to leave their current position, and go to the only place that you know is not suitable?
dp
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
From: UK
I agree with dp - I am also unclear what SoCal thinks he is assuming.
However, I believe we are again getting in to this far too deep. The function of ATC in these circumstances should have been to inform and assist, not dictate. The pilot was cleared SVFR and, by the sound of it, was perfectly happy flying as cleared, until ATC took it upon themselves to intervene - maybe with the best of intentions but actually as it turned out in a totally counter-productive way. While the pilot was probably incorrect in accepting the ATC instruction to return, ATC had no authority to issue it in the first place. Neither did they have the authority to cancel the SVFR clearance while it was being flown. It was principally these two actions that provoked the subsequent hazard to the flight, which would otherwise in all probability continued perfectly safely. Unfortunately this was compounded by the pilot (unwisely) accepting the unauthorised instructions and therefore, to this extent, must take some share of the responsibility for what ensued. However the trigger for the incident surely remains the inappropriate action of ATC.
JD
However, I believe we are again getting in to this far too deep. The function of ATC in these circumstances should have been to inform and assist, not dictate. The pilot was cleared SVFR and, by the sound of it, was perfectly happy flying as cleared, until ATC took it upon themselves to intervene - maybe with the best of intentions but actually as it turned out in a totally counter-productive way. While the pilot was probably incorrect in accepting the ATC instruction to return, ATC had no authority to issue it in the first place. Neither did they have the authority to cancel the SVFR clearance while it was being flown. It was principally these two actions that provoked the subsequent hazard to the flight, which would otherwise in all probability continued perfectly safely. Unfortunately this was compounded by the pilot (unwisely) accepting the unauthorised instructions and therefore, to this extent, must take some share of the responsibility for what ensued. However the trigger for the incident surely remains the inappropriate action of ATC.
JD
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
However the trigger for the incident surely remains the inappropriate action of ATC.
If he is unhappy with that request/instruction it is the commanders duty to state so and to make a judgement on whether accepting an ATC instruction would jeopordise the safety of his aircraft and passengers.
To tip the fault at the door of ATC is accepting a failing in the ability of the pilot to act as a Captain/commander so in my eyes the failing is in the actions of the pilot not ATC.
Had the pilot informed ATC that he was in a situation beyond his abilities or he would be accepting a clearance which he was not legally able to accept then ATC could take some responsability in trying to get him out of an emergency situation.
In this case it was the pilots failure to act as a proper Captain/commander which allowed this situation to occur.
Pace
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
From: UK
Pace, I'm afraid I don't agree. Situations like this are not usually as black-and-white as you suggest and there are usually several contributory factors - hence the often-used swiss cheese analogy ...
In this case, I accept there would appear to be shortcomings on both sides. I am not trying to lay blame so much as to learn from the reported experience. That is also the stated function of CHIRP.
The pilot's CHIRP report sets out the sequence of events - and he should be congratulated for submitting it, especially because it is to some degree critical of himself. All I am saying is that, but for the inappropriate intervention of ATC in this case, the event would not have occurred and that intervention was therefore, IMHO, the causal factor for the sequence of events. That is not the same as saying that only one party is to blame; I believe (as is often the case in aviation events) that both parties involved would benefit from reviewing their actions and responsibilities.
JD
In this case, I accept there would appear to be shortcomings on both sides. I am not trying to lay blame so much as to learn from the reported experience. That is also the stated function of CHIRP.
The pilot's CHIRP report sets out the sequence of events - and he should be congratulated for submitting it, especially because it is to some degree critical of himself. All I am saying is that, but for the inappropriate intervention of ATC in this case, the event would not have occurred and that intervention was therefore, IMHO, the causal factor for the sequence of events. That is not the same as saying that only one party is to blame; I believe (as is often the case in aviation events) that both parties involved would benefit from reviewing their actions and responsibilities.
JD
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
The pilot's CHIRP report sets out the sequence of events - and he should be congratulated for submitting it, especially because it is to some degree critical of himself. All I am saying is that, but for the inappropriate intervention of ATC in this case, the event would not have occurred and that intervention was therefore, IMHO, the causal factor for the sequence of events. That is not the same as saying that only one party is to blame; I believe (as is often the case in aviation events) that both parties involved would benefit from reviewing their actions and responsibilities.
I agree with you that both parties would benefit from reviewing their actions.
Very often things like this happen because of poor communication. What I cannot stress enough is the role of the pilot as a commander and ATC as his servant not ATC as the commander and the pilot as a servant. Ok ATC give commands every day of the week which we comply with but it is ultimately the Captains descision to accept that command He has the ultimate authority.
So yes I am being pedantic hairsplitting or whatever and yes both parties were at fault but the pilot having the ultimate authority has the ultimate responsability.
It is for whatever reasons his failure to take that ultimate responsability which allowed the situation to develop. He had the power to stop the situation but didnt.
I am making this point because only too often pilots are in awe of what they percieve of authority and only too readily accept instructions. They are the ones flying the aircraft, they are the ones who will hit a hill, fly into a storm not the guy in the warmth of the control tower sipping a coffee.
Flying involves so much instruction that we are almost taught to wait for someone to tell us what to do.
Even going into commercial flying as a co pilot/ first officer it becomes inground into us to turn to the Captain for a decision. Nowadays it is becoming more common for co-pilots/first officers to be encouraged to challenge and be more involved in the descision making.
It is that mental attitude change which is all important in making a pilot into a Captain whether he/she flies a Piper Cub or a 747.
Pace
