Clearance cancelled once airborne . . . . .

[AMEandPPL]

This is a report in the latest CHIRP, mainly to do with air transport, but this GA occurrence has been

included as it has obvious ATC implications

http://www.chirp.co.uk/Downloads/ATFB/ATFB88.pdf

The story is on page 7, entitled "Cancelled Clearance".

How many of us would challenge an ATCO's instructions, especially while in CAS ?

[Fuji Abound]

Someone once told me the realtionship between the pilot and ATC is that of a partnership. If you firmly establish this concept in your mind you will not go wrong.

As with any partnership, if you are not happy doing something - say so. Your partner is not your boss, unless perhaps in some cases you are married to her / him!

In CAS, regardless of what ratings you have, there is one boss you must obey - the weather, so if you dont like the look of it tell ATC that you dont want to comply with their instruction and leave them to give you an alternate.

[IO540]

That CHIRP document makes scary reading.

On the cancelled SVFR clearance the pilot should have politely told ATC to stick the cancellation somewhere warm and dark. It is utterly ludicrous to cancel a clearance when airborne. I got that in Italy once (had a cleared route truncated, in effect) and had to fly a dogleg way out over the sea to get out of CAS.... but that was Italy where most ATCOs barely speak English and one is not well placed to argue. In the UK, this incident is appalling.

There is other more scary stuff in that report, like the airliner which descended to 2400ft (apparently knowing it was below the MSA) because they could not understand the (crappy) Indonesian ATC instructions.

Always keep decisionmaking in the cockpit.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

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.

Says it all really. The PiC is the only one qualified to juge his own WX conditions. He's also the one who's skin is in danger.

[Saab Dastard]

Many GA pilots would be reluctant to challenge an ATC instruction

Especially students and low-hours pilots, as was the case a couple of years ago at Southend when a student pilot was most unfortunately put into a situation by ATC which (according to the AAIB report) ultimately led to the student fatally losing control of the aircraft.

I believe that some recommendations regarding how ATC should handle inexperienced pilots were made in the AAIB report - although I'm not suggesting that the pilot was inexperienced in the Chirp report under discussion here.

As Fuji says, a partnership between ATC and the pilot is important - the Communication bit (of Aviate, Navigate, Communicate) is a 2-way thing, not just following orders, but also a mechanism for the pilot to tell ATC his circumstances and intentions.

SD

[IO540]

I agree about the partnership bit, but this is feasible only if the ATCO can speak conversational English, which many outside the UK cannot, and if you say something outside their sometimes severely limited aviation-English they usually just pretend they never heard you.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

this is feasible only if the ATCO can speak conversational English, which many outside the UK cannot, and if you say something outside their sometimes severely limited aviation-English they usually just pretend they never heard you.

Wot, you mean like Lakenheath for example, and the time when I really couldn't understand a word they were saying, so just told them how I was flying through their MATZ?

[Airbus Girl]

Air Traffic Services are just that - a service. Pilots being the customer.

Obeying ATC instructions does not absolve you from the responsibility to maintain safe flight. ATC can and do sometimes get it wrong. If they want to send you into IMC and you don't have a rating then you need to tell them, not blindly follow their instructions.

However, reading that report two things concerned me. 1/ the pilot flew into cloud even though he was not Instrument Rated. Why? and 2/ did the pilot not assess the local weather conditions himself prior to taking off?

I have flown in Turkey and believe me, if you were to blindly follow ATC instructions, even when under full ATC control, you probably will end up in the side of a mountain (I have had such an instruction!!).

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Originally Posted by Saab Dastard

Many GA pilots would be reluctant to challenge an ATC instruction

Especially students and low-hours pilots

Many, many years ago at Manch, a "resident" and competent PPL took the wise move of submitting a flight plan for his land-away. For however and whatever reason, the controller under supervision (working towards his Tower validation and, before you ask, Chevvron, it wasn't me) read him a SID for his clearance. Well into the TMA, the aforesaid PPL decided he was getting too close to clag for comfort and reported that he wasn't instrument rated. The situation was quickly recovered and no harm done.

Perhaps sometimes one can sound too profesional on the RTF.

[bookworm]

2/ did the pilot not assess the local weather conditions himself prior to taking off?

I think the report makes clear that he did, and that the problem encountered with low cloud was associated with the return to land, not the departure from the zone.

This is a particularly worrying incident and procedural lessons need to be learnt from it and incorporated into MATS Part 1 as clarification. MATS Part 1 places restrictions on met conditions for the issue of a SFVR clearance. It does not require cancellation of the clearance under any circumstances and it is not a requirement on the pilot to maintain a particular in flight visibility. If the pilot's recollection of this incident is accurate, ATC may have inadvertently endangered the flight for reasons that were not obvious to the controller at the time, and there is an opportunity to avoid reccurence.

[Toadpool]

First of all let me say that, as an ATCO I disagree entirely with the actions of ATC in this incident.

But with respect to this statement:

Says it all really. The PiC is the only one qualified to juge his own WX conditions. He's also the one who's skin is in danger.

I have regularly had Pilots, particularly GA and Military, that seem to think it's OK to fly VFR in IMC, even in cloud on occasion. Is it surprising that ATC sometimes take a cynical view when a pilot states that they are VFR in marginal conditions?

[ShyTorque]

I cannot understand how this occurred; I've never heard of something like this in over thirty years of aviation. A SVFR clearance is issued so that a pilot can depart visually in circumstances where IFR would otherwise apply.

If the weather at the field seriously deteriorates after the aircraft departs, I would say that it's irrelevant to ATC unless the pilot himself requests assistance. An ATCO should only ask the pilot if he is still able to continue under SVFR or continue under IFR. Effectively this unrated PPL was ordered to return (from acceptable VMC) to attempt VFR flight in IMC.

I hope this was a one-off incident, never to be repeated and that it has been fully publicised around all ATC units. Obviously, it could have resulted in an aircraft accident and the pilot has obviously learned his personal lesson from the incident.

One thing that could have helped ATC here. Do all ATC units determine if all pilots are IMC rated at time of booking out if a SVFR clearance is requested or deemed necessary by ATC? I don't think they do; I think they should do so.

[Fuji Abound]

Do all ATC units determine if all pilots are IMC rated at time of booking out if a SVFR clearance is requested or deemed necessary by ATC? I don't think they do; I think they should do so.

I dont.

AT are a service providers, not the air police.

If they were (the air police) they would be asking before every flight at sunset whether the pilot had a night rating in case he arrived back after dark, or whether the pilot had a current C of A.

It is not their job.

It is the job of the pilot to ensure all the appropriate bits of paper are in place to make the flight.

On another note - the thought occurred whether the aircraft was rented from a school. No excuse, but I have know the club to get onto AT and ask them to tell XYZ to return to the field (for various reasons) including knowing the weather had become outside the pilot's limits / rating. No excuse of course for AT dealing with it in the way they did - I was just wondering about the background.

[Toadpool]

I agree 100% with Fuji on this. ATC are not there to police the sky.

As for:

Effectively this unrated PPL was ordered to return (from acceptable VMC) to attempt VFR flight in IMC.

I would suggest that as SVFR clearances were being issued, conditions were certainly not "acceptable VMC".

[Toadpool]

Thinking about this further, if SVFR clearances were being issued, that would indicate that the weather conditions were below those that would permit ATC to issue a VFR clearance, normally visibility less than 5km.

If the pilot did not hold any instrument qualifications, then he would require a minimum visibility of 10km to accept a SVFR clearance. Was he not already operating outside the limits of his licence in accepting the SVFR clearance?

[Johnm]

Thinking about this further, if SVFR clearances were being issued, that would indicate that the weather conditions were below those that would permit ATC to issue a VFR clearance, normally visibility less than 5km.

If the pilot did not hold any instrument qualifications, then he would require a minimum visibility of 10km to accept a SVFR clearance. Was he not already operating outside the limits of his licence in accepting the SVFR clearance?

From the circumstances I suspect the SVFR was required 'cos the flight was in Class A airspace, an IMCR in UK Class A will get you in and out in 3km vis and is a boon. This is another example of why IMCR is such a good thing.

[ShyTorque]

Thinking about this further, if SVFR clearances were being issued, that would indicate that the weather conditions were below those that would permit ATC to issue a VFR clearance, normally visibility less than 5km.

Not necessarily so.

I wasn't asking ATC to police anything. My suggestion was for a relevant piece of background information for ATC to be aware of, hopefully in order to help their decision making in cases like this. If it's not welcome, so be it, forget my suggestion.

The major airfield I operate from asks for licence type on booking out, it wouldn't cost anything to translate that across to IMC qualified or not. If a pilot calls up for a clearance only to be given something that he cannot comply with, it has wasted ATC time.

[Jumbo Driver]

Back to the original question and, if the CHIRP report is accurate, the ATCO in this instance acted totally without legal authority in requiring the pilot to return to the aerodrome of departure. In addition to acting ultra vires in this respect, the ATCO concerned should also realise that there is no provision for ATS to cancel a SVFR clearance which is already being flown, without providing a mutually acceptable alternative. However, perhaps the pilot should also shoulder some blame in accepting a modified clearance (or, as he took it, an instruction) which involved a need to fly outside his comfort zone and, by the sound of it, outside his licence qualifications.

In cases such as Hijacking or Unlawful Interference ATC may exceptionally issue a formal refusal of airspace entry or landing clearance and then standard phraseology begins "I am instructed by Her Majesty’s Government to ... " However, even then, such refusals are still followed by the phrase "What are your intentions?" So, in the normal course of events (as this event should have been), it is totally inappropriate for the ATCO to instruct the pilot where or how to land. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, the clue is in the third word of the organisation title of Air Traffic Services.

On this occasion, a more appropriate transmission might have been "For information, weather at HHH is now below SVFR limits, what are your intentions?" At this stage of flight, the pilots responsibility is to remain within flight conditions appropriate to both his licence qualifications and his clearance. ATC's responsibility is simply to provide information and (if appropriate) separation.

I think both pilot and ATCO here need to review their respective responsibilities and understand that they were both, to different degrees, to blame for a potential incident. However, because the ATCO must have been a professional licence holder and the pilot appears to have been a PPL, I do think that the ATCO must bear most of the responsibility for the incident and it seems would certainly benefit from being reminded of some of the basics contained in MATS Part 1.

Let's hope this is an isolated incident - if not, maybe an ATSIN is called for ...


JD

[IO540]

IMHO any met conditions in which one is going to actually get an SVFR clearance are actually perfectly flyable under VFR rules (clear of cloud, etc).

One might meet the vis rules but not having a horizon to work to one would be effectively instrument flying but hey this is legal VFR so let's not go down there

Is it surprising that ATC sometimes take a cynical view when a pilot states that they are VFR in marginal conditions?

That is another huge can of worms. How does ATC know what the pilot actually sees? Even in the "extremely obvious" case of "illegal VFR" of the airport being OVC003, you don't actually know that the pilot is not descending through a hole somewhere. This is why it is not ATC's job to police this, and IMHO this is as it should be. The ATCO would be in a very poor position to revoke some clearance on the basis of thinking he can see something the pilot cannot.

I believe there have been prosecutions in the USA for VFR flight into IMC, but these were (one hopes) departures into immediate solid IMC witnessed by others. Still, it is an iffy area. Not as iffy as doing somebody for flight into 'known icing'

[VFE]

The PIC in this case was asking for trouble setting off in conditions that were so obviously marginal considering his experience level. If the weather deteriorated to the extent that returning to the field placed him in danger he should never have taken off. Sounds like his handling of the incident was bad (probably panicked) to such an extent that his passenger refused to get airbourne again. As PIC it could all have been avoided had he done the sensible thing and left the AC in the hangar.

Aviatate
Navigate
Communicate

It's pretty basic stuff to be honest.

VFE.