VFR Through the Clouds?

OldTownPilot said:
Check it out: SkyWest 5569 The controllers killed the two pilots and all the passengers on board. Cant get much clearer than that.
Click to expand...

I am familiar with the SkyWest accident, and yes, the controller was at fault. Even though the weather was clear VFR, at night, the metroliners anticollision lights blended in with the centerline/runway lighting making it nearly impossible to see.

However the NTSB report also provided the following council:

"A NASA study on near midair collisions found that erroneous beliefs about shared responsibility make occur when flightcrews are operating under ATC control. In such circumstances a pilot may relegate a part of his or her responsibility for situational awareness to the controller."

It discusses the need to listen to communications not specifically addressed to their aircraft and to visually clear for aircraft between their aircraft and the runway.

That was my point in my overly terse rebuttal.
 
twdeckard said:
I am familiar with the SkyWest accident, and yes, the controller was at fault. Even though the weather was clear VFR, at night, the metroliners anticollision lights blended in with the centerline/runway lighting making it nearly impossible to see.

However the NTSB report also provided the following council:

"A NASA study on near midair collisions found that erroneous beliefs about shared responsibility make occur when flightcrews are operating under ATC control. In such circumstances a pilot may relegate a part of his or her responsibility for situational awareness to the controller."

It discusses the need to listen to communications not specifically addressed to their aircraft and to visually clear for aircraft between their aircraft and the runway.

That was my point in my overly terse rebuttal.
Click to expand...

As an Air Traffic Controller, I know that if I screw up on something big, I can kill a pilot. I work at a VFR tower, and while yes VFR is see and avoid, if I don't get my pattern players clear and I have a H/C5 or H/C-17 over fly them, or I let a CH47 overfly the PA38 departing, I can kill that pilot, yes it is the pilot's responsibity to control the plane, but if the pilot is at rotation, and all he can do is handle the plane, and I send him through wake turbelence, then I killed him, that is the government's view, my view and the view of my co-workers. ATC messes up, people die.
 
Sunburn said:
As an Air Traffic Controller, I know that if I screw up on something big, I can kill a pilot.
Click to expand...

This is the correct (and laudable) attitude and if all the parties are fiercely trying to maintain safety the system is doubly redundant. However, your Galaxy pilot would be able to manuever around an entirely uncontrolled airport, land and takeoff, all without squashing any Tomahawks. Ideally that crew should be thinking just as selfishly when under positive control.

I will reiterate that I have a very hard time imagining a scenario where an CFIT accident, runway collision or midair occurs that I could not argue that the flight crew held the bulk of the responsibility. Know where you are, know where the terrain is, know where the traffic is around you (by looking for it).

The controller is counting on you to challenge a clearance that is innapropriate and to see and avoid conflicting traffic.

My post is intertwined with two other threads that I joined: "yes Virginia you can fly in IMC in class G airspace without a clearance," and "are you safer flying under Instrument Flight Rules?" in which I asked "how many controllers are suppressing 1200 targets anyway?" Nobody answered and I am still curious.

For the record though, yours is the exact attitude I want in the system. Everybody needs to act as if they are the essential link in safety, that way if either one of us makes a mistake we stand a chance of intercepting it.

My first post was an oversimplification and I didn't mean it to sound snarky. But it has provoked a few good responses!

Todd
 
Woah! This site is sweet! Thanks for making this thread, not specifically for the question, but for the sweet site! This rocks, screw music!
 
twdeckard said:
This is the correct (and laudable) attitude and if all the parties are fiercely trying to maintain safety the system is doubly redundant. However, your Galaxy pilot would be able to manuever around an entirely uncontrolled airport, land and takeoff, all without squashing any Tomahawks. Ideally that crew should be thinking just as selfishly when under positive control.

I will reiterate that I have a very hard time imagining a scenario where an CFIT accident, runway collision or midair occurs that I could not argue that the flight crew held the bulk of the responsibility. Know where you are, know where the terrain is, know where the traffic is around you (by looking for it).

The controller is counting on you to challenge a clearance that is innapropriate and to see and avoid conflicting traffic.

My post is intertwined with two other threads that I joined: "yes Virginia you can fly in IMC in class G airspace without a clearance," and "are you safer flying under Instrument Flight Rules?" in which I asked "how many controllers are suppressing 1200 targets anyway?" Nobody answered and I am still curious.

For the record though, yours is the exact attitude I want in the system. Everybody needs to act as if they are the essential link in safety, that way if either one of us makes a mistake we stand a chance of intercepting it.

My first post was an oversimplification and I didn't mean it to sound snarky. But it has provoked a few good responses!

Todd
Click to expand...

Interesting point!:)
 
twdeckard said:
This is My post is intertwined with two other threads that I joined: "yes Virginia you can fly in IMC in class G airspace without a clearance," and "are you safer flying under Instrument Flight Rules?" in which I asked "how many controllers are suppressing 1200 targets anyway?" Nobody answered and I am still curious.
Click to expand...

No one surpresses 1200 code targets in radar enviroment unless an excessive number of targets is present.

5-2-13. CODE MONITOR
Continuously monitor the Mode 3/A radar beacon codes assigned for use by aircraft operating within your area of responsibility when nonautomated beacon decoding equipment (e.g., 10-channel decoder) is used to display the target symbol. ​

a. This includes the appropriate IFR code actually assigned and, additionally, Code 1200, Code 1255, and Code 1277 unless your area of responsibility includes only Class A airspace. During periods when ring-around or excessive VFR target presentations derogate the separation of IFR traffic, the monitoring of VFR Code 1200, Code 1255, and Code 1277 may be temporarily discontinued.

In automated systems, these codes are entered into our selected beacon code bank and display a different target symbol or limited datablock intensity than non-selected beacon codes.​

In the Enroute enviroment these codes are eligible for Mode-C Intruder (MCI) alerting if they are operating above an adapted altitude. Targets operating below the MCI floor are still displayed but will not trigger a conflict alert with a tracked IFR/VFR target. Generally VFR targets operating within an airport traffic area are usually operating below the MCI floor.​
 
Huh? you're not supposed to fly VFR through clouds? Oops. What about a "collection of water vapor that reduces visibility to '1 mile'"?
 
One situation I can see the controller being at fault would be a low visibility day with one aircraft being cleared for takeoff from tower while ground cleared another aircraft to cross that runway further down.
 
I had an instructor come and tell me that he logs instrument time anytime he is flying too close to clouds which in response to him was less than VFR clearance, such as flying 100' below a cloud layer is IFR to him. His thinking seemed confusing to me and incorrect but he had much more actual time than any of the rest of us lol.
 
Italianaviator said:
I had an instructor come and tell me that he logs instrument time anytime he is flying too close to clouds which in response to him was less than VFR clearance, such as flying 100' below a cloud layer is IFR to him. His thinking seemed confusing to me and incorrect but he had much more actual time than any of the rest of us lol.
Click to expand...

Apparently there was a REASON he had more actual time than anyone else...:laff:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top