pashab wrote:
. Very sad ending but the ultimate responsibility for knowing the MSA is always with the PIC.
What?
To clarify further what I meant: ultimately it is the PICs responsibility to know MEA, MOCA and/or MSA wherever he or she may be and at all times. Just because you are cleared it doesn’t mean ATC can’t make a mistake, you should always have that altitude in mind for any given flight segment, especially over terrain or complicated approaches and departures or go-arounds. The reason I say this and the reason I was taught to fly this way is because the PIC and the ATC ultimately do not pay the same price for mistakes. I trust ATC and love them and the work they do is fantastic but I will always know whether they are clearing me to an altitude I should not be at in the first place.
Pashab, I get your logic if travelling at 100kts, in your aeroplane. Flying an FA18, chortling along at whatever kts, in IMC, and under, I assume, radar control, I may not be that chuffed to have been vectored, given wrong instruction, below the MSA. I cannot read the full report because it is in German, however, blaming the pilot does not appear appropriate in this case.
As always, this accident has multiple factors, not a single cause; and it shouldn’t be about blame anyway…
According to the press report, the pilot lost contact with the formation lead, asked ATC about the MSA, got the wrong information, and CFIT ensued.
At least five things should have prevented this, and all of them went wrong in some way.
There is little point arguing which one went “most wrong” and where “blame” is.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
What?
Unless on radar vectors, terrain avoidance is the responsibility of the pilot. At least in civil aviation. Swiss military may have other rules.
Cobalt wrote:
Aircraft operating in IMC should have equipment that detects and warns of impending terrain conflicts.
They apparently do have equipment to warn about terrain, but it is set to warn very late, because otherwise it would generate a lot of false alarms, given how close to the terrain they operate.
What I find strange here is that a mil pilot, who – presumably – operates from this airfield all the time, doesn’t know the MSA (or indeed the terrain in detail) in the area. There’s got to be more to this. Overload after losing radar contact with his lead (as per report)?
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
What?
It is unless you just want to blindly trust ATC with your life.
This was engrained in me by one of my IFR instructors who was vectored towards Mount Hamilton during an approach to San Jose, CA, and subsequently lost comms. This was before all the modern electronics were available. She had enough positional awareness to realise where she was heading, and queried ATC without getting a reply, realised she’d lost comms and turned around before ’re-establishing comms on the second radio. She had come very close to cumulus granitus.
One of the things that was taught in my IR training is to have the minimum vectoring altitudes available with the approach chart, and briefing expected and minimum vectoring altitudes, e.g., “expect to be vectored to the ILS at 2,500, but not below 1,800ft”.
EGPWS has made all this a lot safer.
This is exactly why I plan on running two Ipad’s with Foreflight in mine. One with Synthetic Vision and/or VFR charts in conjunction with the IFR. That way you always have situational awareness. Plus you’re able to answer your passengers when they ask: “what town is that below?”, which is impossible to do on a low level IFR chart.
