ATC tried to kill me!!!!

[A Squared]

Ummm, no, not really. I've been noticing the sensationalism the media is so fond of these days and I though I'd try some myself.

Anyway, now that I've got everyone's attention, here's what happened; we were tooling along one of our more common routes. I asked center for lower, he cleared us pilot's discretion to an altitude well below the MEA for that route portion, and well below a mountain range that was about 100 miles ahead, between our position and our destination. I accepted the clearence, as it was pilot's discretion and I knew we weren't going to descend that low until we had cleared the mountains, looked at the captain and said something like "hmmm that's an interesting altitude" A little while later the controller came back and ammended our clearence to descend to the MEA. It got me to thinking about it. In retrospect, I probably should have questioned the clearence immediately, instead of playing it cool. yeah, it wasn't any danger to us, cause we knew where the terrian was and what the MEA is, but if a controller makes a mistake like that and it's not brought to his attention, he might make it again. The next pilot might be one who's not quite as familliar with the route and immediately zips on down to the cleared altitude and hits something. Anyone else ever have ATC give them a clearence that would have put them in the rocks or something similar?

 

[dogman]

The controller did cover himself by saying at "your discretion." It's not uncommon for me to receive clearances to descend below class B airspace in a turbine powered airplane. The controllers can get away with this by saying at "your discretion." It then puts the responsiblity on your shoulders.

 

[AviatorCentral]

ATC makes mistakes just like people do- but ultimately its the PICs responsibility to know that MEA and stay above it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAR 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAR 91.103 Preflight action.

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.

 

[Northern Lights]

uh....thank you....

 

[A Squared]

The controller did cover himself by saying at "your discretion." It's not uncommon for me to receive clearances to descend below class B airspace in a turbine powered airplane. The controllers can get away with this by saying at "your discretion." It then puts the responsiblity on your shoulders.

I'm skeptical that this somehow releases the controller from his obligations. In the situation you mention, where it is legal to clear *an* airplane below the floor, but it is illegal for you to operate *your* specific airplane that low, yeah, the controller may be in the clear if he said "pilot's discretion" In my example where it isn't legal to clear *any* airplane to that altitude on that route segment, I don't think that "pilot's discretion" would be much of a defense for the controller.


>>>>"but ultimately its the PICs responsibility to know that MEA and stay above it."

Yeah, I certainly wasn't suggesting that it is solely the controller's responsiblity to know hte minimum altitude. Ignoring the legal aspects, from a practical standpoint, the pilot is the one that gets killed in a misunderstanding like this so it behooves the pilot to keep track of what's going on.

 

[huncowboy]

ATC makes mistakes just like people do- but ultimately its the PICs responsibility to know that MEA and stay above it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAR 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAR 91.103 Preflight action.

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight.

and you think he did not know with his 4900TT what you have just learned... ummm... a few months ago?... ok

 

[flyboy]

I was flying a mooney for a company last year and ATC certainly tried to kill me. It was March and spring TStorms were all along my normal route. I spent 15 minutes on the phone with a briefer and we both agreed that it would be better to just take on more fuel and go a completely different route. This new route would miss the tstorms completely. When I was around 200 miles from my destination ATC came on with an amended clearance. The new course bended toward the adverse weather I was trying to avoid. I reminded the controller that I did not have radar and was trying to avoid the weather. He adivsed that I would pass southwest of the system. I pushed direct and was on a new course.

A little later I recieved yet another amendment to my clearance that would take me even more toward the storm i was trying to avoid. Once again, I avised the new controller that I did not have radar and would rather stay away from the weather. She responded with confidence that I would still pass southwest of the storm. 10 minutes later I was in a washing machine from hell. Lightening, thunder, and occasional hail. Once in the updraft, the aircraft went from 10,000 ft to 10,900 in a matter of seconds. I requested lower and advised of the rough weather. It was at this point I encountered a good ole Texas t-storm downdraft. 7500 feet later, the aircraft was under control and under the clouds. All around me were black clouds and rain. Oh yeah, I arrived at 3500 less than a minute after entering the downdraft.

Once the aircraft was under control, I advised that I was ok and that she should check her screen for intense weather. A few minutes later, she reported level 4s and 5s in my area and other aircraft began diverting. After my heart started beating again, I continued on to OKC. The moral of the story is, don't accept a new clearance if you think it may put you in harms way. Also, don't put too much stake in the ability of the radar equipment ATC uses. There seems to be a delay in its returns. My headset was bent at the top where my head hit the roof in the negative g's. Everything that had been in the back was now under my feet (including the half-full pee jug I'd used an hour before).

P.S. Some words of wisdom: If you have never been in a T-storm before and you think the worst of it is when it turns black outside the windows, you are sorely mistaken. You know you are in the worst of it when the outside has turned the color of your swimming pool in October, a disgusting aqua green. Cheers!

 

[TonyC]

Anyone else ever have ATC give them a clearence that would have put them in the rocks or something similar?

Short answer: Yes. Twice that I can recall I queried the controller and received an amended clearance. Another time, the other crewmember was aware of a hazard that I was not aware of, HE queried the controller, and we received an amended clearance. As the proverb goes, two heads are better than one.

Now, if you'll allow, I'll weigh in with my opinion.

Granted, we all make mistakes. Pilots and controllers alike are human (as far as I know) so we'll never be able to achieve a 100% error-free environment. So, we must face the challenge of identifying and trapping the errors before they break bones or bend metal.

Back to your situation involving a route with a published MEA. Since we don't necessarily know all of the terrain in the entire area covered by every route segment, we can only rely on the published data and apply our general knowledge of its purpose and usage. One third of the way from Point A to Point B on the route, we might be well clear of the high terrain that determined the MEA for the particular route segment, and it may in fact be perfectly safe to descend well below that MEA, given an ATC clearance to do so, of course. In that case, the controller should be familiar with the associate Minimum Vectoring Altitudes, or whatever they might call them in the enroute structure. In and of itself, a clearance to an altitude below the published MEA is not illegal or improper.

If the controlling terrain for the particular MEA is still ahead of the aircraft along its intended route, however, it would be improper to issue a clearance of any kind ("at pilot's discretion" for instance) that would jeopardize the safety of the flight. It would seem to me that, given the scenario you recalled, the controller was wrong. Had an aircraft begun a descent upon receiving the PD clearance, it certainly would have been in jeopardy.

So he made a mistake - - in my opinion. Not the end of the world, but it could have been for somebody. I've made mistakes like that too. Fortunately, I'm still here to talk about 'em, and hopefully others can learn from them, too.

I would have queried the controller immediately if I was concerned about the safety of the clearance. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Either way, there's a very good chance that in the ensuing conversation, one or the other of us will learn something. And after all, isn't that what it's all about?

You're absolutely right, Alexander. The PIC is the final authority, and he should make every effort to know as much as he possibly can about everything. Realistically, though, I don’t know anybody that knows everything. When you're being vectored (someday when you get to be a real pilot) in a busy terminal area where there is a single Minimum Sector Altitude, simultaneous approaches on parallel runways in marginal weather along with takeoffs on two other parallel runways, it's going to be busy. The controller knows what the minimum vectoring altitudes are for every square foot of his airspace, but you won't. Even if you know what they were yesterday, you might not know what they are today. Are you going to question the controller every time he clears you to an altitude below the published MSA? Don't answer -- you don't know enough yet. The answer is NO. You have to rely on the controller to do his job competently and safely. Because you DON'T know everything - - and no pilot does - - you have to trust him to do the things HE knows well. The PIC cannot be responsible for validating every word that the controller utters. It's not possible.

When you can demonstrate to me that you have memorized every terrain feature and every manmade obstacle that is used to determine MEAs, MRAs, MORA's, MSA's, MVA's and a few other Minimum altitudes in the entire continental USA, I'll consider backing off on that opinion. Until then, quoting Part 91 won't help much.

 

[A Squared]

Re: Re: ATC tried to kill me!!!!

Back to your situation involving a route with a published MEA. Since we don't necessarily know all of the terrain in the entire area covered by every route segment, we can only rely on the published data and apply our general knowledge of its purpose and usage. One third of the way from Point A to Point B on the route, we might be well clear of the high terrain that determined the MEA for the particular route segment, and it may in fact be perfectly safe to descend well below that MEA, given an ATC clearance to do so, of course. In that case, the controller should be familiar with the associate Minimum Vectoring Altitudes, or whatever they might call them in the enroute structure. In and of itself, a clearance to an altitude below the published MEA is not illegal or improper.

Yeah, I understand that in general there may be lower legal altitudes than the published MEA, but I don't think so in this case. We're talking about a fairly remote route segment witn little low altitude radar coverage, at that altitude he wouldn't have been vectoring us. In a subsequnt conversation the controller said that we wouldn't have been in radar contact at that altitude. Also, ignoring for the moment the published MEA, that segment of the airway has a significant amount of terrain all along it within 4 miles of centerline which is within 2000 feet of our cleared altitude. (it's a designated mountaious area) so I would be very surprised if the altitude we were cleared to wasn't below the applicable MIA, or any other applicable Minimum altitude.

Anyway, no big deal, the controller made a mistake and it was caught. My point wasn't to scream about incompetent ATC, rather to get some discussion going and maybe to offer a little reminder that ATC can screw up too. What was it that Reagan said? "trust, but verify"

 

[350DRIVER]

This all reminds me of the TWA 727 that went down while trying to get on the approach to DCA or IAD ( I don't remember). I do not recall the exact specifics pertaining to the clearance that was recieved but that accident was what coined the term "cleared for the approach".. I think the only guy on the flight deck that understood what was happening was the FE. Amazing how something can like that can happen if something is not understood

3 5 0

 

[Jmmccutc]

man i expected to see 80for80 as the poster of this thread...haha

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: Re: ATC tried to kill me!!!!

Anyway, no big deal, the controller made a mistake and it was caught. My point wasn't to scream about incompetent ATC, rather to get some discussion going and maybe to offer a little reminder that ATC can screw up too. What was it that Reagan said? "trust, but verify"

Absolutely. If you're uncomfortable with the clearance, or if you suspect something is awry, query the controller. Nothing lost there, ever.

In this case, you knew something was up (figuratively, and literally). I wouldn't hesitate to humbly ask about the clearance before I began screaming down to the cleared altitude. Like I said before, somebody will learn something as a result of asking the question.

In the unlikely event he gets an attitude about it, file a NASA report, too. Might as well let other people learn from the situation, too. We all have to be heads up, all the time.

 

[mckpickle]

It was my understanding that in IFR A controler is responsible for separation between IFR aircraft. Not between IFR and VFR or for terrain at all. Just so happens that they do provide the "service".

Think about if you were in a non radar envoronment.

 

[Clownpilot]

What?????

The controller did cover himself by saying at "your discretion." It's not uncommon for me to receive clearances to descend below class B airspace in a turbine powered airplane. The controllers can get away with this by saying at "your discretion." It then puts the responsiblity on your shoulders.

>>>


Thats absolutely ludicrous.

Under an IFR flight plan a clearance to descend at pilots discretion in no way relieves ATC of the responsibility to provide terrain clearance. All pilots discretion means is that you may begin descending whenever you like and you may level off at any intermediate altitude if you wish as long as you don't try climbing back up. It also means you have no minimum time to reach your new altitude clearance.

And what does descending below class B airspace have to do with anything?? A controller may issue you an IFR clearance to the limit of his airspace control or if he has already coordinated the altitude with the next controller who will assume responsibility for you once you switch.

The comments about minimum vectoring altitudes are absolutely correct. You may receive a clearance below MSA but you will never receive a clearance below MVA unless the controller makes a blatant mistake.
The problem is that pilots don't have MVA's printed on any of their charts so it gets dicey that way.

Pilots discretion has absolutely nothing to do with terrain clearance. It merely has to do with execution time. I have often been given PD to an altitude, stayed at the current altitude, and eventually given a 'descend now to' call. Everyone has.

Nobody with 7000 hours would ever be ignorant of this fact. You been drinking??????

 

[rettofly]

I'm skeptical that this somehow releases the controller from his obligations. In the situation you mention, where it is legal to clear *an* airplane below the floor, but it is illegal for you to operate *your* specific airplane that low, yeah, the controller may be in the clear if he said "pilot's discretion" In my example where it isn't legal to clear *any* airplane to that altitude on that route segment, I don't think that "pilot's discretion" would be much of a defense for the controller.

I always thought "Pilot's Discretion" means you can start down whenever you're ready. The FL or altitude is ASSIGNED and not subject to PD.

 

[typhoonpilot]

This all reminds me of the TWA 727 that went down while trying to get on the approach to DCA or IAD ( I don't remember). I do not recall the exact specifics pertaining to the clearance that was recieved but that accident was what coined the term "cleared for the approach".. I think the only guy on the flight deck that understood what was happening was the FE. Amazing how something can like that can happen if something is not understood

Actually, this was TWA flight 514 that crashed 25 miles northwest of Dulles. The phrase that came out of it was, " maintain xxxx feet until established, cleared for the approach ". They descended before they were established, oops

Typhoonpilot

 

[mckpickle]

We need to get some controlers on here because I thought the TERPS stated they are only responsible for trafic seperation.

No one has awnsered this. What are a controlers responsibilities in non radar?

 

[ATCER]

It's hard for me to give an exact answer without knowing all the details but we (controllers) can not issue an IFR aircraft an IFR clearance to descend below MEA.

The controller semi-protected himself with the "pilot discretion" clearance but that would not stand up in an accident... he would be named as part of the accident. There have been incidents where this has happened and the controller took part of the blame... though I will say the flight crew gets hit the worst.

On the enroute screens we get a MSAW (Minimum Safe Altitude Warning) that flashes if someone descends below a published MEA or MVA. That together with the GPWS on the A/C are nice back-ups to help with the human error factor.

If ATC tells you something you're not sure off or don't understand, ask them about it. They should not have an attitude either... if they do, do not get into a pissing match on the radio, note what facility it was and make a phone call (or have company do it) to speak with someone. I have issued my share of things that were confusing or not correct and I was glad the fight crew said something.

I have an old friend in QA (quality assurance) that I'm gonna forward this question and see what he thinks.

 

[SuperFLUF]

It shouldn't have happened but, just consider it to be practice for when (if) you fly south of the border.

The latin controllers routinely will clear you to altitudes that are below the terrain level. The PILOT is responsible to descend to the cleared altitude only when it is safe to do so. For example, Mexico City center routinely clears us to 6000ft when descending into Acapulco with 14,000ft mountains between us and the airport. The controller just assumes that we are not idiots and will follow the MEA/arrival procedure altitudes.

 

[LJDRVR]

SuperFLUF brings up a very good point that probably bears a little "pile-on".

If you are flying ANYWHERE south of the border, (RADAR or not) remember this: the controllers job is to kill you. Make sure you are 100% cognizant of terrain clearance at all times. If the controller wishes to give you vectors towards an approach procedure with altitude assignments that don't allow you to remain at or above a published route segment MEA or MSA, request the whole procedure. I had a Guatemalean controller give us a descent clearance that would have put us at exactly the same altitude of a mountain range we were about to cross. When we called him on it he quickly and apollogetically issued us a much higher ammended altitude.

DISCLAIMER: I'm posting this for those who have yet to do any international flying, those of you already aware please resist the temptation to flame, I know I'm preaching to the choir.

 

[j41driver]

This all reminds me of the TWA 727 that went down while trying to get on the approach to DCA or IAD...

It was IAD (Rwy 12, I think) and the crash is the reason that ATC tells you something like, "3000 feet until established, cleared for the ILS 12", instead of just "Cleared for the ILS 12" The TWA guys were just cleared for the approach with no altitude and descended too early.

 

[EagleRJ]

On the enroute screens we get a MSAW (Minimum Safe Altitude Warning) that flashes if someone descends below a published MEA or MVA.

It's not just enroute radar that has MSAW protection, right? Do terminal controllers have it too? I know of several non-precision approaches that have a point where you will set off the MSAW alarm on the radar if you fly the step-down altitudes exactly.

I think the phraseology for that came about from post-accident investigation too. Now the controller always says, "ABC123, low altitude alert- check your altitude immediately. The MEA in your area is XXXX", instead of "and Eastern 401 Heavy, how are things going out there?".

Hopefully with airliners being equipped with EGPWS/TAWS and ATC MSAW, we'll see an end to CFIT accidents, even in foreign countries!

 

[Vector4fun]

Terminal controllers with ARTS or STARS systems have MSAW capability. Be aware though, that some small VFR (no approach control) facilities have tower displays which are for "informational" use only. Those controllers are allowed to use the tower display as an aid to the eyes, and for issuing safety alerts, but not allowed to vector etc. These facilities may not have MSAW capability or aural alarms.

ATC is indeed responsible for separation from terrain. However, it is a shared responsibility. Always be aware of your altitude reference terrain and obstructions. I used to work in a mountainous area, and daily descended aircraft for ILS turn-ons at an altitude which was below terrain just a dozen miles beyond the localizer. Had an aircraft gone NORDO at just the wrong time, could have been exciting. In fact, it DID happen several times, but always when WX was good.

I also vividly recall many pilots reporting the field in sight from many miles out at night, issuing a visual approach clearance, and then having to issue an urgent terrain warning to aircraft descending below safe altitude 20-25 miles from the airport. Likewise, many pilots scared themselves silly when they got a GPWS alert from unseen ridges and rocks a few miles from the airport. These were not just amatuers, but some Air Carrier Pilots as well. Apparently some folks just descend right down to the FAF/GS intercept altitude 20 miles out if they've been cleared for a visual. Not a good idea in many places.

In fact, if any of you are familiar with the Loc Rwy 4 approach to ELP, you know it's a fairly steep approach beginning over the Juarez mountains, and continuing closely parallel to the south edge of the Franklin Mountains just west of the airport. In very bad WX, it was NOT unusual for every third or fourth aircraft so equipped to get a GPWS alarm and abandon the approach as they crossed the Rio Grande and descended near the ridge. It was also not unusual for our own MSAW to go off on nearly EVERY approach. We seldom broadcast the advisory, but checked the course and altitude of the inbound to make sure it appeared normal. Still, and alarm that goes off on nearly every approach is a nusance alarm, and detrimental to safety. The alarm was usually set off by the aircraft's rate of descent, (dive and drive?) and not the actual altitude for the approach segment.

Back to the matter that began the thread, it's impossible to say without knowing more, but quite possible the controller issued a descent to MVA for the area the aircraft was IN, (which in mountainous areas can be several thousand feet below MEA, depending on radar coverage), and then realised that altitude was not appropriate to the route further along. Or perhaps just screwed up. But that's what pilots and controllers are SUPPOSED to do, watch each other's backs. FSDO and NTSB get to assign blame and responsibility after the fact. We're supposed to be PREVENTING/CORRECTING errors before they get noticed by FSDO or NTSB.

 

[JediNein]

ATC is indeed responsible for separation from terrain. However, it is a shared responsibility. Always be aware of your altitude reference terrain and obstructions. I used to work in a mountainous area, and daily descended aircraft for ILS turn-ons at an altitude which was below terrain just a dozen miles beyond the localizer.

A while ago I had an experience where I was below MVA in 1/4 sm visability and was issued several low altitude alerts. Due to the nature of the situation, all I could do was acknowledge, the plane wasn't climbing. Lucky me I knew the terrain and obstacles very well and was able to pick my way back to the airport. The MVA for that area was set due to some tall buildings 1/2 mile away from my location.

Would that controller have known the last time the MVA was updated? In other words, if someone built a new skyscraper or cell phone antenna, would the MVA be updated, even if it was still the same result? If the MVA has risen from its previous value, do controllers generally know that that has occurred?

It would have been very helpful to get that info. I wasn't worried about the powerlines or overpasses, but a cell phone tower on the overpass would have been taken out of service.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[THE Flying Ace]

Summer of '03 we were heading from southern IL to just south of Newark, and there was a monster t-storm in Indiana. We were being vectored for traffic at FL310 (wrong way for east bound) as everybody was going around this thing. He kept turning us more and more towards the storm until we were about 10 miles from it and we said that we needed to turn. He wanted to keep us on the heading for a little longer for traffic. I waited 10 seconds and then keyed the mic and said we are turning. We were no closer that 5 miles from any target on TCAS.

Just remember, his seat isn't going 400mph. If you don't like what ATC gives you, don't do it. You, the PIC, is in charge of the safe operation of the aircraft.

In Canada, they will clear you for an aproach many miles away. You have to look at your chart to know what altitude is safe and at what distance.

 

[Vector4fun]

Would that controller have known the last time the MVA was updated? In other words, if someone built a new skyscraper or cell phone antenna, would the MVA be updated, even if it was still the same result? If the MVA has risen from its previous value, do controllers generally know that that has occurred?

I would feel pretty confident regarding the MVA. We get updates from time to time. Rarely does an antenna actually change an MVA. Most are not high enough to impact that. Cell towers are rarely over 200'. More common is wrangling over a 100-200' cell tower near a final approach course. The companies that erect those things know the notification requirements, and are usually pretty good, though not perfect, at doing all the paperwork. Plus it would be hard to erect a 1000' antenna within 30 miles of an airport an not have somebody associated with the airport or ATC notice.

What every pilot should be aware of is, ATC has no idea where, or the status of the hundreds of 100'-200' cell and microwave towers out there. For the most part, the only obstructions on my video map are those controlling the MVAs, those are a dozen or so 1000-1500' TV towers and such. If you were flying right at a 200' cell tower, there's a very good chance I wouldn't even know it was there unless it's within a few miles of the airport. So I couldn't issue any warning. Very good reason not to "scud run". It was bad enough when I occasionally did it in the '70s. Wouldn't even consider it nowadays, with a few million more of those suckers out there......

Oh by the way, last I knew, Mexico didn't have any reliable, up-to-date obstruction data. Therefore our MSAW was basically worthless south of the border when I worked in ELP. Doubt anything's changed. Be VERY careful operating in Mexico.....

 

[3GreenNoRed]

Okay, so for the ARTCC sector you were flying in he cleared you down to the lowest altitude of his sector most likely. Could be the moca for that LAT/LON grid. He probably wasnt even controlling your airplane when you reached that mountain, it was the guys sitting next to him on a different sector. So the next controller would have then asked you to climb.

First priority of ATC, issue saftey alerts and traffic alerts...hence, if he cleared you down below the mea, or the moca and the bells and whistles didn't go off on his scope then he didnt' try to kill you. The center airspace isnt owned by one controller. He gets a flight strip, he reads where your entering his airspace, where you leaving his airspace, he couldn't give two **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**s for where your going. So 100miles down the road your probably already 50 nm off his scope. ATC tried to kill you huh? Why the hell did you ask for that altitude? Or if you were in the FL and starting down and he cleared you down to an altitude PD, then its your responsibiltiy to adhear to mea/moca **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**. The word pilots descretion pretty much rids ATC of any responsibility!

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

I remember once transitioning through class Bravo in SLC, they had heavy departures and arrivals and vectored us right into the ridge to the east of Ogden. They do make mistake keep your head on a swivel.

 

[A Squared]

Okay, so for the ARTCC sector you were flying in he cleared you down to the lowest altitude of his sector most likely.

Nope, it was 3000 feet below the MEA As I've already stated, an MVA wouldn't be available as there is no radar coverage at those altitudes.

Originally posted by 3GreenNoRed
Could be the moca for that LAT/LON grid.

Nope, of the route in question, there is only a 25 mile segment which has a MOCA lower than the MEA. The cleared altitude is still 2300 feet lower than the MOCA. Furthermore, the altitude was more than 3000 feet lower than the lowest MORA for the 3 lat/ long quads that route segment traverses.

Originally posted by 3GreenNoRed
He probably wasnt even controlling your airplane when you reached that mountain, it was the guys sitting next to him on a different sector.

Nope, wrong again, it was the same sector.

Originally posted by 3GreenNoRed
Why the hell did you ask for that altitude?

Nope still wrong, I didn't ask for that altitude, I asked for "lower", This was stated in my first post. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension a bit.

Look buddy, this is a route I've flown many times, I've flown it up high in large airplanes, I've flown it in small airplanes down in the passes and along the valleys. I am quite familiar with the terrain, there just isn't any way that was a legal altitude. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, but you are speaking from a position of ignorance.



As for this:

Originally posted by 3GreenNoRed

The word pilots descretion pretty much rids ATC of any responsibility!

Uhhh, you aparently don't read very well. I would direct your attention to the post by made by the Air traffic Controller who says that "pilot's discretion" does *not* protect the controller should an accident result in a situation like this.

 

[TonyC]

Nope still wrong, I didn't ask for that altitude, I asked for "lower", This was stated in my first post. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension a bit.

Look buddy, this is a route I've flown many times, I've flown it up high in large airplanes, I've flown it in small airplanes down in the passes and along the valleys. I am quite familiar with the terrain, there just isn't any way that was a legal altitude. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, but you are speaking from a position of ignorance.



As for this:

Originally posted by 3GreenNoRed
The word pilots descretion pretty much rids ATC of any responsibility!

Uhhh, you aparently don't read very well. I would direct your attention to the post by made by the Air traffic Controller who says that "pilot's discretion" does *not* protect the controller should an accident result in a situation like this.


Last edited by A Squared on 02-13-2004 at 14:29

I must say, A Squared, your response to that IDIOTIC post was much more diplomatic than I would have offered.