Obstacle departure

[avbug]

The ntsb accident that avbug posted the aircraft departed VFR nonradar and was was supposed to be maintaining VFR when they impacted terrain.

The aircraft departed VFR non-radar in what should have been an IFR departure, and had received a radar heading by the controller prior to impact. They flew that heading to their deaths. The ODP would have provided adequate terrain coverage.

Regardless, the point is valid; know your terrain, know your departure, and remember that acceptance of a clearance should always be predicated on your ability to make the informed decision. Simply accepting the clearance because it's given, or as given, blindly, can get you killed.

 

[Say Again Over]

The controller that gave the "radar heading" said to maintain VFR, sounds like they screwed that one up!

 

[avbug]

As pilots, we accept responbility for our own mistakes. And we die for it.

The controller goes home at the end of the day. The pilot who fails to be aware and heads up does not.

 

[Say Again Over]

Well I see your point but we have to assume the approach controller thought they were already maintaining VFR in this instance, I'm not sure if the aircraft was outside of his airspace or simply below the minimum vectoring altitude, I hope you're not blaming the controller, I tried to open the link again but it didn't open, did the NTSB put any blame on the controller's phraseology? Let's not mix IFR clearance with VFR instructions.

 

[avbug]

I said nothing of blaming the controller. I said nothing of blaming anyone.

We can forget about the controller. It's the pilot that hits the hillside, the pilot that pays the price, and regardless of the semantics, it's the pilot who ultimately must make the decision to accept a clearance or not.

During an obstacle departure, if the controller issues vectors, the controller is taking responsibility for terrain separation. The controller is also issuing a clearance; the heading is the clearance. The pilot may deviate from the departure and accepts the clearance to that heading in so doing. Accordingly, the pilot also acknowledges that responsibility for terrain separation has been accepted by the controller.

A pilot always has a responsibility to determine if any clearance, be it altitude changes, headings, routings, or any other clearance, is safe...and has the responsibility to accept or reject it. One cannot reasonable make such a decision if one has only one side of the picture. If one blindly receives a heading and follows it, one is not deciding to accept the clearance based on any information other than the heading. Turn left, heading two seven zero. Okay. Turn left into that rock wall. Okay. Not the way to do business on a saturday night.

By the very nature of accepting a clearance, one is stipulating that one has evaluated the options, determined that the clearance will work, and is ratifying that decision by complying.

The pilot who takes an assigned heading and flies it into a hillside takes ultimate responsibility to be sure, because the buck stops here...at his death.

Blame? No. Ultimate price, ultimate responsibility, and the moral and legal obligation to make an informed (not blind) decision? Yes. It's all on the pilot. At all times. IFR or VFR. IMC or VMC. Just like see and avoid. Everybody else goes home at the end of the day. It's the decisions made in the cockpit that determine if anybody on board gets to do the same.

 

[Doc Holiday]

Avbug,

Were you born an *********************************** or did you work at it your whole life?

I personally believe you are a knowledgeable guy with some experience. You have some good points and references, I'll give you that. But why do you have to always reply to people like they are idiots? My personal favorite is all the cliches you use - "Everyone else goes home at the end of the day" - and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

 

[avbug]

Clearly you have nothing to contribute, then.