This makes for pretty sobering reading.
WTF!?!?
That reads to me like a fictional example written for demonstration purposes of where everyone involved failed in every way possible.
The real problem was in the parties not speaking the same language. The report itself also containing some inaccuracies.
Tragic event.
I haven‘t read it all, but gosh, such a terrible job by ATS. He had 1.5 hours on board. Somebody should have launched some METAR map or list straight away and checked where there was any VFR conditions in the southwest of England and bring him there. Instead, just a lot of useless comms.
I don’t think they ever understood that he was VFR-only and stuck above the clouds. The only time the type of aircraft was mentioned was in the initial (relayed) call and there’s no indication that Exeter even knew the type. If they had, they’d have known that a CAP10 is PROB90 VFR-only, assuming they knew what a CAP10 is.
Exeter ATC almost certainly more interested in playing with a Red Arrow that day.
German FIS sure would have treated the case much differently.
Well ATS did not raise to the occasion, they collectively sink to the lowest levels of competence !
“VFR in IMC” (**) is always an unpredictable hot potato but clearly the mix of DnD (121.5) and ATC (Exeter) with weak Mil/Civy coordination did not work as smoothly as possible
In UK, VFR is not supposed to be stuck above clouds:
*Pilots with IMCR: can cruise OCAS and cloud-break not talking to anyone or in CTR under IFR (some do this on HDG or ADF)
*Pilots with PPL: historically had to maintain ground in sight for VFR (avoids going ‘on-top’ in Alpha airspace)
(**)I mean non-trained pilots or non-equipped aircraft not what is printed on ratings or filed in foreflight
Ibra wrote:
*Pilots with PPL: historically had to maintain ground in sight for VFR (avoids going ‘on-top’ in Alpha airspace)
I’m fairly certain that when UK was member of EASA, VFR on top with just PPL was allowed, and suspect that it is still allowed, but would need to dig into the regulations to be sure.
derek wrote:
*Pilots with PPL: historically had to maintain ground in sight for VFR (avoids going ‘on-top’ in Alpha airspace)I’m fairly certain that when UK was member of EASA, VFR on top with just PPL was allowed, and suspect that it is still allowed, but would need to dig into the regulations to be sure.
derek, my understanding as well.
Terrible performance by absolutely all parties, and 2 killed needlessly.
German FIS sure would have treated the case much differently.
Probably, if you were a German speaker and not doing this near Munich 
But the more basic point is that you don’t need ATC to help you get out of a potentially fatal hole. You have a working plane and enough fuel to reach France, etc. The type can land in any field, or on almost any road. What a waste of 2 lives. The key lesson is keep decisionmaking in the cockpit.
The trouble is that PPLs are taught to be sh*t scared of ATC, and seek help from that ancient 121.50 D&D unit which was set up to help RAF traffic (much of which is permanently on minimum fuel, and all of which except transports did not use GPS until very recently so were regularly getting lost), and one needs to be somewhat assertive to know the limits of what ATC can do for you.
I’m fairly certain that when UK was member of EASA, VFR on top with just PPL was allowed, and suspect that it is still allowed, but would need to dig into the regulations to be sure.
Allowed since c. 2011. No need to see the surface. And it still is allowed.
(avoids going ‘on-top’ in Alpha airspace)
??
There is this bit too:
The pilot did not comply with regulations requiring the use of transponders when fitted. Had
the transponder been operating throughout the flight, it would probably have enhanced
Exeter ATC’s situational awareness when concern arose about a potential conflict between
G-BXBU and the military jet which was holding in the vicinity. It is not possible to know what
effect this would have had on the outcome of the accident flight. It is not known if the pilot
monitored the relevant frequencies and if Exeter could have contacted him earlier. When
the pilot did contact the D&D Cell, he turned on his transponder and both the D&D Cell and
Exeter could then see his altitude on secondary radar
And WHO is responsible for the above? The man at the CAA who is operating this mad policy. The one who pushed for his name to be deleted from all over the place, despite it (and the sig) appearing on the bottom of thousands of nasty letters to pilots. Half the CAA reads EuroGA daily. His (and others’ at the CAA and DFT) actions contributed to this. How much, we don’t know, but it didn’t help.
