Legalistic debate moved out of the Cessna P210 N731MT thread

There is no such thing as an IFR clearance in Golf.

IFR flying in Golf in Austria might be a theoretic option for desk-flyers in law schools, but is practically not possible

Everything we know about this accident is consistent with the story of a very experienced local pilot who thought “how hard can it be to depart in zero viz – have done it many times in VMC – just need to pull and fly the turn” and then suddenly realized “whoops, this zero viz thing is really not a lot of visibility”, got overwhelmed and finally disoriented.
We will most probably never know what happened – but if it roars like a bear, smells like a bear, looks like a bear …

Malibuflyer wrote:

Everything we know about this accident is consistent with the story of a very experienced local pilot who thought “how hard can it be to depart in zero viz – have done it many times in VMC – just need to pull and fly the turn” and then suddenly realized “whoops, this zero viz thing is really not a lot of visibility”, got overwhelmed and finally disoriented.

How does this differ from any departure into IMC? As soon as you’re in cloud the viz is zero.

I could buy your argument if he crashed during the takeoff roll or shortly after, but he didn’t. He flew the aircraft for 2-3 minutes, by all appearances in control the whole time, before crashing into terrain.

Airborne_Again wrote:

How does this differ from any departure into IMC? As soon as you’re in cloud the viz is zero.

Lot of things come to mind:
- Even for “normal” IFR departures visibility and base was exceptionally low
- A normal IFR departure (for pilots in Austria that are not used to uncontrolled IFR) is much more structured with the SID programmed and the chart in front of you …
- Even experienced pilots are surprised how different things look when visibility is low. Therefore a relying on “I’m a regular on this field” would lead to surprise
- Confidence of “I know what I’m doing” drops significantly when actually doing that – and peace of mind on obstacle clearance is much lower when one takes care oneself rather than if procedure has been designed by professional.

To tell a long story short: Technically it might be a very similar thing, but state of mind might have been completely different.

cpt_om_sky wrote:

so why was the gear down and flaps not retrieved when the plan crashed
when he did a controlled climbing ?

This is consistent with becoming completely disoriented. If we could ask him, there would be a high chance that he would tell “why should I already retrieve gear and flaps – I’m just airborne”.
If he had the mental capacity to follow a structured plan, he would already have been trough after takeoff checklist, cleaned up the airplane and activated the autopilot.

cpt_om_sky wrote:

also with experienced professional pilots put to emergency situations

Looking at the flightpath, I would be very surprised if he knew he was in an emergency situation. It is highly likely that he did not realize before impact.
If he did realize his situation, imho it would be more likely to see a stall/spin accident as he might have tried to pull up and tighten the turn…

Airborne_Again wrote:

How does this differ from any departure into IMC? As soon as you’re in cloud the viz is zero

I guess when transition happens matters, no transition is better than low transition there is no risk when visual/instrument transition is trigger by PIC as long as it comes early than visual/instrument transition triggered by the environment

cpt_om_sky wrote:

the flight time was not 2 to 3 minutes.

crashsite is is aproxx. 2200 meter from the runway.
indicates a flight time of about 55 to 75 seconds or so.

Ok… I got the information from your post where you “summed up the facts”.

cpt_om_sky wrote:

- distance from runway to crashsite about 2,5 to 3,0 km.
- according to radar data given (not veryfied) climbing rate of plane from takeoff to crash has been stable.
- it all happened in a very small time window. from takeoff to impact probably less than 3 minutes.

Given that the aircraft not flying straight from the runway to the crash site, but in a more or less constant turn, 2 to 3 minutes seemed reasonable.

cpt_om_sky wrote:

o why was the gear down and flaps not retrieved when the plan crashed
when he did a ( seemingly somehow) controlled climbing ?

AFAIK in the Cessna 210 it is not uncommon to leave the gear out while you are in a maximum effort climb, as gear operation temporarily creates a lot of drag. Hence he might well have decided to prioritize on climb performance so he is out of the murk as fast as possible. The flaps may also help with a steeper gradient, I don’t know.

Malibuflyer wrote:

There is no such thing as an IFR clearance in Golf.

IFR flying in Golf in Austria might be a theoretic option for desk-flyers in law schools, but is practically not possible

This exactly is the quagmire there.

We have pretty much determined that SERA/Part NCO / EASA say you CAN fly IFR in Golf.
We also know that in order to fly IFR in CAS including E needs a clearance and a route e.t.c.

So now you have the situation that you need a 2-3 minutes IFR segment to climb on top of a low cloud layer which is entirely in G.
As you say: There is no clearance for IFR in G.
SERA/NCO say: You may fly IFR in G
Austria/D/CH say: You need a clearance to fly IFR. (short version :) )

So the only thing which makes crossing a low level cloud layer in G (provided that below is VMC and all that) “illegal” is the local restriction that you need a clearance for IFR. That however is clearly implying that they are talking about A-E, as there IS no clearance in G. And in all practicality, there is preciously little places in Europe where G is high enough to “profit” from this, and those which are are mostly where there are enough Cumuli Granitae to make it a pretty bad idea… Hohenems is one example I can think of, Samedan would be another e.t.c. where you could climb/descend through a layer purely in G.

IMHO: If SERA/NCO clearly say you can fly IFR in G, therefore climbing out of a VFR airfield (which has VMC conditions for take off) through a thin IMC layer whose ceiling and top are fully in G should be possible without violating the need for clearance and all the other IFR requirements laid out with CAS in mind.

Clearly, the concept of IFR in G and all the consequences this has has not arrived in all CAA’s yet and even less so in the heads of pilots who have flown in IFR-G prohibition all their life. IMHO, EASA needs to make sure that all EASA CAA’s take not of this and that this bit of regulation becomes free of the need of interpretation.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Austria/D/CH say: You need a clearance to fly IFR

Where do they say that this applies in class G? All I have seen is people saying that somebody told them that, not a pointer to the rule.

Cumuli Granitae

Cumuli Graniti?

This discussion shows what a mess European regulation is in. But it is nothing to do with the cause of this crash anyway.

Incidentally, does Austria require a radio contact (not a “clearance”, since that makes no sense in G) for IFR? And if so, does it prescribe the form of that radio contact?

Cobalt wrote:

Cumuli Graniti?

Mountains :)

Peter wrote:

This discussion shows what a mess European regulation is in.

It shows clearly that while getting a unified European regulation was a good intention there are still countries who do not adhere.

Peter wrote:

But it is nothing to do with the cause of this crash anyway.

Well, if SERA/Part NCO’s provision is interpreted with a bit of gusto it may well end up in people thinking that what this guy did was something they can try at home.

Peter wrote:

Incidentally, does Austria require a radio contact (not a “clearance”, since that makes no sense in G) for IFR? And if so, does it prescribe the form of that radio contact?

In G the only meaningful radio contact would be FIS.