I am not saying ATC never make mistakes – they are human like all of us – still the present example must have been exceptional enough to them to know very well what they were doing. If they told the PIC to descend so very exceptionally low they must have had a very good reason and it would be rude and stupid to question such a decision. Which was, like as not, made from a very nice wish to provide the best possible service.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
If they told the PIC to descend so very exceptionally low they must have had a very good reason and it would be rude and stupid to question such a decision.
Nonsense – if somebody tells you to break the law, would you do so?
Aviathor wrote:
Words are cheap.
If you mean that the DGAC doesn’t give a sh*t and will fight this all the way to the European Court, then you might be right. What do I know?
If you mean that I am materially wrong, then please point me to chapter and verse in SERA where it says that the NAA can change the minimum altitudes in the Rules of the Air.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
Surely ATC would not issue such a command if they were not allowed to do so? I have always considered these people professionals, knowing the law and other rules of the air much better than myself. A controller issueing a clearance or instruction outside her/his authority must surely get in serious trouble?
Well, I thought like you until I got to know a very experienced controller in my club. Then I realised that controllers don’t know the Rules of the Air any better that pilots do — possibly worse! They really have no need apply most of those rules. They are very good at controlling air traffic, and know the rules for that, but that’s not the same thing.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
I am not saying ATC never make mistakes – they are human like all of us – still the present example must have been exceptional enough to them to know very well what they were doing.
Controllers don’t know what qualifications and special permits the pilots and operators might have — or even SOPs that may further restrict what the pilot is allowed to do.
If they told the PIC to descend so very exceptionally low they must have had a very good reason and it would be rude and stupid to question such a decision. Which was, like as not, made from a very nice wish to provide the best possible service.
The ATC decision was that by flying at the low altitude, the aircraft would not interfere with other traffic. It has nothing whatsoever to do with deciding what may otherwise be legal for that particular pilot.
If you mean that the DGAC doesn’t give a sh*t and will fight this all the way to the European Court, then you might be right. What do I know?
If you sue the DGAC, regardless of whether you win, they will stab you in the back afterwards, by making your life very difficult.
In a situation where your flying depends on a test or revalidation by a DGAC licensed examiner, they will tell the examiner to fail you.
I have this from good sources.
Nobody in France will take on the DGAC aggressively.
In the US regulations, unless there is an ATC exception as part of the rule or there is an emergency, one can’t deviate from the regulations, regardless of what ATC says. So ATC clears you to land at an airport that all the approaches are NA at night. If you make the approach, it is you who will get the pilot violation. There is no provision in the FAR’s for flying below minimum safe altitudes other than for takeoff and landing. Here is 91.119 in part:
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
Peter wrote:
If you sue the DGAC, regardless of whether you win, they will stab you in the back afterwards, by making your life very difficult.
I was more thinking of the opposite situation. DGAC prosecutes you because you violated a national regulation which was in conflict with SERA.
Airborne_Again wrote:
If you mean that the
If you are so sure, and think it is important, you should challenge it instead of just saying that what they are doing is illegal with such aplomb
I do not take sides in that debate. I observe that DGAC think they do have a legal foundation for their decision. For all I know it may well have been subject of discussion in Cologne. In my eyes the GM is very vague, unless you read it with a bias in which case it might be very clear to you.
I have no intent of challenging them on that. Life is too short and I’ll only pick the fights that are worth it. If somebody else want to challenge them by flying at 1000’ + highest obstacle, and pick the ensuing fight, you are welcome to do it. I’ll sit among the spectators.
Addendum: on the other hand, if I happened to be prosecuted for an altitude violation, I might be motivated to fight it, but I will not provoke such a situation 
If SERA is law, which I believe it is, ATC has no authority to tell you to go below 500’ ! It’s illegal! There is actually an extra requirement to be able to glide to an emergency field, so the legal minimum may well be more than 500’ over a city.
‘competent authority’ means the authority designated by the Member State as competent to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Regulation;
But ATC can always ask. They don’t know that you don’t have a low-level airwork authorisation.
Martin wrote:
In a twin the minimum altitude above any built-up area is 3300 feet!
Where do you get this little piece of wisdom from?
