23 replies to this topic

[M4matthew]

If the consensus was always that of ATC error, Alfrenzo, (which I have to say, I didn't think it was - or at least that wasn't the consensus at the time of the crash) why make a comment regarding the pilot's unfamiliarity in the area?

[Alfrenzo]

If the consensus was always that of ATC error, Alfrenzo, (which I have to say, I didn't think it was - or at least that wasn't the consensus at the time of the crash) why make a comment regarding the pilot's unfamiliarity in the area?

Eh, if the ATC tells you to lower, but if a pilot jolly well know that Mount Salak was in direct range, d'you think he wouldn't protest?

[M4matthew]

Just to recap...

I said ATC error was beginning to look like the cause.
You said that was always the consensus.
I said if that was always the consensus, why did people make comments about the pilot's unfamiliarity with the area.
Now you contradict yourself by stating it was pilot error as he knew Mt Salak was there or, at least, that's how it comes across.

The point is, if ATC told the pilots to descend below 7,000 feet - then from a legal perspective it's ATC error and that's not up for discussion, whether the pilots were familiar with the area or not.

[Alfrenzo]

Just to recap... I said ATC error was beginning to look like the cause. You said that was always the consensus. I said if that was always the consensus, why did people make comments about the pilot's unfamiliarity with the area. Now you contradict yourself by stating it was pilot error as he knew Mt Salak was there or, at least, that's how it comes across. The point is, if ATC told the pilots to descend below 7,000 feet - then from a legal perspective it's ATC error and that's not up for discussion, whether the pilots were familiar with the area or not.

ATC Error --> ATC does not tell him Mt Salak is there. He does not know thus crash. Get it?