ATC failing to alert pilot that they’re ‘too low’

RyanB

RyanB

Super Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
16,524
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Display Name
Display name:
Ryan
If you’re flying an approach in IMC and descend below the MDA without having any part of the airport environment in-sight, is ATC responsible to you alert you that you’re too low? Are they held responsible for failing to alert you?

My answer would be no, they are not responsible. It’s the PIC’s job to fly the aircraft and the approach.
 
How would ATC know if you do or don’t have the runway/environment in sight?

There are low altitude alerts built into the radar for those on an ifr code. If it’s an MDA issue and you’re at an uncontrolled airport, I’ve already switched you to CTAF and have no way of talking to you. If I see it and you’re heading into a towered field. I call the tower, they call you. “Low altitude alert, the blah blah is xxxx”. This wouldn’t go off on a stable descent below the MDA at an appropriate place though. Otherwise we’d get several hundred an hour. It would be a high rate descent close to the ground or low far from runway, etc.
 
Ryanb said:
If you’re flying an approach in IMC and descend below the MDA without having any part of the airport environment in-sight, is ATC responsible to you alert you that you’re too low? Are they held responsible for failing to alert you?

My answer would be no, they are not responsible. It’s the PIC’s job to fly the aircraft and the approach.
Click to expand...

How many airplanes disappear from radar at those altitudes?
 
Radar Contact said:
How would ATC know if you do or don’t have the runway/environment in sight?

There are low altitude alerts built into the radar for those on an ifr code. If it’s an MDA issue and you’re at an uncontrolled airport, I’ve already switched you to CTAF and have no way of talking to you. If I see it and you’re heading into a towered field. I call the tower, they call you. “Low altitude alert, the blah blah is xxxx”. This wouldn’t go off on a stable descent below the MDA at an appropriate place though. Otherwise we’d get several hundred an hour. It would be a high rate descent close to the ground or low far from runway, etc.
Click to expand...
My question stems from a lawsuit from an accident where the NTSB found "The pilot in command's improper inflight decision and the minimum descent altitude disregarded during an instrument approach."

The ensuing lawsuit claims the PIC to have been 60% at fault and ATC to have been 40% at fault. Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq.,alleging negligence against air traffic controllers stationed at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Mt. Clemens, Michigan for failing to notify the aircraft that it was flying too low on a non-precision instrument approach.

This sounds to me, a case of litigation bull****. Family of the negligent pilot attempting to find another party at fault.
 
Ryanb said:
If you’re flying an approach in IMC and descend below the MDA without having any part of the airport environment in-sight, is ATC responsible to you alert you that you’re too low? Are they held responsible for failing to alert you?

My answer would be no, they are not responsible. It’s the PIC’s job to fly the aircraft and the approach.
Click to expand...

Below the MDA where? Inside the MAP? Before the MAP? Have you reported the "airport environment in sight?" How would the controller know otherwise? Here's the 'rules:

a. Terrain/Obstruction Alert. Immediately issue/ initiate an alert to an aircraft if you are aware the aircraft is at an altitude that, in your judgment, places it in unsafe proximity to terrain and/or obstructions. Issue the alert as follows:
PHRASEOLOGY−
LOW ALTITUDE ALERT (call sign),
CHECK YOUR ALTITUDE IMMEDIATELY.
and, if the aircraft is not yet on final approach,
THE (as appropriate) MEA/MVA/MOCA/MIA IN YOUR AREA IS (altitude),

If the controller is 'aware' and in his judgment thinks you are to low, yeah they gotta warn you. If he says yeah, I thought he was to low but I didn't warn him, he'll be held responsible. If he didn't think you were to low but you obviously were, he may be held responsible for poor judgement. Controllers have the ability to suppress MSAW(minimum safe altitude warning.) There are rules about when and when they cannot do this. If they did it when they shouldn't have, they are going to be held responsible. Your question sounds like you're talking about getting low at a point where airplanes normally get low. Don't expect warnings then
 
Last edited:
There’s no requirement to have the pilot report the field in sight on an IAP unless it’s a surveillance approach so there would be no way of knowing if the pilot is busting MDA or not. Even on surveillance approach, it’s gray. Mode C is valid with +- 200ft.

Even rapid descents to the MDA is a gray area. Happens all the time with MSAW alerts. Controllers would never have time to issue that many low altitude alerts in a day.
 
Ryanb said:
My question stems from a lawsuit from an accident where the NTSB found "The pilot in command's improper inflight decision and the minimum descent altitude disregarded during an instrument approach."

The ensuing lawsuit claims the PIC to have been 60% at fault and ATC to have been 40% at fault. Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq.,alleging negligence against air traffic controllers stationed at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Mt. Clemens, Michigan for failing to notify the aircraft that it was flying too low on a non-precision instrument approach.

This sounds to me, a case of litigation bull****. Family of the negligent pilot attempting to find another party at fault.
Click to expand...

Do you have the NTSB number on that?
 
I’ve had them issue a “check altitude” alert and I was on the LPV glideslope, it got my attention because I thought my navigation box failed me. IIRC, they momentarily lost my transponder feed or some such thing.
 
luvflyin said:
NTSB said pilot's fault. Jury(I'm assuming it went to a jury) decided to get some of the Treasuries money to the families and/or insurance companies, so gave 40% to ATC. This is common. I'd like to see the Docket on this one where you get all the details. Interviews with controllers etc. But it's so old I don't think we'll find it online
Click to expand...
Yep, I would too...

Again, litigation bull****. Pilot was 100% at fault as far as I’m concerned.
 
Ryanb said:
Yep, I would too...

Again, litigation bull****. Pilot was 100% at fault as far as I’m concerned.
Click to expand...

Often when they give some blame to the gov it's not to the Controller. This could have been a case where the blame was to the FAA for not having installed MSAW equipment. For not having explicit procedures for controllers to follow. Like the FAR's, much of the Controllers rules, the 7110.65 are written in blood. This accident could have been one that initiated change.
 
Ryanb said:
If you’re flying an approach in IMC and descend below the MDA without having any part of the airport environment in-sight, is ATC responsible to you alert you that you’re too low? Are they held responsible for failing to alert you?

My answer would be no, they are not responsible. It’s the PIC’s job to fly the aircraft and the approach.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point of an Instrument Rating and flying in IMC. You are responsible for following altitude minimums on the approach plate. Many airfields with instrumet approach procedures have no radar coverage at those low altitudes for ATC to know wheer you are at all once you are that low.
 
Kevin Eggert said:
That's the whole point of an Instrument Rating and flying in IMC. You are responsible for following altitude minimums on the approach plate. Many airfields with instrumet approach procedures have no radar coverage at those low altitudes for ATC to know wheer you are at all once you are that low.
Click to expand...
More than a few have no ATC comm capability below the initial approach altitude. Some others have only FSS comm capability.
 
If you need ATC to warn you when you are low you have already failed as a pilot.
 
Arnold said:
Perhaps, but I think most would rather hang their heads in shame rather than die.
Click to expand...

But that's kind of the point, if you are getting low altitude warnings from ATC you need to re evaluate your piloting. If you are relying on ATC to let you know you are too low, well, you shouldn't.
 
Ryanb said:
My question stems from a lawsuit from an accident where the NTSB found "The pilot in command's improper inflight decision and the minimum descent altitude disregarded during an instrument approach."

The ensuing lawsuit claims the PIC to have been 60% at fault and ATC to have been 40% at fault. Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq.,alleging negligence against air traffic controllers stationed at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Mt. Clemens, Michigan for failing to notify the aircraft that it was flying too low on a non-precision instrument approach.

This sounds to me, a case of litigation bull****. Family of the negligent pilot attempting to find another party at fault.
Click to expand...
Haven't read the NTSB report, but assuming he crashed into something other than the runway, wouldn't he have been lower than the MDA and not where he was supposed to be on the approach?
 
Lindberg said:
Haven't read the NTSB report, but assuming he crashed into something other than the runway, wouldn't he have been lower than the MDA and not where he was supposed to be on the approach?
Click to expand...
That is correct.
 
Ryanb said:
is ATC responsible to you alert you that you’re too low
Click to expand...
I get a terrain alert almost every time I'm on the RNAV 17 for SEE between JUGAL and HIRAK. This is while being above the altitude step downs/glide slope. Someone told me if the descent rate is above a certain amount they get an automated chime and they alert the pilot to it. Happens from the right seat too so it's not just user error.

the RNAV17 does bring you strikingly close to terrain though
 
Tantalum said:
I get a terrain alert almost every time I'm on the RNAV 17 for SEE between JUGAL and HIRAK. This is while being above the altitude step downs/glide slope. Someone told me if the descent rate is above a certain amount they get an automated chime and they alert the pilot to it. Happens from the right seat too so it's not just user error.

the RNAV17 does bring you strikingly close to terrain though
Click to expand...

I’ll say it to. Rate of descent is part of MSAW’s calculations. Strikingly? good word given the subject
 
Arnold said:
Perhaps, but I think most would rather hang their heads in shame rather than die.
Click to expand...
And, only fly into airports that have radar approach control (not center "approach control") and with certainty the airport has TRACON radar coverage to the ground.
 
What is everyone's response to an atc issued Low Altitude Alert?

I would be curious if anyone has thought ahead to how they would handle this.
Do you have a plan?
If you don't have one, what are you going to do or say?
Assume you are imc.

I have had a couple and will tell you mine later.
I thought more carefully about it after the first one. (I'd actually never heard of it before the first one)
I have never seen anything taught on this in either IR initial, or recurrent, or IPC training; maybe others have. (my initial training is getting dated)
I have been wondering if pt135 or 121 etc have written policies like they do for terrain warnings.
 
Lindberg said:
Haven't read the NTSB report, but assuming he crashed into something other than the runway, wouldn't he have been lower than the MDA and not where he was supposed to be on the approach?
Click to expand...
"THE ACCIDENT AIRPLANE COLLIDED WITH TREES AND TERRAIN AFTER BEING CLEARED FOR A NONPRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH. INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS PREVAILED. THE MINIMUM DESCENT ALTITUDE FOR THE APPROACH PROFILE FROM AN INTERMEDIATE INTERSECTION TO THE MISSED APPROACH POINT IS 1,460 FEET. THE ELEVATION OF DESTINATION AIRPORT IS 745 FEET. THE ELEVATION OF THE ACCIDENT SITE IS 880 FEET. TWO PERSONS WITNESSED THE ACCIDENT SEQUENCE. BOTH PERSONS SAW THE AIRPLANE IN LEVEL, LOW ALTITUDE FLIGHT WITH THE LANDING GEAR DOWN BEFORE IT STRUCK THE TREE TOPS. THEY DESCRIBED HOW THE AIRPLANE PULLED UP AND THEN ROLLED BEFORE IT STRUCK THE GROUND. ONE WITNESS DESCRIBED HOW THE AIRPLANE WAS FLYING AT THE BASE OF THE CLOUDS. "
 
Ryanb said:
My question stems from a lawsuit from an accident where the NTSB found "The pilot in command's improper inflight decision and the minimum descent altitude disregarded during an instrument approach."

The ensuing lawsuit claims the PIC to have been 60% at fault and ATC to have been 40% at fault. Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq.,alleging negligence against air traffic controllers stationed at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Mt. Clemens, Michigan for failing to notify the aircraft that it was flying too low on a non-precision instrument approach.

This sounds to me, a case of litigation bull****. Family of the negligent pilot attempting to find another party at fault.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing about lawsuits - the lawyers tend to go after the party that has the deepest pockets to get the most money for their client(s). Generally speaking, Uncle Sam (who self-insures) has the deepest pockets of all so if there is ANY possible way to tie the government into the cause of the accident then they will sue the Feds. That is the unfortunate reality.

So, while the PIC may have been by far the most responsible, because there was apparently a missed opportunity by ATC to warn the pilot, then the FAA is going to get sued. In most cases, the families are not going to be able get much from the dead pilot's estate, so they go after the Feds (Kobe Bryant case, for example).

My best friend is a transportation attorney with the DOJ who defends these cases. The vast majority of his work is spent fighting these BS cases.
 
If you read the stuff at the end of the included NTSB report, it would appear that he was before the FAF. I assume this was coming in from the North into D98 (given the elevations mentioned) but the crash was nearly 30 years ago and the approaches have been changed in the interim.
 
flyingron said:
If you read the stuff at the end of the included NTSB report, it would appear that he was before the FAF. I assume this was coming in from the North into D98 (given the elevations mentioned) but the crash was nearly 30 years ago and the approaches have been changed in the interim.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it was the VOR-A approaching from the west. It has since been discontinued.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
What is everyone's response to an atc issued Low Altitude Alert?

I would be curious if anyone has thought ahead to how they would handle this.
Do you have a plan?
If you don't have one, what are you going to do or say?
Assume you are imc.

I have had a couple and will tell you mine later.
I thought more carefully about it after the first one. (I'd actually never heard of it before the first one)
I have never seen anything taught on this in either IR initial, or recurrent, or IPC training; maybe others have. (my initial training is getting dated)
I have been wondering if pt135 or 121 etc have written policies like they do for terrain warnings.
Click to expand...

The pilot response will largely be guided by ATC. You could have multiple scenarios. I’ve issued “low altitude alert, check your altitude immediately, the MVA in your area is one thousand five hundred.” So, it’s logical that the pilot will just go back up to the last assigned altitude...unless it’s due to disorientation or aircraft problem. Fortunately never had one of those. If on a radar approach you’ll get guidance / instructions as well. “Too low for safe approach, if runway / approach lights not in sight, execute missed approach.” If the controller issues the alert (some don’t) during descent during an IAP because of a rate of descent MSAW, I’d reply with something like “roger, correcting.”
 
Ryanb said:
Yep, I would too...

Again, litigation bull****. Pilot was 100% at fault as far as I’m concerned.
Click to expand...

My guess is 1) you're not a lawyer and 2) have no clue as to what the specific situation was, nor the application of comparative fault in this situation.
 
N1120A said:
My guess is 1) you're not a lawyer and 2) have no clue as to what the specific situation was, nor the application of comparative fault in this situation.
Click to expand...
Your guess would be very wrong. You are correct that I’m not a lawyer, but I do have quite the knowledge base of the specific situation here - my family member was involved in this accident. Thanks for being helpful.
 
Ryanb said:
Your guess would be very wrong. You are correct that I’m not a lawyer, but I do have quite the knowledge base of the specific situation here - my family member was involved in this accident. Thanks for being helpful.
Click to expand...

Well, sorry about your family member, but you still really don't understand how the law works.
 
N1120A said:
Well, sorry about your family member, but you still really don't understand how the law works.
Click to expand...
So... that’s why I’m coming here to ask questions. :rolleyes:
 
You asked "Are they held responsible for failing to alert you?" The answer to this is sometimes. You then stated "My answer would be no, they are not responsible. It’s the PIC’s job to fly the aircraft and the approach." Which answers the unasked question: In your opinion should they be held responsible?

So this is really: two, two, two threads in one.
 
Ryanb said:
So... that’s why I’m coming here to ask questions. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think that often times we make assumptions about “facts” that a jury evaluates. It’s hard to assess these cases from reports. Yes, I’m an attorney. I too find some cases puzzling when looking at what’s posted and trying to understand how a jury could find negligence on part of ATC for a pilot on a non-precision approach. I can only assume there was some piece of evidence that pointed them in that direction. I’ve served on several juries and I was impressed with how serious jurors took their responsibility and how they looked hard at the evidence and the law. That doesn’t mean they always get it right. And yes, lawyers look for deep pockets - and I have little sympathy for insurance companies paying claims. Please don’t comment that we all pay more because of those claims. It’s simply not true. Insurance companies are extremely profitable. Nonetheless I will say that 40% liability to ATC on the face of it seems odd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top