ATC tried to kill me

[z1010]

Flying from SLLP (La Paz, Bolivia) to SCAR (Arica, Chile) ATC killed me.

I had to fly IFR at fl. 200.  At about 60 nm from SCAR ATC wanted me to descend to fl 180 - in the middle of the mountains. But it could be done - some 10 nm later ATC wanted me to fly at fl. 160 - impossible: mountains are to high overthere.

So I kept fl 180 - and had to make a very steep descent to the runway - yes, I succeeded. Glad I had no passengers ...

I've had it before, that ATC want's me to do things which are not possible.


Back to VFR-flights, then: I don't need ATC to crash, I can do it myself !

[Nexus]

I'm pretty positive the FS9 ATC cannot spell M-E-A (Or MSA, for that matter)...what you descbribed happened to me near Madrid  :)

[z1010]

Well,

what is M-E-A (or MSA)?

[737NGCapt]

Fly VATSIM... they wont kill you...or rather, intentionally...

[beefhole]

It's interesting to hear all these stories of ATC not recognizing terrain, becasue my ATC has helped me avoid terrain several times. When descending into Denver, I was right over mountains when I was ordered down to 6,000.  When ATC noticed I was about to crash into terrain, they ordered my back up to 9,000. ATC has done this a couple times.

[Saitek]

I think actually unless you are really sure it was likely top be safe. You may have been just 300ft above ground or something , but I'm sure it is pretty likely that you may have been alright. I've never had that yet - even in Switzerland. But as someone said - use Live Real ATC.. it is no end of fun.
If you haven't already join an airline too. Livewire provides it and it is much less formal than VATSIM.
See my sig.

[Rocket_Bird]

I was flying to Reno once... and ATC did the exact same thing to me... Didnt help to have extreme low visibility and snow... almost got killed.  Of course, at that moment, you have ignore the ATC

[commoner]

[quote]I was flying to Reno once... and ATC did the exact same thing to me... Didnt help to have extreme low visibility and snow... almost got killed.

[beefhole]

You guess? As PIC (Pilot In Command) you have final say as to the operation fo the aircraft. Even the ATC controller cannot override your decisions. In real life, when you believe ATC has given you an order that my jeapordize safety of flight or violate a FAR, you challenge the order. In fs, you just have to turn a cold shoulder.

[cleobis]

same happened near madrid, I decided to follow the atc instruccions and I made a safe fligth but for two or three seconds I was only 100ft above two mountain tops...hehe

[Eskimo]

Well,

what is M-E-A (or MSA)?

Well MSL is Mean Sea Level.  I'm not sure if he mean that or MSA (Mean Sea Altitude?) and I have no idea what MEA could be.

[wji]

What? You're not a genius like the rest of us?
Here's some of the current abbreviations being used here:

"MEA: MINIMUM EN ROUTE IFR ALTITUDE- The lowest published altitude between radio fixes which assures acceptable navigational signal coverage and meets obstacle clearance requirements between those fixes. The MEA prescribed for a Federal airway or segment thereof, area navigation low or high route, or other direct route applies to the entire width of the airway, segment, or route between the radio fixes defining the airway, segment, or route.

MSA: MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDE-

a. The minimum altitude specified in 14 CFR Part 91 for various aircraft operations.

b. Altitudes depicted on approach charts which provide at least 1,000 feet of obstacle clearance for emergency use within a specified distance from the navigation facility upon which a procedure is predicated. These altitudes will be identified as Minimum Sector Altitudes or Emergency Safe Altitudes and are established as follows:

1. Minimum Sector Altitudes. Altitudes depicted on approach charts which provide at least 1,000 feet of obstacle clearance within a 25-mile radius of the navigation facility upon which the procedure is predicated. Sectors depicted on approach charts must be at least 90 degrees in scope. These altitudes are for emergency use only and do not necessarily assure acceptable navigational signal coverage.

(See ICAO term Minimum Sector Altitude.)

2. Emergency Safe Altitudes. Altitudes depicted on approach charts which provide at least 1,000 feet of obstacle clearance in nonmountainous areas and 2,000 feet of obstacle clearance in designated mountainous areas within a 100-mile radius of the navigation facility upon which the procedure is predicated and normally used only in military procedures. These altitudes are identified on published procedures as "Emergency Safe Altitudes."

You too an join the geniuses here by clicking on GLOSSARY and then copy&paste it into this forum (like I do)

bill

p.s. better still, put the link on your desktop (I did)

[Ridge_Runner_5]

Well they named that airport SCAR (scare) for a reason or scar for leaving scars all over the mountains, hehe!

[beefhole]

Has anyone had ATC recognize terrain? (is my fs a super-anomoly?)

[wji]

As a matter fact -- yes. I bought FS9 the day it came out and for the longest time thought it was not cognisant of terrain for the reasons stated here.

Now, I've conlcuded (not verified by MS or anyone else) FS9 must have the MEA or MSA (we all know what these are) programmed into it; hence, all the altitude changes given by FS9's canned ATC_CTR before being handed off to _APP or _TWR (in mountainous areas)

IMO, the latter do not recognize terrain and can (do?) run planes into vertical real-estate

bill