wrote:
What part of the word "mid-air" don't you understand?

Ignoring all questions of law for a moment, is it *actually* more likely
to have a mid-air at 19,000ft than at 17,500ft? They don't have to keep
the traffic above 18,000ft, after all, but I don't really know what common
practice is, and especially not in that area. If the answer is that yes,
it is more likely, what are the actual odds of having one in each area?

Following your logic the other principals of airmanship a

5. Don't navigate.
6. Don't communicate.

Add "until you have attention to spare from aviating" to #5 and "until you
have attention to spare from navigating" to #6.

This guy was already stabilized, in control and in no immediate danger
of breaking up. Although he was, in my opinion, foolish to be flying
at Vne to begin with. He could have easily contacted Reno Approach w/o
compromising his safety. I just don't get your guy's logic; apparently
it is "We don't talk to controllers under any circumstances".

Speaking only for myself, of course, but just because the story we got
sounded relatively docile doesn't mean it was that way in the cockpit.
Different people have different capacities for verbal communication under
stress. You mentioned talking to a controller while dealing with a
microburst in the mountains. I don't doubt that you're capable of handling
that well, but it doesn't mean everyone is.

I would never say that he *shouldn't* contact ATC in these circumstances,
but only that a failure to do during the emergency isn't necessarily
negligent. If he really didn't have the attention or presence of mind to
use the radio while dealing with his situation, then concentrating on the
flying is the right thing to do. I won't comment on calling them once
things had calmed down again since I really don't know about that one.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software