Mid-air near Fielding 26 July 2010 [Archive]

buggaluggs

29th Jul 2010, 00:06

Admittedly this is a congested piece of airspace, but it's bloody frustrating that these accidents keep happening! Especially when there is relatively cheap technology out there that would help prevent it! Google Zaon MRX or Monroy ATD, something like this set up to let you know when there's traffic within 1mile and 500ft would be just the duck's knuts as a backup to VFR. All for less than 1k USD! Bloody cheap compared to what a crash like this costs, in $ and more so in lives!
It's not the only answer, but it's a start! We can't afford to just shake our heads and carry on doing what we've always done, and accept that every now and again there's going to be a tragedy. :{

mattyj

29th Jul 2010, 02:46

yep one of three things must've happened..aircraft A flew into aircraft B, or aircraft B flew into aircraft A or aircraft A and aircraft B flew into each other..if you trained in a busy airfield or training area then-"there but for the grace of god..."

VH-VIN

29th Jul 2010, 03:05

Were they doing overhead rejoins?, We need to get rid of the idea that all student pilots approach an airfield this way, Its not in the CAA rules, its not what happens in the real world I think our training organisations need a mind change on this one. Wasn't OHRJs and turning left after landing even if you are supposed to go right for the days of no radios?

Massey058

29th Jul 2010, 05:21

VH-VIN,

You are right in that the utility of overhead rejoin's should be discussed, but what is the alternative? I still think it should be taught, I still do them from time to time in the Caravan's that I fly to unattended and even 'attended' (in the loosest sense of the word) aerodromes.

Is there not potential for a collision in any unattended joining procedure if you fail to spot or take account of the traffic?

Sqwark2000

29th Jul 2010, 05:22

SOHRJ's are a completely safe procedure if done 'standard' i.e flying the right pattern with appropriate radio calls.

How do you expect someone to determine the runway in use and any other traffic (incl. NORDO) at an unattended aerodrome without flying overhead to check the windsocks.

As for not happening in the real world, I can whole-heartedly say that it is a current and well used procedure in NZ. I've even done one in B1900D at a busy NZWR circuit...

S2K

Mary & Andrew

29th Jul 2010, 06:38

Hallo people, We are not fliers, but very close, long standing friends of Pat Smallman the lady who died yesterday in the fielding crash. We are in London and had been friends of Pat for over 30 yrs. Mary, my wife travelled with Pat to Africa on 3 month safari's testing the boundaries and exploring the depths of forests for Gorilla's and we have lost one of the warmest, friendliest, funniest, lovliest live wires you could ever wish to meet. One so full of life and always, even at her age wishing to grow even stronger by learning, she tested boundaries of her life, but was as responsible as anyone in how she executed what she attempted - careless she was not. We did not know the instructor, but another young life taken too. I thank you sincerely for the offers of condolences in the earlier posts.

I did not wish to hijack a predominantly 'flying and aviation forum, I frequent a few forum in the UK myself and know how powerful they can be so what I would like to say here, now that I found these comments about the situation there in Fielding is please do whatever the industry can to change things if you can or if they are needed in the Aerodrome there if you feel it is needed, or anywhere else for that matter where small aircraft are vulnerable. I see someone saying for a 1000 $ something could have been done which could have made this avoidable - is there anyone out there pushing for these things to been applied?

Two very wholsesome people have had their lives snatched away from them in a flash and whilst I am sure all over the world these kind of losses are felt as painfully as these are here in this Fielding crash, but it's those who are in positions of strength within the industry who can change things for those who follow so that families and fellow flyers can be sound in the knowledge that things like this cannot happen.

The poor lad who survived this in the 2nd plane will have to live with this too, no matter where the fault lies eventually, it is not something easily lived with.

I wish all of you flyers, either professionals or just doing what Pat did living the dream a safe future and trust someone somewhere can make this a safer journey.

We will miss her greatly as will her family and other friends we never got to meet, this puts a human element to the techi side of things so please, if you can, press for safety changes. Try not let their lives be lost in vain.

Thank you.

Andrew and Mary Pain
Blackheath London

VH-VIN

29th Jul 2010, 07:21

I agree there is a place for them but not every time. It is often safer to work in with other traffic either joining straight in or down wind. This should taught as well but doesnt seem to be the case. Finding out what the wind is can be done by allot of other ways other than looking at the wind sock from 1500 feet.

latewings

29th Jul 2010, 07:51

I completed a PPL in February, and overhead joins were definitely a hot topic and enforced rigourously. So too was the 500 foot climb level off and have a look before continuing the climb concept, so from my personal experience these concepts are well managed in the ppl curriculum in NZ. This was for a location with marginally higher traffic density to the one this incident occurred at.

remoak

29th Jul 2010, 11:17

it's bloody frustrating that these accidents keep happening! Especially when there is relatively cheap technology out there that would help prevent it!

I can think of two very cheap technologies that prevent these accidents:

1. See and be seen
2. Listen to (and use) the damn radio!

It's not rocket science...

I thought the comment by Flight Training Manawatu chief executive Michael Bryant that "occasionally these things will happen" was particularly foolish... no, they don't Michael, if you train and supervise properly...

boomhower

29th Jul 2010, 12:36

Remoak your comments stating 1. See and be seen
2. Listen to (and use) the damn radio! Is easy to say but every Joe Blogs has had there close calls id say even you! Were only human we make mistakes, for all we no it might be pure coincidence that this happened! but unfortunately this accident has claimed two lives.
There has been many accidents in the past and there will be many more to come,yes we can minimize them but they will never stop, so saying Michaels comment is foolish is rather selfish if you ask me.

remoak

29th Jul 2010, 14:55

There is no such thing as "coincidence" in accidents like this. There is obviously a loss of situational awareness at the heart of this accident, easily avoidable with proper procedures but as is often the case at this end of the aviation spectrum, way too common for comfort. To simply shrug one's shoulders and say "there will always be accidents" is to be way too accepting of lax standards and procedures. If airlines thought like that, there would be a lot more accidents than there are - but most airlines refuse to accept unnecessary risk in their operations and actively seek to eradicate as many holes in the "swiss cheese" as possible.

Yes, I have had a few close calls over the years, but pretty much all of them were while instructing. They range from the standard lack of situational awareness (ie being cut off in the circuit) to people who thought it would be fun to formate on me without my knowing they were there, to encountering people in Low Flying Areas who weren't talking to anyone while fanging around at 50 feet with no regard for legit training traffic.

Even recently, I spotted one guy who, despite numerous traffic calls from me, drifted so close I had to take avoiding action. He had clearly not seen me as he bimbled along, and shortly thereafter he gave a position report that was out by over 15 miles. Scary.

There is a lot of dodgy stuff happening every day in the flight training world, it's about time it was recognised and dealt with.

mintpro172

29th Jul 2010, 21:34

I trained at Ardmore and would say that getting rid of overhead rejoins is definitely a really bad decision. There could easily be up to 10 aircraft in the circuit at any one time. Doing the overhead rejoin is the only safe way to join and spot all the traffic. Mistakes and near collisions have been made even with me in the cockpit when people decided to join the circuit straight in. If done the right way and proper radio calls it can make joining the circuit a lot less nerve racking. Not a good idea getting rid of it in my opinion.

Bastardos

29th Jul 2010, 22:29

I dunno, I am just a newbie, but I would only ever be at 1,500ft AGL near an airfield if I was actually joining overhead. If I was climbing out, I would follow the airfield procedure that would be to depart at 1,500ft or below?

Personally, I prefer overhead joins at many airfields. At MS for example, the three windsocks can all show different wind directions and the circuit in use can vary quite a bit in an hour. This can be problematic in a tail dragger, as can following a trike in who is not even looking at the windsock and merely flying br rote. Joining overhead can buy you some time of course to settle yourself, sort out who is where, etc

flyinkiwi

29th Jul 2010, 23:51

From my perspective as a low time PPL I agree wholeheartedly with Remoaks comments as I have had quite a few close calls similar to his experiences.

My big bugbears are:

People who give incorrect position reports
People who don't give position reports at all (NORDO traffic notwithstanding)
People who say one thing over the radio and then do another

My point is, we could argue about the pros and cons of overhead joins forever, but if people fail to follow ANY procedure correctly, the holes in the swiss cheese start lining up rapidly.

mattyj

30th Jul 2010, 01:35

Who remembers the "good ol' days" when NZ pay rates were relatively high and aircraft were cheap and easy to hire (back in the 90's for instance) and on the weekend doing a weekend city scenic around Auckland was a real exercise in terror..especially if you ventured near the skytower:eek:

Jober.as.a.Sudge

30th Jul 2010, 02:39

...the "good ol' days" when NZ pay rates were relatively high and aircraft were cheap and easy to hire (back in the 90's for instance)...

What planet was that on???? :confused:

My memory of the 80's, 90's and 00's was most definitely subsistence "wages", usually paid on hours airborne -when the boss could be bothered getting his chequebook out! Far better off flipping burgers at Macca's -still are.

conflict alert

30th Jul 2010, 06:16

Remoak

2. Listen to (and use) the damn radio!

I hear (scuse pun) what you are saying but don't totally agree.

119.1 often blocked/crossed transmissions because everyone in uncontrolled airspace is on it - thankfully some of the busier airfields now have a specific freq.

English second language students - very hard to understand.

Position reports inaccurate or completely wrong.

These, amongst other things, can make it very difficult to have an accurate picture, or situational awareness of other traffic. Given this I believe that even "listening to and use the damn radio", as you put it, these tragic accidents will still occur.

latewings

30th Jul 2010, 09:31

119.1 often blocked/crossed transmissions because everyone in uncontrolled airspace is on it - thankfully some of the busier airfields now have a specific freq.

When I did my radio teleophony study and while out with instructors, the concept of 'repeat' and 'two at once' were frequently use to ensure missed radio calls were understood. It's the PICs perogative to clarify anything missed or misunderstood. I'm a low hours PPL, but have no issue asking for a radio call to be repeated. I feel safer that way.

119.1 in the top end of the island was split to ensure cross-over was eliminated, but even so, it still happens and it's not hard to ask another pilot friend to say it again.

divinesoul

30th Jul 2010, 20:46

English second language students - very hard to understand.

agreed but i have heard some kiwi pilots talking so fast on the radio too especially rotor pilots.

remoak

31st Jul 2010, 02:22

Jober.as.a.Sudge

My memory of the 80's, 90's and 00's was most definitely subsistence "wages", usually paid on hours airborne -when the boss could be bothered getting his chequebook out! Far better off flipping burgers at Macca's -still are.

When I left NZ in '88, I was a flying instructor at a local aero club on a salary of 28K with a bonus paid for flying hours. Bear in mind 28K bought a lot more 22 years ago...

conflict alert

Yes 119.1 may be busy - not so much around Fielding though I suspect - but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't patiently wait, get your call in, and be safe now, does it? You wouldn't launch out of a bigger field IFR without a clearance, would you? This is no different. Better that we teach our pilots to do things properly every time, than accept the inevitable consequences if we don't.

Every accident is preventable at some point along the chain of events that lead to it. The airline industry (in the First World at any rate) long ago figured out that a zero tolerance approach to safety is the only way to keep the accident rate down - and look at how well they do compared to NZ GA. How many is it so far this year?

Now ask yourself WHY.

VH-VIN

31st Jul 2010, 04:14

NZ GA 135 has had no fatal accidents in the last 5 and a half years, thats not a bad record I recon. Training on the other hand has had a bad run. What do you think that is telling us? I do find taking an instructor and trying to teach them in GA is hard work. Some of them are a bit like a dog thats started to worry sheep, to many bad habits, better off to get rid of them and get a new one!!!

conflict alert

31st Jul 2010, 06:20

Remoak

My point was - its not so easy to get your situational awareness of where the other traffic is when transmissions from the other a/c are being continually crossed,jammed or where the language barrier makes it difficult to understand.

I also note flying around a lot that in a number of CFZ's around the country the regular users seem to use a lot of 'local' points not displayed on charts. This is also particularly annoying as you have to trade off looking out the window to looking at your chart to try and find the reported position on the map, only to find its not on there. It's one thing for you to be on the ground and wait patiently for a break in the RT or sit there while you work out where everyone is, as you say, but its not so easy when your already in the air given the above circumstances.

Yes you are correct - FI has a discreet freq 124.1 but I was generalizing NZ wide not specifically to this accident. Years ago when everything outside controlled airspace was 119.1 was just a shambles. As a jump pilot - at altitude you would pick up half of NZ - it was a bloody nightmare where you would have to endure squealing and screeching from multiple transmissions at once for the majority of every flight.

Anyway, I understand what you are saying and it would be great in the perfect world, but I can't see it being the be all and end all of preventing this sort of thing from happening again sadly.

Jober.as.a.Sudge

31st Jul 2010, 06:40

...When I left NZ in '88, I was a flying instructor at a local aero club on a salary of 28K with a bonus paid for flying hours. Bear in mind 28K bought a lot more 22 years ago...

I hear ya, and on leaving NZ myself in '01 where I was flying twins in a scenic op, base safety officer etc., amongst other related activities, I was on a salary of NZD$22K p.a. That equated to about $760 in the hand a fortnight of which $500 went straight out in rent. The boss also paid by cheque so clearance times, and that was if he bothered turning up to pay us 6 or 8 weeks down the track.

Previous job was on (airborne) hourly rate.

I left because I couldn't afford to stay.

conflict alert

31st Jul 2010, 06:56

The airline industry (in the First World at any rate) long ago figured out that a zero tolerance approach to safety is the only way to keep the accident rate down - and look at how well they do compared to NZ GA. How many is it so far this year?

Not quite sure how you can compare the 2 - one in a controlled IFR environment and the other generally uncontrolled VFR environment.

remoak

31st Jul 2010, 10:02

conflict alert

Not quite sure how you can compare the 2 - one in a controlled IFR environment and the other generally uncontrolled VFR environment.

Simple - safety isn't negotiable just because you are flying VFR. Why would you believe that a controlled IFR environment is intrinsically safe, and that a VFR environment isn't? Either is as safe as you make it. If you treat VFR flying in a professional manner, you will be safe, if you treat IFR flying in an unprofessional manner, you will conversely be unsafe.

When two aircraft collide in flight, it is ALWAYS because somebody wasn't paying attention - either the pilots (VFR) or the pilots and controllers (IFR). That is the simple truth, and trying to dress it up as "accidents will always happen" is to simply make excuses for lax procedures and training. The sad thing is that it is often the pilot who WAS being diligent and professional who ends up paying the price.

I agree with most of what you are saying about GA, but the bit I have problems with is where some pilots will say "F@ck it, I can't get a word in, I'll just not bother" and then proceed to have an incident. One of the fundamental rules of safe aviation (mainly in the airline world, but relevant to GA) is to not do anything until you are absolutely sure what is going on and where you are, and where any local threats to your safety are. In the airline case, we use TCAS/TAWS and query controllers if not sure. In GA, you just have to be patient and apply the same basic technique.

The language barrier doesn't really exist in this country, the majority of Indian students speak English better than a lot of Kiwis do. Yes, they do often get geographically confused, and sometimes struggle with Maori names, but really a lot of that comes down to the quality of the training they receive.

tred

31st Jul 2010, 19:35

In the airline case, we use TCAS/TAWS and query controllers if not sure.

And I suspect came to rely on TCAS all to much. In the course of my job the number of IFR aircraft on visual approaches I see who descend below controlled airspace prior to entering a control zone is a regular occurence. There is still a large number and variety of aircraft which are not equipped with transponders and able to operate in uncontrolled airspace. At 240+ knots - its not a lot of time to react

the majority of Indian students speak English better than a lot of Kiwis do. Yes, they do often get geographically confused, and sometimes struggle with Maori names

isn't that what CA was saying?

conflict alert

31st Jul 2010, 21:13

yes it is.....

remoak

1st Aug 2010, 03:31

tred

In the course of my job the number of IFR aircraft on visual approaches I see who descend below controlled airspace prior to entering a control zone is a regular occurence. There is still a large number and variety of aircraft which are not equipped with transponders and able to operate in uncontrolled airspace. At 240+ knots - its not a lot of time to react

Sure, but a visual approach is just that, "see and avoid" applies and that is part and parcel of requesting accepting the clearance in the first place. You become VFR at that point. I doubt that any IFR (originally) aircraft are still doing 240 kts below controlled airspace, more like 140kts below say 1500 feet as much more would by definition be an unstable approach. Also, most would be well below profile if they managed to get into uncontrolled airspace on approach (which is why controlled airspace has the dimensions it has). I'm not sure what airport you are thinking of though, so happy to eat humble pie!

isn't that what CA was saying?

Well he said "My point was - its not so easy to get your situational awareness of where the other traffic is when transmissions from the other a/c are being continually crossed,jammed or where the language barrier makes it difficult to understand."

That is what I was responding to.

Weekend_Warrior

6th Aug 2010, 22:34

I hope not, but the fact that CAA have left it so long does make me wonder.

Air NZ Paraparaumu flights delayed | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/new-zealand/3996245/Air-NZ-Paraparaumu-flights-delayed)

I hope this does start a trend back to at least flight service at busy airfields.

Now lets see if Ardmore and Taupo get equal treatment.

ZK-NSN

7th Aug 2010, 09:17

I'm not sure what airport you are thinking of though, so happy to eat humble pie!

Got me as well. Most companies have SOP's that dont allow for that speed at an altitude that would put them outside of controlled Airspace.
As for TCAS, I dont think its the silver bullet to solve the problem. The system has its limitations and in GA situations would pose more problems than provide solutions.

See and be seen.

tred

8th Aug 2010, 18:25

I'm not sure what airport you are thinking of though, so happy to eat humble pie!

Start eating

Palmerston North particularly from the south on a visual approach IFR's will most often descend below 4000ft taking them into airspace where VFR uncontrolled can be operating up to 3500ft. This can be as close as 9nm from the airport before the controlled airspace lowers. And when its 25 in use the ARE doing a ground speed well in excess of 200kts - I see it all the time! Used to see them boring in from the north as well straight through the FI circuit (uncontrolled up to 1500) but that seems to have been knocked on the head by Company SOPs after being highlighted to them.

Into NR aircraft descending below 10000ft prior to NR TMA (uncontrolled up to 9500ft to the SW and Sth)

TG from the south descending below 4000ft prior to the control zone

I'll give you time to digest those pies first before I go on.

slackie

8th Aug 2010, 20:33

You become VFR at that point
Ahhh...no...you are IFR on a Visual Approach. Any separation/traffic information requirements of the airspace Class are still in place. The only thing that changes is that you are providing your own separation from terrain.

tred

8th Aug 2010, 23:16

Slackie wrote

The only thing that changes is that you are providing your own separation from terrain.

correct and may I add...also, it then becomes the pilot's responsibility to remain within controlled airspace.

An altitude restriction on a visual approach is more likely to be for circuit intergration or for traffic separation requirements - NOT for the bottom of controlled airspace reasons.

Into PM a visual approach maintain 2000ft is for circuit intergration at PM even though controlled airspace 9nm south of PM is 3500ft and below.

S.E.A.L.11

9th Aug 2010, 07:54

It has become enough of an issue for this to be attached to the Arrival plate for Palmy:

CAUTION: Visual Approaches

It is a pilot’s responsibility to ensure containment of their flight within controlled airspace when on a visual approach.
Caution should be exercised to avoid conflict with possible traffic in class G airspace surrounding Palmerston North CTR/D. This is especially relevant for arrivals from the north and traffic in the vicinity of Feilding aerodrome.

Ref: http://www.aip.net.nz/pdf/NZPM_31.1.pdf

:ok:

conflict alert

9th Aug 2010, 08:32

Remoak

Your slowly getting shot down on this one!!!!

What I can only assume from reading you posts over the last few months is that you believe the airlines can do no wrong yet they contribute the most to fatal accident numbers of individuals paying for hire or reward if you go back over the stats for years gone by.

What SEAL 11 has posted shouldn't even be on the landing plate....because its the rules of IFR flying....so why do you think that something like that has to be re-iterated to the airline fraternity. Is it because they forget the rules or don't know the airspace or what? Or is it because they have come to rely on TCAS..your quote...In the airline case, we use TCAS/TAWS so they don't worry about airspace anymore.

Interesting topic.

By the way-I'm absolutely staggered at this comment from youSure, but a visual approach is just that, "see and avoid" applies and that is part and parcel of requesting accepting the clearance in the first place. You become VFR at that point.

As Slackie says....Ahhh...no.....and if you, as a professional IFR pilot, think that you become a VFR flight when requesting and cleared for a visual approach, then you seriously need to redo some Law exams.

S.E.A.L.11

9th Aug 2010, 09:05

To be fair though its not only the airlines who are nipping the Class G. I know and have seen some GA Training aircraft do it too.

Either way while I was in the tower today I saw a Kingair fly at 2500ft through Class G that goes up to 4500ft on the tower freq on a visual from the north... Its normally a high density training spot too... :sad:

conflict alert

9th Aug 2010, 10:05

Don't deny that re the GA, but Remoak seems to think that the airlines don't or couldn't possibly do what have been presented to him in previous posts.

Assuming when you mention
Tower + Kingair + 4500ft uncontrolled = OH TWR
Airforce should know the airspace like the back of their hand, particularly round that neck of the woods, they have a IFR training package which takes them outside of controlled airspace 'military terrain' so presume they are quite conversed with IFR outside controlled airspace procedures and know to keep a bloody good look out. Not kitted with TCAS I might add.....

remoak

9th Aug 2010, 11:21

tred

Palmerston North particularly from the south on a visual approach IFR's will most often descend below 4000ft taking them into airspace where VFR uncontrolled can be operating up to 3500ft. This can be as close as 9nm from the airport before the controlled airspace lowers.They will only descend below 4000 if their descent is unrestricted, which I would assume that it wouldn't be if there was any traffic in the way. Are you suggesting that ATC would clear me for a visual approach into Palmy if there was anything - even a primary return with no altitude information - in the way? Or are you saying that such traffic is invisible to radar around Palmy? Notwithstanding the warning on the plate... and in any case I can see no earthly reason why anyone would need to descend below controlled airspace on a visual. If they are, their company should be told.

The boundary my be 9nm from the runway, but the actual track miles to the threshold will be more like 15nm minimum for a stable approach, which would put any aircraft on something remotely resembling an appropriate profile, above 3500'.

Why do you think the airspace dimensions are the way they are? :ugh::ugh:

slackie

you are IFR on a Visual ApproachYes, my bad, I was thinking Euro rules (which are somewhat less anal than NZ ones). I only flew there for 20 years so sometimes I revert...

conflict alert

Your slowly getting shot down on this one!!!! Yeah you are enjoying the thought of that, aren't you? :rolleyes:

What I can only assume from reading you posts over the last few months is that you believe the airlines can do no wrong yet they contribute the most to fatal accident numbers of individuals paying for hire or reward if you go back over the stats for years gone by. Yeah you need to read more carefully. I have never actually said anything remotely resembling that. What I have said is that airlines operate to much higher standards, have much better resources and are far more disciplined. Your point is somewhat disingenuous, one airliner crash can kill more people than 100 light aircraft crashes... and yet, when was the last fatal airline accident in NZ? And how many fatal GA accidents have their been already this year?

so why do you think that something like that has to be re-iterated to the airline fraternityYou have completely missed the point. You don't know whether the warning is there as a result of airline misdemeanours, or problems with training traffic or Part 125/135 operators. I would suggest the latter - I assume that Air NZ has rules about flying outside controlled airspace.

Or is it because they have come to rely on TCASNo... it is just something we have in our toolbox, that most GA aircraft don't.

henry crun

9th Aug 2010, 22:16

remoak: "even a primary return with no altitude information", I believe there is no primary radar available in that area.

remoak

10th Aug 2010, 02:32

So do they suppress non-transponder traffic from their secondary system?

Tarq57

10th Aug 2010, 02:46

remoak, non-transponder equipped a/c don't show up on SSR. Only PSR (primary).
I believe there is a fairly powerful primary radar located at OH. Additional primary radars are located at AA WN and CH. The primary coverage is reasonable.

buggaluggs

10th Aug 2010, 02:47

"So do they suppress non-transponder traffic from their secondary system" erm.... if they're "non-transponder" they won't show up on the secondary system at any time :8 .
From what I understand ATC can inhibit certain Txpder codes from showing on their screen, but if the aircraft is not fitted with a Txpder then it'll show as a primary only target, provided it's in coverage. Which since the removal of the Wilson's rd ( ohakea ) primary, is very limited in the Manawatu.

S.E.A.L.11

10th Aug 2010, 03:11

Yep Ohakea Primary does not exist anymore. Closest is Welly's which will only get good reception at a decent altitude.

Conflict Alert...In this case it was not the Airforce, rather a B200 operator from the north east :}.

The main issue Ive seen is the visual approach from the north where Palmy's CTR is only about 1-2nm wide and Feilding's circuit is just on the other side of the boundary. If an IFR is on a tight visual they can quite easily descend to 1500 before getting inside the CTR, even if aiming for a 3-5nm final due to the narrow width of the CTR. Its a bit like trying to manoevre down a narrow hallway where you can't descend until in that hallway... :uhoh:

remoak

10th Aug 2010, 04:11

remoak, non-transponder equipped a/c don't show up on SSR. Only PSR (primary).

Yeah I know that, secondary radars are normally paired with primary radar, that's why they are called secondary. Sounds like it may not be the case around Palmy though.

I guess this is called progress...

tred

10th Aug 2010, 05:20

They will only descend below 4000 if their descent is unrestricted, which I would assume that it wouldn't be if there was any traffic in the way.

Dear oh dear - this is a worry.

I have just explained in a previous post how the descent restrictions work.

NO PSR available Manawatu - was owned by the airforce with a range of about 150nm but withdrawn from service when the strikewing was de-com'ed. Wellington Primary is only good for about 80nm from Hawkins Hill so no primary returns from about Otaki /Foxton northwards.

So do they suppress non-transponder traffic from their secondary system?

Suggests your not up with play there Remoak.

remoak

10th Aug 2010, 07:06

Dear oh dear - this is a worry.

I have just explained in a previous post how the descent restrictions work.

I don't really get what your problem is. I'm not talking about the letter of the law, I'm talking about what any responsible ATCO should be doing when he knows he has an IFR inbound on a visual, and the possibility of other traffic in the area. Maybe you aren't allowed to give traffic advice any more, I don't know, but I do know that the more I see of NZ ATC since I got back from Europe, the more I despair. I mean, what is wrong with giving a descent restriction if you even suspect there might be VFR traffic tooling around with no transponder? And requiring a 5 mile final for IFR inbounds, even on a visual? That's what happens in Welly, why not in Palmy? Surely the idea is to ensure as much protection as possible? I don't get it. Help me out.

Suggests your not up with play there Remoak.

Quite the reverse. It is normal throughout Europe (probably in the US too, I don't know) to pair a primary and secondary radar together so that everything gets seen, and to provide redundancy - certainly everywhere I have been over there. So, for example, in the Edinburgh ATC centre you have secondary displays with a selectable primary overlay, and you can suppress targets that do not meet various criteria. There is also and ancient 1960's primary radar display that acts as a third backup. Maybe it is OK to remove a primary radar from a reasonably busy chunk of airspace in NZ, but frankly I think it is crazy unless you make all the airspace that might in any way be a factor, transponder-mandatory. But that's just me.

So I would suggest that Airways isn't up with the play.

henry crun

10th Aug 2010, 07:57

tred: Small correction to your last post, the Ohakea PSR did not belong to the RNZAF, it was owned, serviced, and operated by Airways.

ZK-NSN

10th Aug 2010, 10:36

Looks like you have upset this lot Remoak. It would seem you are unfairly being ganged up on.
Im slightly confused how a forum on a tragic collision that killed a well respected and liked instructor as well as her student has turned into a bitching session about Airliners on visual approaches.

What I can only assume from reading you posts over the last few months is that you believe the airlines can do no wrong yet they contribute the most to fatal accident numbers of individuals paying for hire or reward if you go back over the stats for years gone by.
You should never "assume" conflict. This is a vauge and pointless statement. Part 121 operators in NZ (the ones you guys are targeting) have a very good safety record. The last major Airline crash in NZ was the ansett dash 8 in 1995? How many fatal GA accidents have there been in NZ since then? and anyway lets stick a little closer to the forum topic, shall we check the stats on airline mid-air collisions Vs those in GA?

Your point is somewhat disingenuous, one airliner crash can kill more people than 100 light aircraft crashes... and yet, when was the last fatal airline accident in NZ? And how many fatal GA accidents have their been already this year?
Touch'e remoak.

your quote...
Quote:
In the airline case, we use TCAS/TAWS

so they don't worry about airspace anymore.

frankly, your being a d!ck. He said that Airlines USE TCAS, not that they RELY on it. Its like GPS, you use it, but you still carry a map and look out the window to see where you are.

As for all this talk of Airliners blasting through uncontrolled Airspace at mach 3... Correct me if im wrong but there is nothing stopping IFR aircraft from doing this on a visual approach and beleive me it is only done (especially around PMR) with the AID of TCAS, 2 sets of eyes looking out the window (better resourses than most GA aircraft enjoy) and after some consideration by the crew. Just because Airline pilots dont fly VFR all the time doesnt mean they have forgotten the basics or the rules.

Small correction to your last post, the Ohakea PSR did not belong to the RNZAF, it was owned, serviced, and operated by Airways
Pretty much sums up the pointless bun-fight this forum has become.

Fell free to have a whinge or hassle my poor spelling and sentence structure.

remoak

10th Aug 2010, 12:15

Yeah I thought we were past all this ATCO vs Pilot stuff, but apparently not!

To me it just illustrates how narrow most viewpoints in NZ aviation are. It's an aviation backwater (in international terms) with some very odd ideas.

Perhaps I have grown too used to a system that facilitates aviation rather than obstructs it! :}:}

conflict alert

10th Aug 2010, 21:38

ZKNSN

Im slightly confused how a forum on a tragic collision that killed a well respected and liked instructor as well as her student has turned into a bitching session about Airliners on visual approaches.

I think it started when remoak said
The airline industry (in the First World at any rate) long ago figured out that a zero tolerance approach to safety is the only way to keep the accident rate down

it was then pointed out that it is quite common to see the 'airline industry' on visual approaches, descend outside controlled airspace. I would have thought that highlighted a potential threat, particularly in NZ's worst piece of airspace for midairs
in no particular order
helicopter vs aircraft at PP
PA38 vs PA38 east of PM
C152 vs C152 FI
PA28 vs PA28 south of PM
CT4 vs CT4 west of OH
A4 vs A4 OH

I suspect what has caused a flurry of responses is the fact that remoak seemed to categorically deny that the 'airline industry' would do such a thing as described with such quotes as

I doubt that any IFR (originally) aircraft are still doing 240 kts below controlled airspace, more like 140kts below say 1500 feet as much more would by definition be an unstable approach. Also, most would be well below profile if they managed to get into uncontrolled airspace on approach (which is why controlled airspace has the dimensions it has)

and

They will only descend below 4000 if their descent is unrestricted

and

I can see no earthly reason why anyone would need to descend below controlled airspace on a visual

Remoak

You don't know whether the warning is there as a result of airline misdemeanours

Yes I do, yes it was, and

If they are, their company should be told.

yes they all were!

Yeah I thought we were past all this ATCO vs Pilot stuff, but apparently not!

most of the responses to you seem to be in an effort to help you better understand the radar system/what can and can't be seen and highlight a potential threat that perhaps you didn't know was out there (visual approach procedures) so I don't believe its a case of 'us and them' but if that's how you want to take it - so be it.

And if you still don't believe this sort of thing could possibly happen then read ZKNSN quote

there is nothing stopping IFR aircraft from doing this on a visual approach and beleive me it is only done (especially around PMR) with the AID of TCAS, 2 sets of eyes looking out the window (better resourses than most GA aircraft enjoy) and after some consideration by the crew.

ZKNSN

As for all this talk of Airliners blasting through uncontrolled Airspace at mach 3

Don't think mach 3 was ever mentioned! Tred posted the comment that in excess of 200kts it doesn't allow much time to take avoiding action. Fair comment I would have thought.

Part 121 operators in NZ (the ones you guys are targeting)

No ones being 'targeted' - where's the evidence of that here or are you ASSUMING!

You should never "assume" conflict. This is a vauge and pointless statement

I have read a number of posts from Remoak regarding aircraft accidents that have occurred both here and abroad and he almost always mention ssomething about the how good the airline industry is/safety records/etc etc - so yes - I do assume that he has a very high opinion of the airline industry.

Anyway - I've said my piece - you two just carry on with your blinkers on.

tred

11th Aug 2010, 00:49

tred: Small correction to your last post, the Ohakea PSR did not belong to the RNZAF, it was owned, serviced, and operated by Airways.

yes, sorry your quite correct, bad choice of words on my part, what I should have said was that the airforce paid for it to be there and once the strikewing was shut down - didn't feel there was a need for it for their requirements and so stopped paying for the use of it. Airways then sold it offshore, can't remember where.

remoak

11th Aug 2010, 02:18

it was then pointed out that it is quite common to see the 'airline industry' on visual approaches, descend outside controlled airspace. I would have thought that highlighted a potential threat, particularly in NZ's worst piece of airspace for midairs
in no particular order
helicopter vs aircraft at PP
PA38 vs PA38 east of PM
C152 vs C152 FI
PA28 vs PA28 south of PM
CT4 vs CT4 west of OH
A4 vs A4 OH

Hmmm don't see any transport category aircraft in that list...

I stand by all those statements that you highlighted as they are all correct and nobody seems game to refute them. You might be able to point to some isolated incidents, but you certainly can't show me any accidents or loss of life caused by an airline aircraft making a visual approach, probably no incident reports either, or I suspect any evidence at all to support your claims.

This started with me saying "Also, most would be well below profile if they managed to get into uncontrolled airspace on approach (which is why controlled airspace has the dimensions it has). I'm not sure what airport you are thinking of though, so happy to eat humble pie!" All that is quite true. If you have a few miscreants breaking the rules, by all means report them, but the airspace dimensions do not require entry into uncontrolled airspace at any time when on a visual approach, which is all I was saying. Any airline pilot following his company SOPs is highly unlikely to have to do so. So pie-eating is on hold for now.