Near miss sparks docs' safety plea

[gileraguy]

THE Royal Flying Doctor Service wants transponders made compulsory in all aircraft.

The call comes after a near collision with a light plane in the state's South-East.

The RFDS Pilatus PC12, carrying a pilot and three medical staff, and a 50-year-old Aeronautica Macchi AL60 with two people on board, came within 6m of each other about 56km northwest of Mt Gambier.

The RFDS pilot told the Australian Transport Safety Bureau his Pilatus "rocked" as they passed during the incident in July last year.

His aircraft was on its way to Mt Gambier for a medical retrieval, while the Aeronautica had been bought in Tasmania and was being flown back to South Australia.

The Aeronautica was not fitted with a transponder unit, which would have transmitted its exact location to the RFDS aircraft.

RFDS general manager of aviation and operations Barrie Hocking said that despite the RFDS pilot having followed all published procedures, a potentially serious incident had occurred.

He said all aircraft that flew in and out of "uncontrolled" airfields in regional and remote areas should be equipped with transponders.

"All high-performance aircraft accessing regional ports, not just the RFDS, are exposed to the risk of mid-air collision," Mr Hocking said.

"All RFDS aircraft are equipped with transponders and (Terminal Collision Avoidance Systems) that will alert pilots of other aircraft. Mandatory transponders in all aircraft would place another layer of defence in the system to prevent a mid-air collision."

In a report to the ATSB, the pilot of the small plane said he did not have a full appreciation of the proximity of his planned outbound track with the Adelaide-Mt Gambier inbound track.

His plane was not fitted with a transponder and he was flying directly into the sun.

The RFDS pilot told the ATSB that after descending through the cloud base and transmitting his intended flight path, he saw the other aircraft pass to the left of him flying in the opposite direction.

"The other plane was in such close proximity that his aircraft `rocked' as it passed," the pilot said.


SIDEBAR

"HOW DRAMA UNFOLDED"

Aeronautic Macchi AL60 VH-ELJ with 2 POB departs Mt Gambier Airport on a northwest heading.

RFDS Pilatus PC12 VH-FDK with 4 POB heading for Mt Gambier airport for medical retrieval.


Aeronautic crew had to re-align the directional gyroscope on the plane and were off course of planned route by 2km to 4km.


About 50km northwest of Mt Gambier the crew commenced correcting the course as the Mt Gambier bound RFDS aircraft was descending to about 730m.


RFDS Pilot told ATSB after descending through the cloud base and transmitting his intended flight path that he saw the other aircraft pass to the left of him flying in the opposite direction.


The two planes missed by about 6m. RFDS pilot said the other plane was in such close proximity that his aircraft "rocked" as it passed.


The 50 year old Aeronatica did not have a transponder fitted, unlike all RFDS aircraft.



CASA FINAL REPORT

On 1 July 2010, an Aeronautica Macchi S.P.A. AL60 aircraft, registered VH-ELI (ELI), departed Devonport, Tasmania (Tas.) for Portee Station, South Australia (SA) with planned refuelling stops at King Island, Tas. and Hamilton, Victoria (Vic.).
While enroute from King Island to Hamilton, the crew observed low cloud along the track and diverted to Mount Gambier, SA to refuel. After departing Mount Gambier, the crew observed that the left fuel tank gauge was indicating half full. The crew discussed the situation and elected to continue the flight. Also, the directional gyro had to be aligned twice by the crew due to gyroscopic precession. As a result, the aircraft diverted to the left of the planned track by about 2-4 km. The crew commenced correcting the track when an inbound Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-12/45 aircraft, registered VH‑FDK (FDK), passed to the left in close proximity.
It was estimated that the distance between the two aircraft was between 5 and 15 m horizontally and about 20 ft vertically.
While the operator of FDK determined that their pilot had complied with the required procedures, they advised the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) that they will be conducting an internal education to remind pilots that maintaining a lookout and the use of radio telephony procedures are the primary tools used for traffic separation, supported by the traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS).



THE QUESTIONS:

I have to ask, why was the doc so low (730m) when he was 53km away from Mount Gambier?

Don't ALL VH registered aircraft have to be fitted with a transponder?

discuss:

[Cessna 180]

GEN 1.5 6.1.1

All aircraft must be fitted with a serviceable Mode A and Mode C, or Mode S, SSR transponder for operations within classes A,B and C airspace and any class of airspace at or above 10,000FT AMSL

[AussieNick]

Have you possibly misunderstood the wording they have used? I read that as the pilot had commenced his descent from cruise (which they don't specify) down to circuit height of 2500ft, Not that he was almost at 2500ft.

[VH-XXX]

Quite timely after last nights Air Crash investigation TV episode involving the 737 and the private Embrayer jet.

At that low altitude it's every pilot for himself looking out the windows....

(ironic that the doc has THE doc's rego FDK)

[gileraguy]

AusNic

yep. you may have something there.

I wonder how low the cloud base that the PC emerged from was?

[Jack Ranga]

At that low altitude it's every pilot for himself looking out the windows....

And that still didn't work. They didn't see each other.

The technology exists but so do luddites.

[NCD]

Kelly

the point being made is that the TCAS fitted to the RFDS aircraft would have identified ELJ as traffic/threat etc.

In regards to an exemption, depends on any legislation that would need to be passed.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

If transponders were mandatory, a fifty year old aircraft would probably be able to get an exemption.

A few months ago I flew across Vic in a 60+ year-old aeroplane. It had a transponder!

The only exemptions to be considered should be for aircraft that do not have a suitable electrical system - and then they should have limitations placed on them.

Dr :8

[Wally Mk2]

This is indeed a worry & I am not surprised but just to present the facts here not ALL RFDS A/C have TCAS, besides TCAS is fine but only under certain conditions as mentioned amongst these pages. TCAS doesn't separate planes, pilots do:-)
I'd like a dollar for every time I came too close to a pvt A/C especially ones being flown by foreign students under the VFR. R/T is a huge problem out there as well, some really have no basic idea of navigation either preferring to use GPS for ALL tracking situations.
Here's a doozy of an Eg. I was coming into a CTAFR some time ago & was trying to get a picture of where this guy was whom also was inbound to said CTAFR. I asked basic info regarding his position. You know radial or brg from the station distant out etc.This guy stumbled, fumbled & in the end had no idea where he was in relation to any aid. In fact he started to get very nervous on the radio & mucked up all the radio calls showing a high level of "I don't have a clue'! I landed ahead of him & then he came in about 2 mins afterwards, downwind LDG I might add. I tried to call him on the radio whilst he was taxiing in (low workload for him) just to help him in some way (cause this guy was dangerous to others)but he never said boo & parked well away from the normal GA area. Now that's a worry! I know it's a little off topic but in some ways all the fancy instruments won't help you when there are pilots out there with such little knowledge. Oh btw before some of you get on yr high horses the A/C in question was a C210, an A/c that ought to have been flown by someone whom was switched on, 160kts is not to be sneezed at!


TCAS was for many years not considered for the SE Section's A/c due cost & the fact that being presented with multiple targets in & around a busy CTAF actually can work against you in a SP environment. The eyes & good training/airmanship by ALL is yr best defense:ok:

Wmk2

[rocket66]

My initial thoughs were also at what altitude they passed each other. I imagine it would be mighty expensive to run a jet under 10,000 so I'd expect they were in at least class E which, as we all know, requires a transponder.

Perhaps another point to look at might be that the closing rate of these two higher performing craft would still have, more than likely prohibited either pilot from turning away even if thy did see each other.

Perhaps our CASA friends should look at also requiring high speed aircraft to carry a transponder and not limit things to altitiude levels.

Just my 2 cents

rocket

[PA39]

Its called training, communication, and see and avoid. its been going on since the Wright brothers.

[spinex]

Its called training, communication, and see and avoid. its been going on since the Wright brothers.

Couldn't agree more. There may be more to the story than has been told yet, but at face value I'd say it would be a pretty poor show if the RFDS pilot couldn't see and avoid the Trojan bumbling along down sun of him. Gawd, he should just about have been able to hear it coming:).

[Slippery_Pete]

TCAS was for many years not considered for the SE Section's A/c due cost & the fact that being presented with multiple targets in & around a busy CTAF actually can work against you in a SP environment. The eyes & good training/airmanship by ALL is yr best defense


Sorry, but have to respectfully disagree :ouch:.

I used to think it might be too much of a distration SP, but now that I have it, I completely disagree. It is just as relevant to single pilot as multi-crew ops - if you know how to use it EFFECTIVELY.

Eyes/training/airmanship won't completely prevent a mid-air, it's as simple as that. You might be the best PC12 pilot in the world, it will make f*ck all difference if some 70 year old PPL descends on top of you on base, after having accidentally selected the wrong CTAF frequency. You can't see in all directions from the cockpit of a plane. Your abilities/eyes/training/airmanship are but 50% of the collision equation - two pilots are involved.

I completely agree that transponders need to be mandated. I also think on GA aircraft, it should be required to be left in ALT permanently with a WoW inhibiting transmission on the ground or similar.

Airservices have indicated with mandatory transponders their ground equipment and maintenance costs would save millions and millions of dollars per year - and that part of the money saved could be used as grants so those without tranponders can be subsidised the purchase/installation costs.

What is this, the 1930s? We have had the technology to completely fix this problem for thirty odd years, and yet still 4 people can come so close to death in a TCAS equipped aircraft.

[KittyKatKaper]

'See and avoid' isn't much help at a closing speed of around 270 + 120 = 390 kts shortly after descending through the cloud base.

[Brian Abraham]

My initial thoughs were also at what altitude they passed each other. I imagine it would be mighty expensive to run a jet under 10,000 so I'd expect they were in at least class E which, as we all know, requires a transponder.

Perhaps another point to look at might be that the closing rate of these two higher performing craft would still have, more than likely prohibited either pilot from turning away even if thy did see each otherSome confusion there. This is the Macchi involved in the incident.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/VHELI.JPG

'See and avoid' isn't much help at a closing speed of around 270 + 120 = 390 kts shortly after descending through the cloud base270 below 10? Naughty, naughty.

[Slippery_Pete]

270 below 10? Naughty, naughty.

Pilot with a licence who does not know the difference between TAS and IAS? Naughty, naughty.

[Wally Mk2]

That's okay 'pete' yr entitled to yr opinion we all are, I believe that cost & the fact that TCAS in a SP environment isn't the answer. No single answer will be a fix for this problem planes will continue to collide as long as mankind desires to be free of our earthly bounds it's just part of the acceptable risk.
What did we all do pre TCAS? We looked out the window where practicable & we had pilots with good airmanship/skills in the air, the latter less & less these days.
Everything about aviation is balanced against cost.



270 kts TAS/GS you guys are drawing a long thin bow there.



Wmk2

[rocket66]

..............really?...........than see and avoid it should be. Not sure that aircraft would go out of sight in a week. I was thinking of the jet variety.

Still I agree if we have the technology we should embrace it and USE IT especially if it prevents midairs.


Rocket

[eocvictim]

TCAS only becomes a problem in a very high traffic environment with contra circuits. You will get 1 and 2 alerts on a sunny afternoon in these environments.

There is a huge difference between 270KTAS GS and KIAS. EN 1.1 65.1 clearly states Indicated Airspeed. Some people might call it a grey area, I say they need to reprint their AIP because its black and white. :ok:

I would like to know what time of day? How solid was the cloud base? These questions could be taken a long way; perhaps a change in attitude of how VFR pilots operate?

[Jack Ranga]

That things been for sale for 10 years, must have sold for about what? 20 grand?

[glekichi]

This example is exactly the kind of situation where TCAS could save a life, provided the other aircraft had a transponder.
The pilot broke cloud to find a windshield full of aircraft. There was no time for see and avoid, and, although the RFDS aircraft was lower than normal, both aircraft had every right to be where they were.

My solution:
Transponder mandatory in all controlled airspace and establish an MBZ around all instrument approaches in uncontrolled airspace, plotted graphically on charts with clear vertical limits, and make this transponder mandatory also.
Airmanship would dictate IFR aircraft should not descend through cloud when below 3000' amsl or 1000' agl and not in these protected areas.

[Avgas172]

Has anyone heard of a Portable Transponder?, have to do a flight to have the Biannial RAD check done & wonder if something like this could be done.
cheers
A172

[Hugh Jarse]

Indeed, Glek.

So Wally, why do we have TCAS if, in your words, "it isn't the answer in a SP environment"? IMO, it's absolutely essential in a single pilot environment, particularly in the airspace which the RFDS is operating, and the workload under which the RFDS's pilots work (you should know). In this case, see and avoid failed yet again. They were lucky this time. IF the pig had a transponder, then it's likely the near miss wouldn't have been as "near", as the RFDS aircraft would have been made aware via a TA or RA.

And that would have been a good thing.

IMO, the above example is a very good reason to have TCAS in a single pilot, high performance turboprop aeroplane.

In fact, why do most modern airliners have TCAS, when they are all multi-crew, Wally? TCAS has saved my bacon on a few occasions (even though we tried to separate the old fashioned way. Sometimes that just doesn't work, for a multitude of reasons.

The whole idea of TCAS is that it is the last line of defence if all else fails.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

IMO, the above example is a very good reason to have TCAS in a single pilot, high performance turboprop aeroplane.

Why just high performance turboprops? Are you suggesting that the four people in the RFDS PC12 are more worthy of living than the four people in my V35B? I pop out of the clouds at 160 IAS - would not be much difference in the see-and-be-seen reaction time.

Bring on ADSB!

Dr :8

[morno]

I don't think I've come across a thread on Pprune where so many people haven't read the f*cking thing properly, :confused:.

The RFDS aircraft was 56km's (30nm's), so on a standard 3 degree profile he would have been around 10,000ft. He was NOT at 730m's (2,400ft), he was on DESCENT to 2,400ft.

The PC-12 (turbo-prop, not jet), is not capable of 250kt's IAS at any time, it's VNe is 230kts.

Rant over, on with the thread.

TCAS is a great tool, especially in a single pilot cockpit (sorry Wal, have to disagree with you). The Collins Proline 21 has TCAS in it and I'm lost if it's not working!

I agree that every aircraft should have a working transponder. As others have said, the technology has been around for donkeys years, why is it not standard equipment?

morno

[Jenna Talia]

For f's sake, you can pick up a new transponder for around $1800 and even less for second hand plus install, which would probably total around 4k at the very most. If you can't afford this then you should not own an aeroplane.

That also includes gliders around busy CTAF(R) (YSDU), such as YNRM!

Make transponders mandatory! :ugh:

[rocket66]

Is TCAS really that annoying? It has several different modes from off to TA to RA and just ON. I'm not a heavy metal guy but I'm sure the audible warnings can be at very least turned down.

Would rather be bugged by TCAS than be a giant bug squished across a 744's windscreen.

[Slippery_Pete]

I don't think I've come across a thread on Pprune where so many people haven't read the f*cking thing properly, http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif.

The RFDS aircraft was 56km's (30nm's), so on a standard 3 degree profile he would have been around 10,000ft. He was NOT at 730m's (2,400ft), he was on DESCENT to 2,400ft.


Hey Morno.

My initial reaction was exactly the same - people must have mis-interpreted the altitudes etc. But if you read the final report on the ATSB website....

When about 56 km from the aerodrome, the pilot of FDK reported broadcasting an inbound call on the Mount Gambier CTAF advising that he was intending to track for a 10 NM (19 km) final for runway 18. Shortly after, the pilot sighted another aircraft (ELI) pass to the left from the opposite direction. The pilot reported that the aircraft was in such close proximity that the aircraft ‘rocked’ as it passed. At the time, FDK was on descent, approaching 2,400 ft.

The incident is listed as occuring at 53km NW Mount Gambier.

It would appear the PC12 was very, very low.

[Hugh Jarse]

No Doc, I was just using turboprops as an example. Of course it is an important tool for all suitably equipped aircraft.

And Jenna, I 1000% agree. :ok:

[Frank Arouet]

If you can't afford this then you should not own an aeroplane

A statement usually made by someone who doesn't own an aeroplane or Cate Blanchett.

Has anyone heard of a Portable Transponder?,

Yes recently in either AVWEB or EAA email, but non TSO'd of course.

EDIT to include link;

LAST - Kinetic Avionic Products (http://www.kinetic-avionics.co.uk/last.php)

[VH-XXX]

You will need to convince RA-Aus to fit transponders to thousands of aircraft and the GA aircraft that don't have them too.

There is nothing to stop a light aircraft bobbing along clear of cloud below 3000 without transponder and an IFR jobbie punching down through it. Luckily we aren't heavy airspace users in those places without primary radar otherwise this would be a far more frequent occurrence.

What is the solution? ADSB???

There will always be inaccurate or faulty transponders or those without decent radio skills and position awareness.

[Brian Abraham]

Pilot with a licence who does not know the difference between TAS and IAS?Slippery_Pete, any pilot worth his salt would know that the 270 below 10 would refer to IAS. Naughty, naughty. Over to you......

[scarediecat]

Just goes to show a near miss could happen any where any time. My fear has been in and around any aerodrome and the accuracy gps provides with recipricol tracks. This "see and avoid" concept has too many flaws and relies on luck as what happened with this incident. TCAS sounds great and look forward to using it.
One question to those who use TCAS OCTA away from a radar environment. What is the temptation to become your own Air Traffic controller? I have heard stories of lazy types saying things like....."that's ok we have you on tcas, we will continue our climb, gday" and even times where nothing is said at all even though the tcas equipt aircraft is crossing anothers track on final within say a 10nm seperation? These tcas equipt guys I sense get a nice warm fuzzy secure feeling and can disregard acceptable seperation standards. I have a feeling this problem is creeping in. Again a problem that could cause more problems.

[glekichi]

Hey morno,

Think you need to quit the rant and take some of your own advice.
The aircraft WAS below 3000', and that's why this occurred because the VFR aircraft had every right to be just below the cloud.

Additionally, a normal profile for an RFDS pc12 is a 2 to 1 (although 3 degree approaches are not uncommon), which actually increases the number of question marks about why the pc12 was down there so far out. That said, the same incident could have happened irrelevant of the distance from the field.

[A37575]

Many years ago an experienced pilot hired a C172 from a long since defunct flying school at Essendon. Maintenance release showed nil defects. En route to Point Cook via Westgate Bridge, ATC advised the pilot to switch on the transponder. The pilot checked and confirmed it was already on and had been since take off. ATC got upset and said it wasn't operating and that it was third time that week this particular aircraft had a u/s transponder and it better get fixed otherwise they would deny airspace.

The pilot decided to return immediately to EN and wrote up the defect and asked the CFI/owner why had he knowingly despatched this aircraft several times with a dodgy transponder? His reply was it was going to get looked at at the next 100 hourly and that so far ATC had always let it go. That same afternoon the CFI sent a student pilot off on his first solo cross-country with the same dodgy transponder. He said it saved him money by waiting for the 100 hourly.

What's the bet similar things still go on in GA and in remote areas?

[HomeJames]

Luddites Indeed!!


TCAS was for many years not considered for the SE Section's A/c due cost & the fact that being presented with multiple targets in & around a busy CTAF actually can work against you in a SP environment.


Using that argument, one should also remove the EGPWS, as the whooping can be distracting when shooting an approach. I myself find it difficult to find the inhibit button when dropping like a bleeding stone after missing my TOPD. While were about it, lets also take out the wx radar as it could distract you from trying to visually navigate around those line of storms on that dark night, think of the money it will save.

Straight home and don't spare the horses

[VH-XXX]

What's the bet similar things still go on in GA and in remote areas?

Absolutely! Not much has changed in that regard!

[Flying Binghi]

...the number of question marks about why the pc12 was down there so far out...

Hmmm... whatever the reason, if they aint gunna look out the window then a slower speed at the lower levels would have been more appropriate..:hmm:






.

[Jabawocky]

You will need to convince RA-Aus to fit transponders to thousands of aircraft and the GA aircraft that don't have them too.

Especially those who fly in E at any level, just clear of cloud. Some in C at times :ugh:.

[rcoight]

Hmmm... whatever the reason, if they aint gunna look out the window then a slower speed at the lower levels would have been more appropriate..

Give me a break. Whilst all the "see and avoid" lecturers are right in a general sense, in this instance it is not relevent.

As I understand it, the RFDS aircraft emerged from solid cloud, and within no more than a few seconds the other aircraft had flashed by. It happened so quickly that there was no time to see it, let alone avoid it.
It was pure luck that they did not come together.

I also understand that an initial investigation showed that the lighty had not successfully made any radio calls in relation to his departure from Mount Gambier.
Something wrong with the radio, apparently: They thought they were transmitting ok, but only carrier wave was heard from the other end.

So, the RFDS pilot could not have known the other aircraft was there (no transponder, and effectively, no radio).

And.... no time to see and avoid.

Oh, and no, it wasn't me...

[morno]

Additionally, a normal profile for an RFDS pc12 is a 2 to 1 (although 3 degree approaches are not uncommon), which actually increases the number of question marks about why the pc12 was down there so far out

No, that is not NORMAL, the normal profile is 3:1. The profile used when there would be doubt about making a field within the profile for descent, is then a 2:1.

morno

[Creampuff]

As other posters have pointed out, there will always be faulty, inaccurate or completely unserviceable transponders; especially the ones fitted to aircraft that don’t go near C very often.

So, given that fact, what rules should sensibly be put into place to deal with the risk that aircraft outside C (or beyond the range of a friendly controller who’s willing to confirm a cockpit reading or chase apparently anomalous returns) may have a faulty, inaccurate or completely unserviceable transponder?

I’m thinking there should be rules about:

(1) minimum distances from cloud for VFR aircraft, with the distances determined by reference to altitude and height, and
(2) eyes out of the cockpit for everyone in VMC, especially when near the ground or aerodromes,

when OCTA (or whatever the correct term is, this year).

What other rules could sensibly be put in place to deal with the fact that no technology is perfect?

[Slippery_Pete]

Slippery_Pete, any pilot worth his salt would know that the 270 below 10 would refer to IAS. Naughty, naughty. Over to you......


WTF?

The original post was talking about head-on closing speeds for a collision - ie the speed of the PC12 compared to the other aircraft.

Closing speeds of two aircraft are a TAS consideration, not IAS.

I made my comment to you because an aircraft can quite easily TAS 270 below 10,000 without breaking the max 250 indicated rule.

If you need more explanation than this, try enrolling in aerodynamics 101.

Anyway, after all that, it was just a number that someone guessed at when considering the collision speed. And I think with the PC12 Vne info and the fact it occurred at 2500, it was most probably a lot less than 270.

[Flying Binghi]

...Give me a break. Whilst all the "see and avoid" lecturers are right in a general sense, in this instance it is not relevent.

As I understand it, the RFDS aircraft emerged from solid cloud, and within no more than a few seconds the other aircraft had flashed by...




Via the thread starter post...

"...the pilot of the small plane said he did not have a full appreciation of the proximity of his planned outbound track with the Adelaide-Mt Gambier inbound track.

His plane was not fitted with a transponder and he was flying directly into the sun..."

Late afternoon sun ?




.

[glekichi]

Morno,

I'm sure you wouldn't make a statement like that unless you had some knowledge of the operation, but I can tell you central ops fly the two to one as default unless it's a day visual approach and either the terrain is forgiving or there are other options that warrant giving away the ability to glide to the destination if need be. It also keeps one out of the thermal turbulence for a bit longer in summer.

I would, however, unless shown otherwise, certainly give this pilot the benefit of the doubt that he was that low on profile for one justified reason or another. As stated earlier, both aircraft had every right to be in that location just below the cloud base. A working radio would have helped, as would have a transponder. Vanishingly small, eh.

Your stated Vne was also incorrect, not that it's relevant.

[Flying Binghi]

via ATSB... Time: 1429 CST

Investigation: AO-2010-048 - Aircraft proximity event - Pilatus aircraft PC-12, VH-FDK, 50 km NW of Mount Gambier aerodrome, SA, 1 July 2010 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-048.aspx)


Hmmm... what angle is the sun around Mount Gambier at 1429 Central Standard Time ?





.

[morno]

S'pose that's what happens when you haven't flown the thing for a while now. 236kts Vne (or Vmo if you want to get technical).

morno

[glekichi]

All good. The new shiny ones do 240, but that's only because the computers make ias=cas, and they ping you at 241 so we tend to not go as hard on descent anyway. That's enough thread drift for now though.

[Jabawocky]

The crew of ELI reported that while visibility was greater than 10 km, their outbound track of 334 degrees was directly into the sun. While this affected their visual scan for traffic and consequently, their ability to sight FDK, the crew believed that this was not a factor in the occurrence.


And with SCT cloud.........sounds about right to me. :hmm:

Naturally you would expect me to side with the DOC's on this one. Transponders :ok:

[Flying Binghi]

.

"While the operator (Flying Doc) determined that the pilot of FDK had complied with the required procedures, they advised the ATSB that they will be conducting internal education to remind pilots that maintaining a lookout and...."


http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2907457/ab2010103.pdf#page=15





.

[kalavo]

Bring on compulsory ADS-B!

A lot of gliders use FLARM units (a form of ADS-B) costing $1000 and now fitted to all gliders participating in competitions. You can't tell me it's not possible to produce a similar unit for GA aircraft at a similar cost, especially if there is a sudden demand to fit the entire fleet. Especially when I can buy a phone with gps and wireless for $200.

Car seatbelts are compulsory and have been for a number of years. Five seatbelts cost around $600 plus fitting, I'm sure there were the same group of whingers saying there's no need, just drive at a reasonable speed and don't hit anything. But now, nobody blinks an eyelid. Every new car is fitted with a seatbelt, every second hand car you get in to is fitted with seatbelts.

See and avoid combined with radio is a useful tool, but it has it's limitations, one being the human element. I've lost count of the number of radio calls I've heard from commercial pilots claiming "5nm north of the airfield" only to find them approaching from the south. If these are guys flying in GA for living, I dread to think how the weekend warriors go. Not to mention the ghost planes who manage to fly without a single radio call (wrong frequency?) We also have to realise the limitations of the human eye - there are now plenty of Kingairs, Conquests, PC12s, TBM850s, dropping in to airfields with groundspeeds up to 300kts combine that with a tiny ultralight or 152 and the time available to "see and avoid" each other becomes minimal at best (assuming no other distractions in the cockpit).

We all talk about the swiss cheese model. This incident illustrates how important it is to add another layer of swiss cheese, especially when there is a solution readily available.

[Jabawocky]

Education of the pilots is a wonderful thing and the RFDS should be commended for doing this. As they are for excellent comms in CTAF environments, and for fitting TCAS. RFDS :D:ok:

That being said the PC12 pilot was looking out, and in the flash of the near hit he did see it after all.

Interesting that two pilots in the other aircraft did not see, or do anything and when one did they did nothing as it was too late anyway..... :hmm:

Of course it was the IFR Pilot of the RFDS PC12 that was not doing his job and that was the main reason for the near hit. Nothing to do with two pilots, off track, wondering about the fuel gauges, a radio that did not work etc and they did not have a transponder.

I get it now........... :rolleyes::rolleyes::ugh::ugh:

[Flying Binghi]

Bring on compulsory ADS-B!



Hmmm... and then when them terrorist crew start using GPS as a targeting system and we end up with no GPS - What then ?..:hmm:





.

[Frank Arouet]

It's a well documented fact that most accidents occur because "the plane disappeared from the radar screen" or "the pilot had not submitted a flight plan" or "the engine stalled".

FLARM units (a form of ADS-B) costing $1000

I can't afford a $1000 mobile phone, most gliders using FLARM use the one club owned unit which is shared around, and it's not TSO'd, it's not an ADSB and even if it was its not even legal to turn it on if you intend to fly in CTR or class E airspace.

On a positive note, and because nobody bothers to read all the posts leading up to the last, may I suggest you read back a page or two and look at the link I provided for a non TSO'd unit that would probably interface quiet well with a TCAS and stop the constant harping by people that fail to adhere to the basic laws of VFR in VMC and in CTAF's where a SAAB lands once a day. It wouldn't wash with the Airservices mob though even though RA-Aus can't fly in CTR.

Has anybody the time or inclination to investigate the device and find out a projected price? I couldn't be bothered. Laziness tells me some "expert" wll tell me anyway, some day, and how bad it is compared with some other at a marginally higher price.

A bit like that $1000 phone which does the same as my $150 model when it comes to talking with someone.

[Jabawocky]

I did have a look Frank, and its possibly going to be a great device. I wonder how the static source is achived, even cabin static is within tolerences in most cases so it should work OK.

There is nothing about price or when it will make it to market though.

Caveat....it was a few days ago I looked at the link so I do not recall everything and I am too lazy to look again :}

J:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Dependant upon price, I would give guarded support to this gadget.

And yes, apathy is a curse.

But who cares?:(

[Brian Abraham]

Slippery_Pete, in my initial post I made the bold assumption that under the prevailing conditions that IAS would damn near equal TAS, shooting from the hip you might say. I enrolled in the Aerodynamics 101 as you suggested and came up with the following.

The Mount Gambier weather report for the time of day.

Temp 11°C
Dew Point 8°C
QNH 1023

Assumptions

Lapse Rate 1.9812°C/1,000'
Pressure Altitude 2,400'
IAS 250K

Will give you a TAS of 257.1759K

So to have a TAS of 270 would have required exceedance of the 250IAS limit.

Without crunching the exact numbers, a TAS of 270 would require an IAS of approx 263.

[Old Akro]

Descending trough clouds into VFR traffic is one of my biggest fears, especially with the closing speeds of (in my case a twin) compared with VFR aircraft doing local joyflights. For this reason, I start listening to the CTAF a long way out and will make an initial inbound call at maybe 30 nm out.

But I also fly old non-transponder and non-electric aircraft and defend their right to fly without transponder.

In this case I suspect that there are some less than ideal factors on both sides that contributed.

If the Aeromacchi didn't have a functioning TXP, then one would think there was a greater responsibility to have a functioning radio & pay attention to radio traffic. Apparently the radio had a transmit problem, but one might hope that they were on the correct frequency to hear the descent call from the RFDS. So, they are been less than diligent in both this regard and their navigation. 53nm out of Mt Gambier on the Adelaide track (assuming that the RFDS was on-track) puts them about 20nm off track for Mt Gambier - Portee Station. A handheld GPS and VHF would have gone a long way.

The RFDS report doesn't really seem completely straight up and down either. Firstly, anyone who has flown formation would find the notion that a Pilatus will feel any wake from C182 sized aircraft at circa 10m laterally and 20ft vertically is a bit fanciful. Secondly, if the RFDS was at 2400 ft 53nm out from MtGambier this puts them about abeam Robe where the LSALT for the W519 route is 2700 ft. 53nm is way too far out to be positioning for a any of the 3 possible instrument approaches into Mt Gambier. Therefore you must conclude that the RFDS crew consciously transitioned to VFR for the final stage of the flight. I would expect that the PC12 would normally climb to Flight Levels for the 202 nm trip from Adelaide to MtGambier, which makes the non-standard descent even more puzzling. The choice by the crew to depart from the IFR track places a higher responsibility on them to integrate with VFR aircraft (ie see & be seen). The ERC shows gliding based at Millicent, so a similar incident could conceivably occurred a few miles on abeam Millicent. However IF ATC gave them the Aeromacchi as traffic, it was nowhere near where they would have been looking for it.

I can't help but think there is a fair bit of bad luck in this incident. But also I can't help but think that AsA have escaped without mention. The report infers (but does not specify) that there was a submitted plan for the Aeromacchi. Was there more that AsA could have done to alert the Aeromacchi crew that their radio was not working? The RFDS flight would have been the logical one to try and relay a call. And there is the old question about whether Australia really has adequate radar coverage.

At the end of the day, I'm not really sure what the lessons are. We know that our current system has a weakness dealing with VFR traffic under a cloud base and descending IFR traffic. Something that is not helped by ASA's decision to delete VHF boundaries from the PCA chart. It can be hard for VFR aircraft to figure out the correct frequency - and the incident occurred not far away from a frequency boundary.

[Jabawocky]

Akro

The 25 mile MSA is 2400, and one can only assume from the info that states at 56km FDK made a broadcast at TOD and would be inside the 25MSA before being below the 2700' LSALT.

If that helps.... :confused:

[Old Akro]

When I wrote my post I could only access the ATSB summary. I've now been able to read the full report and reading the full report its a bit hard to fault the RFDS crew. Its also significant that the full report says the incident occurred 56 km from Mt Gambier not 53nm as was stated in the earlier reports (why the ATSB is using km is a mystery) which changes things as well. Also the incident did not occur on the Adelaide - MtGambier route because the RFDS aircraft was cleared to track direct for the RWY 18 RNAV approach.

The crew of the Aeromacchi could have been sharper in retrospect and the situation would have been improved if they made a call on the area frequency. But, the current system absolutely discourages VFR aircraft from doing this and I've heard pilots reprimanded by ATC for making such calls. The Aeromacchi was flying in class g airspace at the correct hemispherical altitude with adequate clearance to cloud. There is some implied criticism from the ATSB that the Aeromacchi crew were not aware of the Adelaide - Mount Gambier IFR route, but how does a VFR pilot know this?

I think this incident highlights that the IFR & VFR procedures that we have don't play well together. Substitute a private TBM or Aerostar for the RFDS and you have an aeroplane flying the same profile at the same speeds without TCAS. Substitute the Aeromacchi for an antique aircraft, glider or ultralight and you have an aircraft flying at the correct hemispherical altitude, 500ft below a scattered cloud base in a low VFR level legitimately flying along without transponder. The area frequency doesn't reliably work on the ground, so unless the RFDS is listening to the CTAF well before they are required to, or the light aircraft makes a position call on the area frequency after take off (which they are discouraged from doing), then there is no mechanism to alert each aircraft of the presence of the other. I can't recall the coverage in that area, but I wouldn't take it for granted that there is reliable transponder coverage at 2,400 ft around Mt Gambier.

[peuce]

Old Akro,

I'm finding it difficult to fault your logic.
The fact is ... there are situations where the rules "permit" such incidents to occur ... and in the words of a popular politician, **** happens.

I can only hark back to the "Griffo Days" ... when this situation would be less likely to occur ... as most VFRs were "known" and broadcasts by VFRs were encouraged. But, as we all know, we won't be going back there.

The only other way to reduce these situations is to follow the initial poster's recommendations ... but that comes at a cost. Alternatively, find a less costly, lighter, and less power hungry set of kit that would provide the same outcome.

OR, accept that sometimes we're going to scare ourselves.

[baswell]

Has anybody the time or inclination to investigate the device
I reckon it's a stupid device. Unless it's TSO, it won't be legal and good luck getting a mobile unit approved. Besides: I am all for using electronics for increasing SA but using 60 year old technology is not the way to do it...

What just ****s me most about ADS-B is how much it will always cost and how little you get for that money. All so that it is somehow backward compatible with what a handful of airliners already have installed. It would be cheaper for everyone involved, including the airliners, to start with a clean sheet, modern solution.

Problem with our aviation overlords going for a 100% reliable solution (which it isn't; Mode-S/ES is fragile as hell) no matter what the cost when a 99% solution is still 99% better than what we have now (nothing) at a fraction of the cost...