The OAO report tabled the flight path data of the other aircraft because it supported the conclusion, and was relevant. I would say that only the flight data of OWN was shown as it is the only one relevant. No other pilot on the day reported issues with their GPS or wandered about the sky trying to conduct an approach.
How is the flight path of the aircraft that VH-OWN allegedly infringed (VH-LQR) not be relevant?? I would have thought that was the very definition of only showing one side of an argument?
The pilot of VH-OWN reported that the GPS and / or autopilot did not function correctly.
The following day, the pilot repeated the flight with a CASA test officer. The report notes that there were anomalies in the performance of the GPS / Autopilot, but not of the same severity as the flight in question.
The ATSB did not conduct its own flight tests.
In this circumstance, especially since the report criticises the pilots procedure entry, I would think that the flight path of other aircraft and specifically the flight path of the aircraft that VH-OWN came into close proximity is a central and critical part of a proper investigation. How can you criticise the pilot of VH-OWN without demonstrating that VH -LQR and the other aircraft flew perfectly and did not contribute?
How can the ATSB say the other aircraft had no GPS issues without considering what GPS receivers they had fitted? ie, was VH-OWN the only one still using a C129a receiver? Older GPS units and especially older GPS antennae tend to "see" fewer satellites. Was this a factor? A diligent report would consider this before dismissing the performance of the GPS as an issue.
Why is there no discussion about the closure of the Mt Livingstone VOR? It was pretty close to HOTEI and would have been a useful crosscheck for the GPS. Does the hostile terrain, poor radar coverage and pachy VHF coverage at Australia's highest certified airport deserve a review of whether the Mt Livingstone VOR should be added to the back-up network?
I also wonder if this report purposely omits some flight data, because if it showed all the flight data, it would demonstrate that there was better radar coverage than AsA has claimed and that AsA's inaction in warning either pilot would come under more scrutiny.
Why should this one be any different? Just because you disagree with it?
I don't disagree with the report. Its too bland to disagree with. But, I think its sub standard.
It kind of sort of finds some maybe potential unspecified fault with a dead pilot. It raises failings with AsA but then laughs them off in the conclusion and it waves off any issues with the radar infrastructure by suggesting its all been fixed now by the implementation of ADS-B. And it fails to consider any contribution of the withdrawal of met services from Mt Hotham. I just think it fails any test of being a robust, diligent, objective report. And the only reason I care is because I'm concerned its going to falsely set a precedent of poor piloting for the Essendon report - which is the main game.