and the one that got away.............
Notes:
1. Two aircraft operating companies operating within the rules
2. My information suggests that for Brisbane ATC read Darwin ATC
3. Had the rules REQUIRED the aircraft to even report on common frequency this would have been sorted well before the event. TRUE or FALSE - you tell me. Is such a minor adjustment to procedure relevant or needed - you tell me.
4. Names removed intentionally. The companies are not at fault here - the system is.
Transcript
Station: ABC CENTRAL AUSTRALIA
Date: 01/12/2003
Program: DRIVE SHOW
Time: 04:48 PM
Compere: BARRY NICHOLLS
Item: DESCRIBES A NEAR MISS ABOVE DARWIN AIRPORT
COMPERE: Last Thursday the Government introduced controversial air space reforms and pilots, airlines, air traffic controllers in airports all warned of dangers under the new rules.
Now today there are claims that just one day after the laws were introduced, there was a near collision between two aircraft near Darwin. The claims were just 10 nautical miles apart and approaching one another at close to 500 kilometres per hour. The ***** plane was ascending through the other's air space but the pilot didn't know it was in danger because the ***** plane was operating on visual flight rules with no obligation to call its position on the radio.
Cherie Beach asked *****, just how serious was this near collision.
*****:
The aircraft were definitely in a conflict situation, there's no doubt about that. And it wouldn't have happened in the previous organisation of air space. We were unaware of each other which is the issue that we are concerned about. Neither captain knew that they were in a conflict situation.
COMPERE: So your skipper came back to Darwin quite shaken up by this incident?
*****: Concerned, there's no doubt about that. Brisbane Control advised us to alter course and they were obliged to notify the Air North aircraft that they were in a possible conflict situation so…
COMPERE: How close were those aircraft before you heard from Brisbane Air Traffic Control?
*****: I think - I don't know, ten miles has been talked about.
COMPERE: And is that a reasonable gap? I mean that's not really a near collision, is it?
*****: The most dangerous episode in flying is approaching airports because one aircraft can be coming up and the other one's going down. So this changing of levels is potentially the most hazardous arena in flying. And it's just been made a little bit more so now by the fact that aircraft aren't on the same frequency.
COMPERE: With one pilot using visual flight rules, this was directly related to the government changes in air space rules introduced just a few hours earlier?
*****: That is correct. Under the previous regime, they would have been on the same frequency and our aircraft would have been in controlled air space and been positively separated from the other aircraft, yes.
COMPERE: Can I ask you why you would operate on visual flight rule? Is it cheaper?
*****: If the weather's fine we can carry more people. And the weather was fine.
COMPERE: Under visual flight rules.
*****: Yes.
COMPERE: So under the changes, it was expected of you that you would go to VFR and, as a result, you would not have to give a radio call. Therefore you weren't able to communicate with the other aircraft and neither of you knew that you were able to share the same air space?
*****: Yes.
COMPERE: How as it and when was it that you were notified of the danger, or that your pilot was notified of the danger?
*****: Both aircraft have got a transponder and the information is going down to a radar screen which just happens to be in, of all places, Brisbane. That's to say a controller is sitting in front of a big screen and can see that two blips on his screen are moving towards each other.
*****: Well doesn't this show then that the new air space regulations are working, and that the situation is safe, that they identified that you were coming together?
*****: There's quite a bit of interpretation in that. Some of us in the industry are keeping our views open as to whether it's a good or a bad thing. This is the first one which faced a bit of concern but it actually, as you just said, was resolved by a controller telling one of the aircraft to alter course. So it's comforting to know that was it*. But, if the controller was occupied in some other area of his screen, he may not have picked up the potential conflict. So, we're not 100% sure whether the system is going to work or whether it's going to be a bit hairy scary. But as we've been told, it works in America so why shouldn't it work in Australia?
COMPERE: So in this instance it did work. But this is the exact kind of incident that the industry is extremely concerned about, where the risk of collision would be increased?
*****: Exactly, that's correct, Cherie. I'm concerned because my passengers and my clients and even myself might be in this hazardous situation so we're hoping that this system does work.
COMPERE: It doesn't sound like you are convinced though. CASA and the Government says the changes are safe. Given this incident occurred a couple of hours after the changes were introduced, are you convinced?
*****: No not entirely, but then again, there were situations under the old regime where there were areas of conflict that could occur despite the system. So it wasn't entirely foolproof before and it's always difficult to put something together that is foolproof. What's probably missing from all this is that they may require us all to carry an electronic device, traffic positioning voicing system which bigger aircraft have all got. So if you're flying along in a 7 - or anything that's 30 people or more, you have a TCAS system in your aircraft which the pilot of the aircraft immediately has an electronic display telling him what traffic is around him and will give positive instructions to him to avoid a collision. We may all be required to carry one of these things in the near future which will make - which will resolve the human factor.
COMPERE: Cherie Beach there talking with *****, just about that near collision that happened near Darwin between two aircraft earlier today, or in the last 24 hours or so.
* * END * *
BTW - ISP address spying - is that legal?? If not LOCKIMUP!