Some truth about the ML incident

[bush pelican]

Get Real

(Ushiaia

' What is the alternative? '

I mean, if we are stuck with the new system, which it looks like we will be. I personally was quite happy with Class C but that is not the reality now and doesn't look like changing.

' He did nothing wrong '

ATSB Occurrence 200304963, Location CANTY, 03.12.03, Cessna 421 / Boeing 737.
' The pilot of the 421 was unaware that his aircraft's transponder was not transmitting mode C altitude information and at 22:59:10 the controller informed the pilot. The pilot of the 421 subsequently RESELECTED mode C and the altitude was then displayed to the controller on the ASD.'

Re your comments on VFR airmanship and knowledge of the NAS.

I do indeed know what I am talking about and am VERY familiar with the published documents. I quote from a recent thread I wrote entitled ' A Walk Through the NAS Reference Guide. '

" The NAS concept of VFR Airmanship as espoused on pg 30 & 31 is flawed and creates a second class airman, the VFR pilot.
pg 24. VFR Airmanship.' Avoiding high traffic areas and instrument approaches, Avoiding holding patterns.'
pg 30.' Avoid as far as you can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns. '
pg 21.' This possible conflict in the Armidale circuit raises a point all VFR pilots should consider in their flight planning when there is a chance RPT or IFR traffic will be operating in the same airspace.' Pity about that- the VFR pilot may not be monitoring the same frequency.
pg 39.' Pilots of IFR flights should not expect the pilot of a VFR flight to be monitoring an ATC frequency at any given time.' In fact, he is positively encouraged by the new procedures not to be due to the removal of the correct frequency and boundaries from the charts and the " shut up " policy.
I would like to ask the NAS team, do they really think, and should VFR pilots be obliged to look-up and find all the IFR procedures that could effect their flight, and avoid aerodromes and Nav aids? No they should not, nor more to the point, will they. I would strongly advise IFR pilots in VMC to stick them eyeballs to the windscreen and LOOK-OUT. Pilots are taught to navigate via airports and towns, and later with reference to the NDB & VOR. GPS is programmed similarly. It is a totally unreasonable request to ask VFR pilots to navigate otherwise and I do not consider this procedure as exhibiting bad airmanship by the VFR pilot. How about classifying IFR procedures in VMC conditions as bad airmanship? The overlay on the WAC pg 31. shows how ridiculous this concept is and the imposition it would be to VFR pilots all over the country. I note that the holding patterns at MT McQuiod, Bindook and MONDO in Class E are supposed to have warnings for VFR pilots of these holding patterns. ( pg 31 ) I have not been able to find these warnings on any of the new charts except the Sydney VTC for Mt McQuoid. They should at least be noted on the ERC LO for the area. The whole concept as I said is flawed and introduces a completely new and impractical element for VFR pilots. I believe it will be ignored because it is both unfair and impractical."

Cheif galah...

Regarding Flight notification.

1. AIP ENR 1.10-4 2.3 / 2.4
'Pilots of VFR Flights nominating a SARTIME to ATS, and those intending to operate in controlled airspace ( except for VFR flights in Class E airspace and in GAAP CTRs ) must submit flight details to ATS.' 2.5, 2.6, 2.7. says that this can be done by radio and notes the circomstances which should be considered. In flying into Essendon ( YMEN would have been a different story but still legal ) the 421 pilot's intention to request a clearance by radio was reasonable and legal and had nothing to do with the seperation incident that was encountered in Class E airspace prior to him entering controlled airspace.

2. Regarding Operation of Transponder refer to ATSB report quoted.

3. In regard to VFR in Class E airspace, AIP ENR 1.1-30 18.3.2 a&c.
Avoid published IFR routes WHERE POSSIBLE. Note ENR1.1-32 19.2.1.
This makes reference to VFR flights navigating by reference to radio navigational aids.
' e. When navigating by reference to radio navigation systems, the ( VFR ) pilot in command must obtain positive radio fixes at the intervals and by the methods perscribed in paras 19.1 and 19.4.6. Therefore VFR must navigate in the same way as IFR.
In this case the route chosen was appropriate for the track, destination and navigational methods employed by the 421. As previously stated most IFR routes are the same as those used by VFR tracking between navigational beacons and airports and it is more accurate to use radio navigation than visual navs at that altitude. Therefore the 421 was fully within it's rights to be where it was.

(c) The pilot of the 421 took appropriate action to avoid the 73 as soon as he became aware of the potential conflict and under the helpful instructions of ATC in accordance with section 4.1.1.3 Manual of Air Traffic Services. ( Refer the ATSB Report )

4. AIP ENR 1.1-3 3.18
Pilots should submit details required for flight in controlled airspace at least 30mins prior to entry time, HOWEVER Flight details submitted with less than 30 mins notification will be processed on a "controller workload permitting" The pilot did NOTHING WRONG, just chose to take his chances with the second option.

5. AIP ENR 1.1-29 18.1.2. See and Avoid.
The pilot of the 421 did all he could to comply with this requirement. However with the jet behind and above him he was not able to sight it. Refer to the ATSB report.

Re the TCAS. I don't believe see and avoid is infallible. I am willing to use everything at my disposal to increase situational awareness and obviously for what and where I fly under the new system this will help. My attitude is not that the new system is in any way better but that if we are forced to live with it then lets do it proactively and co-operativly and direct the ammo towards those who diserve it.

Like I said Cheif galah, plenty of drivel and double standards here!

To others re the separation suggestion. You only have to alert, not tell them what to do. I still don't think that there will be many transponder problems in the F.Levels.

By a " cheapy " TCAS I mean one of the number of models that are now coming onto the market that do a pretty reasonable job of alert and distance/ direction for around the 2k to 4k price range. Tested in Aviation Consumer and seen some advertised in the local A. Trader.

BP