Originally Posted by
Capn Bloggs View Post
It's a miracle something like Mangalore hasn't happened more often.
Originally Posted by Sunny
Miracle, luck or chance, big sky theory.
Sunny, I didn't say that, @Clearice did.
Originally Posted by Sunny
When the Caravan was overhead the aerodrome and climbing, where (in relation to the Caravan) was the A320? We know from the ATSB report that SFIS says "tracking for a right downwind runway 24", but what is the proximity of these two aircraft? A320 on descent below 10,000ft, 250 knots +/- tailwind or headwind. Figure 2 has A320 at 21 NM at time 1341:27, Figure 5 has Caravan over the field heading north at time 1346:12, so where was the A320 at the same time (1346:12)?
It doesn't matter. There was no conflict, otherwise the ATSB would have mentioned it... wouldn't it?
I've read the report again I think the poor Van driver has been stitched up. Fair enough their departure from the overhead wasn't desirable but I strongly suspect that was due to hurried decision-making after being stunned by what had just happened. The Van driver could have asked for the 737's runway but the other two players were more at fault. The 737 was never given traffic on the Van by the SFIS. The ATSB is being unjustly harsh with criticism of the Van driver's lookout on line-up; it is very difficult to see an aeroplane at 5 miles (white jet with clouds behind?), especially when it's cocked-off in a crosswind with the landing lights pointing away from you. And he did not have an "incorrect" model. That implies he had the information but incorrectly interpreted it; he didn't have the information, full -stop.
Did the SFIS trainees go to Ballina to get a handle on how CTAFs actually run? Because one thing I'm sure of: this would not have happened with the CAGRO.
The report should have included:
-Why did the 737 crew miss two calls about the Van, especially the one where the SFIS was actually talking about them? The hackles should have immediately been raised. 10nm final sounds like an RNAV approach. To what extent did internal cockpit procedures interfere with or detract from the crew being ears out? CTAFs by their nature require "all senses on deck" and for two pro pilots to miss two critical calls should have been addressed. Was Centre making calls on the other radio (pretty easy to synchronise timings given the SFIS is ATC too) which drowned-out the CTAF calls?
-Mention of the low flying hours for the 737 captain. 25 hours in 90 days, then into a busy CTAF with brand-new procedures should have been addressed. Coming out of COVID-19 and with Virgin in turmoil, there was plenty going on that could have upset the normal cockpit rhythm.
-a comment on this training issue: "
when the B737’s flight crew did not respond to the Caravan pilot’s taxi broadcast, the controller did not consider it necessary to confirm they were aware of the Caravan because, according to their SFIS training, they were not required to follow-up communications for aircraft already on the CTAF (as was the case for the B737)". There is no logic to this at all. While AIP has/had a short reference to traffic not being passed by ATC if an aircraft had already called "changing to ...", it is not logical that that could be extrapolated into "oh well, I've passed it to the Van, and the 737 is already on the CTAF so I won't pass the Van traffic to them". In G, you always both get traffic on each other.