PDA

View Full Version : Pilot on wrong wavelength manages to avoid collision


VH-Cheer Up
29th Oct 2004, 08:51
Article from The Age
------------------------
Source: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/28/1098667909451.html?from=storylhs

Pilot on wrong wavelength manages to avoid collision
By Orietta Guerrera
Canberra
October 29, 2004

Two light aircraft narrowly avoided a midair disaster over Phillip Island in June after one of the pilots flew without an updated radio frequency chart.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau found that a Cirrus SR20 and a Cessna 172 aircraft came within 200 metres horizontally and 15 metres vertically of each other on June 6. The planes, with only the pilots on board, were travelling outside controlled air space but within air traffic control radar coverage.

In an incident report released yesterday, the bureau found the planes were on different radio frequencies. It was only after the pilots spotted each other that they were able to act to avoid a midair crash.

"Both pilots took evasive action by making high angle of bank right turns," the report said.

"Reports from the pilots indicated that the aircraft passed in close proximity."

The Cirrus pilot received some warning that another aircraft was just below his plane, but was unable to make contact with its pilot.

The bureau found the Cessna pilot was tuned in to the wrong radio frequency and was unaware of the looming danger.

The pilot had not received a copy of a new chart from Airservices Australia detailing the appropriate radio frequencies, distributed to all licensed pilots in March.

Airservices Australia could not explain yesterday why the pilot did not receive a chart until a month after the incident.

Air space reforms introduced by the Federal Government in November 2003 have been criticised by some pilots and air traffic controllers as unsafe.

The new system removed surveillance on some air space, putting the onus on pilots to look out for other planes.

The changes will now be partially rolled back, to come into effect on November 25, and Airservices Australia is issuing new radio frequency charts.

-------------------------------

Frequencies on charts. Another great idea from the people who brought you the flight data recorder.

Icarus2001
29th Oct 2004, 11:00
after one of the pilots flew without an updated radio frequency chart. Isn't the whole point that if BOTH of the pilots had been carrying and referring to OUTDATED charts with those pesky boundaries on them they would have been on the SAME frequency.

What is the old ATCO joke...well at least they had frequency seperation!:eek:

This near miss brought to you by SmithNAS TM

VH-Cheer Up
29th Oct 2004, 11:35
Yes, very droll. Also points out the benefit of those glass display panels in that type of aircraft.

You know, the ones you look through to see what's happening outside.

That is, when not studying the outdated charts for the pesky frequency boundaries.

Good job they still stick with the turn to the right when having a head-on airmiss.

Another "seconds from death" scenario, thanks The Age!

OzExpat
29th Oct 2004, 14:46
It begs the question... who will pick up the laundry tab for two pairs of soiled pants? :}

karrank
30th Oct 2004, 00:02
Haven't read the report yet, were they both VFR? If so there would be absolutely no benefit to conflict detection to have them both MONITORING the same frequency. Rollback = no change.

If one (or both) was IFR they should have had traffic on the other, and the frequency would have been an issue in coordinating separation. Rollback = better

VH-Cheer Up
30th Oct 2004, 02:03
Karrank - your hypothesis would be correct if the area frequency was ony for listening on.

But isn't it also for making broadcasts as per MBZ procedure?

In other words, if they had been using the SAME frequency correctly i.e. making their calls upon entry, joining circuit, etc, then one would have heard the other?

VHCU

Chapi
30th Oct 2004, 11:14
If one (or both) was IFR they should have had traffic on the other ...
The SR20 was IFR, the other aircraft VFR. Melbourne Centre did provide the SR20 with traffic information on the "unidentified VFR" who was not on the appropriate area frequency

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=637

ferris
30th Oct 2004, 12:16
I am surprised that Dick would draw attention to this incident at all. It is an absolute real-world indictment of NAS. It was even alerted see-and-avoid for the SR20.
Cheer up
But isn't it also for making broadcasts as per MBZ procedure? Do you mean under NAS (this wasn't an MBZ, btw)? Or prudent airmanship? Aren't VFRs pure see-and-avoider's under NAS? Which version of Dick's ever-changing vision?