PDA

View Full Version : See & avoid - yeah right!!!!


Jenna Talia
29th Nov 2006, 23:46
The following is a recent ATSB abstract report into a recent close encounter 10nm south of YWLM between an RPT Metroliner and an unknown aircraft.

The crew of a Fairchild Industries Ltd. SA227 Metroliner were inbound to Williamtown, NSW, when the control zone and restricted airspace were not active. The copilot made an inbound broadcast on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) at 20 NM south, to which no response was heard. The crew reported that at 10 NM south of Williamtown, as they were descending through 3,000 ft, they passed within an estimated 30 m of a low-wing, retractable landing gear, single-engine aircraft travelling in the opposite direction. The pilot in command, who was the pilot flying, reported that his attempt to avoid the other aircraft would not have been timely enough to affect separation and there was an Airprox.

The investigation was unable to identify the other aircraft and determine why its pilot had not used the radio to provide positional information when operating in the vicinity of an airport for which the use of a radio was required and to determine if the aircraft transponder equipment (if equipped) was serviceable.

The investigation found that since November 2005, the provision of radar services in the Williamtown area had been reduced when the military airspace was not active. That was due to an unresolved technical problem with the military secondary surveillance radar at Williamtown, which impacted the civilian air traffic control system. A replay of the military radar data showed that the Metroliner’s radar return merged with the primary return (no identification or altitude information) of another aircraft travelling in the opposite direction, overhead Newcastle.

The occurrence demonstrated the limitations of the see-and-avoid concept as an adequate means of achieving safe separation from other traffic in an unalerted traffic environment. It also demonstrated the arbitrary hand played by good fortune in avoiding a mid-air collision over a populous area, when just one pilot in an airspace system that relies on the cooperation of all pilots, either cannot or does not choose to participate.


On on brighter note, I understand that ADSB is back on the agenda with the release of a NPRM last week.

UnderneathTheRadar
30th Nov 2006, 01:25
Jenna - while I don't disagree with the limitations of see & avoid (i.e. it's only the big sky theory that works and see & avoid is crap), this incident relates more to the lack of use of both radio & transponder by the lightie.

I'm suprised they didn't track the primary paint to an airfield and try and identify the culprit from there.

Granted that the civillian radar was u/s and that probably contributed but the conclusions that unalerted see & avoid is very limited should be offset by the fact that it shouldn't have been UNALERTED see & avoid.

UTR.

PS Agree that ADSB is a very good thing!

Sunfish
30th Nov 2006, 02:07
With the greatest respect, it's unalerted see and avoid that is no good.

Alerted see and avoid is many times better - which is why calls should be mandatory and not just 'recommended".

bushy
30th Nov 2006, 02:41
And they should stop using radio calls for billing purposes. Radios are for safety, not billing.

Mr.Buzzy
30th Nov 2006, 02:49
Willytown..... tick tock tick tock tick tock........

I wonder who is going to have the greatest number of sticks when this huge game of aviation industry KERPLUNK comes a crashing down?

bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzz

Continental-520
30th Nov 2006, 03:09
Is there any other purpose achievable by reporting air prox's other than for statistics?

I have never received a response from the ATSB following either air prox I have ever reported.

Has anyone had a different experience?


520.

J430
30th Nov 2006, 03:33
Today 14:09
Continental-520


I agree with your sentiment. I also have a general question to ask, and what constitutes an Airprox requiring reporting. And I give you an example from just the other day. Will keep the story as simple as possible.

In class G and CTAF area, late in the day, a few orbits from 2000' down to 1000' before heading towards the airfield to land, and listening on the CTAF freq. Having done a T&G at a close by field, and there was no other traffic in the area at the time, a large piston twin, went sailing past at 2000' while I was about 1800' and descending, his path was right where I had just left seconds before:sad: , and he had not seen me, and I had just seen him with little time to avoid him if we were at the same level. We passed close enough that I recognised the company logo (PVT a/c) on his tail and its not a massive tail or logo either, and as luck would have it, he owns a company that is my biggest customer. So naturally I knew who it was.

Phone up later and asked was he IFR, and he was, and had he been still on contact with BNE ATC, he was, even though in class G and a CTAF. Now he does agree he should have been using both radio's and broadcast on the CTAF as then I would have been looking for him and could have replied if I felt a threat. The odd thing is ATC would have had our paints clear as day, and converging. I even did a transponder check with BNE RAD to be sure I was OK. They never passed any traffic info to the twin guy at all. Not required I guess, but gee they were not that busy surely.

We had a friendly chat about it, and he agreed it would be prudent in future to be more careful about broadcasting in the CTAF area, and we all learnt a lesson. Not that it makes much difference but this was an experience RPT Jet guy.......not a 350 hour bugsmasher like me.

Any suggestions??? Would like to learn anything I can.

J:ok:

desmotronic
30th Nov 2006, 04:29
Whilst there is no excuse for not using the radio and txpdr i wonder what other readers think of IFR RPT at 250KTAS below A030 within 10 NM of Willie without TCAS, probably no autopilot, no primary radar derived traffic info, 2 pilots but still not able to look out and see opposite direction traffic???

podbreak
30th Nov 2006, 11:31
des, doubt the metro would have been TASing 250 within 10nm. Though TCAS should be mandatory over certain speeds. The current system, I believe, is flawed.

desmotronic
30th Nov 2006, 19:48
...the radar derived groundspeed of the metroliner was 250kts...


The report also says that the unidentified aircraft was in a left turn as they passed so most likley did in fact "see and avoid" (just).

Howard Hughes
30th Nov 2006, 20:15
Willytown..... tick tock tick tock tick tock........

Three Jets, two regional turboprops, and an air ambulance, NO TOWER??

One FA-18, Tower manned!

tick tock tick tock, indeed Mr Buzzy:hmm:

Icarus2001
30th Nov 2006, 22:43
Buzzy, your KERPLUNK analogy is brilliant. A very vivid image of where we are at.

turbantime
2nd Dec 2006, 07:33
I agree, accident waiting to happen. It is only the professionalism of the pilots from the jets, turboprops, air ambos and bankrunners that is keeping an incident from occurring. All it takes is a quite VFR lightie not willing to talk and then we will have trouble as has almost happened in this case and with daylight savings in place, there will be more and more of em out there.

We should not have to rely on luck anymore, especially since there is a tower out there with a radar service.

Contract Con
2nd Dec 2006, 21:06
Gday,

I have had 3 "near misses" at YWLM over a period of around 5 years, all with the TWR active and all close encounters with fast jets.(1 RA, 1 too low to get the RA and 1 in a dirty old piston twin, no TCAS)

Not one whilst MBZ procedures were in place.

Turbantime and Mr Buzzy are right.

Cheers,

Con