Metro versus Cessna C150

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

ABC are reporting that the ATSB are investigating a near miss near King Island in February, between a Metroliner and a Cessna C150.

[wishiwasupthere]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-017/

Done and dusted.

[Squawk7700]

Do pilots these days still fly to the right of their GPS track so as to avoid these types of incidents or did that disappear when everyone started navigating by their iPads?

[Sunfish]

I always offset my track to avoid a GPS assisted mid air. If you don't it's not uncommon to have someone tracking right over the top of you the pair of you only protected by hemispherical altitudes...and if cloud prevents that, then you have no protection

[Captain Nomad]

Just don't try it in controlled airspace without a clearance folks. You will not be complying with RNP requirements...

[KRviator]

What (or who) was "Aircraft 2"? Seems strange that the ATSB has censored the identification, even though they apparently played no significant part in the sequence of events.

[triadic]

One question that is not answered is why the Metro descended below 6500 when the VFR traffic was advised as climbing to 5500 ?? Cloud is not an excuse. Also what was the Metro crew doing with their No2 VHF. Report is silent on both.

[gerry111]

"There was a further radio exchange between the two crews after the pilot of RZP momentarily switched back to the CTAF."

It's not hard to imagine what the C150 pilot may have said to the Metro..

[Old Akro]

Just don't try it in controlled airspace without a clearance folks. You will not be complying with RNP requirements...

Or IFR routes.

[Old Akro]

I can't help pointing out that the new ADS-B mandate would not improve the safety of this situation at all. This is part of the lie about ADS-B.

Secondly, have I missed something? Why is there a focus about calls on CTAF and monitoring CTAF frequencies when all the aircraft were outside the CTAF zone at the time? Surely this is a failure of all concerned to be correctly on the AREA frequency and making calls. I would have expected the Metroliner to make a number of descent calls on the AREA frequency. And I would have expected the C152 to change its single VHF radio to AREA frequency at the CTAF boundary. If this had happened, wouldn't they have both talked to each other?

Surely this highlights:
a) That CASA / ASA discouraging non ATC related calls on area frequency is a source of confusion about what frequency is best to have an aircraft to aircraft dialogue meaning that aircraft outside the CTAF are using it to stay off the area frequency and
b) the reality is that our airspace really requires 2 radios now.

[andrewr]

The C150 made a call on area, but the Metroliner missed it (despite having 2 radios) probably because they were transmitting an inbound call on the CTAF at the time.

ATC asked them if they heard the 150 and they said yes, but it looks like they heard an earlier call, not the call ATC were referring to.

[triadic]

Part of the problem Old Akro is that the CASA material says "in the vicinity" and this is open to interpretation by many as maybe 10nm sometimes and 30nm at others? Many of us older folk that remember MBZ's, recall that they were 30nm and places such as KI were such. Sound procedures by the RPT/IFR would take this into consideration. The CASA guidance is of little help. Maybe they should go flying?

[Old Akro]

The CASA guidance is of little help. Maybe they should go flying?


sigh.

I worry that a large part of CASA are nor career public servants rather than people with aviation experience, knowledge or interest.

I remember years ago (are you listening Ben Morgan?) that the AOPA each year published the statistics of what senior people in CASA had pilots licences and GA experience. I'd love to see that again.

[drpixie]

It's nothing new but many RPT operators use "switching to CTAF" as their SOP, despite (presumably) having two comms - it seems to be routine for qlink, rex, sharp.

I appreciate how busy the radios get at a busy CTAF and busy centre (and two crew to coordinate) but surely the benefit of hearing both frequencies (with carefully adjusted volumes) would be worth the audio workload !?

[Lead Balloon]

And the real 'joke' is that neither of them saw the no-radio glider whiz past.

[cogwheel]

It's nothing new but many RPT operators use "switching to CTAF" as their SOP, despite (presumably) having two comms - it seems to be routine for qlink, rex, sharp.

I bet if you were to compare the SOP's of these operators for this phase of operations, they would be different. Many do not call switching to CTAF as that is when it releases ATC from providing traffic info. Why do that when you are on both coms?

There is certainly not enough emphasis on see and avoid for these Ops when in VMC.

This report has deficiencies that suggest the writers are perhaps not all that current?

[cogwheel]

It has little to do with communicating with centre, but more to do with maintaining the highest level of situational awareness under the circumstances. If VHF coverage is marginal or non existant then that would be supplemented by monitoring HF.

[Old Akro]

that would be supplemented by monitoring HF

I'm not sure that the C150 had HF :)

Most of my experience with RPT at non controlled airports is at Mildura and to a lesser extent King Island, where I find the Virgin / QantasLink / Rex drivers very impressive.

I would have expected that the Metroliner would have made enough calls that the C150 would hear at least one which would initiate a dialogue between the two aircraft. There might be a large dollup of coincidence / bad luck here.

But, it would be very understandable / reasonable that the first time the C150 tuned to area was at the CTAF boundary on climb, which really limits the opportunity to hear incoming calls.

Another aircraft may have stayed lower with RPT in the area, but once again, its very understandable that the C150 was trying to get as much altitude as quickly as possible before it was too far from land.

One of the issues that I have found is that VFR & IFR pilots speak different languages and have different maps. VFR pilots tend to reference their position compared with ground features. IFR pilots tend to use distance & bearing from airports, aids or intersections. Intersection names used to frequently give clues to where they are, but post the ground based aid shutdown they are meaningless. A VFR pilot might understand 10nm from Cowes, but is unlikely to have any idea what 10nm from Sunti means. Conversely, an IFR flight may not even have a WAC chart on board and may not really understand something like abeam Egg Lagoon (a real place on track on King Is). Depending on the handheld GPS the C150 pilot presumably had, he would have a distance to run to Barwon Heads, but it may not be quick & easy to get distance from King Island airport, which is what the airline needs. AND the VFR GPS will be measuring distance from the Aerodrome reference (or not even that if the pilot just hit "Direct to"), but the airline will be measuring from the NDB beacon.

I worry that CASA is creating a 4 tiered system with different rules, minimum equipment, common practice and language for each that contributes to incidents like this. Viz: IFR / VFR / RAA / Gliders. I'll bet we never see this as a factor in any ATSB report!!

BTW, am I the only one who thinks that a guy who regularly flies a C150 from Barwon Heads to King Island is a bit of a legend? He's a bolder man than me!

[olm8tyrone]

BTW, am I the only one who thinks that a guy who regularly flies a C150 from Barwon Heads to King Island is a bit of a legend? He's a bolder man than me!

While we're on the topic of the guy and his C150 perhaps CASA need to look into his W&B and fuel planning. He is always two up and that thing has an O-320.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Drpixie, I think you'll find that all those regional operators are still well and truly monitoring area AND ctaf before and after that "switching to ctaf" call is made..
The reason that they make that call is because it is a requirement when landing at a non-VHF receiving aerodrome, straight from the AIP.

I always thought that once that call was made, Centre no longer has to give IFR traffic information on new IFR traffic that calls taxiing?

Regarding 'aircraft 2' - I've noticed that the ATSB swings regularly between naming everyone/everything to operator and what the pilots ate for lunch down to providing type and registration (if even that). Given the media's practice of reading press releases, misunderstanding them and writing silly headlines, I'm not surprised that the operator of 'aircraft 2' asked for or was given 'radio silence'.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

One of the issues that I have found is that VFR & IFR pilots speak different languages and have different maps. VFR pilots tend to reference their position compared with ground features. IFR pilots tend to use distance & bearing from airports, aids or intersections. Intersection names used to frequently give clues to where they are, but post the ground based aid shutdown they are meaningless. A VFR pilot might understand 10nm from Cowes, but is unlikely to have any idea what 10nm from Sunti means. Conversely, an IFR flight may not even have a WAC chart on board and may not really understand something like abeam Egg Lagoon (a real place on track on King Is). Isn't this a training issue?

When doing an approach during an IR renewal, if I give a position report in "IFR speak" I would expect to get chatted by my ATO for not using language that should make sense to a VFR pilot in the circuit area or environs.

Dr :8

[triadic]

Isn't this a training issue?

IT CERTAINLY IS!

Trouble is those that conduct the training are not across the subject. You only have to look at the differences of what is taught between flying schools and even RPT operators and how in practice they interact in the system.

Some years ago it was proposed by one segment of industry that all reports on CTAFs etc relating to inbound and outbound calls should use compass quadrants rather that bearings or radials so as to keep it simple. CASA did not understand and did not take up the recommendation. Same seems still to apply. Not the same since the days when the FOI's actually went flying!

CASA fail to understand these procedures and many operators have developed their own to cater for the situations that they encounter every day. Trouble is those procedures are not all the same and others think because the RPT do or say something it is correct and copy. If they understood the system they would know.

On the other side of the coin, many pilots talk far too much, which in itself shows a degree of ignorance of how it is all meant to work. Another failure of the training schools/departments.

[IFEZ]

BTW, am I the only one who thinks that a guy who regularly flies a C150 from Barwon Heads to King Island is a bit of a legend? He's a bolder man than me!


No, its not just you, I definitely wouldn't do it..!!


While we're on the topic of the guy and his C150 perhaps CASA need to look into his W&B and fuel planning. He is always two up and that thing has an O-320.


What are you getting at here tyrone..? Do you know the people involved..? A C150 can easily make it that far without being overloaded. Even with a headwind its only going to take him about 1.5hrs + 45min reserve = 135mins. If he has long range tanks, tabs fuel will give him around 200-220mins (from memory) and provided he and his passenger aren't chubsters, they won't be overloaded. If they are a bit on the 'solid' side, they can take less fuel and still make it comfortably.

[Lead Balloon]

Let's pile on to the C150 pilot.

I'd be scared to do what he's been doing, therefore it follows that it's dangerous and illegal. If it's not illegal, CASA should make some rules to make it illegal, because it scares me. :ok:

[The name is Porter]

Agree lead balloon, lets pile more and more rules and regulations into the nanny state. Let's take more and more personal responsibility from the individual. The less you have to think for yourself the happier you'll be.

Remember: donot scratch your arse until you have written approval and have paid the appropriate fee.

[Sunfish]

I have experienced what Old Akro observes. As a lowly PPL transiting Avalon, Centre asks something like "XYZ your position?" I answer: "Over the salt works, tracking for Point Henry". Response: "range and bearing from Avalon please, our screens don't have topography".

[Squawk7700]

BTW, am I the only one who thinks that a guy who regularly flies a C150 from Barwon Heads to King Island is a bit of a legend? He's a bolder man than me!


It's not that bad really, it's only 50 miles or so from Cape Otway if I'm not mistaken. Take the old girl up to 10,000ft and you've only got about half an hour of s*hitting bricks @ 90 knots :-)

[Tankengine]

I have experienced what Old Akro observes. As a lowly PPL transiting Avalon, Centre asks something like "XYZ your position?" I answer: "Over the salt works, tracking for Point Henry". Response: "range and bearing from Avalon please, our screens don't have topography".

That is why both groups of pilots should use eg: "10 miles South East Avalon heading West at 3000' " for instance.
The only landmarks ATC, or IFR pilots are likely to know are those marked as entry/exit points on a VTC (or whatever acronym maps we have now)
:)

[The name is Porter]

Sunfish, your reply should be as follows:

'I'm over the salt works tracking for Point Henry'

The radar doesn't have topography but their VTC's do.