Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down

[logansi]

Emergency services are currently on scene at 1 aircraft down near the Hume FWY, scanners show they are looking for a second.

FR24 data has 2 planes within 150ft of each other at the same time - not looking good.

https://i.imgur.com/RO8k8Zw.png

https://i.imgur.com/QlDs8MT.png

[logansi]

Confirmed on CFA scanner, 2 aircraft down both extensively damaged

[logansi]

https://i.imgur.com/GmvQfw3.jpg[/img

[PoppaJo]

Seminole. Looked like they dropped like a rock looking at the damage. Nine was just showing a video of something stuck in trees so I’m not actually sure which network is showing the right video.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1125x1308/c975e913_6a6e_4f59_a166_ae370e5bcb60_41b9ed3a7a0beedcd7cbbb6 d68e6de5518d8bc7a.jpeg


Overcast at about 41. Scattered at 32.

[Blueyonda]

Overcast at about 41. Scattered at 32.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1996x459/6e74bc07_cec7_46ea_8ba3_046b8577a991_3526d3e5d6995f92f966695 c866a0e6f666b7f1a.jpeg
VH-JQF Mangalore

Flight radar has JQF at 1250 metres (*3.28 = 4100)

Very sad for them and their families.

[Sunfish]

VFR or IFR?

[Ixixly]

Thoughts with all those involved, I doubt this will be a good outcome on any level :(

[Homesick-Angel]

From the looks of things JQF possibly leaving the circuit and climbing at 90kts if the speeds on FR are accurate, and AEM coming up from the south doing 190kts.

Not good at all . Regards to all involved.

[flopzone]

4 people, 2 from each aircraft are confirmed as deceased. RIP.

[PoppaJo]

VFR or IFR?
Appeared to be VFR until they climbed into the overcast layer and impacted the other aircraft after just exiting it above?

RIP to the four involved.

[logansi]

JQF had an IFR flight plan

DCT LACEY COLDS MONTY YMEN ML MNG/N0135A070 SHT/N0135A030 MNG

Seems like JQF - the plane in the field had its right wing ripped off just beyond the Engine - doesn't seem to be near the crash site.

[ACMS]

****.......

RIP....

[MajorLemond]

If you look closely it seems like it's there although bent backwards and underneath perhaps? clearly a high vertical speed impact but the aircraft looks relatively intact, and to me it looks like they were possibly attempting to put it down. I guess the ATSB will be able to work out exactly what happened.

The other aircraft looks a whole lot worse off but tragically the outcome for all involved is the same.


​​​​

​​​​​​

​

[flopzone]

A flying instructor and student were on board a Piper Seminole registered to the flight school Moorabbin Aviation Services, a Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman told Daily Mail Australia.
The other is a Beechcraft Travel Air registered to a private owner at Tyabb.

[logansi]

Civil Aviation Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said they were operating on instruments, meaning the pilots were flying visually and would have lodged flight plans before takeoff.

Yep, thats the right quote...

[ACMS]

If they were both IFR then questions need to be asked about how they came to hit.....MEL CTR would have had them on ADS-B and possibly radar as well?

not good.

Its about time all Aircraft had TCAS....

[outnabout]

"operating on instruments, meaning the pilots were flying visually and would have lodged flight plans before takeoff"

Logansi - please tell me this is incorrectly quoted. If this is correct, then God help us all.

A tragic, tragic day for all those involved - aviators, friends and family, instructors who did last flight review, air traffic control, and emergency services who are attending the scene.

[vee1-rotate]

VH-JQF and VH-AEM. FlightRadar plots have them both just south of the Hume at around 4100ft. If the FR24 plots are correct, the Travelair was coming in at around 190kts or so while the Seminole was doing about 90.

Thoughts go out to those involved.

[segfault]

Not sure what happens if you have an STCA between two uncontrolled tracks.

[machtuk]

utterly tragic. RIP🙁

[logansi]

"operating on instruments, meaning the pilots were flying visually and would have lodged flight plans before takeoff"

Logansi - please tell me this is incorrectly quoted. If this is correct, then God help us all.

A tragic, tragic day for all those involved - aviators, friends and family, instructors who did last flight review, air traffic control, and emergency services who are attending the scene.

Sorry I was quoting the what multiple media outlets were saying CASA spokesperson said. Clearly they got the quote wrong.

[outnabout]

From the news report:

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) confirmed that one of the planes was a Piper-Seminole aircraft operated by flying school Moorabbin Aviation Services that had departed from Moorabbin.

The other was a Beechcraft Travel Air, operated privately out of Tyabb, on the Mornington Peninsula.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said they were operating on instruments, meaning the pilots were flying visually and would have lodged flight plans before takeoff.

“We don’t have any explanation of what happened. We can’t speculate on that,” Mr Gibson said.

Logansi - it's not a direct quote so it could be the reporter did not know what CASA were talking about and intepreted the CASA statement to suit the reporter.

[OzFerret]

If I'm reading this right. You have one plane descending on a roughly down wind leg, and the other plane climbing on a (roughly) crosswind departure. being in the same 3d space at the same time (I.e colliding).

What's the statistical likelihood of that. Add in they are both twins.

Or am I missing something here?

Ozferret

[NOtimTAMs]

Now flying GA IFR A lot these days, I'm puzzled - if both IFR, and as ADSB is mandated and both with flight flans and (presumably) contact with ATC how were they not made aware of proximity? Am I missing something here?

My sincerest condolences to the pilots and passengers families.

[Homesick-Angel]

If they were both IFR, and ATC did what is required, then they would have been given to each other as traffic. They are not separated in Class G however, and possibly/probably had coms with each other on the CTAF to arrange their own separation. What happened after that will hopefully become clear in an investigation.

[dogpilot]

Flight Radar 24 playback, JQF does appear until less than 1 or 2 minutes before impact

[Old Akro]

5nm and 4,000 ft is beyond the CTAF really. Both would have / should have been on the same area frequency. The flight trace of VH-AEM clearly shows that is was being vectored. The Seminole was flying to Essendon. The area frequency is available on the ground. One would presume it requested airways clearance in a taxy call.

[OCTA Aus]

Now flying GA IFR A lot these days, I'm puzzled - if both IFR, and as ADSB is mandated and both with flight flans and (presumably) contact with ATC how were they not made aware of proximity? Am I missing something here?

My sincerest condolences to the pilots and passengers families.

Obviously the exact details of what each aircraft was doing at the time are pretty vague. However I will assume it was some kind of approach training happening at the aerodrome. This being the case, it would be almost certain that ATC would have given both aircraft a traffic statement. Then it is on the pilots to separate with each other. However, if controllers observe both aircraft getting in close proximity to each other they will issue a safety alert. There are several possible failure points in this though.

First, it would be assuming either of the aircraft were even still monitoring centre. It is not uncommon for air work aircraft to stop monitoring until their ops normal time. Then they would have to still be in surveillance. I don’t know what the ADSB coverage at YMNG is like, but websites like FR24 give a false indication of the ADSB coverage. They have other ground stations etc that don’t feed into the ATC system. If not on ADSB, then the controller wouldn’t know they were at risk of a collision. Even if they were on surveillance then it still can be missed. Air work aircraft regularly get very close, so that on its own isn’t uncommon. Additionally due to system limitations it’s unlikely the STCA would be available. So unless the controller was watching them very closely, it could be missed. Keep in mind, they quite possibly had a lot of other stuff happening in other parts of the airspace.

[Sunfish]

Wouldn't both have been fitted with ADS-B if IFR?

[OCTA Aus]

5nm and 4,000 ft is beyond the CTAF really. Both would have / should have been on the same area frequency. The flight trace of VH-AEM clearly shows that is was being vectored. The Seminole was flying to Essendon. The area frequency is available on the ground. One would presume it requested airways clearance in a taxy call.

How do you come to the conclusion AEM was being vectored? To me it looks like it’s tracking to one of the northern RNAV IAFs on its own nav. Why would it request an airways clearance on taxy? The base of class E isn’t until 8500ft so it is unlikely to need an airways clearance on taxy

[Homesick-Angel]

5nm and 4,000 ft is beyond the CTAF really. Both would have / should have been on the same area frequency. The flight trace of VH-AEM clearly shows that is was being vectored. The Seminole was flying to Essendon. The area frequency is available on the ground. One would presume it requested airways clearance in a taxy call.


Yes to being on the same frequency - 122.4 from memory and probably on CTAF as well. Up to them to arrange separation and up to centre to give updates and extra IFR traffic.

No clearance required in class G - MELB CTA boundary at (or near) LACEY for lighties going into EN and the melb CTA

AEM might have requested traffic for a new track or heading, but wouldn’t have been vectored by ATC at that point as it’s not CTA, they’d just be given traffic (if it was identified at that point).

I often think of ‘fate is the hunter’ in these types of accidents - so so unlucky to strike mid air. Very sad.

[junior.VH-LFA]

The flight trace of VH-AEM clearly shows that is was being vectored.

Wow, had no idea that ATC could do that OCTA. Learn something new every day, eh.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Wouldn't both have been fitted with ADS-B if IFR?
ADS-B out, yes.

[Old Akro]

AEM was not on its flightplan route. It had clearly been vectored around the ML CTA. My guess is that they had descended to 4,000 ft for the 3900 ft VOR entry. I would assume they asked for descent on first contact with 122.4 after being handed over from 135.7. Where else do you go for a VOR approach? From Tyabb, LTV is closer for an RNAV approach.

JQF had filed in IFR plan to Essendon, via Lacey Colds Monty. It needed a clearance for Essendon. Normal practice would be to ask for traffic and airways clearance on the ground as part of the taxy call. ERSA lists 122.4 as having reception on the ground.

[Old Akro]

My guess is that AEM was being vectored until it was handed over from 135.7 to 122.4 maybe 5-10 min prior at which point I would presume they were give the "resume own navigation" call.

[OCTA Aus]

It may well have been vectored around the ML CTR, however it had been in its own nav for about 40NM after the vectoring. I guarantee ATC will not vector an aircraft for 40NM. They were on their own nav and OCTA when the collision happened. They may well have been for the VOR, however it was OCTA.

Calling for clearance on the ground may well be your standard procedure, however it would be completely unnecessary given you don’t enter CTA until a significant time after takeoff and I doubt a an airways clearance would be given off the ground.

[Stickshift3000]

JQF had filed in IFR plan to Essendon, via Lacey Colds Monty. It needed a clearance for Essendon. Normal practice would be to ask for traffic and airways clearance on the ground as part of the taxy call. ERSA lists 122.4 as having reception on the ground.

They could have requested clearance on the ground, but not necessary. Just as easy to request when approaching a waypoint. I agree that the lack of VOR makes Mangalore one of few training destinations (was for me).

[ACMS]

AEM was not on its flightplan route. It had clearly been vectored around the ML CTA. My guess is that they had descended to 4,000 ft for the 3900 ft VOR entry. I would assume they asked for descent on first contact with 122.4 after being handed over from 135.7. Where else do you go for a VOR approach? From Tyabb, LTV is closer for an RNAV approach.

JQF had filed in IFR plan to Essendon, via Lacey Colds Monty. It needed a clearance for Essendon. Normal practice would be to ask for traffic and airways clearance on the ground as part of the taxy call. ERSA lists 122.4 as having reception on the ground.


I suggest you read the posts to you, they are correct you are not.

[OCTA Aus]

but in this case looking at the fr24 replays they got within 1000 feet and ten minutes so traffic alert shoukd have occured, tapes will tell the story in the crash comic.

I get what you mean and it’s not incorrect, but a terminology issue. Because they are departing/arriving at the same aerodrome within 10 mins of each other they should receive a traffic statement. A traffic alert would be something given when aircraft will operate in unsafe proximity and would be more along the lines of “safety alert, traffic is” and most controllers would give a suggested resolution as well. For reference the traffic parameters are dep/arr within 10 mins for the same aerodrome, 15NM lateral and within 1000ft of each other vertically (2000ft where the pressure level information hasn’t been verified)

[Old Akro]

I suggest you read the posts to you, they are correct you are not.

Which bit?
AEM was not on its flightplanned route - correct. Look at Flight Aware. It looks like ATC did its normal trick of routing IFR traffic around Melbourne above the Visual Route. Typically they will keep you on vectors until the a/c exits the control step then do the "resume own navigation" trick.
AEM descended from 6000 ft about co-incident with the 145.7 / 122.4 boundary. How many times have you (as an IFR pilot?) have requested a descent only to have the response to ask the next controller? My guess is that traffic for descent was requested and responded on the same frequency as JQM. We'll soon know.
AEM descended to 4,000 ft which would be the rational selection for a direct entry to the VOR approach. Why would you go 20nm further and deal with more traffic to do an RNAV at MNG compared with YLTV??

JQM had an IFR plan filed for YMEN - look at flight aware - its there. Lacey / Colds / Monty is the setup for the RWY 27 RNAV or ILS. They are IFR waypoints. That points to an IFR plan.
I'm suggesting that a call on area frequency requesting IFR traffic and requesting an airways clearance for an instrument approach to Essendon less than 20 min flying time away would be common practice. Are you really suggesting that its not prudent?? With an Instructor onboard??? With area frequency available on the ground?? When you are taking off expecting IMC???

[OCTA Aus]

I'm suggesting that a call on area frequency requesting IFR traffic and requesting an airways clearance for an instrument approach to Essendon less than 20 min flying time away would be common practice. Are you really suggesting that its not prudent?? With an Instructor onboard??? With area frequency available on the ground?? When you are taking off expecting IMC???

Yes we are suggesting this is not prudent. 20 minutes is a long way from the CTA boundary. The correct IFR procedure would be to give the taxi call with the information required in the AIP (callsign, aircraft type, IFR, POB, dep, dest, runway). At this point you will be given a squawk code and a traffic statement. Then the next call required would be your departure call. ATC is not required to give you an airways clearance any earlier than 10 miles prior to entry. In fact I would suggest that you are wasting time requesting an airways clearance on the ground as the CTA probably doesn’t even belong to that controller and they can’t issue you a clearance. Multiple people have told you you are wrong already...

[RealityMod]

The dew point spread for YMNG at 10:30 am indicates that 4100 AMSL would have been in cloud. Based on both their ADSB data ( FR24) AEM was on descent from 6000’ tracking for overhead the the MNG VOR to commence the VOR RNWY 23 approach. JQF flight plan YMNG-Lacey requires intercepting an outbound track of 148 within 5 NM. With impact being at approx 4 NM bearing 163, an ADSB ground track of 113 prior to impact indicates JQF was climbing at 600’/min to climb to above 3900 MSA AND intercept 148 outbound before 5 NM.
This seems to indicate both aircraft were following standard IFR procedures at non controlled Aerodromes OCTA. This leaves AIP ENR1.1-67 para 10.1.1 and 10.1.4 which essentially states self separation on the CTAF which requires significant 3-D situational awareness even with ADSB-In &Out in aircraft without any form of TAWS ( traffic awareness system ).
Tragic.
RIP.

[Lead Balloon]

There’s your problem, OA: You’re asking for a service that suits your operational requirements. The ‘s’ in Airservices and ANSP is silent.

[OCTA Aus]

There’s your problem, OA: You’re asking for a service that suits your operational requirements. The ‘s’ in Airservices and ANSP is silent.

I would not disagree with your point that ASA needs to be more service orientated, particularly for GA aircraft. This is a leadership issue both in government and within the organisation senior management. However on this occasion OA seems to be making up his own procedures for no real benefit. However this may also be a misunderstanding between him and I regarding terminology. MANY people don’t understand that in class g you are operating IFR, but you dont have an airways clearance. So as soon as you give the taxi call you are operating IFR, there is no need to request the airways clearance. This should be given automatically prior to entering controlled airspace.

[Homesick-Angel]

Which bit?
AEM was not on its flightplanned route - correct. Look at Flight Aware. It looks like ATC did its normal trick of routing IFR traffic around Melbourne above the Visual Route. Typically they will keep you on vectors until the a/c exits the control step then do the "resume own navigation" trick.
AEM descended from 6000 ft about co-incident with the 145.7 / 122.4 boundary. How many times have you (as an IFR pilot?) have requested a descent only to have the response to ask the next controller? My guess is that traffic for descent was requested and responded on the same frequency as JQM. We'll soon know.
AEM descended to 4,000 ft which would be the rational selection for a direct entry to the VOR approach. Why would you go 20nm further and deal with more traffic to do an RNAV at MNG compared with YLTV??

JQM had an IFR plan filed for YMEN - look at flight aware - its there. Lacey / Colds / Monty is the setup for the RWY 27 RNAV or ILS. They are IFR waypoints. That points to an IFR plan.
I'm suggesting that a call on area frequency requesting IFR traffic and requesting an airways clearance for an instrument approach to Essendon less than 20 min flying time away would be common practice. Are you really suggesting that its not prudent?? With an Instructor onboard??? With area frequency available on the ground?? When you are taking off expecting IMC???

AKRO - a couple of points.

You never get a clearance out of MNG with your IFR taxi call - just your code and traffic. Yes they would have been given as traffic to each other. (Don’t get me started about asking for ‘code and traffic’ with an IFR call.. sure , even though ATC do this all day everyday, they somehow don’t know what you need to go flying !!) it is not procedure to get your cta clearance on the ground at MNG or any other class G CTAF unless you are taking off straight into CTA (that little joint near Avalon for example- can’t recall its name.) even if your plan is straight into the flight levels, you will generally start with centre (no clearance ) and then be passed to someone that gives you the clearance.

next - who cares where AEM was tracking - they were within their rights to request traffic to wherever they wanted.. and ATC would have told them what was there - JQF may not have been identified until very late in the piece and the Swiss cheese holes lined up.. You are right to say they would have been vectored in CTA but after that who knows, but they were not being vectored at the point the accident occurred - maybe they decided to go to SHT first or another waypoint?

next the separation issue, and this is really up to the pilots and ATC to give extra traffic or proximity warnings but again only if both aircraft were identified at the time . Did they make contact with each other, did they give clear concise and accurate calls about their alt and position etc etc. both these aircraft knew the area well, and I’m going to assume that their PICs did too. This will be the crux of the investigation I assume?

perhaps someone more current with the area can remind me of when you get identified out there but from memory it wasn’t til 3500 or so?

[VH DSJ]

JQF had an IFR flight plan

DCT LACEY COLDS MONTY YMEN ML MNG/N0135A070 SHT/N0135A030 MNG



That's a well trodden flight plan route for anyone who's done any IFR training in the Melbourne area. It looks like JQF was planning a practice RWY 26 ILS at YMEN with a missed approach back to Mangalore and then Shepparton. Departing Mangalore at A070, you normally don't request an airways clearance until approaching LACEY as ATC needs to coordinate traffic with arrivals in to YMML's RWY 27. At 7000 ft, you enter CTA on the LACEY to COLDS leg of your flight plan route.

[mmm345]

Flightradar shows JQF only receiving a discrete squak code once passing through 3,900ft and less than a minute prior to loss of ADSB transmission.

[Old Akro]

There’s your problem, OA: You’re asking for a service that suits your operational requirements.

I want the service we PAY for. Both in AsA fees and in the cost of implementing ADS-B

[Duck Pilot]

Accident only occurred about 12 hours ago and all the armchair experts are at it again! Pprune SMEs in action again!

Let the ATSB and the appropriate people investigate before making assumptions people.....

[ACMS]

Accident only occurred about 12 hours ago and all the armchair experts are at it again! Pprune SMEs in action again!

Let the ATSB and the appropriate people investigate before making assumptions people.....


yes 12 hours ago BUT these guys posts above are just telling us how it is in the IFR OCTA World we live in. They’ve operated in that very area and are describing the procedures required to stay safe and offering experienced possibilities of how the Swiss cheese holes lined up. They know what they are taking about..,,,

A truly sad day.

[tio540]

“They know what they are taking about..,,,”

Then they should contact ATSB, and the coroner, and make themselves available for giving expert evidence at the inquest.

[OCTA Aus]

Accident only occurred about 12 hours ago and all the armchair experts are at it again! Pprune SMEs in action again!

Let the ATSB and the appropriate people investigate before making assumptions people.....

Given the recent track record for the ATSB there is a good reason most of the people on here are sceptical of their ability to conduct an effective, unbiased investigation.

[megan]

Then they should contact ATSB, and the coroner, and make themselves available for giving expert evidence at the inquestAccidents always give cause for speculation. Discussion about possibilities is always educational, if you have issues with that don't read the threads.

[Breedapart]

Everyone here is no doubt well intended and in their own way seeking clarity in trying to understand the circumstances that lead to this tragic event. But pethaps all respect each others views and not indulge the attacks on each other or the system until more facts are clearly identified. Many are affected and mourning and as an industry we are also mourning the sad loss of our colleagues.

[Hoosten]

Accident only occurred about 12 hours ago and all the armchair experts are at it again! PPRuNe SMEs in action again!

Let the ATSB and the appropriate people investigate before making assumptions people.....

What? Wait 2 to 3 years for a report? By then it will be consigned to the back of your memory, any lessons or enhancements that could be made to a 'service' will be long forgotten. Convenient for the 'service provider.'

OPINION: The ANSP does not make a whole lot of money out of these flights, they don't care about these flights, they are a necessary hindrance in the ATC system. The ATC system in Australia is a 'profit making' machine. GA IFR is like a small job for a tradie, unblocking a drain for a plumber, installing a powerpoint for a sparkie. They're a pain in the arse. They want the big jobs. Same as ASA, GA IFR is a pain in the arse, ASA want the big jobs, QF, Virgin and the internationals.

I'll preface what I post with a couple of facts, I know for a fact that there are current and ex ATC's that post on this bulletin board. It's also a fact that some of these ATC's actually control this particular airspace.

FACT:

- If you request an airways clearance on the ground at MNG......you will NOT receive an airways clearance with the ATC's initial reply. You will receive a traffic statement and a discrete squawk code. This traffic statement will include known VFR traffic and any observed VFR traffic on the HMI. It is a waste of time asking for an 'airways clearance' on the taxy call.
- You will NEVER EVER be 'radar vectored' outside CTA or OCTA as it is termed. NEVER, not in a hundred years. So putting this into the accident mix is also a waste of time.

OPINION:

- This accident would not have happened had the appropriate class of airspace been used for this area. Class E.
- You wont, as airspace users, in your country, get the class of airspace required in that area, taking into account the traffic densities, because your ANSP will not get the return on the facilities and investment required. i.e. they don't want the little jobs, they can't charge you the 'real' cost of providing this service.

There is the human side to this, 4 families at minimum have lost members. The human side of this can't be calculated, lose a family member, you don't just say 'oh well, just an accident, carry on folks'

What is the cost when there are perfectly acceptable remedies that give these operations a chance? But they wont be implemented because of cost. And it's perhaps a very acceptable cost in the industry and publics eyes, but not to the ANSP, because they are a profit making machine.

Meanwhile, wait for 3 years for a report from a hopelessly underfunded and under resourced investigator. The coroner wont come to the conclusion that Class E would have prevented this, 3 years down the track, memories have faded and you're just waiting for the next avoidable accident.

[tio540]

Accidents always give cause for speculation. Discussion about possibilities is always educational, if you have issues with that don't read the threads.

Discussion publically about possibilities, prior to any formal investigation, with a colonial inquest pending, is called subjudice, and also professional ignorance.

This has no place on a professional forum.

[Falling Leaf]

"This has no place on a professional forum".

Since when was PPRUNE a "Professional' forum?

[Lead Balloon]

Given the recent track record for the ATSB there is a good reason most of the people on here are sceptical of their ability to conduct an effective, unbiased and timely investigation.
Fixed it for you.

[Sunfish]

Condolences to the families and also my thoughts are with the front line folk at AsA.

[ZAZ]

I just read the daiky rag two full pages, pilots names and descriptions of who they are.
My son called from army base, one of planes fell into their patch.
This is a trauma, affects us all in some way.
For me have been rethinking my ifr renewal due and usually at SHT MNG with local cfi.
Never liked the environment, helos, ctafs everywhere,
BUT these two IFR flights even in the arruval and departure phase should have been safer.
4000 feet is up in the cloud base I suspect student would be managing his tasks and on the panel not looking outside.
5 miles you have departed ctaf on climb in safety expecting inbound traffic notification intercepting outbound radial.
The FR track of the inbound aircraft seems straight north 358-000 into path of the aircraft climbing out in left turn.
HM times have we all done departures exactly like that?

Thats like a 18 VOR MTG left turn track out to Wendy.
But inbound RPTs talk to you when you are doing that in training, REX get you 50 miles out from centre.
So the question is regardless of the senaca getting a discrete code and would be ifr code 2000 seen by Centre the moment it is turned on, why no alert?
The inbound plane either cleared or otherwise would have notified left 6000 on descent and the collision rusk should have flagged.
I have done approaches IF a thousand times, and reading all the conversations here and in paper, this is very concerning even alarming.
This is the classic approach into MTG WG GTH MIA.
And last time I flew anywhere we ALWAYS call inbound, airborne outbound as per AIP.
Situational awareness preached by CASA for years at seminars.

[Homesick-Angel]

What needs to be fixed is the media’s approach to sharing images of the scene prior to people being removed. It’s such a blatant disregard for basic respect particularly for concerned friends and family . I’ve unfortunately been on site at two different fatalities over the years, and the media’s tactics on the ground are nothing short of evil.

[KRviator]

Discussion publically about possibilities, prior to any formal investigation, with a colonial inquest pending, is called subjudice, and also professional ignorance.

This has no place on a professional forum.Rubbish. Sub Judice - two words, not one - occurs when an investigation or inquiry under the control of a judge is occurring, and where the publishing of material is likely to interfere or affect the investigation/inquiry and/or affect the judicial outcome. It's a very long bow to claim that discussions on Prune, before any inquiry bar the ATSB one, has been announced could affect any legal inquiry!

I don't like or agree with finger-pointing at pilots who aren't here to defend themselves, but, given the delay in any investigation, either ATSB or by a Coroner, discussions here can prove beneficial by raising possibilities and causing others to think about how they operate and could it happen to them. If, by doing so, just one pilot changes their behaviour in a positive way, then the discussions have served their purpose.

[iron_jayeh]

One of the few things I've agreed with here:

Investigation need to be quicker. There is really no reason for them to take so long

[mates rates]

If the aircraft were talking to each other you would have expected the arriving aircraft to maintain 5000 with the outbound one climbing to 4000 until clear of each other.

[Checkboard]

Investigative need to be quicker. There is really no reason for them to take so long

Indeed - the one on this thread is already done.

[cogwheel]

As an IFR M/E instructor in a previous life, I have operated at MNG many times in all sorts of WX. If the communications are appropriate then usually all is well. What this thread says in many ways is there is a significant lack of understanding of what the appropriate procedures are in Class G/CTAF. The MULTICOM saga of a year ago showed exactly the same. Many pilots say what they think the other pilot or the controller wants to hear but there is very little instruction on this aspect of radio communications, in fact the last time I looked it is not subject to any examination - just what your instructors teach you (!). In fact there are CFIs about that all have a different idea on what to say and when and then the CASA safety advisors have a different view on it as well. This may only be a small hole in the cheese, but believe me it is a serious one that needs to be addressed with some detailed instruction and some standardisation. As someone said above, if it was IMC and they were talking to each other (??) why did they not provide themselves with at least 1000ft separation?
It should be known that you don't get a clearance on the ground at places like MNG, so why ask? All that is needed is a taxy call to start your SAR and perhaps obtain a SSR code. Every commercial pilot should know that navigation responsibility when OCTA (except in an emergency) is the responsibility of the PIC and that means you will not be radar vectored when OCTA. The appropriate use of 2 Coms is an issue in this event and will no doubt be looked into. It was mentioned that some instructors turn the radio volume down at times - really? You should get another job if you do that.

A very sad event, may they RIP. I hope we can learn from the results of the investigation.

[junior.VH-LFA]

I agree. Some of the terminology and discussion in this thread raises alarming concern of people’s understanding of how IFR works in different types of airspace; not withstanding the accident itself and how it came to happen.

[rcoight]

.....As someone said above, if it was IMC and they were talking to each other (??) why did they not provide themselves with at least 1000ft separation?
It should be known that you don't get a clearance on the ground at places like MNG, so why ask? All that is needed is a taxy call to start your SAR and perhaps obtain a SSR code. Every commercial pilot should know that navigation responsibility when OCTA (except in an emergency) is the responsibility of the PIC and that means you will not be radar vectored when OCTA. The appropriate use of 2 Coms is an issue in this event and will no doubt be looked into. It was mentioned that some instructors turn the radio volume down at times - really? You should get another job if you do that.

A very sad event, may they RIP. I hope we can learn from the results of the investigation.


Agree 100%

[mcoates]

The event itself is truly tragic but if we can learn from this incident and stop similar accidents in the future then it is something we should all benefit from as pilots.

The biggest complaint I have is that this type of investigation could take three or four years for completion and result. This is three or four years that people have to forget about the incident, the new people joining aviation won't know about what happened and so on.

Old news is bad news so the only way pilots can benefit in situations like this is to have a speedy release of factual information and at least keep it in our minds reminding us of the dangers at we CAN be exposed to every time we go flying

[ACMS]

As an IFR M/E instructor in a previous life, I have operated at MNG many times in all sorts of WX. If the communications are appropriate then usually all is well. What this thread says in many ways is there is a significant lack of understanding of what the appropriate procedures are in Class G/CTAF. The MULTICOM saga of a year ago showed exactly the same. Many pilots say what they think the other pilot or the controller wants to hear but there is very little instruction on this aspect of radio communications, in fact the last time I looked it is not subject to any examination - just what your instructors teach you (!). In fact there are CFIs about that all have a different idea on what to say and when and then the CASA safety advisors have a different view on it as well. This may only be a small hole in the cheese, but believe me it is a serious one that needs to be addressed with some detailed instruction and some standardisation. As someone said above, if it was IMC and they were talking to each other (??) why did they not provide themselves with at least 1000ft separation?
It should be known that you don't get a clearance on the ground at places like MNG, so why ask? All that is needed is a taxy call to start your SAR and perhaps obtain a SSR code. Every commercial pilot should know that navigation responsibility when OCTA (except in an emergency) is the responsibility of the PIC and that means you will not be radar vectored when OCTA. The appropriate use of 2 Coms is an issue in this event and will no doubt be looked into. It was mentioned that some instructors turn the radio volume down at times - really? You should get another job if you do that.

A very sad event, may they RIP. I hope we can learn from the results of the investigation.

agree, well said.

[tio540]

KRAviator, clearly your expertise lies with Google.

The coronial investigation is already underway, and rules apply now. Keep Googling!

[ACMS]

Rubbish. Sub Judice - two words, not one - occurs when an investigation or inquiry under the control of a judge is occurring, and where the publishing of material is likely to interfere or affect the investigation/inquiry and/or affect the judicial outcome. It's a very long bow to claim that discussions on Prune, before any inquiry bar the ATSB one, has been announced could affect any legal inquiry!

I don't like or agree with finger-pointing at pilots who aren't here to defend themselves, but, given the delay in any investigation, either ATSB or by a Coroner, discussions here can prove beneficial by raising possibilities and causing others to think about how they operate and could it happen to them. If, by doing so, just one pilot changes their behaviour in a positive way, then the discussions have served their purpose.

yes very true, I’m sure a lot of IFR guys and girls will have a re think of their OCTA CTAF procedures and separation standards......some from reading this and that’s a good thing.

[Lead Balloon]

I don’t think SJ rules apply to coroner’s inquiries. Although it’s a coroner’s court and coroners have quasi-judicial powers and protections, the proceedings are executive rather than judicial.

Are you able to point to anyone held in contempt of a coroner’s court for expressing an opinion on the cause of someone’s death? I heard someone on ABC Radio National this morning stating, categorically, that yesterday’s tragedy in Camp Hill was a murder suicide.

[KRviator]

KRAviator, clearly your expertise lies with Google.

The coronial investigation is already underway, and rules apply now. Keep Googling!I did - and guess what I found from the Victorian Government solicitors office (http://vgso.vic.gov.au/node/331)?

What is sub judice contempt?
Sub judice contempt is the common law offence of publishing material which has a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice while proceedings are sub judice; that is, ‘under a judge’. The rationale for the offence is to avoid a ‘trial by media’ by prohibiting the publication of material which might prejudge issues at stake in particular proceedings, or which might influence or place pressure on persons involved in the proceedings, including jurors, witnesses or potential witnesses, and parties to the proceedings. In deciding whether material is prejudicial, the court will attempt to balance the public interest in free speech with the public interest in ensuring a fair trial.

Fairly similar to what I wrote above based on my understanding of the concept, wouldn't you say? Be interesting to hear your understanding of those "rules" you talk about...

[tio540]

I did - and guess what I found from the Victorian Government solicitors office (http://vgso.vic.gov.au/node/331)?



Fairly similar to what I wrote above based on my understanding of the concept, wouldn't you say? Be interesting to hear your understanding of those "rules" you talk about...

If you Google again you could give advice on medicine, as well as law.

[Squawk7700]

Is the Coroner “administering justice” or are they reviewing facts in order to make recommendations and findings?

I also read the words “free speech” in there of which we are all entitled to.

[iron_jayeh]

Is the Coroner “administering justice” or are they reviewing facts in order to make recommendations and findings?

I also read the words “free speech” in there of which we are all entitled to.
you're kidding yourself of you think we have free speech. But that's a while different topic

[logansi]

It seems JQF was a flight test based on media reports.

[Office Update]

I have not been to Mangalore for a few decades. Is the old control tower still in place?
Perhaps the traffic levels justify re-activating the tower?

[Hoosten]

Indeed - the one on this thread is already done.

I'm sorry, you say it's done? I've missed the conclusion, could you post it?

[Hoosten]

I also read the words “free speech” in there of which we are all entitled to.

In Australia, you are not entitled to 'free speech'

[megan]

Discussion publically about possibilities, prior to any formal investigation, with a colonial inquest pending, is called subjudice, and also professional ignorance.

This has no place on a professional forum.Beg to differ tio, I'd go so far as to say rubbish in fact, you might wish to cast about on Pprune Rotorheads for discussion on the Kobe S-76, S-92 SAR in Ireland for how professional aviators discuss fatal accidents. Then you have the Pelair ditching at Norfolk, Shoreham air show Hunter, AF447, MH370, MH17 etc etc. None of these to be discussed until the coroner makes his/her report? Pprune would collapse for lack of discourse. If you know people involved it is always particularly stressing

[outnabout]

Don't expect a report any time soon.

The oldest incident on the ATSB website that the report is still yet to be released is this tragedy:

Collision with terrain involving Cessna 441, VH-XMJ, near Renmark Airport, South Australia, on 30 May 2017.=13pxThere are older incidents on the ATSB website without final reports, but the release date is either N/A, or the investigation discontinued.I note with interest that an accident at YLEC last winter that resulted in two deaths has been handed back to the RAus to investigate, which left me gobsmacked.

[Squawk7700]

I note with interest that an accident at YLEC last winter that resulted in two deaths has been handed back to the RAus to investigate, which left me gobsmacked.

RA-Aus are more than capable of investigating this crash.

[flopzone]

I suggest petty squabbles be fought out via private messages. It would be a shame for this thread to be closed so soon.

[Clare Prop]

Discussion publically about possibilities, prior to any formal investigation, with a colonial inquest pending, is called subjudice, and also professional ignorance.

This has no place on a professional forum.

Rubbish. This is exactly where it belongs.

Quite apart from anything else, if this sort of discussion was banned on Pprune then the only source of information for the media would be Geoffrey Bloody Thomas.

[Desert Flower]

I note with interest that an accident at YLEC last winter that resulted in two deaths has been handed back to the RAus to investigate, which left me gobsmacked.

ATSB said they would help with the investigation if asked. Obviously they weren't.

DF.

[Desert Flower]

This is a trauma, affects us all in some way.

Yes indeed it does. I knew CG from my Air BP days. :(

DF.

[ZAZ]

Hey Rubber Duck,

You dont think we can comment about what was an obvious breakdown in the system?
Four pairs of eyes ears four radios, adsb.
I fly that vor every year to renew have 30 renewals.
I fly MTG vor three times a year never have issues with inbound REX rpt get told about them 50 miles out.
So what went wrong with seperation standards?
The route SHT MNG WNG very busy weekdays
lots of ctaf frequencies and yes the radio chatter is loud but you must deal with it and as casa keep harping develope a situational awareness.

I am worried, concerned and need to know what went wrong.
Might be my mistake next, so what was the mistake.
So far at mng had near miss with a croppie, missed by 200 feet
but ifr to ifr collision?
unheard of.
Bendigo guy check captain thousands of hours..
other guy
CFI Tyabb.
thousands of hours experience but it did not save them.

why?

[PoppaJo]

Forget the Rubber Ducks and associates above. They pop up for their sad attempted relevance in these sorts of discussions on a regular basis.

I’m as concerned as you are. But I have little faith in the time it’s going to take to get an answer. 30 Day/12 Month Investigation should be mandated in such series cases. Common in the USA, and even some deprived Asian neighbours. 30 Day Prelim report. Full Report at 12 months. If things are dragging on they pump in more resources to get it done. When these sort of events happen, they are also very quick with the media and public around this. See you in 30 days.

Others adhere to these timeframes because they have solid resources behind the investigations. There is no extensions, the times are the times. We get the answers.

I have recently been involved in a report dating back 5 years. We provided all the details and interviews etc 5 years ago. Between my machine and the other guy it was 500 odd pax between us, so fairly important I thought. We heard nothing until 5 years later when started sending nasty emails to them after ongoing excuses of delays due to no logical reason. The reason appears to be they have no staff. My employer also got nothing. What really got me was they had a estimated time of completion, yet that time had passed by 10 months. The end result was beyond laughable. Nobody learnt anything aside myself and my FO, we came to our own common sense conclusion, but the other guy who stuffed up learnt sweet all and still buzzes around us today.

Expect a report in the year 2022.

[1a sound asleep]

We were let down when bureaucracy and cost cutting reduced the airways work load with the killing of flight service and associated services

The CTAF system for airports in busy airspace and the risk of missing radio calls whilst aircraft are on different frequencies was bound to cause a mid-air.

General Aviation is seen as nuisance to Air Services despite the fees we pay. Our airways system is not as safe as it once was.

My thoughts are with everybody who is in mourning right now with this unthinkable accident.

Ultimately some bureaucrats have blood on their hands ..

[iron_jayeh]

Ultimately some bureaucrats have blood on their hands ..
There's your bull **** quote of the year. You have again used an incident to push some agenda that is completely unrelated. You know virtually nothing.

Might as well blame the chick serving maccas on their way to the airport.

[OCTA Aus]

Might as well blame the chick serving maccas on their way to the airport.

Don’t give them ideas....

[andrewr]

There are really only 2 questions that need to be answered:
Were they both IFR?
Were they in class G airspace?

If the answer to both is yes, then this is the Australian system Working As Designed.

We know aircraft in IMC cannot adequately self separate - that is why ATC was invented. We get away with it in Australia most of the time because IFR traffic is relatively low. We have rejected Class E (radar or procedural) designed to prevent this type of accident.
We knew the risk was there. We knew a collision between IFR aircraft in Class G would happen eventually. We know it will happen again eventually if the current system is maintained long enough.

We also know the solution: Class E airspace. Or perhaps these days a technology solution would be appropriate - make some form of TCAS mandatory for IFR aircraft.

A 3 year inquiry might find something the pilots did or didn't do that might have prevented the accident. But that would be a distraction. The real issue is we have IFR without ATC separation, and that means collisions will occur.

[DrongoDriver]

We also know the solution: Class E airspace. Or perhaps these days a technology solution would be appropriate - make some form of TCAS mandatory for IFR aircraft.


One option would be instigated by a body that has millions of dollars in capital, the manpower and the expertise to quickly implement the solution.

The other option will force GA operators and private owners to spend more money (just like ADSB) to upgrade their aircraft in a market where they’re already ripped off. Thus grounding IFR fleets everywhere and further crippling the industry.

Let me guess which way the government will go....

[377 Pete]

Threw together a 3-D rendering, southerly view, looks like JQF was flying level, AEM descended into him...

[377 Pete]

Oops-
Can't post images yet, here's a link to a image host-

i.imgurDOTcom/WEo5Bvl.jpg (Replace 'DOT' with period '.' )

[mcoates]

That is amazing when you look at it graphically as you have done with the plots.

If there was just two seconds either way with either aircraft, 20 feet different in altitude, then we wouldn't have had this accident.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1600x896/capture_5b1bdcc5a72bb22ce48d76853752d577bb894a5c.jpg

[Lancair70]

The last ADSB data from AEM shows it passing 4250' and descending at 1216'fpm at 190kt gs. The stamp before was at 4500' descending at 832' fpm .
The last ADSB from JQF was level at 4100'. 2 stamps before it was climbing at 1152' passing 4000'

[Hoosten]

No doubt some of you will be seeing some of the images of the people killed by 3rd world airspace popping up on facebook, the media etc. Ignorance, belligerence, political incompetence and outdated, cheap and nasty airspace now has a human face. Four of them. Take a good look at them. Killed by indifference.

Devastating to see the smiling faces of people who've had a positive impact on those around them. I knew one of them, I knew of two others. and another foreign student going home in a box.

[Lead Balloon]

There are really only 2 questions that need to be answered:
Were they both IFR?
Were they in class G airspace?

If the answer to both is yes, then this is the Australian system Working As Designed.

We know aircraft in IMC cannot adequately self separate - that is why ATC was invented. We get away with it in Australia most of the time because IFR traffic is relatively low. We have rejected Class E (radar or procedural) designed to prevent this type of accident.
We knew the risk was there. We knew a collision between IFR aircraft in Class G would happen eventually. We know it will happen again eventually if the current system is maintained long enough.

We also know the solution: Class E airspace. Or perhaps these days a technology solution would be appropriate - make some form of TCAS mandatory for IFR aircraft.

A 3 year inquiry might find something the pilots did or didn't do that might have prevented the accident. But that would be a distraction. The real issue is we have IFR without ATC separation, and that means collisions will occur.
Correct.

And then there’s all those RPT operations in and out of aerodromes in G....

[377 Pete]

The last ADSB data from AEM shows it passing 4250' and descending at 1216'fpm at 190kt gs. The stamp before was at 4500' descending at 832' fpm .
The last ADSB from JQF was level at 4100'. 2 stamps before it was climbing at 1152' passing 4000'

There's five to ten seconds between the timestamped data frames for both A/C. ADS-B Out transmits ~TWO data frames per second. FR24 strips out 95% of the frames to save bandwidth, and because they're not needed for normal everyday plane spotting which is fine. So there's probably five or ten additional data points not showing. It would be nice to have the complete raw data when these incidents occur. Oh well, it is what it is...

[logansi]

The fact that these 2 aircraft crashed while one was descending and the other was climbing is extremely rare (and extremely low probability) most crashes occur because 2 are at the same level like cct height or an inbound point or another is passing through one of these levels. The chance of 2 aircraft being at Circuit height, for example, is fairly high - the change of 2 aircraft being at around 4100ft not so much.

[377 Pete]

I added the timestamps to the last two data points for both A/C. 2 seconds and 2600 ft. between the two...



https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1080/38ja6n6_5d54a89aaa3438d5f426f06bf5bcae00bebea565.png

[WetCompass]

Hey Rubber Duck,

You dont think we can comment about what was an obvious breakdown in the system?
Four pairs of eyes ears four radios, adsb.
I fly that vor every year to renew have 30 renewals.
I fly MTG vor three times a year never have issues with inbound REX rpt get told about them 50 miles out.
So what went wrong with seperation standards?
The route SHT MNG WNG very busy weekdays
lots of ctaf frequencies and yes the radio chatter is loud but you must deal with it and as casa keep harping develope a situational awareness.

I am worried, concerned and need to know what went wrong.
Might be my mistake next, so what was the mistake.
So far at mng had near miss with a croppie, missed by 200 feet
but ifr to ifr collision?
unheard of.
Bendigo guy check captain thousands of hours..
other guy
CFI Tyabb.
thousands of hours experience but it did not save them.

why?

Well said, my concern as well.
Given the ATSB's very thorough report will take a number of years before being released, it might be useful for the knowledgable sirs on this forum to perhaps brain storm the sorts of hazards and risks that can catch out even highly experienced pilots regarding traffic separation in OCTA IFR ops around CTAFs. What sort of situations have we found ourselves in over the years, where we got a bit of a scare regarding traffic separation, and how did we cope, or not cope?

[Dick Smith]

I agree with the quote from andrewr: "The real issue is we have IFR without ATC separation, and that means collisions will occur."

Most importantly, there is no “standard” for separation of IFR aircraft in Class G airspace. Presumably the “standard” of separation is set by the least experienced pilot.

The Stage 4 AMATS changes of June 1993 here (http://rosiereunion.com/file/NAS%20Stage%204%20radar%20Yellow%20booklet.jpg) would have brought Class E airspace down to 1,200 feet at Mangalore. In this case, the Seminole might have had to wait on the ground for 3 or 4 minutes for a clearance, but the flight could have been undertaken safely.

[Sunfish]

I entirely fail to understand how such an accident is possible. What are Airservices doing? Aren't IFR aircraft supposed to be separated from each other by the controllers? Wouldn't both aircraft have appeared on radar? Doesn't that expensive radar system employ conflict alerting? Didn't Australia mandate the fitting of ADS - B equipment to IFR aircraft precisely to ensure this accident couldn't happen? I mean flightradar24.com can see it happening why can't Airservices? Whats the point of ADS - B if Airservices ignores the data it provides? Why are we paying billions to Airservices? For what? If they can't keep two light IFR aircraft apart, how can they keep Qantas and similar large aircraft apart?

Being selfish, what is to stop an IFR aircraft from running into me in my bugsmasher?

Should we have confidence in ATSB? Airservices? CASA?

[andrewr]

Aren't IFR aircraft supposed to be separated from each other by the controllers?

No, not in Class G airspace. They get traffic information on the other aircraft, and are then responsible for separating themselves.

If they can't keep two light IFR aircraft apart, how can they keep Qantas and similar large aircraft apart?

Qantas and other large aircraft typically operate in class C airspace where ATC do separate the aircraft. However there are places where they operate in Class G and have to provide their own separation. They do have TCAS as a backup.

Being selfish, what is to stop an IFR aircraft from running into me in my bugsmasher?

Assuming you are operating VFR, see and avoid (which is much easier than IFR can't see and avoid) with TCAS as a backup if you have a transponder.

[OCTA Aus]

What are Airservices doing? Aren't IFR aircraft supposed to be separated from each other by the controllers?

It was class G Airspace, which is uncontrolled... Is it the concept of operating in class G airspace you cant grasp, or is it the meaning of the word "Uncontrolled"? Either way the problem can be solved by either reading AIP or the dictionary.

Wouldn't both aircraft have appeared on radar?

Quite possibly not, even with ADSB coverage is still far from 100% at low levels. Even with the FR24 feed the departing aircraft only appeared moments before the collision.

Doesn't that expensive radar system employ conflict alerting?

Yes, with limitations, such as the aircraft must both be in surveillance coverage, and there are STCA inhibition areas in the vicinity of aerodromes

I mean flightradar24.com can see it happening why can't Airservices?

Because FR24 can get an ADSB feed from some guy sitting in his house with an ADSB receiver and an internet connection. Airservices need an ADSB feed that has integrity and redundancy for surveillance services. This means multiple channels for transferring the data. High speed connections to ensure the data meets the updating requirements. Some method of checking the integrity of the data both from the aircraft and also from the ADSB site. At a guess I suspect an ADSB site would run into the millions. Airservices don't have endless resources.

Being selfish, what is to stop an IFR aircraft from running into me in my bugsmasher?

You operating in accordance with the VFR, see and avoid, alerted see and avoid, traffic displays on the modern EFB's, and while its a crazy idea, maybe some form of ADSB in traffic system for your aircraft? There are lots of options... like any system though its not foolproof.

[Cloudee]

A question for any controllers out there. If we can see these two aircraft on FR24 I presume they appear on an ATC screen. Would the close proximity of two aircraft set off an automatic alarm for the controller if the aircraft are in class G airspace? Would the same scenario set off an automatic alarm for aircraft in class C/E airspace?

[OCTA Aus]

A question for any controllers out there. If we can see these two aircraft on FR24 I presume they appear on an ATC screen. Would the close proximity of two aircraft set off an automatic alarm for the controller if the aircraft are in class G airspace? Would the same scenario set off an automatic alarm for aircraft in class C airspace?

Your assumption isn't correct. The ADSB coverage in FR24 isn't representative of the ADSB coverage that ATC gets. Yes the STCA works in Class G airspace (the ATC system itself doesn't actually know what class of airspace the aircraft is in), however it has its limitations. The STCA has a 90 second look ahead, and its looking for if the aircraft getting to within 4.8NM of each other and 1000ft. It will only work if at least one of the aircraft is coupled up to a flight plan, and will only work if both aircraft are the same type of surveillance (ie ADSB/ADSB, or SSR/SSR, not one ADSB and one SSR). There are STCA inhibition areas around aerodromes, as aircraft are regularly operating very close there and we would constantly get false alerts. Most controllers try and keep an eye on IFR aircraft at an uncontrolled aerodrome and will give a safety alert if the aircraft look like they may collide, however when you are monitoring 1000 square miles of airspace with dozens of aerodromes you cant possibly be watching everything at once. Also operations in class G airspace tend to get very close to each other, so you get used to seeing aircraft in very close proximity.

[iron_jayeh]

A question for any controllers out there. If we can see these two aircraft on FR24 I presume they appear on an ATC screen. Would the close proximity of two aircraft set off an automatic alarm for the controller if the aircraft are in class G airspace? Would the same scenario set off an automatic alarm for aircraft in class C airspace?
someone has already answered this

[Cloudee]

Your assumption isn't correct. The ADSB coverage in FR24 isn't representative of the ADSB coverage that ATC gets. Yes the STCA works in Class G airspace (the ATC system itself doesn't actually know what class of airspace the aircraft is in), however it has its limitations. The STCA has a 90 second look ahead, and its looking for if the aircraft getting to within 4.8NM of each other and 1000ft. It will only work if at least one of the aircraft is coupled up to a flight plan, and will only work if both aircraft are the same type of surveillance (ie ADSB/ADSB, or SSR/SSR, not one ADSB and one SSR). There are STCA inhibition areas around aerodromes, as aircraft are regularly operating very close there and we would constantly get false alerts. Most controllers try and keep an eye on IFR aircraft at an uncontrolled aerodrome and will give a safety alert if the aircraft look like they may collide, however when you are monitoring 1000 square miles of airspace with dozens of aerodromes you cant possibly be watching everything at once. Also operations in class G airspace tend to get very close to each other, so you get used to seeing aircraft in very close proximity.
That's very much for your reply.

[Lookleft]

Qantas and other large aircraft typically operate in class C airspace where ATC do separate the aircraft. However there are places where they operate in Class G and have to provide their own separation. They do have TCAS as a backup. Ballina, Ayers Rock, Proserpine, Maroochydore when the tower is closed, Hobart when the tower is closed, Launceston when the tower is closed, Avalon when the tower is closed and thats not including any of the airports in WA! At those places TCAS is not a backup, it becomes the primary method of separation if the conditions are IFR and that is assuming there is no VFR scud running who is not using a transponder. If Ballina keeps some of the airline COO's awake at night this accident should make them catatonic with sleep deprivation.

[OCTA Aus]

Ballina, Ayers Rock, Proserpine, Maroochydore when the tower is closed, Hobart when the tower is closed, Launceston when the tower is closed, Avalon when the tower is closed and thats not including any of the airports in WA! At those places TCAS is not a backup, it becomes the primary method of separation if the conditions are IFR and that is assuming there is no VFR scud running who is not using a transponder. If Ballina keeps some of the airline COO's awake at night this accident should make them catatonic with sleep deprivation.

If it is keeping them awake at night due to the risk then I would suggest they cease operating into those places. A tower very well may be a smart idea in those places however no one seems willing to pay for it.....

[Lookleft]

If it is keeping them awake at night due to the risk then I would suggest they cease operating into those places. A tower very well may be a smart idea in those places however no one seems willing to pay for it.....

Its what has been told to them many many times...

[ACMS]

Buy the Oz runways “ADSB in” blue tooth receiver and use that. It’s better than nothing I would think.

If I was flying IFR OCTA I’d use one.

[Stickshift3000]

From what I saw in my PPL training days, many instructors are using tablets with EFBs.

Correct me if I'm wrong: traffic shown on Ozrunways is not shown on AvPlan if not using additional ADSB hardware. Why is this not in the interest of both program developers?

[Squawk7700]

From what I saw in my PPL training days, many instructors are using tablets with EFBs.

Correct me if I'm wrong: traffic shown on Ozrunways is not shown on AvPlan if not using additional ADSB hardware. Why is this not in the interest of both program developers?

Commercials.

You can’t rely on it, as it’s simply not safe to do so.

If everyone had ADSB out and a receiver such as a Stratux or Ping into the EFB (for a budget solution), or one of the more expensive Garmin type units, you’ve got half a chance.

[ACMS]

These should do the job well enough.....The Dynon DRX looks ok.

https://www.ozrunways.com/store/adsb/

[Lead Balloon]

If it is keeping them awake at night due to the risk then I would suggest they cease operating into those places. A tower very well may be a smart idea in those places however no one seems willing to pay for it.....Affordable safety: It's inescapable.

[Slatye]

If there was just two seconds either way with either aircraft, 20 feet different in altitude, then we wouldn't have had this accident.

It terrifies me that there are probably a lot of near-misses where they do have that few-second/20ft gap - and they're never noticed, never reported, or possibly just never made public. This one just happened to not have that gap.

I've had one incident in VFR where Melbourne Centre called to say that someone was heading straight towards me at the same altitude (I was heading just about due north at 4500ft, they were heading just about due south at 4500ft). Even after that call I never managed to spot the other plane, so I can't tell how close we were - but without that call it could have been very close indeed.

[OCTA Aus]

Affordable safety: It's inescapable.

I dont disagree, there has to be a cost benefit analysis to safety. But many people in this thread seem to want the safety but aren’t willing to accept the cost. It’s about reducing the risk down to an acceptable level. And I would suggest the chances of 2 aircraft colliding in the way these 2 did would have been very slim. In fact I suspect it would be nearly impossible even if you tried to recreate it....

[Squawk7700]

I had a near miss some 8 months ago. 20ft below me, opposite direction, through a CTAF at circuit height, close to Melbourne.

I obtained the rego and track from FlightAware and which clearly showed what happened and sent it to the ATSB. My friend was not far behind and he probably only avoided a midair because I quickly warned him. He also logged it with them.

I got nothing back from the ATSB. My friend called for an update and was advised that it was all about priorities and this wasn’t a priority.

Our own private investigations revealed that the pilot is well into his 90’s and has a history of this kind of flying behaviour and lack of radio use.

All it would have taken was a quick call to CASA to follow up with the pilot for a please explain and the potential to save lives in the future. But... nothing but crickets...

[Lead Balloon]

I dont disagree, there has to be a cost benefit analysis to safety. But many people in this thread seem to want the safety but aren’t willing to accept the cost. It’s about reducing the risk down to an acceptable level. And I would suggest the chances of 2 aircraft colliding in the way these 2 did would have been very slim. In fact I suspect it would be nearly impossible even if you tried to recreate it....
I agree.

Subject to any 'left field' factors coming out of a competent investigation, it will be interesting to see whether anyone has the integrity to say: Infinitesimally low probability events still happen. All the rules, procedures, gizmos, training and experience don't stop the holes in the Swiss cheese lining up forever.

[WetCompass]

My experience might be out-of-date, but on an IFR renewal (last millennium) I had to fly from MB to Cowes to fly the NDB and then a DME approach back into MB. On the way down to Cowes it was real IFR, there was an aeroplane shooting the NDB, another waiting in the holding pattern, and another aeroplane crossing our tracks from somewhere from the East. That felt like high workload to me, particularly on a renewal flight. Flight services informed us of the other aircraft, and we negotiated our separation with each other. Crossing aircraft flew above us, the guy doing the approach did the missed approach and climbed on the missed approach until he got above us, and I went into the holding pattern above the other aeroplane in the holding pattern and waited for him to fly his approach. Doesn't it work something like this today, even though it's Class G?

[Stickshift3000]

I agree.

Subject to any 'left field' factors coming out of a competent investigation, it will be interesting to see whether anyone has the integrity to say: Infinitesimally low probability events still happen. All the rules, procedures, gizmos, training and experience don't stop the holes in the Swiss cheese lining up forever.

Governments these days just don't get that throwing money at problems won't eliminate them.

[Centrex]

ATC positioning was not that accurate some years ago in class G. On one IFR night flight, out of cloud east of Melbourne, we were told of traffic that was overtaking us on the port-side. All three pilots were fixated looking for traffic in that direction and after a minute or so, one of the pilots turned to check starboard where we saw an old twin with no strobes approx 400ft diagonally separated on the same heading. ATC was content with this until the PIC asked for greater vertical separation. We had just had a ADS-B/s installed when they were not mandatory and assume this other old twin did not. Does anyone know how accurate the system would have been if we both had newer transponders?

[OCTA Aus]

ATC positioning was not that accurate some years ago in class G. On one IFR night flight, out of cloud east of Melbourne, we were told of traffic that was overtaking us on the port-side. All three pilots were fixated looking for traffic in that direction and after a minute or so, one of the pilots turned to check starboard where we saw an old twin with no strobes approx 400ft diagonally separated on the same heading. ATC was content with this until the PIC asked for greater vertical separation. We had just had a ADS-B/s installed when they were not mandatory and assume this other old twin did not. Does anyone know how accurate the system would have been if we both had newer transponders?

The reason the radar separation standard is 5NM is because it has to allow for the errors in the system. At a guess I would assume the SSR radars are accurate to within 2NM. Therefore at 5NM apart by radar you should still be 1NM apart even if both radar positions are at the extremes of their errors. So yes, I’m not surprised that an aircraft was on the opposite side to what the radar said. The raw RADAR feed that goes into Eurocat actually is quite a mess, it goes through many filters and radar processors before it goes onto the control display.

ADSB would likely be far more accurate, I believe it broadcasts position twice every second. However the position symbol in the control system will still only update once every 5 seconds.

[BEACH KING]

I dont disagree, there has to be a cost benefit analysis to safety. But many people in this thread seem to want the safety but aren’t willing to accept the cost. It’s about reducing the risk down to an acceptable level. And I would suggest the chances of 2 aircraft colliding in the way these 2 did would have been very slim. In fact I suspect it would be nearly impossible even if you tried to recreate it....
This is the most sensible post in the thread so far.

An analogy is two bullets fired from 2 different guns hitting each other in mid flight. Those four poor souls were just extremely unlucky. I feel very sorry for their families and have remembered them in my prayers.

Any further outrage at how the rules are dangerous is tantamount to the current WHS adage that "every accident is preventable"... with the benefit of hindsight... Utter bull****.

[gchriste]

These should do the job well enough.....The Dynon DRX looks ok.

https://www.ozrunways.com/store/adsb/

I think I can see another positive for ensuring you get the 4G model with any iPad or Android device now. Currently I have a mini as my primary device, but it doesnt have 4G. I pair it to a BadELF for GPS and was thinking of WiFi hotspotting to my mobile to get traffic in via the EFB app. But it looks like most of these, the DRX included, need WiFi to connect to EFB. It does GPS and ADSB so would remove the need for the BadELF for me, but I would lose the iPhone hotspot ability. I then have an iPad Pro 11" with 4G which I main use for planning, and due to size, is the backup device in case anything goes wrong.

I am now regretting not getting the 4G iPad Mini. Until we are all on ADSB this will be a problem with some traffic coming from the EFB apps, and other from ADSB.

[Squawk7700]

There are units available that have ADSB receiver, GPS and AHRS in them all over wifi on the one unit. I got one for US$269 but I haven’t tried it with 4G off on the iPad. On paper, it does exactly what you need.

[Clare Prop]

A couple of years ago at Jandakot a Caravan was on final for the parallel runway 24R. He decided at about 200 feet to do a left orbit instead of going around which put him straight onto a collision course with me on final for 24L so at 200 feet AGL I had to dive to avoid a collision. Witnessed by two ATC, my student and the other pilot admitted it. Reports duly submitted.

ATSB said it wasn't an issue as he had "gone around on Base" which was complete rubbish and proven by Webtrak. CASA? "Nothing to do with us as the AOC holder is over East".

I lost all faith in the ATSB that day, though it wasn't the first time they had changed the facts around I'd never known them to disregard a report from ATC before.

Meanwile recently I was on upwind at a CTAF in VMC when an IFR guy decided to do an instrument approach for the reciprocal to the runway in use. We had to make a steep turn to avoid him on upwind as he came belting down his approach straight towards us. He was using IFR RNAV position reports in a CTAF full of VFR aircraft, skydivers, helicopters and scenic fights so few of us great unwashed VFR people had a clue where he was or his intentions. I didn't even bother putting in a report, there's no point. I would probably just get blamed for it anyway.

[Clare Prop]

One of my studes is a glider pilot, they use a thing called FLARM, anyone here familiar with that?

[Hot and Hi]

FLARM is one of several available Personal Collision Avoidance Systems (PCAS).

FLARM is a proprietory position/ALT/speed transmitter and receiver, widely used in the glider community. If two aircraft have FLARM installed, they can both see each other. The FLARM receiver analyses the relative movements of other FLARM equipped targets and accordingly prioritises traffic alerts presented to the pilot.

A newer, and less expensive PCAS is PilotAware. While it too has its proprietary position/ALT/speed outgoing signal (which only other PilotAware users can read), the PilotAware receiver sees other aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out, TPX S, TPX C, FLARM or PilotAware. Similar to FLARM, it can display traffic in various ways (incl on TCAS-style traffic radar screens), filter and prioritise threats, and can also generate spoken, explicit traffic alerts.

[wongsuzie]

20 GA midairs since 2001.Did I read that right?

[Sunfish]

Can anyone recommend an ads/flarm in solution that works with dynon skyview? .....that doesn’t cost >$1000?

[Squawk7700]

Not quite for Skyview, however something I didn’t know existed until I just googled it.

https://www.ozpilot.com.au/air-avionics-atd-57-air-traffic-display?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlZr_hcfj5wIVQY6PCh1xHQIYEAQYASABEg IjKfD_BwE

[Trevor the lover]

Andrew R and Leadballoon - do you guys actually fly aeroplanes? "We know aircraft in IMC cannot adequately self separate". I do this stuff every day. How about "mate you maintain 5000 and I'll stay at 4000 until passed." There you go - positive separation. Even if the higher aircraft has to maintain 5000 until over the VOR to ensure a totally accurate position comparison, then so be it.

[AmarokGTI]

I dont disagree, there has to be a cost benefit analysis to safety. But many people in this thread seem to want the safety but aren’t willing to accept the cost. It’s about reducing the risk down to an acceptable level. And I would suggest the chances of 2 aircraft colliding in the way these 2 did would have been very slim. In fact I suspect it would be nearly impossible even if you tried to recreate it....

Flying into Mildura some days would give a reasonable chance of a repeat/inadvertent recreation sadly. I think anyone would be a fool to accept an aircraft with a TCAS MEL into YMIA at the moment. I know I certainly wouldn’t. You need that backup tool for when the circuit tools can’t tell east from west or north from south. “I’m 5miles north tracking south inbound for straight in runway 36” “I’m due west of the field tracking east sorry due east my heading is 090”.

I’m often baffled by how many people struggle with basic orientation stuff. It’s not typically a surprise which general direction you are going to arrive from.

[Sunfish]

The tools for risk management have existed for 50 years at least. No one can say"we can't afford it" or "nobody will pay for it" without doing the risk management sums - probability of occurrence times cost of occurrence vs. cost to mitigate.

Take Ballina perhaps. What is the cost and probability of a fully loaded B737 mid air with a VFR light aircraft?

[iron_jayeh]

If everyone was listening on appropriate frequencies and talking to each other then surely these incidents wouldn't happen.

I'm not IFR but flying in and out of caboolture you talk to people who are in the same area and self separate.

The thought of instructors turning down radios is a little scary.

[Hoosten]

If it is keeping them awake at night due to the risk then I would suggest they cease operating into those places. A tower very well may be a smart idea in those places however no one seems willing to pay for it.....

Yrs, do that, people in these areas can just hop in their car and drive instead right? I'm betting you live in Brisbane or Melbourne right?

No one seems willing to pay for it...........Let's ponder that. Who paid for the existing towers? Who are you suggesting should pay for a tower at any of these places? What makes you think that existing users of your system aren't already paying?

Looks to me like you're on the ASA kool-aid.

All of your previous posts are typical of the ASA justification for lack of service. I'm tipping you're pretty green in this 'game.' If you aren't you'd know that Class E airspace is the solution. But whilst ever that costs a dime good ole ASA wont have a bar of it. Cost, cost, cost.

[segfault]

The reason the radar separation standard is 5NM is because it has to allow for the errors in the system. At a guess I would assume the SSR radars are accurate to within 2NM. Therefore at 5NM apart by radar you should still be 1NM apart even if both radar positions are at the extremes of their errors. So yes, I’m not surprised that an aircraft was on the opposite side to what the radar said. The raw RADAR feed that goes into Eurocat actually is quite a mess, it goes through many filters and radar processors before it goes onto the control display.ADSB would likely be far more accurate, I believe it broadcasts position twice every second. However the position symbol in the control system will still only update once every 5 seconds. Eurocat HMI air situation display updates every 200ms. I don't believe there is a five second update cycle anywhere else in the chain.

[Lead Balloon]

Andrew R and Leadballoon - do you guys actually fly aeroplanes? "We know aircraft in IMC cannot adequately self separate". I do this stuff every day. How about "mate you maintain 5000 and I'll stay at 4000 until passed." There you go - positive separation. Even if the higher aircraft has to maintain 5000 until over the VOR to ensure a totally accurate position comparison, then so be it.I do fly a bit. I get the concept of mutually arranged separation. It assumes each aircraft is aware of and communicating with each other.

Do you reckon AEM and JQF were aware of and communicating with each other? I don’t reckon they were, and I reckon there’s a reason.

[OCTA Aus]

Eurocat HMI air situation display updates every 200ms. I don't believe there is a five second update cycle anywhere else in the chain.

The ASD very well may update every 200ms. However the surveillance position symbols update every five seconds. If you zoom in close enough you can actually see the update, count 5 seconds, and then see the next update. I believe it’s a hangover from when all surveillance was SSR and 5 seconds was how long one sweep of the radar took.

[Homesick-Angel]

Andrew R and Leadballoon - do you guys actually fly aeroplanes? "We know aircraft in IMC cannot adequately self separate". I do this stuff every day. How about "mate you maintain 5000 and I'll stay at 4000 until passed." There you go - positive separation. Even if the higher aircraft has to maintain 5000 until over the VOR to ensure a totally accurate position comparison, then so be it.

Agreed but from the looks of the radar returns people have posted here (if accurate), and either by self separation or because ATC we’re giving them warnings, it looks like JQF tried to level out at 4K . If Going to LACEY, you would normally climb straight to 7000. Something caused them to stop that.

I concur that even with all factors , this is such a horrible fluke of a collision when you take all things into consideration.

surely 20 mid airs can’t be right in that time frame ? World wide maybe?

Mildura would wanna sort out radar to the ground ASAP ..

[Vag277]

Never mind flarm and FR24. Look at this https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/cd-1905as/consult_view/

[peterc005]

Did my CPL at Bendigo and Chris was the ATO for my flight test. Fond memories of him. There could not have been many people in GA more experienced or with a better name than Chris Gobel. He ran a tight operation, which is probably why Bendigo Aviation Services had such a good safety record.

Any word on the funeral?

[Trevor the lover]

Hi Leady and Homesick Angel - just want to clarify my comments which you guys responded to. My comment was not regarding this tragedy. I was responding to Andrew R's stand alone comment of "We know aircraft in IMC cannot adequately self separate". I was pointing out the fact that IFR aircraft CAN adequately separate themselves. Most of the fails I give out at work when doing airborne checks are based on pilots not ensuring "positive" separation. "you go left, I'll go right" is not positive separation. (actually that should be you go right and I'll go right if approaching head on). Separation must be based on altitude, DME, radial/bearing, or geographical features.

As I said, I wasn't referring to this case. The experience levels in this accident were certainly high enough to ensure positive separation one would think. So what went wrong? At this stage, God only knows.

Reference the comments about Mildura - yep, I reckon an accident is on its way there. Why the hell do flying schools send training flights out in waves??? We did that in the military but we were operating in protected Restricted airspace. Mildura and Ballarat send em out in waves and arriving aircraft are greeted with 6 in the circuit or none in the circuit. Surely they can do better than that.

[kaz3g]

Is the Coroner “administering justice” or are they reviewing facts in order to make recommendations and findings?

I also read the words “free speech” in there of which we are all entitled to.

the Coroner mostly conducts an investigation into certain deaths and fires as required by the ACT where the identity of the deceased or the cause of death is unknown. The Coroner only carries out an inquest as a follow-on to a small number of those investigations.

The SJ rules apply but a Coroner is part of the judiciary and generally thought to be trained to disregard what might be prejudicial in jury trials. . An inquest is also a civil matter so the threshold is again far higher than in criminal matters. The fact that there will almost certainly be no criminal charges arising and that discussions here are not savaging reputations of the deceased are further factors that might be considered if contempt proceedings were contemplated.

There is no right to free speech...merely a right to freedom of political communication found by the High Court. We have no federal Bill of Rights unlike almost every other first world nation much to our shame in the international scene.

NB I have little experience in the Coroner’s Court and this is my personal opinion, not legal advice and anyone concerned should therefore seek independent advice from a suitably experienced practitioner.

[Squawk7700]

Never mind flarm and FR24. Look at this https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/cd-1905as/consult_view/

Yes... goes with what I’ve been saying. Like it or not, if everyone was forced to fit ADSB out and have an ADSB in-display, the risk of mid-air’s would be reduced, but you’re not going to end up with every aircraft with an iPad or TSO’ed display any time soon.

The idea of the reduced cost ADSB units being permitted seems to be a positive move and I assume they have weighed up the chance of erroneous information being sent and decided it’s not an issue or at least they are asking us if we think it is.

You’ll still need ADSB-in though as even if everyone has out, you’re relying on the controller to help you avoid a collision.

[iron_jayeh]

There is also no way you will get adsb mandated in all ra aircraft or gliders etc.

[Lead Balloon]

Hi Leady and Homesick Angel - just want to clarify my comments which you guys responded to. My comment was not regarding this tragedy. I was responding to Andrew R's stand alone comment of "We know aircraft in IMC cannot adequately self separate". I was pointing out the fact that IFR aircraft CAN adequately separate themselves. Most of the fails I give out at work when doing airborne checks are based on pilots not ensuring "positive" separation. "you go left, I'll go right" is not positive separation. (actually that should be you go right and I'll go right if approaching head on). Separation must be based on altitude, DME, radial/bearing, or geographical features.

As I said, I wasn't referring to this case. The experience levels in this accident were certainly high enough to ensure positive separation one would think. So what went wrong? At this stage, God only knows.

Reference the comments about Mildura - yep, I reckon an accident is on its way there. Why the hell do flying schools send training flights out in waves??? We did that in the military but we were operating in protected Restricted airspace. Mildura and Ballarat send em out in waves and arriving aircraft are greeted with 6 in the circuit or none in the circuit. Surely they can do better than that.
Agreed TTL: They “can” self-separate as a matter of abstract principle. Whether they can in a particular set of circumstances depends on that particular set of circumstances.

IF - big IF -JQF was in fact deliberately levelled out at around 4,000’ there will be a reason. And it cannot logically be that PIC JQF understood that AEM was also at around 4,000’.

Successful self-separation depends on a mutual understanding of the same set of ‘facts’ - either accurate or inaccurate. Doesn’t matter whether the ‘facts’ are true or untrue, provided that the understanding is mutual.

And I agree (“absolutely” and “100 percent”) re Mildura. I’ve said it many times in many different ways: If the level of risk to which passengers on HCRPT aircraft are exposed during flights in and out of Mildura are ‘acceptable’ to the regulator and the operators, I can’t see why the regulator bothers with the risks of e.g. ‘Community Service Flights’ (other than for reasons of political expediency).

[Led Zeppelin]

CASA's risk and risk mitigation strategy in so many ways is managed by absolute over regulation. The idea that if there are enough regulations, we can make aviation safe, is just laughable.

Just watch the regulator run for cover if it turns there are systemic factors in this event that could have been mitigated by pragmatic oversight.

This is a terrible tragedy and I hope the senseless loss of life was not in vain if there are lessons to be gained from this..

[CAVOK92]

If JQF was on a flight test the PIC would not have had any input in organising traffic separation. His role is to observe and asses the candidate and only take over if safety is an issue. Maybe he was to late in taking over?

[Squawk7700]

If JQF was on a flight test the PIC would not have had any input in organising traffic separation. His role is to observe and asses the candidate and only take over if safety is an issue. Maybe he was to late in taking over?

That’s a little too far fetched to think that the instructor sat back to watch the student continue into a mid-air!

[CAVOK92]

That’s a little too far fetched to think that the instructor sat back to watch the student continue into a mid-air!

not as far stretch as you would think, 7700.

They would have been given trafic information from Mel center on taxi, of AEM a fair distance to the south inbound with intentions and an estimate. For an inexperienced IFR candidate they may have assumed they would be well out of the way before their arrival plus their intended tracks weren’t the same. As the examiner they would obviously have a more accurate idea. However do they intervene and stop the test on the ground or do you give them a chance to manage the situation. Maybe he have them too much of a chance.
7700, the IFR and examining world is a lot different to bashing around Tooradin in a Jab.

[Squawk7700]

However do they intervene and stop the test on the ground or do you give them a chance to manage the situation. Maybe he gave them too much of a chance.


I’m pretty certain that both instructors would have a greater respect for the preservation of life, than to deliberately place themselves, their student and the aircraft deliberately into harms way for the sake of teaching the student a lesson!

[GBO]

Hopefully the pilot of the third aircraft at Mangalore, VH-TFX, will provide the answer to this unfortunate accident.

[CAVOK92]

That fact they hit means that someone was obviously not fully aware of the others position.
All I am saying is a possible hypothesis is the pilot under assessment has not suitably dealt with the traffic by staying on the ground like an experienced pilot would and when the time has come to intervene the examiner has made the assessment that it should be ok and it wasn’t.

These things aren’t black and white. 7700 with your extensive experience, you should know that.

[Squawk7700]

That fact they hit means that someone was obviously not fully aware of the others position.
All I am saying is a possible hypothesis is the pilot under assessment has not suitably dealt with the traffic by staying on the ground like an experienced pilot would and when the time has come to intervene the examiner has made the assessment that it should be ok and it wasn’t.

These things aren’t black and white. 7700 with your extensive experience, you should know that.

Is an “experienced pilot” not including someone training for their IFR? For your hypothesis to hold water, you’d need to know the experience level of the pilot being examined. Same goes for the other pilot under instructions, are you aware of his experience?

In order to get your point across here, it is not necessary to attempt to make a sarcastic personal attack against me.

[megan]

As sad as any accident is, the loss of separation features prominently among ATSB reports, and that's when they are under positive control air traffic wise. The fact was bought home to me while looking up 747 events on their web site recently. The worlds largest mid air death toll was the result of a 747 and Il-76 meeting over India, the largest potential was a JAL DC-10 and JAL 747 missing each other by 10 metres at FL360. Didn't QF have a 747 miss a C-5 by a like amount over Malaysia or Thailand, result of the C-5 giving a wrong estimate?

[Hoosten]

I'm pretty certain that both instructors would have a greater respect for the preservation of life, than to deliberately place themselves, their student and the aircraft deliberately into harms way for the sake of teaching the student a lesson!

You can be damn sure that this is the case. I don't know of any sane FE or IFR Instructor that would allow a situation to develop that would result in a possible mid-air. I'm also sure that if CASA became aware of any such rogue that the FER would 'placed on hold'

Considering that IFR traffic was passed to and acknowledged by both aircraft, the answer to this one is most likely recorded on the CTAF frequency. Hope to Christ the recording is complete.

[George Glass]

Sadly we’ve been here before.

ATSB AR-2008-044(2)

[Sunfish]

Can’t find the report

[FullOppositeRudder]

This one perhaps: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2008/ar-2008-044(2)/

[George Glass]

That’s the one. Sorry, couldn’t get the link to copy.

[machtuk]

Sadly accidents happen , we don't live in a perfect world! I knew CG, top guy, hard to believe he was involved in this but there you go, humans are fallible! Very few wake up in the morning and plan their deaths in this manor. Again it happens, we are human, learn from their mistakes and fly safer, end of story!

[George Glass]

machtuk, don’t think that explanation will cut it in the subsequent investigation. The risks inherent in CTAFs are well documented , which is why I posted the link to now long forgotten inquiry. Airservices has a lot of questions to answer.

[iron_jayeh]

machtuk, don’t think that explanation will cut it in the subsequent investigation. The risks inherent in CTAFs are well documented , which is why I posted the link to now long forgotten inquiry. Airservices has a lot of questions to answer.
what questions?

If pilots do what they should then these issues won't happen. I don't know mangalore but if you introduce control to these airports then you increases charges, RA unable to use them (my problem with it) and bigger delays on clearances.

I've heard aircraft on area frequencies basically ignore traffic advice only to 2 minutes later be told by atc they had better move.

Again until we get the investigation we won't know what the cause is but I think we should consider things before asking for more cta.

[CaptainMidnight]

Airservices has a lot of questions to answer.
Airservices or CASA?

CASA is the airspace authority and aviation safety regulator. Only they have the authority to declare airspace, change the classification of airspace and direct a change be made to the level of ATS or pilot procedures etc.

[George Glass]

Both. The National Airspace System , a brilliant bureaucratic oxymoron, sowed the seeds of failure from day one. The ATSB inquiry expresses it better than I can.

709 incidents , 60 serious, between 1/1/03 and 31/12/08.

709

Nothing quite so stupid as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

[OCTA Aus]

Both. The National Airspace System , a brilliant bureaucratic oxymoron, sowed the seeds of failure from day one. The ATSB inquiry expresses it better than I can.

709 incidents , 60 serious, between 1/1/03 and 31/12/08.

709

Nothing quite so stupid as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Yeah I’m sure incidents are unheard of in other airspace systems....

[Hoosten]

Yeah I’m sure incidents are unheard of in other airspace systems....

Don't make excuses for a piss-poor airspace system. Four people are dead in an easily avoidable accident. Unfortunately the complexities of airspace design and systems are beyond a simple explanation to a coroner, a politician or anyone else that makes the decisions to properly administer and regulate an airspace system.

Admit it, you are a 3rd rate airspace admin. You are the pig with lipstick, you look shiny and new to anyone with little knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors. Too lazy, too ignorant to go out into the big wide world and see how a modern, properly resourced 'not for profit' administration keeps the public safe.

It's all well and good to say it's pretty simple to arrange your own separation on a CTAF frequency in IMC. I have been in that holding pattern with 3 others while one is shooting an approach. Of course if you rip VOR's and NDB's out of the ground, where else are you going to go? The nature of the IFR training done in Australia is that VOR's and NDB's are required by those who pay for it.

But you'll come back with, 'no one wants to pay for it' You're on the Kool-Aid, it's paid for many times over.

There are some fairly straight forward solutions, Class E being one of them. Airservices doesn't want a bar of it, Your CEO can't staff the airspace you've got let alone any new classifications. It all fits in nicely with CASA's in-action on this front.

[Squawk7700]

Don't make excuses for a piss-poor airspace system. Four people are dead in an easily avoidable accident. Unfortunately the complexities of airspace design and systems are beyond a simple explanation to a coroner, a politician or anyone else that makes the decisions to properly administer and regulate an airspace system.

Admit it, you are a 3rd rate airspace admin. You are the pig with lipstick, you look shiny and new to anyone with little knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors. Too lazy, too ignorant to go out into the big wide world and see how a modern, properly resourced 'not for profit' administration keeps the public safe.

It's all well and good to say it's pretty simple to arrange your own separation on a CTAF frequency in IMC. I have been in that holding pattern with 3 others while one is shooting an approach. Of course if you rip VOR's and NDB's out of the ground, where else are you going to go? The nature of the IFR training done in Australia is that VOR's and NDB's are required by those who pay for it.

But you'll come back with, 'no one wants to pay for it' You're on the Kool-Aid, it's paid for many times over.

There are some fairly straight forward solutions, Class E being one of them. Airservices doesn't want a bar of it, Your CEO can't staff the airspace you've got let alone any new classifications. It all fits in nicely with CASA's in-action on this front.


Where is the like button!!

+1

[George Glass]

I’ll second that.

[mikewil]

From what I saw in my PPL training days, many instructors are using tablets with EFBs.

Correct me if I'm wrong: traffic shown on Ozrunways is not shown on AvPlan if not using additional ADSB hardware. Why is this not in the interest of both program developers?

I don't see why OZRunways can't have an arrangement with something like FlightRadar24 to display their traffic as an overlay. OZRunways own traffic system is hopeless as it won't show anyone who isn't using the same app.

I know it would still rely in a data connection but in reality, 4G data is pretty good around most busy class G and not having to switch apps to Flight Radar 24 to get a quick glimpse of the traffic situation would be a godsend to situational awareness.

[KRviator]

OzRunways will already show ADS-B traffic if you have compatible (https://www.ozrunways.com/store/adsb/) hardware on board - and you won't need a data connection to see it. You will still need data to receive OzRunways-derived traffic though.

[Squawk7700]

I don't see why OZRunways can't have an arrangement with something like FlightRadar24 to display their traffic as an overlay. OZRunways own traffic system is hopeless as it won't show anyone who isn't using the same app.

I know it would still rely in a data connection but in reality, 4G data is pretty good around most busy class G and not having to switch apps to Flight Radar 24 to get a quick glimpse of the traffic situation would be a godsend to situational awareness.

Too many variables to be reliable.

Get one of these and encourage everyone you can to get ADSB out transponders and hopefully CASA will go ahead with the lesser cost ADSB option...

https://www.ozrunways.com/store/adsb/ping.jsp

PS if you’re switching across to Flightradar24 whilst flying, you need to use the split screen function on your iPad so you can fit the two apps on the screen at the same time. It’s a little tricky the first time but once you’ve got it you’ll be laughing.

[mikewil]

OzRunways will already show ADS-B traffic if you have compatible (https://www.ozrunways.com/store/adsb/) hardware on board - and you won't need a data connection to see it. You will still need data to receive OzRunways-derived traffic though.

Clearly having compatible ADSB IN hardware will be the far superior option as it doesn't require a data connection (like we have both stated).

However, for cost and convenience, most EFB users are not going to bother carrying around additional hardware and my point is that ADSB Traffic from a source like FR24 via a data connection is still a better option than "OZ Runways Traffic" via the same data connection.

It would be nice to also carry satellite hardware to be able to download updated TAFs and METARs from wherever you are, but the 4G data connection is infinitely better than nothing and enough for most EFB users to be satisfied with. Traffic information to the best extent possible via that same data connection would be better than what we have currently.

[segfault]

It occurred to me that you could build an ATIS like service, with ADSB-in on a single box on the ground. It would use track data to model the airspace, and generate an output stream suitable for text to speech. The resulting audio would be transmitted on VHF.

So aircraft would get some of the benefit of ADSB-in without additional hardware.

[KRviator]

...my point is that ADSB Traffic from a source like FR24 via a data connection is still a better option than "OZ Runways Traffic" via the same data connection.Yes...But...That's only if the traffic update rate is fast enough that any latency doesn't produce an additional hazard, by causing you to look for the other aircraft miles behind where it is now based on where the EFB says it is...

But it's funny you bring this up, AvPlan now appears to feed ADS-B traffic as well as AvPlan traffic over the datalink...
AvPlan Live has had a major update – we’re now feeding in live ADSB traffic and glider traffic from a network of ground based ADSB receivers. AvPlan EFB users with AvPlan Live enabled (Settings, AvPlan Live Tracking) will see traffic from these systems as well as other AvPlan EFB equipped aircraft.

[mikewil]

Yes...But...That's only if the traffic update rate is fast enough that any latency doesn't produce an additional hazard, by causing you to look for the other aircraft miles behind where it is now based on where the EFB says it is...

But it's funny you bring this up, AvPlan now appears to feed ADS-B traffic as well as AvPlan traffic over the datalink...


I don't suggest flying head down watching traffic on a screen and trying to avoid it by relying on the position on the screen being in real time. It would be useful for situational awareness even if there was a significant delay, you would be able to see inbound/outbound/circuit traffic well in advance so you have an idea of what you will be expecting prior to attempting to make contact via radio.

[Ndegi]

Another useful FREE App is AvTraffic for the iPhone which gives ATC plus gliders. Your position is shared with other App users.

[Hoosten]

All of you you are missing the point here. You are bringing up private sector solutions that should be aids to an overall surveillance system. Smugly, ASA & CASA will stay silent, ohhhh, look, the great unwashed are deflecting our responsibility on to Avplan and Ozrunways. How convenient.

Doesn't matter that Ozrunways won't share data. Avplan are willing to, not a problem. But what does this prove? How fractured, profit driven and beaurecratic aviation 'safety' is in your 'lucky country' (google what 'lucky country' means).

Four dead people........fathers, sons, brothers, sisters, daughters..........and bloody good mates. How many of you have lost a good mate? Do you remember their smile? Do a search on facebook, Ido Segev, look at the smile. The smile says everything.

Stop accepting this half arsed bull**** as an 'accident'

Get off your lazy Australian arses and demand what your tax pays for. Enough of your famous indifference

[iron_jayeh]

Hoosten you can't possibly know what to demand without knowing what happened. That's insanity.

Maybe it's the pilots fault. Who knows? Before you demand anything let's find out what happened.

Or is that too reasonable for pprune

[Squawk7700]

Doesn't matter that Ozrunways has an arrogant, fat retard that won't share data.

I have it on authority that OZRunways was not in use by either of these aircraft, or at least not transmitting any data.

By the way, pretty immature comment dude!

[OCTA Aus]

Doesn't matter that Ozrunways has an arrogant, fat retard that won't share data.

Ozrunways have done more for aviation safety than a certain well known personality who likes to push his agenda. Maybe there are valid reasons behind why they won’t share the data? I don’t use ozrunways however I have a great deal of respect for what they have achieved.

If you had even the slightest professional integrity you would remove that comment immediately. It is totally out of line.

[CaptainMidnight]

It's probably worth some reviewing the announcement by BrandiNettIB that appears at the top of all forums -

[Ia8825]

Hoosten you can't possibly know what to demand without knowing what happened. That's insanity.

Maybe it's the pilots fault. Who knows? Before you demand anything let's find out what happened.

Or is that too reasonable for pprune

Why? The usual geniuses have already figured it all out. It must be airservices fault. The fact that they have no control over the airspace classification is irrelevant. You would almost think Australia is the only country that has CTAFs and uncontrolled airspace.

[Sunfish]

FLARM is encrypted. So much for sharing data. While I like Ozrunways, I don’t like itsy bitsy solutions with iPads, wifi dongles, battery powered GPS, little boxes like flarm and USB cables all over the cockpit. I want it integrated or not at all. As for FLARM, unless there is a mandatory fitment in gliders, what’s the point?

To put that another way, I can see myself ripping the plugs out of sockets and throwing iPad, dual gps, little boxes, etc. in the back of the aircraft where it can’t confuse me or force me to trouble shoot while I’m flying. There is too much to go wrong unless the system is integrated and robust. The rule is AVIATE first and it is too easy to get your head buried in glass instead of looking plus scanning.

Ozrunways is nice, but i’m concerned about betting my life on it. Same with all the add ons - my dual GPS will flatten its battery if you look cross eyed at it.

[iron_jayeh]

Just out of interest. Everyone here is trying to find a digital solution.

What about listening to the radio or looking out the windscreen? If you communicate well enough is any of this required?

[junior.VH-LFA]

Digital traffic solutions are good.

What needs to be established is how or why despite being passed as traffic to each other two IFR aircraft were able to sadly come to grief.

CTAFs and Class G aren’t new concepts; there will hopefully be some good lessons to learn out of this tragedy.

[Homesick-Angel]

Hoosten - we have a problem..

‘Stop accepting this half arsed bull**** as an 'accident'’

This was an accident - someone made an error under the current system and rules (could be any of the pilots, could be ATC ) and fluked a disaster that you’d be hard pressed to repeat even if you tried. And yes I know what you’re getting at.

I’m not arguing against changes to the system and strongly agree with much of your post - it should be constantly under review , but it’s not just a click our fingers and it’s all fixed - maybe the powers that be think it’s currently an acceptable level of risk? If this happens to an RPT aircraft... Then we’ll see some changes...

Clearly you were close to someone involved here - take it from someone who has experience in these matters - stay away from this site til your in a better headspace - it will do your head in reading about something you’re too close to and too emotional about.. sorry for your loss.

To the person saying we should all just look out more!! One if not both aircraft were in cloud!!

Wowee...

[sunnySA]

Don't make excuses for a piss-poor airspace system. Four people are dead in an easily avoidable accident. Unfortunately the complexities of airspace design and systems are beyond a simple explanation to a coroner, a politician or anyone else that makes the decisions to properly administer and regulate an airspace system.

Admit it, you are a 3rd rate airspace admin. You are the pig with lipstick, you look shiny and new to anyone with little knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors. Too lazy, too ignorant to go out into the big wide world and see how a modern, properly resourced 'not for profit' administration keeps the public safe.

It's all well and good to say it's pretty simple to arrange your own separation on a CTAF frequency in IMC. I have been in that holding pattern with 3 others while one is shooting an approach. Of course if you rip VOR's and NDB's out of the ground, where else are you going to go? The nature of the IFR training done in Australia is that VOR's and NDB's are required by those who pay for it.

But you'll come back with, 'no one wants to pay for it' You're on the Kool-Aid, it's paid for many times over.

There are some fairly straight forward solutions, Class E being one of them. Airservices doesn't want a bar of it, Your CEO can't staff the airspace you've got let alone any new classifications. It all fits in nicely with CASA's in-action on this front.

Agree, 100%

[Hoosten]

Hoosten you can't possibly know what to demand without knowing what happened. That's insanity.

It's not hard to piece together what happened in this occurence. Without laying out my resume here, I, and many other SME's have been in this industry a long time. I can lay out several options that would have gone a long way to preventing this. Some of these options are, for want of a better word, affordable. In any sense that you want to take that.

C'mon everyone, what price are you going to put on these (and future) lives.

I have removed the comment I made about an individual, yes it was immature, but it was also unprofessional. I apologise without reservation and without making any excuses for it.

[Hoosten]

It must be airservices fault.

ASA plays a part in this. From the continued innability to staff their consoles, consider that ATC's were given redundancies during the time they have been short staffed. To their political manouvering on airspace.

The fact that they have no control over the airspace classification is irrelevant.

Laughable

You would almost think Australia is the only country that has CTAFs and uncontrolled airspace.

With this density of traffic? I seriously doubt that any airspace regulator would allow this situation to continue. Apart from Australia's regulator of course.

[megan]

Get off your lazy Australian arses and demand what your tax pays for. Enough of your famous indifferenceYou don't have mid airs in the good old USA, with wall to wall radar? F-16 and Cessna in South Carolina 2015 taking two lives in the Cessna and loss of F-16 say otherwise. Get off your high horse. Mid airs, like all other accident causes, will always be with us. The very first was in 1910 in Milan, Italy (non fatal) and the first fatal 1912 in France. Though it was a while ago, who can forget this Cessna 172 collision San Diego, 135 people aboard the 727 and seven people on the ground in houses, including two children, two onboard Cessna killed, nine others on the ground were injured and 22 homes were destroyed or damaged by the impact and debris.


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/386x257/wendtpsa_e178121d0fb9b28a989b3755204df9ca448e3192.jpg

[George Glass]

PSA Flight 182 ? 1978. 42 years ago......
If you’re in ATC megan, see if you can get on a jumpseat going into LAX. Nothing remotely comparable to Australia with a couple of orders of magnitude greater traffic.
We are cheap and nasty and OZ. Pure and simple.
“Affordable Safety”.........Try the cost of an accident.

[megan]

Flown the US GG, operated in a danger area under VFR and the airline service happily flew through as well. Would that occur in Oz? Times change and the introduction of technology such as TCAS etc helps. Funny thing though, flew Vietnam which was all VFR and the only mid air I heard of, and saw the results, was between a Porter and Cobra, forget the exact details, but occurred landing/taking off, the wreckage of both lying in the grass not 50 feet from the runway.

Could things in Oz be better? Of course they could, but where does the money come from, what area of the budget do you cut to divert the cash to aviation, or raise taxes? If you cut your cloth according to your situation, you limit what you do to take account of the resources you have is an old saying.

[CaptainMidnight]

Flown the US GG, operated in a danger area under VFR and the airline service happily flew through as well.

Was the "danger" area military related?

If so I think you will find that the U.S. has a requirement for the authority for such areas to have radar surveillance coverage so they can knock it off in the event of seeing a transit.

[George Glass]

Australia is the 15th largest economy in the world with one of the highest per capita incomes yet we keep convincing ourselves that we cant lead in anything. The recent accident on the Sydney - Melbourne train line is just another example. Truth is politicians hate infrastructure. They like things that are cheap, simply and popular not expensive , complex and contentious. They bow to populist campaigns of special interest groups and can't resist pork-barrelling. Think sport rorts.........Public Service entities like the old Department of Aviation have disappeared or been emasculated. So much easier to just keep digging stuff out of the ground. Forty years of cr#p has left Australia with substandard infrastructure pretty well in every sector of transportation. And we put up with it. You get what you deserve. I’ve got a feeling the next 30 years are going to be confronting.........

[Hoosten]

You don't have mid airs in the good old USA, with wall to wall radar? F-16 and Cessna in South Carolina 2015 taking two lives in the Cessna and loss of F-16 say otherwise. Get off your high horse. Mid airs, like all other accident causes, will always be with us. The very first was in 1910 in Milan, Italy (non fatal) and the first fatal 1912 in France. Though it was a while ago, who can forget this Cessna 172 collision San Diego, 135 people aboard the 727 and seven people on the ground in houses, including two children, two onboard Cessna killed, nine others on the ground were injured and 22 homes were destroyed or damaged by the impact and debris.

High horse? Yeah OK, if that's what you want to think.

Not much has changed in 42 years eh? Have you seen how IFR aircraft are managed in high density areas?

You also don't know what or where my high horse is. I've got a bit of experience in a few jurisdictions.

[Hoosten]

Of course they could, but where does the money come from, what area of the budget do you cut to divert the cash to aviation, or raise taxes?

One thing the Australian government has done a superb job on is brainwashing you lot into thinking the bucket is perenially empty. 'We'll all be rooned'

It's a pity you didn't listen to old mate Packer a little closer.

[Sunfish]

+1 to Hoosten and Glass. We used to have first class infrastructure. Nowadays we get wall to wall lazy public servants and greedy private contractors instead trying to tell us that the crap they provide is really rolled gold.


Remove government bullshyte and concentrate on outcomes. I don’t give a flying **** about gender equity, gay rights, diversity, aboriginal considerations, sensitivity training, glass ceilings, lean sigma and all the other crap government departments spend money on. I want to see overworked managers supporting frontline workers, not the other way round. I want to see decisions made by EXPERIENCED PEOPLE USING GOOD DATA, not some business school graduates theory of what “should” happen.

[gerry111]

You also don't know what or where my high horse is. I've got a bit of experience in a few jurisdictions.

Hoosten, A couple of well loved Australianisms:

"Don't you know who I am?" and "Please explain?"

[iron_jayeh]

Instead we could listen to people like Hoosten and glass that want us to spend money based on incidents that we don't know the cause?

Mate some pilots don't want this stuff. Lets just wait to see what the report says.

But again like I said, that's not the pprune way.

[OCTA Aus]

Instead we could listen to people like Hoosten and glass that want us to spend money based on incidents that we don't know the cause?

Mate some pilots don't want this stuff. Lets just wait to see what the report says.

But again like I said, that's not the pprune way.

You should listen to hoosten, he’s an expert, he even tells you so in his message. Nothing says expert more to me than having to tell people you’re an expert, and slandering people who happen to disagree with your point of view...

[Sunfish]

So OCTA, do we live in the best possible aviation world where our regulators are the most intelligent, kindest and just leaders in history who have designed, created and administer an aviation earthly paradise in Australia?

One can compare and criticize the outcomes without having to necessarily design a new system yourself.

To put that another way, I’ve flown into LAX, SFO, Sea Tac etc., etc. and just looking out the window you will see more varied aircraft going about their business in ten minutes than all day in Melbourne or Sydney. Heavy jets, business jets, military and GA down to Cessna 172s, all without a care, yet in Australia that is judged impossible, but it can’t be. Why they even have an air national guard! Imagine that! Civilian pilots flying military jets on weekends! The horror! Why they even visit local airports! How can this be without aluminium raining from the sky?

[OCTA Aus]

No we don’t live in the best possible aviation world, no one does. Of course there are things to improve and there all ways will be. I have no issue with positive, well thought out improvements to the system, or even civilised, reasonable debate.

What I have an issue with is someone saying they know of several methods that would have prevented an accident without even knowing how the accident occurred. At this point all anyone knows is that two aircraft likely collided. I also have an issue with someone who is so full of their own self importance that they think they are the only one who knows anything about aviation. That their first solution to anyone who disagrees with their point of view is to attack their intelligence, their physique or any other infantile way they can attack that person for having the nerve to disagree with them.

I have no issues with people disagreeing with me, and there is a good chance I’m not right with everything I say. But I am willing to bet hoosten would not talk to people in public the way he does on here so perhaps he should try a little bit of respect.

[Hoosten]

And there's nothing like a brainwashed Australian ATC posturing and presenting his/her expert opinions, fresh out of the academy, fresh from the 'you are the best ATC's in the world' 'that costs money, nobody wants to pay' 'you control 11% of the earths surface' (wow-wee!)

You can't stand the fact that you control very little air traffic (in movements), that somebody else does it better than you and your global relevance is insignificant when it comes to ATC. I don't see any ANSP taking advice from you on any airspace matters. (Apart from poor South Pacific nations that can afford 0$ advice) You are isolated in your own little backyard, geographically isolated enough to be able to bull**** your domestic 'customers' that 'this is the best system money can buy'

Come one, come all, I could not care in the slightest that you 'don't know who I am.' Put your arguments forward, try an argument without 'but no one wants to pay'

I'd like to read that argument, but none of you user pays apologists has been able to move past that, not one of you.

How many of you experts have used that particular block of airspace?

[Hoosten]

What I have an issue with is someone saying they know of several methods that would have prevented an accident without even knowing how the accident occurred.

Are you serious? You can't be.

At this point all anyone knows is that two aircraft likely collided.

Is that all that is known, again, are you serious?

I also have an issue with someone who is so full of their own self importance that they think they are the only one who knows anything about aviation.

This is laughable, one look at your post history to see your expert opinions on all matter of subjects. I couldn't care less whether you do this by the way, it's no skin off my back. Again, the only argument you've got is 'no one wants to pay'

That their first solution to anyone who disagrees with their point of view is to attack their intelligence, their physique or any other infantile way they can attack that person for having the nerve to disagree with them.

I'll address one of your other points not quoted here, would I speak to people in person the way I speak here? Yes I would and do. I had a discussion with the person concerned, face to face. He too is not shy of putting his point of view forward. I have more respect for people like him than experts who tell everybody they're not really an expert but they are really, considering their post history. And guess what, if you are an ATC, that kinda does make you an SME. So how about doing what any good SME does and do some research.

I have no issues with people disagreeing with me, and there is a good chance I’m not right with everything I say.

You kind of do, you can't handle that anybody else may have a little more experience than you, in more disciplines than you, in more jurisdictions than you.

Signing off, 'FIGJAM, Don't you know who I am' Hoosten.

[Awol57]

Are you serious? You can't be.



Is that all that is known, again, are you serious?



This is laughable, one look at your post history to see your expert opinions on all matter of subjects. I couldn't care less whether you do this by the way, it's no skin off my back. Again, the only argument you've got is 'no one wants to pay'



I'll address one of your other points not quoted here, would I speak to people in person the way I speak here? Yes I would and do. I had a discussion with the person concerned, face to face. He too is not shy of putting his point of view forward. I have more respect for people like him than experts who tell everybody they're not really an expert but they are really, considering their post history. And guess what, if you are an ATC, that kinda does make you an SME. So how about doing what any good SME does and do some research.



You kind of do, you can't handle that anybody else may have a little more experience than you, in more disciplines than you, in more jurisdictions than you.

Signing off, 'FIGJAM, Don't you know who I am' Hoosten.

Given you seem to have more knowledge on it, what did happen? I am particularly curious about comms if you can shed some light?

[Capn Bloggs]

Hoosten, I suggest you take your disgraceful, abuseful attitude someplace else. You are the worst of the Internet.

[OCTA Aus]

Hoosten, I suggest you take your disgraceful, abuseful attitude someplace else. You are the worst of the Internet.

Agree 100%

[Hoosten]

So, apart form a slur that I apologised for, so sorry, I did lose a a very good friend in this accident, and 3 others lost their lives and the best you lot can come up with is 'nobody wants to pay for it'

Four dead, and more to come. But nobody wants to pay for it, until it's one of yours of course.

You, Sirs, the pair of you, are appologists for the 'lucky country' a 3rd world infrastructure country riding on the back of a resources boom. Without these resources you'd be wallowing in a recession. Keep kidding yourselves that you're 'the best'

You are incapable of analysis, clearly. You are incapable of research, clearly.

[buckshot1777]

User CP > Your Control Panel > Edit Ignore List.

[iron_jayeh]

Hoosten if all you've read is that nobody wants to pay for it then you need to step away. It means you're not tuning clearly and missing points.

Here's my take. I'm RA pilot. I don't want mowancta to deal with, and I include E because there's requirements for that airspace I don't always meet. So I also have an agenda. Same as every living person.

So if the pilots were given traffic and one or both of them ignored it and didn't communicate with the other pilot, whos fault is it? Wouldn't the easiest thing be to say hey maybe someone made a mistake and we learn grin it and move on? I know that doesn't fit you're agenda so you'll just ignore me and move on but I've had my say.

Sonething I've noticed in a lot of fatal accidents is that no-one wants to blame the pilots. It's sad, they're good people and just made a couple of mistakes and don't deserve this but it happened (I can give two examples right now). They always want some external blame to cope with their grief.

[Hoosten]

Given you seem to have more knowledge on it, what did happen? I am particularly curious about comms if you can shed some light?

Mutual traffic was given and acknowledged by both aircraft.

ATC met all of their responsibility regarding the class of traffic the aircraft were operating in. Not an ATC bash, far from it (well apart from the SME, that doesn't want to be an SME, that is passively being an SME)

This accident would not have happened, had the appropriate class of airspace been in place given the traffic density, given an ANSP that could staff the console, given an airspace regulator that had the gumtion to implement it.

I apologise to the precious petals that 'can't handle the truth'

[Hoosten]

User CP > Your Control Panel > Edit Ignore List.

Do it, simple. I haven't got anybody on my ignore list. I wouldn't ever resort to snowflake world.

[Hoosten]

Iron, I don't and wouldn't ignore you because you exist in RAAus world. You're part of an airspace system. You have as much right as anybody to access airspace. A good airspace system acommodates all users. It provides appropriate protection for the density of traffic at any location.

Appropriate.

Sorry mate, but I won't back away from solutions that have been proven to work around the world in situations such as this. Get together a forum at any aeroclub in Australia and I'll meet you there and run you and your mates through it. I'll guarantee you that the other protagonists on this mighty forum won't. I'll bet you pounds to peanuts that when push comes to shove none of them will turn up.

You organise it, I'll be there, (you'll have to give me notice, I'm O/S).

[Squawk7700]

Mutual traffic was given and acknowledged by both aircraft.

ATC met all of their responsibility regarding the class of traffic the aircraft were operating in. Not an ATC bash, far from it (well apart from the SME, that doesn't want to be an SME, that is passively being an SME)

This accident would not have happened, had the appropriate class of airspace been in place given the traffic density, given an ANSP that could staff the console, given an airspace regulator that had the gumtion to implement it.

I apologise to the precious petals that 'can't handle the truth'

Is that the offical opinion of ASA and do you represent them?

[megan]

If so I think you will find that the U.S. has a requirement for the authority for such areas to have radar surveillance coverage so they can knock it off in the event of seeing a transitWas quite some time ago CM, military training area, there were no comms with an ATC unit required, don't know about the airline traffic, you were never aware of the airline traffic until you eyeballed the aircraft. All strictly VFR 0 to 10,000, if IMC prevailed we were unable to operate in that particular block below 10,000.

[Piston_Broke]

I'm confused - is this Hoosten of Houston or The name is Porter of Santa Barbara by another name (forget the rest by Shakespeare) ...

They write the same -

https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/627036-mooney-accident-pilot-refused-clearance-6-500-a-7.html#post10621591

[OCTA Aus]

I'm confused - is this Hoosten of Houston or The name is Porter of Santa Barbara by another name (forget the rest by Shakespeare) ...

They write the same -

https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/627036-mooney-accident-pilot-refused-clearance-6-500-a-7.html#post10621591

Certainly not beyond the realm of possibility, they both write very similar and have the same general attitude of contempt towards anyone they don’t agree with.

[OCTA Aus]

So, apart form a slur that I apologised for, so sorry, I did lose a a very good friend in this accident, and 3 others lost their lives and the best you lot can come up with is 'nobody wants to pay for it'

Four dead, and more to come. But nobody wants to pay for it, until it's one of yours of course.

You, Sirs, the pair of you, are appologists for the 'lucky country' a 3rd world infrastructure country riding on the back of a resources boom. Without these resources you'd be wallowing in a recession. Keep kidding yourselves that you're 'the best'

You are incapable of analysis, clearly. You are incapable of research, clearly.

If what you have said is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then you are emotionally compromised and you are acting from an emotional aspect rather than a rational aspect at the moment. I know losing friends flying sucks, I have also lost several good friends flying throughout the world and it really sucks. And when it happened I behaved exactly like you did. The only advice I can give is either remove the emotion from your posts, or don't post until you can.

As for my research, I have a significant amount of experience both as a pilot and as an ATC. By significant I mean enough to be able to comment in an educated way on matters related to the subject at hand. I am not an SME. If you want an SME to chat to go find GT.

I don't even in principle disagree with some of what you have to say. I believe there is room for substantial improvement in Australian airspace. However what you consider to be an improvement others may not agree. There are many other airspace users in Australia who all get consulted on any proposed changes, and a significant portion of the industry does not like the idea of class E airspace in the way you have suggested. Some of this is a lack of education on how Class E airspace works, some of this is because of a bias against Class E that was formed from a poor initial introduction of class E initially. And then frankly some of it is just competing agendas.

You stated that the class of airspace should be appropriate to the traffic volume. I think many people on here would agree that from an IFR aircraft perspective Mangalore is not what would be considered a busy aerodrome, sure it may have the occasional busy period but overall its not a particularly busy aerodrome and has a fairly similar traffic mix. There are many aerodromes I would have considered this likely before Mangalore where the traffic variety is huge with everything from hang gliders up to multiple RPT jets. They are the aerodromes I would have put class E airspace down to 1200ft at.

It really isn't your ideas to changing the airspace I have had objections with, its how you have treated people in here. You have attacked the controllers and that is out of line, I guarantee there is not a single controller in this country who does not give their absolute best for every aircraft in their airspace. I am yet to see an Australian ATC who claims to be the best in the world, however from my observations of ATC's who go to other countries they are absolutely capable. Just because they don't necessarily agree with you, the personal attacks aren't necessary. Given that I have not been innocent of attacks towards you in that respect I get that it kind of becomes a cycle of personal attacks, but its counter productive. I have no issue discussing things with you either on here or by PM, I ask that you do it in a respectful way though. I will give you the same in return.

As for the cost, regardless of what you say, there is a cost to making airspace changes. The resources to make changes are there, but they aren't endless. Keep in mind we are a country of 25 million trying to provide infrastructure to the same area you have 350 million people to pay for. It is important to use the resources where they will have the most benefit. You and I may disagree on where that is. The changes are there, they are happening, but its not going to happen overnight. And I am not sure it will match what you want. Outside of any potential cost issues, there is significant resistance from other sectors of the industry, a regulator who doesn't change anything quickly, and a general public who aren't pilots, and who as long as 737s aren't crashing into each other don't really care about airspace change. If you are interested in any of the airspace changes coming here is the link: Airspace Modernisation | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/airspace-modernisation/)

[Hoosten]

As for my research, I have a significant amount of experience both as a pilot and as an ATC. By significant I mean enough to be able to comment in an educated way on matters related to the subject at hand. I am not an SME. If you want an SME to chat to go find GT.

Here we go 'Don't you know who I am?'

You might be surprised at my work history, my aviation experience and qualifications. It far outstrips anyone on here. If any of you can't bear the thought of that, seriously, I do not care. I'm also not a snowflake, go your hardest at me, I don't walk around all day downtrodden upset that people may not respect me, like me or for that matter agree or disagree. I have long moved past that, probably 30 years ago.

I won't appologise to anyone for posting when emotional about a topic, particularly this one. If it offends your sensibilities, that's too bad. If you note my post history, I give respect where I deem it belongs. I will not give it to someone, I feel, doesn't warrant it. I also do not care if any of you do not respect me. I'm from a generation that grew up a little differently and don't need a government telling other people how they should treat me.

Now if you really want to get down into the weeds, I apologised for my comments about a certain person I made on this forum. If you want to know, I have had face to face discussions with this person in the past, I have told him to his face what I think of his disgusting comments on a non aviation subject. I have said, I will always say to a persons face what I say on a forum. NO, I SHOULDN'T HAVE LET MY EMOTIONS GET THE BETTER OF ME WHEN I MADE THAT COMMENT (Not yelling but I do feel the need to emphasise that I apologise for that lapse in judgement)

[Hoosten]

If you want me to simplify my comments on Australian ATC:

The controller at the console does the job with the equipment, facilities and airspace that's placed in front of them. No beef with them, no problem.

ASA, however is where the systemic issues lay. Some rudimentary research suggests the best things ASA are good at are sexual discrimination and bullying and harrassment.

[Vag277]

Hoosten
To establish your credibility in this matter, it would be useful if you provided a summary of your experience and qualifications and, in particular, the basis for your understanding of and familiarity with the legislation establishing CASA and Airservices and the specific responsibilities placed on those organisations and the Australian Government requirements for cost recovery in the aviation world.

[megan]

You might be surprised at my work history, my aviation experience and qualifications. It far outstrips anyone on hereI very much doubt it, stick to your 175/145. Interested in your answer to the above post, lay it on us so we can judge your credibility, bet you don't, you'll avoid with some weasel words.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Look at the result, the possible causes and the desired outcome. Two aircraft collide in possible IMC whilst conducting IFR training. Both aircraft are OCTA, class G in the vicinity of a CTAF. It would appear that both are on area frequency and communicating with ATC. One aircraft has maintained an altitude for the previous 30 seconds which indicates a separation standard was in progress. Without blame, what would have resulted in the best outcome of four good people still being with us today? Both pilots given and maintain an altitude till verified passage? Both pilots receiving positive vectoring? One or both pilots having , at least, an operational real time ADS-B Rx unit (certified or not)? Or, one pilot held on the ground till the incoming aircraft is visual? Class G obviously only works in VMC.

IFR pays for a service in Class E and above. Could this be amended to allow a service, even in Class G, if there is reliable spacial traffic information? THE desired outcome is a separation standard in IMC in ALL airspace within the ADS-B coverage map.

EDIT to add- This entire incident would be expected to recorded in high fidelity from the raw 1090ES stream...wouldn't it? If not, why not?

[Track Shortener]

OZBusDriver,

While I can agree with what I think is the overall thrust of your post, I feel there could be some misunderstandings in it that could benefit from clarification:

One aircraft has maintained an altitude for the previous 30 seconds which indicates a separation standard was in progress.
This is incorrect. Outside controlled airspace, there is no such thing as a separation standard. I know what you mean - that one aircraft appears to have been positively doing something about the known conflict - but separation is an ATC thing. Pilots don't apply it. Perhaps a better term is "deconfliction."
Both pilots given and maintain an altitude till verified passage? Both pilots receiving positive vectoring?
As you've described them, it sounds like you mean that these actions could have been directed by ATC. The two aircraft were in Class G, where ATC do not and cannot provide positive control instructions. ATC can (and must, and does) provide traffic information and can, if both aircraft are painting on whatever surveillance technology is in use in the area, provide suggested actions, but they can't provide positive control in uncontrolled airspace. Pilots get told about conflicts, and how they deconflict themselves is up to them.
IFR pays for a service in Class E and above.
This is not quite correct either. IFR pays for and receives a service in Class G airspace, too. The difference is that as described in AIP a Class G service includes traffic information only, not separation. Nothing precludes the ATC from suggesting solutions to impending conflicts (and indeed an ATC's duty of care demands it in many cases), but they remain suggestions only. In Class G airspace, pilots are responsible for avoiding other aeroplanes.
THE desired outcome is a separation standard in IMC in ALL airspace within the ADS-B coverage map.
I think I know what you mean, but it isn't a separation standard that is the desired outcome. It's having aircraft operate safely in relation to each other without hitting. In CTA, this is done through the use of control instructions intended to establish and preserve separation standards, but in uncontrolled airspace, by definition, there's no requirement for a clearance and there's no requirement for pilots to follow ATC suggestions, so there can be no separation standards.

Semantics? Maybe, but I think an understanding of exactly what service pilots receive in which class of airspace is an important thing that is perhaps not as widespread as it could be.

[Dick Smith]

ADSB is mandated for all IFR planned aircraft.

Can anyone advise where the nearest ADSB ground station is to Mangalore?

[OCTA Aus]

ADSB is mandated for all IFR planned aircraft.

Can anyone advise where the nearest ADSB ground station is to Mangalore?

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/ADS-B-5000ft-Coverage.jpg

Just guessing from that coverage map, but I suspect the aircraft would come on ADSB around 4000-5000ft

[Hoosten]

I very much doubt it, stick to your 175/145. Interested in your answer to the above post, lay it on us so we can judge your credibility, bet you don't, you'll avoid with some weasel words.

I will not post any of this here. Been there and done that. If you PM me your email address, I'll lay it all out for you.

[Hoosten]

Hoosten
To establish your credibility in this matter, it would be useful if you provided a summary of your experience and qualifications and, in particular, the basis for your understanding of and familiarity with the legislation establishing CASA and Airservices and the specific responsibilities placed on those organisations and the Australian Government requirements for cost recovery in the aviation world.

Same goes for for you, I will not, for a number of reasons.

PM your email address to me and we'll go from there.

[Hoosten]

I very much doubt it, stick to your 175/145. Interested in your answer to the above post, lay it on us so we can judge your credibility, bet you don't, you'll avoid with some weasel words.

And there we have it. All of the 'holier than thou' hyocrites. Pontificating about name calling and put downs. Good onya mate, that's what they say down there right?

[Hoosten]

Look at the result, the possible causes and the desired outcome. Two aircraft collide in possible IMC whilst conducting IFR training. Both aircraft are OCTA, class G in the vicinity of a CTAF. It would appear that both are on area frequency and communicating with ATC. One aircraft has maintained an altitude for the previous 30 seconds which indicates a separation standard was in progress. Without blame, what would have resulted in the best outcome of four good people still being with us today? Both pilots given and maintain an altitude till verified passage? Both pilots receiving positive vectoring? One or both pilots having , at least, an operational real time ADS-B Rx unit (certified or not)? Or, one pilot held on the ground till the incoming aircraft is visual? Class G obviously only works in VMC.

-Stop speculating on the cause of this accident.
-Wait for the ATSB to conduct the investigation.
-You don't know what you're talking about and have no right to speculate.

IFR pays for a service in Class E and above. Could this be amended to allow a service, even in Class G, if there is reliable spacial traffic information? THE desired outcome is a separation standard in IMC in ALL airspace within the ADS-B coverage map.

Stop right there Bucko

-It will cost too much.
-Nobody wants to pay for it.
-Who's going to pay for it all??

NOTE: Standard pprune response from the hidden residents.

[Sunfish]

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/ADS-B-5000ft-Coverage.jpg

Just guessing from that coverage map, but I suspect the aircraft would come on ADSB around 4000-5000ft

‘Let me get this straight. ADS-B was rammed down the throat of IFR Aircraft owners and operators, five years(?) in advance of the U.S. mandate. This was done at huge expense, not to mention inconvenience.

This was done by CASA with the connivance of Airservices on the sole grounds of enhanced safety. It has to be “enhanced safety” since CASA keeps on telling us that it’s sole mission is enhanced safety to the exclusion of all other considerations.

Yet now OCTA, you purport to tell the Australian aviation community, that ADS-B was not expected to produce a safety benefit at all, “below 5000ft” and not in class G airspace anyway because Airservices just passes traffic and has no responsibility beyond that.

This is despite the known fact that most mid air incidents happen in the vicinity of the circuit.

To make matters worse for Airservices, anyone with a home computer could see the collision situation developing, but not Airservices.

I therefore ask the question: Could the Aviation community be justified in forming the impression that CASA and Airservices are total frauds? They have foisted and continue to foist useless technology on the Aviation community that cannot produce a measurable increase in aviation safety at all considering the way it is employed and is never going to?

I won’t ask the next question; why were they so keen to do this?

[Hoosten]

Sunfish..........

Despite your overwhelming logic and evidence all you will get is excuses. The only defence I've seen so far is;

-Who's going to pay for it?
-Nobody wants to pay for it.

[megan]

I will not post any of this here. Been there and done that. If you PM me your email address, I'll lay it all out for youPM me your email address, the reason being I have absolutely no trust in your good self with your postings thus far.

[OCTA Aus]

I will answer this the best I can.

‘Let me get this straight. ADS-B was rammed down the throat of IFR Aircraft owners and operators, five years(?) in advance of the U.S. mandate. This was done at huge expense, not to mention inconvenience.

It is my personal opinion and in no way representative of Airservices that ADSB mandate was introduced unnecessarily early. I would have waited until about 2022. However that is only my opinion. Others will certainly disagree.

Yet now OCTA, you purport to tell the Australian aviation community, that ADS-B was not expected to produce a safety benefit at all, “below 5000ft” and not in class G airspace anyway because Airservices just passes traffic and has no responsibility beyond that.
=13.33px

I did no such thing. I pointed you to a piece of information that is in the public domain that I thought answered the question being asked. You can draw whatever conclusions you wish from that information. However I think saying it wasn’t expected to provide any safety benefit would be twisting the facts. The benefit is certainly limited compared to at higher levels.

This is despite the known fact that most mid air incidents happen in the vicinity of the circuit.

I don’t think ADSB is the solution to this. The only form of ATC I can think of that would work in the circuit area is tower. You don’t want radar standards applied in the circuit at anything other than the busiest aerodromes. Circuit areas are too dynamic and the scale doesn’t work at the enroute level. When you are responsible for 400SQM of airspace with dozens of aerodromes you can’t watch every circuit area. Some form of ADSB in may be useful here, but I suspect in non controlled aerodromes lookout and listen out will be the best we have for quite a while. Outside the circuit area and in what you could probably call the terminal area I think there are viable solutions that could definitely help.

I therefore ask the question: Could the Aviation community be justified in forming the impression that CASA and Airservices are total frauds? They have foisted and continue to foist useless technology on the Aviation community that cannot produce a measurable increase in aviation safety at all considering the way it is employed and is never going to?I won’t ask the next question; why were they so keen to do this?

CASA and Airservices as a whole? No, that would be totally unjustified. Certain elements within each organisation? Well this forum isn’t anonymous so I will let you all draw your own conclusion.

As for ADSB, calling it useless is unjustified. Like any technology, it has limitations. The people relying on it have to know the limitations to know what it can and can’t do. The more appropriate question would be did the benefit justify the cost. When ADSB mandate first happened and ADSB cost $40k or more to fit? My answer would be no. In the next few years as the install cost falls, the technology and system improves, and coverage gets better, absolutely I think ADSB is appropriate.

The answer to your final question that you weren’t going to ask but then half a sentence later asked would be I don’t know any better than you do.

[OCTA Aus]

You might be surprised at my work history, my aviation experience and qualifications.)

And there we have it. All of the 'holier than thou' hyocrites. Pontificating about name calling and put downs. Good onya mate, that's what they say down there right?

We have a saying about that down here in Aus. It’s something to do with pots calling kettles a certain colour.

[Squawk7700]

Sunfish. The answer is ADSB-In.

Work with what we’ve got, as in the system we have. Don’t try to reinvent the wheel. ADSB out has been chosen.

Spend your own money to be as safe as you can, because other than your loved one, nobody else really cares if you live or die!

The same goes with cars. Buy the biggest most heaviest and safest car with the most airbags, because if you buy a tiny little thing, the laws of physics are not on your side!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Track Shortener, this may sound strange but I am on your side. When you look at incidents involving CTAF or uncontrolled aerodromes it muddies the water.Benalla and Hotham come to mind. This incident is enroute with active IFR flightplans in the system. I am asking, is it possible for the system to be a bit more active using the data available? Otherwise Squawk7700 is on the money, look after yourself first, put in the tools and maintain your own SA...DTI breaks down with exactly this situation, one or both aircraft actively changing altitude in proximity.

[Track Shortener]

is it possible for the system to be a bit more active using the data available?
Yes it's possible, provided the surveillance coverage exists to the a low enough level. But if it's separation that you want, the airspace classification would need to change.

[Sunfish]

Thank you for your considered answer OCTA and Squawk. I am debating with myself the advisability of spending about 2k to give me complete ADS-B in and out. I already have the transponder.

[iron_jayeh]

Or, and I'm just throwing this out there, two pilots who have been given traffic on each other could communicate and self separate.

Or does Hoosten and squawk think pilots aren't able to do this?

[George Glass]

iron jayeh , Pilots are capable . But when you’re in an RPT and the traffic is a 200 hour Private Pilot with sweat on his brow in a non-towered environment the risk is real.
ATSB files are full of such incidents . See my previous link.
Its a fail-dangerous system , pure and simple.
We have been very , very lucky.