Mid-air collision involving Piper PA-44-180 Seminole, VH-JQF, and Beech D95A Travel A

[Mr Approach]

On 19th February 2020 the above mid-air collision occurred. In two weeks it will be the second anniversary of the deaths of those four airmen.
While the TSI Act requires reports to be published as soon as practicable, ICAO Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation "Aircraft Accident and Investigation Manual" has an additional stipulation:6.6 Recommendation.— The State conducting the investigation should release the Final Report in the shortest possible
time and, if possible, within twelve months of the date of the occurrence. If the report cannot be released within twelve months,
the State conducting the investigation should release an interim report on each anniversary of the occurrence, detailing the
progress of the investigation and any safety issues raised.It is difficult to know why ATSB ignores Annex 13, or why they are taking so long to reach their conclusions, however.....
Since, there have been three other similar incidents at Mangalore and Ballina :

28 Nov 2020 A0-2020-62 / Ballina between a Jetstar A320 and a Jabiru
6 Jun 2021 A0-2021-023 / Mangalore, a PA 44 doing practise instrument approaches and a passing AW139 helicopter
16 Sep 2021 A0-2021-038 / Ballina, Virgin 737, Jetstar A320 and a C-208

How long do we have to wait?

[Squawk7700]

No doubt Covid will get a mention as a reason for the delay.

[Lead Balloon]

It takes a long time to craft a report that explains why Air Services doesn’t provide the services you thought it was going to provide, why the mandated gizmos don’t deliver the benefits we were told they were going to deliver and why, therefore, it’s all the pilots’ fault.

There’s no such thing as a systemic problem any more and it’s ATSB’s job to keep coming to that conclusion. It’s neater that way.

[Chronic Snoozer]

This report took 7 months. Mid-air collision from the 70s. Typed.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR7905.pdf

[outnabout]

Lead Balloon, sadly, I agree with your assessment.

at the end of the day, we are going to get a watered down apology of a report which, if printed out, would not even be useful as decent bog roll - despite nationwide shortages.

as an aside, as the regulations are being rewritten to such an extent, will we see the requirement to be a fit and proper person be removed from the regs?

at the very least, will we see a definition of “fit and proper”?

No, I did not think so.

[D B Cooper]

They have to wait until the Christmas Eve after they believe that everyone has forgotten about it before they can release a report.

That way, you can get away with blaming three non structural screws missing from the firewall as the cause of the crash.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

How long do we have to wait?
What are you expecting to get out of it? They've already implemented changes in an attempt to alleviate some of the "concerns". You think they'll take any notice of any ATSB recommendations? Those guys don't live in the real world.

[Gentle_flyer]

What are you expecting to get out of it? They've already implemented changes in an attempt to alleviate some of the "concerns". You think they'll take any notice of any ATSB recommendations? Those guys don't live in the real world.

TIEW, if you would indulge us plebs!

Who are “They’ve” ?

What are the ‘changes” ?

What were the “concerns” ?

Who are “they’ll” ?

Who are “those guys” ?

Some specifics please otherwise the readers on this thread will think you are making things up…

Sounds more like like BLA everyday . . .

Wasn’t CASA doing an AIRSPACE REVIEW?

Has anyone seen a copy?

[Mr Approach]

GF - I checked the OAR website for airspace reviews of Mangalore since the mid-air collision without success.
That is not to say that OAR has not done an airspace review, only that I could not find it on the CASA website.

[missy]

It takes a long time to craft a report that explains why Air Services doesn’t provide the services you thought it was going to provide, why the mandated gizmos don’t deliver the benefits we were told they were going to deliver and why, therefore, it’s all the pilots’ fault.

There’s no such thing as a systemic problem any more and it’s ATSB’s job to keep coming to that conclusion. It’s neater that way.

LB, congrats, post of the year. Says it all.

[missy]

Wasn’t CASA doing an AIRSPACE REVIEW?

I thought it had been released. Perhaps it was released and then pulled for a bit more wordsmithing.

[missy]

GF - I checked the Coroners Court of Victoria website for Inquests into the Mangalore mid-air without success.
That is not to say that the Coroners Court of Victoria has not done an Inquest, only that I could not find it on the Coroners Court of Victoria website.

[Gentle_flyer]

MrApp / Missy,

Thanks for your responses...

So no report despite 2 years of an alleged investigation by ATSB?

So no report despite an alleged MNG airspace review by CASA?

So no details despite alleged changes by Airservices?

So ?no coroner's inquiry despite alleged expectations of one as per BLA?

Assume no relevant questions from RRAT Senste Estimates despite overview os ATSB, AsA and CASA tomorrow...

if I was paranoid I'd be crying a conspiracy...

Strangely the four police killed in Victoria in a horrific crash on the Eastern Freeway in Melbourne quite rightly appear to have had complete investigations and responsibility/accountability allocated.

Why are pilots lives worth less?

I'd be ecstatic to be proved wrong by any of the points above...

[Mr Approach]

Hi Missy – Not sure how to take your repetition of my words in regard to reports, so I choose to ignore any implied sarcasm.
Reading the Victorian Coroner's Act I would expect the Office to hold an inquiry – indeed I am aware of how the NSW Coroner handled a mid-air collision at Coolangatta in which four pilots died.
I would however also expect the coroner to wait for both a report from the police and from ATSB before launching such an inquiry. I dare say, like us, the Victorian Coroner is wondering what happened to the ATSB report.

[Arm out the window]

So, what is it that you want? A mandate on times for release of reports? Fair enough, I guess, but the upshot of that is a commitment from the Federal Government to provide more staff and resources to the ATSB, assuming it's a staffing / resourcing vs backlog of work issue rather than inefficiency.

A completed investigation is something to tick a box, I guess, but it's a far cry from there to prevention of similar future occurrences. Don't get me wrong, a detailed investigation properly conducted and reported is an admirable achievement, but it doesn't fix anything.

What do we actually want? How much will it cost? Does the use of airspace vs cost of providing separation services make it something the taxpayer would or should cough up for?

[CaptainMidnight]

a commitment from the Federal Government to provide more staff and resources to the ATSB, assuming it's a staffing / resourcing vs backlog of work issue rather than inefficiency.I went to a presentation of theirs a couple of years ago, and staffing was an issue. Those that are there are spread across multiple disciplines and it was said they usually get multiple aviation incident reports across the country each day that need to be dealt with.

[Lead Balloon]

A completed investigation is something to tick a box, I guess, but it's a far cry from there to prevention of similar future occurrences. Don't get me wrong, a detailed investigation properly conducted and reported is an admirable achievement, but it doesn't fix anything.Are you serious?

If yes, then “what we want” is for the waste of resources that is the ATSB, or at least the aviation bit of it, to end. Just set up a piece of software to produce reports with random homilies about lessons that have been learnt before, and be done with it.

[sunnySA]

lessons that have been learnt before
Australia's leading civilian ANSP brought officials from Skyguide to Australia to talk to ATCs about the Überlingen mid-air. Managers determined that such a thing could never happen in Australia. Oh, how we forget. Single controller responsible for larger and larger sectors, less service provision, ill conceived airspace changes.

[cLeArIcE]

Report? Blame the pilots, move on. That's the standard isn't it? What else do you want?
Yes....Everything is fine, the airspace is fine, air services is fine, CASA is fine, the ATSB is fine and adequately staffed, mmm yes it's all fine. So stop asking questions... oooo look over there, a shiny red ball.. Go on catch the shiny ball.. yes.good boy.

[Mr Approach]

So - it's the 19th February 2022, two years to the day, and nothing!
Well, not quite, the Government-owned ANSP has reacted to “something” by inventing a new type of ICAO airspace around Mangalore and Ballina. I.E. Class G with traffic information and mandatory reporting for all aircraft, and the ex-CEO of ATSB has joined the ANSP's Board as Deputy Chair to a RAAF fighter pilot.
Come on Mr Joyce, come on Senator McDonald, when is the public going to find out what our “world-famous” aviation inspectorate thinks went wrong?
I guess we should not worry because the preliminary reports said this:
“However, should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify relevant parties, so appropriate safety action can be taken,” Perhaps it already has........

[cooperplace]

No doubt Covid will get a mention as a reason for the delay.
Yes Covid has proven very convenient for governments and corporations.

[Stationair8]

Covid the convient excuse.

[PoppaJo]

Has been numerous reports over the years in that the ‘due date’ stated online had passed by two quarters and it still wasn’t finished, it wasn’t until I emailed them that they replied ‘ohhhh sorry about that, errr no it’s not quite finished yet, estimated completion is later this year’. Staff shortages I have been told for the best past of the last decade.

However they always try to reassure me that staffing issues does not reduce risk. ‘If we find any safety related issues throughout the investigation we won’t hesitate to take immediate action with xx parties in the event of safety’.

[Mr Approach]

I have found some references to a Mangalore Airspace Study.

CASA advised on 3 Sep 2021 that they were conducting such a study <https://consultation.casa.gov.au/stakeholder-engagement-group/mangalore-aeronautical-study/consult_view/>, consultation for which ended on 30 Sep 2021 <https://www.avsef.gov.au/all-consultations?title=Mangaloreso>
I would have assumed it would be published by now, but there is nothing on the CASA website.

[VH-MLE]

If you can find anything on the new CASA website, you will be doing extremely well! Describing it as a "dog's breakfast" is an understatement (& would be insulting to dogs)...

[Lead Balloon]

The ATSB is investigating the breakaway and grounding of a ship - the product tanker CSC Friendship - at the Port of Brisbane in Queensland on 27 February 2022. I found this comment on linkedin to be interesting:This will be the most watched investigation in Australian Maritime industry this century.

Why?

Brisbane was in flood for the 3rd time in 10 years which occurred on the Sunday morning before this event occurred close to midnight. Flood Port Procedures would be well established and utilised until now?

Noted no pilots onboard, so they can’t be the useall scapegoats for groundings but with a change in pilotage providers in Brisbane just a month before this incident it maybe a touchy point for some.

Safe port questions to be raised by P&I clubs, which is a fair question.

Noting the last floods no brisbane ferries were lost yet this time one sank, ten reported damaged to put it into perspective, which won’t be investigated by ATSB.

And than the closeness of Australian industry! will there by any conflict of interest in this incident investigation? ATSB is managed by the ex Manager Maritime safety Queensland ? Which is In charge of these port procedures.

The report and critical safety issues raised will definitly be a must read in the Maritime industry.

Hopefully it can be published soon before the next flood to avoid repeat events this being a tanker at critical Queensland infrastructure.Methinks the author of that post may be in for some disturbing surprises.

[0ttoL]

Final Report from the ATSB is now available.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2020/aair/ao-2020-012/

[Old Akro]

What a report! I have been highly critical of recent ATSB reports, but this one seems to have done a very good, even handed job of going through all the issues. This accident highlights the severe problem of lack of training instrument aids in the Melbourne basin. If there had been a slot at Moorabbin, this accident would not have happened.

I need to re-read it but the swiss cheese holes seem to be:

While the pilots did everything that was required, although didn't initiate aircraft to aircraft comms for separation. They were both training, with the workload (and possibly belief that they were under IFR traffic separation conditions), its understandable. that they may have placed higher reliance than they should have for either another ATC warning or some clear direction.

The controller seems to have acted correctly in accordance with procedures, although I bet the poor guy lies awake wishing he'd done something extra at one of the STCA instances.

The ridiculousness of the CASA see & be seen concept.

Ambigous and poorly written CASA regulations.

Overloaded training aids in the Melbourne basin after the closure of Cowes, Wonthaggi

Maybe a failure of the AsA traffic system to determine STCA alarms according to flight plan rather than trajectory.

[tossbag]

While the pilots did everything that was require

Except arrange vertical separation in IMC.

The controller seems to have acted correctly in accordance with procedures

Not much more the controller could have done. If as a pilot you are not going to arrange vertical on the trajectories involved...............

Overloaded training aids in the Melbourne basin after the closure of Cowes, Wonthaggi

CASA specifies an aid in the initial issue of an Instrument Rating, ASA rips most of them out, well done, not.

Maybe a failure of the AsA traffic system to determine STCA alarms according to flight plan rather than trajectory.

Has nothing to do with it. STCA is short term, predictive on radar trajectories which is far more accurate than a flight plan trajectory.

Yes, it's a good report AND ONLY A BIT OVER TWO YEARS. But still skirts around the airspace issue. Would not have happened in Class E. That piece of airspace is extremely busy at times, why? Where's the closest VOR that training can be done apart from MNG? The sectorisation there is extremely challenging for the ATC. But don't worry, a bull**** remedy has been implemented that will do nothing to make it safer.

The ridiculousness of the CASA see & be seen concept.

C'monnnn, it's the vibe, so totally safe in 21st century aviation, worked for the Wright Bros.

[Colonel_Klink]

But don't worry, a bull**** remedy has been implemented that will do nothing to make it safer.


There is quite a bit to digest out of this report.

But at the risk of brining up something that has been discussed in another thread, as soon as I saw that an SFIS might be on the cards at MNG, I started to wonder just how this incident may very well have occurred at BNA with a far greater loss of life.

[David Sutcliffe]

The reason the report takes so long to come out is that there is a 2 year Statute of Limitations on claims for accident compensation. This report has been released one month after the 2 year limit. Think about it? The detailed draft was completed around 12 months ago. It is fair to say it has has been heavily worked over to limit liability issues. The final report was released today and is available for download off the ATSB website. It identifies failures identified and discussed in this forum. You need to read the report and not just read the summary as the summary attempts to transfer all blame to the pilots.

[Capn Bloggs]

Would not have happened in Class E. That piece of airspace is extremely busy at times, why? Where's the closest VOR that training can be done apart from MNG? The sectorisation there is extremely challenging for the ATC.
Oh come on Tossbag. Extremely busy is it? You're dreaming if you think Class E ie full-blown controlled airspace for IFR (regardless of the weather) will "work". There were two near-misses recently at Mangalore, according to the report; essentially dogfights in the holding pattern. If you think Class E would solve that you're dreaming. All that would do is make Mangalore one-in, one-out. And, of course, as per the other thread, Class E would not stop a VFR running into an IFR (and good luck, LB, forcing every VFR in the country to fit a transponder so E airspace will work).

The sectorisation there is extremely challenging for the ATC
Precisely the reason that JQF didn't get traffic on AEM. AEM had been airborne, heading for Mangalore, for 27 minutes before being passed to JQF. JQF should have got traffic on AEM on taxi. Not good enough. Getting late-notice traffic (6 miles, 12 o'clock!) in a full radar/ADS-B environment is not good enough. Do you have any idea what workload the pilots are under just after takeoff (and approaching the airfield when doing an instrument approach?).

And the elephant in the room is the CTAF. Monitoring/calling on the CTAF while all this jibber is going on simultaneously on the ATC freq is a recipe for a disaster.

In this context, I think the SFIS would work well. It removes the fundamental, deadly flaw of the new-age airspace rationale: having to operate on two freqs simultaneously. A bit like a supercharged CAGRO with legal position info: providing info when required but otherwise letting the pilots sort it out and get on with it. I have always said you simply cannot run two, concurrent airspace systems together (ATC+E and CTAF+others) without pilot workload going through the roof.

The report also said multiple pilots heard the broadcasts from AEM and JQF on the CTAF. Just how busy was the CTAF? These were experienced pilots (albeit training students). How is it that multiple broadcasts and at least one traffic statement from ATC to each (meaning both aircraft should have heard it) were all missed? Comms overload. Would that have happened if FS had been in place, such as at Port Hedland? No (or the chance would have been very very much reduced).

And the first STCA occurred 1min 38sec before the collision. I've had a traffic alert from ATC when I've already switched to the CTAF. In this case, ATC was still talking to the aircraft, with no "changing to the CTAF" call yet made. You wouldn't let a person walk out into an incoming car if you could stop them, even though it's not your responsibility...

[tossbag]

You're dreaming if you think Class E ie full-blown controlled airspace for IFR

These two aircraft would not have collided in Class E airspace.

All that would do is make Mangalore one-in, one-out

Yes, yes it would. In IMC that's exactly what it means.

Class E would not stop a VFR running into an IFR

In IMC conditions it would, that's how Class E works. If a VFR ran into an IFR in IMC in Class E then there's a different problem isn't there? But you're letting your 'Tossbag obsession' turn you into a ranting loon.

AEM had been airborne, heading for Mangalore, for 27 minutes before being passed to JQF. JQF should have got traffic on AEM on taxi.

ATC expert now? You haven't got all of the ATC picture here, you've got air/ground comms only, on one aerodrome, not the 20 or 30 other that this person was looking after plus the en-route traffic plus the internal co-ord that needs to be done. Class E in these sectors and there wouldn't be one controller looking after this debacle.

Rant, rant, rant. You've got 10% of the picture but you're a 100% expert, well done you :D

[sunnySA]

Maths 101, 6 miles in your 12 o'clock, unless they were on reciprocal tracks then the aircraft shouldn't have collided.

ATC 101, vector the aircraft at the current position of the other aircraft and they'll never hit.

There seems to be an inconsistency between Figure 13: Recreation of STCA display at 1122:29 and Figure 20: Aircraft position for AEM and JQF

These aircraft were under pilot navigation. Figure 13 there appears to be about 150 (160?) degrees between the relative flight paths, figure 20 there appears to be about 100 degrees between the relative flight paths. JQF must've turned further left to intercept their outbound track to LACEY.

[edit: Figure 24: Estimated collision aspect based on ADS-B data and wreckage assessment shows the angle as being about 135 degrees]

AIP GEN 3.3 para 2.16.7 h. "any other data which may enhance the value of the information". For JQF "traffic right to left", not sure that 12 o'clock was accurate. Why is that ATSB needed to do a recreation of the STCA display? Surely there was a TAAATS replay available including all the HMI actions of the controller, use of route display, use of Bearing and Range tools, movement of the labels, use of highlight function, use of text areas, which strip windows were open.

Figure 12: STCA activation and vertical profiles for AEM and JQF is interesting as it shows that the controller changed their display range (ASD range) a number of times, zoomed in, zoomed out, zoomed in and zoomed in further. When your sector extends across two states, from south of (abeam) Melbourne to north of Canberra and Wagga, to have a range of just 23NM demonstrates that the controller was focused on the STCA alert.

How is that Eurocat still has STCA issues? How is it that STCA's have been inhibited in Class G airspace in the BN FIR below 4500ft and not in the ML FIR? Interestingly ATSB doesn't explore this discrepancy.

Linking to ATSB publication A pilot’s guide to staying safe in the vicinity of non-towered aerodromes - such a dated document. Published 2013. Quotes statistics from 2003 and 2008 where there were 709 occurrences in the vicinity of non-towered aerodromes were reported to the ATSB relating to airspace use, operations and procedural compliance. Do we have more up-to-date information? What has changed since 2013?

I am pleased that the Department of Infrastructure is partially funding the installation of ADS-B transponder technology. I'd much rather than it was 100% funding.

[Capn Bloggs]

You're dreaming if you think Class E ie full-blown controlled airspace for IFR
These two aircraft would not have collided in Class E airspace.
That is NOT what I said. Quote me completely or not at all. I said "work". I did not say Class E would have not prevented this prang. Of course it would have.

In IMC conditions it would, that's how Class E works. If a VFR ran into an IFR in IMC in Class E then there's a different problem isn't there? But you're letting your 'Tossbag obsession' turn you into a ranting loon.
I never mentioned "in IMC". Stop adding red herrings to your argument.

Given you are allegedly a multi-decade experienced IFR trainer AND controller (according to the CV you PMed me), instead of ranting, I assume you would have at least thought of the two-comm issues of E and CTAFs. And just to circumvent a VMC tangent, please don't suggest all the IFRs simply switch to VFR to make it all work. As we saw at Ballina, looking out the window doesn't always work. Unless of course you think I am speaking nonsense.

not the 20 or 30 other that this person was looking after plus the en-route traffic plus the internal co-ord that needs to be done.
Oh, so it's ok to have so little time to consider what they are looking at on the screen may well go pearshaped. Right. What I'm seeing is a lack of service. What you're saying I can't get that service because the controller is too busy (or the ATC system is set up badly). One doesn't need to be an expert to see there is a major problem here.

Class E in these sectors and there wouldn't be one controller looking after this debacle.
You said in your ranting PM that I don't know how many VOR approaches I've done there, 5 IFR at a time is routine at MNG. That would immediately stop in E, would it not, or how would all that navaid training work then?

[missy]

Thread drift, yes, I've been guilty of one or two but why are pilots required to train on a piece of kit that they will rarely use - VOR? I understand an ILS approach, I understand a NDB approach, but really isn't this all old school.

Is it a case of "I had to do it, so you have to do it too"? Is it a rite of passage that marks entrance or acceptance into a group or society, in this case a pilot fraternity?
Why not RNP or GLS approaches?

Could an entrepreneur make a $ by setting up an VOR in a paddock and charging for use? Same for a NDB? ILS might be a bit expensive if AUSCAL needed to fly it flight test every 3 months but if the minima was pretty high, or the approach was practiced from 5000ft to 2000ft then accuracy should be must of a problem.

[Checkboard]

There was a section in the report that stated the possibility that each aircraft was transmitting on one frequency when the opportunity to hear the traffic was on the other....

Bad luck in the timing.

[Lead Balloon]

The reason the report takes so long to come out is that there is a 2 year Statute of Limitations on claims for accident compensation. This report has been released one month after the 2 year limit. Think about it? The detailed draft was completed around 12 months ago. It is fair to say it has has been heavily worked over to limit liability issues. The final report was released today and is available for download off the ATSB website. It identifies failures identified and discussed in this forum. You need to read the report and not just read the summary as the summary attempts to transfer all blame to the pilots.I don't think you've read the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. And if the ATSB is delaying the release of investigation reports because of potential liability issues and compensation claims arising from the accident under investigation, it would be worth the ATSB reading the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, again. I think you're confusing correlation for causation, David.

(Of course it's all the pilots' fault. OAR and Air Services have stuck a band aide over the running sore. Job done. Move on, nothing to see here.)

[Lead Balloon]

[G]ood luck, LB, forcing every VFR in the country to fit a transponder so E airspace will work.I see your point, Capn. No piece of equipment has ever been mandated for VFR aircraft in Australia. CASA would never impose new costs on anyone. (BTW: Not all VFR aircraft have to be fitted with transponders for E airspace to work. VFR aircraft without transponders just have to stay out of it. That's kinda the point...)

We know what will happen if an RPT aircraft full of passengers collides with a non-transponder equipped aircraft in G.

It's the 21st century, FFS. We have hand-launched drones flying around with transponders in them. That there are still highly intelligent, highly experienced people attempting to justify the operation of passenger-carrying RPT aircraft in airspace where non-transponder equipped aircraft may operate, completely astonishes me. That the operators and PICs of those RPT aircraft choose to do it, completely astonishes me. As if the opinion of the mutual protection racket comprising CASA, Air Services and ATSB that it's 'not unsafe' makes it so.

[tossbag]

Ranting? I don't think so mate. It's pretty clear who's engaging in that. It's clear to me there are multiple factors at play here, if you want to cherry pick some of the simpler causes, do so, there are answers to every point. But the real cause here is that a 1970's-80's airspace system is being used despite having a 2000's onward radar/surveillance system. The equipment has evolved but the procedures and airspace has not, and it won't. Not until Ballina happens or elsewhere.

[tossbag]

Thread drift, yes, I've been guilty of one or two but why are pilots required to train on a piece of kit that they will rarely use - VOR? I understand an ILS approach, I understand a NDB approach, but really isn't this all old school.

It is something I cannot fathom, do a PIR and you can dispense with all the rubbish. There are PIR pilots that will NEVER fly a VOR or ILS, let alone an NDB. They will NEVER circle (a known cause of accidents), but do an IR and it's back to the ridiculous outdated rule set.

Is it a case of "I had to do it, so you have to do it too"? Is it a rite of passage that marks entrance or acceptance into a group or society, in this case a pilot fraternity?

I'm sure there's an element of this.

Why not RNP or GLS approaches?

Exactly.

Could an entrepreneur make a $ by setting up an VOR in a paddock and charging for use? Same for a NDB? ILS might be a bit expensive if AUSCAL needed to fly it flight test every 3 months but if the minima was pretty high, or the approach was practiced from 5000ft to 2000ft then accuracy should be must of a problem.

Funny you should mention that, it's happening at AV and EN now. But it's still funnelling multiple aircraft into these navaids, there's not enough of them for an outdated training system that matches an outdated airspace system.

[43Inches]

Funny you should mention that, it's happening at AV and EN now. But it's still funnelling multiple aircraft into these navaids, there's not enough of them for an outdated training system that matches an outdates airspace system.

And the airprox events are happening over Avalon despite having class E down to CTAF due to the amount of aircraft using it on a good day. RADAR control is a predictive device, it struggles when the dynamic situation is changing rapidly, and then there's the delay in relaying the information to each aircraft. Add to that the issue with monitoring two frequencies as well as flying the aircraft in busy airspace and the chance of holes lining up is vastly increased. If it's just IFR aircraft then you have no issue, as they can all be lined up in a nice sequence and it's done. Throw in a few VFRs that just ramble across the approach paths and cause go-rounds and you start getting mayhem and radio congestion.

It's also important to remember that the radar plots had the two aircraft missing each other, it was a proximity alert that came up on the radar screen and showed JQF passing behind AEM, and then under it by 500ft shortly before the collision.

The other issue that really is at the center of the whole IFR training thing is why are NDB still a thing. All these VORs were shut down at various locations to leave the worst possible backup, showing that cost really does come before safety.

[Lead Balloon]

'Airprox events' (plural) are happening at Avalon.

References to ATSB notifications and investigations, please. I'm aware of one involving VH-PWQ in 2012. What are the others?

[43Inches]

Well when I heard one the other day where a VFR passed within 2nm same altitude of an IFR without visual sighting, what would you call that? I think people are not putting this to paper for whatever reason. Now class E is the controller required to put in a ticket for IFR vs VFR separation breakdown? I've noticed a few class C incursions I've heard on the radio recently are not making it into the ATSB list either, as well as some VFR into IMC as recent as a month ago, where a student reported in cloud on a solo navex and was assisted by ATS to break clear.

[Lead Balloon]

You're telling the story, 43, and you called them 'airprox events'. 'Airprox' has a definition. Do you know what it is?

And now you're asking questions about what controllers are required to do about things that happen in Class E. If you don't know the answers, maybe your judgments about Class E airspace aren't based upon a sound foundation.

How do you know that the violations of controlled airspace you heard did not "make it to the ATSB". You might find that, given the number of violations of controlled airspace that occur in Australia, ATSB doesn't bother putting each report up in lights on its website.

[Capn Bloggs]

But the real cause here is that a 1970's-80's airspace system is being used despite having a 2000's onward radar/surveillance system. The equipment has evolved but the procedures and airspace has not, and it won't. Not until Ballina happens or elsewhere.
Errr, no, the antiquated airspace system, invented in he 50s/60/70s by the yanks (Class E), is now out of date because of the equipment available. You and Dick are trying to shoehorn a round type of airspace in to a square hole. How about you take advantage of the technology? As I said before (LB missed it, I see):

Mandate transponders in MBZs (yes, renamed from CTAF Rs :rolleyes:). Then we can have simple, "controlled" or "uncontrolled" airspace. Then we can get rid of this ABCDE nonsense. I mean, really, ABCD? What's the point? It really is just confusing, complicated theoretical, fanatical nonsense.

As pointed out by the ATSB, this is the first ever midair between IFR aircraft OCTA. The first ever. And communications overload is the obvious reason. And that has been caused by the CTAF/ATC interaction. And that was brought about by? I don't see anybody suggesting traffic lights at every intersection.

Even with the current rules, the system is fundamentally sound, based on the evidence. It was even safer when we had Joe Bloggs in the FSU because the free in G cowboys had somebody to talk to. Allegedly, we've saved hundreds of millions of dollars since turning the system into the wild west. You can't have everything.

[Capn Bloggs]

You're telling the story, 43, and you called them 'airprox events'. 'Airprox' has a definition. Do you know what it is?

And now you're asking questions about what controllers are required to do about things that happen in Class E. If you don't know the answers, maybe your judgments about Class E airspace aren't based upon a sound foundation.

How do you know that the violations of controlled airspace you heard did not "make it to the ATSB". You might find that, given the number of violations of controlled airspace that occur in Australia, ATSB doesn't bother putting each report up in lights on its website.
I get the message that 43inches is conveying. Obviously you don't. Both of those points are irrelevant to what 43inches has been saying about E airspace.

[43Inches]

As pointed out by the ATSB, this is the first ever midair between IFR aircraft OCTA. The first ever. And communications overload is the obvious reason. And that has been caused by the CTAF/ATC interaction. And that was brought about by? I don't see anybody suggesting traffic lights at every intersection.

Traffic lights are a good example, you can install them, and still there is fatal accidents because somebody runs the red signal and the crossing traffic on green assumes its clear so is not looking for a conflict. Interesting that roundabouts don't stop collisions but they lower the severity of injuries compared to traffic lights as the vehicles are forced to slow and look. Any mistakes are confined to lower speed accidents vs red light accidents where the offender has no physical barrier to make them slow down.

Point is if you think something else is doing the job for you you tend to be less cautious about the unexpected.

I mean they had to physically employ raised barriers at some rail intersections as cars just continued to hit trains, so they basically said stuff the driver, here's a big wall to stop you ramming our trains. Or just spend billions building tunnels and bridges so cars don't interact with the trains at all.

[Capn Bloggs]

Now I know why ASA changed, all those years ago, from "No Known IFR traffic" to "No Reported IFR traffic". AEM was known about by ATS for 16 minutes before JQF taxied.

[Lead Balloon]

Great! The more G the better for me. Keep up the good work, 43 et al.

[Lead Balloon]

Mandate transponders in MBZs (yes, renamed from CTAF Rs ). I can't find any reference to MBZs in AIP. Am I missing something, Capn?

Maybe you mean Broadcast Areas (renamed from CTAF Rs renamed from MBZs renamed from MTAF renamed from..)?

Gawd, maybe CTAF Rs are back?

It's so hard to keep track of the humps on the Australian airspace camel.

[tossbag]

Mandate transponders in MBZs (yes, renamed from CTAF Rs https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies2/icon_rolleyes.gif).

How about 'we' mandate certified TCAS systems in any aircraft 500kg and up, capturing all RAAus aircraft. 'We' could also mandate mandatory airline style TCAS training to all pilots as part of the licencing or certificates.

And how about 'we' mandate vertical self separation between departing and arriving aircraft..........hold on.........

And how about 'we' mandate the IFR traffic parameters to 16 minutes, because a full 16 minutes will give you time to come up with 'I'll climb to 4000 if you want to descend to 5000 until centre tells us we're clear'

[Capn Bloggs]

"Tossbag". How appropriate.

If you think that being given traffic when they are only 6nm, 12 o'clock and opposite direction, climbing and descending, is OK when ATC knew they would be traffic way before then, then you are part of the problem.

[sunnySA]

'I'll climb to 4000 if you want to descend to 5000 until centre tells us we're clear'
Centre thought they were clear until they weren't.

[sunnySA]

.
If you think that being given traffic when they are only 6nm, 12 o'clock and opposite direction, climbing and descending, is OK when ATC knew they would be traffic way before then, then you are part of the problem.
More like 1 o'clock, right to left. What did the BRL indicate?

I feel for the controller, condolences to all involved.

[Capn Bloggs]

Tossbag,

You said in your ranting PM that I don't know how many VOR approaches I've done there, 5 IFR at a time is routine at MNG. That would immediately stop in E, would it not, or how would all that navaid training work then?
I asked this on the previous page. Perhaps you missed it.

[tossbag]

Centre thought they were clear until they weren't.

I NEVER leave it to Centre to judge that. For me, in Class G, it's vert until I know I'm past, either from position info from the controller or the other aircraft.

[tossbag]

I asked this on the previous page. Perhaps you missed it.

Ranting PM........... grow up :rolleyes:

You wait your turn in the hold, simple. Are you guaranteed any OCTA aerodrome arrival that you'll make an immediate approach?

If you don't want to wait, go up to SHT and do an NDB. Or go elsewhere, or practice the hold, or don't get VOR on your licence, or go to AV.

[Capn Bloggs]

And another thing. I reckon all CTAFs should be recorded. That is the only way a true picture of the comms (breakdown, in this case) can be developed and analysed.

[Lead Balloon]

A serious question, Capn.

You said you want Australia to “mandate transponders in MBZs (yes, renamed from CTAF Rs)”. I'm genuinely trying to understand exactly what you mean.

I’m looking at GEN 2.2 Definitions and Abbreviations in the current Australian AIP Book, and neither CTAF R nor MBZ appears. I think CTAF R was ditched years ago, when the concept of “certified” versus “uncertified” (and registered and unregistered) aerodromes came into vogue. Before that there was the concept of MTAF and before that MBZ … I think … it could have been the other way around. But in any event CTAFs - ‘R’s or otherwise - are frequencies for use if an ‘in vicinity’ broadcast obligation arises but an MBZ is a zone within which specific broadcasts are mandatory. Also, someone invented ‘Broadcast Areas’ and, for Ballina, a SFIS within its BA. And someone resurrected an AFIZ at YPPD. (Rhetorical question: Is it any wonder that people out there are confused and here on pprune it’s difficult to have a sensible conversation?)

When you call for a mandate of transponders in “MBZs renamed from CTAF Rs”, what do you mean? Can you use the current language of the current rules, or just plain English, to explain.

For example, are you calling for transponders for all aircraft within a specified radius of and height above each aerodrome in G used by e.g. RPT aircraft, and specific mandated broadcasts by all aircraft within that zone? If yes, please specify the radius and height and aircraft operation parameters, and the specific content of and position at or circumstance in which each mandated call would be made.

I want to make sure I understand what you want. I'm not going to bag you - as if you'd care - for what you want (or anyone else for what they want). But if I reckon it won't achieve the outcome you think it will achieve, I will say so and try to explain why I have that opinion. Free country and all that...

[triadic]

For info, a proposal went thru AVSEF (the RAPAC replacement) late last year suggesting for a number of good reasons that the term MBZ be returned for what is now a described as a BA. It had the suport of many in the industry. After some nagging CASA acknowleded it and said it preferred MBA = Mandatory Broadcase Area. It has not surfaced yet. just have to wait and see.....

[Lead Balloon]

Interesting. Thanks for that, triadic. I’m guessing the regulatory brains trust doesn’t want the area to be confused for some kind of designated airspace different to G.

It would therefore follow that if the Capn’s talking about mandating transponders for aircraft in ‘MBAs’ the outcome would be vastly different than mandating transponders for aircraft within a specified distance of every certified aerodrome – the current equivalent of places that used to be designated ‘CTAF R’. I hope the Capn will clarify what he wants.

I vote for: ‘BATMAN’ -- Broadcast And Transponder MANdatory. If Australia’s going to uphold its laughing stock aviation regulatory reputation, might as well ‘go hard’.

[Chronic Snoozer]

The evolution of aviation safety hinges on getting the naming conventions right. :ooh: Heaven help us.

[compressor stall]

The evolution of aviation safety hinges on getting the naming conventions right. :ooh: Heaven help us.
On the other foot eliminating change fatigue from OCTA airspace changing names every few years will have some safety benefit.
MTAF and CTAF has my vote.

[tossbag]

MBZ's were easily understood and a clearcut, bring back MBZeds.

[Lead Balloon]

Where? Name the places.

What radius? Specify it.

What height or altitude? Specify.

And what would be mandated in these MBZs? Specify the equipment carriage and radio calls - equipment and words.

[43Inches]

Any RPT port OCTA to be a (insert name of new MBZ thing), dimensions 15nm of ARP, SFC to 5000ft agl or CTA LL. Carriage and use of VHF radio and mode C minimum Transponder mandatory. Calls to be made at boundary entering, on taxi, and entering or crossing any runway, on joining or departing the circuit and when conflict exists. Overflying aircraft should monitor (Insert name of new MBZ thing) frequency while overflying lateral limits but above 5000 agl for conflicts. Glider operations within (Insert name of new MBZ thing) boundaries to be on frequency. Frequencies to not conflict with any other within 200nm. All (Insert name of new MBZ thing) to be recorded and AFRU fitted, progressively ATS to have option to listen to/broadcast on AFRU if needed.

Further all operations above 5000ft AMSL required to be fitted with VHF radio and mode C transponder minimum. Non transponder or non radio equipped aircraft can request permission to operate within a defined area or a general NOTAM issued for a routinely used area for such aircraft up to 10,000ft AMSL marked on maps if recurrent. Permission should only be denied on the basis on reasonable chance of conflict with IFR aircraft in normal operations.

[Lead Balloon]

Is your "SFC to 5000ft agl or CTA LL" whichever is the higher, or whichever is the lower? Given that you say that "[o]verflying aircraft should monitor (Insert name of new MBZ thing) frequency while overflying lateral limits but above 5000 agl for conflicts", it seems you're advocating the lower. Otherwise the overflying aircraft would, by definition, be in CTA.

If yes, you're advocating for the upper level of the Ballina BA/MBZ/MBA to be lowered to 5,000' AGL rather than remain at the 8,500' AMSL C LL / 6,500' AMSL C LL. Is that correct? It does make a difference to whether an aircraft overflying at e.g. 5,500' is obliged to make an entering call at the boundary.

And you're advocating for the Lismore, Casino and Evans Head CTAF to be changed to something other than 124.2. Correct?

The Port Hedland BA is 20 nm radius of the ARP up to 8,000' AMSL. Are you advocating for that to be reduced to 15 nm radius and 5,000' AGL? Given the kinds of traffic in the Ballina BA, there'd be no objective justification for the BA/MBA/MBZ dimensions to be larger at Port Hedland, would there?

[Chronic Snoozer]

On the other foot eliminating change fatigue from OCTA airspace changing names every few years will have some safety benefit.
MTAF and CTAF has my vote.

Absolutely. But change gives the illusion of progress. As the Mrs used to say “It doesn’t matter what you call it, it’s what you do with it that matters”. (I might have remembered that incorrectly.)

[43Inches]

Is your "SFC to 5000ft agl or CTA LL" whichever is the higher, or whichever is the lower? Given that you say that "[o]verflying aircraft should monitor (Insert name of new MBZ thing) frequency while overflying lateral limits but above 5000 agl for conflicts", it seems you're advocating the lower. Otherwise the overflying aircraft would, by definition, be in CTA.

If yes, you're advocating for the upper level of the Ballina BA/MBZ/MBA to be lowered to 5,000' AGL rather than remain at the 8,500' AMSL C LL / 6,500' AMSL C LL. Is that correct? It does make a difference to whether an aircraft overflying at e.g. 5,500' is obliged to make an entering call at the boundary.

And you're advocating for the Lismore, Casino and Evans Head CTAF to be changed to something other than 124.2. Correct?

The Port Hedland BA is 20 nm radius of the ARP up to 8,000' AMSL. Are you advocating for that to be reduced to 15 nm radius and 5,000' AGL? Given the kinds of traffic in the Ballina BA, there'd be no objective justification for the BA/MBA/MBZ dimensions to be larger at Port Hedland, would there?

Yes forgot the which ever lower, caveat, also as per the last paragraph of my post above 5000ft class whatever will be mandatory radio and transponder and listening out on whatever its called. So conflict will be not an issue, obviously if you are monitoring and hear a conflict you respond appropriately. Currently aircraft leaving class C, E into G are required to give a broadcast to announce traffic so that part of the conflict is already addressed.

With regard to dimensions I really don't see the need for much past 15nm, as 5000 ft at 15nm is standard 3 deg profile for most high performance on descent and they easily meet that altitude on departure. Extend to 20nm or 25nm if you wish, or just make it that aircraft in class G should monitor CTAF at least out to 30nm (double the boundary) if practical, inbound or outbound. Above 5000ft center will in most cases see the transponder return and advise traffic.

For frequencies that area is indeed a unique set so lateral boundaries would have to be tweaked to fit in with most likely traffic.

And of course why ADS-B is not fitted to ground level at Ballina or Mildura is a mystery beyond comprehension.

It's coming to a point where collision avoidance systems are commonplace in cars, and will probably be mandated for future new vehicles. Yet aviation resists a pretty solid collision avoidance system based on technology available 30 years ago due to a price which is a fraction of what an aircraft costs relative.

[Capn Bloggs]

5000 ft at 15nm is standard 3 deg profile for most high performance on descent
All RPT jets 5000ft at 20nm.

[missy]

It's coming to a point where collision avoidance systems are commonplace in cars, and will probably be mandated for future new vehicles. Yet aviation resists a pretty solid collision avoidance system based on technology available 30 years ago due to a price which is a fraction of what an aircraft costs relative.
100% agree. Aviation is lagging behind, especially ATC systems. TAAATS The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System.

[Lead Balloon]

The suggestions so far:

- 20nm radius of an aerodrome in G to which RPT jets operate, or

- 15nm radius of an aerodrome in G to which RPT other than jets operate,

up to 5,000’ AGL or the base of CTA, whichever is the lower.

- Mandatory carriage of radio and transponder inside (and overflying, because radio and transponders will be mandated above 5,000’ AGL (Is AGL practicable?)

- Mandatory broadcasts on entry, at specified points in the circuit and otherwise for collision avoidance.

It would therefore appear that the current Ballina BA would be extended to encompass Lismore, Evans Head, Swan Bay and Tyagarah. Is that what’s intended? What broadcasts would be mandatory for an aircraft doing circuits at e.g. Evans Head?

For all those so keen on mandatory carriage of radios and transponders, you do realise that they are both mandated for VFR aircraft in E? I don’t understand why VFR pilots are competent to comply with equipment requirements if they’re mandated for carriage in some special zone – whoops, I mean ‘area’ – in G, but somehow become dangerous gumbies incapable of complying with the same requirements if they are flying in E. For those keen on mandatory specific calls, they can be mandated as much as for E as they are for G.

I’m waiting with bated breath for the rejuvenation of the MBZ concept rebranded to MBA, so that any further transponder mandate can be avoided and the designation of any new airspace can be avoided. CASA doesn’t want to upset the sports aviation bodies or the airlines or Air Services. Fiddling with the broadcast rules for G will, as usual, help to deliver Australia’s enviable air safety record.