Mid - Air @ Caboolture

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Radio 2GB (SY) reporting a mid - air at Caboolture, reported at 0055Z, aircraft types, outcomes etc not broadcast as yet.

Collision reported as occurring at around 0030Z, emergency services said to be attending.

Does not sound good.....

Update....Reporting now, that "one aircraft now said to be a glider".

[Cloudee]

Courier Mail reporting two light aircraft collided over the field with one pilot escaping wreckage.

[marty1468]

One is a Jabiru. Have seen a pik of the wreckage. Doesn't look good

[megle2]

2GB reports from CH9 chopper which is overhead location suggesting maybe a glider tug and ??

[marty1468]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/848x457/ycab_28jul_23_40f07e53f1c9f20724cb977fdd0df7d2fd1714ab.png
Reported in the media.

UPDATE: Media reporting two people have died. RIP

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1264x645/pawnee_1a0ac6eb07d37b648faba066c8d53ae3e7419304.png

[PoppaJo]

Pawnee looks like minimal damage. Note the leading edge left dint.

https://twitter.com/7NewsBrisbane/status/1684740637999177728

[Pearly White]

Radio 2GB (SY) reporting a mid - air at Caboolture, reported at 0055Z, aircraft types, outcomes etc not broadcast as yet.

Collision reported as occurring at around 0030Z, emergency services said to be attending.

Does not sound good.....

Update....Reporting now, that "one aircraft now said to be a glider".
"One aircraft said to be registered to Caboolture Gliding Club". Obviously not a glider. Probably the PA25 used as a tug. Registration of both aircraft blurred out in any online pics so far.

[spinex]

Sadly now reported as a fatal, presumably the 2 occupants of the Jab.
https://7news.com.au/news/qld/significant-incident-response-after-possible-mid-air-plane-collision-at-caboolture-airfield-north-of-brisbane-c-11414398

[Hoosten]

Yet another aircraft taken out but a glider/tug. It's a real smart move having these clowns operating in the circuit areas of high traffic density aerodromes.

The bloke in the Jab a very experienced ex-airline pilot.

[roundsounds]

Yet another aircraft taken out but a glider/tug. It's a real smart move having these clowns operating in the circuit areas of high traffic density aerodromes.

The bloke in the Jab a very experienced ex-airline pilot.

Who are you referring to as clowns?

[stressmerchant]

Yet another aircraft taken out but a glider/tug. It's a real smart move having these clowns operating in the circuit areas of high traffic density aerodromes.

I'm not sure of the background to your opinion. I have my plane based at YCAB, and I've never had a problem with the glider operations.

[triathlon]

Who are you referring to as clowns?

what he means is these gliders are a menace around airports and a safety hazard and most of them can’t even use a radio correctly.
your welcome

[PoppaJo]

I encourage those who have concerns with operations be it Ag or Gliding, or whatever, to use appropriate channels to take it further. I’ve done that with one specific Pawnee operation in the past and the matter was dealt with. I argued with CASA that the issue is likely (well not likely, guaranteed) widespread and further reviews need to be conducted.

[Cilba]

Please everybody, show some respect. At this stage no one will have any great understanding of the matter .

Bear in mind the media follow these forums.

How do you think the Pawnee tug pilot feels? Completely traumatised, I would believe. And now he's being called a clown on a forum that is viewed world wide.

Hoosten and triathlon, I request you delete your posts forthwith.

[MickG0105]

It's a real smart move having these clowns operating in the circuit areas of high traffic density aerodromes.

I wouldn't have thought that YCAB would be considered a high traffic density aerodrome. Mind you, I haven't operated out of there for quite a few years now, and back then it was as one of those clowns at the back end of a tow cable. Things might have gotten busier.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Yet another aircraft taken out but a glider/tug. It's a real smart move having these clowns operating in the circuit areas of high traffic density aerodromes.

The bloke in the Jab a very experienced ex-airline pilot.

Your comments here are going to look pretty stupid when the name of the Pawnee driver comes out.

[Cloudee]

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s chief commissioner, Angus Mitchell, said the two light planes – a Piper Pawnee and a Jabiru J430 – collided while one was landing on one runway at the airfield and the other was taking off from a crossing runway.

“Tragically, both occupants of the Jabiru were fatally injured. The Pawnee pilot was uninjured,” he said.

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/28/two-light-planes-crash-mid-air-collision-caboolture-airfield-queensland

[megle2]

I think we should cut Hoosten a bit of slack, he obviously has info I don’t as yet. I dread the release of names.

[MALT68]

Tragic accident.
Hoosten (#12) said: "Yet another aircraft taken out but a glider/tug. It's a real smart move having these clowns operating in the circuit areas of high traffic density aerodromes. The bloke in the Jab a very experienced ex-airline pilot."

Shame on you! Nasty troll.

Unfortunate nasty tripe peddled by someone who doesn't know anything about mixed ops (given the content of his message).
I hold a PPL, I also hold a glider towing rating (flying the PA-25), and am a glider pilot and former level 2 instructor. The gliding club I am at has airline pilots as tow-pilots and glider pilots and instructors. Accusation of cowboys can be levelled at GA too, look through the ATSB reports.
Gliding clubs will operate on the CTAF for launching and CCT ops. and use directed see and avoid like everybody else. At busy gliding clubs, ops are particularly disciplined.

Slagging off the Pawnee driver is not helpful. It doesn't matter if the Jab pilot was ex airlines.
If the Pawnee was landing aircraft, normally he had right of way, over an aircraft taking off, all things being equal. A tow pilot would go around if the available runway was not clear for whatever reason.
It maybe a case of each aircraft being in each other's blind spots, radio over transmission, misunderstood radio message, whatever.

Nevertheless, the factors surrounding this terrible accident no doubt will emerge.

Do not condemn, learn...

RIP to the souls lost.

[Squawk7700]

Is this the airport where you can’t see the aircraft on the other runway due to the trees?

One taking off has hit the one landing (or vice versa) begs the immediate question of WHY… Why are they operating on 2 for intersecting runways?

[Fluke]

Is this the airport where you can’t see the aircraft on the other runway due to the trees?

One taking off has hit the one landing (or vice versa) begs the immediate question of WHY… Why are they operating on 2 for intersecting runways?

Because neither knew the other was there !
RIP D&JM

[MickG0105]

Is this the airport where you can’t see the aircraft on the other runway due to the trees?

Yep, it's a bugger of a set-up.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1314x917/screenshot_20230728_181430_earth_7b0097cd438ee4a7ec2b5d72bda 6111d0d761234.jpg

[MALT68]

Operational reasons.

[Squawk7700]

Operational reasons.

Do you mean financial reasons?

[bloodandiron]

Interesting to see the Pawnee seemed to only get a dent in its wing from this. If there was no glider in tow what was the Pawnee doing?

[Lead Balloon]

Why is ATSB interested? I thought ATSB has denied responsibility for investigation of these kinds of accidents.

[Desert Flower]

Interesting to see the Pawnee seemed to only get a dent in its wing from this. If there was no glider in tow what was the Pawnee doing?

One would assume that the Pawnee had released a glider & was coming back to land.

DF.

[Squawk7700]

Interesting to see the Pawnee seemed to only get a dent in its wing from this. If there was no glider in tow what was the Pawnee doing?

ATSB stated one was landing and one was taking off.

[601]

Is this the airport where you can’t see the aircraft on the other runway due to the trees?
I wonder if this is the only airport on OZ where you cannot see aircraft on another runway

[By George]

The pilot of the Jab was a good friend of mine going back fifty years. We flew together at Connair in Darwin in the seventies.Later he went TAA and I went Ansett. He subsequently went to EK and I went to SQ. Stayed in contact all my life. I recently completed his flight review last month. He was the consummate professional pilot to the highest standard I have ever seen. Weight and balance check the works and demonstrated great stick skills. It breaks my heart to hear about this accident to the point I think I will hang up my wings. He was a check pilot on the A380 and built the Jab in his garage. Loved aviation and was a true aviator of the old school. If he can be clobbered what chance do any of us have.
I cannot believe it was a lapse on his part.
Good bye mate I shall never forget you.

[KAPAC]

RIP ,
Mid air or fire . The two that wake me up at night .

[SWMBO]

The pilot of the Jab was a good friend of mine going back fifty years. We flew together at Connair in Darwin in the seventies.Later he went TAA and I went Ansett. He subsequently went to EK and I went to SQ. Stayed in contact all my life. I recently completed his flight review last month. He was the consummate professional pilot to the highest standard I have ever seen. Weight and balance check the works and demonstrated great stick skills. It breaks my heart to hear about this accident to the point I think I will hang up my wings. He was a check pilot on the A380 and built the Jab in his garage. Loved aviation and was a true aviator of the old school. If he can be clobbered what chance do any of us have.
I cannot believe it was a lapse on his part.
Good bye mate I shall never forget you.

Yes, accurate assessment. David and Jan were the best people. And worse still the other aircraft was piloted by an industry safety professional another example of professional. The fact these two came together is almost impossible, except it did. There is bound to be something more unusual to this. Or maybe not. We probably know each other George, I share your sorrow.

[Capn Bloggs]

I wonder if this is the only airport on OZ where you cannot see aircraft on another runway
No it's not. Kalgoorlie 29/18 is another. More open space near the intersection though.

[MALT68]

There are many many airports and airfields in Australia where one runway end cannot be seen by another including major airports such as YMML.
many busy and smaller fields also have runway ends hidden from each other (e.g. Wangaratta, YMUL, YBEV) with usually the most into wind runway used unless the airport ops or a/c requirements dictates otherwise.
some airfields you can’t see one runway end from the other (YLUW).

YCAB has a comprehensive and detailed ops manual. There are no clowns here.
https://www.cabooltureaeroclub.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Final-Draft-CAC-OPS-Manual-v2.0-March-2023-.pdf

For whatever reason this terrible accident happened to pilots held in high regard.
Here’s hoping that a chain of events can be elucidated with lessons learned.
I know it does not bring the deceased back but hopefully prevents other such accidents.
I am saddened by what has happened.

[markis10]

Yes, accurate assessment. David and Jan were the best people. And worse still the other aircraft was piloted by an industry safety professional another example of professional. The fact these two came together is almost impossible, except it did. There is bound to be something more unusual to this. Or maybe not. We probably know each other George, I share your sorrow.

It doesn’t take much for bad luck to come into play, crossing runways, high wing vs low wing, maybe a missed call. Very sad news and deepest sympathy to all who have been involved in this tragic event.

[Dora-9]

Hoosten and Triathlon - do you even operate out of YCAB? I've been there for 25 years and I've never had any concerns about the professionalism of the glider operation there - so, without respect, pull your heads in.

George - my condolences at loosing friends.

It doesn’t take much for bad luck to come into play,

One possible factor here is the amount of radio traffic on 125.85; possibly either or both aircraft missed vital calls? This frequency serves two busy airfields (Caboolture and Caloundra) plus it's used for aircraft operating in the Bribie Island training area as well as those transiting out across Morten Bay. Plus you do get clowns with lousy radio discipline; not listening out before transmitting or making incredibly long-winded speeches when a few words would suffice.

[Matt48]

The Pawnee was landing.

[Squawk7700]

No it's not. Kalgoorlie 29/18 is another. More open space near the intersection though.

I think he was being sarcastic, so I didn’t respond.

[triathlon]

Hoosten and Triathlon - do you even operate out of YCAB? I've been there for 25 years and I've never had any concerns about the professionalism of the glider operation there - so, without respect, pull your heads in.

George - my condolences at loosing friends.



One possible factor here is the amount of radio traffic on 125.85; possibly either or both aircraft missed vital calls? This frequency serves two busy airfields (Caboolture and Caloundra) plus it's used for aircraft operating in the Bribie Island training area as well as those transiting out across Morten Bay. Plus you do get clowns with lousy radio discipline; not listening out before transmitting or making incredibly long-winded speeches when a few words would suffice.

the landing aircraft has the right of way
. FACT ! …
The aircraft taking off must give way .
FACT !….
With all due respect , how dare you tell me to pull my head in . Who do you think you are , some sort of Sky god ?

[markis10]

The Pawnee was landing.

I believe on 24, while the Jab was possibly departing 29 under the wing of the Pawnee most likely on approach, conversely it’s possible the wing of the Jab obscured the view of the approach to 24. Use of 24 is discouraged owing to the hospital upwind, the gliders and Pawnee often use it as that’s where the hanger is at the western end. Info for the benefit of those not familiar with Caboolture

As for glider ops, as an ex Camden rated ATC it is my opinion they add to the safety of operations by forcing circuit traffic to be more mindful of scenarios and possibilities where not all traffic has options when things go pear shaped.

[Dora-9]

Who do you think you are , some sort of Sky god ?

No, but I call out tasteless idiotic comments. Answer the question - do you operate consistently out of YCAB?

It's all very well stating your FACTS about who gives way to whom, how do you know the aircraft were even aware of each other?

markis10:
while the Jab was possibly departing 29 u

The ABC footage shows the Jabiru wreckage and impact marks on the threshold of 24, the wreckage trail is distributed in the Rwy 11 direction. I interpreted this as he was departing on 11 but it's early days.

[markis10]

The ABC footage shows the Jabiru wreckage and impact marks on the threshold of 24, the wreckage trail is distributed in the Rwy 11 direction. I interpreted this as he was departing on 11 but it's early days.

Redcliffe was showing a 10kt southerly at the time, so a definite possibility.

[fdr]

the landing aircraft has the right of way
. FACT ! …
The aircraft taking off must give way .
FACT !….
With all due respect , how dare you tell me to pull my head in . Who do you think you are , some sort of Sky god ?

With crossing runways dependent on perfect communications and not visual clearance of traffic, the potential for a failure is built in by design. No matter how clear the obligation may be for right of way, I would suggest the wreckage here suggests that the perfect world necessary for Triathlons blunt comments didn't exist on this day, and has been the case for decades.

Any system that relies on perfection of process to be safe, isn't. It is relying on backups, and in this case there are precious few backups.

For the amount of flight operations in Australia, mid-airs are over represented, our system is bettered by many third world airspace. ADSB OUT AND IN makes a difference. Having recently avoided 2 different conflicts in short succession due to ADSB IN, I am concerned by the robustness of Aus airspace.

[KRviator]

the landing aircraft has the right of way
. FACT ! …
The aircraft taking off must give way .
FACT !….That's predicated on both aircraft using the same runway! IF the Jab was using the duty runway (being that runway most-into-wind), then, even though the Pawnee may have been landing, he must not cause a hazard to other aircraft in doing so. FACT (and law - Part 91.380....)

That the Jab was smitten from the sky proves the Pawnee's operations weren't safe - if in fact he wasn't using the active runway...

[Squawk7700]

the gliders and Pawnee often use it as that’s where the hanger is at the western end.


That makes it sound like commercial influences affect the safe operations at the airfield in my opinion.

[andrewr]

YCAB has a comprehensive and detailed ops manual.

Not necessarily an indicator of safety, unless you are a believer in safety through paperwork.

The sentence "Gliders (and the tow aircraft) are permitted to do non-standard circuits" might turn out to be a bit of a problem, if the Pawnee did a non-standard circuit. Better to let CASA write the rules. I hope they have their insurance in order.

[nojwod]

Sadly, this thread should be moved to another website, 'armchair experts with no facts rumour network'. A couple of the ruder people's posts (pretty obvious who I'm referring to) can go into a subforum reserved for those who contribute nothing except pointless aggro.

[MALT68]

Stop slagging the Pawnee driver and gliding ops, please.
There is intense speculation about what has happened WRT to who was doing what at which RWY etc.
Please let the experts on the ground do their work, and please allow accurate and primary source facts emerge (from CCTV, from eyewitnesses, first responders etc.).
There are posters on this discussion who know the people involved, and operate out of YCAB, listen to what they might be saying.

Of course the trolls and imbeciles will now come out and slag the ATSB, the police, first responders, YCAB, Pawnee drivers, gliders, Jabiru pilots, CASA, Airservices, the illuminati, chemtrails...

[43Inches]

For the amount of flight operations in Australia, mid-airs are over represented, our system is vetted by many third world airspace. ADSB OUT AND IN makes a difference. Having recently avoided 2 different conflicts in short succession due to ADSB IN, I am concerned by the robustness of Aus airspace.

Useless if one of the aircraft is not fitted with the equipment required. Backup ACAS systems are great, but it would be interesting if the Pawnee had ADSB at all. In the US this has been a problem as well, some operators get used to the ACAS warning them and spend less lookout time for the aircraft not fitted or with inoperative systems, or just turned off, it's been a factor in more than one collision of late.

As for two runway operations OCTA, if something is blocking LOS then both radio and ACAS may be blocked as well.

PS even if there was a single runway there's still the chance with a hump in the middle you could get two aircraft taking off in opposite directions, so its not really a two runway issue, it's really a communication and lookout issue.

I don't think we will see a report eventuate on this accident.

[MALT68]

Quote from #43 "For the amount of flight operations in Australia, mid-airs are over represented, our system is vetted by many third world airspace. ADSB OUT AND IN makes a difference. Having recently avoided 2 different conflicts in short succession due to ADSB IN, I am concerned by the robustness of Aus airspace."

OK, great... Can such claims be backed up by comparable statistics?

What do you mean by over-represented? Per aircraft movements, hours in the air, nautical miles covered?

"Our system is vetted by many third world airspace", that comes across as pejorative.
"ADSB OUT AND IN makes a difference", again have you got statistics from the pre ADSB era versus ADSB era?
"Having recently avoided 2 different conflicts in short succession due to ADSB IN", congratulations, the technology has helped you.
"I am concerned by the robustness of Aus airspace", of course you are entitled to your concerns, are they real or perceived? Are your concerns based on robust stats?

Australia has a "big sky", nevertheless a/c will be concentrated around airfields, hence the due diligence required by all operators. In the very large majority of cases, CCT ops at uncontrolled airfields are without incident.
I am of the firm belief that most aviators, whatever their craft, want to and perform ops safely. So when accidents like these occur, refer to the Reason/Swiss Cheese Holes model.

In response to #46 "Not necessarily an indicator of safety, unless you are a believer in safety through paperwork."
Actually I do believe in safety through paperwork, e-flightbags, it is better than nothing. Human memory can be frail, the written word is for all to see.
Any document will have errors, it should be a living thing amenable to iterations, updates and feedback.
If people have quibbles or issues with SOPs, offer helpful feedback.

Someone went to the effort to create a comprehensive SOP for YCAB for good reason. The current YCAB ERSA entry refers to it too.
If operating into an unfamiliar airfield, self brief, use the ERSA entry if one exists, see if a current airfield SOP exists, if required get prior permission, speak to the airfield operator as a courtesy, ask about local procedures, speak to pilots who regularly use the strip. Use all the information at your disposal, you owe it to yourself and your passengers, and your hosts at the airfield you are visiting. It is common sense.

Safety through reading and paperwork or e-flightbags is paramount in aviation. NOTAMS, Wx, flight notifications, Checklists, pilot operating handbooks, SOPs. to name a few.

[43Inches]

Safety through reading and paperwork or e-flightbags is paramount in aviation. NOTAMS, Wx, flight notifications, Checklists, pilot operating handbooks, SOPs. to name a few.

I would say only one thing would have prevented this accident, that is one of the participants becoming aware of the other prior to the collision. When in busy traffic environments take time to listen for traffic for some time prior to entering the mix, don't rush anything, have a good look around before entering a runway, and then before rolling. Landing aircraft need to stick to a predictable and orderly pattern, so other traffic have time to sight and follow. All aircraft need to broadcast intentions and allow time for responses, that is, no point making an entering runway call when the call is made when you are already entering and on the runway, think of the broadcast as a warning, you need to allow time for a response. A bit like the indicator on a car, it''s too late to signal when you are already changing lanes or entering the corner, the crash is already inevitable.

Also resist the urge to plan your lunch/meetup, where's the fuel pump, how's the weather conversation on CTAF, use a discrete frequency or land and get out the flight bag/phone. Just tell everyone where you are, where you are going and anything unusual you might be doing that might create conflict.

[MALT68]

Thanks #51 wholeheartedly agree.
Of course paperwork is one of the many tools (but not only) available to us as aviators.
Of course situational awareness is vital, but even in a perfect world there can be confounding factors (distractions, fatigue, empty field myopia, over-transmissions (busy CTAF), non-transmission (button pressed but nothing goes out), looking but not seeing, listening but not hearing, internal and external pressure (real and/or perceived), and so on).

No matter how many hours in command, or level of skill, or diligence, by definition, human factors are so important and not to be discounted, and actually do a pretty good job given the complex tasks expected of us all.

[Lead Balloon]

Not commenting on what happened in this specific case, but how can someone’s ‘Ops Manual’ override e.g. the ‘in vicinity’ CASRs? Anything ‘non-standard’ should be in ERSA itself (or e.g.NOTAMs), so that ‘ordinary’ pilots can find information where it’s ordinarily found.

I understand the logic of having some kind of aerodrome-specific ‘comprehensive guide’, but the risk of it being overlooked by ‘outsiders’ seems obvious to me, even if it’s referred to in ERSA. Again, not saying that has any relevance to this tragedy,

As someone observed earlier, nobody straps in with the intention of operating in a way that increases the risk of a collision.

[43Inches]

Over complication is the enemy of safety in aviation, most pilots are the run of the mill average human, who don't work well with excessive amounts of information. Piloting requires simple direct rules that don't need much brainpower, as the act of piloting the craft itself chews up a lot of the grey matter just keeping it upright. Its all fine to have a wad of paper rules to read through, but reality is, half wont read it properly, just skim, others will read it and forget it 10 seconds later, and so on. That is why aviation is full of drills, repetition, do things out of the ordinary and you lob nasty surprises on the others around you.

Half the drivers out there can't even get the road rules right, some of those are also pilots.

Remember there are rules out there that reflect this, like sales contracts etc, once they reach a certain length for inane things they become invalid as the average person will not be bothered to read it, so can't be held to the contract details.

[KRviator]

Not commenting on what happened in this specific case, but how can someone’s ‘Ops Manual’ override e.g. the ‘in vicinity’ CASRs? Anything ‘non-standard’ should be in ERSA itself (or e.g.NOTAMs), so that ‘ordinary’ pilots can find information where it’s ordinarily found.A very good point, LB - and one that is relevant considering some posters here seem to be fixated on the FACT "a landing aircraft always has right of way" without considering the context of that clause and how it interrelates to other CASR's and "the Caboolture SOP's"

Acting on the (admittedly possibly incorrect) assumption the Jab was using the active runway and the Pawnee wasn't (due to the reported shorter taxi after rollout), CASR's say "a landing aircraft has right of way", but also say "landing on the runway that is not the into-wind runway must not risk the safety of those using the into wind runway" while you also have the Caboollture Airport SOP's that quite definitely say "All operators at YCAB are advised that any pilot selecting a runway other than the one which is clearly the ‘active’ runway (by virtue of into wind and minimum cross wind component and established circuit traffic), or that has been nominated as the ‘active’ runway by a radio information communication, then such pilot will lose all right of way privileges and shall conduct the landing or take-off procedure such as to give way to, and maintain separation from all other circuit traffic."

If, as has been reported, the Pawnee wasn't using the active, I'd be quite nervous if I was its' pilot...

[43Inches]

If the pilot of the Pawnee was an average fallible human, they will be feeling like absolute **** right now. I don't know you, but if you are reading this, don't, go be with family, talk about it with them and mates, get some counselling, no man is an island, especially after these events. Anyone that is friends with him, support him and guide them towards some council.

[Nuasea]

The local bank manager in Bundaberg asked me to have a look at the prototype Jabiru being constructed at the airfield, I believe he was backing it. The polystyrene wings didn’t impress me.

Perhaps the Pawnee pilot owes his life to the fragile construction.

[Squawk7700]

The local bank manager in Bundaberg asked me to have a look at the prototype Jabiru being constructed at the airfield, I believe he was backing it. The polystyrene wings didn’t impress me.

Perhaps the Pawnee pilot owes his life to the fragile construction.

You mean the foam ribs or the foam sandwich? Standard construction and far from flimsy.

[Possum1]

No-one has mentioned why the Pawnee pilot has landed long. He should have had his wheels on the ground by the intersection even if he was using 24 with its threshold only 350 m distant but for:
(a) excessive float in a quartering tailwind or
(b) deliberately landing long(past the intersection) so as to finish the landing run where the gliders might have been parked due to commercial pressures - an extended final at 70kts being quicker and cheaper than a taxi up to the parked gliders at 10-20kts.

I witnessed a couple of weeks ago the tugs at Boonah doing the same thing, approaching high and landing long so as their roll out finished at the end of the runway in front of the club where the gliders were parked. Of course, there is no cross runway at Boonah.

Also there could be possible confusion due to the renaming of the runway 11/29 from previously 12/30. I don't know when this changed, but it would have been only in the last two years. I checked an old ERSA of mine(17 June 2021) and it still had 12/30 listed. I presume this was done to avoid confusion with Caloundra's runways 12/30.

[Dora-9]

One more input from me, this time written with a heavy heart since I've since realized that I've met the Jabiru pilot a few months ago in my hangar at Caboolture (he went to school with my brother-in-law) and I also know the Pawnee pilot.

I was earlier struggling to reconcile the Jabiru wreckage trail with a Rwy 11 departure wondering how it ended up so displaced from the 11/29 centreline, also the "low altitude collision" description when all landings on 06/24 normally result in the aircraft being on the ground at the runway intersection. However, I've just had this scenario described:

The Jab is departing from 29 while the Pawnee, on final for 06, tells the Jab that he'll stop before the intersection. However "a Cessna" then crosses 06/24 ahead of the Pawnee, forcing him to go around and thus collide with the Jabiru. The Jabiru turns through 180 degrees and impacts the ground on the 24 threshold while the Pawnee flies another circuit, lands on 06 and then taxies up to the Jabiru wreckage.

Just awful. I'm not about to comment on any blame here.

There have been a few posts suggesting a less than stellar performance from the Caboolture Gliding Club. Could I just add that I've flown out of Caboolture for 24 years now and I've NEVER seen anything to cause me to doubt the safety of their operation. The idiot parachutists yes (now thankfully long gone) and I occasionally look askance at the helicopter operation, but the gliders - never.

[AmarokGTI]

However, I've just had this scenario described:

The Jab is departing from 29 while the Pawnee, on final for 06, tells the Jab that he'll stop before the intersection. However "a Cessna" then crosses 06/24 ahead of the Pawnee, forcing him to go around and thus collide with the Jabiru. The Jabiru turns through 180 degrees and impacts the ground on the 24 threshold while the Pawnee flies another circuit, lands on 06 and then taxies up to the Jabiru wreckage.


Am I reading that correctly? Landing RWY06 and stopping before the intersection - about 400m for a makeshift LAHSO procedure unless I am mistaken. If true [big emphasis on the if as I am not privy to what happened] then, despite actual ability and expected aircraft performance, it is hard to justify how any reasonable pilot would consider that to be a safe plan for separation. If I've misread or misunderstood then I'll happily edit this post or ask for it to be removed.

[megle2]

RIP Dave and Jan
Just prior Covid Dave and I met for a coffee, we hadn’t crossed tracks since 1980
Helped you gain your Class One instrument rating in 77, an excellent student
Very sad

[TBM-Legend]

Dora-9 I’m with you. I’ve operated out of CAB for 30 odd years and never had an issue with the glider ops or other aircraft. Radios and sharp eyes seem to work.

[fdr]

Quote from #43 "For the amount of flight operations in Australia, mid-airs are over represented, our system is vetted by many third world airspace. ADSB OUT AND IN makes a difference. Having recently avoided 2 different conflicts in short succession due to ADSB IN, I am concerned by the robustness of Aus airspace."
OK, great... Can such claims be backed up by comparable statistics?
What do you mean by over-represented? Per aircraft movements, hours in the air, nautical miles covered?
"Our system is vetted by many third world airspace", that comes across as pejorative.
.


OK, great... Can such claims be backed up by comparable statistics?

The demograpically most comparable state to AUS is the USA. Not just because they share the same letters. They have similar see and avoid airspace rules, and have a reasonably comparable operating environment, the USA having some greater elevations, but pretty much the same. Both have many airports that arose from the WW2 training and operations development. The USA has 22 times the hours a year that AUS does, in the GA fleet. The rate of MAC's in AUS however is between 1:500,000FH to 1:1,000,000FH. USA, with ~20 times the density of operations, [1] has a MAC every 3,500,000 FH.[2]

So, with 5% of the activity rate, we get 3.5-7 x the number of MAC's that the USA gets.

Canada may make you happier as a comparison, TSB provides information on their total accidents, and they are operating around 2.7 times the fleet size that Australia does. Their total accidents per year is around 20-30% more than Australia varying over time. Their number of MAC's in the last 13 years, excluding RCAF, is... 0. [3] Canada has a similar level of concentration of population centers, and has similar uncontrolled airspace regs to Aus.

South Korea.... 1 MAC in the last 45 years, but they have a minuscule GA fleet, with massive constraints in operations. And bad weather. And terrain. And trigger happy psycho's near by.
Malaysia.... 1 MAC in the last 45 years, see ROK above...
Indonesia... no data, and minimal GA ops.
Philippines... no midairs since 2010. Modest GA fleet, weather/terrain/comms.

In Europe, France's BEA has good statistics and reports on MAC's. 1-Jan-89-30-Jun-99, 17 midairs. 2x transport category v GA FW, 1x transport category v glider, 3 x light aircraft v glider, 11x light aircraft v light aircraft, [4] The UK, has some 1700 airfield in an area about the same as Victoria, and has a few more aircraft, and operates more hours than Australia. The UK AAIB records 22 MAC events since 1974 to date, or about 1 every 2 years. 2 of those are fast jet on published LL routes. A number are GA FW v glider, and GA FW v GA RW [5] The density of operations in the UK is a bit like France, without the language issues. The complexity of airspace is substantially greater than Australia.

The rate of MAC events in the UK is low, radar deconfliction helps greatly. In the USA, NEXRAD & ADSB UART helps all comers. The availability of ADSB IN displays that don't cost a fortune and are not complicated by certification inertia does not completely stop MACs, but the rates have decreased in recent times. Having flown biplanes, gliders helicopters and jets VFR and IFR in the US along the way, If I don'yt have ADSB IN, I am not interested in flying any more. My aircraft also have TCAS II ch 7.1, and I still run ADSB IN.

Reliance on comms alone is the subject of an interesting study dating back 15 years or so, it is better than nothing but it is not robust. [6]

Reliance on see and be seen also has its issues, here is the target of a 100kt + 100kt closure, without the additional time values of recognition, pilot response, aircraft response and the potential for an error in the reaction undertaken. Add the latter items together, taking a small aircraft at each end and the latest detection point is around 5-6 seconds depending on how many "g" you can pull.

Are there statistics that show ADSB helps? None yet published, but with ADSB IN my own experience is target detection is much better, whether at 50' or FL450.

There are numerous airports in AUS that have blind spots that impact traffic, be it a hump in the middle of the uncontrolled CTAF airstrip, trees hiding cross runways or otherwise. My own experience with midairs were in formations that went pear-shaped, which is one condition that ADSB IN doesn't help.

None of the above detracts from the general guidance and obligations that exist for collision avoidance in the regulations, however, a rigid belief in the infallibility of the system of CTAF/see and avoid etc may or may not work out always [6]. I'll take every tool that I have available not to have another impact with bits of some other persons aircraft.

P.S.: The depressing findings in ref [6] were based on a simplification that the response of the aircraft involved would instantly avoid collision if there was successful communication. It also considered that every communication was comprehended with respect to identity, location, trajectory and that was instantaneously then perceived as a threat or not, and the aircraft involved immediately and correctly manoeuvred to avoid collision, and that the change in attitude resulted in instantaneous translation in position of both aircraft, both being the correct response. At least TCAS recognises when the response was countered by the other targets actions too, coordinated or not. It also assumes that one or both aircraft actually have performance to alter their trajectory in a meaningful manner, e.g., reject, climb, dive, etc. The most common reaction for a pilot in a conflict is to turn, which is normally the least effective response for avoidance.

[1] AOPA State of General Aviation Report 2019
[2] gajsc 2023 Midair Collision Report
[3] TSB
[4] BEA Report: Mid-Air Collisions 1989-1999
[5] AAIB Reports Data base
[6] Fulton N.L., Westcott, M., Emery, S.; 2010, "Influences of communication structural complexity on operational safety in regional airspace design" Safety Science


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1438x966/screen_shot_2023_07_29_at_5_25_35_pm_c502dcb669cb56b648c3600 86343030405d3a241.png

[bloodandiron]

No-one has mentioned why the Pawnee pilot has landed long. He should have had his wheels on the ground by the intersection even if he was using 24 with its threshold only 350 m distant but for:
(a) excessive float in a quartering tailwind or
(b) deliberately landing long(past the intersection) so as to finish the landing run where the gliders might have been parked due to commercial pressures - an extended final at 70kts being quicker and cheaper than a taxi up to the parked gliders at 10-20kts.

I witnessed a couple of weeks ago the tugs at Boonah doing the same thing, approaching high and landing long so as their roll out finished at the end of the runway in front of the club where the gliders were parked. Of course, there is no cross runway at Boonah.

Also there could be possible confusion due to the renaming of the runway 11/29 from previously 12/30. I don't know when this changed, but it would have been only in the last two years. I checked an old ERSA of mine(17 June 2021) and it still had 12/30 listed. I presume this was done to avoid confusion with Caloundra's runways 12/30.

the tug needs to keep height over the highway/fence so the tow rope and link doesn't break off. The rope trails about 75ft diagonally below the A/C. Not flown out of Cabo for a while but if I recall the rwys are about 780m, so if an extra cautious tug pilot was setting it down after the highway and fence, well could have been touching down or rolling across the intersection.

[Lead Balloon]

I would have thought that the distance from the highway to the displaced threshold of 06 would be plenty to ensure a trailing tow rope didn’t foul the highway or a fence, but there would be quite a challenge in landing and holding short 11/29, if using 06 and only the advertised runway from the displaced threshold. (‘Piano keys’ of sorts for DTHR 06, circled.)


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_1063_f8257d128193661abb269644d6427e2ddb51489a.jpeg

[Hoosten]

I also have a plane based at Caboolture and have had problems with gliders, glider tugs and glider operations, at this particular aerodrome;

- The duty runway clearly being runway 11, it being nominated by pilots but the glider fraternity using runway 06 because they couldn't be bothered towing their rubbish around to runway 11 because runway 06 is a hop, step and jump to their hangar.
- The incredible stupidity of operating on runway 06 whilst other pilots are using runway 11 when there is a forest between the two runways. It is impossible to see aircraft operating from either runway so why do it?
- The incredible stupidity of using runway 06 with a significant displaced threshold, whilst operations are taking place on a safer runway (11), the displaced threshold providing fewer options in the very case that happened in this accident in the event of a last second sighting of an aircraft coming into view.
- There are pilots that heard the radio transmissions or lack there of with this incident THAT KILLED TWO PEOPLE.
- Anyone who states that this is a quiet airport, or that it isn't a high traffic density airport, at times, have not operated there when it is.
- The continual descents of tug aircraft on downwind into the circuit at this and every other airport that has glider operations placing every other aircraft in danger every time they do it.
- The use of a runway with tailwind, why? Yet again because an operation couldn't be bothered towing infrastructure to the other end of the runway.
- The dangerous lack of situational awareness displayed by glider operations, either that or the lack of care, just to save a few bucks in airborne tug time.
- For those of you who would consider this as 'just an accident' **** you. All due to the continual selfish, dangerous and negligent use of a runway configuration to save a few bucks.

A very experienced and professional pilot and his spouse dead, for no reason.

[Capn Bloggs]

ABC is reporting that "investigators" say one was doing a go-around, as alluded-to Dora-9's post.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-29/plane-crash-at-caboolture-airfield/102662844

[Hoosten]

You say that you haven't ever had problems with this operation, but you've taken off on runway 11 and missed aircraft landing or taking off on runway 06 purely by luck. Lucky that you haven't missed calls that may have been made nominating runway 06, or did you miss a call and missed the aircraft by luck? Did you even know that an aircraft landed on that runway because you didn't hear a call?

Do you hear the constant over transmissions on the combined Caloundra, Caboolture CTAF frequency? No, it's not busy at all (sarcasm). So why in gods name when you have everything going against you do you contribute to poor traffic outcomes by using a complex runway configuration?

Do the experts know what aircraft mix uses this aerodrome? Helicopter and GA schools, RAAus schools, warbirds, chutes, experimental, certified. You name it, it fly's in and out of Caboolture.

But the monumentally stupid will promote intersecting runway use that not one ATC would ever dream of using.

[Hoosten]

Regular users of this aerodrome have seen near misses that would send chills down your spine.

I'll withdraw my comment that may be taken as alluding to any individual as a clown. I won't withdraw my thoughts of particular operations as a clownshow.

[Dora-9]

Hoosten:

Clearly you have very different opinions to mine.

Could I suggest that you approach the Club Committee (or either of the Safety Officers) with your concerns?

[Advance]

FDR Thanks for your contribution above which is valuable for its contribution to understanding WHY.

In 2002, CASA carried out an analysis of Mid Air Collisions in Australia for the period 1969 to 2001 and the conclusions support your contention that the mid air rate here per flying hour is greater than in the USA despite the much lower density of air traffic.

In that period there were 22 instances of collisions where the aircraft were not deliberately flown in the same airspace and 36 where they were flown deliberately close.... thermalling, formating, etc.

19 of the 22 were circuit area collisions.

Failúre to implent the USA NAS system and continual invention of weird and complex special Australian traffic advisory systems was then and still is a major contributing factor to our high accident rate.

[Progressive]

Canada may make you happier as a comparison, TSB provides information on their total accidents, and they are operating around 2.7 times the fleet size that Australia does. Their total accidents per year is around 20-30% more than Australia varying over time. Their number of MAC's in the last 13 years, excluding RCAF, is... 0. [3] Canada has a similar level of concentration of population centers, and has similar uncontrolled airspace regs to Aus.












I'm not sure where your stats on Canadian MACs come from but a search of the TSB for the keywords "mid air" database shows 1-2 per year for the last few years. https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/index.html

[lucille]

Is it just me?
The Gympie MAC involved two octogenarian pilots.
This one, two septuagenarian pilots.

I’m in the latter category and I know I’m having to concentrate much, much more I than I used to, just to be situationally aware around busy GA airports. I can honestly say, it is an effort now where once it was a total non event.

It could be that the last 30 years I had been flying the latest and greatest from ILS to ILS, traffic for the most part was handled by ATC and then the miracle of TCAS arrived to make things even easier, thus losing the knack of seeing with my ears.

[Capn Bloggs]

Failúre to implent the USA NAS system and continual invention of weird and complex special Australian traffic advisory systems was then and still is a major contributing factor to our high accident rate.
​​​​​​​Precisely what part of the US NAS would have prevented or at least partially mitigated this Caboolture midair?

[Clare Prop]

Many years ago a colleague had a similar situation at YBEV, he was landing on 16 and a glider landed at the same time on 08. They just missed each other. He was on the correct frequency which at the time was Perth Centre (I said it was a long time ago) and the glider was on the "glider frequency". Could this be a contributing factor? I can't understand how two aircraft at an uncontrolled aerodrome (which I note has a CTAF but is not mandatory for carriage of radio) could possibly not be aware of the other unless they were on different frequencies, or not transmitting at all?
I have had a glider tug not on the CTAF at an aerodrome where it is compulsory to carry radio cut in front of me on short final without a word - no idea they were even in the area until he filled up my windscreen and not responding to any radio calls before or after the incident, which was a matter of feet away from a midair, so perhaps on the "glider frequency" again?

[Advance]

​​​​​​​Precisely what part of the US NAS would have prevented or at least partially mitigated this Caboolture midair?

Nobody can answer that without knowing the precise circumstances of the unfortunate events of the specific CAB accident.
For many years the statistics here have been way way worse than in the USA just as the CASA study and the FDR post demonstrate.
But having flown in both countries I know which has the safer procedures and ATS systems and over long periods the statistics are reliable.

[triathlon]

Many years ago a colleague had a similar situation at YBEV, he was landing on 16 and a glider landed at the same time on 08. They just missed each other. He was on the correct frequency which at the time was Perth Centre (I said it was a long time ago) and the glider was on the "glider frequency". Could this be a contributing factor? I can't understand how two aircraft at an uncontrolled aerodrome (which I note has a CTAF but is not mandatory for carriage of radio) could possibly not be aware of the other unless they were on different frequencies, or not transmitting at all?
I have had a glider tug not on the CTAF at an aerodrome where it is compulsory to carry radio cut in front of me on short final without a word - no idea they were even in the area until he filled up my windscreen and not responding to any radio calls before or after the incident, which was a matter of feet away from a midair, so perhaps on the "glider frequency" again?

exactly , these tug and glider operators have no care bout the rules , reckless

[triathlon]

Regular users of this aerodrome have seen near misses that would send chills down your spine.

I'll withdraw my comment that may be taken as alluding to any individual as a clown. I won't withdraw my thoughts of particular operations as a clownshow.
agreed mate, these tug and glider operators have zero care for any rules

[triathlon]

Hoosten and Triathlon - do you even operate out of YCAB? I've been there for 25 years and I've never had any concerns about the professionalism of the glider operation there - so, without respect, pull your heads in.

George - my condolences at loosing friends.



One possible factor here is the amount of radio traffic on 125.85; possibly either or both aircraft missed vital calls? This frequency serves two busy airfields (Caboolture and Caloundra) plus it's used for aircraft operating in the Bribie Island training area as well as those transiting out across Morten Bay. Plus you do get clowns with lousy radio discipline; not listening out before transmitting or making incredibly long-winded speeches when a few words would suffice.

I have indeed operated out of there and it brings me chills whenever I do and even to think about. It’s been an accident waiting to happen for years and still is . Too many weekend warriors

[Capt Fathom]

Please define 'weekend warriors'.

[Capn Bloggs]

@Advance
Nobody can answer that without knowing the precise circumstances of the unfortunate events of the specific CAB accident.
​​​​​​​But having flown in both countries I know which has the safer procedures
This midair has nothing to do with your claim. What is better/safer about the way the US does non-controlled airports than us?

[fdr]

I'm not sure where your stats on Canadian MACs come from but a search of the TSB for the keywords "mid air" database shows 1-2 per year for the last few years. https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/index.html

Thanks, I was on the TSB site and looking at the statistics reports. You are correct, the figure is a total of 18 MAC events since 1995. (excludes one incorrectly allocated to MAC, and another that was a RPV vs aircraft, which is also discounted for the FAA, UKAAIB and FRA BEA data. In the last 13 years, there have been 9 MACs in Canada. The fleet and annual hours flown are around 2.3 times larger than Australia. The raw rate of events is 0.6 year, and if ajusted for fleet size or annual hours flown, around 0.5 (comparative figures are for 2016, Canada 4.55M FH AUS 3.35M FH.

[fdr]

Nobody can answer that without knowing the precise circumstances of the unfortunate events of the specific CAB accident.
For many years the statistics here have been way way worse than in the USA just as the CASA study and the FDR post demonstrate.
But having flown in both countries I know which has the safer procedures and ATS systems and over long periods the statistics are reliable.

In the 70's when I started flying in the US NAS, VFR was risky. Doing that both in civil and in military aircraft, none of it was relaxing. The addition of NEXRAD and ADSB 1090 or UART made that far more comfortable. Flying helicopters low level around LAX, ATL, MIA, ORD was uncomfortable in the old days, doing the same with ADSB IN on top of all other procedures improves SA markedly. The argument that not everyone has a transponder, and not all transponders work is quite valid, this doesn't reduce the obligations to meet all other communications and operational procedures, including the basic rules of the air, but it helps, a lot.

In the screenshot below, the two aircraft are shown on the map with a relative position azimuth and elevation that assists in getting a visual contact. The rest of the information, in this case the aircrafts callsign and distance is shown clearly. selecting the traffic on the map brings up their course, groundspeed, height, and. their registration/type of aircraft dependent on their mode of output. Within Australia, Ozrunways traffic information display is also good, however it requires the cell coverage to get the uplink of the data. The display below operates independently of ground stations.




https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1600x1200/img_0106_copy_249df5bf173739645ee0e9fba634fa1fac9df48c.png

[rodney rude]

HOOSTEN
Do you actually have a pilot licence? I can hear you yelling at the screen.

There is no such thing as an active runway at a non controlled field. You have suggested the Pawnee was using the "non active" runway and hence has caused conflict with the jab on "the active". What makes the Jab's runway "the active"? If it was quiet, no other aircraft flying, and the Pawnee was going up and down for hours accepting a crosswind on 06 for convenience - (totally legal and allowable) , was 06 "the active" and he was being within guidelines, or despite him being the only one there, is the more into wind runway "the active" and he was being negligent?

If we further that - if he was using 06 with a cross or even tailwind for 3 hours and then the Jab taxis out for just one takeoff on 29, is all of a sudden 29 now "the active" and now all of a sudden the Pawnee pilot is a clown and negligent, unprofessional? No, of course he is not. There is a preferred runway for you, but not an active.

Its called airmanship mate. If the error has occurred because of the scenario posted earlier, the hold short issue, then consider this. I failed a guy on a check because we were on finals to one runway and a student on finals to a crossing runway. The student said she would land and hold short. My guy continued. I told him to go round and failed him. He was p!ssed off because he said it was all sorted. I then pointed out that nshe is a student, and like any pilot could, what if she flares late, bounces her landing, bounce, bounce, bounce, suddenly she is halfway down the runway and no braking has occured. Whoops, couldn't hold short. She can NOT guarantee a hold short or not going round.

Accepting someone else at a non controlled field saying they will hold short could get you in huge grief. Just because the lightie driver says he will hold short means nothing. Play it safe and wait until he HAS held short. YOU must be the professional who recognises and seperates the conflict. Do not blindly trust well intentioned inexperienced pilots.

[Lead Balloon]

Rodney

The Ops Manual produced by the Aero Club talks about the ‘active runway’. Read, for example, the quote at post #55 in this thread.

It’s another example in what’s an undoubtedly well-intentioned document that’s nonetheless not part of the AIP saying things that may not be universally understood by users, even assuming it’s consistent with the CASRs.

Again, I’m not saying this has anything to do with this tragedy.

[PoppaJo]

I do agree with Rod (for once)

The closest ERSA gets to calling a runway ‘active’ is….in nil wind COND use RWY ##

It is an interesting point, I do understand Aero Clubs specifically have many local procedures and so forth, not helpful for those who don’t know about it.

I recall an argument between two pilots on a CTAF only recently. Average vis and a crossing runway. One aircraft landed and advised ‘clear of the active runway’. Only thing was, he wasn’t. They exited the ‘active’ and entered to taxi along an apparent ‘non active crossing runway’. In my book they have just gone from one active to another active. Meanwhile old mate inbound picked this up and changed his arrival to the so called ‘active’. ‘Clear of the active ##’ was a pet hate of mine back in the day. Any FO who says that like one did only recently on an arrival, will receive a very sharp comment from myself.

[Cloudee]

QUOTE=rodney rude;11476256]Do not blindly trust well intentioned inexperienced pilots.[/QUOTE]

True but how do you know if they are inexperienced? Also there are plenty of experienced pilots I would not trust. Safest thing to do is trust no one.

[43Inches]

The argument that not everyone has a transponder, and not all transponders work is quite valid, this doesn't reduce the obligations to meet all other communications and operational procedures, including the basic rules of the air, but it helps, a lot.


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for increased fitment of ACAS and cheap compatible transmitters that make small aircraft visible to these systems. However my point was that it can create laziness in looking for the threats and therefore is not a magic bullet that will cure mid air collisions. I do agree it will help in a lot of circumstance as a fall back to eyes and ears.

I think this particular incident it would probably not have helped as it sounds like both knew each other were there, had a plan, and it fell apart in a way things got overwhelming very fast. ACAS is generally inhibited when low to prevent spurious warnings or directions when terra firma is a much larger threat.

As for US/Euro/Botswanan airspace helping here, I really struggle to understand how any OCTA airspace model would have stopped this.

My view on the high rate of MAC in Australia is more along the lines of large amounts of nothingness, then suddenly arriving somewhere with lots of stuff. Most places you go in Australia are empty and you could fly with your eyes/ears shut without hitting anything, terrain, other planes etc... Then you suddenly dump yourself into an intense traffic situation on a weekend or good weather day and you are not used to practicing those separating skills. If you fly in the US or Canada you will see, hear and deal with much more traffic at much greater frequency. Dealing with traffic is a learned skill that is honed with practice and experience. It requires attention like an instrument scan or approach/landing proficiency.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Thread Drift -
@RODNEYRUDE - So you failed him for making a decision different to yours? Fair enough, to tell him to go around and explain your reasonings to him. But to fail him for that? Piss poor. If he was breaking an SOP like "NO LAHSO OPS Permitted", then perhaps yes. But if it wasn't illegal, failing him for that is ...... ridiculous.

Thread regained -
I knew Dave for many years, Flew with him for over a decade, and had comms with him while he was enjoying his retirement. I cannot vouch that he did not make an error on the day, but he was always the consummate professional and would have made all applicable radio calls and followed to the best of his powers, any procedures.

[Rataxes]

- The duty runway clearly being runway 11, it being nominated by pilots but the glider fraternity using runway 06 because they couldn't be bothered towing their rubbish around to runway 11 because runway 06 is a hop, step and jump to their hangar.
Apparently there were two "duty runways" at that time. One "nominated" by each of the aircraft involved here. Of course there's no such thing as a duty runway at that airport and if you operate there under the misconception there is then you may want to check the regs. Whether or not you approve of it, a pilot can choose to operate on any available runway.

they couldn't be bothered towing their rubbish around to runway 11 because runway 06 is a hop, step and jump to their hangar.
You seem to have a very personal, possibly irrational, emotional investment here which is clouding your judgement regarding the accident.

- The incredible stupidity of operating on runway 06 whilst other pilots are using runway 11 when there is a forest between the two runways. It is impossible to see aircraft operating from either runway so why do it?
Maybe the investigation (remember that?) will answer your question. Let's all try to restrain ourselves for long enough to allow the investigators to do their job.

- There are pilots that heard the radio transmissions or lack there of with this incident THAT KILLED TWO PEOPLE.
Are you claiming neither of the accident aircraft had made ANY of the required (or additional) radio transmissions? Given the backgrounds of the two pilots this is highly unlikely and a grossly inflammatory accusation of the two, one of whom is no longer able to speak up against you.

[megan]

Do not blindly trust well intentioned inexperienced pilotsThis unfortunate accident is a salutary lesson that you can't blindly trust anyone, we all make mistakes, absolutely no one is immune.

[Dora-9]

You seem to have a very personal, possibly irrational, emotional investment here

Oh, how true. It seems that triathlon is drinking from the same fountain as well.

[Mach E Avelli]

I have indeed operated out of there and it brings me chills whenever I do and even to think about. It’s been an accident waiting to happen for years and still is . Too many weekend warriors
Neither pilot in this tragedy could be fairly described as a ‘weekend warrior’. If there was another aircraft which caused the Pawnee to go around, do we know whether that pilot was a weekend warrior (however you define that), so
who would you like to blame?
Or maybe blame the design of the airport and have it redeveloped into a shopping centre.
Recreational flying at potentially hazardous airfields is optional, not mandatory.

[MALT68]

Apologies slight thread drift.
Re #77.

What happened many years ago (how many years ago are we talking about?) at YBEV is irrelevant to the current tragic accident. That was then, this is now.
RWY 16/34 at YBEV is long (over 1,000 m). I was not there, however, the glider pilot most likely landed on RWY 08 because they were getting low, it was the more into wind runway, and was concentrating on aviating ("Aviate, navigate, communicate").

I have been involved in gliding since 1987. Yes, in the earlier days, gliders used 122.7 MHz. Limitations were technology (single channel VHF with small batteries) and non-requirement for a flight radiotelephone operator's rating when operating locally. When gaining a C-rating, getting a flight radiotelephone operator's rating was part of this. Yes, gliding was viewed with suspicion by GA.
Most of the glider pilots and tug pilots I know are NOT cowboys or reckless (and come from all areas of life experience, career experience, upto international airline pilots and ex-military pilots), so it is extremely unfair to tar them all with the same brush. Moral panic about any airspace user can be used (often with little basis in reality). Who next, airship pilots, balloonists...?

Fast forward to 2023.
YBEV has it's own CTAF now 126.85 MHz because 126.7 MHz was always saturated with calls from fields as far away as YBUN and this degraded safety and situational awareness for ALL operators at YBEV. (see: FAC-YBEV.fm (airservicesaustralia.com (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/ersa/FAC_YBEV_15JUN2023.pdf)).
Nowadays, the glider training syllabus is incorporated into the GPC (Glider Pilot's Certificate), and includes radio ops, human factors, the works.
YBEV is a busy gliding training and cross-country operation, plus ultra-lights and GA, it is also visited by itinerant powered aircraft from YPJT doing training.
Nowadays, the technology is better (light weight better batteries providing better duration and signal strength), dual channel scanning VHF's are available to monitor CTAF and other frequencies.
Many gliders are now fitted with FLARM (because the biggest threat of a mid-air in a glider is another glider).
The use of ADSB (or integration with FLARM) is in gliding an area of active research, the main impediments being the weight penalty of the batteries and technology, but again watch this space.

Also, glider ops are noted on the WAC's, some cases VNC's and VTC's. Look for the double cross. Also a double cross will be displayed next to the windsock. All for good reason. Do users know what a double cross symbol with a "w" means when on a chart?

Also from #77:
"I have had a glider tug not on the CTAF at an aerodrome where it is compulsory to carry radio cut in front of me on short final without a word - no idea they were even in the area until he filled up my windscreen and not responding to any radio calls before or after the incident, which was a matter of feet away from a midair, so perhaps on the "glider frequency" again?"

Again this is provided with no context, was the tow plane in distress for some reason (partial power loss etc.). How do you know he was not on CTAF? How do you know your radio was working properly (wrong frequency selected, wrong radio-set selected out, your volume turned down). Were you on a straight in approach?

Going back to the YCAB fatality, from the facts emerging, a/c on different runways, PA-25 landing then ?did go around (for reason's that aren't clear yet), Jab departing on another runway, mid air happened between departing Jab and the PA-25 during it's go around.
I note noise sensitive areas in the YCAB ops manual, hence predicating particular runway use.

[MALT68]

Re #57:
FRP foam sandwich. Strong and lightweight. Part of composite construction (in planes, boats, everywhere) which often has load ratings better than aviation steel. Far from flimsy. Polystyrene may also be used pack spaces and hold form.

[Lead Balloon]

It's always fascinating watching strongly-held but sometimes diametrically-opposed opinions being expressed by ostensibly very experienced aviators, without a single regulation being cited as authority for the opinion.

The ‘basic’ regulations for right of way and avoiding collisions at or in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes have been the same for decades. There’s been some fiddling around with how circuits must be joined and straight-in approaches and radio calls etc, but the ‘basic’ regs haven’t changed.

While it may be true to say that, as a general principle, a pilot can choose to operate on any runway available at a non-controlled aerodrome, there are some regulations that are relevant to that choice. One of those regulations is the one that makes it a criminal offence not to use the most into wind runway for take-off and landing. That offence is created by CASR 91.380(1).

Some might describe the most into wind runway at a non-controlled aerodrome as the ‘active runway’ or the ‘duty runway’ or ‘Stig The Wonder Llama Goes Quantity Surveying’ or whatever. That’s their choice. I choose to call it the ‘Rule 1 Runway’.

Rule 1 is simple: Use the most into wind runway for take-off and landing, or you commit an offence.

The safety basis for that rule can be found in any good BAK text and by chatting with pilots with experience in operations at non-controlled aerodromes where radios are either not mandatory or occasionally the subject of finger trouble.

However…

There are exceptions to most rules. Many of us have made many take-offs and landings using other than the most into wind runway, legally and safely.

CASR 91.380(2) says that CASR 91.380(1) does not apply if:

(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft allow the aircraft to land or take off downwind or crosswind; and

(b) the pilot is satisfied that traffic conditions at the [non-controlled] aerodrome enable such a landing or take‑off to be carried out safely.

But note well: The pilot bears the evidential burden in relation to (a) and (b). In other words, unless the pilot who chooses to land on or take-off from a runway other than the Rule 1 Runway establishes (a) and (b) to the requisite evidential standard (or one of the other ‘standard’ defences is made out), that landing or take-off is a criminal offence.

The stuff in (a) isn’t that hard to show, if – for example - the actual crosswind in which the pilot landed was not greater than the demonstrated crosswind in the aircraft paperwork. (Although the phrase “flight manual instructions” is perturbing. I can imagine hours of fun arguments about what the word “instructions” means in (a).)

The stuff in (b) is a little more complex. Note that (b) doesn’t say “weather” conditions or “wind” conditions or “runway” conditions. It says “traffic” conditions. That’s because of the very obvious point that other pilots may choose to, or may even be compelled to, use the Rule 1 Runway.

The pilot of the aircraft landing on or taking-off from other than the Rule 1 Runway must, if he or she is to avoid committing an offence, turn his or her mind to the traffic conditions, and be satisfied that those conditions enable the landing or take-off to be carried out safely. The onus is on the pilot using the non-Rule 1 Runway because that pilot will – or should – know that some or all of any other traffic in the vicinity is more likely to be using the Rule 1 Runway and the pilots of those other aircraft may not be aware that someone has chosen not to use the Rule 1 Runway. (Remember those no-radio and radio finger trouble ops out there…)

Of course, it gets a bit more complicated if there’s nil wind or a variable direction wind.

So bear this in mind when you next choose to use a runway other than the most into wind runway – if there is wind - for take-off or landing at a non-controlled aerodrome: If there’s some incident, you’d better be able establish the two elements of the defence in CASR 91.380(2).

Again, I’m not suggesting my point has any relevance to the tragedy the subject of this thread, but given the way in which the thread has been running, it may be of general interest.

[43Inches]

It's like roundabouts on the road. A lot of drivers have no clue on the actual, very simple rule for right of way on a roundabout, and that is whoever is on the roundabout has right of way, anyone entering the roundabout has to give way to vehicles already on the roundabout (at the point of entry). None of this give way to the right or anything else, simply who's on first wins. Now that being said, you can enter and pass in front of another vehicle if you are not going to impede their travel, that is create a collision risk or simply force them to deviate or slow down, so on a large roundabout you are quite legal to enter while another vehicle is on it as long as you have not impeded them, they just have right of way. Once you are all on the intersection, the over riding rule which says basically you must avoid a crash applies, so you can not use your right of way knowingly to create a collision or push somebody off the road.

So coming back to the aviation equivalent in the circuit pattern, the rules are there to promote who has right of way, and should be applied. Those using the most into wind have right of way, those landing have right of way over others taxiing or taking off and lower aircraft to land wins (except if you create this situation after the fact by diving). There is also specified separation requirements for continuing a landing or commencing a take-off to be satisfied. Then there's gliders, have right of way over powered aircraft, aircraft in distress have right of way and so on...

But it all goes out the window if you see a dangerous situation developing in that you must take action to avoid that situation, by law. If in doubt wait, stay clear and clarify what is happening.

If there's an aircraft taking off (rolling) with tail wind on 18 and i'm established on final for 36, into wind, I'm not going to 'assert' right of way and continue to land. My obligation to operate an aircraft safely (by law) compels me to take avoiding action as early as possible to diffuse a dangerous situation.

Also part of the reason for having a rule to be 'established' on final by a specific point is to give traffic on the ground sufficient lookout time to spot arriving aircraft, tight descending turns onto very close final will reduce the opportunity for sighting and reduce the ability for departing/taxiing aircraft to sight you. Apart from the obvious flight safety issues of stable approach and stall spin issues turning low and slow that is.

[43Inches]

Something else that seems to be emerging from this accident is that the collision may have happened with one aircraft conducting a go-round. It really is something you should consider on any approach, what will I do if I go round, and is the missed approach path safe. IFR it might be a thunderstorm in the MA path, hold until its clear, it might be traffic in the upwind path during a visual approach, terrain, wildlife, weather. Have a think and plan for what you will do to reduce the risks, if the plan is uncertain, don't approach until its clear, don't put yourself in a 'land or else' position....

Even during legal LAHSO operations the active/hold short aircraft is not committed to land, they can go around at any time and the tower is meant to give them traffic avoidance advice.

Do not perform quasi LAHSO OCTA, no problem saying you will hold short, and when you are stopped short of the other runway the other aircraft can depart, but definitely do not do it simultaneously assuming the other guy can stop, or wont go round.

[Cilba]

Great words, 43!

[1Charlie]

This is very sad.

I hope the investigation recommends the use of a discrete CTAFrequency. I’ve only flown into YCAB about a dozen times, but it’s difficult to build a situational awareness of the traffic disposition. Lots of over transmissions between aircraft at YCDR, an Aerodrome with a similar sounding name, and similar runway layout, complicated by aircraft using conflicting traffic patterns. In fact, the last time I flew into YCAB, with a loaded 11 circuit, SPA taxied out and departed off 06. It certainly raised my eyebrows. Whenever I go in there I tell my passengers to keep their eyes peeled 👀

[MALT68]

Thanks 43inches @ #99: :)

He's right y'know.
Here outwestdownunda: Road Traffic Code 2000 - [05-m0-01].pdf (legislation.wa.gov.au) (https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_42207.pdf/$FILE/Road%20Traffic%20Code%202000%20-%20%5B05-m0-01%5D.pdf?OpenElement)
95. Right of way in roundabout
A driver entering a roundabout must give way to a vehicle that is within the roundabout. Points: 3 Modified penalty: 3 PU [Regulation 95 amended: SL 2020/253 r. 28.]

[rodney rude]

Rex Havoc. Here we have an accident at Caboolture which at this stage appears to have been the result of two aircraft using crossing runways at the same time. 2 people have lost their lives. And you say I am an idiot for failing a pilot who put his aircraft onto finals in direct opposition to another aircraft on finals to a crossing runway???? 2 aircraft on crossing runways and 2 are dead. I see, in my aircraft, one of my pilots put him and me in conflict with another aeroplane with very real possibility of collision. 2 have just died because of this scenario and I am supposedly an idiot for failing a pilot with no SA and zero airmanship. You're right I should ignore that. You really are dumber than you look

[Duck Pilot]

Rex Havoc. Here we have an accident at Caboolture which at this stage appears to have been the result of two aircraft using crossing runways at the same time. 2 people have lost their lives. And you say I am an idiot for failing a pilot who put his aircraft onto finals in direct opposition to another aircraft on finals to a crossing runway???? 2 aircraft on crossing runways and 2 are dead. I see, in my aircraft, one of my pilots put him and me in conflict with another aeroplane with very real possibility of collision. 2 have just died because of this scenario and I am supposedly an idiot for failing a pilot with no SA and zero airmanship. You're right I should ignore that. You really are dumber than you look

Totally agree with Rodney.

The candidate made a critical error that could have resulted in an accident on a flight test - fail! There is no if’s or buts end of story on a flight test.

Please don’t criticise Flight Examiners who make tough decisions to fail candidates, they are the last line of defence in an attempt to improve flight standards!

And we wonder why some freshly minted CPL holders front up for jobs interviews and get punted on a flight check with a Chief Pilot. I’ve seen some CPL holders who should never have been issued a PPL, let alone a CPL. Sadly there’s at least one of them who is now dead, he died in a plane crash.

They slip through the cracks.

[Dora-9]

I hope the investigation recommends the use of a discrete CTAFrequency

Me too,1Charlie.

This is second hand information, but I believe that there was considerable chatter on 125.85 at the time.

[The sod]

Slight thread drift. A contributor here reminded me of the parachute ops at Caboolture, where the airfield was used as the DZ. What a farce that was. Whoever authorised that should have been sacked.

Now almost the same thing is happening at Caloundra. Parachutists are being dropped into the circuit area, or next to it. An accident waiting to happen. Its a disgrace.

[Mach E Avelli]

​​​​​​ Rex Havoc. Here we have an accident at Caboolture which at this stage appears to have been the result of two aircraft using crossing runways at the same time. 2 people have lost their lives. And you say I am an idiot for failing a pilot who put his aircraft onto finals in direct opposition to another aircraft on finals to a crossing runway???? 2 aircraft on crossing runways and 2 are dead. I see, in my aircraft, one of my pilots put him and me in conflict with another aeroplane with very real possibility of collision. 2 have just died because of this scenario and I am supposedly an idiot for failing a pilot with no SA and zero airmanship. You're right I should ignore that. You really are dumber than you look
I too have failed pilots on checks for lack of SA. One was on his final command check, with a F/O in the RHS and me in the jumpseat. He had got through every stage without any great distinction, but seemed ready, otherwise he would not have been there. Anyway, after landing on 24 at Perth, just ahead of another jet on fairly short final for 21, he wanted to turn into the intersection. Of course I over rode that in no uncertain terms! After another six months in the RHS, his SA was much improved.
​​​​​Apologies for drift, and in no way implying that either pilot in this tragedy lacked SA, but I am with Rodney on this.

[zegnaangelo]

It's like roundabouts on the road. A lot of drivers have no clue on the actual, very simple rule for right of way on a roundabout, and that is whoever is on the roundabout has right of way, anyone entering the roundabout has to give way to vehicles already on the roundabout (at the point of entry). None of this give way to the right or anything else, simply who's on first wins. Now that being said, you can enter and pass in front of another vehicle if you are not going to impede their travel, that is create a collision risk or simply force them to deviate or slow down, so on a large roundabout you are quite legal to enter while another vehicle is on it as long as you have not impeded them, they just have right of way. Once you are all on the intersection, the over riding rule which says basically you must avoid a crash applies, so you can not use your right of way knowingly to create a collision or push somebody off the road.

So coming back to the aviation equivalent in the circuit pattern, the rules are there to promote who has right of way, and should be applied. Those using the most into wind have right of way, those landing have right of way over others taxiing or taking off and lower aircraft to land wins (except if you create this situation after the fact by diving). There is also specified separation requirements for continuing a landing or commencing a take-off to be satisfied. Then there's gliders, have right of way over powered aircraft, aircraft in distress have right of way and so on...

But it all goes out the window if you see a dangerous situation developing in that you must take action to avoid that situation, by law. If in doubt wait, stay clear and clarify what is happening.

If there's an aircraft taking off (rolling) with tail wind on 18 and i'm established on final for 36, into wind, I'm not going to 'assert' right of way and continue to land. My obligation to operate an aircraft safely (by law) compels me to take avoiding action as early as possible to diffuse a dangerous situation.

Also part of the reason for having a rule to be 'established' on final by a specific point is to give traffic on the ground sufficient lookout time to spot arriving aircraft, tight descending turns onto very close final will reduce the opportunity for sighting and reduce the ability for departing/taxiing aircraft to sight you. Apart from the obvious flight safety issues of stable approach and stall spin issues turning low and slow that is.

I guess a bit of thread drift again, but this got me recalling what happened on one of my PPL Training Navs YPJT - YNRG (which also has glider operations and 2 kind of cross runways 10/28 and 18/36 - though less chance of a collision on a ground given they only intersect at each runway's respective thresholds)

I dont recall seeing any gliders per-se but remember seeing a Pawnee. Instructor was handling all radios and talking to the Pawnee who was using Rwy 36. I was coming short final into Rwy 10, and will be landing well short of the intersection of Rwy 36. No problem I thought. Then I hear the instructor requesting Pawnee to delay his take-off for a while in case I had to do a go-around. Good thinking .. I never thought about that scenario. Now on hindsight a great call and a great learning lesson especially if that indeed this was what caused the collision at Caboolture.

[Clare Prop]

Again this is provided with no context, was the tow plane in distress for some reason (partial power loss etc.). How do you know he was not on CTAF? How do you know your radio was working properly (wrong frequency selected, wrong radio-set selected out, your volume turned down). Were you on a straight in approach?

The old patronising tone eh, try to be civil. That particular aerodrome is certified and has an AFRU, we were in touch with other aircraft on the same frequency and no, we were not doing a straight in approach. The tug was no comms and cut in front of us on short final. Had they been using the radio and we were aware they were in the circuit I would have been happy to let them go No 1 but they had chosen not to use the radio at a certified aerodrome so we had no way of knowing thier position or intentions. This was not at YBEV, it was at another aerodrome. YBEV ops are always very professional, give you a heads up on glider traffic when you do the inbound call and now there is no confusion about the frequencies that there was in the days of Perth Centre.

However, a single CTAF that included Northam, York, Beverley and White Gum would be safer than having the current "venn diagram" overlapping for the 10nm radius of each, with three out of the four having different frequencies.

[Hoosten]

agreed mate, these tug and glider operators have zero care for any rules

Glider pilots hang their (terry towelling) hats on 'you must give way to me' yes, we do. By extension, the majority of tug pilots use this. Dropping in to the circuit at any location they feel like. Without any regard to convention or airmanship.

[Squawk7700]

Glider pilots hang their (terry towelling) hats on 'you must give way to me' yes, we do. By extension, the majority of tug pilots use this. Dropping in to the circuit at any location they feel like. Without any regard to convention or airmanship.

You mean like when they have run out of lift and must land soon after?

[Hoosten]

HOOSTEN
Do you actually have a pilot licence? I can hear you yelling at the screen.

Mate, do you want the dick measuring contest? The licence and operational ratings I hold qualify me to comment, if you want the PM, just ask and I'll run them past you.

There is no such thing as an active runway at a non controlled field.

Isn't there now? You could probably ask any of the pilots that show any sort of airmanship at that aerodrome, yes, you're right, it's not the 'active' runway, it's the preferred runway. You know, the one into wind.

​​​​​​​You have suggested the Pawnee was using the "non active" runway and hence has caused conflict with the jab on "the active". What makes the Jab's runway "the active"? If it was quiet, no other aircraft flying, and the Pawnee was going up and down for hours accepting a crosswind on 06 for convenience - (totally legal and allowable) , was 06 "the active" and he was being within guidelines, or despite him being the only one there, is the more into wind runway "the active" and he was being negligent?

OK mate, I won't make the assumptions you make. How about you draw up on google maps a downwind for runways 06 and 11 and tell me if you think there's a problem when you hear a taxy call for runway 11. Also, project ahead a little and tell me if you think there may be a problem if that aircraft gets airborne while you're on final for 06?

​​​​​​​If we further that - if he was using 06 with a cross or even tailwind for 3 hours and then the Jab taxis out for just one takeoff on 29, is all of a sudden 29 now "the active" and now all of a sudden the Pawnee pilot is a clown and negligent, unprofessional? No, of course he is not. There is a preferred runway for you, but not an active.

I've already withdrawn my comment that may have inferred that an individual may have been targeted as a clown. I'll repeat myself, there are clownshows at multiple aerodromes around this country. Riddle me this one though, why would you operate with downwind for 3 hours? Clownshow much? Unprofessional yes. But that's not what this pilot did though so your runway 29 crap is moot.

I know who the tug pilot is. This person is clearly not a clown. The people who run these shows and perpetually use the excuse that 'the glider pilot has to pay the tug for every minute it's airborne' is the clownshow here because it causes the very problems that occur at every aerodrome. You may want to defend this sort of crap, but two people dead, that justifiable is it?

​​​​​​​Its called airmanship mate. If the error has occurred because of the scenario posted earlier, the hold short issue, then consider this. I failed a guy on a check because we were on finals to one runway and a student on finals to a crossing runway. The student said she would land and hold short. My guy continued. I told him to go round and failed him. He was p!ssed off because he said it was all sorted. I then pointed out that nshe is a student, and like any pilot could, what if she flares late, bounces her landing, bounce, bounce, bounce, suddenly she is halfway down the runway and no braking has occured. Whoops, couldn't hold short. She can NOT guarantee a hold short or not going round.

Maaaaate, how lucky is the pilot you failed? Thank you for your contribution to Australian air safety and your upholding of the airmanship mantra, clearly a lost artform.

​​​​​​​Accepting someone else at a non controlled field saying they will hold short could get you in huge grief. Just because the lightie driver says he will hold short means nothing. Play it safe and wait until he HAS held short. YOU must be the professional who recognises and seperates the conflict. Do not blindly trust well intentioned inexperienced pilots.

So what you're saying is it was DM's fault for not applying SIMOPS procedures to an OCTA aerodrome? There's a couple of big calls on your part maaaaaate, there are a couple of pilots that saw and heard what went on that day. And I doubt you're one of them.

DM would call me an acquaintance perhaps, went on a few (motor) bike rides with the fellow. He showed more airmanship on his left hand little finger, finger nail than you lot who are quite clearly prepared to accept two deaths as part of normal ops. Accept deaths to allow clownshows to do whatever they want, wherever they want.

[Hoosten]

You mean like when they have run out of lift and must land soon after?

Did you miss the 'yes we do' bit? Did you also miss the 'by extension' bit as well?

[MALT68]

Quote: "The old patronising tone eh, try to be civil."
In no way was I meant to be patronising, gosh. I would dare say I am being quite civil compared to some of the bile expressed in this thread. OK I might have called someone a nasty troll in this thread, but I believe that was justified.
Clare Prop, you provided the context in your subsequent post, thanks, there is now better understanding of what you experienced.
I was raising possibilities due to your lack of detail in your previous post about your tug scare, because your presentation seemed very one-sided (four-legs good, two legs bad).

"However, a single CTAF that included Northam, York, Beverley and White Gum would be safer than having the current "venn diagram" overlapping for the 10nm radius of each, with three out of the four having different frequencies."
Curious, logic doesn't quite work, by that argument, YPPH, YPJT and YPEA should be on the same frequency too.
At YBEV, because it is a busy airfield with much local flying devoted to training, I would rather not know what is going on in YBUN when trying to instruct or conduct a passenger flight. (I am also sure that YBUN doesn’t want to hear YBEV CCT calls). The one reason YBEV went to CTAF was to declutter the air waves from York and White Gum radio traffic.
It could be construed that is a patronising argument that aviators cannot manage frequency changes.

As a tow pilot (meaning PPL too) and glider pilot, I am acutely aware of congested circuit ops and the potential for mid-airs. Tow planes just don't drop in on the live side down wind as suggested, aerobatic descents are frowned upon, and descents are managed to prevent shock cooling of the engine. Yes tow planes do rapid descent by the nature of their ops and usually in a way to least cause any conflict, that is why there is a double cross on the charts.

Fundamental rules of the air is that power gives way to gliders and gliders to balloons. That is just the way it is and makes common sense. Powered aircraft have a power lever (or similar combination of levers) at their disposal for when needed, when they don't work, you become a glider (and people will give way to you too).

The moral panic generated by this thread with regards to glider ops and tow plane operations is astounding.

I wonder how many of the nay sayers have actually been up in a glider?

Before condemning, why not walk in the shoes of the other?

PS: Lastly, I would never be condescending, that is where I would talk down to someone.

[Hoosten]

You seem to have a very personal, possibly irrational, emotional investment here which is clouding your judgement regarding the accident.

If you call two people getting killed a very personal, possibly irrational, emotional investment, yep guilty. Like I said, I wasn't much more than an acquaintance. But when you see people cut down like this, in circumstances that are repeated day after day after day............read the comments above, there are multiple pilots recounting similar story's of tugs using opposite direction, crossing runways for no other reason but to cut corners and save a buck.

Clouding my judgement? Yeah, probably in some areas, mainly the language I use. Not runway ops though.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Rodney Rude (lives up to his name)
Rex Havoc. Here we have an accident at Caboolture which at this stage appears to have been the result of two aircraft using crossing runways at the same time. 2 people have lost their lives. And you say I am an idiot for failing a pilot who put his aircraft onto finals in direct opposition to another aircraft on finals to a crossing runway???? 2 aircraft on crossing runways and 2 are dead. I see, in my aircraft, one of my pilots put him and me in conflict with another aeroplane with very real possibility of collision. 2 have just died because of this scenario and I am supposedly an idiot for failing a pilot with no SA and zero airmanship. You're right I should ignore that. You really are dumber than you look

No need to say that I am dumber than I look,

I said it was a thread drift. The fact of the matter is, (one which you get so worked up about is) Your man in the cockpit was not doin something illegal. Yes it was not sound airmanship, which you could have debriefed him on. You would have made a typical trainer at EK proud. "I failed you Bloggs because you should have diverted to x in my opinion and not continued on to y". Pathetic.

The Caboolture accident has not been investigated yet. For many years, there have been many many many airports in Australia, which have crossing runways and operations with LAHSO type ops. Not illegal. YIFL is one such place. Crop dusters are taking off and landing on whatever runway they want all the time, and same with the meat bombers.

You don't have to remind me that 2 people have lost their lives, Dave was a good friend of mine. It was not the same scenario are you described in your "check" case, as both you and your "student" were on approach to land, Dave was taking off, and the Pawnee was landing, I believe. The thread drift case I was referring to, was that I don't believe your failing of the poor candidate that day was correct.

So my point still stands you sanctimonious pr..k.

[Clare Prop]

Malt 68,

Bunbury is on 127.0 which it shares with Busselton and Capel and had done for some time before YBEV changed to 126.85. If this was part of the reasoning to change the frequency then it seems odd - as was the decision to do it in between update cycles. It's all very well to say people should read the NOTAMs but a lot of people don't, and certainly don't expect a new CTAF to appear half way through a cycle, so if situational awareness was the issue then why not do it when the new docs came out?

If you fly from YNTM to YBEV, within that 30 nm there are three different frequencies that overlap within the 10nm radii of Northam 124.2, York and White Gum 126.7 and Beverley 126.85; so there are areas where more than one frequency is correct and to some extent is open to interpretation, if you draw 10nm radius circles around them you get a venn diagram. This could lead to a breakdown in situational awareness due to two aircraft in close proximity and possibly climbing/descending/on reciprocal headings/staying clear of gliders being on different frequencies. I think it would be safer if it worked on the same principle as the Bunbury/Busselton/Capel or Murrayfield/Serpentine model. The analogy of Jandakot/Perth/Pearce doesn't stand up because they are controlled aerodromes so it would be ludicrous to have them all on the same frequency.

Fully aware of how glider ops work, rights of way and what a double cross means, thanks. Hence my surprise to see a tug plane in radio silence at a certified aerodrome doing a steep turn onto final at 300 feet on final to cut in front of my aircraft at 400 feet. My point is that people should communicate and if the pilot had an operational reason to do this then all they needed to do was say so and I would have far preferred to go around and let them make number one than have to do a collision avoidance manoevre at low level.

My point all along is that see and avoid is a lot easier if you are in radio communication.

[Clare Prop]

​​​​​​
I too have failed pilots on checks for lack of SA. One was on his final command check, with a F/O in the RHS and me in the jumpseat. He had got through every stage without any great distinction, but seemed ready, otherwise he would not have been there. Anyway, after landing on 24 at Perth, just ahead of another jet on fairly short final for 21, he wanted to turn into the intersection. Of course I over rode that in no uncertain terms! After another six months in the RHS, his SA was much improved.
​​​​​Apologies for drift, and in no way implying that either pilot in this tragedy lacked SA, but I am with Rodney on this.

Myself also. It would certainly come under the heading of "safety critical". therefore a fail of that item and test discontinued. I have had similar on a test where pilots decided to land before the runway was clear. In one case because there was an emu on the runway "But it would have got out of the way when we got closer" and another it was a Cessna who seemed to have stopped, possibly due to a puncture "But I was cleared to land by the tower" he said when I took the controls and went around.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Clare Prop,
Once again, yours was a different scenario to what RUDE had.
Mach- You and Rude are examples was Australian aviation is a joke overseas.
Anyway, after landing on 24 at Perth, just ahead of another jet on fairly short final for 21, he wanted to turn into the intersection. Of course I over rode that in no uncertain terms!
I'm not aware of the intricacies of that runway. What was the problem with his decision? Was it illegal? Did it contravene SOPSs? Why was it unsafe? So you delayed him by 6 months. You are Rude are a fine match.

[Lead Balloon]

I think Mach is talking about a pilot who landed on one runway (24) and thought it would be ok to turn onto another runway (21/03), or maybe do a U turn at the intersection or perhaps mistook that other runway for a taxiway, after landing.

At a controlled aerodrome.

With an aircraft on final for 21.

If I had been in the back in that situation, I would be glad Mach was in the front…

[Mach E Avelli]

Clare Prop,
Once again, yours was a different scenario to what RUDE had.
Mach- You and Rude are examples was Australian aviation is a joke overseas.

I'm not aware of the intricacies of that runway. What was the problem with his decision? Was it illegal? Did it contravene SOPSs? Why was it unsafe? So you delayed him by 6 months. You are Rude are a fine match.
Lead Balloon has kindly explained above why it was unsafe.
The ‘joke’ of our Aussie company policy required all failures to undergo remedial training before a second attempt. It was also a requirement that the second attempt at command be passed, or the candidate could expect a more permanent tenure in the RHS. The extent of remedial training varied according to the seriousness of the failure. For minor deficiencies in technique, a trip to the simulator sufficed. Sometimes, a few more sectors on the line.
For some pilots, situation awareness and airmanship are quickly acquired. For others it can be a slow learning process, but once acquired usually retained.
For a few, sadly, there is no way they ever get it. These are the ones that have to be weeded out.
When a pilot under check (and hence under some pressure) makes a serious error of judgement, the examiner, and by extension, the training department, have a responsibility to probe a bit deeper. This can not be done by having a nice chat over tea and bickies, or in a day, out for a jolly on a flight where nothing happens. Over an extended period, situations are bound to arise to thoroughly evaluate the candidate.

[MALT68]

Thanks Clare Prop #118

It comes down to “in proximity” WRT the correct frequency.
The hypotheticals regarding reciprocal headings etc. are fair but could happen anywhere where there are airfields close together. Is YBEV having a CTAF shared with White Gum and Northam the answer a la YMUL and YSEN, not convinced due to over transmission and frequency congestion.
After your description about the tow plane incident, certainly rude, but not necessarily a function of it being a tow plane.
The YBUN CTAF call was from about 6 years ago, perhaps the transmitting pilot had finger trouble.

Going back to YCAB, is the assumption that both planes were on the CTAF. Others have reported frequency congestion from adjacent fields.

[Clare Prop]

It's rare to have so many different frequencies overlapping. I've been flying around that area for over 30 years and frequency congestion really isn't a problem. Certainly nowhere near as busy as the Serpentine/ Murray Field area can get and that works. Better that than people in the same area on different frequencies.
As for the tug incident, the following weekend the same tug did the same thing to a student on a solo nav. Is it worth risking a collision by doing a non-standard approach than to take an extra two minutes and to use the radio?
When you call inbound to the other gliding airfields around there will be someone on frequency to give you a heads up about gliders in the air, runway in use, tugs about to launch etc and good communication. I don't know why they can't all do that.

[Chronic Snoozer]

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 91.370Take-off or landing at non-controlled aerodrome--all aircraft (1) This regulation applies to an aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) (the subject aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) ) at a non-controlled aerodrome (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s202.900.html#non-controlled_aerodrome) at which a take-off or landing of the aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) can only occur from or to a runway.

Rules for take-off

(2) The pilot in command (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s202.900.html#pilot_in_command) of the subject aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) (other than a glider (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s202.900.html#glider) being towed by a glider (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s202.900.html#glider) tug) for a flight (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s61.070.html#flight) contravenes this subregulation if:

(a) the subject aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) commences to take-off from a runway; and
(b) before taking off, a requirement mentioned in subregulation (3) is not met.

(3) The requirements are the following:

(a) if another aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) is taking off before the subject aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) from the same runway:(i) the other aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) must have crossed the upwind end of the runway; or
(ii) the other aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) must have commenced a turn; or
(iii) the runway must be longer than 1,800 m and the other aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) must have become airborne and be at least 1,800 m beyond the proposed point of lift-off of the subject aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft); or
(iv) the other aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) and the subject aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) must both have a maximum take-off weight below 2,000 kg, and the other aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) must be airborne and at least 600 m beyond the proposed point of lift-off of the subject aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft);
(b) if another aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) is landing on the same runway before the subject aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft)--the other aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) must have vacated the runway;

(c) if another aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) is landing before the subject aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) and is using a crossing runway--the other aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) must have crossed, or must have stopped short of, the runway the subject aircraft (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s142.035.html#aircraft) is taking off from.

Part 91 General operating and flight rules s91.370 (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/casr1998333/s91.370.html)

I understand this to mean that unless the pilot taking off has visually sighted the landing aircraft stopped short of the intersection, there is no guarantee of separation. From what I have seen on Google Earth and read here, it appears unlikely a pilot on the threshold of 11 (or holding) could see an aircraft on the runway to the west of the intersection of 06/24 and 11/29. Is that correct?

I can also picture a scenario where the landing aircraft goes around from a low height, transmits a call to that effect but it is not heard due to line of sight issues or worse, lost in the clutter of a busy frequency/over transmitted.

The question is then how often would this occur at uncontrolled aerodromes?

[43Inches]

I'm not sure where you get that visual sighting is required. It states clearly that the aircraft must have passed through or stopped short, no additional requirements are stipulated on how you assess that. That could be confirmed by radio as well as visual, or phone or whatever else can signal to the PIC waiting to depart that the aircraft has indeed stopped short of the intersection. However there must be some confirmation other than a pilot saying they will stop short, otherwise you are assuming a lot. As saying you will, is not confirmation that you have stopped short, which the later is the legal requirement. This is to allow for obvious things like go-rounds and over-runs.

That being said, if you don't trust the other pilot to report having held short then by all means wait for visual confirmation.

Sometimes the landing aircraft might say they intend to land and hold short of the intersection for you departure, that might not mean they assume you will roll immediately, just that they are saying once you see us hold short, off you go. They might assume you know your rules and will hold for them until they stop or turn around.

The other point to consider is the rule has regard to 'who is first'. So if the landing aircraft is first to land the aircraft taking off has to wait, if the aircraft taking off commences roll before the arriving aircraft crosses the airfield boundary it all gets complicated and the landing aircraft then must apply the same rule set or waiting until the aircraft departing has crossed the intersection before proceeding beyond the boundary fence.... This is where it all gets too close to call anyway, so why didn't you organize it much earlier.

[Lead Balloon]

The question is then how often would this occur at uncontrolled aerodromes?If by "this" you mean traffic using different, crossing runways at uncontrolled aerodromes, and transmissions being garbled, over-transmitted or not heard due to finger trouble: Quite frequently in my experience.

We should also beware the 'false dichotomy' risk: One pilot having to be entirely in the right and therefore others being entirely in the wrong. It may be that a pilot beginning a take-off roll should be waiting, in accordance with 91.370, for an aircraft landing on the crossing runway. But if the first aircraft is using the most into wind runway, it is also true that the pilot of the aircraft landing on the crossing runway shouldn't be doing so unless, among other things, satisfied, after taking into consideration the other traffic, that it is safe to land on the crossing runway.

[43Inches]

Hence why right of way should not be sorted out below 500 feet with one on final and one taking off. Generally the simplest answer is if the aircraft on final sees an aircraft on the crossing taking off, go-round, avoid in the missed approach. There's much more space to maneuver in the air, then continue to land and you both end up in the intersection anyway. The situation at Caboolture sounds way more complicated than the rules can account for and a last minute third party confused the situation and led to the outcome. Granted what may have been agreed to occur may not have been legal, but once you are in that position....

[Rataxes]

​​​​​​
I too have failed pilots on checks for lack of SA. One was on his final command check, with a F/O in the RHS and me in the jumpseat. He had got through every stage without any great distinction, but seemed ready, otherwise he would not have been there. Anyway, after landing on 24 at Perth, just ahead of another jet on fairly short final for 21, he wanted to turn into the intersection. Of course I over rode that in no uncertain terms! After another six months in the RHS, his SA was much improved.

I tend to think that by that stage of his career, either the guy had poor SA and always will or the event was what they refer to as a "slip"; most likely it is the second case, a slip he'll always remember and never repeat. It's called "experience." A fail result is the only possible outcome however I don't know that going back in the RHS for a few months would somehow "develop" enough new SA to get him over some imaginary line. IMHO.

[Rataxes]

If you call two people getting killed a very personal, possibly irrational, emotional investment, yep guilty. Like I said, I wasn't much more than an acquaintance. But when you see people cut down like this, in circumstances that are repeated day after day after day............read the comments above, there are multiple pilots recounting similar story's of tugs using opposite direction, crossing runways for no other reason but to cut corners and save a buck.

Clouding my judgement? Yeah, probably in some areas, mainly the language I use. Not runway ops though.

Any further comment on your apparent claim that neither aircraft had made any of the relevant radio transmissions?

[Lead Balloon]

Hence why right of way should not be sorted out below 500 feet with one on final and one taking off. Generally the simplest answer is if the aircraft on final sees an aircraft on the crossing taking off, go-round, avoid in the missed approach. There's much more space to maneuver in the air, then continue to land and you both end up in the intersection anyway. The situation at Caboolture sounds way more complicated than the rules can account for and a last minute third party confused the situation and led to the outcome. Granted what may have been agreed to occur may not have been legal, but once you are in that position....I (strongly) agree with your suggested strategy.

But the situation at Caboolture is, in my experience, not unusual and the existing rules deal with most if not all scenarios at non-controlled aerodromes. I just reiterate that it's important to understand that, in some scenarios, two pilots can be in the wrong rather than one of them being absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong.

[Chronic Snoozer]

If by "this" you mean traffic using different, crossing runways at uncontrolled aerodromes, and transmissions being garbled, over-transmitted or not heard due to finger trouble: Quite frequently in my experience.

No. Specifically the use of a cross runway with an expectation that the landing aircraft will hold short of the intersecting runway.

But if the first aircraft is using the most into wind runway, it is also true that the pilot of the aircraft landing on the crossing runway shouldn't be doing so unless, among other things, satisfied, after taking into consideration the other traffic, that it is safe to land on the crossing runway.

My intent was not to identify right and wrong. In the scenario you describe it is important that pilots resolve any ambiguity in the regulations, intended or otherwise using airmanship and communication. Equally, habitual flexing of the regulations can become normalised until something breaks. An example would be routine reduction of separation criteria because noone has ever experienced the need to go-round or reject a take-off.

[43Inches]

​​​​​​
I too have failed pilots on checks for lack of SA. One was on his final command check, with a F/O in the RHS and me in the jumpseat. He had got through every stage without any great distinction, but seemed ready, otherwise he would not have been there. Anyway, after landing on 24 at Perth, just ahead of another jet on fairly short final for 21, he wanted to turn into the intersection. Of course I over rode that in no uncertain terms! After another six months in the RHS, his SA was much improved.
​​​​​Apologies for drift, and in no way implying that either pilot in this tragedy lacked SA, but I am with Rodney on this.

Perth also has designated runway exit taxiways depending on turbo-prop or jet, which makes it all the worse if you start using the runway to exit. Any other exit point you are supposed to get approval for. The same as ATC at Sydney or Melbourne will expect you to use the rapid exits and if you can't you have to tell them. Sounds like more than SA issues, it's also a failure to read the appropriate documents regarding that port. Which is a worse offence for a Captain than just making an error of judgement on exiting the runway.

[Lead Balloon]

Specifically the use of a cross runway with an expectation that the landing aircraft will hold short of the intersecting runway.An "expectation" is not sufficient. The rule you pasted is pretty clear as to what must be true 'now', not merely expected in the future.

However...

If the pilot is taking off on the into wind runway and the landing aircraft is not landing on that runway, other rules are relevant to the pilot landing (and make sense).

[Chronic Snoozer]

An "expectation" is not sufficient. The rule you pasted is pretty clear as to what must be true 'now', not merely expected in the future.

However...

If the pilot is taking off on the into wind runway and the landing aircraft is not landing on that runway, other rules are relevant to the pilot landing (and make sense).

Surely the existence of 91.370 3(c) contemplates this scenario and provides the rule, if, and it is a big if, the landing aircraft is 'before' the aircraft taking off. If the landing pilot has nominated a landing runway by way of broadcast and with regard to 91.380, then anyone on the ground, I would think, must still meet 91.330, notwithstanding they intend using the most into wind runway.

[Lead Balloon]

I don’t see the relevance of a pilot “nominating” the crossing runway to the operation of 91.370(3)(c). It seems to me that the operation of that provision depends on the timing of the landing on the crossing runway. I suppose that if a pilot chooses to use the crossing runway and nominates a time of landing that is before the planned take-off of the ‘subject aircraft’ and that timing is correct, the pilot of the latter must comply with the requirement in (c).

Back to basics: These non-controlled aerodrome rules were originally designed to work without the benefit of radio. You look out the window of your aircraft to see whether there’s anyone on base or final for or on the runway on which you’re about to line up and, after lining up, you look to see whether there’s anyone on base or final for a crossing runway. And if, for example, there’s someone just about to touch down on 27 and you’re sitting on the piano keys of 36, best to wait. (BTW: An ATC friend advised me to do the same thing at controlled aerodromes, just in case ATC has stuffed up…)

General point: These rules are originally based on the maritime collision regulations. Crusty old maritime regulators will tell you that if there’s a collision between two ships under way, it follows that both masters have breached the COLREGS.

[Mach E Avelli]

Leady, your last reference to the maritime COLREGS nails it. In an aviation context VFR = see and be seen. No matter who technically has right of way, BOTH pilots - or if there are multiple aircraft - ALL pilots must do whatever it takes to avoid collisions. Sometimes that means stopping, which clearly (in an aviation context) can only be done on the ground. The airborne equivalent to stopping could be a tight orbit…possibly safer than a go around in some situations…whatever it takes.
Thare are too many rules for the average VFR pilot to absorb, so beyond the basic right of way/give way stuff in the PPL syllabus, over riding all is simply…don’t get too close to other aircraft, get out of their way if they are too close to you.

[helispotter]

I haven't seen any post yet indicating the summary of the accident as it now appears on the ATSB website, which differs to some of the earlier posts:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2023/report/ao-2023-036"The ATSB is investigating a collision involving Jabiru J430, VH-EDJ, and Piper PA-25-235, VH-SPA, at Caboolture aircraft landing area, Queensland on 28 July 2023.An initial analysis of video footage showed that VH-SPA was returning to land at the airfield on runway 06, before it commenced a go-around. The Jabiru J430 had just taken off from runway 11.The 2 occupants of VH-EDJ were fatally injured. The sole pilot of VH-SPA was uninjured..."
Looking at aerial footage shown on ABC News, the wreckage of VH-EDJ lies on the western side of runway 24 threshold with VH-SPA parked on the eastern side of that threshold. Another post here (Dora-9, #60) suggests VH-SPA managed to complete a circuit after the collision before landing, so presumably that explains its parked location? There is also a taildragger parked beyond the threshold of 24 in the ABC footage. Unclear if it was involved or stopped there to try to render assistance?

ABC News screenshots:
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1366x700/abc_news_screenshot_of_wreckage_1_2ecdb96950ab598a5ad011a690 239497312122a9.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1366x694/abc_news_screenshot_of_wreckage_2_6144f4e4e5b4f72b14649d5de9 e156edd65a8c8e.jpg

Caboolture runway designations from the Aeroclub website:
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1536x964/ycab_runway_picture_1536x964_c63bab9a05ad30e78d684f5976bb882 abdeb5080.jpg
So approximate flightpaths / take-off run and final locations of aircraft would be something like:

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/951x553/caboolture_airport_and_potential_paths_da677900154f9a9d83cda 5cb590a0e06acc1f3ea.jpg

Half a lifetime back, I had my one and only glider joyflight at Caboolture airport.

It is so sad to hear when such accidents happen. In this instance, seems like ATSB should be able to piece together the circumstances reasonably well. Hopefully there will be safety lessons, but what a price to pay.

[Dora-9]

Talking yesterday to a witness who didn't see the actual impact but the immediate aftermath - the Pawnee was observed flying another circuit, landed on 06 and then taxied to the far end (i.e. where it is in the photos).

Allegedly the Pawnee pilot asked the first responders "where's the Cessna?" in reference to the aircraft that allegedly taxied across 06/24 causing him to initiate his go-around. A good question - what DID happen to the recalcitrant Cessna?

Thanks for posting the photos/diagrams, helispotter. I don't think your final diagram is quite right - note how the wreckage trail of VH-EDJ parallels 11/29. I'm sure when we eventually see the ATSB report, all will be revealed.

A terrible business.

[Squawk7700]

Sadly one could be mistaken for thinking that the registration VH-EDJ is cursed. The previous aircraft of that registration suffered a total write off after being hit by a Cessna 182 during a failed go-around, plus several other aircraft. Luckily it was parked and nobody was onboard. There were no injuries to the occupants of the 182.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/185566

[KRviator]

Given the Jab was well and truly airborne before the 06/24 intersection, is it a reasonable to think the pilot considered any runway beyond the intersection as "unusable" for the purposes of "thou shall not takeoff until crossing traffic is stopped/passed"... Even if the Pawnee hadn't stopped and had rolled through the intersection, the Jab was already airborne and, therefore, had assured separation vertically.

I've done a similar thing at Caloundra - multiple aircraft in the circuit meant I couldn't get a safe gap to enter and backtrack R12, so after waiting at the intersection and realising this, I promptly did a 180, took off on R05 and stayed at 500AGL until well clear of the circuit then climbed to altitude. Positive separation was assured both laterally and vertically from circuit traffic, but on reading "the roolz", technically illegal I guess as I took off from what would be defined as intersecting runways, even though said intersection was behind me...

[Lead Balloon]

I wouldn’t use the word “assured” to describe separation in your first scenario, KR. The aircraft taking off might have to abort the take-off for some reason, the landing aircraft might have to do a go around for some reason …

CASR 91.370 is about when the aircraft taking-off commences the take-off run. It’s about the circumstances at that point in time, and I would hope that at that point in time we’re thinking about, or have already thought about, all of the things that could go wrong.

[helispotter]

...Thanks for posting the photos/diagrams, helispotter. I don't think your final diagram is quite right - note how the wreckage trail of VH-EDJ parallels 11/29. I'm sure when we eventually see the ATSB report, all will be revealed...

Yes, agreed. I was struggling with the location and apparent path of the wreckage compared to the reported take-off runway and runway intersection as another post also had. One or both pilots may have been taking collision avoidance action and aerodynamic forces after the collision would also influence path that -EDJ came down. The video footage referred to by ATSB likely makes it clear, but ATSB wrote -EDJ "had JUST taken off from runway 11" so doesn't sound like it had been in the air for long.

[Squawk7700]

Short of a strong headwind, in my aircraft which is exactly the same as EDJ, I’d probably be at around 250ft by the intersection and not overly manoeuvrable when in the initial climb phase… it would be hard to turn too steeply as it would in any other aircraft attempting to avoid traffic.

[zzodr]

It's likely at these runway angles from the pilot's view each aircraft was probably behind each others A-pillars at near constant bearing.
Similar to the Sea World helicopter crash.

[nonsense]

It's likely at these runway angles from the pilot's view each aircraft was probably behind each others A-pillars at near constant bearing.

As described in detail in this video about an intersection with a history of car=bicycle fatal crashes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeeTvitvFU

[fineline]

Short of a strong headwind, in my aircraft which is exactly the same as EDJ, I’d probably be at around 250ft by the intersection and not overly manoeuvrable when in the initial climb phase… it would be hard to turn too steeply as it would in any other aircraft attempting to avoid traffic.

That's if you even saw them. High wing vs low wing another factor here?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It's likely at these runway angles from the pilot's view each aircraft was probably behind each others A-pillars at near constant bearing.
Similar to the Sea World helicopter crash.
If both aircraft were maintaining runway heading, the collision could only have occurred over the runway intersection as that is the only point their paths would intersect. If that did happen, it seems highly unlikely the Jab would have impacted where it did in the direction it did. One or both of them has obviously turned during their respective take off/go arounds, probably both to the left. My spit balling is the collision probably happened somewhere over the dam, hardstand or tree line in the area to the north of the intersection, where the tug would have come up on the Jab even more from the right rear quarter as they turned. Momentum and aerodynamics then could have put the Jab where it ended up. Looking down forward and left, I reckon the Pawnee would have a pretty big blind spot, and the Jab pilot would have to be looking back over his right shoulder.

[43Inches]

I think this will just come down to an unfortunate set of circumstance where things were running too close to the wind to begin with. It all ended up with some additional factor that sealed the deal into an unlucky scenario where everything lined up the wrong way after too little margin was afforded. As said earlier, when doing these sort of things think not only if the maneuver itself is safe, but what happens if things don't go as planned, what's the safest out and so on. Remembering that both take-off and go-round situations are high workload and offer little chance of high energy turns to avoid things without bringing the safety of the aircraft into question. You also do not have enough time to 'arrange' a suitable de-conflict when things are so close, so you have to assume a lot about what the other players will do. Once you have a third party appear it will quickly draw your attention and then re-sighting the original conflict may be very difficult with background clutter.

A lot of things to think about, and, if thought about before the fact you will probably think it better to wait until everything is less complicated.

That being said, if you can come up with a way to stop these actions, prevent VFR into IMC, stop bravado acts close to the ground, well then move on and try to stop all the unnecessary accidents on the road. Your advice will be worth millions of dollars. But when most of these accidents come down to all participants thinking they had it all under control 'until', well there's not much you can do except educate on the dangers. Legislation, rules and such won't do anything to help. In reality you can not educate everyone on all possible situations in life, it takes some onus on the user to look beyond the minimal and take some responsibility for their actions.

[Keith.]

No webcam in use ? If only for weather information, but no fixed device for daylight air/runway activities ?
All of this speculation could have been resolved by one wide angle camera.

[KRviator]

No webcam in use ? If only for weather information, but no fixed device for daylight air/runway activities ?
All of this speculation could have been resolved by one wide angle camera.Not really. I have a webcam on my hangar, and it's configured to upload one still image to Squawk 7700 's FTP server every 10 minutes. You're hinting at live streaming, which uses a lot of bandwidth for a once in a blue moon event. The other option for accident-investigation would be a 4K security camera or similar with a NVR on-site, but who'd pay for it? Universal ADS-B/EC devices with a receiver at each airport would be a better option as they'd provide benefits beyond the airport boundary.

[Captn Rex Havack]

[QUOTE=KRviator;11477779]Given the Jab was well and truly airborne before the 06/24 intersection, is it a reasonable to think the pilot considered any runway beyond the intersection as "unusable" for the purposes of "thou shall not takeoff until crossing traffic is stopped/passed"... Even if the Pawnee hadn't stopped and had rolled through the intersection, the Jab was already airborne and, therefore, had assured separation vertically.

KR - not sure if I have your context wrong, but clearly vertical separation was not assured, and with the potential of the airborne aircraft going round, or the taking off aircraft aborting, speration can never be assured when two aircraft are converging to a crossing point like this. So don't do these pseudo LAHSO ops.

[Squawk7700]

How it’s it done (can of worms?) at Melbourne’s Tullamarine as I understand that they do it in the big birds under specific conditions?

[43Inches]

Actual video of the event might not be that useful anyway, there seems to be a lot of witnesses to the accident. Unless there's something particularly unusual that was not sighted, like some sort of drone or alien interference the video will just confirm what is already apparent. In some cases I'd rather not have video of an event involving people dying that is plastered all over the news and internet for however long for no other reason than viewership and no real help to authorities.

WRT to LAHSO at major airports, it is only done with the supervision of ATC. Something goes awry the tower can issue go-rounds, stop instructions and vectors to assist in avoidance. ATC is also another set of eyes for the unknown factors, like rogue taxiing aircraft possibly entering a runway. There is also possibly a stagger factor for arrivals, and definitely conservative factoring additional to normal landing distance requirements.

[missy]

How it’s it done (can of worms?) at Melbourne’s Tullamarine as I understand that they do it in the big birds under specific conditions?
Yes, that's a big can of worms and very much thread drift. It's not only Melbourne but other controlled aerodromes as well. Operated at Sydney, pre-parallel runway operations. Used to improve efficiency / reduce delays. Safe as houses, until it's not - suggest the following.

Near collision at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, HS-TMC and VH-HYC, 12 August 1991
SYDNEY 1991 (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1991/aair/aair199100052)

Unsafe proximity and radar vector below minimum vector altitude involving a Boeing 777-31HER, A6-EBU, and two 737-838s, VH-VXS and VH-VYE, Melbourne Airport, Victoria, on 5 July 2015
MELBOURNE 2015 (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2015/aair/ao-2015-084)

[43Inches]

The Melbourne incident was not so much an issue with LAHSO, but more so trying to fit in a departure that was way too tight for an unpredictable international, combined with very late action to initiate the go-rounds. What was learned that night was that ATC had very little protocol for when things go wrong. The 777 should have been held earlier, the 27 arrival allowed to land, and the 34 arrival sent around.

[KRviator]

KR - not sure if I have your context wrong, but clearly vertical separation was not assured, and with the potential of the airborne aircraft going round, or the taking off aircraft aborting, separation can never be assured when two aircraft are converging to a crossing point like this. So don't do these pseudo LAHSO ops.No, you did get it right. And you're also right in that such a scenario doesn't consider the 'what if the Pawnee goes around' in terms of separation.

But then this very same scenario is repeated many times at Bankstown (and probably other Class D's) whereby they'll send helicopters across the runway at 500 with aircraft on final - such that if the landing aircraft does go around, you're now faced with an immediate separation issue. Like this one (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-053).... And that's with ATC - but of course, they also helpfully point out that "This incident serves as a reminder to keep a good lookout at all times, including in Class D airspace. Pilots are responsible for maintaining separation in Class D." putting the onus squarely back on us if we smack into a helicopter we never even saw or that was passed as traffic, while conducting a go-around...

[sunnySA]

putting the onus squarely back on us if we smack into a helicopter we never even saw or that was passed as traffic, while conducting a go-around...
My bolding. Perhaps I've misread this. Could you please elaborate.

[KRviator]

My bolding. Perhaps I've misread this. Could you please elaborate.From this ATSB report (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-053) (with my additions in red):
As ZVO (The helicopter) crossed the airport boundary (with clearance to cross the runways midfield at 500AGL), the engineer (the passenger in the helicopter) sighted the aeroplane (MJT - The Cherokee) and alerted the pilot. The pilot then saw MJT in the go-around, at the same height as ZVO, and immediately conducted a left turn to increase separation between the helicopter and the aeroplane. MJT was about midfield (half way along the runway) when the instructor sighted the helicopter (ZVO) taking avoiding action.At about 1441, the controller advised the pilot of ZVO of MJT as relevant traffic (But not the Cherokee of the helicopter), and watched as the helicopter turned through 360° and passed MJT.

At that time, the instructor of MJT reported that they broadcast, stating that they were going around. On the recorded audio from the ADC frequency, about 8 seconds after the ADC advised ZVO of MJT, the instructor of MJT can be heard to start to broadcast, but was then over-transmitted by another radio broadcast.

The instructor of MJT estimated that the helicopter was within about 30–50 m horizontally and at the same height as MJT. The pilot of ZVO estimated the aeroplane was about 200 m away, and the ADC estimated the proximity to be about 120 m.

(And from a bit further on in the report)
Instructor of VH-MJT
The instructor of MJT commented that they were not aware of ZVO before sighting it after the pilot of ZVO had taken avoiding action and the ADC had issued the traffic alert.
Pilot of VH-VZO
They were not aware of the other aircraft at all before they saw it – they had not heard a call and were not aware of any aircraft in the training circuit. They did not know to look there for other aircraft traffic.
Controller comments
The aerodrome controller reported that they were monitoring an outbound helicopter on the TSAD when MJT commenced the go-around. As soon as they sighted the potential conflict, VZO had commenced a left turn and the ADC gave MJT as traffic to VZO. An off-duty controller, who was in the ATC tower at the time of the incident, commented that in Class D airspace, pilots have responsibility to see and avoid VFR aircraft and ATC has a responsibility to provide relevant traffic information to assist them to do that. Easy to see how, in the absence of notification of crossing helicopter traffic as part of the landing clearance, you're relying on pure luck to miss them if you do go around. Lucky that ZVO's passenger saw the Cherokee. Lucky that they were flying something that allowed visibility over the nose in the climb. Lucky they went around when they did, and not 2 seconds later... When I go around in the RV, particularly without a passenger, my pitch attitude is 15-20* nose up depending on atmospherics with the RoC in the vicinity of 1500-1800FPM and I'm completely blind under the nose when climbing at Vy. I'd say there's several other aircraft where that might be the case too.

Relying on luck to miss another aircraft by 200m (best case) or 30m (worst case) when that was only due to the helicopter taking avoiding action after its' passenger - not the pilot - first saw the traffic going-around is not acceptable anywhere, yet alone in controlled airspace. But the ATSB and ATCO's still puts it back on us as pilots to avoid traffic we may not even know about.

[43Inches]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2019/aair/ao-2019-066

Controlled airspace is just as dangerous as OCTA if traffic information is not handled/understood and complied with. In this instance the only thing that saved a mid air collision (or at least a very close miss) between the ATR and PA-28 was TCAS, and even then it was only a TA, as the RA was inhibited at that altitude. Considering the position the PA28 was in below the ATR, it's unlikely the crew would have sighted them without the TA occurring. The Tower did not even see the conflict and was only alerted after the fact as they were dealing with a third aircraft.

There have been a number of actual collisions in CTA in the US in recent years.

https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/512af1fdb2b1bccb4beaa6127157211d?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=749&cropW=1123&xPos=593&yPos=154&width=862&height=575
https://s30121.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Cirrus-Centenial.jpg.webp

This the result of one of them where both crews were lucky to survive.

[Squawk7700]

I laugh when people hint that they are safe flying in CTA at Moorabbin. The only thing controlled there, is chaos!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Historically most mid airs in Australia have occurred in CTA, in the circuit of Secondary Airports.

[sunnySA]

From this ATSB report (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-053) (with my additions in red):
Easy to see how, in the absence of notification of crossing helicopter traffic as part of the landing clearance, you're relying on pure luck to miss them if you do go around. Lucky that ZVO's passenger saw the Cherokee. Lucky that they were flying something that allowed visibility over the nose in the climb. Lucky they went around when they did, and not 2 seconds later... When I go around in the RV, particularly without a passenger, my pitch attitude is 15-20* nose up depending on atmospherics with the RoC in the vicinity of 1500-1800FPM and I'm completely blind under the nose when climbing at Vy. I'd say there's several other aircraft where that might be the case too.

Relying on luck to miss another aircraft by 200m (best case) or 30m (worst case) when that was only due to the helicopter taking avoiding action after its' passenger - not the pilot - first saw the traffic going-around is not acceptable anywhere, yet alone in controlled airspace. But the ATSB and ATCO's still puts it back on us as pilots to avoid traffic we may not even know about.
Thanks. Poor ATC, poor ATSB report, ERSA needs a re-write.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Doesn't have to be crossing RWY's. A go around of a lighty off the old BNE 14 nearly put someone in front of an arriving 737 on RWY 19. Simultaneous approaches were stopped forthwith after that.

[Squawk7700]

Doesn't have to be crossing RWY's. A go around of a lighty off the old BNE 14 nearly put someone in front of an arriving 737 on RWY 19. Simultaneous approaches were stopped forthwith after that.

Was that when the lady in the Cirrus bounced her way down 14 past the intersection?

[Capn Bloggs]

Was that when the lady in the Cirrus bounced her way down 14 past the intersection?
There's no actual "intersection". The runway CLs cross a few hundred metres north of the threshold of 19. Anybody going round from 14 flies straight through the late-final approach area of 19.

[EarthboundMisfit]

We have an aircraft hangared at YCAB and have been flying out of there for many years. Obviously keen to see what the final report says, but comms arrangements at YCAB have always been a personal concern, and I can't help but wonder if comms was a factor in this latest tragedy.

One frequency (125.85) essentially covers D629C, D, E plus two busy ALA's (YCAB and YCDR). It does get congested. YRED has a defined area with its own discrete CTAF frequency. In my view, YCAB and YCDR need a similar arrangement.
Carriage and use of radio is now required (great!) but if the radio is not checked and confirmed working before going full noise it can be deadly. Earlier this year, having just commenced my take-off roll on RWY11, a gyrocopter entered and rolled on RWY29. I aborted and came to a stop, he took off over the top of me. The subsequent aero club investigation found the gyrocopter had a faulty radio.

[Lead Balloon]

I've said it many times, but it bears repeating: We should all assume that there are 'no radio' aircraft out there, because they literally aren't fitted with a radio or, if it is fitted with a radio, it's malfunctioning, is tuned to the wrong frequency or is otherwise the subject of finger trouble in the cockpit.

[43Inches]

It also pays to remember that anything could suddenly block a runway and create a go-round. In this case it may have been a taxiing Cessna, but it could be a car, child, horse, cow, UFO, flock of birds etc etc etc, none of the later will care what you said on the radio... Anything planned too close to the wind will then turn into a mess involving luck as to whether you survive or not.

[Mr Mossberg]

There is a large diversity of traffic in that area. Has anybody seen those big parachutes with engines strapped to the back of the pilot? I've seen a few of them around Caboolture. A radio is not going to help you miss them.

[PiperCameron]

I laugh when people hint that they are safe flying in CTA at Moorabbin. The only thing controlled there, is chaos!

Heard recently at YMMB on 123.0: "xxx, we don't see your squawk. Do you have a Transponder fitted?!?" "Negative. It's on order." :uhoh:

I do believe we have the best ATC controllers in Australia at Moorabbin.

[megan]

I've said it many times, but it bears repeating: We should all assume that there are 'no radio' aircraft out there, because they literally aren't fitted with a radio or, if it is fitted with a radio, it's malfunctioning, is tuned to the wrong frequency or is otherwise the subject of finger trouble in the cockpitBeen guilty of that LB, returning to fixed wing flying was getting checked out in a Cub using the dirt cross runway at Latrobe, instructor hopped out and sent me solo, preparing for take off a SAAB landed on the bitumen, never heard him.

[PiperCameron]

Been guilty of that LB, returning to fixed wing flying was getting checked out in a Cub using the dirt cross runway at Latrobe, instructor hopped out and sent me solo, preparing for take off a SAAB landed on the bitumen, never heard him.

Wow, that must have a while ago, Megan - back in the days of regional aviation - 'cause there's not been RPT into Latrobe in years.

Sounds like he snuck in under the radar. :p

[Lead Balloon]

It would be interesting to find out accurate stats on the number of times Centre tells an aircraft their CTAF call was on Area. If what I hear is indicative, I reckon the number would be 'lots'. At least in those cases a third party has let the aircraft know - or at least tried to let it know.

One tricky issue that I fear could loom large in the Caboolture tragedy is the 'regulatory status' of the local 'Operations Manual' and 'Local Traffic Regulation' in ERSA that says: "Carriage and use of radio is required by the AD OPR". I doubt whether the local 'Operations Manual' modifies or otherwise changes the legislated rules of the air, including the take-off/landing rules. And while the owner of a (sort of) flat piece of land can set just about any rules the owner likes about the use of that patch of land by aircraft - like you're not allowed to use it unless you carry and use a radio, I don't think that turns the area into a Mandatory Broadcast Area from a regulatory perspective.

[43Inches]

Wow, that must have a while ago, Megan - back in the days of regional aviation - 'cause there's not been RPT into Latrobe in years.

Sounds like he snuck in under the radar. :p

Had a student on a solo navex down to YLTV get in front of a SAAB and cause it to go round, many years ago. The student landed and stopped feeling a bit shaken as he thought he had done something very wrong and apologized over the radio. One of the SAAB crew (Pretty sure it was Hazos) came over and apologized as they had been on the wrong frequency or something and realized at 7 nm going for a 5nm final, and made a quick call, by that time the student was already on base and didn't realize how fast the SAAB is. SAAB crew decided it was better to go round, and the student heard this and thought they were in big trouble. I think from what the student described it was a check ride with three crew up front...

[megan]

Sounds like he snuck in under the radarSure did, under MY radar, no doubt he made the calls, fault all on me, 27 March 1996.

[Know I. Deer]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2023/atsb-releases-preliminary-report-going-caboolture-mid-air-collision-investigation

[Lead Balloon]

Well that’s a new one for me: turning the radio volume down for engine runup. I’m guessing the product of someone’s strongly held opinion.

[megle2]

Tragic, turning the volume down, surely it’s not taught

[Lead Balloon]

Fixed it for the ATSB: [YCAB] is located within class G non-controlled airspace, where pilots of radio-equipped aircraft make and monitor radio positional broadcasts on a designated common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) - if the radio equipment is serviceable and operated correctly - to ensure increase the probabilities of separation from other aircraft.

[Kundry]

I would suggest it is not wise to start a takeoff roll when you cannot visually clear an intersecting runway and you know someone is in the process of landing on that runway. Even if they made a call to indicate they would be holding short, even if this unnofficial LAHSO was a routine procedure at the field.

[PiperCameron]

I would suggest it is not wise to start a takeoff roll when you cannot visually clear an intersecting runway and you know someone is in the process of landing on that runway. Even if they made a call to indicate they would be holding short, even if this unnofficial LAHSO was a routine procedure at the field.

This certainly seems like one of those accidents where there would have been nothing to see had the Swiss Cheese holes not lined up: if they'd waited even 30 seconds to get eyes on the Pawnee they might have got a scare but nothing else.

It points out to me the importance of an "entering and rolling" call.. which perhaps might have alerted the Pawnee to look left? ..but then maybe they did and he was occupied with the go-around??

Instructor: "Why the %$#%$ didn't you ... ?!?"
Student: "'Cause I'm an effing student, that's why!"

No winners here. :(

[Lead Balloon]

All accidents are ones where there would be nothing to see here if the holes in the Swiss cheese hadn’t lined up…

[Bosi72]

I would suggest it is not wise to start a takeoff roll when you cannot visually clear an intersecting runway and you know someone is in the process of landing on that runway. Even if they made a call to indicate they would be holding short, even if this unnofficial LAHSO was a routine procedure at the field.

Also not commencing the crosswind turn before the intersection.

[By George]

I strongly suspect the only reason Dave started to turn was he suddenly saw or realised the Pawnee was coming. When I flew with him just before the accident, he gave a very detailed brief in the event of an engine failure. This plan was straight ahead to one of the only clear patches surrounded by heavy timber on the extended centreline.

To my way of thinking the only cure is for everyone to use the same runway and that is the one most favourable to the wind direction. I know airmanship is no longer fashionable but that is what we always did in the past and it seemed to work.

[Bosi72]

Commencing the turn, a pilot creates a blind spot in the opposite direction and excludes themselves from the see-be seen, especially in high wing aircraft. I am not referring to any person, this is my personal takeway.

[jonkster]

To my way of thinking the only cure is for everyone to use the same runway and that is the one most favourable to the wind direction. I know airmanship is no longer fashionable but that is what we always did in the past and it seemed to work.

Whilst I generally agree with that and am not meaning to dismiss your comment, there can be (what I belive are valid) reasons for not doing this at times.
The tug would have been towing a cable, so avoiding using the runway that the other aircraft are operating on, may have been one of these reasons.

[Dora-9]

It points out to me the importance of an "entering and rolling" call.

But we don't know if this call was made or not, given that recordings from Caloundra won't "hear" any ground traffic at Caboolture. Given Dave's professionalism (that I'd seen), I suspect it was.

Commencing the turn, a pilot creates a blind spot in the opposite direction and excludes themselves from the see-be seen,

True, but by this stage he'd obviously seen the Pawnee and was trying to avoid it. Nobody, just nobody, would otherwise attempt a turn before the runway intersection (it's a run of 800m)..

[43Inches]

Commencing the turn, a pilot creates a blind spot in the opposite direction and excludes themselves from the see-be seen, especially in high wing aircraft. I am not referring to any person, this is my personal takeway.

You are thinking 2 dimensional, aircraft move in 3. The blind spots are always there and in the circuit, especially in this scenario the threats are coming from not only level to, but above and below. The turn does not create a blind spot where the wing is, the blind spot is always there, which is why old teaching had clearing maneuvers to check blind spots periodically, like lowering the nose during long climbs, or lifting the wings during lookout prior to turns. Also remember there's also a lot of other things blocking the view, passengers head, how big the windows are, support pillars, engines in multis etc etc....

To my way of thinking the only cure is for everyone to use the same runway and that is the one most favourable to the wind direction. I know airmanship is no longer fashionable but that is what we always did in the past and it seemed to work.

This is what the rules tell you to do, anyone on the most into wind has priority. You are not allowed to proceed to land if the runway you are using is occupied, you are not allowed to take-off if the runway is occupied, which includes aircraft using intersecting strips. LAHSO is not a thing outside approved controlled airports with strict rules. The landing aircraft should not have announced that they would hold short, there is no way you can guarantee this until you are stopped short of the intersection. In addition the pilot departing should not accept an aircraft offering to 'hold short' while they depart, until that aircraft has stopped short of the intersection, or passed through and so on. Generally you will state that you will let the other aircraft know 'once' you are holding short so that they can depart.

It points out to me the importance of an "entering and rolling" call.. which perhaps might have alerted the Pawnee to look left? ..but then maybe they did and he was occupied with the go-around??


A rolling call after a long backtrack, or something to that effect is essential. There is no mention of the Cessna that taxied across the runway making a entering/crossing call, which is also essential. Again use of words such as 'active' runway, changes a lot of how somebody views whether the calls are necessary. OCTA it is essential you make a call entering, backtracking or crossing ANY runway, the only time you might not call 'crossing' is when already occupying a runway that you are using to roll on during landing and take-off. These rules are as opposed to a controlled airport where 'active' runways may be treated differently to non-active ones.

[Mr Mossberg]

Commencing the turn, a pilot creates a blind spot in the opposite direction and excludes themselves from the see-be seen, especially in high wing aircraft. I am not referring to any person, this is my personal takeway.

​​​​​​​What, so continue straight on, into a collision?