View Full Version : Smith, Pike and Hamtn and Lookout...

Capn Bloggs
9th Jan 2003, 13:11

This is what it will be like when the first midair occurs in one of your rotten CTAF:

"The pilot of the Cessna, Rolf Traupe, described his experience this week: "I saw a flash of orange [the Boeing's nose section] out of the corner of my eye.

"I did not feel any impact and thought the jet had just missed me. But then I heard the Angolan pilots complaining about damage to their wing. I knew then they had hit me."

Traupe said he felt the turbulence of the Boeing buffet his aircraft, which began to vibrate.

"I reduced speed to maintain control of the aircraft, and because I could not see the extent of the damage, I thought it was minor as the aircraft was flying quite normally."

(This lifted from the airdisaster website: African Midair recently).


10th Jan 2003, 01:01
Cap'n Bloggs.
Where would I find this on the <www.airdisaster.com> site, a quick look over the accident database for Africa didn't show it.
Do you have a link.
Tootle pip,

10th Jan 2003, 03:21
Comment on Reporting points
here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77203)

10th Jan 2003, 11:26
Capín Bloggs,

The only recent midair I have been able to find in Africa was on Dec.26,2002, close to Windhoek.

As reported by Flight International 7-13 Jan., both aircraft were in contact with Windhoek tower, or should have been, but there are some suggestions of radio problems.

Both aircraft were or should have been operating on clearances from Windhoek tower, and bot aircraft had serviceable transponders. It is not reported whether there was serviceable primary or secondary radar available at Windhoek, and if either aircraft was identified, but it sound like both pilots expected to be and at least one was operating on a clearance from Windhoek tower, and both expected to be radar identified.

If this is the accident to which you refer, I donít see the relevance to the US style CTAF proposals in the NAS, other than the fact that no midair would be a happy experience.

Have a look at the Australian record, excluding gliders, we donít do too badly in organizing mid-airs in controlled airspace.

Tootle pip !!

10th Jan 2003, 11:52

Comparing apples with apples is fine, trying to slip in a lemon is perhaps mischievious!

The circumstances surrounding the airmiss quoted bear no relation to 'CTAF's'

Forgive me if I suspect an agenda here.


Capn Bloggs
10th Jan 2003, 13:40
Ding et al,

The 3 aforementioned (and others by the same name) gents have been peddling that lookout is the main method of defence when you are not under high level TARTS control (ie when you are doing battle with all the soon-to-be non-radio cowboys in the soon-to-be CTAFs).

My point is merely to highlight the complete FAILURE of lookout as a means of preventing midairs, especially in this case with ATC and transponders. The first thing the cesspit driver saw was a orange flash. In Oz it will be a red flash.

Lookout doesn't work, and with MBZs being cancelled in favour of CTAFs, it will become the only defence. That's all I'm saying.

Perhaps you are saying that we should cancel all CTZs so pilots will lookout more?

Clear Left, ahead, above and right...yeh right.

13th Jan 2003, 21:04
It will NOT be the only defence.

You are (as usual) ignoring ADSB (Mode S).

What is your agenda here Bloggs.

Four Seven Eleven
16th Jan 2003, 06:42

It needs to be highlighted that the aircraft concerned appear to have collided in a controlled airspace environment. See and avoid was not the primary (or intended) separation method. This accident may highlight the inadequacy of see and avoid and your point is well taken.


Nothing in NAS states that ADSB will be - or needs to be - in place as a mitigator prior to implementation. NAS is going ahead with or without ADSB. See and avoid may be the only defence in some circumstances. NAS acknowledges that new technologies such as ADSB may be implemented and supports them when this happens.

The mythical nation of 'North America', which NAS is based upon, probably does not have ADSB either!

I Fly
17th Jan 2003, 00:27
I don't know what you guys are complaining about. yesterday I was out flying very close to Sydney in my bugsmasha, I had my TCAS and my ADSB switched on and I did not collide with anyone. It works.

17th Jan 2003, 01:41
This is all very interesting but the biggest concern to me is the no direct traffic information in G airspace. Just think on descent passing 8500 feet still in cloud exiting E airspace. Some one flying his PA28 at 6000 feet on his PIFR, you are unable to determine what frequency your meant to be on because the FIA boundaries have been removed from the map. This is a very unpleasant thought for me!!!!!!

If you look at each of the individual changes you probably think that safety is not compromised but I can see in the future reading an ATSB report about a PA 28 hitting a Dash 8 in G airspace and all the items such as: no direct traffic information, no FIA boundaries on maps, aircraft operating on different QNH settings being listed as latent failures......... I'm sure Dr James Reason and his reason model will agree............