Merged: Mid Air Collision Near Palmerston North
Cloud Cutter is correct, and I think the phrase 'accident waiting to happen' is very apt for Pokeno. I came very close to hitting another aircraft there, PFLing into the same paddock as me. It is all very well saying people look out - the majority of aircraft around Pokeno are in the hands of extremely low hour pilots, and very often solo. I'll admit now that at the time I was flying into Pokeno with bugger all hours my lookout was woefull, and I think it's fair to say that it is luck that has prevented, and continues to prevent, a serious incident near AR, nothing more and nothing less.
Condolences to those affected by the accident - rest in peace guys.
Condolences to those affected by the accident - rest in peace guys.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In The Dog House
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whiteknuckle,
I totally agree with what you are saying.
The point I was trying to make is that, after the Seneca accidents at Mt Egmont and Taupo and the Chieftan accident at Christchurch last year, the Transport Accident Investigation Commission recommended the "installation of TAWS/EGPWS into all aircraft capable of being flown IFR by a single pilot".
I was just wondering if they are going to suggest installing TCAS into all aircraft that are capable of being flown in the vicinity of other aircraft i.e. all aircraft including those in GA.
I totally agree with what you are saying.
The point I was trying to make is that, after the Seneca accidents at Mt Egmont and Taupo and the Chieftan accident at Christchurch last year, the Transport Accident Investigation Commission recommended the "installation of TAWS/EGPWS into all aircraft capable of being flown IFR by a single pilot".
I was just wondering if they are going to suggest installing TCAS into all aircraft that are capable of being flown in the vicinity of other aircraft i.e. all aircraft including those in GA.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Neiu Zeeeeland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having operated in the "Southern Palmerston North Training Area" for many years, I know it can become very congested at certain times.
The airspace is uncontrolled and is bordered by mountainous terrain on the eastern side, Palmerston Control Zone and Ohakea Control (military airspace) on the northern side and Ohakea/Christchurch Control (radar environment) above about 3500ft.
Because the airspace is uncontrolled (i.e not a designated training area like Ardmore has), it has VFR transit aircraft, IFR aircraft on visual approaches into PM as well. It is a wonder (call it whatever you want) that there have not been more.
I had not realised that you were there watching the accident and had become an instant expert - perhaps you should call the accident investigators, and discuss this with the families of the deceased, I'm sure they would love your uninformed FACT!!!.
For the sake of the families, who would be going through an extremely traumatic time at the moment, is it too much to ask not to become an instant expert - especially when you obviously show how little intelligence you do have by making such wild statements.
My condolences to the parents of the pilots and to all the staff at Massey who would be going through a traumatic time at the moment.
[edited for spelling mistakes]
The airspace is uncontrolled and is bordered by mountainous terrain on the eastern side, Palmerston Control Zone and Ohakea Control (military airspace) on the northern side and Ohakea/Christchurch Control (radar environment) above about 3500ft.
Because the airspace is uncontrolled (i.e not a designated training area like Ardmore has), it has VFR transit aircraft, IFR aircraft on visual approaches into PM as well. It is a wonder (call it whatever you want) that there have not been more.
Semi-Rigid
MASSEY Aviation.Advice. Get a PR/Media consultant.
Those 2 aircraft were not out practising Stalling. They were orbiting a well known Manawatu Ag pilot going about his daily chore.FACT.
MASSEY Aviation.Advice. Get a PR/Media consultant.
Those 2 aircraft were not out practising Stalling. They were orbiting a well known Manawatu Ag pilot going about his daily chore.FACT.
I had not realised that you were there watching the accident and had become an instant expert - perhaps you should call the accident investigators, and discuss this with the families of the deceased, I'm sure they would love your uninformed FACT!!!.
For the sake of the families, who would be going through an extremely traumatic time at the moment, is it too much to ask not to become an instant expert - especially when you obviously show how little intelligence you do have by making such wild statements.
My condolences to the parents of the pilots and to all the staff at Massey who would be going through a traumatic time at the moment.
[edited for spelling mistakes]
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cloud Cutter and others
I hear what you are saying about crowded training areas, however that is really no excuse.
Safety should never be about "shades of grey", a practice is either as safe as it can be, or it isn't. Not sure what happens these days, but when I was instructing around Wellington and Paraparaumu, the rule used to be only one aircraft in the LFA at a time, and all other aircraft in the area co-ordinated their activities by radio, usually via CHC info. Not sure how you do a FLWOP properly without entering the LFA.
If you have a bunch of aircraft all performing training manouevers in a small space, you have a dangerous situation and it needs to be controlled either by rule, or by common sense. The common sense approach would be "don't go there" if more than, say, two other aircraft are in there.
Of course old-timers would say that we always got by just fine by performing proper lookouts and monitoring the radio.
Personally I think training areas should be re-instated, but of course that will never happen whilst we have a CAA with no commitment to safety.
I hear what you are saying about crowded training areas, however that is really no excuse.
Safety should never be about "shades of grey", a practice is either as safe as it can be, or it isn't. Not sure what happens these days, but when I was instructing around Wellington and Paraparaumu, the rule used to be only one aircraft in the LFA at a time, and all other aircraft in the area co-ordinated their activities by radio, usually via CHC info. Not sure how you do a FLWOP properly without entering the LFA.
If you have a bunch of aircraft all performing training manouevers in a small space, you have a dangerous situation and it needs to be controlled either by rule, or by common sense. The common sense approach would be "don't go there" if more than, say, two other aircraft are in there.
Of course old-timers would say that we always got by just fine by performing proper lookouts and monitoring the radio.
Personally I think training areas should be re-instated, but of course that will never happen whilst we have a CAA with no commitment to safety.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR, I understand what you are saying and agree with you to some degree. However, relying on another's common sense is a recipe for disaster.....there are some very foolish people out there (I am not suggesting for one minute this is the case for Massey until an investigation is done!).
The LFA arrangement is pretty much the same these days but relies on the professionalism of the operators to communicate what they are doing.
Take Ardmore for example, the training area has been progressively squeezed smaller and smaller. I understand that the Drury gliding field has been there for a long while but I have no idea how there hasn't been a mishap there. Mercer was allowed to develop a parachute drop zone, effectively cutting a huge portion of the training area out. There are now so many a/c competing for real estate in the sky that it can become very difficult to complete an manouver.
I have previously done a lot of night ops over Auckland and couldn't believe some operators who allowed the students to fly out one after another, sometimes 5 in a line.
I certainly hope that some preventative policies are put in place by training organisations to try and minimise any conflict in the sky.
See and be seen can sometimes not work.......with tragic results.
The LFA arrangement is pretty much the same these days but relies on the professionalism of the operators to communicate what they are doing.
Take Ardmore for example, the training area has been progressively squeezed smaller and smaller. I understand that the Drury gliding field has been there for a long while but I have no idea how there hasn't been a mishap there. Mercer was allowed to develop a parachute drop zone, effectively cutting a huge portion of the training area out. There are now so many a/c competing for real estate in the sky that it can become very difficult to complete an manouver.
I have previously done a lot of night ops over Auckland and couldn't believe some operators who allowed the students to fly out one after another, sometimes 5 in a line.
I certainly hope that some preventative policies are put in place by training organisations to try and minimise any conflict in the sky.
See and be seen can sometimes not work.......with tragic results.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS in light aircraft - particulary training aircraft, would just be a pain in the ass. I have flown a light aircraft with this technology in the AR training area and it just went nuts all the time - to the point I turned it off.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ni
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Semi-Rigid: The CAA spokesman on the news stated the radar tapes showed one aircraft, having previously descended to about 600ft, was climbing through 1500ft.
The other aircraft was in descent from a higher altitude.
The two aircraft were flying on courses at about 90 degrees to each other when the collision occured.
Do you still think your statement is the correct one ?
The other aircraft was in descent from a higher altitude.
The two aircraft were flying on courses at about 90 degrees to each other when the collision occured.
Do you still think your statement is the correct one ?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR,
You are suggesting that two aircraft should not be doing PFL's into the same area at the same time - quite true I think. But perhaps the pilots didn't know the other was there, particularly if one had finished his exercise and the other had only just started. BTW I'm not sure that this accident has anything to do with LFZ's (formerly LFA's, formerly formerly LFZ's, formerly formerly formerly goodness knows what).
So what are the "training areas" that used to exist? I'm not familiar with anything other than GAA's. And, how would the training area administration work to prevent collisions between two training school craft?
O8
You are suggesting that two aircraft should not be doing PFL's into the same area at the same time - quite true I think. But perhaps the pilots didn't know the other was there, particularly if one had finished his exercise and the other had only just started. BTW I'm not sure that this accident has anything to do with LFZ's (formerly LFA's, formerly formerly LFZ's, formerly formerly formerly goodness knows what).
So what are the "training areas" that used to exist? I'm not familiar with anything other than GAA's. And, how would the training area administration work to prevent collisions between two training school craft?
O8
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: EXPECT DIVERSIONS
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They used to have danger areas with a little symbol of an aeroplane to denote the danger was from training aeroplanes. The charts from last year had em but the new ones dont.
Anyhow, without wanting to preempt the outcome of a report, perhaps its time to put in place an RTF procedure for aeroplanes on forced landing practise maybe as part of training airspace becoming special procedures airspace in more congested areas.
Anyhow, without wanting to preempt the outcome of a report, perhaps its time to put in place an RTF procedure for aeroplanes on forced landing practise maybe as part of training airspace becoming special procedures airspace in more congested areas.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
Just to clarify, most of the time, at most places Forced Landings are NOT done in a LFZ. Particularly not the Ardmore LFZ where your choices of field include the sea or the beach. PFLs are normally done in non LFZ airspace down to 500'.
Unfortunately at Ardmore, not operating in an area because there are already a couple of aircraft there is not a viable option. It is routine to see more than 5 aircraft doing PFLs into a 50 acre area of farmland.
I'm not sure what procedures are in place these days, but during the time I was using the area, we broadcast on the Mercer traffic frequency and this seemed to work well. Toward the end of my training, the chaps over at Mercer said they didn't want these broadcasts to be made on their frequency. This means pilots using the Pokeno paddocks are either not broadcasting, or using company base frequencies - both of which are unsafe. Can someone more current please elaborate on this.
There needs to be some solid procedures set in place for operations in busy GA areas, and in particular areas used for forced landing practice as this is the most vulnerable routine training situation, even more so than low flying ops.
Just to clarify, most of the time, at most places Forced Landings are NOT done in a LFZ. Particularly not the Ardmore LFZ where your choices of field include the sea or the beach. PFLs are normally done in non LFZ airspace down to 500'.
Unfortunately at Ardmore, not operating in an area because there are already a couple of aircraft there is not a viable option. It is routine to see more than 5 aircraft doing PFLs into a 50 acre area of farmland.
I'm not sure what procedures are in place these days, but during the time I was using the area, we broadcast on the Mercer traffic frequency and this seemed to work well. Toward the end of my training, the chaps over at Mercer said they didn't want these broadcasts to be made on their frequency. This means pilots using the Pokeno paddocks are either not broadcasting, or using company base frequencies - both of which are unsafe. Can someone more current please elaborate on this.
There needs to be some solid procedures set in place for operations in busy GA areas, and in particular areas used for forced landing practice as this is the most vulnerable routine training situation, even more so than low flying ops.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: EXPECT DIVERSIONS
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only broadcasts made by training flights are the fact they are in the area, a common example is: "XYZ, Is pokeno paddocks 3000 in the area 20 minutes" except if the simulation is done at mercer in which case d/w and final calls are made.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Personally I've always thought it was a matter of time in the ardmore training area...10yrs ago doing my CPL it was bloody scary
Now thats its happened in near Palmy I guess you have to think its one of those things that is always gonna happen sometime.
MOR did the info help mate?
just my thoughts
H
Now thats its happened in near Palmy I guess you have to think its one of those things that is always gonna happen sometime.
MOR did the info help mate?
just my thoughts
H
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oktas8
Back in the dim distant past, there used to be promulgated training areas with specific boundaries, that could only be entered by aircraft engaged in flight training. The idea was to protect the training aircraft from collision with ag aircraft, scheduled flights, etc. They were permanently active. The Wellington one used to stretch from Wainuiomata in the north to Turakarae Head in the south. As I understand it, these areas are gone now, replaced (in some places) by GAA, which as far as I can tell are not protected areas.
They were managed by the appropriate info unit, who would advise how many aircraft were in the area and where they were. Often the CHC Info guy would just say "all aircraft in the Wellington training area, talk to each other" and we would pass info as to where we were and what we were doing. The other form of management was the club ensuring that when a pilot went to the training area, he was aware of the the other club aircraft operating there. We had a rule that they would not operate in the same area, ie one would go north, the other south, and so on. It was a big area.
In the accident that is the subject of this thread, the Training Area woulf have prevented the near-collision with the helo (as the helo wouldn't have been there), and any potential ag activity.
Cloud Cutter
Personally I can't see any point at all in doing FLWOP/PFLs down to 500', it is that last 500' that determines the outcome of the exercise. We always used to go down to 50' or so, by then you know whether you are going to get in or not. For that to happen, we had to enter the LFA or whatever it is now. Some instructors used to get their students to actually do a touch and go into the paddock, but I never liked that much - too many risks in an unknown paddock.
Sadly, that illustrates my point precisely. What those schools are saying, in effect, is that they know they are operating in an unsafe manner, and they are prepared to accept it in order to complete the training. What they SHOULD be doing is putting safety first and either not filling a 50 acre area with aircraft, or go down to Lower Hutt and sit on the CAA's doorstep until they designate some more airspace.
Operating safely does not involve shrugging your shoulders and saying "Oh well, that's the way it is, we'll carry on until aluminium confetti occurs". It involves a conscious, deliberate decision to never compromise high operating standards. Sadly, it seems that NZ GA doesn't understand this, hence the high number of completely preventable accidents that occur.
A lot of the blame must be laid at the door of the CAA, who do little to help the situation.
haughtney1
Your experience sounds familiar... flight training should not be something you feel fortunate to survive.
Regarding the info, thanks a lot for that, they don't seem to like answering emails so I'll call next week.
Back in the dim distant past, there used to be promulgated training areas with specific boundaries, that could only be entered by aircraft engaged in flight training. The idea was to protect the training aircraft from collision with ag aircraft, scheduled flights, etc. They were permanently active. The Wellington one used to stretch from Wainuiomata in the north to Turakarae Head in the south. As I understand it, these areas are gone now, replaced (in some places) by GAA, which as far as I can tell are not protected areas.
They were managed by the appropriate info unit, who would advise how many aircraft were in the area and where they were. Often the CHC Info guy would just say "all aircraft in the Wellington training area, talk to each other" and we would pass info as to where we were and what we were doing. The other form of management was the club ensuring that when a pilot went to the training area, he was aware of the the other club aircraft operating there. We had a rule that they would not operate in the same area, ie one would go north, the other south, and so on. It was a big area.
In the accident that is the subject of this thread, the Training Area woulf have prevented the near-collision with the helo (as the helo wouldn't have been there), and any potential ag activity.
Cloud Cutter
Personally I can't see any point at all in doing FLWOP/PFLs down to 500', it is that last 500' that determines the outcome of the exercise. We always used to go down to 50' or so, by then you know whether you are going to get in or not. For that to happen, we had to enter the LFA or whatever it is now. Some instructors used to get their students to actually do a touch and go into the paddock, but I never liked that much - too many risks in an unknown paddock.
Unfortunately at Ardmore, not operating in an area because there are already a couple of aircraft there is not a viable option. It is routine to see more than 5 aircraft doing PFLs into a 50 acre area of farmland.
Operating safely does not involve shrugging your shoulders and saying "Oh well, that's the way it is, we'll carry on until aluminium confetti occurs". It involves a conscious, deliberate decision to never compromise high operating standards. Sadly, it seems that NZ GA doesn't understand this, hence the high number of completely preventable accidents that occur.
A lot of the blame must be laid at the door of the CAA, who do little to help the situation.
haughtney1
Your experience sounds familiar... flight training should not be something you feel fortunate to survive.
Regarding the info, thanks a lot for that, they don't seem to like answering emails so I'll call next week.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"At this stage, probably no one, but no one, knows exactly why this accident happened."
And even the accident investigators will be able to do no better. They will have access to information that is not available to the general public, but all they can do is come up with educated guesses.
Prospector
And even the accident investigators will be able to do no better. They will have access to information that is not available to the general public, but all they can do is come up with educated guesses.
Prospector
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This accident will not be easy to cope with for anyone remotely involved in their training or flying. I suspect that their flying instructors will be having some sleepless nights. On behalf of Airline Flying Club at Ardmore, I offer our condolences to all the people affected by Thursdays events.
In regards to practicing forced landings, they are a necessary manoever - to be tempered with safety in the practice of them. They do happen, and I would hope that every pilot was competent at performing a successful one for-real.
The Ardmore training area has become more regulated recently with the Mercer area special procedures area having 10 min reporting intervels. If you want to have your own radar screen in the cockpit, then get yourself a mobile-internet-capable laptop and run Flight Explorer on it. The danger here is head-in-cockpit syndrome.
Flight safety is everybody's responsibility - let's learn from others mistakes. We won't live long enough to make them all ourselves.
R.I.P.
ect?
Edited for clarity, and to protect the guilty.
In regards to practicing forced landings, they are a necessary manoever - to be tempered with safety in the practice of them. They do happen, and I would hope that every pilot was competent at performing a successful one for-real.
The Ardmore training area has become more regulated recently with the Mercer area special procedures area having 10 min reporting intervels. If you want to have your own radar screen in the cockpit, then get yourself a mobile-internet-capable laptop and run Flight Explorer on it. The danger here is head-in-cockpit syndrome.
Flight safety is everybody's responsibility - let's learn from others mistakes. We won't live long enough to make them all ourselves.
R.I.P.
ect?
Edited for clarity, and to protect the guilty.
Last edited by What time is ECT?; 12th Feb 2006 at 00:03.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One point that few seem to have picked up on is the value of TCAS. Even if you inhibit the RAs, you still have position information available in three axes, and if you run the TCAS on the 5 mile scale, you won't get swamped with targets. It should be mandatory.
WITCH
Do please attempt to get over yourself. The report is going to say (obviously) that two apparently serviceable aircraft collided due to a failure to see and avoid each other, something they are required to do in that airspace. The rest of the report will be contributing factors, toxicological examinations, and so on. It is the contributing factors that will be the most interesting.
And you got the emphasis wrong in your explanation of the forum title. It is the Professional Pilots Rumour network. In fact, it stopped being for professional pilots some years ago...
WITCH
Do please attempt to get over yourself. The report is going to say (obviously) that two apparently serviceable aircraft collided due to a failure to see and avoid each other, something they are required to do in that airspace. The rest of the report will be contributing factors, toxicological examinations, and so on. It is the contributing factors that will be the most interesting.
And you got the emphasis wrong in your explanation of the forum title. It is the Professional Pilots Rumour network. In fact, it stopped being for professional pilots some years ago...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WITCH.....
With all due respect...I think that PPRUNE is performing it's function nicely.
People have the ability to discuss events and perhaps learn from them.
Sharing everyone's opinions (rightly or not) allows a point to be discussed. This thread in particular (apart from one or two) has diverged from the actual incident and the discussion has been about how easily it could happen in other areas. Unfortunately, accident reports seem to take a very long time to be released that people are no longer interested in the event.
I think we should discuss this and perhaps hear what people have to say so that we can learn.
You talk about professionalism, I think that discussing incidents and hearing other points of view is professionalism personified.
Sure, I agree that one or two posts have people saying that it was definitely this or that which caused the crash but on the whole people have been discussing a general problem. I for one don't see the use in burying ones head in the sand and not discussing problems and airing a viewpoint as beneficial to safety at all.
With all due respect...I think that PPRUNE is performing it's function nicely.
People have the ability to discuss events and perhaps learn from them.
Sharing everyone's opinions (rightly or not) allows a point to be discussed. This thread in particular (apart from one or two) has diverged from the actual incident and the discussion has been about how easily it could happen in other areas. Unfortunately, accident reports seem to take a very long time to be released that people are no longer interested in the event.
I think we should discuss this and perhaps hear what people have to say so that we can learn.
You talk about professionalism, I think that discussing incidents and hearing other points of view is professionalism personified.
Sure, I agree that one or two posts have people saying that it was definitely this or that which caused the crash but on the whole people have been discussing a general problem. I for one don't see the use in burying ones head in the sand and not discussing problems and airing a viewpoint as beneficial to safety at all.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: S 40°12'07" E 175°22'52"
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by deadhead
Yes, I know there is another area to the north that can be used, but that has its drawbacks, too, as any local will tell you. The Air Farce’s Airtrainers now occupy all the best real estate, only a few miles to the west. They could quite easily operate in an area half the size, now that the knucks have gone.
See and be seen works if you are diligent with your lookout, and use the radio to build your SA of what's going on around you. If you're out there practising forced landings in particular, you should have cleared the area you're going to descend into before you start - it is a practise after all.
If you're unsure of what's going on - speak up!!!
Choice 'bro!