NAS rears its head again
Well I don't know about you Owen,
But in THIS case, The Canadian report, your
"Vanishingly Small"
Became a "Direct Hit"......thanks to the accuracy of GPS ..apparently....
I recall an even more 'vanishingly small' example if there is such a thing...
Off the coast of Namibia if I recall correctly, twas a mid-air of two large jets at right angles to each other, one climbing out to the west over the ocean, and the other on a track south bound, whether on descent or still in the cruise I can't recall...
But, they 'got' each other none-the-less.....
And there have been numerous examples of similar occurrences over time.
The Constellation and the DC-6B over the Grand Canyon being one of the most notable.
That accident was the cause of a huge 'review' in the U.S. ATC system, and 'made it what it is today'...
Are you prepared to accept 'vanishing small' as a risk factor, when with a little more thought, it could be avoided altogether??
The truth can be stranger than fiction - our 'saving grace' is that it generally doesn't happen 'that' often....so some 'risk mitigators' are inclined to statisticly 'write them off'.....
But, then I would hate to be the one that causes such a 'historic' event......
(Although, I guess that after that first milli-second, I wouldn't know much about it....)
Regards.....
But in THIS case, The Canadian report, your
"Vanishingly Small"
Became a "Direct Hit"......thanks to the accuracy of GPS ..apparently....
I recall an even more 'vanishingly small' example if there is such a thing...
Off the coast of Namibia if I recall correctly, twas a mid-air of two large jets at right angles to each other, one climbing out to the west over the ocean, and the other on a track south bound, whether on descent or still in the cruise I can't recall...
But, they 'got' each other none-the-less.....
And there have been numerous examples of similar occurrences over time.
The Constellation and the DC-6B over the Grand Canyon being one of the most notable.
That accident was the cause of a huge 'review' in the U.S. ATC system, and 'made it what it is today'...
Are you prepared to accept 'vanishing small' as a risk factor, when with a little more thought, it could be avoided altogether??
The truth can be stranger than fiction - our 'saving grace' is that it generally doesn't happen 'that' often....so some 'risk mitigators' are inclined to statisticly 'write them off'.....
But, then I would hate to be the one that causes such a 'historic' event......
(Although, I guess that after that first milli-second, I wouldn't know much about it....)
Regards.....
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the resulting carnage
The countryside from memory was going to be littered with aluminium around these beacons. They attracted aircraft like moths to a light.
How did that pan out historically?
The Big Sky Theory
Since much of the Broome Solution relies on the "Big Sky Theory" and the vanishingly small chance of an IFR and a VFR being in the same place at the same time ... above Broome ... i.e. CHANCE .... here is a true story that has played a part in forming my opinion of the BST.
Many moons ago, whilst working traffic, amongst the aircraft I had on board were these two ( can't remember the exact dep points):
Two aircraft departing hundreds of miles apart, and I calculated that, in about 90 minutes time, they would cross at the same specific point, way out in the GAFA, at exactly the same time. Who woulda thunk it?
Gave traffic to the IFR early and he (sniggeringly) accepted it. As the crossing point got closer the IFR got a little bit more interested (he must have done his own calculations). Although this was in the VFR Full Reporting age (so VFR level holding was a bit more precice) he elected to pop up another 500ft ... till they passed.. just in case. They never saw each other.
My point ... the sky ain't that big when Murphy's involved, so I don't believe chance should play so much of a part in any mitigation strategy. Controllers aren't permitted to use ... "they probably won't hit" ... as a separation standard, but are required to provide assurrance.
The only way Assurrance for RPT saftey can be provided in the "Link Vacuum" is by ensuring all participants are known.
Yes, that isn't the case now over Broome, but aren't we attempting to provide an improvement?
Many moons ago, whilst working traffic, amongst the aircraft I had on board were these two ( can't remember the exact dep points):
- IFR ... South of WA to Northern WA A070
- VFR ... BRM (or Derby) - Alice A065
Two aircraft departing hundreds of miles apart, and I calculated that, in about 90 minutes time, they would cross at the same specific point, way out in the GAFA, at exactly the same time. Who woulda thunk it?
Gave traffic to the IFR early and he (sniggeringly) accepted it. As the crossing point got closer the IFR got a little bit more interested (he must have done his own calculations). Although this was in the VFR Full Reporting age (so VFR level holding was a bit more precice) he elected to pop up another 500ft ... till they passed.. just in case. They never saw each other.
My point ... the sky ain't that big when Murphy's involved, so I don't believe chance should play so much of a part in any mitigation strategy. Controllers aren't permitted to use ... "they probably won't hit" ... as a separation standard, but are required to provide assurrance.
The only way Assurrance for RPT saftey can be provided in the "Link Vacuum" is by ensuring all participants are known.
Yes, that isn't the case now over Broome, but aren't we attempting to provide an improvement?
the resulting carnage
The countryside from memory was going to be littered with aluminium around these beacons. They attracted aircraft like moths to a light.
How did that pan out historically?
That is more than we can say for the Tobago and 737 at Launy. Carnage was close then, and for absolutely no extra cost, it wouldn't have been that way.
TKS for that 'Owen '......
Sorry 'bout that....
Your 'image' is restored.......
Sorry 'bout that....
Your 'image' is restored.......
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 14th May 2010 at 08:00.
G'Day Peuce,
Many examples of events like that one...
One of my recollections was an aircraft tracking North to South in Western WA - was it Telfer to Kalgoorlie - and another tracking across that track, the operator at the time did a 'quick' calculation and decided they were adequately apart - however.....not only did the pilots see each other, it was fortunate they were mates and actually spoke to each other, 'socially' at first, - then 'operationally', and one actually took evasive action and reported his 'lack of tfc info' to the FSO concerned....
When the situation was 'examined', it was found that a revised EST for the next REP point by one of them would have been 'in order'...but.....the situation remained.
Evasive action was taken!!
I guess we all have many such tales to tell......
However, Truth can often be 'better' than fiction....and the 'Big Sky' theory can be just that, a theory that no-one (in their right mind...)really wants to put into practice..
And THE POINT IS.....
All that is to happen, is that a 'Safety Case' be examined, and for NO EXTRA COST, it could be made SAFER..!!
P.s. I just may have to get a seaplane, and just taxy all the way into Cable Beach from that '7nm from the RWY Threshold'..- NO confliction with anybody - NO clearance required....I'm a BOAT!!
Many examples of events like that one...
One of my recollections was an aircraft tracking North to South in Western WA - was it Telfer to Kalgoorlie - and another tracking across that track, the operator at the time did a 'quick' calculation and decided they were adequately apart - however.....not only did the pilots see each other, it was fortunate they were mates and actually spoke to each other, 'socially' at first, - then 'operationally', and one actually took evasive action and reported his 'lack of tfc info' to the FSO concerned....
When the situation was 'examined', it was found that a revised EST for the next REP point by one of them would have been 'in order'...but.....the situation remained.
Evasive action was taken!!
I guess we all have many such tales to tell......
However, Truth can often be 'better' than fiction....and the 'Big Sky' theory can be just that, a theory that no-one (in their right mind...)really wants to put into practice..
And THE POINT IS.....
All that is to happen, is that a 'Safety Case' be examined, and for NO EXTRA COST, it could be made SAFER..!!
P.s. I just may have to get a seaplane, and just taxy all the way into Cable Beach from that '7nm from the RWY Threshold'..- NO confliction with anybody - NO clearance required....I'm a BOAT!!
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 14th May 2010 at 08:24.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anecdotes, OK;
I’m flying 190 degrees at 4500ft VFR in class G airspace. I hear a call departing a nearby airport- C182 IFR at 4000ft tracking 270 degrees in CAVOK crystal clear air. I broadcast my call sign, position, height, track. MB Centre comes up and identifies a 1200 “unknown” traffic will intersect in about 5 minutes. I again identify myself saying I am that “unknown” traffic and offer to climb if there is a problem. ( I am flying a PA22 with 108 HP). The 182 asks where I am because he can’t see me and MB Centre advise, (in due course), we have passed each other. In all the interaction I applied “alerted see and avoid” to my VFR airmanship. (I did see the 182 and there was no conflict). The IFR bloke didn’t know what was going on, (why he would fly a short, 40 mile, leg IFR in Indian territory is still beyond me), but what stuck with me was the ATC bloke refused to acknowledge I even existed. Hemispherical separation standards worked.
Sometimes it isn’t the “rouge” VFR causing the trouble, but the refusal by ATC to interact with subspecies such as VFR traffic which would both ease any apprehension on both parties or give the traffic “not in the system” an acknowledgement that they exist and someone is watching both IFR and VFR.
Perhaps there is a demarcation line on a radar screen?
Perhaps there is a different rule for RPT?
I’m flying 190 degrees at 4500ft VFR in class G airspace. I hear a call departing a nearby airport- C182 IFR at 4000ft tracking 270 degrees in CAVOK crystal clear air. I broadcast my call sign, position, height, track. MB Centre comes up and identifies a 1200 “unknown” traffic will intersect in about 5 minutes. I again identify myself saying I am that “unknown” traffic and offer to climb if there is a problem. ( I am flying a PA22 with 108 HP). The 182 asks where I am because he can’t see me and MB Centre advise, (in due course), we have passed each other. In all the interaction I applied “alerted see and avoid” to my VFR airmanship. (I did see the 182 and there was no conflict). The IFR bloke didn’t know what was going on, (why he would fly a short, 40 mile, leg IFR in Indian territory is still beyond me), but what stuck with me was the ATC bloke refused to acknowledge I even existed. Hemispherical separation standards worked.
Sometimes it isn’t the “rouge” VFR causing the trouble, but the refusal by ATC to interact with subspecies such as VFR traffic which would both ease any apprehension on both parties or give the traffic “not in the system” an acknowledgement that they exist and someone is watching both IFR and VFR.
Perhaps there is a demarcation line on a radar screen?
Perhaps there is a different rule for RPT?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what stuck with me was the ATC bloke refused to acknowledge I even existed
- Was the controller required to speak to you? (airspace class). If not, how do you know what else they were doing at the time? This is a major reason why "workload permitting" is a crock. When someone like you might find the advertised service very useful, it isn't available- BUT YOU DON'T KNOW IT ISN'T AVAILABLE.
- Could the controller hear you? (radio coverage). How do you know?
- Did you over-transmit another call on another frequency, which may or may not be re-transmitting on the freq you are on? Ad-hoc services really have no place in a safety critical environment.
- How do you know that YOU were the unidentified target being referred to? You just don't know.
Anyway, don't want to derail the thread too much trying to point out to people how much they don't know.
Re the Canadian accident- it was pointed out to me by a canuck friend whilst we were having a discussion about what was being proposed in oz, and the canadian experience. He wondered how many a/c of the type of performance of chieftains and up use GPS, because of it's affect on the "vanishingly small" argument.
Frank,
Firstly, let me applaud you for making yourself know ... not everyone does.
Secondly, the problem with your argument ... which you hear quite often from the VFRs ( even the one in the Maroochy altercation, from memory, ... "I saw him, there was no conflict"
Problem is ... do you know the IFR's next move?
He could be just about to hit a turning point or, as someone suggested, commence descent ... or climb.... or hold ... or any one of a hundred manouvers. If he knows your exact whereabouts, and intentions, he can adjust or manouver accordingly.
Perhaps, in your particular situation, the Controller thought it more prudent to give real-time radar updates to the IFR ... maybe due to the urgency of the developing situation ... rather than have you and the IFR enter into a prolonged discussion.
Every situation is different.
Firstly, let me applaud you for making yourself know ... not everyone does.
Secondly, the problem with your argument ... which you hear quite often from the VFRs ( even the one in the Maroochy altercation, from memory, ... "I saw him, there was no conflict"
Problem is ... do you know the IFR's next move?
He could be just about to hit a turning point or, as someone suggested, commence descent ... or climb.... or hold ... or any one of a hundred manouvers. If he knows your exact whereabouts, and intentions, he can adjust or manouver accordingly.
Perhaps, in your particular situation, the Controller thought it more prudent to give real-time radar updates to the IFR ... maybe due to the urgency of the developing situation ... rather than have you and the IFR enter into a prolonged discussion.
Every situation is different.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had the controller advised all concerned (but he was not obliged to talk to pissants like me), of the situational position, self separation/ awareness in class G airspace would have been no problem. The thing was, the IFR bloke had lost that perspective. I hadn't. And I did offer to climb despite the effort of doing so in a Colt being a major undertaking.
I'm not taking the piss, simply pointing out that whatever comes about with airspace, over which I have no control, we can and must work within what we are saddled with.
Simply put, I'm not going to stop flying when Bloggs wants to be where I may be at the same time in our 7,500,000 sq kilometers of Australian landspace plus hemispherical levels. He is as much of a danger to me as I am to him. If we all can't talk where is the "alerted see an avoid"?
I'm not taking the piss, simply pointing out that whatever comes about with airspace, over which I have no control, we can and must work within what we are saddled with.
Simply put, I'm not going to stop flying when Bloggs wants to be where I may be at the same time in our 7,500,000 sq kilometers of Australian landspace plus hemispherical levels. He is as much of a danger to me as I am to him. If we all can't talk where is the "alerted see an avoid"?
Simply put, I'm not going to stop flying when Bloggs wants to be where I may be at the same time in our 7,500,000 sq kilometers of Australian landspace plus hemispherical levels. He is as much of a danger to me as I am to him. If we all can't talk where is the "alerted see an avoid"?
Re seeing and avoiding, spotting a 182 in good time is one thing, but I would wager that more often than not when/if you pick me up, it'll be too late to do anything about it, just as happened in Canada (and the other times that lighties have creamed jets - only in the USA). As for me picking you up, my cockpit is like peering out of the windscreen of a car...whilst sitting in the back seat, there is so much ironmongery in the way. Don't hold your breath expecting that RPT pilots will pick up all and sundry at 50nm. It just ain't gunna happen.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank,
Everything Ferris said in his post. How do you DEFINITELY know you were the traffic? And from your post, how do you DEFINITELY know that ATC was reading your broadcasts?
And luckily, if it was you, you were under some type of surveillance.
Everything Ferris said in his post. How do you DEFINITELY know you were the traffic? And from your post, how do you DEFINITELY know that ATC was reading your broadcasts?
And luckily, if it was you, you were under some type of surveillance.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What confuses the hell out of me is why no one has purloined 'Vanishingly Small' as a Login.
Although I imagine that to adopt such a handle you'd have to favour those great modern-management-speak terms such as 'going forward,' 'efficiency and effectiveness,' 'low-hanging fruit,' self-licking ice-creams,' strategic fit,' 'drill down;' and I could go on ad-infinitum.
'Vanishingly small' is a BS term that means absolutely nothing in the context of aviation, other than your ass being toast when the BST (inevitably) fails; as it has on numerous occasions, with associated loss of life.
Although I imagine that to adopt such a handle you'd have to favour those great modern-management-speak terms such as 'going forward,' 'efficiency and effectiveness,' 'low-hanging fruit,' self-licking ice-creams,' strategic fit,' 'drill down;' and I could go on ad-infinitum.
'Vanishingly small' is a BS term that means absolutely nothing in the context of aviation, other than your ass being toast when the BST (inevitably) fails; as it has on numerous occasions, with associated loss of life.
Some interesting excerpts from the CASA Broome Aeronautical Study ... suposedly the basis for the implementation of this "ICAO+Fries" airspace:
....
...
Not now buddy !
....
I'm not filled with confidence
...important to note that although the provision of a Directed Traffic Information (DTI) service had a noticeable effect on IFR to IFR aircraft conflicts, the risk levels for these types of conflict were sufficiently low for the DTI service to have little effect on reducing the overall risk level. (Ed: 
)
IFR to VFR aircraft conflicts remain the main concern and focus.
)IFR to VFR aircraft conflicts remain the main concern and focus.
It must be mentioned that the ARM cannot accurately estimate the impact of a Class D tower and it is therefore important to note that all reasonable mitigators continue to be considered to guarantee that Broome remains ALARP.
The requirement of pilots to broadcast is reduced in Class D airspace in comparison with Class G/CTAF(R) procedures.
....
The study reveals that the largest risk in the Broome airspace is a collision between a VFR and an IFR (H).
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
max1;
The IFR 182 and I were the only two in that part of the world at the same time. I heard the 182 departure call and MB CTR acknowledge giving area QNH. (which I checked with mine). I then saw the 182 and he and I had communication with each other. MB CTR could talk with him. I could talk with him. I could hear MB CTR (5). MB CTR refused to talk with me. My radio worked fine and did before and after an annual shortly after. (it was King gear). We were in class G airspace and my transponder was being swept.
My bitch is about a courtesy thing, like, you know, "airmanship".
And Max, it is obvious the "IFR" traffic was under some type of surveillance. But we will never know if "I" was will we?
Howabout;
Reminds me of a similar expression coined by a well meaning but corrupted organisation that habitually said "membership was trending upwards", (as it probably was in the preceeding 24 hours), but annually was decreasing at an alarming rate.
This was "spin" as opposed to a description of a possibility of an event that was un-quantifiable in mathematical analysis. BS is not a term that would even the equation. But I admire the emotiveness of the sentiment.
Everything Ferris said in his post. How do you DEFINITELY know you were the traffic? And from your post, how do you DEFINITELY know that ATC was reading your broadcasts?
And luckily, if it was you, you were under some type of surveillance.
And luckily, if it was you, you were under some type of surveillance.
My bitch is about a courtesy thing, like, you know, "airmanship".
And Max, it is obvious the "IFR" traffic was under some type of surveillance. But we will never know if "I" was will we?
Howabout;
Reminds me of a similar expression coined by a well meaning but corrupted organisation that habitually said "membership was trending upwards", (as it probably was in the preceeding 24 hours), but annually was decreasing at an alarming rate.
This was "spin" as opposed to a description of a possibility of an event that was un-quantifiable in mathematical analysis. BS is not a term that would even the equation. But I admire the emotiveness of the sentiment.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all about Money..
Having read the 48 or so pages of this thread, I feel the need to re-iterate something I have said in previous threads on this subject:
While ASA returns $100million to the Gummint anually, the status qou will essentially remain.
I recently did a flight across northern Victoria, and I was struck by the fact that I could hear traffic on the low sector in the circuit at Portland, Griffith, Mildura and Broken Hill, all the one ATC voice on around 4 different frequencies.
As an ATC, if the book says class C/D/E or whatever, fine and dandy.
BUT you will need around double the radar heads and double the ATCs to do it properly and effeciently.
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! IMHO anyway.
While ASA returns $100million to the Gummint anually, the status qou will essentially remain.
I recently did a flight across northern Victoria, and I was struck by the fact that I could hear traffic on the low sector in the circuit at Portland, Griffith, Mildura and Broken Hill, all the one ATC voice on around 4 different frequencies.
As an ATC, if the book says class C/D/E or whatever, fine and dandy.
BUT you will need around double the radar heads and double the ATCs to do it properly and effeciently.
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! IMHO anyway.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC to interact with subspecies such as VFR traffic
pissants like me
And I did offer to climb despite the effort of doing so in a Colt being a major undertaking.
If you offered to climb its between you & the IFR to self-separate, or if you think the IFR has lost situational awareness and you think on current profiles you are gonna hit then just climb or do whatever you feel is necessary. Dont wait for ATC to tell you to climb when you are not under a control service, you'll be waiting a bloody long time.
Dont complain about effort of climb in a Colt, get a better aircraft that has more power than my hairdryer
IFR 182 and I were the only two in that part of the world at the same time
There may be aircraft without radio, or not listening/broadcasting.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geezus get handle on what has been said mate.
MB CTR were working an IFR C182 at 4000ft in G airspace.
I got in the way within 500ft vertically, but hemispherically where I should be.
OK so far?
The 182 lost situational awareness. I hadn't.
I offered to implement "alerted see and avoid" because MB CTR didn't want to talk to me. I offered to climb.
I was in "Indian territory". The 182 was there because he "could" be there and he was in "the system".
How much sky do these blokes need?
I own my aircraft. Do you own your hairdryer?
If I have an inferiority complex, you mate, have an elitist fixation. And what's with the hairdryer? Are you AC or DC?
"THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE WORLD"
(only if that's OK with you that is).
BTW. My latest aeroplane has less power than the Colt. Get used to it.
MB CTR were working an IFR C182 at 4000ft in G airspace.
I got in the way within 500ft vertically, but hemispherically where I should be.
OK so far?
The 182 lost situational awareness. I hadn't.
I offered to implement "alerted see and avoid" because MB CTR didn't want to talk to me. I offered to climb.
I was in "Indian territory". The 182 was there because he "could" be there and he was in "the system".
How much sky do these blokes need?
get a better aircraft that has more power than my hairdryer
If I have an inferiority complex, you mate, have an elitist fixation. And what's with the hairdryer? Are you AC or DC?
"THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE WORLD"
(only if that's OK with you that is).
BTW. My latest aeroplane has less power than the Colt. Get used to it.