E190 near collision Mildura May 16 - ASI bulletin 56
Well said, kaz.
I've asked third parties to read through this thread. You won't be surprised as to whose posts they consider puerile, childish and unprofessional.
As I said earlier in this thread, the attitude manifested in the sentences you quoted is an insight into the author's view of the author's own skills when s/he was flying 'mere' GA aircraft.
I've asked third parties to read through this thread. You won't be surprised as to whose posts they consider puerile, childish and unprofessional.
As I said earlier in this thread, the attitude manifested in the sentences you quoted is an insight into the author's view of the author's own skills when s/he was flying 'mere' GA aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaz, this shouldn't be about 'us' and 'them'. We're all in this together because no one wants a mid-air.
My comments were made in context to my previous statement. The number of times I have heard of aircraft being in a CTAF (circuit) unbroadcast is countless. I've experienced it over the years and so have my colleagues. All have been GA aircraft. I've NEVER had unbroadcast RPT traffic appearing in the circuit.
This comment is not directed at all GA pilots.
My comments were made in context to my previous statement. The number of times I have heard of aircraft being in a CTAF (circuit) unbroadcast is countless. I've experienced it over the years and so have my colleagues. All have been GA aircraft. I've NEVER had unbroadcast RPT traffic appearing in the circuit.
This comment is not directed at all GA pilots.
The number of times I have heard of aircraft being in a CTAF (circuit) unbroadcast is countless.
The number can be counted. And it won't be that big a number.
Could you please:
(1) confirm that the CTAFs to which you refer were ones in which the carriage of VHF was compulsory, and
(2) state, by reference to regulatory requirements, the calls that were compulsory but not made in those CTAFs.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hearsay doesn't persuade me, but facts do. It certainly shouldn't be about us and them and I'm reassured to see you assert that.
There are many CTAFs where no radio is required but few of them receive heavy metal. One of the issues that I have encountered on a few occasions is the 30 NM straight in announcement of the biggie occurring concurrently with the 10 NM inbound call from a little one. You guys approach around 3x my airspeed...hence the transmission over.
I remember flying in to BHI a few months ago getting a little wake up when the big fella gave a 5 NM as well because that was the first I heard him. I listen to just one channel at a time so I sometimes miss the area call.
I'm aware that I'm not easy to see, that I slow to less than 55 downwind and my final approach is under 50 KN and I let others know this if they join my circuit.
I'm very conscious of wake turbulence and often dag around in an orbit if I have stood aside for one of you guys. And I've had one or two Kingair drivers slow down to let me in first because they haven't forgotten this (thanks Michael).
But what I'm really trying to say is that almost all the GA folk I know try to do exactly that, too. And most of the heavy metal drivers are equally thoughtful.
The failure of just a few to demonstrate their courtesy and professionalism from either group should bring us closer together so we stamp it out...not be a source of dispute between us.
If we collide, I'll spoil your day probably even more than you will spoil mine. Let's make sure it never happens, eh? Peace
Kaz
There are many CTAFs where no radio is required but few of them receive heavy metal. One of the issues that I have encountered on a few occasions is the 30 NM straight in announcement of the biggie occurring concurrently with the 10 NM inbound call from a little one. You guys approach around 3x my airspeed...hence the transmission over.
I remember flying in to BHI a few months ago getting a little wake up when the big fella gave a 5 NM as well because that was the first I heard him. I listen to just one channel at a time so I sometimes miss the area call.
I'm aware that I'm not easy to see, that I slow to less than 55 downwind and my final approach is under 50 KN and I let others know this if they join my circuit.
I'm very conscious of wake turbulence and often dag around in an orbit if I have stood aside for one of you guys. And I've had one or two Kingair drivers slow down to let me in first because they haven't forgotten this (thanks Michael).
But what I'm really trying to say is that almost all the GA folk I know try to do exactly that, too. And most of the heavy metal drivers are equally thoughtful.
The failure of just a few to demonstrate their courtesy and professionalism from either group should bring us closer together so we stamp it out...not be a source of dispute between us.
If we collide, I'll spoil your day probably even more than you will spoil mine. Let's make sure it never happens, eh? Peace
Kaz
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Kaz,
I completely agree. We need to work together to make flying safer without the benefit of ATC in the interim. How: By being professional? Yes. But can we rely on it? No
The problems that every aviator should be asking, as a result of this incident is; what is the Department doing to address it? Is there a problem??
Would there be an inquiry into procedures/airspace if there was a loss of life in excess of 80 people and two aircraft destroyed? Simply put, it seems that because it didn't happen, nothing to see here - no problem. What a mentality! This should be a wake up call to to everybody!
I completely agree. We need to work together to make flying safer without the benefit of ATC in the interim. How: By being professional? Yes. But can we rely on it? No
The problems that every aviator should be asking, as a result of this incident is; what is the Department doing to address it? Is there a problem??
Would there be an inquiry into procedures/airspace if there was a loss of life in excess of 80 people and two aircraft destroyed? Simply put, it seems that because it didn't happen, nothing to see here - no problem. What a mentality! This should be a wake up call to to everybody!
No. Nobody needs "the Department" to do anything.
The rules are clear.
Who broke those rules in this case?
The rules are clear.
Who broke those rules in this case?
Who broke those rules in this case?
Actually, LB, no rules were broken. If you were less hung up on Amateur ATC and hypothetical go-rounds that may or may not have caused the sky to fall in, you may, by now, have worked out the big picture here.
The "department" does need to do something.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see there is renewed pressure on ASA and all to review CAAP 166 but my personal view is that the concerns are somewhat misconceived.
I routinely listen out on Area when travelling in remote areas and am very glad to have the ability to contact Centre if things go wrong for me (or someone else in the vicinity). I'm generally higher than 5000' and what is going on at some unmarked airstrip is of little concern to me then.
I enjoy hearing what you big fellas are up to and, on one occasion, was very glad my engine problems could be relayed by someone 25000' higher than me.
I spend quite a bit of time each year in these places and that camaraderie between pilots of things great and small is something very special.
I had to laugh,even though rather stressed, on my last trip into the Alice because I reported at the Well and gave an estimate but the thermals were wild and I actually had to slow down to get my airspeed back in the green. The tower called me up and asked "where are you?.". I told them I had been a bit delayed and why. They also gave me an update on the ATIS and the crosswind...which was horrific...and I suggested I might orbit a few times while they got their two RPT away. I explained that a 25 KN gusting x-wind was a tad more than the 9kn max for the AUSTER. They agreed. A few minutes later they gave me a clearance and I asked if the grass was available. Long pause and "negative, why?" I said I thought it might be "ugly"! There is a God and the wind was straight down the runway when I landed.
its much better when we work together. God knows it's hard enough to keep tthe hours rolling over without petty fights between us.
Kaz
I routinely listen out on Area when travelling in remote areas and am very glad to have the ability to contact Centre if things go wrong for me (or someone else in the vicinity). I'm generally higher than 5000' and what is going on at some unmarked airstrip is of little concern to me then.
I enjoy hearing what you big fellas are up to and, on one occasion, was very glad my engine problems could be relayed by someone 25000' higher than me.
I spend quite a bit of time each year in these places and that camaraderie between pilots of things great and small is something very special.
I had to laugh,even though rather stressed, on my last trip into the Alice because I reported at the Well and gave an estimate but the thermals were wild and I actually had to slow down to get my airspeed back in the green. The tower called me up and asked "where are you?.". I told them I had been a bit delayed and why. They also gave me an update on the ATIS and the crosswind...which was horrific...and I suggested I might orbit a few times while they got their two RPT away. I explained that a 25 KN gusting x-wind was a tad more than the 9kn max for the AUSTER. They agreed. A few minutes later they gave me a clearance and I asked if the grass was available. Long pause and "negative, why?" I said I thought it might be "ugly"! There is a God and the wind was straight down the runway when I landed.
its much better when we work together. God knows it's hard enough to keep tthe hours rolling over without petty fights between us.
Kaz
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see there is renewed pressure on ASA and all to review CAAP 166 but my personal view is that the concerns are somewhat misconceived.
CAAP 166
December 2013
Why this publication was written
This publication was written to provide advice on the limitations of ‘see-and-avoid', and on the use of radio to provide ‘alerted see-and-avoid', in order to enhance and maintain separation in a busy air traffic environment. It provides practical advice to pilots on their role in collision avoidance through the see-and-avoid principle to prevent mid-air collisions or airprox events, particularly in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes.
Keep reading and the Advisory publications keeps telling you the limitations of the system.
Here; 'The concept of see-and-avoid is far from reliable [ATSB].'
And here; '7.4 Pilots should also be aware that two aircraft converging on a point have the potential to remain fixed in one or both pilots' field of view, i.e. their relative position (in the windscreen) won't change until moments before impact.'
And here;
9.4 Pilots must realise that this process takes time; and human deficiencies can reduce the chances of a threat being detected and avoided. The factors affecting lookout may not be errors or poor airmanship, but limitations of the human visual and information processing systems which are present to various degrees in all humans.
9.3 As threats are external to the aircraft, an effective lookout must be maintained. The pilot must: consistently look outside the aircraft, search the available visual field to detect threats that will probably appear in the peripheral vision; shift vision directly to the threat and, if identified as a collision risk, decide on what effective evasive action to take; and manoeuvre the aircraft to avoid collision or an airprox event.
Then apply all this to a large RPT aircraft in a circuit.
CAAP 166 needs to be reviewed!
Last edited by Utradar; 3rd Feb 2017 at 11:39.
That is why the whole concept of "See and Avoid" is complete codswallop, and why "Amateur ATC" has for decades kept aeroplanes apart, and will keep them apart for decades to come.
Big aeroplanes need to operate with some sort of vertical or horizontal segregation until one (preferably both) crew sees the other aeroplane and is able to avoid the other aeroplane visually. That is precisely why every aerodrome that fields a large RPT service has mandatory radio requirements.
The recent hoo-har has been created in large part by You Know Who meddling with a system that worked well (as I alluded-to a few pages back).
Big aeroplanes need to operate with some sort of vertical or horizontal segregation until one (preferably both) crew sees the other aeroplane and is able to avoid the other aeroplane visually. That is precisely why every aerodrome that fields a large RPT service has mandatory radio requirements.
The recent hoo-har has been created in large part by You Know Who meddling with a system that worked well (as I alluded-to a few pages back).
That is precisely why every aerodrome that fields a large RPT service has mandatory radio requirements.
All I'm seeing is a bunch of self-proclaimed professionals who make up their own rules because they:
- either don't know or don't agree with the current rules, and
- either can't or won't rationally assess collision risk.
That is precisely why every aerodrome that fields a large RPT service has mandatory radio requirements
The carriage of VHF is mandatory at some uncontrolled aerodromes (although there are exceptions to even that rule).
There are no - repeat no - mandatory calls. The only time you're obliged to pipe up is if it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision, with another aircraft.
The problem is that pilots who don't spend much (or any) time in the vicinity of other aircraft tend to grossly overrate collision risk. Some of the posters in this thread need to spend time at places like YMRY. RPT, ultralights, GA, EMS helicopter, parachuting, seaplanes ...
There are no - repeat no - mandatory calls. The only time you're obliged to pipe up is if it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision, with another aircraft.
The problem is that pilots who don't spend much (or any) time in the vicinity of other aircraft tend to grossly overrate collision risk. Some of the posters in this thread need to spend time at places like YMRY. RPT, ultralights, GA, EMS helicopter, parachuting, seaplanes ...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no - repeat no - mandatory calls
Here;
Communications - 1.2.1.15.1 Pilots operating at, or in the vicinity of non-controlled airports where the carriage of radio is mandatory should always monitor the CTAF and broadcast their intentions at least in accordance with the minimum calls set out in the table below (Summay of broadcasts – All aircraft at non-controlled airports). Pilots should also make additional broadcasts when considered necessary to minimize any risk of collision (CAR 166 C (2)).
The carriage of radio is mandatory at MOST uncontrolled aerodromes. Most major uncontrolled aerodromes are certified and registered aerodromes.
Just hope I'm on the ground when you're in the air.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no - repeat no - mandatory calls. The only time you're obliged to pipe up is if it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision, with another aircraft.
If people concentrated less on the anality of operating in Australian airspace and concentrated more on a bit of uncommon sense none of this crap would happen!
There are no - repeat no - mandatory calls.
Utradar: You are evidently incapable of distinguishing between guidance material and rules. At least we agree on one thing: I, too, hope you're on the ground when I'm in the air, because I understand the rules and you do not.
Utradar: You are evidently incapable of distinguishing between guidance material and rules. At least we agree on one thing: I, too, hope you're on the ground when I'm in the air, because I understand the rules and you do not.
LB, nobody has said there are mandatory calls. Get out of your ideology mindset. If you don't make the recommended calls, then I hope CASA jumps on you, as you are simply being an idiot, endangering the lives of others.
And what recommended radio calls were not made in the case ZPJ and XGA?
The most recent event that required me to take collision avoidance action in the circuit occurred after I'd made every recommended radio call. In some cases the amount of blabbing on the radio is itself a risk.
Here's a tip on airmanship that I got from someone wise: You should always assume there's someone in the circuit or on a straight-in approach without a radio or with it tuned to the wrong frequency. Always. And if you don't do that, you're the idiot endangering the lives of others.
The most recent event that required me to take collision avoidance action in the circuit occurred after I'd made every recommended radio call. In some cases the amount of blabbing on the radio is itself a risk.
Here's a tip on airmanship that I got from someone wise: You should always assume there's someone in the circuit or on a straight-in approach without a radio or with it tuned to the wrong frequency. Always. And if you don't do that, you're the idiot endangering the lives of others.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Communications - 1.2.1.15.1 is not guidance material, it's out of Jepp ATC and is rule based. CAAPs is guidance (advisory publication). Here you go, have a read, just trying to help.
'The information in this Airway Manual is extracted from Australian Aeronautical Information Publications (AIP), which provides the primary source of information concerning rules of the air and procedures for the safe and efficient movement of aircraft in Australian airspace. The Airway Manual information and/or the AIP should be read in conjunction with CASRs, CARs, CAOs and CAAPs which detail the statutory requirements.'
And.......what are suppose to do about it if you see someone on a straight in approach, like on base for example. How do you manoeuvre a high energy jet to avoid a collision?
From the the ATSB: Both aircraft made the required broadcasts on the CTAF.
'The information in this Airway Manual is extracted from Australian Aeronautical Information Publications (AIP), which provides the primary source of information concerning rules of the air and procedures for the safe and efficient movement of aircraft in Australian airspace. The Airway Manual information and/or the AIP should be read in conjunction with CASRs, CARs, CAOs and CAAPs which detail the statutory requirements.'
Here's a tip on airmanship that I got from someone wise: You should always assume there's someone in the circuit or on a straight-in approach without a radio or with it tuned to the wrong frequency. Always. And if you don't do that, you're the idiot endangering the lives of others.
And what recommended radio calls were not made in the case ZPJ and XGA?
Last edited by Utradar; 5th Feb 2017 at 00:38.
There are no - repeat no - mandatory broadcasts for use at aerodromes with CTAFs.
ZPJ still ended up on base and XGA on the straight-in, despite the broadcasts! Do you not comprehend the irony in you and the Capn throwing rocks at me for pointing out the fact there are no mandatory calls on a CTAF, when the very circumstances that gave rise to this thread were not avoided by broadcasts? Just a teensy bit of irony?
Do you think it would have helped or hindered if, just after XGA told ZPJ that XGA was on the straight-in, I'd piped up and broadcast: "Mildura traffic, Skipper ABC is one zero miles west, on descent from seven thousand five hundred, tracking for a straight-in approach runway 09, copied XGA and ZPJ and the twin joining crosswind, estimating 3 miles at time xy, Mildura." After all, it's "mandatory". Maybe, in the interests of safety, I could have requested everyone to report clear of the runway and tell me what the windsock was doing.
Helped or hindered?
What are you going to do in your high energy jet? Evidently you are just going to look ahead and crash visually. (Tell me that you're not qualified to seat 0A in a transport category aircraft. Please.)
You keep conflating "seeing" another aircraft with a certain collision risk.
If you get a TCAS TA in controlled airspace, what do the rules oblige you to do, and why?
ZPJ still ended up on base and XGA on the straight-in, despite the broadcasts! Do you not comprehend the irony in you and the Capn throwing rocks at me for pointing out the fact there are no mandatory calls on a CTAF, when the very circumstances that gave rise to this thread were not avoided by broadcasts? Just a teensy bit of irony?
Do you think it would have helped or hindered if, just after XGA told ZPJ that XGA was on the straight-in, I'd piped up and broadcast: "Mildura traffic, Skipper ABC is one zero miles west, on descent from seven thousand five hundred, tracking for a straight-in approach runway 09, copied XGA and ZPJ and the twin joining crosswind, estimating 3 miles at time xy, Mildura." After all, it's "mandatory". Maybe, in the interests of safety, I could have requested everyone to report clear of the runway and tell me what the windsock was doing.
Helped or hindered?
What are you going to do in your high energy jet? Evidently you are just going to look ahead and crash visually. (Tell me that you're not qualified to seat 0A in a transport category aircraft. Please.)
You keep conflating "seeing" another aircraft with a certain collision risk.
If you get a TCAS TA in controlled airspace, what do the rules oblige you to do, and why?