E190 near collision Mildura May 16 - ASI bulletin 56
And what recommended radio calls were not made in the case ZPJ and XGA?
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".
There are no - repeat no - mandatory broadcasts for use at aerodromes with CTAFs.
There is no perfect system. The stupid part about this is that you are so wound up about mandatory this and that (the rules for which you obviously don't know yourself and are accusing others of saying or implying things they haven't) that you can't see what the real problem at Mildura was. Sad that such an attitude is sharing the skies with fare-paying pax...
Nobody said the recommended calls weren't made.
You said:
All I was doing was pointing out that the recommended calls failed abjectly to achieve their intended purpose.
Apparently in your world the choice not to make a call is more dangerous than a call that's made but not comprehended or over-transmitted. It's just kooky.
You don't like my "attitude"? I don't like your attitude. You put too much reliance on blabbing on the radio and assuming everyone else is blabbing as much as you about the things that you consider are worth blabbing about.
Fortunately the rule-makers haven't made the same mistake (touch wood).
You think my 10 mile call would have helped? I think you are wrong. Stubbornly and stupidly wrong. I think the last thing that ZPJ, XGA and the twin needed was me blabbing on the CTAF at a time they had much bigger issues to deal with.
You grossly overrate the infinitesimal small risk of ZPJ colliding with me on a go around to the west. Maybe in that scenario the most sensible point for me to pipe up would have been when ZPJ broadcast that it was going around towards the west? What do you do about all the aircraft with no radios and no transponders? Are you just blissfully ignorant of them or do you worry about them constantly too?
As a matter of interest, how many hours have you spent in seat 0A of an Airvan, or a 210, or Bonanza or a 172? And how recently?
Maybe part of the "problem" is that some of the people in seat 0A of the "high energy jets" don't have much experience in seat 0A of an Airvan or a 210 or a Bonanza or a 172. That's not their "fault", but it does mean they may not have much insight into the capabilities of other aircraft.
I'm struck by the irony that on the most recent occasion that I volunteered to orbit away from an aerodrome so that an aircraft could get in ahead of me - my ETA having been about minute ahead of his - the aerodrome was none other than Mildura. The pilot requested that I expedite my taxi off the runway as his ETA was a minute behind mine. I instead volunteered to orbit away from the aerodrome. He thanked me after landing. I said: "It was pleasure, sir." I meant it.
But you don't strike me as the kind of person who'd stoop to saying please when in Skygod mode, administering your rules in your way. At least you're confined to your heart of darkness and won't be bothering us at YMIA.
You said:
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.
Apparently in your world the choice not to make a call is more dangerous than a call that's made but not comprehended or over-transmitted. It's just kooky.
You don't like my "attitude"? I don't like your attitude. You put too much reliance on blabbing on the radio and assuming everyone else is blabbing as much as you about the things that you consider are worth blabbing about.
Fortunately the rule-makers haven't made the same mistake (touch wood).
You think my 10 mile call would have helped? I think you are wrong. Stubbornly and stupidly wrong. I think the last thing that ZPJ, XGA and the twin needed was me blabbing on the CTAF at a time they had much bigger issues to deal with.
You grossly overrate the infinitesimal small risk of ZPJ colliding with me on a go around to the west. Maybe in that scenario the most sensible point for me to pipe up would have been when ZPJ broadcast that it was going around towards the west? What do you do about all the aircraft with no radios and no transponders? Are you just blissfully ignorant of them or do you worry about them constantly too?
As a matter of interest, how many hours have you spent in seat 0A of an Airvan, or a 210, or Bonanza or a 172? And how recently?
Maybe part of the "problem" is that some of the people in seat 0A of the "high energy jets" don't have much experience in seat 0A of an Airvan or a 210 or a Bonanza or a 172. That's not their "fault", but it does mean they may not have much insight into the capabilities of other aircraft.
I'm struck by the irony that on the most recent occasion that I volunteered to orbit away from an aerodrome so that an aircraft could get in ahead of me - my ETA having been about minute ahead of his - the aerodrome was none other than Mildura. The pilot requested that I expedite my taxi off the runway as his ETA was a minute behind mine. I instead volunteered to orbit away from the aerodrome. He thanked me after landing. I said: "It was pleasure, sir." I meant it.
But you don't strike me as the kind of person who'd stoop to saying please when in Skygod mode, administering your rules in your way. At least you're confined to your heart of darkness and won't be bothering us at YMIA.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone else considered the danger of dropping in to Mildura with one radio call for a straight in approach 11'130 ft at 10.5 nm and a speed of 140-150 kt at 5nm. I wouldn't call that very safe.
From the ATSB report, no other calls were made by XGA, probably not wanting to 'blab' away and it even says 'The pilot of XGA was probably not monitoring Mildura CTAF when the PM on board ZPJ broadcast joining the Mildura circuit.'
Was probably 'blabbing away' on company frequency talking about spinning an Airvan. Pilots head with no brains due spin testing.
Sounds safe to me.
From the ATSB report, no other calls were made by XGA, probably not wanting to 'blab' away and it even says 'The pilot of XGA was probably not monitoring Mildura CTAF when the PM on board ZPJ broadcast joining the Mildura circuit.'
Was probably 'blabbing away' on company frequency talking about spinning an Airvan. Pilots head with no brains due spin testing.
Sounds safe to me.
Last edited by Utradar; 5th Feb 2017 at 09:21.
Yes, Ut, I noted that earlier in the thread. As well as concentrating too much on not stacking it on his Stuka arrival, he doesn't make it easy for others to spot him whilst they are doing their approach.
LB, I think you are on something. I really am having trouble understanding what your point is, apart from being just a usual rant against all things "mandatory".
Kooky? Where did I even suggest that someone deliberately over-transmit, or make a call that would not be comprehended?
My hero, except that I make sacrifices for lighties all the time when we clash. A good bit of amateur ATC, like slowing down, maybe doing a track-stretching dogleg, perhaps me overflying, getting them to keep the speed up, maybe ask them for an orbit on DW or to extend upwind.
You: Do you think it would have helped or hindered if,
Me: It may well have done...
You: You think my 10 mile call would have helped? I think you are wrong. Stubbornly and stupidly wrong.
Nice reaction. Thanks for seeing my point of view. I knew you'd come round eventually.
So, not knowing how a call will actually work out, you would rather not make it. Complete lunacy (given, of course, that I would not make a call at 10.0000nm if someone was already transmitting).
For all your ranting and raving, there haven't been too many suggestions from you about how things could be improved to reduce the chance of this incident happening again.
LB, I think you are on something. I really am having trouble understanding what your point is, apart from being just a usual rant against all things "mandatory".
Apparently in your world the choice not to make a call is more dangerous than a call that's made but not comprehended or over-transmitted. It's just kooky.
I'm struck by the irony that on the most recent occasion that I volunteered to orbit away from an aerodrome so that an aircraft could get in ahead of me
You: Do you think it would have helped or hindered if,
Me: It may well have done...
You: You think my 10 mile call would have helped? I think you are wrong. Stubbornly and stupidly wrong.
Nice reaction. Thanks for seeing my point of view. I knew you'd come round eventually.
All I was doing was pointing out that the recommended calls failed abjectly to achieve their intended purpose.
Apparently in your world the choice not to make a call is more dangerous than a call that's made but not comprehended or over-transmitted. It's just kooky.
Apparently in your world the choice not to make a call is more dangerous than a call that's made but not comprehended or over-transmitted. It's just kooky.
For all your ranting and raving, there haven't been too many suggestions from you about how things could be improved to reduce the chance of this incident happening again.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ban straight in approaches at certified and registered airports and make all aircraft join the circuit with appropriate call(s).
Remind all pilots that the first rule of flying into a non-towered field is "see and avoid".
And if GA8's are hard to see, how much harder would a glider from the strip 2nm to the SSW be?
Kaz
Remind all pilots that the first rule of flying into a non-towered field is "see and avoid".
And if GA8's are hard to see, how much harder would a glider from the strip 2nm to the SSW be?
Kaz
What happened Leadsie?
Are you living in your brothers shadow?
Did you fail Psychometric testing when going for the cadetship? (Very Likely!)
Or are you colour blind?
I can imagine that the next time you're inbound and you hear the dreaded Skygod making their CTAF call, sounding like a try hard amateur ATC, your sweaty palms will grip that bit harder on the yoke.
Muttering and cursing under your breath you'll open up the throttle, **** the lean of peak, you'll be going full rich today baby!
You don't have to make any damn calls, because you don't bloody have to!
You know where you are, what you are doing and how you're going to bloody well do it!
Those Skygods can see you from their privileged seat 0A, on their fancy equipment, sipping their Lattes and smirking slyly at the sexy flighty in the jump seat who's showing a bit of leg. They don't have time to look out the window!
Later that Friday night, in the Aero Club bar, you'll grip your yoke even harder as you regale tales of heroics operating into CTAFs amongst the Skygods.
A legend in their own lunchtime.
And I thought that I was good
Are you living in your brothers shadow?
Did you fail Psychometric testing when going for the cadetship? (Very Likely!)
Or are you colour blind?
I can imagine that the next time you're inbound and you hear the dreaded Skygod making their CTAF call, sounding like a try hard amateur ATC, your sweaty palms will grip that bit harder on the yoke.
Muttering and cursing under your breath you'll open up the throttle, **** the lean of peak, you'll be going full rich today baby!
You don't have to make any damn calls, because you don't bloody have to!
You know where you are, what you are doing and how you're going to bloody well do it!
Those Skygods can see you from their privileged seat 0A, on their fancy equipment, sipping their Lattes and smirking slyly at the sexy flighty in the jump seat who's showing a bit of leg. They don't have time to look out the window!
Later that Friday night, in the Aero Club bar, you'll grip your yoke even harder as you regale tales of heroics operating into CTAFs amongst the Skygods.
A legend in their own lunchtime.
And I thought that I was good
Last edited by Compylot; 5th Feb 2017 at 11:47.
I'm not even a pilot.
I just enjoy goading self-proclaimed "professionals" into saying very childish, unprofessional things, while demonstrating their lack of comprehension skills and ignorance of the rules.
I just enjoy goading self-proclaimed "professionals" into saying very childish, unprofessional things, while demonstrating their lack of comprehension skills and ignorance of the rules.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huh, just goes to show why you don't understand the complexities of this incident.
I've flown more approaches in my aircraft than the pilot of ZPJ has flown in the type that ZPJ is.
Last edited by Utradar; 6th Feb 2017 at 18:46.
And if GA8's are hard to see, how much harder would a glider from the strip 2nm to the SSW be?
The irony is that XGA was not the aircraft that came closest to ZPJ on that flight.
The other irony is that if ZPJ had had no TCAS, it would have just been another ordinary day at the CTAF and we wouldn't have to put up with all this posturing on PPRuNe. Just as ZPJ was blissfully ignorant of the aircraft that came closest to it on that day, ZPJ would have turned final blissfully ignorant of XGA behind it and losing ground on the straight in approach.
The other irony is that if ZPJ had had no TCAS, it would have just been another ordinary day at the CTAF and we wouldn't have to put up with all this posturing on PPRuNe. Just as ZPJ was blissfully ignorant of the aircraft that came closest to it on that day, ZPJ would have turned final blissfully ignorant of XGA behind it and losing ground on the straight in approach.
Ban straight in approaches at certified and registered airports and make all aircraft join the circuit with appropriate call(s).
And the "high energy jet" drivers prefer to have the option of straight-ins ...
Remind all pilots that the first rule of flying into a non-towered field is "see and avoid".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All pilots should always assume there are aircraft around without radio or transponders, aircraft with radios tuned to the wrong frequency and aircraft doing unusual things close to aerodromes.
I could write a thesis on the limitations of see and avoid and issues with jets operating at non-towered aerodromes. The ATSB has made this plainly obvious over the years. Even CASA with their CAAPS have made it obvious. It's almost a disclaimer!
Last edited by Utradar; 5th Feb 2017 at 22:42.
A "review of the rules".
That's comedy gold.
Why am I not surprised that you could write a thesis on the limitations of see and avoid. You and compylot are obviously at the very academic phase of your budding aviation careers.
The Capn, on the other hand, is not at that phase. His outlook has been determined by the fact that most of his aviation career has been spent in an environment in which everyone is controlled and everyone must obey orders. He therefore has, unsurprisingly, considerable difficulty in operating in environments in which others may have the discretion to make independent decisions with which he may disagree or which aren't dictated by orders.
That's comedy gold.
Why am I not surprised that you could write a thesis on the limitations of see and avoid. You and compylot are obviously at the very academic phase of your budding aviation careers.
The Capn, on the other hand, is not at that phase. His outlook has been determined by the fact that most of his aviation career has been spent in an environment in which everyone is controlled and everyone must obey orders. He therefore has, unsurprisingly, considerable difficulty in operating in environments in which others may have the discretion to make independent decisions with which he may disagree or which aren't dictated by orders.
So the current rules were not formulated taking into account the well-known limitations of see and avoid?
What are the 'in vicinity' rules about, if not collision avoidance?
What would the review produce? Yet more rules?
What are the 'in vicinity' rules about, if not collision avoidance?
What would the review produce? Yet more rules?
So you're the expert:
Write the new rules you want.
Then explain how your rules would be the first in history to guarantee that none of the collision risks you perceive will arise.
Write the new rules you want.
Then explain how your rules would be the first in history to guarantee that none of the collision risks you perceive will arise.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perceive??? This report is all about a near collision with a jet. It's obvious to those who are 'listening'.
Last edited by Utradar; 6th Feb 2017 at 18:48.
OK then, expert:
Write the new rules you want to prevent the actual "near collision".
Write the new rules you want to prevent the actual "near collision".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's not my job, but I'm happy to offer advice.
BTW I'm no expert. That's just you being facetious.
If new rules bring along more safety for RPT aircraft then I'm all for it. It's time to stop saying it's a perceived risk. The report is right under your nose.
BTW I'm no expert. That's just you being facetious.
If new rules bring along more safety for RPT aircraft then I'm all for it. It's time to stop saying it's a perceived risk. The report is right under your nose.
What is your advice?
What would the effect of the rules be that you would change or introduce to "bring along more safety for RPT aircraft"?
The report that's right under my nose is based on TCAS data that the report itself says in "indicative only". BTW: You haven't answered my question about what the rule is for an aircraft that has a TCAS TA in controlled airspace, or why that rule says that.
If all you can do is say "this isn't good enough and someone else should do something about it", I'd advise you not to hold your breath waiting.
What would the effect of the rules be that you would change or introduce to "bring along more safety for RPT aircraft"?
The report that's right under my nose is based on TCAS data that the report itself says in "indicative only". BTW: You haven't answered my question about what the rule is for an aircraft that has a TCAS TA in controlled airspace, or why that rule says that.
If all you can do is say "this isn't good enough and someone else should do something about it", I'd advise you not to hold your breath waiting.