E190 near collision Mildura May 16 - ASI bulletin 56
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
straight in approaches only for RPT
Towered aerodrome (too costly)
That sounds like "affordable safety" to me. Now try asking Mr and Mrs ticket holder if they'd find this acceptable.And be careful: You'll be accused of drinking the Dick Smith cool-aid.
In all seriousness - and I'm sure you'll understand this - if you try to build a rational regulatory system on the basis of what the punters "find acceptable", you'll go - in no particular order- mad and broke.
You've identified "No requirement for mandatory calls" as a "limitation of the current system". The recommended calls were made in this case. They didn't prevent one aircraft ending up on base while another was on the straight-in. How would mandating them have made a difference?
As to the rest of your proposed solutions: more power to your arm. Go forth and implement or advise that they be implemented accordingly.
My only (serious) suggestions are that:
- The (average) seven flow-on effects of each change be identified and considered first. (Andrew and Capt Fathom have already alluded to some of those)
- Any changes be subject to more effective education campaigns than accompanied most other changes in the last 20 years.
The report says all the recommended calls were made.
Which is precisely my point.
Which is precisely my point.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's that simple eh? Nothing else going on, happy with the status quo? Risk levels acceptable? Leave it as it is, works fine huh? Same incident won't happen again?
Im seriously hope you're right and I'm wrong. Don't want it the other way, do we? It's well worth the discussion on here then.
Yeah that's what I meant Capt N, include that idea.
Im seriously hope you're right and I'm wrong. Don't want it the other way, do we? It's well worth the discussion on here then.
Yeah that's what I meant Capt N, include that idea.
Errrrmmm, in case that was addressed to me, I reiterate what I said:
As to the rest of your proposed solutions: more power to your arm. Go forth and implement or advise that the be implemented accordingly.
My only (serious) suggestions are that:
- The (average) seven flow-on effects of each change be identified and considered first. (Andrew and Capt Fathom have already alluded to some of those)
- Any changes be subject to more effective education campaigns than accompanied most other changes in the last 20 years.
As to the rest of your proposed solutions: more power to your arm. Go forth and implement or advise that the be implemented accordingly.
My only (serious) suggestions are that:
- The (average) seven flow-on effects of each change be identified and considered first. (Andrew and Capt Fathom have already alluded to some of those)
- Any changes be subject to more effective education campaigns than accompanied most other changes in the last 20 years.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing to remember is that we fly a circuit because it has been shown that OCTA a circuit reduces the risk of collision compared to a straight in approach.
The highest risk of collision is on final approach. The extended centreline tends to put multiple aircraft on exactly the same path. The circuit was designed to give aircraft a chance to locate each other BEFORE they turn onto final approach.
I don't think this situation would have been improved if both aircraft had been flying a straight in approach, or even if the roles had been reversed. OTOH if the GA-8 had flown a circuit instead of a straight in approach...
The highest risk of collision is on final approach. The extended centreline tends to put multiple aircraft on exactly the same path. The circuit was designed to give aircraft a chance to locate each other BEFORE they turn onto final approach.
I don't think this situation would have been improved if both aircraft had been flying a straight in approach, or even if the roles had been reversed. OTOH if the GA-8 had flown a circuit instead of a straight in approach...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That might work well for light aircraft but are you considering the workload of flying a jet in a circuit?
Search report 2008 Ambidji CTAF vs CTAF (R)
'Ambidji proposes CASA adopt a strategy whereby it strengthens existing barriers to ensure a more safe and efficient CTAF concept in the near term and only implements procedural changes to the concept following a formal review of the operational success of the strengthened barriers.'
Also refer to the 19 limitations of an alerted search
Search report 2008 Ambidji CTAF vs CTAF (R)
'Ambidji proposes CASA adopt a strategy whereby it strengthens existing barriers to ensure a more safe and efficient CTAF concept in the near term and only implements procedural changes to the concept following a formal review of the operational success of the strengthened barriers.'
Also refer to the 19 limitations of an alerted search
That might work well for light aircraft but are you considering the workload of flying a jet in a circuit?
OTOH if the GA-8 had flown a circuit instead of a straight in approach...
Maybe straight-ins should be available only to aircraft over 5,700Kgs MTOW. Make the rule and let's run the experiment.
On your workload point, Utradar, ZNJ flew a circuit despite the consequent workload. Any insights into why?
In the case of a high energy jet, at what distance from the threshold will it be joining the straight-in?
You do realise the 'big MBZ' (faux AFIZ) with mandatory radio calls experiment has already been run? Lots of people could dig out the old charts and run it again. Just say the word.
On your workload point, Utradar, ZNJ flew a circuit despite the consequent workload. Any insights into why?
In the case of a high energy jet, at what distance from the threshold will it be joining the straight-in?
You do realise the 'big MBZ' (faux AFIZ) with mandatory radio calls experiment has already been run? Lots of people could dig out the old charts and run it again. Just say the word.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UT, nobody's forcing you to. If you are not comfortable, you can do a SI. Don't remove a safety and economic option because some aren't comfortable doing it.
On your workload point, Utradar, ZNJ flew a circuit despite the consequent workload. Any insights into why?
I know the MBZ 'experiment' has been run but while we have jets operating into non-towered aerodromes, I think it's important, don't you?
It does not matter what I think or any of the thrusters on this thread think.
It is completely pointless to observe, on the one hand, that there's workload for jets that can be avoided by doing a straight-in rather than a circuit, and then declare "dunno" why the jet didn't do a straight-in when it was available.
It is completely pointless to declare knowledge of some system that was run in the past and then ask whether that was important.
Just do something, FFS. Implement the system you want. Do it.
Your opinion is that broadcasts should be mandatory. My opinion is that mandatory broadcasts are unnecessary and create their own risks. Fact is, the rules are on my side, not yours. Change those rules. Just do it. Don't have a pointless blabfest on pprune with dangerous idiots like me.
Most of the rules in Australia have been a special kind of stupid for a long time, and fortunately the rules have little-to-no causal connection with safety outcomes. So fiddle with them to your heart's content.
Just do it.
It is completely pointless to observe, on the one hand, that there's workload for jets that can be avoided by doing a straight-in rather than a circuit, and then declare "dunno" why the jet didn't do a straight-in when it was available.
It is completely pointless to declare knowledge of some system that was run in the past and then ask whether that was important.
Just do something, FFS. Implement the system you want. Do it.
Your opinion is that broadcasts should be mandatory. My opinion is that mandatory broadcasts are unnecessary and create their own risks. Fact is, the rules are on my side, not yours. Change those rules. Just do it. Don't have a pointless blabfest on pprune with dangerous idiots like me.
Most of the rules in Australia have been a special kind of stupid for a long time, and fortunately the rules have little-to-no causal connection with safety outcomes. So fiddle with them to your heart's content.
Just do it.
Maybe as part of airmanship all pilots in CTAFs should be encouraged to have landing lights on where practicable within 10 mn of the circuit. I know I do always (with the limitation in some types of lights being only usefully on when the gear is extended) and so do all RPT.
Maybe only a small thing but would perhaps block one of the small holes in the Swiss cheese.
Maybe only a small thing but would perhaps block one of the small holes in the Swiss cheese.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks LB, most of your comments are appreciated. I'm starting to work you out.
Your opinion is that broadcasts should be mandatory. My opinion is that mandatory broadcasts are unnecessary and create their own risks
Yair they do create their own risks when there's multiple airports using the same frequency, but when an RPT or large enough aircraft is on one CTAF frequency, I think the risks of a few calls on CTAF are more than managable for non-controlled airports in Australia. We're not like the US yet.
Just do it eh? Bit like Nike?
Last edited by Utradar; 7th Feb 2017 at 10:00.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he was 10k at ~10nm! Gross dereliction of airmanship in a CTAF IMO.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That might work well for light aircraft but are you considering the workload of flying a jet in a circuit?
When were the rules changed to permit straight in approaches? I have a recollection of the rules saying 3 legs of the circuit must be flown, and that was changed at some point after I started flying - but I might be mistaken.
But 6-700 feet per mile would take 5 minutes (give or take) meaning 60 kt G/S - don't think so. More like 120 kts meaning 1400 feet per minute - normally comfortable is 500 feet per minute.
What he does before joining the approach doesn't seem particularly relevant,
When were the rules changed to permit straight in approaches?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrewr,
11,300' at 10nm is not normal. That combined with minimal radio work is also not good airmanship. You seriously can't be defending this?
150kts = 2.5 nm/min = 4 min from 10,000' = 2500'/min...... Really?
Re straight in approaches can be done and is done all time Jepp ATC 6.7.6
11,300' at 10nm is not normal. That combined with minimal radio work is also not good airmanship. You seriously can't be defending this?
150kts = 2.5 nm/min = 4 min from 10,000' = 2500'/min...... Really?
Re straight in approaches can be done and is done all time Jepp ATC 6.7.6