E190 near collision Mildura May 16 - ASI bulletin 56
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E190 near collision Mildura May 16 - ASI bulletin 56
Missed GA aircraft by 200' and 0.125 nm at 500' turning final. 81 Pax
Is there something wrong with our alerted search methods in uncontrolled airspace??
What is it going to take??
Is there something wrong with our alerted search methods in uncontrolled airspace??
What is it going to take??
Fly a jet into CTAFs porter?
When youre above the light aircraft and and with less than flaps 2 in a jet, they can be very tricky to spot blending with terrain below you. Not to mention the workload still in the flight deck. It's not until you're fully configured with a stable FPA and forward vision, plus the major workload complete that you can see the little buggers. This usually coincides with turning final or less than 5nm from touchdown.
Plus quite often the lighties are transiting coastal outside of the aerodrome vicinity, but within conflict of a jet on approach. They are VFR and are not on frequency.
When youre above the light aircraft and and with less than flaps 2 in a jet, they can be very tricky to spot blending with terrain below you. Not to mention the workload still in the flight deck. It's not until you're fully configured with a stable FPA and forward vision, plus the major workload complete that you can see the little buggers. This usually coincides with turning final or less than 5nm from touchdown.
Plus quite often the lighties are transiting coastal outside of the aerodrome vicinity, but within conflict of a jet on approach. They are VFR and are not on frequency.
Originally Posted by Porter
Like opening your eyes and looking? Or communicating on the CTAF?
At least give us a chance of picking you up...
And get that Final call back out to 5nm where it belongs...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a good look at the limitations of 'see and avoid' in the ATSB publications 1991 to be exact. Combine that with the complexity of a jet flying a circuit while trying to avoid 'weekend warriors'.
The important 'bit' is how do we prevent the next one??
The important 'bit' is how do we prevent the next one??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porter, you don't fly a jet do you?
After reading the report, it appears the ATSB highlight the importance of an alerted search. What happens when that fails which can be case at these uncontrolled airports? The chances of radio issues (turned down, not on the correct frequency, not in the location broadcasted) can occur leaving a jet 'blind' to traffic in the area. There's a huge difference in professional airmanship vs someone who flys very little which is more likely OCTA at regional airports. The use of TCAS as a primary method of alerted search is also wrong (CAAPs Alerted search) due to limitations with TCAS.
Where is CASA on this issue??
After reading the report, it appears the ATSB highlight the importance of an alerted search. What happens when that fails which can be case at these uncontrolled airports? The chances of radio issues (turned down, not on the correct frequency, not in the location broadcasted) can occur leaving a jet 'blind' to traffic in the area. There's a huge difference in professional airmanship vs someone who flys very little which is more likely OCTA at regional airports. The use of TCAS as a primary method of alerted search is also wrong (CAAPs Alerted search) due to limitations with TCAS.
Where is CASA on this issue??
Last edited by Utradar; 17th Jan 2017 at 04:00.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paradoxically, in this case, heads out of the cockpit scanning visually may have delayed the Embraer crew becoming aware the conflict aircraft.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2016-106/
If the other aircraft did not have a transponder, the two aircraft may well of come a lot closer to each other.
The PM on board ZPJ commented that during the visual circuit they changed the focus of their scan from inside the cockpit to outside the cockpit. They suspect that XGA was probably displayed as other traffic on their TCAS before they received the TA alert. However, there are no company procedures specific to the use of TCAS at non-controlled aerodromes.
If the other aircraft did not have a transponder, the two aircraft may well of come a lot closer to each other.
However, there are no company procedures specific to the use of TCAS at non-controlled aerodromes.
I'm all for sensible procedures, but isn't is very bureaucratic for the ATSB to hint that having more mindless junk in the ops manual would have improved the situation?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly a jet into CTAFs porter?
Porter, you don't fly a jet do you?
I fly aircraft into plenty of OCTA aerodromes, when I hear them coming in I give them a wide berth.
Well what do you want? A tower? A radar/control service to the ground? Stump up the cash and you can have either or both of them
Surely an ARFFS before either of those!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porter, read the report dumbo ☺️ Not everyone gives them a wide berth, obviously.
Your post shows that you're completely unaware at the workload of flying a jet in a circuit and the encounters that jet pilots have with unbroadcast traffic which I would say is kinda risky, wouldn't you?
If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident da da
Your post shows that you're completely unaware at the workload of flying a jet in a circuit and the encounters that jet pilots have with unbroadcast traffic which I would say is kinda risky, wouldn't you?
If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident da da
You need to get your company to implement "procedures specific to the use of TCAS at non-controlled aerodromes."
Leadie,
How about this.
Flight crew notice.
With immediate effect the following procedures specific to the use of tcas at non controlled aerodromes are implemented.
Within 30nm of destination non controlled aerodrome.
- TCAS - OFF
In the tradition of what you can't see can't hurt you turning the tcas off is a procedure specific to operations in non controlled aerodromes and reduces the reporting rate of near misses, as you can't report what you didn't see
How about this.
Flight crew notice.
With immediate effect the following procedures specific to the use of tcas at non controlled aerodromes are implemented.
Within 30nm of destination non controlled aerodrome.
- TCAS - OFF
In the tradition of what you can't see can't hurt you turning the tcas off is a procedure specific to operations in non controlled aerodromes and reduces the reporting rate of near misses, as you can't report what you didn't see
Job done! 
No, I don't.
I fly aircraft into plenty of OCTA aerodromes, when I hear them coming in I give them a wide berth.
Well what do you want? A tower? A radar/control service to the ground? Stump up the cash and you can have either or both of them
I fly aircraft into plenty of OCTA aerodromes, when I hear them coming in I give them a wide berth.
Well what do you want? A tower? A radar/control service to the ground? Stump up the cash and you can have either or both of them
Unfortunately, for every pilot such as yourself who is on the ball, it seems there are another two who aren't.
The reasons for this are many and varied and may include such elements such as lack of appropriate training, inexperience, deferral (that the jet can 'see' you), lack of situational awareness and even insolence.
I believe that at any aerodrome where RPT jet aircraft tangle with general aviation there should be at minimum a directed control service for at least the periods where RPT aircraft arrive and depart.
Some may point out that in other parts of the world this isn't needed.
However, I would point out that within the unique environment we operate in Australia (large distances between populous capital cities and very small, isolated and scattered regional centres) the potential for conflict with inexperienced general aviation aircraft and the once or twice a day jet RPT service is great and it's only the relatively low frequency of flights that has precluded a major disaster such as what nearly happened in this incident.
Unfortunately no money will ever be spent to improve the safety of RPT flights into aerodromes such as Mildura and we can only hope we aren't digging up threads such as this in years to come lamenting what could of saved lives.
Keep up the good work Porter, and spread the word to your fellow aviators to be vigilant in areas where they might tangle with jet RPT aircraft, tell them to keep their transponders on 'ALT' at all times, ensure that the correct frequency is selected and communicate intentions loud and clear.
Last edited by Compylot; 17th Jan 2017 at 10:48.
Oh gawd. Here we go again. Unique circumstances; disaster pending.
So the pilots of XGY and XGA were "inexperienced general aviation aircraft [pilots]", were they Compylot?
What strikes me about the circumstances is the number of radio transmissions. So much talk; sooooo much talk.
Yet insufficient situational awareness.
On the part of pilots who cannot be described as "inexperienced".
Here's an idea: Let's turn aerodromes with CTAFs into Romeos for inexperienced GA pilots 30 minutes either side of the ETA of an RPT aircraft. Hmmmm, that may not work, because experienced GA pilots don't read NOTAMs, or understand them even if they do.
AFIS(Z) or CAGRO. Brilliant! Hmmmm, that may not work, because inexperienced GA pilots might not broadcast their existence or location, or might get their location wrong.
So we're back to Porter's solution: Tower, primary and secondary radar all round!
Since forever, relatively junior pilots who finally get that gig in the left hand seat of heavy metal spend their waking duty hours fretting about inexperienced GA pilots. It's an insight into their own views as to their own levels of competence 'back in the day'.
So the pilots of XGY and XGA were "inexperienced general aviation aircraft [pilots]", were they Compylot?
What strikes me about the circumstances is the number of radio transmissions. So much talk; sooooo much talk.
Yet insufficient situational awareness.
On the part of pilots who cannot be described as "inexperienced".
Here's an idea: Let's turn aerodromes with CTAFs into Romeos for inexperienced GA pilots 30 minutes either side of the ETA of an RPT aircraft. Hmmmm, that may not work, because experienced GA pilots don't read NOTAMs, or understand them even if they do.
AFIS(Z) or CAGRO. Brilliant! Hmmmm, that may not work, because inexperienced GA pilots might not broadcast their existence or location, or might get their location wrong.
So we're back to Porter's solution: Tower, primary and secondary radar all round!
Since forever, relatively junior pilots who finally get that gig in the left hand seat of heavy metal spend their waking duty hours fretting about inexperienced GA pilots. It's an insight into their own views as to their own levels of competence 'back in the day'.
Thanks for that nonsense, LB. What is your solution?
Porter's "give them a wide berth" solution has merit...
So we're back to Porter's solution: Tower, primary and secondary radar all round!