Jetstar and Ballina again
Here the traffic was apparently known. It's just that all of what was known by some was not known by all, until it became an unpleasant surprise.
I thought SFIS was part of the mitigation strategy to deal with the risks of frequency congestion and consequential over-transmitting. If SFIS is exacerbating rather than mitigating that risk...
I thought SFIS was part of the mitigation strategy to deal with the risks of frequency congestion and consequential over-transmitting. If SFIS is exacerbating rather than mitigating that risk...
Check out this article. Virgin pilots apparently "begging the caravan" to turn, also something about "swerving" and they nearly ‘bumped noses’
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...54fec6aea6a947
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...54fec6aea6a947
Last edited by PoppaJo; 8th Feb 2023 at 06:33.
The Daily Tele seem to read a ATSB report then add in all the click bait dialogue then publish. How the hell did they touch noses on the ground, they never sat on the ground together!
Insert click bait article title here
An investigation into a near-collision between a Virgin jet and a Cessna Caravan at Ballina has again raised concerns about safety at one of NSW’s busiest regional airports.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has released a report which criticises a pilot’s mental aptitude after they flew the Cessna “directly towards” the Boeing approaching to land at Ballina Airport on September 16, 2021.
The Virgin passenger-carrier was flying from Sydney while the Cessna Caravan, often used for FedEx and humanitarian missions, was heading from Ballina to the Sunshine Coast.
The Cessna’s pilot called to Ballina’s traffic radio, announcing they were entering the runway and taking off. The Virgin crew caught wind of a near collision, but were not subsequently notified by traffic control.The aircraft nearly bumped noses on the landing strip.
Neither the Cessna nor the flight controller heard that the Virgin’s aircraft was about to set down.
A Cessna Caravan aircraft often used for pilot training, FedEx and humanitarian missions. File image.The two crews established a dialogue over their radios, with the Virgin carrier begging the Cessna to make a quick turn before it set down.
The Cessna swerved just after becoming airborne and the Virgin flight aborted landing altogether.
In the air, the two aircraft nearly collided again, with a radio communication finally alerting the Virgin aircraft it was too close to the Cessna.
The near-miss highlights the importance of communications between aircraft. Picture: ATSBThe Virgin plane finally set down to land on a different strip.
The ATSB found the air controller was partly to blame because they did not specify the landing strip of the Virgin aircraft, while the pilot of the Caravan with “surveillance coverage limitations” simultaneously did not ask.
It was found the flight crew of the Virgin plane did not hear the Cessna’s initial communications and the controller did not issue a safety alert because they did not want to interrupt the radio transmittance between the two aircraft.
ATSB Director Transport Safety Stuart Macleod said: “This incident serves as a reminder of the importance of communicating with other aircraft.”
Virgin Australia said in a statement that “the safety of our guests and crew is our number one priority”.
“Our pilots took the appropriate steps by conducting a go-around and the flight landed safely,” a spokesperson said.
An investigation revealed “chance alone” saved 172 occupants of the two aircraft as they flew in uncontrolled airspace.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has released a report which criticises a pilot’s mental aptitude after they flew the Cessna “directly towards” the Boeing approaching to land at Ballina Airport on September 16, 2021.
The Virgin passenger-carrier was flying from Sydney while the Cessna Caravan, often used for FedEx and humanitarian missions, was heading from Ballina to the Sunshine Coast.
The Cessna’s pilot called to Ballina’s traffic radio, announcing they were entering the runway and taking off. The Virgin crew caught wind of a near collision, but were not subsequently notified by traffic control.The aircraft nearly bumped noses on the landing strip.
Neither the Cessna nor the flight controller heard that the Virgin’s aircraft was about to set down.
A Cessna Caravan aircraft often used for pilot training, FedEx and humanitarian missions. File image.The two crews established a dialogue over their radios, with the Virgin carrier begging the Cessna to make a quick turn before it set down.
The Cessna swerved just after becoming airborne and the Virgin flight aborted landing altogether.
In the air, the two aircraft nearly collided again, with a radio communication finally alerting the Virgin aircraft it was too close to the Cessna.
The near-miss highlights the importance of communications between aircraft. Picture: ATSBThe Virgin plane finally set down to land on a different strip.
The ATSB found the air controller was partly to blame because they did not specify the landing strip of the Virgin aircraft, while the pilot of the Caravan with “surveillance coverage limitations” simultaneously did not ask.
It was found the flight crew of the Virgin plane did not hear the Cessna’s initial communications and the controller did not issue a safety alert because they did not want to interrupt the radio transmittance between the two aircraft.
ATSB Director Transport Safety Stuart Macleod said: “This incident serves as a reminder of the importance of communicating with other aircraft.”
Virgin Australia said in a statement that “the safety of our guests and crew is our number one priority”.
“Our pilots took the appropriate steps by conducting a go-around and the flight landed safely,” a spokesperson said.
More Coverage
‘Crop chopper’: Police helicopter called in for northern NSW op‘We are going to die today’: Sea World helicopter survivors’ terrorIt comes after an ATSB report released last year detailed a similar near collision between a Jetstar flight and a light plane over Ballina Airport.An investigation revealed “chance alone” saved 172 occupants of the two aircraft as they flew in uncontrolled airspace.
Bumping noses would have been more appropriate than bumping uglies.
And the Virgin crew got wind. That can be particularly embarrassing in the cockpit.
And the Virgin crew got wind. That can be particularly embarrassing in the cockpit.
It seems a major factor was that the SFIS controller (sitting comfy up in Brisbane Centre) had no positional information on the C208 as there is no surveillance below 1,500 feet. From the report:
So how could the S in SFIS ever have been taken seriously?
Don't worry though, ADSB ground station is coming...
Airservices Australia conducted a risk assessment and rated the initial risk as moderate. However, its pre-implementation risk treatment did not reduce the risk any further. Residual risks associated with the surveillance coverage limitations were formally accepted and the SFIS was implemented with the risks unaddressed. These limitations meant the Caravan’s positional information was not displayed on the SFIS controller’s console screen until it reached an altitude of about 1,500 feet, which occurred about 100 seconds after take-off was commenced.
Don't worry though, ADSB ground station is coming...
Why is anyone surprised? The SFIS is only a subtly different form of CTAF. There is only one solution for Ballina. CASA knows it, Airservices knows it and the airlines know it. I wonder if JH lays awake at night worrying about Ballina?
Is there a roll the unions could be playing here?
Tell the companies and/or pilots that no one will fly there till these issues are resolved?
Might hurry things along.
Tell the companies and/or pilots that no one will fly there till these issues are resolved?
Might hurry things along.
And they all can foresee the potential consequences of the solution not being implemented.
If I used a mid-air between a 737 and an RAAus aircraft at Ballina as the scenario for the torts law exam for first year law degree students, I'm sure many students would laugh at me and say: "Why not use a realistic scenario, Mr LB?"
If only the travelling public understood...
A year and a half to release a simple report confirming the system that is in place since then doesn’t work or even have the equipment to make it work.
The Caravan pilot had been provided with traffic information by the Ballina Airport surveillance flight information service controller, but the controller had not specified the landing direction of the 737 and the pilot had not sought this information.
And how long do you reckon it will be before BNA settles back into a cosy little regional airport? Build a tower? How about E base 700. Affordable safety will do it.
AIP ERSA BALLINA/BYRON GATEWAY "Ballina SFIS provides a Surveillance Flight Information Service within the Ballina BA SFC-8,500FT AMSL". No limitation, no asterix referencing a lack of surveillance below 1,500 feet.
It gets better every day from ATSB/AsA/CASA!
SODPROPS at Ballina without a parallel runway and by an SFIS controller. Send them to SY to teach those lazy buggers a thing or two!
Seriously, Shirley with a TAAATS Eurocat display the blue flight plan track would be there at Ballina for the SFIS controller to see as soon as the aircraft taxied.
Anyway, correct me if I am wrong but the ATSB report did not mention the controller forgot about the Caravan or that the controller was busy….
What does the `SFIS controller use as an aide memoire for all the trafiiic not displayed but not in TAAATS Eurocat,… paper flight strips from Aviation Museum (commonly known as SY TWR) or HB pencil, paper and a wee bottle of whiteout…what was the number of those DCA forms…..seems like yesterday.
Got a feeling of deja vu!!! Oh thats right, nearly forgot, getting old you know,,,Check out
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...ir/ao-2019-062
Imagine that…Bit of cognitive dissonance in ATSB…hmmm
so SFIS is just FI on a good day…no surveillance, no service…
and re lack of surveillance causing problem….dont insult CAGROs that used to do it. `how have the D TWRs managed all these years??
And it didnt stop MNG happening where both tracks were surveilled by SSR and ADSB….what a joke.
Perhaps all this surveillance has led to controller/pilot complacency.
Spot on tossbag!
Do sociopaths lose sleep at night, guess I’ll ask my therapist next appointment after I ask for more sleeping tablets and some psilocybin…
SODPROPS at Ballina without a parallel runway and by an SFIS controller. Send them to SY to teach those lazy buggers a thing or two!
Seriously, Shirley with a TAAATS Eurocat display the blue flight plan track would be there at Ballina for the SFIS controller to see as soon as the aircraft taxied.
Anyway, correct me if I am wrong but the ATSB report did not mention the controller forgot about the Caravan or that the controller was busy….
What does the `SFIS controller use as an aide memoire for all the trafiiic not displayed but not in TAAATS Eurocat,… paper flight strips from Aviation Museum (commonly known as SY TWR) or HB pencil, paper and a wee bottle of whiteout…what was the number of those DCA forms…..seems like yesterday.
Got a feeling of deja vu!!! Oh thats right, nearly forgot, getting old you know,,,Check out
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...ir/ao-2019-062
Imagine that…Bit of cognitive dissonance in ATSB…hmmm
so SFIS is just FI on a good day…no surveillance, no service…
and re lack of surveillance causing problem….dont insult CAGROs that used to do it. `how have the D TWRs managed all these years??
And it didnt stop MNG happening where both tracks were surveilled by SSR and ADSB….what a joke.
Perhaps all this surveillance has led to controller/pilot complacency.
Spot on tossbag!
Do sociopaths lose sleep at night, guess I’ll ask my therapist next appointment after I ask for more sleeping tablets and some psilocybin…
Last edited by Gentle_flyer; 12th Feb 2023 at 09:29. Reason: Corrected spelling of magic mushroom
Just released this afternoon: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-i...ere-sfis-place
Separation incident highlights importance of communication over CTAF where a SFIS is in place
A Cessna Caravan pilot’s incorrect mental model was one of number of contributing factors that led to their aircraft taking off from Ballina Airport directly towards a Boeing 737 airliner that was on approach to land there, an Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation details.
The incident occurred on the afternoon of 16 September 2021, when a Virgin Australia 737-800 was conducting a scheduled passenger service from Sydney to Ballina, and the Caravan was commencing a repositioning flight from Ballina to the Sunshine Coast.
The Caravan had commenced its take-off roll from Ballina’s runway 06 to the east when the B737 was on final approach to land on the reciprocal runway 24 from the east.
Separation incident highlights importance of communication over CTAF where a SFIS is in place
A Cessna Caravan pilot’s incorrect mental model was one of number of contributing factors that led to their aircraft taking off from Ballina Airport directly towards a Boeing 737 airliner that was on approach to land there, an Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation details.
The incident occurred on the afternoon of 16 September 2021, when a Virgin Australia 737-800 was conducting a scheduled passenger service from Sydney to Ballina, and the Caravan was commencing a repositioning flight from Ballina to the Sunshine Coast.
The Caravan had commenced its take-off roll from Ballina’s runway 06 to the east when the B737 was on final approach to land on the reciprocal runway 24 from the east.
From the report.
Yankee Mike Victor squawk 4547. Traffic [is] Velocity 1141, 737, shortly turning onto a 10 NM final, followed by Jetstar 464 an Airbus 320 currently 20 NM to the south-west and they're tracking for a right downwind runway 24. They'll be crossing centreline at about time four five.
SFIS copied that the Caravan would depart RWY 06 so what relevance is the time that the A320 will be crossing the centreline? Which centreline? The RWY 24 extended centreline?
And the Caravan turns right and then tracks over the airfield - genius! Brings the flights closer together. And where is the A320 tracking for their right downwind at this point?
Originally Posted by Sunny
Which centreline? The RWY 24 extended centreline?
Originally Posted by Sunny
And the Caravan turns right and then tracks over the airfield - genius!
)
Originally Posted by Sunny
And where is the A320 tracking for their right downwind at this point?
Put in a parallel taxiway and a tower!
[QUOTE=Capn Bloggs;11386085]Obviously the CL south west of the airport. Doesn't matter what you call it.
It separates the Caravan from the 737 which is nose to nose inside 10nm, given the A320 is still a ways away. Perhaps the van could have done a 60 left and tracked off to the north to avoid both, but they certainly missed the 737 (unless it then did a missed approach...)
It seems that the controller can see where they are tracking: over to DW for 24. They do give an estimate for the A320 crossing the CL; they wouldn't have given that if it wasn't obvious where the A320 would cross the CL
/QUOTE]
Didn't that caravan also fail to maintain an altitude to ensure seperation with the a320 and only returned to that altitude when questioned by the 320? The SFIS system at Ballina is almost useless but clearly what ever mental model or situational awareness the caravan had was non existent. I personally find the standard of traffic separation displayed by many IFR pilots to be lacking. Some even have a complete reliance on TCAS. It's a miracle something like Mangalore hasn't happened more often.
It separates the Caravan from the 737 which is nose to nose inside 10nm, given the A320 is still a ways away. Perhaps the van could have done a 60 left and tracked off to the north to avoid both, but they certainly missed the 737 (unless it then did a missed approach...
)It seems that the controller can see where they are tracking: over to DW for 24. They do give an estimate for the A320 crossing the CL; they wouldn't have given that if it wasn't obvious where the A320 would cross the CL
/QUOTE]
Didn't that caravan also fail to maintain an altitude to ensure seperation with the a320 and only returned to that altitude when questioned by the 320? The SFIS system at Ballina is almost useless but clearly what ever mental model or situational awareness the caravan had was non existent. I personally find the standard of traffic separation displayed by many IFR pilots to be lacking. Some even have a complete reliance on TCAS. It's a miracle something like Mangalore hasn't happened more often.
It separates the Caravan from the 737 which is nose to nose inside 10nm, given the A320 is still a ways away. Perhaps the van could have done a 60 left and tracked off to the north to avoid both, but they certainly missed the 737 (unless it then did a missed approach...)
)Agreed. Local Council is responsible for the aerodrome facilities, CASA and AsA are responsible for the lack of an ATC Tower service.
Just released this afternoon: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-i...ere-sfis-place
Odd wording, "vertical separation reducing" - surely the vertical separation between the aircraft would've been zero earlier than time 1346:12 as the caravan climb through the level of the B738. Zero feet vertically and a greater lateral distance.
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
It's a miracle something like Mangalore hasn't happened more often.
It's a miracle something like Mangalore hasn't happened more often.
Originally Posted by Sunny
Miracle, luck or chance, big sky theory.
Originally Posted by Sunny
When the Caravan was overhead the aerodrome and climbing, where (in relation to the Caravan) was the A320? We know from the ATSB report that SFIS says "tracking for a right downwind runway 24", but what is the proximity of these two aircraft? A320 on descent below 10,000ft, 250 knots +/- tailwind or headwind. Figure 2 has A320 at 21 NM at time 1341:27, Figure 5 has Caravan over the field heading north at time 1346:12, so where was the A320 at the same time (1346:12)?
I've read the report again I think the poor Van driver has been stitched up. Fair enough their departure from the overhead wasn't desirable but I strongly suspect that was due to hurried decision-making after being stunned by what had just happened. The Van driver could have asked for the 737's runway but the other two players were more at fault. The 737 was never given traffic on the Van by the SFIS. The ATSB is being unjustly harsh with criticism of the Van driver's lookout on line-up; it is very difficult to see an aeroplane at 5 miles (white jet with clouds behind?), especially when it's cocked-off in a crosswind with the landing lights pointing away from you. And he did not have an "incorrect" model. That implies he had the information but incorrectly interpreted it; he didn't have the information, full -stop.
Did the SFIS trainees go to Ballina to get a handle on how CTAFs actually run? Because one thing I'm sure of: this would not have happened with the CAGRO.
The report should have included:
-Why did the 737 crew miss two calls about the Van, especially the one where the SFIS was actually talking about them? The hackles should have immediately been raised. 10nm final sounds like an RNAV approach. To what extent did internal cockpit procedures interfere with or detract from the crew being ears out? CTAFs by their nature require "all senses on deck" and for two pro pilots to miss two critical calls should have been addressed. Was Centre making calls on the other radio (pretty easy to synchronise timings given the SFIS is ATC too) which drowned-out the CTAF calls?
-Mention of the low flying hours for the 737 captain. 25 hours in 90 days, then into a busy CTAF with brand-new procedures should have been addressed. Coming out of COVID-19 and with Virgin in turmoil, there was plenty going on that could have upset the normal cockpit rhythm.
-a comment on this training issue: "when the B737’s flight crew did not respond to the Caravan pilot’s taxi broadcast, the controller did not consider it necessary to confirm they were aware of the Caravan because, according to their SFIS training, they were not required to follow-up communications for aircraft already on the CTAF (as was the case for the B737)". There is no logic to this at all. While AIP has/had a short reference to traffic not being passed by ATC if an aircraft had already called "changing to ...", it is not logical that that could be extrapolated into "oh well, I've passed it to the Van, and the 737 is already on the CTAF so I won't pass the Van traffic to them". In G, you always both get traffic on each other.
