I do hope Virgin Blue has something to say about this latest slur from the biscuit cretin.

Perhaps legal action may be appropriate.

Somebody asked what the Lancair was doing there. The book does say "avoid IFR routes". I would challenge anybody to fly anywhere to anywhere, particularly near a capital city, without crossing an IFR route. These are what is known as "weasel words" that committes put into documents to make sure an oops is somebody elses fault.

Somebody keeps sending me US/Canadian accident reports. Two aircraft weld in visual conditions the reports all say they "failed to see and avoid". This makes it a deficiency of the pilot's scanning technique, or calls into question just how visual it was at the time rather than examining the question of whether it was reasonable that they should be required to sight each other. If Virgin had hit the Lancair they could have said they "failed to see and avoid" AND "failed to avoid IFR routes", see, they did two things wrong.:mad:

I know the same reference to IFR routes appears in the US documents, but they seem to have a different approach. A route seems to be defined by VOR, every 100nm or so. Most of our routes would not qualify. With the relative traffic levels between the US and here, most of the black lines on our charts have no significance. But there are routes that carry significant jet traffic here, but the black lines for them DON'T LOOK ANY DIFFERENT.

Maybe part of "chart simplification" should have been to emphasise those black lines that actually carry the traffic VFR should avoid? The pilot involved seems to have, rightly, ignored a stupid instruction.

Lateral avoidance isnt the only option.

From my (admitted) educated guess of the geometry, vertical avoidance of the RPT IFR arrival routes would have been the best fix.

Still gets use of the 'flexibility' provided by E, but I suspect 12 500 (for example) would have been clear of the Virgin descent path. Also gets him on a level flight path earlier which is a lot more 'predictable' to ATC and TCAS.

(I havent had a chance for a close look at a chart to assess the geometry and distances from BN)


Maybe one of the issues with these changes is technology.

When I learnt to fly VFR was just that, usually flogging around in a clapped out tin box at 3 - 5000ft AGL and reading a map!!! Hard to get in anyones way doing that.

High performance, high altitude aircraft equipped with GPS flogging around in the mid Flight Levels doesnt really sit well with VFR in my opinion.

Avoiding IFR Routes?
 

Perhaps it is impossible to avoid IFR routes (especially crossing like that) but do you think the Lancair pilot gave any thought that he passed through TWO published holidng patterns (MLY and SMOKA) at approximately 0730 local, the time (if any) there would be holiding going on there. Admittedly, holiding is a rare occurrence these days but was this not again part of the education package for NAS that VFR should avoid published IFR holiding patterns?

Dick has sprayed blame on everybody except his beloved GA pilot. Perhaps he should have a go there.

Blastoid - I agree with what you say to a degree though I will say that when I was a PPL buzzing around trying to build some hours for my commercial, I didn't have the foggiest (if you pardon the pun) about IFR proceedures. In fact, I had a hard enough time working out where I was/ what I should be doing. I certainly didn't have the IFR maps nor the time to work out how they related to my WAC charts. Now I am out of date with current procedures in Oz, but isn't IFR route avoidence inviting a heavier than reasonable workload on PPL operators? (How many IFR holds are there in Oz...anyone?)

So in the end, it's the procedures that we're all beefed about. Let's not lose sight of that fact, rather than whether or not the other pilot is up there for work or pleasure.

Winstun - Yes, it's good to be "looking out the window", but in a large, commercial aircraft, there are one or two items that you do need to look inside for from time to time.

As for bringing in the US Cavalry, "General Custer" and "Little Big Horn" spring to mind.

Chips

Chippie Chappie,

a question.

When you 'didnt have the foggiest' about IFR, would you have planned at 16500ft??? Or would you have known enough to at least realise that lower is probably a lot smarter.

I cant see any benefit for him to be at 16500 (except possibly WX, dont know the conditions at the time) for any other reason than he can.

AirNoServices: you forgot CASA and Broome Int Airport

In his letter to me, posted on Pprune, he said they(CASA) turned a blind eye to our illegal CAGRS.

I feel neglected by you not putting us on the A List. Shame on you !!

Educate!!
 

Chippie Chappie,

Yes I agree that we are on about the procedures. But while the authorities are still making their minds up about what to do (read: discuss the legal and political implications of any changes to NAS), at least make some minor amendments to reduce the likelihood of a MAC:

1. Mandate listening watch of any aircraft in class E on the class E frequency. None of this "appropriate frequency" stuff. At least that way you know where to find them.

2. Educate the pilots on IFR routes - or AT LEAST on the location of holding patterns. Put IFR HOLDING PATTERN IN THIS AREA or some such on VFR charts (oops! does this mean chart clutter??? :yuk: ) so that they know areas that should REALLY be avoided at all costs.

Seriously, can you imagine VFR traffic at flight levels spearing through a holding pattern in use? Do you think a light aircraft can accurately anticipate the path of a holding aircraft and "see and avoid" :ouch:

Dicky is an adventurer. Old and greying yes, but an adventurer still.

Unfortuntely professional pilots and their passengers aren't. They want to fly safely.

Pity Dicky doesn't find another hobby so he can find a whole new field of giving advise to professionals. Perhaps he could buy Greg Normans boat and become an expert mariner, and leave us alone.

MrWooby, you state:

Quote:

---

From the report, the 737 reduced rate of descent first, which DOESN’T contravene the ATC clearance. It wasn’t until the Resolution Advisory (RA) that the 737 climbed.

---

I must be looking at a different report. The report I have looked at shows that the 737 pilot not only reduced the rate of descent, but actually levelled off, then climbed and turned right – all before a resolution advisory was received.

My suggestion is that you read the report again and then advise.

Capitan, Surely the key to the discussion is whether the 737 pilot followed the correct procedures for a traffic advisory, and if the ATSB covered this issue correctly. I’m sure all will agree that it is important to have an ATSB that acts without fear or favour.

Mr Smith,

May I suggest that you making comments on a national radio program such as "The ATSB is really a kind of mates club." does not in any way help the cause of them acting "Without fear or favour." as it sets up the environment where they know you will use your not inconsiderable PR abilities against them, should they come to a conclustion you do not like.

Just a few points in defence of the Lancair pilot...

Just because he hasn't had Dick Smith point the finger of blame in his direction (yet!?) doesn't mean that it should be open slather from the troops.

Maybe he was up at F165 because of the turbo prop strapped to the front of his aircraft & although he doesn't pay to fly in E, he does have a fuel bill to consider.

Maybe he would be happy to pay for a service to fly at levels he used prior to Nov 27 for aircraft performance, but is no longer permitted to as VFR.

Maybe the reason he flies VFR is because he no longer holds an instrument rating because the only safe way to hold one is to exercise it regularly, & he doesn't feel it is necessary for his operations.

Please don't assume that all VFR pilots are incompetent. This pilot has done all the right things from the time he announced himself on the appropriate frequency onwards. Quite clearly the system needs improving/rolling back, whatever, but there is no need to start picking on one of the victims of the whole show.

Prior to Nov 27 the Lancair pilot would have had a plan submitted. Post Nov 27 the Lancair pilot had submitted a plan (MC - SGE & SGE - MC), even though he had been told previously that it is superfluous. What more can be done to get a more satisfactory outcome for all involved?:confused:

ftrplt - No, I wouldn't have planned at FL165 in my C172. If I had a Lancair, maybe things would have been different. As swc says fuel and/or wind would have been a factor. No comment on the Lancair pilot but don't forget LCD - Lowest Common Denominator. We don't all have the same experience levels.

Blastoid - I certainly agree the difficulties of anticipating holding jets and that being on the same frequencey would help. Maybe, the Local RPT/Charter operators could agree on the "Appropriate Frequencies" and let everyone else in on the secret via PPRUNE. Bingo, Aussie Airspace becomes semi-regulated by those who use it. Not perfect, but an idea.

In the end, let's play the ball here, not the man. Otherwise it reasonable objections and arguments on different topics begin to sound the same and get ignored as simply "Dick Bashing" (or should that be "Slapping the Salami"?)

Cheers,

Chips

Never heard of TRUE AIRSPEED then? :rolleyes:

I have had this same senario play out countless times coming into and out of Class B,C, D and G airports in the US. I would like to illustrate how countless times these situations actually played out to avoid even a TA.

0721:58
Controller: Boeing XYZ VFR traffic is a Lancair at your 11 O'clock low, xx miles climbing to FL165, Advise him in sight.

Boeing XYZ: Roger BN we're looking.

0722:17
Controller: Lancair ABC, IFR Traffic is a Boeing 737 Descending right to left passing ...(FLxxx)

Lancair: Roger BN were looking too.

Controller: Boeing XYZ, Lancair now at your 10 O'clock and xx miles.

Boeing XYZ: Roger BN, negative contact at this time.

0725:08
Controller: Boeing XYZ Traffic now at.......etc

Boeing XYZ: Negative Contact sir, we would like a climb or turn away from traffic until clear.

Controller: Boeing XYZ climb and maintain FLxx, heading xxx.

0725:38
Controller: Lancair ABC traffic at your 2 o'clock and 8 miles now.

0725:47
Lancair ABC: Boeing in sight, Lancair ABC.

No TA. No RA.

In fact on seeing a TCAS target whilst descending in E we would often ask if the controller was in contact with the suspected traffic and if not make an early decision to ask for an amended clearance (heading and/or altitude) until clear of traffic.

Assuming ATC was not in contact with the Lancair that would pose no more of a problem with the American system. As we always treated class E in a similar manner to class G ie. see and avoid procedures take priority as soon as we descend out of A at FL180 AND the lancair's transponder was on because it was above 10,000 (note transponder is not a requirement for class E in US) we would have seen it on TCAS well in advance.

Even when a controller without radar coverage could not see the VFR target, we COULD above 10,000ft and requested an amended clearance if we suspected a conflict. Or similarly, told the controller what we needed. ie FLxx and/or heading xxx. Does it not seem strange that the THREE parties involved were provided by one means or another with situational information and yet the Boeing still received an RA!

So from MY experience, this kind of occurance is not the fault of class E. It was how class E was used, or more to the point how it was failed to be used.

Food for thought

MJB


:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

****su-Tonka...

Pre Nov27 would the cost really be zero. The Lancair pilot would have to pay for the excersion through that airspace.

US pilots + US controllers + class E = no problem.

Australian pilots + Australian controllers + class E = O.M.G!!! :oh: :bored: :ooh:

You dont need a Royal Commission to identify the weak link in the chain....

Leyland....

I hope you're not inferring that we Ozzies are somehow less capable than our US counterparts when it comes to applying this simple user friendly system are you. ;)

Just look at what mjbow2 is putting forward as an example of how WELL this system works!!

I counted 11 transmissions in his example, before the controller gives a de facto amended clearence for seperation (This is what I just don't get. IFR is NOT seperated from VFR err...except when it is) and then, as seems to invariably be the case, the big, fast expensive jet gets it's profile messed with so it avoids the lighty!!

If ATC has to seperate them any way, what the HELL is wrong with both aircraft having a clearence, being known to ATC, and ATC being able to, with ONE transmission, efficiently change one or both aircrafts course so a conflict never arises?

Wiz - have you ever flown into Bristol, England? Roughly how many Boeings fly through class G airspace every day on their way into Bristol? How many TCAS RAs do they have? In England in class G airspace, what is a RAS? What is a RIS?

English pilots + English controllers + class G (even!) = no problem.

Australian pilots + Australian controllers + class E = O.M.G!!! :oh: :bored: :ooh:

Australia - TCAS RA capital of the world ! :rolleyes: