Reporting point 2RN

[Howabout]

I asked a question, three or four posts ago. No agendas, just a question. And no villification.

Can someone give me a view?

[Chimbu chuckles]

Ozbusdriver VERY good point!

The arrival to Oshkosh is essentially identical to arriving at a GAAP. You arrive visually over RIPON and follow a railway line VISUALLY until the tower calls you and then you follow EXACTLY the instructions issued without any back chatter.

This article was the result of pilots that turned up at Oshkosh unprepared/lacking the discipline/skill to follow the NOTAMed visual procedure and caused a fatal accident as a result.

I take the same view about the recent midairs at Oz GAAPS. I learned to fly at YSBK near 30 years ago when it really WAS busy...todays traffic levels are a pale shadow of what they were then. I think the difference is the quality of instruction received...as one student poster alluded above even his/her instructor was unsure about the exact procedure at 2RN (2FC in my day). Every time Rick Durden mentions Oshkosh in the linked article read Bankstown/Morrabbin/Parafield/Archerfield/Jandakot. The GAAP procedures were devised back when these places were actually BUSY airports.

The Pilot's Lounge #38:<br>Yes, Pogo, the Enemy Is Us

So once again Dick is being disingenuous...when it gets REALLY busy in the US they use a system of visual reporting points...and not 5 or 6 or 12...1.

[soseg]

Chimbu Chuckles (above) you put up a good point.
I've gotta say even with the ERSA and my little booklet - visual pilot guide for the sydney basin which shows how to get in and out of Bankstown with clear pictures was a tad confusing and I had to go over it more than once with hesitation when I first flew in.

Moorabbin has a good 4 if not 5 approach points with less airpsace restrictions around it... It's a lot easier to fly in and out of there than Bankstown imo.

[Howabout]

Sheesh!!! How hard is it to get an answer on this forum? I thought I asked a reasonable one.

[Seabreeze]

First and foremost: Condolences to the families of the C152 pilots. This is an intensely emotional time for them.

For the rest of us, reflection on our own look-out capabilities comes first, followed in some cases by deeper thinking about the why's and how's and if procedures can be improved.

So let's use our brains here rather than our egos. In some cases egos seem to far exceed professional knowledge, however, there have also been a number of thoughtful posts made here. But the issues are complex and any new system of inbound reporting points (and outbound tracks) will have other safety implications, including VCA's head-on's etc. The existing system or a slightly modified one may or may not be the safest!

What is needed initially is the professional efforts of the ATSB. This should be followed perhaps a dispassionate review of other possibilities for inbound/outbound tracks. Pilots will make errors as they are human, and the main idea is to mitigate the risks as far as possible. This can often involve simplicity, and considerations of human factors and ergonomics.

In many areas of research, teams of people with complementary expertise can provide sound and objective solutions to complex problems. The same would be true here.

What is needed then is not an argument by clash of egos or the dictatorial view of some individual "expert", but an objective assessment made by a team of people (having a wide combination of backgrounds) looking at the practical possibilities. This is a challenge to both CASA and Airservices, who between them should be able to rub two sticks together and compile a team who would be respected by all.

I suggest that this is the only way forward. Bruce Byron and Greg Russell - over to you. Can I suggest that you ask the aviation industry for nominations for such a team, and some universities or research organisations for nominations of human factors experts with aviation knowledge. A statistician might be useful. Whatever you do, bring in outside expertise. This group needs to be able to operate objectively and as a team, so it would be wise to have the team attack the issues with an open mind. This issue is not about an individual proving he or she is right, it is all about getting the right answer.


Seabreeze

[Alex 009]

Was flying at Bankstown today, and for a Friday, the place was dormant. Flew back in through 2RN, and was really quite angry and disappointed that a fixed wing aircraft was circling close to the crash site at roughly 1500ft.

Made the entry call at 2000ft descending just to be safe. My condolances to the families of both victims; a very sad day for GA aviation. As for Ken, I really hope that he continues flying. Would anybody else agree that he is probably still one of the best pilots in Australia. I had him for my CPL flight test a few years ago, and when he took control to place the aircraft in 'unusual attitudes', I was amazed by how smooth he was.

[sms777]

I used to be a fast twin driver in and out of BK and every time i was inbound via 2RN my transmission used to start with " approaching 2RN " to give me heads-up what is happening ahead and behind me. This usually prompted a request from BK twr to flash my landing lights and gave me some sort of comfort that i am being noticed by not only the tower but all the bugsmashers around the area. It still gives me chills to think back the occassion 152 calling inbound just a split second after my call giving me a sore neck for days to come.
So... whats is the solution?
To install radar equipment at GAAP's?...who's going to pay for it?
To seperate high wing and low wing aircraft by 200'?...complicate even more of our already overcomplicated airspace system?

[Chimbu chuckles]

In my view NOTHING will reduce the chances of an accident like this to zero...unless you wanna close YSBK.

We really need to accept that sometimes the ONLY logical answer is to realise that accidents will happen and that the system in place is as good as it can be.

No one expects drastic changes to the road rules every time there is a fatal car accident...in fact even the modest 'safety' enhancements we have seen over the years, like round abouts, have had virtually no effect...why do people expect a different outcome for a fatal aircraft accident?

ADSB may be the only logical mitigator for this type of accident, and even then not 100% of the time...but guess who helped kill that idea off for the time being?

[gettin' there]

By removing the "inbound reporting points" at GAAP fields your are by default "creating" another point where traffic will be arriving and converging - the circuit.

As has been mentioned there is ambiguity as to "exactly" where the reporting point is. Due to this and the other issue of frequency congestion (not getting call in until you are passed 2RN) you consequently have an "area" where people will be reporting inbound that would be roughgly the same size as the circuit.

All you would be doing by removing the inbound points is making aircraft arrive in a similar size area of airspace (the circuit) at the same altitude only then they could be coming from any direction. At least with Prospect and 2RN both the ATC and other aircraft know where the traffic is coming from.

The above is my opinion only and i am no expert, however i find it personaly sickening when certian high profile individuals use a tragedy like this to push a personal agenda when they are more than capable of making headlines on their own terms without having to exploit a tragdic loss of life. Its no differnet to the "air safety activist" who gets on the 9 news a says "we should close the airport now."

Agree or disagree is irrelevant. I am not attacking anyones opinion or far superior knowledge of the issues at play, however the wagon used to convey the message is in my opinion wrong.

RIP to those who perrished.

[GeorgeB]

PCAS

Certainly wouldn't be that hard to considerably reduce the chances of collisions like this one, using a device called a Portable Collision Avoidance System.
A PCAS system is not that expensive. They warn of nearby aircraft where the transponder is responding to a radar signal, as we have around our busier GA fields
See review
Zaon MRX Portable Collision Avoidance System - DigitalReviews Network :: Reviewing Your Digital World
Surprised they aren't more commonly used.
Ask the good Dr.

[VH-XXX]

Valid point 'gettin there, but don't you feel that the circuit is such a large area compared to a single approach point? As in the downwind leg alone might be a couple of miles long, versus a single point of approach.

It would be interesting to see how the US system works in real life.

Where are our US posters?

[Roger Greendeck]

A few of points to add.

The first regards the actual position of the inbound point. The ERSA lists TWRN as S 33 56.2 E 150 53.3 and has a position for 2RN (in the NAV/COMM section) as S 33 56' 38" E 150 53' 10". The first thing to note is that radio transmitters in the NAV/COMM section are, rather unhandily, in AGD66 not WGS84. From my calculations that makes it S 33 56.5 E 150 53.2 which would put the radio mast south of the promulgated position for TWRN! I don't have access to a certified conversion program at home so I am more than happy to be corrected if someone can run the radio mast position through one. Either way they do not seem to be the same point which I find a little bizarre.

My second point regards the utility of the current reporting point system. In a CTAF you make an airmanship decision where to call depending on a range of factors such as speed, altitude, intentions. Thus in a high performance IFR aircraft I will call a long way from the airfield to give time for me and others to arrange separation. In the case of GAAPS the reporting points seem to be for ATC purposes. Not a bad thing in an of itself but it does not give any chance for establishing separation before reaching the choke point. In my opinion the inbound reports are too late for pilots to separate themselves based on listenout.

Thirdly electronic aids are available, but we need to find a way to get them on the street. TCAS, ADS-B, and PCAS all offer possible solutions to improving our SA in busy airspace where ATC are not providing separation. Sadly the plan to cross-subsidise ADS-B did not come to fruition so that is not an option in the near term but PCAS may be a value for money option. An earlier post suggested that TCAS cannot work in such a busy environment but I have been very pleased to have TCAS I in these circumstances and TCAS II with RA off will do the same.

Finally, Howabout, sensible question. Defined routes do reduce the chance of VCAs, particularly for those not familiar with the area as topo maps don't always show the most identifiable features in an urban area. This will have to be considered if any changes are made but it does not prevent changes being made to GAAP procedures.

[Chimbu chuckles]

So XXX where do you usually join downwind...surely not anywhere that takes your fancy between crosswind and base?

All life has risk.

Several 100 people in Australia fall over and die in their baths every year...how worried were you this morning as you awoke as to whether you would survive long enough to walk out your front door?

The ONLY way to reduce to zero the risks you take merely existing is to be dead already.

Have pool fences stopped kids drowning in fenced back yard pools?

Has traffic calming devices stopped people being run over in suburban back streets?

Have gun laws stopped accidental shooting deaths?

Have shark nets stopped all shark attacks?

Seabreeze three people died in 12 months in mid air collisions and you want the next best thing to a royal commission...you have got to be joking?

The ONLY logical conclusion ATSB/CASA can come to is "Hey..we publish all sorts of guidance and sometimes **** happens...move on, nothing else to see here."

No technology exists, no procedures could be promulgated that could guarantee next year, or the one after, that the exact same accident would not happen...because it was an accident....**** happens.

[Kickatinalong]

ATC Operators

I'm NOT blaming anyone, but I have noticed due to lack of staff all 3 runways are under the control of 1 Air Traffic Controller which makes it hard to get your inbound calls out sometimes or even your D/W calls in the CCT area, I know it's money related but really don't we need to be seperated all the time?
How many were working at the time?
Kickatinalong.

[gettin' there]

XXX,

In principle the single approach point SHOULD be a small area but by the time you factor in the people that call inbound:

- 2 miles away "approaching 2RN"
-1 mile away "approaching 2RN"
- overhead "2RN"
- up to 2 miles passed 2RN becuase the frequency was congested and they couldnt get the call in so they call "just passed 2RN"

and the fact that the aircraft is travelling anywhere from 80 - 140+ kt as they are making the call you have an area that its at a guestimate nearly as wide and as long as a circuit and so the area where traffic arrives is of a similar size.

[Matt-YSBK]

Ch Ch:
You make a point that only one incident does not make a Royal commission. Life is risky However.

We had one guy crash at Hamilton Island with pot from a few days ago in his system after he had a non related engine failure and the result is

Random Drug Testing for all.

We had one Guy in a cave organizes a few other guys to fly some airliners like they were missiles in another country and the result is

ASIC's for all and a razor wire fence around birdsville.

Surly from a Mid are collision we could come up with something worth wile.


If nothing is done based on this clearly we should roll back the securty and drug testing tomorrow.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'Day 'Howabout',

Be patient. Someone, sometime, will take the time to actually read and understand your question......we trust.

As I remember from a ' l o n g ' time ago, flashing beacons were installed to assist in the VISUALLY identifying some reporting or Guide points.

The Hornsby water tower was painted in 'checker-board' pattern for this reason.
In my BK days it was 2FC. And, there was lots of traffic, more than now I would imagine.

I do not know what is in place to identify this particular Reporting point - I guess the real solution may lie somewhere as 'Chuckles' suggests, an EASY READILY Identifyable POINT, like a flashing beacon or this radio mast with a strobe on it perhaps, and that all traffic be ESTABLISHED at a particular altitude prior to this beacon, and at a 'compatible speed' - common to most aircraft, i.e. say slow to 90 kts or so, but even that may not have prevented this high wing vs low wing event.

No doubt, more 'expert' discussion will follow, with all sorts of 'suggestions', some of them might even be polite, but nothing will prevent what has occurred, and as the visibility in some aircraft in relation to others is 'not good', this event is a classic case.

Very sad, 'tis true, but 'life goes on', and we will all learn from this, and perhaps the high wing drivers out there will learn to 'lift the wings' and check, and the low wing might yaw and roll a little to check, much like some of us 'oldies' were taught to.
It may not save us in ALL occasions, but it might work just that once..

I am very much aware of the mid-air between the Twin Comanche and the Dove over Bass Hill - The Dove pilot being a very special friend / working colleague. He was hit from behind...

So nothing is 'guaranteed'. All we can do is to exercise what used to be called 'Good Airmanship' and hopefully avoid the 'dramas' as much as we can.

Sorry this is so long winded, but you deserved a response, even if it is from what has been described 'elsewhere', as 'an OLD retired FSO'....Still manage to hold that CPL though, and actually manage to use it occasionally.

Cheers

[Chimbu chuckles]

You'll get no argument from me Matt

[KittyKatKaper]

VH-XXX

... but don't you feel that the circuit is such a large area compared to a single approach point? As in the downwind leg alone might be a couple of miles long, versus a single point of approach.

Dunno about you, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of doing pre-landing checks, and keeping my head swivelling to see who's about to merge with me from the sides or rear. I find it very comforting to know that inside a GAAP the traffic is almost always in front of me.
As others have stated, we're all heading for the same piece of terra-firma, and it's less stressfull if we're all nicely organised well before we get to that point.
At CTAFs the traffic density suits a relatively relaxed approach, but with GAAPs more time is needed to get the traffic into a more boring pattern.
I agree that the visual reporting points are a funnel, but you have more options out there than inside the busy GAAP circuit area. (eg. you can do an orbit relatively safely to let faster traffic pass you)

[KittyKatKaper]

Roger Greendeck. Regarding the lat/lon for TWRN and the 2RN mast, I get the same figures that you do !
ie. the reporting point is about 0.5nm north of the mast.
Maybe this is a byproduct or oversight when Australia adopted the WGS84 system for aviation ?