Reporting point 2RN
I am very much aware of the mid-air between the Twin Comanche and the Dove over Bass Hill
Aviation in Oz is a very small world.
Dr
I'll join the ranks of long time lurker, first time poster.
Using Oshkosh as an example of why a small and discreet number of inbound reporting points is safe just doesn't cut it. Everyone flying in to that event knows the volume of traffic they will be dealing with, the very real chances of something catastrophic happening if they don't pay attention, and that it is a special occasion for which they need to be on their toes. It isn't an every day situation and everyone involved is well aware of that fact.
On the other hand, 2RN and Prospect are used day in day out by the same pilots, many of which just want to get back on the ground ASAP (ever been there when the bank runners arrive?). Toss a few low time students and a large propotion of people for whom english is a second language in to the mix and you get a very different situation than Oshkosh.
Based on the individual mindsets of the crews involved (hightened awareness versus indifference), these situations are not even remotely similar and can't be used to justify an opinion.
I am not saying that Dick has the answers but he has valid points and if he does nothing more than generate discussion he has made a valid contribution.
My own impression from the best part of 20 years flying in to and out of BK is that very little attention from instructors to teaching basic airmanship is a contributing factor. The emphasis seems to be on teaching the mechanical and technical skills involved in flying; get the fees and get them out the door. I think very few students ever get it drummed in to their heads that flying is a dangerous activity for those who do not pay it the utmost respect. The end result is people barrelling in to 2RN, and calling inbound 5 miles to the west in the hope they get sequenced first. Although as noted elsewhere here, you don't get sequenced until joining downwind or over Warwick Farm. Again, this is a lack of understanding that leads to real danger.
Using Oshkosh as an example of why a small and discreet number of inbound reporting points is safe just doesn't cut it. Everyone flying in to that event knows the volume of traffic they will be dealing with, the very real chances of something catastrophic happening if they don't pay attention, and that it is a special occasion for which they need to be on their toes. It isn't an every day situation and everyone involved is well aware of that fact.
On the other hand, 2RN and Prospect are used day in day out by the same pilots, many of which just want to get back on the ground ASAP (ever been there when the bank runners arrive?). Toss a few low time students and a large propotion of people for whom english is a second language in to the mix and you get a very different situation than Oshkosh.
Based on the individual mindsets of the crews involved (hightened awareness versus indifference), these situations are not even remotely similar and can't be used to justify an opinion.
I am not saying that Dick has the answers but he has valid points and if he does nothing more than generate discussion he has made a valid contribution.
My own impression from the best part of 20 years flying in to and out of BK is that very little attention from instructors to teaching basic airmanship is a contributing factor. The emphasis seems to be on teaching the mechanical and technical skills involved in flying; get the fees and get them out the door. I think very few students ever get it drummed in to their heads that flying is a dangerous activity for those who do not pay it the utmost respect. The end result is people barrelling in to 2RN, and calling inbound 5 miles to the west in the hope they get sequenced first. Although as noted elsewhere here, you don't get sequenced until joining downwind or over Warwick Farm. Again, this is a lack of understanding that leads to real danger.
I agree with you there 517. The other important item to note is at Osh no students are allowed in and everyone is to track in at the one speed.
That is not possible at the GAAP's as they are afterall the main training airfields in the country.Also what is so hard about finding 2RN? Doesn't anyone have an ADF anymore? When I used to fly in from the Riverinia years ago I would tune to then 2 FC over Warragamba listen to the ABC news and there it was straight in front. Before you all get on your bikes the volume was down so I could still hear the traffic on R/T.
That is not possible at the GAAP's as they are afterall the main training airfields in the country.Also what is so hard about finding 2RN? Doesn't anyone have an ADF anymore? When I used to fly in from the Riverinia years ago I would tune to then 2 FC over Warragamba listen to the ABC news and there it was straight in front. Before you all get on your bikes the volume was down so I could still hear the traffic on R/T.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ringer Soak
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having trained at Bankstown a couple of years back, I always had the opinion that when joining at 2RN it is a very dangerous procedure so i think Dick is right. My solution is that you have a 10 mile circle around 2RN and pilots must make a mandatory call on a seperate frequency giving an estimated time and level of when they arrive at 2RN. So in effect you are treating 2RN for example like a CTAf in itself. This way pilots will have a heads up of who is around them when approaching these inbound reporting points such as 2RN, and bankstown tower can still keep the system of reporting points in place. It seems common sense to me because prior to reaching 2RN and contacting the tower is the greatest danger and it is brought about by complete uncertainty as to who is around you, so let the pilots talk to each other on a seperate frequency...couldnt be easier
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
I agree that the coordinates for 2RN (wherever you get them from) are in VERY close proximity to the mast and the beacon, not some indeterminate distance south. So I for one call 2 RN just as I am about to go over the top. I also keep a VERY good lookout for some time prior to that (and afterwards).
That wouldn't work Splinter. A 10nm circle around 2RN takes it over CN and well into the flying training areas. You can imagine the chaos that would cause, Pilots on different frequencies going to different airports, others changing to Tower freq's after contacting the Tower but still well inside the 10nm circle. I think we need to either have more reporting points or go to a D tower and have none. My main concern with the D tower though is where ever they are already they seem to move traffic much slower than at a GAAP. I am concerned at the prospect of endless waiting to depart or holding to enter.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Californication
The issue is not 2RN, we all need to have input into the root cause.
Check out the Los Angeles Basin procedures. Similar weather (though often poor viz) massive aircraft population and seven, that's SEVEN major airports in an area equivalent to that bounded by Gosford, Katoomba and Wollongong. SoCal App/Deps (Southern California Radar) runs it all, plenty of Class C, D overlay and military interaction too. Many VFRs and IFRs and much wider range of aircraft. But more importantly - everyone has access and is given access to the system.
To fellow pilots I say get a TCAS or an extra set of eyes, because until the work practices are reformed by Public Sector Unions in Sydney (and elsewhere) where pay, conditions and procedures are all reviewed, expect the same in the future. If you're 1200 or on a VFR plan, continue to be treated like second class citizens where you're denied access to basic services to which you're entitled and for which you already pay, one way or another.
The fact that the radar traces of the accident were published on Thursday is an insult to our industry and at best insensitive to those effected by this tragedy. (Just like a cop standing on a street corner watching a hold-up and doing nothing).
The intransigent attitutes of some, and archaic practices institutionalised in pro-airline/anti-GA Air Services and CASA (what's the 'S' stand for again?) are preventing any progress or real reform, in what is a critical piece of national infrastructure, which needs urgent and tangible reform.
Access to privatised airports and fair dealings with tenants at these airports in the Sydney basin and elsewhere is critical, but airspace access and sound flight services airborne, are equally so.
Check out the Los Angeles Basin procedures. Similar weather (though often poor viz) massive aircraft population and seven, that's SEVEN major airports in an area equivalent to that bounded by Gosford, Katoomba and Wollongong. SoCal App/Deps (Southern California Radar) runs it all, plenty of Class C, D overlay and military interaction too. Many VFRs and IFRs and much wider range of aircraft. But more importantly - everyone has access and is given access to the system.
To fellow pilots I say get a TCAS or an extra set of eyes, because until the work practices are reformed by Public Sector Unions in Sydney (and elsewhere) where pay, conditions and procedures are all reviewed, expect the same in the future. If you're 1200 or on a VFR plan, continue to be treated like second class citizens where you're denied access to basic services to which you're entitled and for which you already pay, one way or another.
The fact that the radar traces of the accident were published on Thursday is an insult to our industry and at best insensitive to those effected by this tragedy. (Just like a cop standing on a street corner watching a hold-up and doing nothing).
The intransigent attitutes of some, and archaic practices institutionalised in pro-airline/anti-GA Air Services and CASA (what's the 'S' stand for again?) are preventing any progress or real reform, in what is a critical piece of national infrastructure, which needs urgent and tangible reform.
Access to privatised airports and fair dealings with tenants at these airports in the Sydney basin and elsewhere is critical, but airspace access and sound flight services airborne, are equally so.
Thread Starter
I have asked for, and received, radar flight following when flying VFR in the LA basin. All but useless because you are given so much traffic that it is simply not possible to absorb it all.
I will say again, they do not focus VFR and IFR aircraft on one or two points when going into a non radar class D tower.
I think it is called commonsense.
You can ask for flight following from Sydney radar when heading VFR towards 2RN. The most likely information will be "multiple traffic at 2RN". - so this does not really help.
If other countries can spread the traffic out a bit it seems likely that we can too.
Look around the world and copy the best proven procedures I would suggest.
I will say again, they do not focus VFR and IFR aircraft on one or two points when going into a non radar class D tower.
I think it is called commonsense.
You can ask for flight following from Sydney radar when heading VFR towards 2RN. The most likely information will be "multiple traffic at 2RN". - so this does not really help.
If other countries can spread the traffic out a bit it seems likely that we can too.
Look around the world and copy the best proven procedures I would suggest.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 20th Dec 2008 at 04:34.
Flyer517,
AND what difference is there in flying into a GAAP?
Everyone flying in to that event knows the volume of traffic they will be dealing with, the very real chances of something catastrophic happening if they don't pay attention,
Just had to check a couple of things. Aircraft coming into BK on DCT tracks can only come DCT between 360 and 020 from the north and 220 and 284 from the west.(WOW a 20 splay and a 64 degree splay!) There is no possibility from the south because of SY CTR and from the NW because of RIC MIL airspace. To faciliate a safe passage for outbound to the Nth inbounds are moved to the west of the corridor between SY and RIC zones. What logical reason is there to allow multiple dct tracks into BK? Aircraft coming back from Camden and the adjoining training area get funneled in by RIC zone and the inbound track from the Nth and the little dog leg of SY CTR. Allowing for outbounds to the west and things get a bit congested. Only two directions NTH and WEST inbound and outbound. I would like to see someone come up with something better than what is already in place. Unless you can make RIC disappear and push SY ops up and away from BK you are just watering yourself.
Dick in the LA basin there are VFR routes that allow VFR aircraft to traverse a very complicated airspace withouty a clearance. These routes go from aerodrome to aerodrome as well as transitting around major aerodromes. I would say these routes funnel aircraft into certain points. I would like to hear from anyone who has experience in flying out of Oakland or Van Nuys to ask them of how they operate.
Dick in the LA basin there are VFR routes that allow VFR aircraft to traverse a very complicated airspace withouty a clearance. These routes go from aerodrome to aerodrome as well as transitting around major aerodromes. I would say these routes funnel aircraft into certain points. I would like to hear from anyone who has experience in flying out of Oakland or Van Nuys to ask them of how they operate.
Ozbus you can't take that line from my post in isolation. My point is that for any pilot flying in to Oshkosh, their state of mind, and therefore their level of attention to the task at hand, is bound to be different than someone motoring in from a scenic over the Gong on a Saturday morning and calling inbound at a GAAP reporting point.
If you REALLY want to compare apples with apples, then you would have to operate the GAAP inbound points exacty like those at OSH; the whole waggle your wings, no RT chatter, big red arrows on the ground, land long / land short, same IAS, etc, etc, situation. Like this:
EAA AirVenture Oshkosh - The World's Greatest Aviation Celebration
I seem to recall, and will stand corrected if I have it wrong, that there are also controllers virtually at the inbound reporting point for OSH in addition to the controllers on the field. In the context of BK that would mean ATC staff at Prospect and 2RN in addition to the existing tower.
Again, I am not saying any point of view is right or wrong; although I stated that Dick was doing a service for generating discussion, there is also an argument that one fatal accident at 2RN in how long (at least 15 years from memory) does not constitute a huge safety issue given the number of movements in and out of BK.
I can think of at least 2 road accidents in the past 10 years where people were fatally injured by a car leaving the road and plowing in to a home / business or sidewalk. There was no outcry for car-proof barriers on all roadsides after that was there?
I am just saying that using OSH as justification for minimal reporting inbound reporting points for GAAP fields is not valid.
We owe it to those involved in this accident to argue the case for a better system if one exists. Aviation's current level of safety was built on learning from these instances. But let's at least use sensible comparisons.
If you REALLY want to compare apples with apples, then you would have to operate the GAAP inbound points exacty like those at OSH; the whole waggle your wings, no RT chatter, big red arrows on the ground, land long / land short, same IAS, etc, etc, situation. Like this:
EAA AirVenture Oshkosh - The World's Greatest Aviation Celebration
I seem to recall, and will stand corrected if I have it wrong, that there are also controllers virtually at the inbound reporting point for OSH in addition to the controllers on the field. In the context of BK that would mean ATC staff at Prospect and 2RN in addition to the existing tower.
Again, I am not saying any point of view is right or wrong; although I stated that Dick was doing a service for generating discussion, there is also an argument that one fatal accident at 2RN in how long (at least 15 years from memory) does not constitute a huge safety issue given the number of movements in and out of BK.
I can think of at least 2 road accidents in the past 10 years where people were fatally injured by a car leaving the road and plowing in to a home / business or sidewalk. There was no outcry for car-proof barriers on all roadsides after that was there?
I am just saying that using OSH as justification for minimal reporting inbound reporting points for GAAP fields is not valid.
We owe it to those involved in this accident to argue the case for a better system if one exists. Aviation's current level of safety was built on learning from these instances. But let's at least use sensible comparisons.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
coke drinker wrote:
Sorry but I beg to differ - half the time I'm driving a G1000 Mooney equipped with the Avidyne TAS-610 TCAD, and I can assure you it's way in front of the MK1 eyeball. The first flight with it amazed me at the traffic out there that otherwise you wouldn't have a clue existed. I recently avoided a VFR target where both he and I were in IMC. I had no choice but to trust the ALERT - it would be ironic however, if it was inaccurate and directed me into a midair.
The following is a contribution (in part) to another newsgroup, by a Mooney pilot and eye specialist based in Melbourne: The link is a must read.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/..._see_avoid.pdf
TCAS isn't the solution. From some experience in an aircraft equipped with a G1000, it was horribly inaccurate.
The following is a contribution (in part) to another newsgroup, by a Mooney pilot and eye specialist based in Melbourne: The link is a must read.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/..._see_avoid.pdf
The limits of the visual system in the 3 dimensional fast moving aviation environment means that under certain circumstances it is impossible for 2 planes to be visible to each other. We all have our war stories of near misses. There but for the grace of God go I.
The conclusion from this 1991 report was that see and avoid should not form any part of future air traffic management systems. In 2008 nothing has changed. (my highlighting)
Over the last 30 years there is on average 1 mid air collision per year in Australia. The vast majority are in this exact same situation of aircraft converging on bottleneck approach points around airports and in circuit patterns. There have been no IMC collisions. In cloud is the safest place to be.
The conclusion from this 1991 report was that see and avoid should not form any part of future air traffic management systems. In 2008 nothing has changed. (my highlighting)
Over the last 30 years there is on average 1 mid air collision per year in Australia. The vast majority are in this exact same situation of aircraft converging on bottleneck approach points around airports and in circuit patterns. There have been no IMC collisions. In cloud is the safest place to be.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ovation...on four consecutive flights in a fleet of G1000 equipped aircraft, I encountered traffic warnings from the completely wrong side of the aircraft. This was confirmed visually AND by ATC. There was nothing wrong with the aircraft, it was the inaccuracy of the system.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
coke drinker wrote:
.
Not good at all - does this fleet have Avidyne TAS-6xx or a different brand? Also do they have dual or single aerial installations, and what type of a/c are they fitted to?
I did have one problem with traffic behind moving side to side at UFO speed, but traced to a poor earth on one aerial and it's never come back.
It's pretty hard (for my eyes anyway) to see traffic greater than 3 NM, however the MK1 eyeball and the Avidyne TCAD always agree with bearing/distance/altitude above/below as far as I'm able to judge.
Before we drift too far towards TCAD reliability, maybe we should start another thread or discuss by pm. I feel the 2RN thread needs to stay on course. Also, check you pm's for an earlier link.
Ovation...on four consecutive flights in a fleet of G1000 equipped aircraft, I encountered traffic warnings from the completely wrong side of the aircraft. This was confirmed visually AND by ATC. There was nothing wrong with the aircraft, it was the inaccuracy of the system
Not good at all - does this fleet have Avidyne TAS-6xx or a different brand? Also do they have dual or single aerial installations, and what type of a/c are they fitted to?
I did have one problem with traffic behind moving side to side at UFO speed, but traced to a poor earth on one aerial and it's never come back.
It's pretty hard (for my eyes anyway) to see traffic greater than 3 NM, however the MK1 eyeball and the Avidyne TCAD always agree with bearing/distance/altitude above/below as far as I'm able to judge.
Before we drift too far towards TCAD reliability, maybe we should start another thread or discuss by pm. I feel the 2RN thread needs to stay on course. Also, check you pm's for an earlier link.
A few years ago I spent some time flying around California over a few weeks. Airports I landed at include Torrance, Santa Monica, Santa catalina Island, Sandiego, Santa barbara, Van Nys, Oakland, San Louis Obispo,Sacremento, Palo Alto, and Long Beach.
While they dont officially have inbound reporting points, they DO have local customs as to where to report inbound. Where they have some very busy airports that you can call inbound from any point on the compass, the locals frequently worry about departures, as there are arrivals everywhere, there are really no safe routes for departures, especially if altitude separation cannot be obtained due to airspace constraints.
Inbound points DO work. 1 million + arrivals at BK in the last 20 years and only 1 or 2 midairs. You still have a higher statistical risk of being knocked over by a piece of space junk.
While they dont officially have inbound reporting points, they DO have local customs as to where to report inbound. Where they have some very busy airports that you can call inbound from any point on the compass, the locals frequently worry about departures, as there are arrivals everywhere, there are really no safe routes for departures, especially if altitude separation cannot be obtained due to airspace constraints.
Inbound points DO work. 1 million + arrivals at BK in the last 20 years and only 1 or 2 midairs. You still have a higher statistical risk of being knocked over by a piece of space junk.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a Basair student who has flown under Joanne's instruction on two occasions, once in VH-FMG.
I don't understand the vilification towards those that are saying that change should at least be considered. I admire Dick Smith for stating his opinion in a sensible and public fashion, and don't in any way think that this is the wrong time for him or anyone to be asking these questions. Any allusion to his motives for doing so are irrelevant. Let's take the opportunity to at least consider improvements, if indeed such improvements can be made.
I don't have the flying experience to argue the pros and cons of the various technical or procedural solutions that have been discussed, but I do find it difficult seeing the radar data so readily available that in my opinion would have been more than sufficient to generate some kind of alarm of an impending collision, without requiring any additional equipment. I realise that the additional cost is the manpower required to react to these alarms, and hope that is something that would be considered.
I don't understand the vilification towards those that are saying that change should at least be considered. I admire Dick Smith for stating his opinion in a sensible and public fashion, and don't in any way think that this is the wrong time for him or anyone to be asking these questions. Any allusion to his motives for doing so are irrelevant. Let's take the opportunity to at least consider improvements, if indeed such improvements can be made.
I don't have the flying experience to argue the pros and cons of the various technical or procedural solutions that have been discussed, but I do find it difficult seeing the radar data so readily available that in my opinion would have been more than sufficient to generate some kind of alarm of an impending collision, without requiring any additional equipment. I realise that the additional cost is the manpower required to react to these alarms, and hope that is something that would be considered.
Flyer517, as you pointed out and I am not trying to selectively quote you. I do treat any approach to a control zone reporting point with caution. It is a choke point. However, if you look at the layout of airspace leading into BK from the west, there is no room to be cute with multiple entry points and conversly multiple exit points over a splay of sixty degrees of azimuth.
Ovation, there is a very good reason why TCAS gives only vertical resolutions.
Ovation, there is a very good reason why TCAS gives only vertical resolutions.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS does have limitations, particularly in azzimuth. Modes S transmissions with GPS data improve this but it is still a limit. ADS-B in will be better but there is a significant cost across the industry for this to be effective.
As for something that can be implimented now with no cost and minimal procedural change, perhaps requiring the inbound call to be made 5nm before the point would be an improvement. It would provide traffic information before we reach the actual point without increasing the radio call as Twr can still give clearance and sequence inbound traffic based on the call.
As for something that can be implimented now with no cost and minimal procedural change, perhaps requiring the inbound call to be made 5nm before the point would be an improvement. It would provide traffic information before we reach the actual point without increasing the radio call as Twr can still give clearance and sequence inbound traffic based on the call.