Mid-air near Fielding 26 July 2010
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's bloody frustrating that these accidents keep happening! Especially when there is relatively cheap technology out there that would help prevent it!
1. See and be seen
2. Listen to (and use) the damn radio!
It's not rocket science...
I thought the comment by Flight Training Manawatu chief executive Michael Bryant that "occasionally these things will happen" was particularly foolish... no, they don't Michael, if you train and supervise properly...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: nz
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak your comments stating 1. See and be seen
2. Listen to (and use) the damn radio! Is easy to say but every Joe Blogs has had there close calls id say even you! Were only human we make mistakes, for all we no it might be pure coincidence that this happened! but unfortunately this accident has claimed two lives.
There has been many accidents in the past and there will be many more to come,yes we can minimize them but they will never stop, so saying Michaels comment is foolish is rather selfish if you ask me.
2. Listen to (and use) the damn radio! Is easy to say but every Joe Blogs has had there close calls id say even you! Were only human we make mistakes, for all we no it might be pure coincidence that this happened! but unfortunately this accident has claimed two lives.
There has been many accidents in the past and there will be many more to come,yes we can minimize them but they will never stop, so saying Michaels comment is foolish is rather selfish if you ask me.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no such thing as "coincidence" in accidents like this. There is obviously a loss of situational awareness at the heart of this accident, easily avoidable with proper procedures but as is often the case at this end of the aviation spectrum, way too common for comfort. To simply shrug one's shoulders and say "there will always be accidents" is to be way too accepting of lax standards and procedures. If airlines thought like that, there would be a lot more accidents than there are - but most airlines refuse to accept unnecessary risk in their operations and actively seek to eradicate as many holes in the "swiss cheese" as possible.
Yes, I have had a few close calls over the years, but pretty much all of them were while instructing. They range from the standard lack of situational awareness (ie being cut off in the circuit) to people who thought it would be fun to formate on me without my knowing they were there, to encountering people in Low Flying Areas who weren't talking to anyone while fanging around at 50 feet with no regard for legit training traffic.
Even recently, I spotted one guy who, despite numerous traffic calls from me, drifted so close I had to take avoiding action. He had clearly not seen me as he bimbled along, and shortly thereafter he gave a position report that was out by over 15 miles. Scary.
There is a lot of dodgy stuff happening every day in the flight training world, it's about time it was recognised and dealt with.
Yes, I have had a few close calls over the years, but pretty much all of them were while instructing. They range from the standard lack of situational awareness (ie being cut off in the circuit) to people who thought it would be fun to formate on me without my knowing they were there, to encountering people in Low Flying Areas who weren't talking to anyone while fanging around at 50 feet with no regard for legit training traffic.
Even recently, I spotted one guy who, despite numerous traffic calls from me, drifted so close I had to take avoiding action. He had clearly not seen me as he bimbled along, and shortly thereafter he gave a position report that was out by over 15 miles. Scary.
There is a lot of dodgy stuff happening every day in the flight training world, it's about time it was recognised and dealt with.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Auckland
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
overhead rejoins
I trained at Ardmore and would say that getting rid of overhead rejoins is definitely a really bad decision. There could easily be up to 10 aircraft in the circuit at any one time. Doing the overhead rejoin is the only safe way to join and spot all the traffic. Mistakes and near collisions have been made even with me in the cockpit when people decided to join the circuit straight in. If done the right way and proper radio calls it can make joining the circuit a lot less nerve racking. Not a good idea getting rid of it in my opinion.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dunno, I am just a newbie, but I would only ever be at 1,500ft AGL near an airfield if I was actually joining overhead. If I was climbing out, I would follow the airfield procedure that would be to depart at 1,500ft or below?
Personally, I prefer overhead joins at many airfields. At MS for example, the three windsocks can all show different wind directions and the circuit in use can vary quite a bit in an hour. This can be problematic in a tail dragger, as can following a trike in who is not even looking at the windsock and merely flying br rote. Joining overhead can buy you some time of course to settle yourself, sort out who is where, etc
Personally, I prefer overhead joins at many airfields. At MS for example, the three windsocks can all show different wind directions and the circuit in use can vary quite a bit in an hour. This can be problematic in a tail dragger, as can following a trike in who is not even looking at the windsock and merely flying br rote. Joining overhead can buy you some time of course to settle yourself, sort out who is where, etc
From my perspective as a low time PPL I agree wholeheartedly with Remoaks comments as I have had quite a few close calls similar to his experiences.
My big bugbears are:
People who give incorrect position reports
People who don't give position reports at all (NORDO traffic notwithstanding)
People who say one thing over the radio and then do another
My point is, we could argue about the pros and cons of overhead joins forever, but if people fail to follow ANY procedure correctly, the holes in the swiss cheese start lining up rapidly.
My big bugbears are:
People who give incorrect position reports
People who don't give position reports at all (NORDO traffic notwithstanding)
People who say one thing over the radio and then do another
My point is, we could argue about the pros and cons of overhead joins forever, but if people fail to follow ANY procedure correctly, the holes in the swiss cheese start lining up rapidly.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who remembers the "good ol' days" when NZ pay rates were relatively high and aircraft were cheap and easy to hire (back in the 90's for instance) and on the weekend doing a weekend city scenic around Auckland was a real exercise in terror..especially if you ventured near the skytower
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: away...
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mattyj
...the "good ol' days" when NZ pay rates were relatively high and aircraft were cheap and easy to hire (back in the 90's for instance)...
My memory of the 80's, 90's and 00's was most definitely subsistence "wages", usually paid on hours airborne -when the boss could be bothered getting his chequebook out! Far better off flipping burgers at Macca's -still are.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Remoak
I hear (scuse pun) what you are saying but don't totally agree.
119.1 often blocked/crossed transmissions because everyone in uncontrolled airspace is on it - thankfully some of the busier airfields now have a specific freq.
English second language students - very hard to understand.
Position reports inaccurate or completely wrong.
These, amongst other things, can make it very difficult to have an accurate picture, or situational awareness of other traffic. Given this I believe that even "listening to and use the damn radio", as you put it, these tragic accidents will still occur.
2. Listen to (and use) the damn radio!
119.1 often blocked/crossed transmissions because everyone in uncontrolled airspace is on it - thankfully some of the busier airfields now have a specific freq.
English second language students - very hard to understand.
Position reports inaccurate or completely wrong.
These, amongst other things, can make it very difficult to have an accurate picture, or situational awareness of other traffic. Given this I believe that even "listening to and use the damn radio", as you put it, these tragic accidents will still occur.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
119.1 often blocked/crossed transmissions because everyone in uncontrolled airspace is on it - thankfully some of the busier airfields now have a specific freq.
119.1 in the top end of the island was split to ensure cross-over was eliminated, but even so, it still happens and it's not hard to ask another pilot friend to say it again.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jober.as.a.Sudge
When I left NZ in '88, I was a flying instructor at a local aero club on a salary of 28K with a bonus paid for flying hours. Bear in mind 28K bought a lot more 22 years ago...
conflict alert
Yes 119.1 may be busy - not so much around Fielding though I suspect - but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't patiently wait, get your call in, and be safe now, does it? You wouldn't launch out of a bigger field IFR without a clearance, would you? This is no different. Better that we teach our pilots to do things properly every time, than accept the inevitable consequences if we don't.
Every accident is preventable at some point along the chain of events that lead to it. The airline industry (in the First World at any rate) long ago figured out that a zero tolerance approach to safety is the only way to keep the accident rate down - and look at how well they do compared to NZ GA. How many is it so far this year?
Now ask yourself WHY.
My memory of the 80's, 90's and 00's was most definitely subsistence "wages", usually paid on hours airborne -when the boss could be bothered getting his chequebook out! Far better off flipping burgers at Macca's -still are.
conflict alert
Yes 119.1 may be busy - not so much around Fielding though I suspect - but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't patiently wait, get your call in, and be safe now, does it? You wouldn't launch out of a bigger field IFR without a clearance, would you? This is no different. Better that we teach our pilots to do things properly every time, than accept the inevitable consequences if we don't.
Every accident is preventable at some point along the chain of events that lead to it. The airline industry (in the First World at any rate) long ago figured out that a zero tolerance approach to safety is the only way to keep the accident rate down - and look at how well they do compared to NZ GA. How many is it so far this year?
Now ask yourself WHY.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NT
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZ GA 135 has had no fatal accidents in the last 5 and a half years, thats not a bad record I recon. Training on the other hand has had a bad run. What do you think that is telling us? I do find taking an instructor and trying to teach them in GA is hard work. Some of them are a bit like a dog thats started to worry sheep, to many bad habits, better off to get rid of them and get a new one!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Remoak
My point was - its not so easy to get your situational awareness of where the other traffic is when transmissions from the other a/c are being continually crossed,jammed or where the language barrier makes it difficult to understand.
I also note flying around a lot that in a number of CFZ's around the country the regular users seem to use a lot of 'local' points not displayed on charts. This is also particularly annoying as you have to trade off looking out the window to looking at your chart to try and find the reported position on the map, only to find its not on there. It's one thing for you to be on the ground and wait patiently for a break in the RT or sit there while you work out where everyone is, as you say, but its not so easy when your already in the air given the above circumstances.
Yes you are correct - FI has a discreet freq 124.1 but I was generalizing NZ wide not specifically to this accident. Years ago when everything outside controlled airspace was 119.1 was just a shambles. As a jump pilot - at altitude you would pick up half of NZ - it was a bloody nightmare where you would have to endure squealing and screeching from multiple transmissions at once for the majority of every flight.
Anyway, I understand what you are saying and it would be great in the perfect world, but I can't see it being the be all and end all of preventing this sort of thing from happening again sadly.
My point was - its not so easy to get your situational awareness of where the other traffic is when transmissions from the other a/c are being continually crossed,jammed or where the language barrier makes it difficult to understand.
I also note flying around a lot that in a number of CFZ's around the country the regular users seem to use a lot of 'local' points not displayed on charts. This is also particularly annoying as you have to trade off looking out the window to looking at your chart to try and find the reported position on the map, only to find its not on there. It's one thing for you to be on the ground and wait patiently for a break in the RT or sit there while you work out where everyone is, as you say, but its not so easy when your already in the air given the above circumstances.
Yes you are correct - FI has a discreet freq 124.1 but I was generalizing NZ wide not specifically to this accident. Years ago when everything outside controlled airspace was 119.1 was just a shambles. As a jump pilot - at altitude you would pick up half of NZ - it was a bloody nightmare where you would have to endure squealing and screeching from multiple transmissions at once for the majority of every flight.
Anyway, I understand what you are saying and it would be great in the perfect world, but I can't see it being the be all and end all of preventing this sort of thing from happening again sadly.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: away...
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by remoak
...When I left NZ in '88, I was a flying instructor at a local aero club on a salary of 28K with a bonus paid for flying hours. Bear in mind 28K bought a lot more 22 years ago...
Previous job was on (airborne) hourly rate.
I left because I couldn't afford to stay.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The airline industry (in the First World at any rate) long ago figured out that a zero tolerance approach to safety is the only way to keep the accident rate down - and look at how well they do compared to NZ GA. How many is it so far this year?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
conflict alert
Simple - safety isn't negotiable just because you are flying VFR. Why would you believe that a controlled IFR environment is intrinsically safe, and that a VFR environment isn't? Either is as safe as you make it. If you treat VFR flying in a professional manner, you will be safe, if you treat IFR flying in an unprofessional manner, you will conversely be unsafe.
When two aircraft collide in flight, it is ALWAYS because somebody wasn't paying attention - either the pilots (VFR) or the pilots and controllers (IFR). That is the simple truth, and trying to dress it up as "accidents will always happen" is to simply make excuses for lax procedures and training. The sad thing is that it is often the pilot who WAS being diligent and professional who ends up paying the price.
I agree with most of what you are saying about GA, but the bit I have problems with is where some pilots will say "F@ck it, I can't get a word in, I'll just not bother" and then proceed to have an incident. One of the fundamental rules of safe aviation (mainly in the airline world, but relevant to GA) is to not do anything until you are absolutely sure what is going on and where you are, and where any local threats to your safety are. In the airline case, we use TCAS/TAWS and query controllers if not sure. In GA, you just have to be patient and apply the same basic technique.
The language barrier doesn't really exist in this country, the majority of Indian students speak English better than a lot of Kiwis do. Yes, they do often get geographically confused, and sometimes struggle with Maori names, but really a lot of that comes down to the quality of the training they receive.
Not quite sure how you can compare the 2 - one in a controlled IFR environment and the other generally uncontrolled VFR environment.
When two aircraft collide in flight, it is ALWAYS because somebody wasn't paying attention - either the pilots (VFR) or the pilots and controllers (IFR). That is the simple truth, and trying to dress it up as "accidents will always happen" is to simply make excuses for lax procedures and training. The sad thing is that it is often the pilot who WAS being diligent and professional who ends up paying the price.
I agree with most of what you are saying about GA, but the bit I have problems with is where some pilots will say "F@ck it, I can't get a word in, I'll just not bother" and then proceed to have an incident. One of the fundamental rules of safe aviation (mainly in the airline world, but relevant to GA) is to not do anything until you are absolutely sure what is going on and where you are, and where any local threats to your safety are. In the airline case, we use TCAS/TAWS and query controllers if not sure. In GA, you just have to be patient and apply the same basic technique.
The language barrier doesn't really exist in this country, the majority of Indian students speak English better than a lot of Kiwis do. Yes, they do often get geographically confused, and sometimes struggle with Maori names, but really a lot of that comes down to the quality of the training they receive.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: over there
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the airline case, we use TCAS/TAWS and query controllers if not sure.
the majority of Indian students speak English better than a lot of Kiwis do. Yes, they do often get geographically confused, and sometimes struggle with Maori names
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tred
Sure, but a visual approach is just that, "see and avoid" applies and that is part and parcel of requesting accepting the clearance in the first place. You become VFR at that point. I doubt that any IFR (originally) aircraft are still doing 240 kts below controlled airspace, more like 140kts below say 1500 feet as much more would by definition be an unstable approach. Also, most would be well below profile if they managed to get into uncontrolled airspace on approach (which is why controlled airspace has the dimensions it has). I'm not sure what airport you are thinking of though, so happy to eat humble pie!
Well he said "My point was - its not so easy to get your situational awareness of where the other traffic is when transmissions from the other a/c are being continually crossed,jammed or where the language barrier makes it difficult to understand."
That is what I was responding to.
In the course of my job the number of IFR aircraft on visual approaches I see who descend below controlled airspace prior to entering a control zone is a regular occurence. There is still a large number and variety of aircraft which are not equipped with transponders and able to operate in uncontrolled airspace. At 240+ knots - its not a lot of time to react
isn't that what CA was saying?
That is what I was responding to.