Mid-air near Fielding 26 July 2010

[Weekend_Warrior]

Just a coincidence???

I hope not, but the fact that CAA have left it so long does make me wonder.

Air NZ Paraparaumu flights delayed | Stuff.co.nz

I hope this does start a trend back to at least flight service at busy airfields.

Now lets see if Ardmore and Taupo get equal treatment.

[ZK-NSN]

I'm not sure what airport you are thinking of though, so happy to eat humble pie!

Got me as well. Most companies have SOP's that dont allow for that speed at an altitude that would put them outside of controlled Airspace.
As for TCAS, I dont think its the silver bullet to solve the problem. The system has its limitations and in GA situations would pose more problems than provide solutions.

See and be seen.

[tred]

I'm not sure what airport you are thinking of though, so happy to eat humble pie!

Start eating

Palmerston North particularly from the south on a visual approach IFR's will most often descend below 4000ft taking them into airspace where VFR uncontrolled can be operating up to 3500ft. This can be as close as 9nm from the airport before the controlled airspace lowers. And when its 25 in use the ARE doing a ground speed well in excess of 200kts - I see it all the time! Used to see them boring in from the north as well straight through the FI circuit (uncontrolled up to 1500) but that seems to have been knocked on the head by Company SOPs after being highlighted to them.

Into NR aircraft descending below 10000ft prior to NR TMA (uncontrolled up to 9500ft to the SW and Sth)

TG from the south descending below 4000ft prior to the control zone

I'll give you time to digest those pies first before I go on.

[slackie]

You become VFR at that point

Ahhh...no...you are IFR on a Visual Approach. Any separation/traffic information requirements of the airspace Class are still in place. The only thing that changes is that you are providing your own separation from terrain.

[tred]

Slackie wrote

The only thing that changes is that you are providing your own separation from terrain.

correct and may I add...also, it then becomes the pilot's responsibility to remain within controlled airspace.

An altitude restriction on a visual approach is more likely to be for circuit intergration or for traffic separation requirements - NOT for the bottom of controlled airspace reasons.

Into PM a visual approach maintain 2000ft is for circuit intergration at PM even though controlled airspace 9nm south of PM is 3500ft and below.

[S.E.A.L.11]

It has become enough of an issue for this to be attached to the Arrival plate for Palmy:

CAUTION: Visual Approaches

It is a pilot’s responsibility to ensure containment of their flight within controlled airspace when on a visual approach.
Caution should be exercised to avoid conflict with possible traffic in class G airspace surrounding Palmerston North CTR/D. This is especially relevant for arrivals from the north and traffic in the vicinity of Feilding aerodrome.

Ref: http://www.aip.net.nz/pdf/NZPM_31.1.pdf

[conflict alert]

Remoak

Your slowly getting shot down on this one!!!!

What I can only assume from reading you posts over the last few months is that you believe the airlines can do no wrong yet they contribute the most to fatal accident numbers of individuals paying for hire or reward if you go back over the stats for years gone by.

What SEAL 11 has posted shouldn't even be on the landing plate....because its the rules of IFR flying....so why do you think that something like that has to be re-iterated to the airline fraternity. Is it because they forget the rules or don't know the airspace or what? Or is it because they have come to rely on TCAS..your quote...

In the airline case, we use TCAS/TAWS

so they don't worry about airspace anymore.

Interesting topic.

By the way-I'm absolutely staggered at this comment from you

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.

As Slackie says....

Ahhh...no...

..and if you, as a professional IFR pilot, think that you become a VFR flight when requesting and cleared for a visual approach, then you seriously need to redo some Law exams.

[S.E.A.L.11]

To be fair though its not only the airlines who are nipping the Class G. I know and have seen some GA Training aircraft do it too.

Either way while I was in the tower today I saw a Kingair fly at 2500ft through Class G that goes up to 4500ft on the tower freq on a visual from the north... Its normally a high density training spot too...

[conflict alert]

Don't deny that re the GA, but Remoak seems to think that the airlines don't or couldn't possibly do what have been presented to him in previous posts.

Assuming when you mention
Tower + Kingair + 4500ft uncontrolled = OH TWR
Airforce should know the airspace like the back of their hand, particularly round that neck of the woods, they have a IFR training package which takes them outside of controlled airspace 'military terrain' so presume they are quite conversed with IFR outside controlled airspace procedures and know to keep a bloody good look out. Not kitted with TCAS I might add.....

[remoak]

tred

Palmerston North particularly from the south on a visual approach IFR's will most often descend below 4000ft taking them into airspace where VFR uncontrolled can be operating up to 3500ft. This can be as close as 9nm from the airport before the controlled airspace lowers.

They will only descend below 4000 if their descent is unrestricted, which I would assume that it wouldn't be if there was any traffic in the way. Are you suggesting that ATC would clear me for a visual approach into Palmy if there was anything - even a primary return with no altitude information - in the way? Or are you saying that such traffic is invisible to radar around Palmy? Notwithstanding the warning on the plate... and in any case I can see no earthly reason why anyone would need to descend below controlled airspace on a visual. If they are, their company should be told.

The boundary my be 9nm from the runway, but the actual track miles to the threshold will be more like 15nm minimum for a stable approach, which would put any aircraft on something remotely resembling an appropriate profile, above 3500'.

Why do you think the airspace dimensions are the way they are?

slackie

you are IFR on a Visual Approach

Yes, my bad, I was thinking Euro rules (which are somewhat less anal than NZ ones). I only flew there for 20 years so sometimes I revert...

conflict alert

Your slowly getting shot down on this one!!!!

Yeah you are enjoying the thought of that, aren't you?

What I can only assume from reading you posts over the last few months is that you believe the airlines can do no wrong yet they contribute the most to fatal accident numbers of individuals paying for hire or reward if you go back over the stats for years gone by.

Yeah you need to read more carefully. I have never actually said anything remotely resembling that. What I have said is that airlines operate to much higher standards, have much better resources and are far more disciplined. Your point is somewhat disingenuous, one airliner crash can kill more people than 100 light aircraft crashes... and yet, when was the last fatal airline accident in NZ? And how many fatal GA accidents have their been already this year?

so why do you think that something like that has to be re-iterated to the airline fraternity

You have completely missed the point. You don't know whether the warning is there as a result of airline misdemeanours, or problems with training traffic or Part 125/135 operators. I would suggest the latter - I assume that Air NZ has rules about flying outside controlled airspace.

Or is it because they have come to rely on TCAS

No... it is just something we have in our toolbox, that most GA aircraft don't.

[henry crun]

remoak: "even a primary return with no altitude information", I believe there is no primary radar available in that area.

[remoak]

So do they suppress non-transponder traffic from their secondary system?

[Tarq57]

remoak, non-transponder equipped a/c don't show up on SSR. Only PSR (primary).
I believe there is a fairly powerful primary radar located at OH. Additional primary radars are located at AA WN and CH. The primary coverage is reasonable.

[buggaluggs]

"So do they suppress non-transponder traffic from their secondary system" erm.... if they're "non-transponder" they won't show up on the secondary system at any time .
From what I understand ATC can inhibit certain Txpder codes from showing on their screen, but if the aircraft is not fitted with a Txpder then it'll show as a primary only target, provided it's in coverage. Which since the removal of the Wilson's rd ( ohakea ) primary, is very limited in the Manawatu.

[S.E.A.L.11]

Yep Ohakea Primary does not exist anymore. Closest is Welly's which will only get good reception at a decent altitude.

Conflict Alert...In this case it was not the Airforce, rather a B200 operator from the north east .

The main issue Ive seen is the visual approach from the north where Palmy's CTR is only about 1-2nm wide and Feilding's circuit is just on the other side of the boundary. If an IFR is on a tight visual they can quite easily descend to 1500 before getting inside the CTR, even if aiming for a 3-5nm final due to the narrow width of the CTR. Its a bit like trying to manoevre down a narrow hallway where you can't descend until in that hallway...

[remoak]

remoak, non-transponder equipped a/c don't show up on SSR. Only PSR (primary).

Yeah I know that, secondary radars are normally paired with primary radar, that's why they are called secondary. Sounds like it may not be the case around Palmy though.

I guess this is called progress...

[tred]

They will only descend below 4000 if their descent is unrestricted, which I would assume that it wouldn't be if there was any traffic in the way.

Dear oh dear - this is a worry.

I have just explained in a previous post how the descent restrictions work.

NO PSR available Manawatu - was owned by the airforce with a range of about 150nm but withdrawn from service when the strikewing was de-com'ed. Wellington Primary is only good for about 80nm from Hawkins Hill so no primary returns from about Otaki /Foxton northwards.

So do they suppress non-transponder traffic from their secondary system?

Suggests your not up with play there Remoak.

[remoak]

Dear oh dear - this is a worry.

I have just explained in a previous post how the descent restrictions work.

I don't really get what your problem is. I'm not talking about the letter of the law, I'm talking about what any responsible ATCO should be doing when he knows he has an IFR inbound on a visual, and the possibility of other traffic in the area. Maybe you aren't allowed to give traffic advice any more, I don't know, but I do know that the more I see of NZ ATC since I got back from Europe, the more I despair. I mean, what is wrong with giving a descent restriction if you even suspect there might be VFR traffic tooling around with no transponder? And requiring a 5 mile final for IFR inbounds, even on a visual? That's what happens in Welly, why not in Palmy? Surely the idea is to ensure as much protection as possible? I don't get it. Help me out.

Suggests your not up with play there Remoak.

Quite the reverse. It is normal throughout Europe (probably in the US too, I don't know) to pair a primary and secondary radar together so that everything gets seen, and to provide redundancy - certainly everywhere I have been over there. So, for example, in the Edinburgh ATC centre you have secondary displays with a selectable primary overlay, and you can suppress targets that do not meet various criteria. There is also and ancient 1960's primary radar display that acts as a third backup. Maybe it is OK to remove a primary radar from a reasonably busy chunk of airspace in NZ, but frankly I think it is crazy unless you make all the airspace that might in any way be a factor, transponder-mandatory. But that's just me.

So I would suggest that Airways isn't up with the play.

[henry crun]

tred: Small correction to your last post, the Ohakea PSR did not belong to the RNZAF, it was owned, serviced, and operated by Airways.

[ZK-NSN]

Looks like you have upset this lot Remoak. It would seem you are unfairly being ganged up on.
Im slightly confused how a forum on a tragic collision that killed a well respected and liked instructor as well as her student has turned into a bitching session about Airliners on visual approaches.

What I can only assume from reading you posts over the last few months is that you believe the airlines can do no wrong yet they contribute the most to fatal accident numbers of individuals paying for hire or reward if you go back over the stats for years gone by.

You should never "assume" conflict. This is a vauge and pointless statement. Part 121 operators in NZ (the ones you guys are targeting) have a very good safety record. The last major Airline crash in NZ was the ansett dash 8 in 1995? How many fatal GA accidents have there been in NZ since then? and anyway lets stick a little closer to the forum topic, shall we check the stats on airline mid-air collisions Vs those in GA?

Your point is somewhat disingenuous, one airliner crash can kill more people than 100 light aircraft crashes... and yet, when was the last fatal airline accident in NZ? And how many fatal GA accidents have their been already this year?

Touch'e remoak.

your quote...
Quote:
In the airline case, we use TCAS/TAWS

so they don't worry about airspace anymore.

frankly, your being a d!ck. He said that Airlines USE TCAS, not that they RELY on it. Its like GPS, you use it, but you still carry a map and look out the window to see where you are.

As for all this talk of Airliners blasting through uncontrolled Airspace at mach 3... Correct me if im wrong but there is nothing stopping IFR aircraft from doing this on a visual approach and beleive me it is only done (especially around PMR) with the AID of TCAS, 2 sets of eyes looking out the window (better resourses than most GA aircraft enjoy) and after some consideration by the crew. Just because Airline pilots dont fly VFR all the time doesnt mean they have forgotten the basics or the rules.

Small correction to your last post, the Ohakea PSR did not belong to the RNZAF, it was owned, serviced, and operated by Airways

Pretty much sums up the pointless bun-fight this forum has become.

Fell free to have a whinge or hassle my poor spelling and sentence structure.