Mid-air near Fielding 26 July 2010

[remoak]

Yeah I thought we were past all this ATCO vs Pilot stuff, but apparently not!

To me it just illustrates how narrow most viewpoints in NZ aviation are. It's an aviation backwater (in international terms) with some very odd ideas.

Perhaps I have grown too used to a system that facilitates aviation rather than obstructs it!

[conflict alert]

ZKNSN

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.

I think it started when remoak said

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

it was then pointed out that it is quite common to see the 'airline industry' on visual approaches, descend outside controlled airspace. I would have thought that highlighted a potential threat, particularly in NZ's worst piece of airspace for midairs
in no particular order
helicopter vs aircraft at PP
PA38 vs PA38 east of PM
C152 vs C152 FI
PA28 vs PA28 south of PM
CT4 vs CT4 west of OH
A4 vs A4 OH

I suspect what has caused a flurry of responses is the fact that remoak seemed to categorically deny that the 'airline industry' would do such a thing as described with such quotes as

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)

and

They will only descend below 4000 if their descent is unrestricted

and

I can see no earthly reason why anyone would need to descend below controlled airspace on a visual

Remoak

You don't know whether the warning is there as a result of airline misdemeanours

Yes I do, yes it was, and

If they are, their company should be told.

yes they all were!

Yeah I thought we were past all this ATCO vs Pilot stuff, but apparently not!

most of the responses to you seem to be in an effort to help you better understand the radar system/what can and can't be seen and highlight a potential threat that perhaps you didn't know was out there (visual approach procedures) so I don't believe its a case of 'us and them' but if that's how you want to take it - so be it.

And if you still don't believe this sort of thing could possibly happen then read ZKNSN quote

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.

ZKNSN

As for all this talk of Airliners blasting through uncontrolled Airspace at mach 3

Don't think mach 3 was ever mentioned! Tred posted the comment that in excess of 200kts it doesn't allow much time to take avoiding action. Fair comment I would have thought.

Part 121 operators in NZ (the ones you guys are targeting)

No ones being 'targeted' - where's the evidence of that here or are you ASSUMING!

You should never "assume" conflict. This is a vauge and pointless statement

I have read a number of posts from Remoak regarding aircraft accidents that have occurred both here and abroad and he almost always mention ssomething about the how good the airline industry is/safety records/etc etc - so yes - I do assume that he has a very high opinion of the airline industry.

Anyway - I've said my piece - you two just carry on with your blinkers on.

[tred]

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

yes, sorry your quite correct, bad choice of words on my part, what I should have said was that the airforce paid for it to be there and once the strikewing was shut down - didn't feel there was a need for it for their requirements and so stopped paying for the use of it. Airways then sold it offshore, can't remember where.

[remoak]

it was then pointed out that it is quite common to see the 'airline industry' on visual approaches, descend outside controlled airspace. I would have thought that highlighted a potential threat, particularly in NZ's worst piece of airspace for midairs
in no particular order
helicopter vs aircraft at PP
PA38 vs PA38 east of PM
C152 vs C152 FI
PA28 vs PA28 south of PM
CT4 vs CT4 west of OH
A4 vs A4 OH

Hmmm don't see any transport category aircraft in that list...

I stand by all those statements that you highlighted as they are all correct and nobody seems game to refute them. You might be able to point to some isolated incidents, but you certainly can't show me any accidents or loss of life caused by an airline aircraft making a visual approach, probably no incident reports either, or I suspect any evidence at all to support your claims.

This started with me saying "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!" All that is quite true. If you have a few miscreants breaking the rules, by all means report them, but the airspace dimensions do not require entry into uncontrolled airspace at any time when on a visual approach, which is all I was saying. Any airline pilot following his company SOPs is highly unlikely to have to do so. So pie-eating is on hold for now.