Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Incident that could have dwarfed lockhart river

Wikiposts
Search
The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Incident that could have dwarfed lockhart river

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 16th Sep 2015, 23:36
  #21 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,600
Likes: 0
Received 68 Likes on 27 Posts
For at least the 50th time class E terminal airspace to 700 agl does not require VHF or Radar coverage in North America.

Every instrument approach is in a minimum of class E and it would not be possible considering the huge size of the USA and the many valleys and mountains to have coverage down to 700 agl at every one of these airports.

But after 24 years of repeating this myth I suppose it becomes as factual as Bigfoot.

Resist resist resist change in every way you can. Wait for the Royal Commission after lots more uneccessary deaths like Benalla
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2015, 23:46
  #22 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,600
Likes: 0
Received 68 Likes on 27 Posts
Front page of The Australian today. A King Air blundering around in IMC at Mt Hotham with a faulty GPS comes close to another King Air.

Full radar coverage but no radar service provided. 18 could be dead.

The aircraft with the faulty GPS then appears out of cloud at 100' above the trees well away from the normal approach path.

Full radar coverage on your iPhone but no way class E could be provided!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 01:08
  #23 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,600
Likes: 0
Received 68 Likes on 27 Posts
I believe five aircraft were approaching Mt Hotham at that time.

Can someone advise how many frequencies are also coupled to 120.75 at about 9am on a weekday morning.

Are there any "control" frequencies or are they all advisory?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 02:13
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,251
Received 192 Likes on 88 Posts
A King Air blundering around in IMC at Mt Hotham with a faulty GPS comes close to another King Air.
If it was "blundering around" that suggests the flight crew were not up to the job. When did it become apparent that the GPS was faulty and did the unit have a history of faults.

18 could be dead.
Is that number based on the carrying capacity of 2 King Airs or on how many people were actually in the aircraft at the time?

The aircraft with the faulty GPS then appears out of cloud at 100' above the trees well away from the normal approach path.
I doubt the aircraft was doing an RNP so why was it anywhere near the ground if it was conducting an instrument approach at YHOT?

Was this incident reported to the ATSB by the flight crew as they are legally required to? If not why not?

I don't disagree with the premise that if the radar is available then it should be used to its full extent; but the way this incident has been described has been akin to the more sensationalist reporting about aviation we see in the media.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 02:23
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Aus
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The article is behind a paywall apart from the graphic, which states that the pilot reported GPS issues well before arriving at YHOT. Since the pilot knew they had a faulty GPS, why on earth did they use it to carry out an approach and not divert somewhere with a ground-aid-based approach?!
skkm is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 03:07
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If that is true, then an excellent question.
porch monkey is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 03:26
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Other media have picked up the story, and it reads as a typical media beat-up.

Close call for 18 passengers on plane bound for Mt Hotham
onetrack is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 04:00
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The prelim ATSB description differs somewhat from the media description

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...-2015-108.aspx
no_one is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 04:01
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Further away
Posts: 943
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
After reading the Aus story it is indeed a bad show ( shows Flightaware tracking Sept 03 )
The Essendon KA all over the place
I'd be very upset too if I was the other KA driver from Bankstown
megle2 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 04:27
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,154
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sensationalist articles like that are poison for GA.

After reading that, who from the public would want to fly in anything other than that flown by the big end of town?
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 05:26
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Qld troppo
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
"the GPS data card was out of tolerance for the GPS based instrument (RNAV) approach"
Huh! Please explain?

Dr
ForkTailedDrKiller is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 06:03
  #32 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,600
Likes: 0
Received 68 Likes on 27 Posts
If the ATSB quotes such rubbish surely you should accept it as factual!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 06:14
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The only thing missing from the media reports is "pilots fighting with the controls, while passengers screamed in terror". No, there weren't 18 people on the one aircraft as the media tries to make it appear.
One pilot whose navigation competency is highly suspect makes some serious errors and gets lost - so that translates to "a major incident that could have dwarfed Lockhart". The entire beat-up hinges on "could have".
It is no more newsworthy an event than the dozen other incidents over the last few years, where someone screwed up, and a potential mid-air was possible.
I trust this King Air bloke gets his competency reviewed, it sounds like he barely scraped over the line when his licence was first issued.
onetrack is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 07:12
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,251
Received 192 Likes on 88 Posts
No, there weren't 18 people on the one aircraft as the media tries to make it appear.
Where do you think the media got this figure from? How about this posted earlier by Dick:

Full radar coverage but no radar service provided. 18 could be dead.
As for the GPS data being out of tolerance, that bit of info was provided by the operator so thats what the ATSB will investigate. I can sense a certain amount of hysteria permeating the postings.

After reading that, who from the public would want to fly in anything other than that flown by the big end of town?
If a fatal accident at YHOT didn't put people off flying there why would this change their minds?
Lookleft is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 07:16
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Full radar coverage but no radar service provided.
There is NOT 'full radar coverage' there. Simple, there isn't so no need to say there is to emphasise a point.

I haven't read the newspaper article but on 3AW this morning Ross & John were having quite a bit of 'fun' with this. They stated that the passengers on the aircraft out of Essendon refused to take the same aircraft back if the same pilot was flying. They stated that another pilot had to be flown up to Mount Hotham to bring them and the aircraft back. Is this what the newspaper article stated as well?

They were making the pilot out to be an incompetent idiot.
The name is Porter is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 09:03
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Qld troppo
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
As for the GPS data being out of tolerance, that bit of info was provided by the operator so thats what the ATSB will investigate. I can sense a certain amount of hysteria permeating the postings.
No hysteria here Lookleft!

As one who has flown lots of GPS approaches, I was simply wondering how GPS data on a data card gets to be "out of tolerance"!

Dr
ForkTailedDrKiller is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 09:12
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Further away
Posts: 943
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
The 35 minute flight took about 1.3 hours, the Flightaware record is no longer available but there is still a photo of the track image on the front page of the Aus
megle2 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 09:37
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 796
Received 23 Likes on 14 Posts
VH-OWN ? 03-Sep-2015 ? YMEN / MEB - YHOT / MHU ? FlightAware

Can't find the one ex YSBK
Going Nowhere is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 11:58
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,251
Received 192 Likes on 88 Posts
Sorry Forky if you thought I was directing that comment at you, it was the bloke under yours!
Lookleft is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 13:09
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Dick,
For at least the 50th time class E terminal airspace to 700 agl does not require VHF or Radar coverage in North America.For at least the 50th time class E terminal airspace to 700 agl does not require VHF or Radar coverage in North America.
How do I operate IFR in C,E,G without VHF coms to ATC. I ant do it in VMC without cancelling IFR and proceeding VFR, like when I went to Cunnamulla recently, or to Blackall (@A060 due winds).

Then once in IMC at say 700AGL, how do I blast through all that E without a clearance, say 7000' at YBCK or YCMU? Is there some dispensation I am not aware of that allows flight in controlled airspace without a clearance?

I may be wrong, but nobody has ever pulled me up on this topic.

And then in IMC how do you do separation IFR from IFR without SSR/ADSB?

Happy to have E with the gear to back it up.
Jabawocky is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.