Incident that could have dwarfed lockhart river
My first thoughts on seeing the media picture of the Melbourne Kingair's track in the Mt Hotham area, was why on earth didn't he immediately divert to a suitable alternate if his GPS was playing up, rather than chase his tail around the sky in cloud and risk running into other aircraft in the area.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus, that is a very good question. I guess there's only one person who knows the answer to that.
Also Old Akro's point about the Mt Livingstone Navaids had me wondering as well. So have they been decommissioned..? Would have been handy to obtain a positive fix overhead the aid to confirm how bad his GPS problem was.
Also Old Akro's point about the Mt Livingstone Navaids had me wondering as well. So have they been decommissioned..? Would have been handy to obtain a positive fix overhead the aid to confirm how bad his GPS problem was.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LVG aids are on the decommissioning list; whether they have been or not I don't know.
However FWIW each regional RAPAC have been consulted and agreement obtained re each individual navaid proposed to be decommissioned along with local operators and AD owner/local Shire, where relevant.
I understand all proposed were offered to the relevant AD owner/Shire to take over, but as far as I am aware, none took up the offer.
However FWIW each regional RAPAC have been consulted and agreement obtained re each individual navaid proposed to be decommissioned along with local operators and AD owner/local Shire, where relevant.
I understand all proposed were offered to the relevant AD owner/Shire to take over, but as far as I am aware, none took up the offer.
The next thing will be a call for co-pilots...
However FWIW each regional RAPAC have been consulted and agreement obtained re each individual navaid proposed to be decommissioned along with local operators and AD owner/local Shire, where relevant.
eg. CWS, YWE, WON
The Victorian RAPAC has been calling for a plan to retain Navaids in the Melbourne basin for currency & training which is clearly being ignored.
The Australian newspaper article:
Too close for comfort.
Source: The Australian
An “unsafe” close encounter ¬between two planes near Mount Hotham Airport in Victoria allegedly placed up to 18 lives at risk, fuelling demands for better use of radar at Australia’s regional airports.
According to an incident ¬report obtained by The Australian, two Beechcraft B200 King Air planes on private charters from different companies — one from Essendon in Melbourne and one from Bankstown in Sydney — were vertically within 300ft (90m) of each other on September 3.
It appeared the Essendon-based pilot, struggling with a faulty GPS in heavy morning cloud and poor weather, did not know where he was and reported being in vastly different locations, varying by up to 20 nautical miles, within a short period of time.
Radar traces of this plane, chartered from small Essendon-based operator Seidler Properties, show an apparently erratic path at times, and that the scheduled 38- minute flight took an hour and 27 minutes.
The Essendon plane came within one nautical mile (1.8km) of the other aircraft and eventually landed at Mount Hotham, in the Victorian Alps northeast of Melbourne, but only after what the report by the other pilot ¬described as an “unsafe” approach from the “wrong direction”. There were three other aircraft also en route to the airport at the time.
The report, titled “breakdown of separation”, says passengers on the Essendon-based plane were so shaken they refused to return with the same pilot later that day, ¬requiring another to be flown to Mount Hotham to pick them up.
In a report being investigated by the Australian Transport ¬Safety Bureau, the pilot of the Bankstown-originating aircraft — a senior pilot at a major charter firm — describes the situation as “not safe”.
He suggests he is making the report not to attack the Essendon-based pilot, but rather to highlight an ongoing risk of tragedy in the absence of a safety back-up in cases of pilot error at uncontrolled regional airports.
“If this event did result in a midair collision, two aircraft would have been destroyed and 18 people would have been killed,” says the Bankstown-originating pilot in the report, sent to the ATSB two days ago.
“As a chief pilot, I am significantly concerned with the breakdown of (aircraft) separation caused by this incident. This is not a standard of operation that I would tolerate from my pilots and I do not accept that his event goes without investigation.
“Two high-performance aircraft with 300ft separation (vertic¬ally), within one nautical mile of each other (horizontally), in IMC (instrument meteorological conditions), is not safe.”
The incident has further highlighted the lack of radar control of aircraft to low altitudes at ¬regional airports in Australia, which The Australian has documented in the series of articles over the past two months.
In uncontrolled airspace, ¬pilots must communicate with each other by radio to ensure they remain safely separated, with no support from an air traffic controller monitoring them on radar or providing co-ordination.
At Mount Hotham, radar-based separation of aircraft ends at 18,000ft, below which pilots must self-separate, despite radar being available to a far lower altit¬ude.
Veteran aviator Dick Smith told The Australian the latest Mount Hotham incident highlighted the need to make full use of radar coverage at regional airports to improve safety.
“If they were using the existing radar for control at Mount Hotham, neither of these things (the -alleged mid-air near collision and subsequent alleged dangerous ¬approach) would have happened, because the controller would have told the pilot what was happening,” Mr Smith said.
He said it was particularly frustrating the existing radar was not being used to control aircraft to low altitude at Mount Hotham, given the deaths of three people in a crash there in 2005 and of six people in an accident at Benalla, about 150km from Mount Hotham, in 2004. He believed both crashes could have been averted had radar control close to ground level been provided.
“How many more frightening incidents like this before there are more unnecessary deaths?” Mr Smith said.
He said all that was needed to make use of existing radar for separation control to low altitudes at regional airports was for Airservic¬es Australia to provide more training to controllers at its Melbourne and Brisbane radar centres.
Airservices insist the air traffic system is safe and that levels of control around the country are appropriate for local traffic volumes and types.
An ATSB spokesman said the latest Mount Hotham incidents were being investigated.
However, an official statement on the bureau’s website refers only to the “unstable approach” to the runway; not the earlier alleged close encounter. Seidler Properties suggested it was unaware of any investigation and declined to comment.
Too close for comfort.
Source: The Australian
An “unsafe” close encounter ¬between two planes near Mount Hotham Airport in Victoria allegedly placed up to 18 lives at risk, fuelling demands for better use of radar at Australia’s regional airports.
According to an incident ¬report obtained by The Australian, two Beechcraft B200 King Air planes on private charters from different companies — one from Essendon in Melbourne and one from Bankstown in Sydney — were vertically within 300ft (90m) of each other on September 3.
It appeared the Essendon-based pilot, struggling with a faulty GPS in heavy morning cloud and poor weather, did not know where he was and reported being in vastly different locations, varying by up to 20 nautical miles, within a short period of time.
Radar traces of this plane, chartered from small Essendon-based operator Seidler Properties, show an apparently erratic path at times, and that the scheduled 38- minute flight took an hour and 27 minutes.
The Essendon plane came within one nautical mile (1.8km) of the other aircraft and eventually landed at Mount Hotham, in the Victorian Alps northeast of Melbourne, but only after what the report by the other pilot ¬described as an “unsafe” approach from the “wrong direction”. There were three other aircraft also en route to the airport at the time.
The report, titled “breakdown of separation”, says passengers on the Essendon-based plane were so shaken they refused to return with the same pilot later that day, ¬requiring another to be flown to Mount Hotham to pick them up.
In a report being investigated by the Australian Transport ¬Safety Bureau, the pilot of the Bankstown-originating aircraft — a senior pilot at a major charter firm — describes the situation as “not safe”.
He suggests he is making the report not to attack the Essendon-based pilot, but rather to highlight an ongoing risk of tragedy in the absence of a safety back-up in cases of pilot error at uncontrolled regional airports.
“If this event did result in a midair collision, two aircraft would have been destroyed and 18 people would have been killed,” says the Bankstown-originating pilot in the report, sent to the ATSB two days ago.
“As a chief pilot, I am significantly concerned with the breakdown of (aircraft) separation caused by this incident. This is not a standard of operation that I would tolerate from my pilots and I do not accept that his event goes without investigation.
“Two high-performance aircraft with 300ft separation (vertic¬ally), within one nautical mile of each other (horizontally), in IMC (instrument meteorological conditions), is not safe.”
The incident has further highlighted the lack of radar control of aircraft to low altitudes at ¬regional airports in Australia, which The Australian has documented in the series of articles over the past two months.
In uncontrolled airspace, ¬pilots must communicate with each other by radio to ensure they remain safely separated, with no support from an air traffic controller monitoring them on radar or providing co-ordination.
At Mount Hotham, radar-based separation of aircraft ends at 18,000ft, below which pilots must self-separate, despite radar being available to a far lower altit¬ude.
Veteran aviator Dick Smith told The Australian the latest Mount Hotham incident highlighted the need to make full use of radar coverage at regional airports to improve safety.
“If they were using the existing radar for control at Mount Hotham, neither of these things (the -alleged mid-air near collision and subsequent alleged dangerous ¬approach) would have happened, because the controller would have told the pilot what was happening,” Mr Smith said.
He said it was particularly frustrating the existing radar was not being used to control aircraft to low altitude at Mount Hotham, given the deaths of three people in a crash there in 2005 and of six people in an accident at Benalla, about 150km from Mount Hotham, in 2004. He believed both crashes could have been averted had radar control close to ground level been provided.
“How many more frightening incidents like this before there are more unnecessary deaths?” Mr Smith said.
He said all that was needed to make use of existing radar for separation control to low altitudes at regional airports was for Airservic¬es Australia to provide more training to controllers at its Melbourne and Brisbane radar centres.
Airservices insist the air traffic system is safe and that levels of control around the country are appropriate for local traffic volumes and types.
An ATSB spokesman said the latest Mount Hotham incidents were being investigated.
However, an official statement on the bureau’s website refers only to the “unstable approach” to the runway; not the earlier alleged close encounter. Seidler Properties suggested it was unaware of any investigation and declined to comment.
The Victorian RAPAC has been calling for a plan to retain Navaids in the Melbourne basin for currency & training which is clearly being ignored.
I have just had a quick scan of the last 3 years worth of RAPAC minutes and non of them reflect what you just stated.
At the time of the CWS closure there was significant discussion about the need to have navaids in the Melbourne basin for training & currency, which has pretty much been ignored by AsA.
There was also a significant discrepancy between AsA policy and statements made by the AsA rep to the RAPAC meetings at the time of the CWS procedure deletion. RAPAC was told that a training procedure was on the worklist, but it never was.
The decision to not repair YWE after damage by vandals was made unilaterally by AsA. If you trace the RAPAC minutes at that time it was an open agenda item for a year or more before AsA declaring that sending a repair crew to a National park within 1 hours drive of Melbourne was an unacceptable OH&S risk.
There was also a significant discrepancy between AsA policy and statements made by the AsA rep to the RAPAC meetings at the time of the CWS procedure deletion. RAPAC was told that a training procedure was on the worklist, but it never was.
The decision to not repair YWE after damage by vandals was made unilaterally by AsA. If you trace the RAPAC minutes at that time it was an open agenda item for a year or more before AsA declaring that sending a repair crew to a National park within 1 hours drive of Melbourne was an unacceptable OH&S risk.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume you aren't an industry association rep actually attending the Victorian RAPAC.
The OH&S issue you cite but don't elaborate on was that the YWE VOR was out of service due to ongoing vandalism by rifle fire, which was clearly a safety issue for attending technical personnel. In any case, because the navaid didn't form part of the backup navaid network and was scheduled for decommissioning in 2016 anyway, it was considered not worthwhile repairing so with RAPAC and CASA OAR agreement, it was decommissioned early.
There has not been any ongoing call for a plan by the Victorian RAPAC for retaining navaids for training purposes.
Mention has been made from time to time, but always conceded that no-one (e.g. none of the flying schools) was prepared to pay for any for their ongoing upkeep and end of life replacement, and that there are alternative navaids available although not necessarily quite so convenient.
The OH&S issue you cite but don't elaborate on was that the YWE VOR was out of service due to ongoing vandalism by rifle fire, which was clearly a safety issue for attending technical personnel. In any case, because the navaid didn't form part of the backup navaid network and was scheduled for decommissioning in 2016 anyway, it was considered not worthwhile repairing so with RAPAC and CASA OAR agreement, it was decommissioned early.
There has not been any ongoing call for a plan by the Victorian RAPAC for retaining navaids for training purposes.
Mention has been made from time to time, but always conceded that no-one (e.g. none of the flying schools) was prepared to pay for any for their ongoing upkeep and end of life replacement, and that there are alternative navaids available although not necessarily quite so convenient.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OH&S issue you cite but don't elaborate on was that the YWE VOR was out of service due to ongoing vandalism by rifle fire, which was clearly a safety issue for attending technical personnel.
Was the concern that they would be shot at while repairing the facility????
DIVOSH!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me understand this correctly:
1. The aid was damaged by someone shooting at it.
2. There was a concern that if it were to be repaired, the repair crew would be shot at. This is a State Forest roughly an hours drive from Melbourne we're talking about here, not downtown Kabul or Baghdad.
I don't recall any news items over the past year or two saying that anyone was being shot at while repairing a Navigation aid (I'd be thinking I'd remember news like that).
Anyone?
DIOVSH!
1. The aid was damaged by someone shooting at it.
2. There was a concern that if it were to be repaired, the repair crew would be shot at. This is a State Forest roughly an hours drive from Melbourne we're talking about here, not downtown Kabul or Baghdad.
I don't recall any news items over the past year or two saying that anyone was being shot at while repairing a Navigation aid (I'd be thinking I'd remember news like that).
Anyone?
DIOVSH!
It's not that the techs would be deliberately shot at but that the equipment would be shot at from some distance while the techs were attending.
It's a large target so pot shots could easily be taken from 1000m away. Would you like to be inside a thin skinned building where there's a known history of people taking pot shots?
It's a large target so pot shots could easily be taken from 1000m away. Would you like to be inside a thin skinned building where there's a known history of people taking pot shots?
Shot at by who? Islamic terrorists?
Same mentality as those who used to shoot out the nav lights when there was a lane of entry, and probably the same who shoot out road signs.
It is an isolated area, and said to be an ongoing problem at YWE, explained at RAPAC. Understandably it was unacceptable to expect techs to work inside the antenna housing to repair the antenna with the potential for the problem to happen again whilst doing so.
Like many things, publicity can result in an increase in occurrences including elsewhere.
Anyway, thread drift - back to the topic.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry about the thread drift, but if you could indulge me a bit further...
What I'm trying to get my head around is that the response was an OH&S issue instead of a police issue.
I'm really struggling with the concept that if you'd gone to VICPOL and explained the issue as you've explained here that their response would have been nothing?
DIVOSH!
It's not that the techs would be deliberately shot at but that the equipment would be shot at from some distance while the techs were attending.
It's a large target so pot shots could easily be taken from 1000m away. Would you like to be inside a thin skinned building where there's a known history of people taking pot shots?
It's a large target so pot shots could easily be taken from 1000m away. Would you like to be inside a thin skinned building where there's a known history of people taking pot shots?
I'm really struggling with the concept that if you'd gone to VICPOL and explained the issue as you've explained here that their response would have been nothing?
DIVOSH!
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with you on this Divosh. If people are taking potshots at the facility then what should happen is the police should be involved, track down the perpetrators and lock them up. The aid should then be repaired. It's all a bit too convenient to just say it's too dangerous so let's just shut it down. I mean what are these idiots going to target next?? Peoples houses??
The aids at YWE and CWS should not be decommissioned. They are important for training and currency as others have said. Surely fewer aids available for these purposes is only going to add an increased cost burden, and possibly decrease safety if there are multiple aircraft practicing in the same area OCTA. Or am I over estimating how many people will be wanting to use them given the deteriorating state of GA..?
The aids at YWE and CWS should not be decommissioned. They are important for training and currency as others have said. Surely fewer aids available for these purposes is only going to add an increased cost burden, and possibly decrease safety if there are multiple aircraft practicing in the same area OCTA. Or am I over estimating how many people will be wanting to use them given the deteriorating state of GA..?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFEZ cheers,
It's one thing to shoot at road signs, unattended buildings, etc. But it is another thing entirely if:
(my bolding)
This either happened or it did not!
If it did, I simply cannot believe that VICPOL didn't act further, or that this wouldn't have been nationwide news at the time.
So my question to people who are in the know (and there appear to be some on this thread): Were shots fired at the facility when techs were present?
DIVOSH!
It's one thing to shoot at road signs, unattended buildings, etc. But it is another thing entirely if:
but that the equipment would be shot at from some distance while the techs were attending.
This either happened or it did not!
If it did, I simply cannot believe that VICPOL didn't act further, or that this wouldn't have been nationwide news at the time.
So my question to people who are in the know (and there appear to be some on this thread): Were shots fired at the facility when techs were present?
DIVOSH!
What exactly would you expect the police to do? It's out in the middle of bloody nowhere.
Why the hell wouldn't it be an OH&S issue as well? As far as I know no-one was actually there when shots were fired but if you can't see the potential......
Why the hell wouldn't it be an OH&S issue as well? As far as I know no-one was actually there when shots were fired but if you can't see the potential......