Metro versus Cessna C150
Thread Starter
Metro versus Cessna C150
ABC are reporting that the ATSB are investigating a near miss near King Island in February, between a Metroliner and a Cessna C150.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do pilots these days still fly to the right of their GPS track so as to avoid these types of incidents or did that disappear when everyone started navigating by their iPads?
I always offset my track to avoid a GPS assisted mid air. If you don't it's not uncommon to have someone tracking right over the top of you the pair of you only protected by hemispherical altitudes...and if cloud prevents that, then you have no protection
What (or who) was "Aircraft 2"? Seems strange that the ATSB has censored the identification, even though they apparently played no significant part in the sequence of events.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One question that is not answered is why the Metro descended below 6500 when the VFR traffic was advised as climbing to 5500 ?? Cloud is not an excuse. Also what was the Metro crew doing with their No2 VHF. Report is silent on both.
"There was a further radio exchange between the two crews after the pilot of RZP momentarily switched back to the CTAF."
It's not hard to imagine what the C150 pilot may have said to the Metro..
It's not hard to imagine what the C150 pilot may have said to the Metro..
I can't help pointing out that the new ADS-B mandate would not improve the safety of this situation at all. This is part of the lie about ADS-B.
Secondly, have I missed something? Why is there a focus about calls on CTAF and monitoring CTAF frequencies when all the aircraft were outside the CTAF zone at the time? Surely this is a failure of all concerned to be correctly on the AREA frequency and making calls. I would have expected the Metroliner to make a number of descent calls on the AREA frequency. And I would have expected the C152 to change its single VHF radio to AREA frequency at the CTAF boundary. If this had happened, wouldn't they have both talked to each other?
Surely this highlights:
a) That CASA / ASA discouraging non ATC related calls on area frequency is a source of confusion about what frequency is best to have an aircraft to aircraft dialogue meaning that aircraft outside the CTAF are using it to stay off the area frequency and
b) the reality is that our airspace really requires 2 radios now.
Secondly, have I missed something? Why is there a focus about calls on CTAF and monitoring CTAF frequencies when all the aircraft were outside the CTAF zone at the time? Surely this is a failure of all concerned to be correctly on the AREA frequency and making calls. I would have expected the Metroliner to make a number of descent calls on the AREA frequency. And I would have expected the C152 to change its single VHF radio to AREA frequency at the CTAF boundary. If this had happened, wouldn't they have both talked to each other?
Surely this highlights:
a) That CASA / ASA discouraging non ATC related calls on area frequency is a source of confusion about what frequency is best to have an aircraft to aircraft dialogue meaning that aircraft outside the CTAF are using it to stay off the area frequency and
b) the reality is that our airspace really requires 2 radios now.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C150 made a call on area, but the Metroliner missed it (despite having 2 radios) probably because they were transmitting an inbound call on the CTAF at the time.
ATC asked them if they heard the 150 and they said yes, but it looks like they heard an earlier call, not the call ATC were referring to.
ATC asked them if they heard the 150 and they said yes, but it looks like they heard an earlier call, not the call ATC were referring to.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the problem Old Akro is that the CASA material says "in the vicinity" and this is open to interpretation by many as maybe 10nm sometimes and 30nm at others? Many of us older folk that remember MBZ's, recall that they were 30nm and places such as KI were such. Sound procedures by the RPT/IFR would take this into consideration. The CASA guidance is of little help. Maybe they should go flying?
The CASA guidance is of little help. Maybe they should go flying?
I worry that a large part of CASA are nor career public servants rather than people with aviation experience, knowledge or interest.
I remember years ago (are you listening Ben Morgan?) that the AOPA each year published the statistics of what senior people in CASA had pilots licences and GA experience. I'd love to see that again.
It's nothing new but many RPT operators use "switching to CTAF" as their SOP, despite (presumably) having two comms - it seems to be routine for qlink, rex, sharp.
I appreciate how busy the radios get at a busy CTAF and busy centre (and two crew to coordinate) but surely the benefit of hearing both frequencies (with carefully adjusted volumes) would be worth the audio workload !?
I appreciate how busy the radios get at a busy CTAF and busy centre (and two crew to coordinate) but surely the benefit of hearing both frequencies (with carefully adjusted volumes) would be worth the audio workload !?
And the real 'joke' is that neither of them saw the no-radio glider whiz past.
It's nothing new but many RPT operators use "switching to CTAF" as their SOP, despite (presumably) having two comms - it seems to be routine for qlink, rex, sharp.
There is certainly not enough emphasis on see and avoid for these Ops when in VMC.
This report has deficiencies that suggest the writers are perhaps not all that current?
It has little to do with communicating with centre, but more to do with maintaining the highest level of situational awareness under the circumstances. If VHF coverage is marginal or non existant then that would be supplemented by monitoring HF.
that would be supplemented by monitoring HF
Most of my experience with RPT at non controlled airports is at Mildura and to a lesser extent King Island, where I find the Virgin / QantasLink / Rex drivers very impressive.
I would have expected that the Metroliner would have made enough calls that the C150 would hear at least one which would initiate a dialogue between the two aircraft. There might be a large dollup of coincidence / bad luck here.
But, it would be very understandable / reasonable that the first time the C150 tuned to area was at the CTAF boundary on climb, which really limits the opportunity to hear incoming calls.
Another aircraft may have stayed lower with RPT in the area, but once again, its very understandable that the C150 was trying to get as much altitude as quickly as possible before it was too far from land.
One of the issues that I have found is that VFR & IFR pilots speak different languages and have different maps. VFR pilots tend to reference their position compared with ground features. IFR pilots tend to use distance & bearing from airports, aids or intersections. Intersection names used to frequently give clues to where they are, but post the ground based aid shutdown they are meaningless. A VFR pilot might understand 10nm from Cowes, but is unlikely to have any idea what 10nm from Sunti means. Conversely, an IFR flight may not even have a WAC chart on board and may not really understand something like abeam Egg Lagoon (a real place on track on King Is). Depending on the handheld GPS the C150 pilot presumably had, he would have a distance to run to Barwon Heads, but it may not be quick & easy to get distance from King Island airport, which is what the airline needs. AND the VFR GPS will be measuring distance from the Aerodrome reference (or not even that if the pilot just hit "Direct to"), but the airline will be measuring from the NDB beacon.
I worry that CASA is creating a 4 tiered system with different rules, minimum equipment, common practice and language for each that contributes to incidents like this. Viz: IFR / VFR / RAA / Gliders. I'll bet we never see this as a factor in any ATSB report!!
BTW, am I the only one who thinks that a guy who regularly flies a C150 from Barwon Heads to King Island is a bit of a legend? He's a bolder man than me!
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Redfern
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, am I the only one who thinks that a guy who regularly flies a C150 from Barwon Heads to King Island is a bit of a legend? He's a bolder man than me!
When you live....
Drpixie, I think you'll find that all those regional operators are still well and truly monitoring area AND ctaf before and after that "switching to ctaf" call is made..
The reason that they make that call is because it is a requirement when landing at a non-VHF receiving aerodrome, straight from the AIP.
The reason that they make that call is because it is a requirement when landing at a non-VHF receiving aerodrome, straight from the AIP.
Regarding 'aircraft 2' - I've noticed that the ATSB swings regularly between naming everyone/everything to operator and what the pilots ate for lunch down to providing type and registration (if even that). Given the media's practice of reading press releases, misunderstanding them and writing silly headlines, I'm not surprised that the operator of 'aircraft 2' asked for or was given 'radio silence'.