Radio alerting failures – happening any more?
What flies in and out of Jacinth Ambrosia? No idea, but as it's a certified aerodrome, they need to carry and use a radio. If you cruise in with the radio switched off because you think you know better, it's not the other aircraft that is causing the hazard.
I've got no trouble at all acknowledging that merely being required to carry a radio doesn't mean it is always serviceable, tuned and being used by someone who knows exactly where they are, but airmanship and technology combine to minimise these risks. AFRU units indicate the radio is transmitting and tuned/turned up, so pilots have a way to confirm they are using the right frequency and the radio is working. Transmit lights and self-test circuits on more sophisticated radios are other indications, and modern solid-state radios are smaller, lighter and much more reliable. If I'm discussing separation in flight with someone, unless they're in the circuit or I can see them departing, typically I'll keep vertical separation too, either staying above their level or not descending until visually past them. Carrying and using a transponder, which once fitted takes no effort to use, also helps as you'll show up on the TCAS display and even if you're completely disoriented and not using a radio at all I can still maintain a safe separation, without communicating with you at all. Technology and practices have improved even in the 20 years or so since the publication in the first post was made.
As to my definitions of "etc", well...similar high speed aircraft? There's a long list. "Virtually" is the significant majority of the aerodromes that are suitable for those operations, as an F100 isn't going to be doing a 500ft circuit onto an unmarked gravel station runway. Airstrips having sufficient size and traffic to warrant being registered or certified. But I suspect you're now being facetious.
I've got no trouble at all acknowledging that merely being required to carry a radio doesn't mean it is always serviceable, tuned and being used by someone who knows exactly where they are, but airmanship and technology combine to minimise these risks. AFRU units indicate the radio is transmitting and tuned/turned up, so pilots have a way to confirm they are using the right frequency and the radio is working. Transmit lights and self-test circuits on more sophisticated radios are other indications, and modern solid-state radios are smaller, lighter and much more reliable. If I'm discussing separation in flight with someone, unless they're in the circuit or I can see them departing, typically I'll keep vertical separation too, either staying above their level or not descending until visually past them. Carrying and using a transponder, which once fitted takes no effort to use, also helps as you'll show up on the TCAS display and even if you're completely disoriented and not using a radio at all I can still maintain a safe separation, without communicating with you at all. Technology and practices have improved even in the 20 years or so since the publication in the first post was made.
As to my definitions of "etc", well...similar high speed aircraft? There's a long list. "Virtually" is the significant majority of the aerodromes that are suitable for those operations, as an F100 isn't going to be doing a 500ft circuit onto an unmarked gravel station runway. Airstrips having sufficient size and traffic to warrant being registered or certified. But I suspect you're now being facetious.
I’m not being facetious, De flieger. It’s the exceptions that expose the nonsense of the logic. Now you’re using “significant majority”. That’s not “everywhere”. There are exceptions. Somehow, the level of risk is acceptably safe at the exceptions.
Of course they are still happening, Dick.
In a different thread I explained a recent experience during a flight near Griffith. I heard a pilot give a perfect inbound call to Griffith on 126.7. I responded by indicating that 126.7 was not the Griffith CTAF. What would have happened if the pilot had not realised and corrected her (in this case it sounded like a women) mistake?
I also noted in the other thread that I quite regularly hear pilots making CTAF calls on Area, and Centre trying to give gentle and then not so gentle hints that the calls are on the wrong frequency.
Of course they are still happening, Dick.
In a different thread I explained a recent experience during a flight near Griffith. I heard a pilot give a perfect inbound call to Griffith on 126.7. I responded by indicating that 126.7 was not the Griffith CTAF. What would have happened if the pilot had not realised and corrected her (in this case it sounded like a women) mistake?
I also noted in the other thread that I quite regularly hear pilots making CTAF calls on Area, and Centre trying to give gentle and then not so gentle hints that the calls are on the wrong frequency.
Dick, unless i am mistaken, your premis is that radio arranged separation is flawed process and because of this it is vitally important that pilots use see and avoid to ensure that safety is maintained. I also gather that because you believe that radio arranged self separation is a flawed process, then it is a fundamentally flawed requirement to carry, and use, radios.
You also stooped to playing the man not the issue by bagging out a fellow ppruner who I assume is Bloggs.
The problem i have with your position/s is that you are almost evangelical about your ideas and almost automatically reject opposing views, even if the opposing views have merit, or your position does not.
You proposed in a later post that “see and avoid” is never mentioned in airline training and as a result we have a problem - i am paraphrasing but i think that was essentially your proposition.
The reality is that see and avoid is often spoken of in the airline training and operational environment, but its failings are also spoken of.
High speed multicrew aircraft are not the best platform for seeing, identifying and avoiding traffic.
The field of view from the flight deck precludes seeing aircraft in a number of areas around the aircraft.
Looking forward and down you cant see anything up to a couple of miles in front of you depending on the vertical separation between you, the body angle of the jets when slowing down combined with the instrument panel and nose of the aircraft combine to make looking forward and down challenging.
To the side there are window pillars and looking further back the wings and engines get in the way on some types, though admittedly not all.
Another poster broke down the time required to see, identify and avoid a target aircraft and, i thought, clearly identified that there is unlikely to be any significant time available to crews to “see and avoid”.
Furthermore, to your point about training, how do you train crews to “see and avoid”?
You cant effectively run a “see and avoid” profile in the sim because the fidelity of the visuals, whilst excellent, isnt there to properly replicate the visuals required to provide the training.
In the line training environment you cant effectively train for it. The number of times we have known traffic is there but not identified it, or only identified it after a lot of searching, it is clear to me that visually identifying a lighty at anything more than a mile or two is very challenging if not impossible in a practical sense, and that presumes everyone has perfect vision, is not squinting because of sun low on the horizon or even a bug on the windscreen, all things that are very real.
How do you train for “see and avoid”? The reality is that this an airmanship item, up there with the common warning ”dont cock it up”
No one that i know of flies around ignoring the environment outside the aeroplane, but we also dont fly around ignoring the inside of the aircraft.
It is a balancing act and a big part of airline training is what used to be called cockpit resource management, crew resource management, or non technical skills, where multi crew pilots are trained, quite explicitely, to use all the resources available to us, and in this context radio alerting is a huge part.
You are right, see and avoid, is an important tool, but it isnt and should not be the only tool in the tool box.
Transponders, radios, see and avoid, ads-b, smoke signals and carrier pigeons and anything else you can use should be used together to form “the picture” that the crew have of their operating environment.
You also stooped to playing the man not the issue by bagging out a fellow ppruner who I assume is Bloggs.
The problem i have with your position/s is that you are almost evangelical about your ideas and almost automatically reject opposing views, even if the opposing views have merit, or your position does not.
You proposed in a later post that “see and avoid” is never mentioned in airline training and as a result we have a problem - i am paraphrasing but i think that was essentially your proposition.
The reality is that see and avoid is often spoken of in the airline training and operational environment, but its failings are also spoken of.
High speed multicrew aircraft are not the best platform for seeing, identifying and avoiding traffic.
The field of view from the flight deck precludes seeing aircraft in a number of areas around the aircraft.
Looking forward and down you cant see anything up to a couple of miles in front of you depending on the vertical separation between you, the body angle of the jets when slowing down combined with the instrument panel and nose of the aircraft combine to make looking forward and down challenging.
To the side there are window pillars and looking further back the wings and engines get in the way on some types, though admittedly not all.
Another poster broke down the time required to see, identify and avoid a target aircraft and, i thought, clearly identified that there is unlikely to be any significant time available to crews to “see and avoid”.
Furthermore, to your point about training, how do you train crews to “see and avoid”?
You cant effectively run a “see and avoid” profile in the sim because the fidelity of the visuals, whilst excellent, isnt there to properly replicate the visuals required to provide the training.
In the line training environment you cant effectively train for it. The number of times we have known traffic is there but not identified it, or only identified it after a lot of searching, it is clear to me that visually identifying a lighty at anything more than a mile or two is very challenging if not impossible in a practical sense, and that presumes everyone has perfect vision, is not squinting because of sun low on the horizon or even a bug on the windscreen, all things that are very real.
How do you train for “see and avoid”? The reality is that this an airmanship item, up there with the common warning ”dont cock it up”
No one that i know of flies around ignoring the environment outside the aeroplane, but we also dont fly around ignoring the inside of the aircraft.
It is a balancing act and a big part of airline training is what used to be called cockpit resource management, crew resource management, or non technical skills, where multi crew pilots are trained, quite explicitely, to use all the resources available to us, and in this context radio alerting is a huge part.
You are right, see and avoid, is an important tool, but it isnt and should not be the only tool in the tool box.
Transponders, radios, see and avoid, ads-b, smoke signals and carrier pigeons and anything else you can use should be used together to form “the picture” that the crew have of their operating environment.
Thread Starter
Radio arranged separation is OK if all aircraft are participating. It’s not as good as a separation service provided by ATC.
That’s why I support an upgrade to terminal E in some circumstances. It’s also why I brokered the deal for VFR to have a transponder in E.
It’s clear that a “calling in the blind” system should not be relied on too much.
Sounds as if still plenty of un alerted see and avoid incidents taking place even though we have non ICAO compliant mandatory radio in E and some G.
I suggest if you can’t see out properly from your aircraft you should be only flying in a minimum of class D airspace.
That’s why I support an upgrade to terminal E in some circumstances. It’s also why I brokered the deal for VFR to have a transponder in E.
It’s clear that a “calling in the blind” system should not be relied on too much.
Sounds as if still plenty of un alerted see and avoid incidents taking place even though we have non ICAO compliant mandatory radio in E and some G.
I suggest if you can’t see out properly from your aircraft you should be only flying in a minimum of class D airspace.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radio arranged separation is OK if all aircraft are participating. It’s not as good as a separation service provided by ATC.
That’s why I support an upgrade to terminal E in some circumstances. It’s also why I brokered the deal for VFR to have a transponder in E.
It’s clear that a “calling in the blind” system should not be relied on too much.
Sounds as if still plenty of un alerted see and avoid incidents taking place even though we have non ICAO compliant mandatory radio in E and some G.
I suggest if you can’t see out properly from your aircraft you should be only flying in a minimum of class D airspace.
That’s why I support an upgrade to terminal E in some circumstances. It’s also why I brokered the deal for VFR to have a transponder in E.
It’s clear that a “calling in the blind” system should not be relied on too much.
Sounds as if still plenty of un alerted see and avoid incidents taking place even though we have non ICAO compliant mandatory radio in E and some G.
I suggest if you can’t see out properly from your aircraft you should be only flying in a minimum of class D airspace.
So I'll spell it out, again:
No-one has claimed that "you can't see out properly from your aircraft." They have said that in many aircraft it's difficult because of their design and class of operation, and that other methods of separation need to be used to a greater extent.
To suggest that these aircraft should simply stay out of Class G is ludicrous, and contributes nothing to the discussion. The fact is that the vast area of our country is not served by ATC, and high-performance aircraft operate in it.
The current system of alerted see-and-avoid is not perfect. But in your own original submission, it's evident that the majority of incidents are down to human error, with the occasional equipment failure thrown in. It follows that, whatever the level of incidents taking place, that number would be greatly reduced if people simply got it right. Surely it's not too hard to read a CTAF frequency off a chart, or an ERSA page?
And we don't need to be told to keep a lookout, as best we can anyway. That applies to the RPT jet or to me in my bugsmasher.
See-and-avoid is far from perfect too. But its success rate goes up dramatically if we know there's someone out there to look for. That doesn't mean relying entirely on "calling in the blind", but rather incorporating it into the list of tools available to us.
This just my opinion but...
Dick I seriously admire your enthusiasm, argumentative style, ability, passion, fire and drive to make things better. Your willingness to stir the pot and push. GA (and aviation beyond that) needs more people with those qualities to bring it out of the doldrums. People like you are essential to that. Without people who have a passion for it, GA will fade away.
I just wish your fire, passion and drive was directed at issues in aviation other than airspace though.
All in my opinion of course I would say airspace change is a deck chair. It is not the main game. I think you would get a lot of backing and buy in from pilots and operators across GA if your laser beam energy was directed at things that directly hinder aviation operators and businesses. Airspace is not it.
Others will see it differently I know but for me - airspace is not the problem.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest if you can’t see out properly from your aircraft you should be only flying in a minimum of class D airspace.
Nothing to stop going to D but it will cost a lot of money.
I have no intention of bumping into anyone in Class G airspace in my 737 and yet I am required to put the well being of my passengers lives into the hands of a possibly very inexperienced pilot who says they are seeing me and avoiding me.
Experience has taught me otherwise.
I will never forget or forgive the 'flying priest' from Weipa in his C210 who departed Lockhart River in 'VMC' not long after I carried a missed approach in IMC and was holding 15nm east waiting for a. the wx to improve and b. for him to vacate the area.
"Where are you now VH-priest in a 210?" reply "20 miles south of Lockart River, heading South".
Less than a minute later as a dark shape flashes past my left wingtip, in cloud.
"Where are you now VH-priest in a 210?" reply "East of Lockhart River at 3,000 ft in VMC". Incompetent or Liar.
I'd say both.
Similar experience with a S61 chopper out of Broome. Not where he said he was and bull****ting about his flight conditions.
Both a long time ago but still forefront in my mind when feeling my way through Class G like a partially blind person.
Thread Starter
Why is there no mention by CASA if these un alerted incidents are still happening?
I would imagine as many incidents as before but just filed by ATSB and CASA with no mention to pilots of the importance of disciplined radio procedures and also keeping a good lookout.
Or has there been a drop off of such incidents because pilots make less errors now?
I would imagine as many incidents as before but just filed by ATSB and CASA with no mention to pilots of the importance of disciplined radio procedures and also keeping a good lookout.
Or has there been a drop off of such incidents because pilots make less errors now?
[Y]et I am required to put the well being of my passengers lives into the hands of a possibly very inexperienced pilot who says they are seeing me and avoiding me.
And when Dick presses for Class E down to circuit level, with a corresponding radio and transponder requirement for VFR aircraft, who do you think stops that happening?
If you think it’s private GA pilots, I have shares in the Harbour Bridge that I can sell you.
So is there a transponder requirement for VFR’s in G? My understanding is that the answer is ‘no’. But not so in E.
Don’t 737s and other RPT aircraft have gizmos that ‘talk’ to transponders fitted to other aircraft, whether or not the pilots of the other transponder-equipped aircraft are giving correct position information on the correct frequency?
Don’t 737s and other RPT aircraft have gizmos that ‘talk’ to transponders fitted to other aircraft, whether or not the pilots of the other transponder-equipped aircraft are giving correct position information on the correct frequency?
Typical hair-splitting nonsense from LB. Apart from the lack of a transponder requirement below10k (Txpdr required by all aircraft above 10k), our G is better than E because VFR actually participate (or are supposed to) and are therefore part of the system.
You didn't use that 50c I sent you, did you?
Be a good fellow and do a cost-benefit analysis on every VFR aircraft going into E fitting a transponder, and more to the point, the ATC cost of running an IFR approach service at every RPT port. I thought you lot were about reducing costs and complexity for GA, not making it worse.
Show us the money.
Also, do a safety case on IFR operating on Centre and simultaneously having to deal with VFR on the CTAF.
Oiling hampster wheel...
Originally Posted by LB
And when Dick presses for Class E down to circuit level, with a corresponding radio and transponder requirement for VFR aircraft, who do you think stops that happening?
Be a good fellow and do a cost-benefit analysis on every VFR aircraft going into E fitting a transponder, and more to the point, the ATC cost of running an IFR approach service at every RPT port. I thought you lot were about reducing costs and complexity for GA, not making it worse.
Show us the money.
Also, do a safety case on IFR operating on Centre and simultaneously having to deal with VFR on the CTAF.
Oiling hampster wheel...
So you can operate VFR in Class E in Australia without a transponder?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just looked at last years ATSB reports and there were about 30 'near collisions', at least some of which have info like this in them...
During approach, the pilot of the Piel CP 605 detected the Evektor Sportstar on final approach in close proximity and conducted a climbing turn to increase separation. Both crew report making inbound radio broadcasts however communication was not established between the aircraft.
No idea if these incidents are increasing or otherwise...
During approach, the pilot of the Piel CP 605 detected the Evektor Sportstar on final approach in close proximity and conducted a climbing turn to increase separation. Both crew report making inbound radio broadcasts however communication was not established between the aircraft.
No idea if these incidents are increasing or otherwise...
Seriously Bloggs.
VFR aircraft can fly in Australian G (ICAO ForG) without a transponder (or radio).
A transponder is mandatory for VFR aircraft in Australian E. That includes E below 10,000’. The only ‘out’ is for VFR aircraft below 10,000’ that are incapable of continuously powering a transponder. (You did take your own advice and read the transponder provisions of the AIP, did you not? And can a VFR aircraft operate in E without a radio?)
That you could utter this unutterable nonsense shows you’ve been operating way, way too long in that heart of darkness:
VFR aircraft can fly in Australian G (ICAO ForG) without a transponder (or radio).
A transponder is mandatory for VFR aircraft in Australian E. That includes E below 10,000’. The only ‘out’ is for VFR aircraft below 10,000’ that are incapable of continuously powering a transponder. (You did take your own advice and read the transponder provisions of the AIP, did you not? And can a VFR aircraft operate in E without a radio?)
That you could utter this unutterable nonsense shows you’ve been operating way, way too long in that heart of darkness:
[O]ur G is better than E because VFR actually participate (or are supposed to) and are therefore part of the system.
Bloggs
Let’s take Ooglabadooga Aerodrome that’s plonked in the middle of bog standard Australian Class G airspace for miles laterally and up to - hmmmm, let’s pluck - FL180.
Let’s assume that someone has a brain explosion and declares Class E airspace within the volume of airspace - hmmmm, let’s pluck - radius of 10nms laterally from Ooglabadooga ARP and from 1,200’ AGL up to FL180.
What do you say VFR pilots would start or stop doing, as a consequence of that change, as would render RPT operations into Ooglabadooga more risky?
Are they going to stop broadcasting in the vicinity of the aerodrome? Why would they stop?
Are they going to become less competent in knowing their actual position and broadcasting it? How could that be?
Will their aircraft radios and transponders become less reliable? I don’t see how the change could have that effect.
What, precisely, is it that you say results in Australian G being safer than Australian E?
Let’s take Ooglabadooga Aerodrome that’s plonked in the middle of bog standard Australian Class G airspace for miles laterally and up to - hmmmm, let’s pluck - FL180.
Let’s assume that someone has a brain explosion and declares Class E airspace within the volume of airspace - hmmmm, let’s pluck - radius of 10nms laterally from Ooglabadooga ARP and from 1,200’ AGL up to FL180.
What do you say VFR pilots would start or stop doing, as a consequence of that change, as would render RPT operations into Ooglabadooga more risky?
Are they going to stop broadcasting in the vicinity of the aerodrome? Why would they stop?
Are they going to become less competent in knowing their actual position and broadcasting it? How could that be?
Will their aircraft radios and transponders become less reliable? I don’t see how the change could have that effect.
What, precisely, is it that you say results in Australian G being safer than Australian E?
Originally Posted by LB
VFR aircraft can fly in Australian G (ICAO ForG) without a transponder (or radio).
I'd be quite happy for you to mandate transponders for all aircraft in a CTAF. Why on earth would you inflict the cost of Class E on VFR, as well as make them fit transponders?
Your continued nit-picking, for example about "unable to power a transponder" is a red herring, as is 95% of your stuff. Keep your eye on the main game, laddie. Of course there are going to be cracks, as has been explained to you above. No system is perfect.
But anybody who thinks that mandatory radio use is silly or ineffective needs a brain transplant.
And since when has TCAS ever been considered a primary method of aircraft separation? Unless, of course, we could use ADS-B, so ATC can see them. Now there's an idea. Be careful what you wish for, LB. This is 2018, not the wild west of the 50s and 60s that Dick seems to be stuck in.