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

Radio alerting failures happening any more?

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

Radio alerting failures happening any more?

Old 23rd Jan 2018, 03:25
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,381
Radio alerting failures happening any more?

Below is a brochure we prepared in 1998 in relation to see and avoid. It listed lots of incidents where the “calling in the blind” system had broken down.

These days, you never hear a murmur from the ATSB or CASA in relation to this.

Are these types of incidents now not happening or are they being covered up either by the pilots or by the authorities?

The main lesson is to always be absolutely vigilant when flying in any airspace. Never be obsessed with radio-arranged separation when in VMC, such as a regular poster from the west on this website obviously is!

Dick Smith is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 05:14
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,134
Surely not an issue of the mighty Flaming Liar!

Geez, I'd almost forgotten how bad they were!!

Seriously, what sort of $%^&* would introduce a system where RPT jets had to rely primarily on "See and Avoid" (as stated at the bottom of that Flaming Liar issue) in E and G?

If you jokers don't like Class G, then put in a tower and be done with it. You obviously don't care about the costs to industry. Oh wait...

And while you're there, drop every speed limit in the country to 80kph. That stop hundreds of deaths. And take off the road every car that doesn't have a 5 star safety rating.

Ideological irrationality...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 05:23
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,381
From the incidents shown it’s obvious why pilots should not rely on radio arranged separation in G and E when VMC exists.

Under ICAO there is no radio requirement for VFR in E and G so I can see why they say it is a see and avoid airspace.

Nothing to stop going to D but it will cost a lot of money.

Bloggs. Are you claiming you have never made an error re frequency or microphone selection?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 05:33
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Dick,

The issue of see-and-avoid and radio-arranged separation isn't exclusive, as you choose to misrepresent it.

Neither Bloggs, nor I, nor any of your usual ideological opponents here, are advocating using the radio instead of looking out the window. Rather, the radio is used as an adjunct to all the other means of avoiding other traffic, including visual separation and latterly ADS-B and TCAS.

In the cockpit of a 2-pilot jet, there's precious little time to be staring outside, so the radio has to assume a greater role. That in turn requires that others in the airspace do their part to play the same game, as they have an equal investment in avoiding loud noises.

If you don't have a radio, then that option isn't available to you. But if you do, as with most of us, then it's irresponsible not to use it. Most of the incidents in your quoted extract related not to the use of radio, but to its failure due to cockups of some sort.

Your opposition to radio separation in G is well known. But please stop using specious arguments such as this to support it.
Agrajag is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 06:23
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,134
Nothing to stop going to D but it will cost a lot of money.
For gawd's sake?!!!!

What is it going to be, Dick? Dirt Road Class G or E, or Class D?

The way you are ranting and raving, the clear implication is that you are dead against See and Avoid. I therefore assume the only option for you is to introduce Class D.

YES or NO?

You see, you've snookered yourself. If you say Class D is too expensive, you have condemned every fare paying pax outside controlled airspace to a probable mid-air collision death.

If you choose the safer option, Class D, you'll be howled out of town by the GA warriors trying to reduce costs (and bureaucracy).

When you've come to your final position, announce here and I'll let Ean Higgins know. I'm sure he'll be keen to get it into The Australian.

Bloggs. Are you claiming you have never made an error re frequency or microphone selection?
I dunno, am I?

Agrajag, top being sensible. There is no room here for reasoned discussion on this or any of Dick's other issues.

Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 23rd Jan 2018 at 06:23. Reason: Splet Agradag wrogly.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 06:34
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 54
Posts: 2,766
Never be obsessed with radio-arranged separation when in VMC,
I can imagine pilots becoming complacent about visual lookouts but I can’t imagine someone becoming obsessed with radio arranged separation. What makes you think this is a problem Dick?
Scanning for traffic in the most likely places is a skill that can be developed, no doubt about that, and probably a good idea to draw attention to it every now and again because unlike at the aero clubs and flying schools, it is rarely mentioned in Airline/RPT training.
framer is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 06:47
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
In the cockpit of a 2-pilot jet, there's precious little time to be staring outside, so the radio has to assume a greater role. That in turn requires that others in the airspace do their part to play the same game, as they have an equal investment in avoiding loud noises.
This is disappointing to hear, particularly if operating in class G.

Your approach does not take into consideration equipment failure, which can happen and often does. My TSO certified transponder's cable came loose yesterday and stopped my transponder from working. It was still flashing, but wasn't transmitting so as far as I knew it was working.... but it wasn't.
StickWithTheTruth is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 07:24
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,381
Framer. That’s what I am concerned about.

If a good lookout is rarely mentioned in airline training we clearly have a problem in Australia.

Does CASA approve this?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 08:07
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,134
When did you or any pilot friend of yours get any training, let alone training in Lookout, Dick?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 08:45
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by StickWithTheTruth View Post
This is disappointing to hear, particularly if operating in class G.

Your approach does not take into consideration equipment failure, which can happen and often does. My TSO certified transponder's cable came loose yesterday and stopped my transponder from working. It was still flashing, but wasn't transmitting so as far as I knew it was working.... but it wasn't.
This isn't a choice; it's simply the way it is, in any high-performance multicrew aircraft. Speeds are high, fields of view are relatively small and the workload inside the cockpit precludes spending a lot of time looking outside, so other tools have to be used.

If equipment failure degrades that ability, that's unfortunate. But wilful refusal by other aircraft to participate in the process, perhaps because they think they know better, is inexcusable.
Agrajag is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 08:55
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,585
Any no-radio no-transponder aircraft lawfully flying in any of the airspace in which you fly that high-performance multicrew aircraft? What is you strategy for dealing with the risk they pose?

Bloggs: Do you really believe that the reason there isn’t Class D at places like Port Hedland and Mildura is the protestestations of GA pilots? Really? Governments and Airservices and CASA couldn’t give a flying f*ck about what GA pilots want. Class D may cost GA pilots lots, but its absence from places like Port Hedland and Mildura has nothing to do with the cost to GA pilots.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 09:05
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Any no-radio no-transponder aircraft lawfully flying in any of the airspace in which you fly that high-performance multicrew aircraft? What is you strategy for dealing with the risk they pose?
As above: do the best they can, look out when they can and rely on the Big Sky for the rest. Maybe the phantom aircraft will see them, and stay well away till they pass.

I haven't flown this sort of hardware in the GAFA for a long time, so I won't pretend to speak for those who currently do. But I will stick firmly to my original position: anyone who has the means to speak up and give the jet crew an idea of where to look, but doesn't do so, is a goose.
Agrajag is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 09:13
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,585
Your final sentence is an objective truth. But...

I’d merely suggest that: (1) Always consider the possibility that the non-goose is, for example, suffering 180 degree confusion. Just because s/he says s/he’s northwest does not make it so. (2) Don’t make the (natural) mistake of assuming that there’s no other traffic.

The Big Sky and the shallow pockets of air operators is why there is no D at places like Port Hedland and Mildura.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 09:24
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,134
Originally Posted by LB
Bloggs: Do you really believe that the reason there isn’t Class D at places like Port Hedland and Mildura is the protestestations of GA pilots? Really? Governments and Airservices and CASA couldn’t give a flying f*ck about what GA pilots want. Class D may cost GA pilots lots, but its absence from places like Port Hedland and Mildura has nothing to do with the cost to GA pilots.
What are your bank details? I'll send you 50c so you can ring the wiki hotline and ask for the definition of Affordable Safety.

Originally Posted by LB
I’d merely suggest that: (1) Always consider the possibility that the non-goose is, for example, suffering 180 degree confusion. Just because s/he says s/he’s northwest does not make it so. (2) Don’t make the (natural) mistake of assuming that there’s no other traffic.
Learn something every day, I do.

Originally Posted by LB
The Big Sky and the shallow pockets of air operators is why there is no D at places like Port Hedland and Mildura.
So when are you and Dick going to start campaigning for true ICAO G?

Dick, still waiting, it can't be hard, do you support High-cap RPT jets operating in G in the most dangerous part of the flight, within 5nm of the airfield, or do you think they should be in D?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 09:29
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Your final sentence is an objective truth. But...

Id merely suggest that: (1) Always consider the possibility that the non-goose is, for example, suffering 180 degree confusion. Just because s/he says s/hes northwest does not make it so. (2) Dont make the (natural) mistake of assuming that theres no other traffic.

The Big Sky and the shallow pockets of air operators is why there is no D at places like Port Hedland and Mildura.
Then we are in furious agreement.

Im addressing the point of view, expressed by some, that radio and visual separation are an either/or thing, and that if youre looking out youre excused from using the radio. Attempting to discredit the value of radio usage is mischievous at best.
Agrajag is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 09:37
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 150
In the cockpit of a 2-pilot jet, there's precious little time to be staring outside, so the radio has to assume a greater role. That in turn requires that others in the airspace do their part to play the same game, as they have an equal investment in avoiding loud noises.
Absolutely right. At jet or high-performance turboprop speeds, unalerted see and avoid simply doesn't work reliably. The ATSB even published their views on this, including the limitations of un-alerted see and avoid, back in 1991... https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/405059...port_print.pdf complete with results of experiments done using much slower aircraft being intercepted on a near-collision course in the USA. One of the most relevant points was that when established in the cruise, at low workload times in day VMC, the pilots of the experiment aircraft only spotted the intercepting aircraft on a near-collision course 56% of the time.

Looking at a hypothetical situation, with one aircraft is descending at 240 kts, and another cruising at 120 kts, the closing rate is 6 miles per minute. A Cessna Caravan has a rough fuselage cross-section of 1.5x1.7 metres, rounding that up to 2 metres and using ideal human vision, best case figures of acuity is 1 minute of arc. A bit of maths means the head-on Caravan will first become visual 6875 metres away, or 3.7 miles - 37 seconds from impact, assuming the Cessna is entirely within the central part of the eye and the pilot is looking exactly at it the entire time, so not maintaining an effective lookout in other directions or cruising along enjoying the beautiful Australian countryside. At that point though, it's a speck, impossible to determine type, speed, orientation or direction. By the time the aircraft has grown to around 1/2 a degree in arc and individual features are sufficient to determine direction and necessary avoiding manoeuvres, the aircraft is only 229 metres away - 1.24 of a second away, which is insufficient to take effective avoiding action which requires several seconds to see and calculate what is happening, formulate a plan to avoid it and the muscular action and aircraft response times to carry it out. That's assuming that neither aircraft is in the other's blind spot and all pilots are keeping an effective lookout at all times, not checking maps to determine which is the closest ground station to contact, updating fuel logs, programming GPS's etc or any of the other myriad tasks to be carried out. Again, this is also relying on the fact that pilots saw the other aircraft at the earliest opportunity.

Unalerted see and avoid is one of those good ideas that are let down by the fact it doesn't reliably work at the speeds a lot of aircraft within Class G operate. Technology and training practices have helped minimise a lot of the opportunities for the communication breakdowns - beepback units at most CTAFs allow pilots to confirm their radios are tuned correctly and turned up, transponders allow those aircraft fitted with TCAS to observe the other traffic even if they aren't using their radios, multi-crew training practices help ensure crew monitor radios effectively and cross-check radio usage, pilots are able to communicate with ATC to request radio checks. All of those things are used to reduce the likelihood of a communication breakdown.
De_flieger is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 09:50
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,585
Yet, unalerted see and avoid with “jet or high performance turboprops” is happening every day in Australia, either because there’s no radio or transponder requirement in some of the airspace in which they are operating, or because equipment failure or pilot error can produce the same practical result.

Bloggs: Dick’s not advocating for D. He’s pointing out that if all this unalerted see and avoid is acceptably ‘safe’, what’s the point of all this sound and fury about CTAF radii and the frequency for use at airfields that aren’t marked on charts?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 10:56
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 150
Unalerted see and avoid isn't "acceptably safe" for a lot of operations, hence the radio requirements at uncontrolled certified, registered or military aerodromes. That covers a very large proportion of the uncontrolled aerodromes, and virtually all that the higher speed Challengers, Dash 8s, Fokkers etc will be flying into. This is effectively separating the Fokker from the virtually invisible gyrocopter doing 70 kts even though both are OCTA and the gyrocopter might not be carrying or using a radio.
De_flieger is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 11:12
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,585
But you seem unable to acknowledge the fact that the “radio requirements” don’t guarantee that (1) radio is fitted and serviceable, (2) tuned to the correct frequency and (3) being talked at by someone who’s not making errors as to position.

Setting all that aside, you say that “virtually all that the higher speed Challengers, Dash 8s, Fokker etc will be flying into” these places. I suppose it depends somewhat on what your definition of “virtually” and “etc” means. Just to choose from a couple of recent close encounters: What flies in and out of Jacinth Ambrosio? Beverly Camp?

Why is it acceptably “safe” for the passengers on the aircraft that are the exceptions to your “virtually” and “etc” rules to be exposed to these risks?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 11:22
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,134
Lead Balloon, just leave it will you?
Capn Bloggs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.