Radio alerting failures – happening any more?
Thread Starter
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!
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!
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...
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...
Thread Starter
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Nothing to stop going to D but it will cost a lot of money.
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?
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.
Never be obsessed with radio-arranged separation when in VMC,
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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?
If a good lookout is rarely mentioned in airline training we clearly have a problem in Australia.
Does CASA approve this?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I’m addressing the point of view, expressed by some, that radio and visual separation are an either/or thing, and that if you’re looking out you’re excused from using the radio. Attempting to discredit the value of radio usage is mischievous at best.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?