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

Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down

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

Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down

Old 13th Mar 2020, 02:35
  #461 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Flying VFR, Avalon tower always asks for your intentions and it had better be a straight line transit.
Tower or Approach? Tower you're in Class D so, yeah...

I fly through the Avalon E fairly frequently, last time a couple of weeks ago. I gave approach a courtesy call to let them know I was going to track coastal (not a very straight line) at 3500. Thanks, they said. Later they checked to confirm what I was doing, while an AirAsiaX A330 sat poised on the numbers, waiting for me to get west of centreline. Sometimes I go through silent, saying nothing and not being talked to except for occasional traffic advice. The only time I've been asked my intentions was prior to entry, I said I was going to track coastal (I know it's not the prettiest scenery, but I like to do Around The Bay flights every now and then) at 3500, they gave me a code and I didn't hear anything until I left the E and switched back to 1200.

Whatever its other de/merits as a VFR PPL I've had zero issues with the E around Avalon.
PubliusNaso is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 02:52
  #462 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,335
I don’t know what the issue was but I’m not making it up. They asked for a range and bearing from the ARP. The excuse was as I stated. This was some years ago.

Sorry for the gratuitous insult, but VFR pilots get that regularly from the likes of Bloggs.

The argument seems to go around in circles.

1. Class E doesn’t provide enough separation between VFR aircraft and IFR and VFR jets.

2. Then change ATC arrangements to make class E work.

3. But that would cost money.

4. Make the airspace class C.

5. But that would cost money.

return to step 1.

In addition, GA has been forced to spend money on ADS-B, and VFR and RAA encouraged to do likewise. Yet it appears to offer zero safety benefit. I’m beginning to think that the whole ADSB mess was an exercise in Airservices saving money, not as advertised, to increase safety at all.

Both aircraft involved should have had working ADSB OUT. We were told this was to improve safety. Fitment was mandatory at great expense to owners. Yet Airservices says they don’t use ADSB and wouldn’t have had a clue that this accident was about to happen because they didn’t have ADSB reception at ground level at Mangalore. Yet a bunch of amateurs with $150 units covered Mangalore and you could see the crash developing on flightradar24.

If amateurs could see it, why couldn’t Airservices? Why did Airservices mandate ADSB if it produces no safety benefit at aerodromes where the majority of collisions occur?

Heres a suggestion. Let’s outsource ATC to Flightradar24 and do away with expensive Airservices and their useless technology.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 03:15
  #463 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,203
Sunfish: Did you have a serviceable transponder or not?

George Glass: You realise that it’s just a roll of the dice in e.g. Class C, too? It’s just that the dice in Class C (should) have many more sides and therefore the probabilities of rolling ‘snake eyes’ are very remote. (It might even be that there’s a level of complacency in Class C as a consequence of assumptions that everyone’s known, everyone is complying with an airways clearance, nobody makes mistakes and equipment never malfunctions.)
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 03:58
  #464 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,020
Uncle8,

To continue the theme of Squawk7700 and OCTAAUS, I would urge you to re-consider your use of the radio in E around Avalon. Practically speaking, the only thing that is going to save you from a midair is your transponder. It is highly unlikely that you will visually pick up a jet that is climbing or descending, and it is unlikely that the jet crew will pick you up visually in the terminal area. Unalerted See and Avoid just doesn’t work. It is, therefore, critical that you check that your transponder is working by contacting ATC and preferably, asking for a SIS. With a SIS, ATC, you and the other aircraft all know about you and can keep you “segregated” in E, or at the least, keep out of your way.

Originally Posted by Sunfish
So when it’s Class C, VFR Aircraft will be excluded when there is a jet within a hundred miles and RAA aircraft permanently excluded? Because Bloggs thinks all light aircraft pilots are dangerous amateurs despite being licensed?

That will kill a few light aircraft pilots every winter.
Sunfish, I’ll take your accusation that my preference for Class C will kill people with a grain of salt. It has been obvious for some time that your ideological zealotry is clouding your attitude. I have, on several occasions, written here, on occasion to you directly, that I will go out of my way to accommodate VFR where I fly and have, on numerous occasions, done just that. Your inability to recall or comprehend such comments is a bitter disappointment. Your continued slander does your cause no good at all, and will eventually turn people, who could support you, away.


Originally Posted by Led Ballon
It would be interesting to calculate:

(1) the volume of the chunks of E between the 8nm ARP and 12nm DME arcs to the north and south of Avalon, and

(2) the cost of the resources diverted to designation/AIP revisions/airspace reviews etc arising from that airspace.

It may well be the highest ratio of bureaucratic bullshit-to-cubic kilometre of airspace on the planet.
Enough. Instead of your continual sniping, I suggest that you have a think about why the “shambolic” situation at Avalon exists. I put it to you that it exists because the airspace fundamentalists forced the current arrangement on CASA. When it became obvious that the system wasn’t working, CASA and ASA started adding requirements to keep the airspace reasonably safe.

Finally, CASA has said enough is enough and it’s going to recommend ASA replace the E. On that point, have you written to the minister arguing that CASA should have the power to mandate airspace changes instead of just “recommending”? I didn’t think so.

Originally Posted by Led Balon
George Glass: You realise that it’s just a roll of the dice in e.g. Class C, too? It’s just that the dice in Class C (should) have many more sides and therefore the probabilities of rolling ‘snake eyes’ are very remote. (It might even be that there’s a level of complacency in Class C as a consequence of assumptions that everyone’s known, everyone is complying with an airways clearance, nobody makes mistakes and equipment never malfunctions.)
Give it a rest, Leddie.

Originally Posted by Mr Approach
Capn - the issue you seem to have problem with is whether VFR works in terms of separation, if it does not then stay away from the Bankstown training area.
In Class E if a clearance cannot be given immediately, in the US, the controller is able to give the VFR pilot traffic advisories to assist with his/her visual separation with the conflicting traffic. (Don't forget the controller needs 3 or 5 NM separation to be able to issue a clearance, whereas two pilots just have to miss each other) Alternatively, once the VFR traffic is identified, a suggested heading can be given that would create the separation standard, and once the aircraft is seen to be tracking on the suggested heading and 3/5 NM from the conflicting traffic a clearance can be given.
I think that is a really, really dumb idea. It is completely unacceptable to me, with 100+ punters in the back, to not have any say in segregating myself from another aircraft that is so close that ATC can't give them a clearance. To suggest that the "pilots just have to miss each other" is, I hope, a joke. The other guy might be the ace of the base but why should I, on behalf of all my pax, not have a right of veto over some visual sighting manoeuvre that the VFR is going to employ to hopefully pick me up before I clobber him?

As for the Premier jet not calling on the area frequency, in the US there is no VFR requirement for that. I suggest he would have been listening on his other radio, but why load up busy ATC frequencies with VFR aircraft reports? Australia has made a dog's breakfast out of this issue since the ATSB report in 1991 "the limitations of see and avoid"
I was suggesting that the jet-jock called Centre, just make a broadcast. Why is our setup a dog's breakfast? I operate in a pretty simple full-radio environment from start to finish thanks to our rules, complicated only by the small CTAF areas, which increase radio management complexity and therefore decrease safety.

I suggest he would have been listening on his other radio
You raise an interesting point here. I guarantee that a VFR pilot in E would not have a clue about what is going on around him or whether there are any collision threats nearby based on what he hears on the ATC freq. IFRs merely talk to ATC, we don't give position reports, we don't give details on where we're going or what we're doing. This concept of VFR announcing "if in conflict" is, in my view, ludicrous. Lookout is useless for collision avoidance and the ONLY thing that will save the midair is last-line-of-defence TCAS. If however you are under a SIS, then it all changes.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 04:21
  #465 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Idlewild Peake
Posts: 128
Capn Bloggs,
Sounds like good advice, I'll take it.
uncle8 is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 04:35
  #466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,203
I suggest that you have a think about why the “shambolic” situation at Avalon exists. I put it to you that it exists because the airspace fundamentalists forced the current arrangement on CASA. When it became obvious that the system wasn’t working, CASA and ASA started adding requirements to keep the airspace reasonably safe.
I put it to you that the problem is that the Australian ‘system’ is culturally incapable of accepting that Class E airspace exists for a reason and works. The people you describe as “fundamentalists” might instead be “objective”. What you describe as “reasonably safe” might instead be an “overreaction to exaggerated risks”.


Finally, CASA has said enough is enough and it’s going to recommend ASA replace the E. On that point, have you written to the minister arguing that CASA should have the power to mandate airspace changes instead of just “recommending”? I didn’t think so.
CASA does have the power to mandate airspace changes! That was supposedly the point of moving the designation of airspace out of Airservices and into CASA. The words “consult” and “recommend” do not appear in any form in the Airspace Regulations 2007! That’s precisely why I’ve pointed out that the recommendations out of the review of Avalon are just bureaucratic flim-flam.


(Please take a deep breath and try as best you can to listen to me, just for couple of sentences. I’m whispering this just to you: The designation of airspace in Australia is influenced by bureaucratic duck-shoving, sectional interests and petty politics. I know that might be confronting, but it’s best you know because it helps to explain the ostensibly inexplicable.)

Back to the specific circumstances that resulted in this thread: Two IFR aircraft collided in G. Bloggs: You haven’t explained why the implementation of E instead of G would not result in a net increase in safety for IFR aircraft.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 04:48
  #467 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Just touching on what Bloggs said, I can not recommend using flight following strongly enough. It is a fantastic service, you get access to significantly more information that will be directed to you and you get traffic information. Best of all it’s free. I know the tin foil hat brigade don’t like it because their flights can be tracked if they use it, but it is a fantastic service for enhancing your safety.

As for all the people that really hate ADSB, I know of at least 10 near misses between VFR I have managed to help prevent because the aircraft had ADSB. It’s easy to point out the one accident that was not prevented by it, but we don’t really keep track of the occasions where it very well may have been what saved the day.
OCTA Aus is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 04:54
  #468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Back to the specific circumstances that resulted in this thread: Two IFR aircraft collided in G. Bloggs: You haven’t explained why the implementation of E instead of G would not result in a net increase in safety for IFR aircraft.
My personal opinion is more extensive use of class E to utilise the increased surveillance available would provide a sound net increase in safety for IFR aircraft. However I have absolutely no real evidence to back that up and I have not personally seen class E utilised in the way some are suggesting here.

As for the resistance to class E in Australia, I think it may be a combination of most pilots don’t actually understand it, the obvious implementation of it (Avalon) was done quite poorly, and there is resistance to it from airlines as well as CASA and ASA. I don’t know how to solve those problems.
OCTA Aus is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 05:55
  #469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 64
Posts: 335
“As for the resistance to class E in Australia, I think it may be a combination of most pilots don’t actually understand it”

Its difficult to know where to go with this.
We know EXACTLY how it works.
I suppose its really difficult to convey to Public Service Nomenklatura what the real world experience of descending an RPT jet with 150 + pax on board through Class E with ZERO guarantee that you are separated from no-comm VFR or incompetent IFR traffic.
Maybe sitting in the jumpseat is the only solution.
Its rolling the dice.
There is a bad moon on the rise.
Its gunna happen OCTA Aus.
Better hope your not in the chair when it does.
George Glass is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 05:57
  #470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
The problem with Class E in Australia is that ASA are trying by stealth to turn it into the way Class D is meant to work. Another problem with Class E in Australia, you have the likes of Captain Luddite promoting it to be used like Class D is meant to work. Doesn't matter that Captain Luddite has no clue how Class E is meant to work.

The AV approach ladies and gents do a terrific job, most of the issues or 'shambles' that are being alluded to are caused by Harfield giving redundancies to active controllers whilst recruiting 457's. Is it because controllers on visas won't cause problems, won't speak out and will be compliant as they'd like PR?

The AV airspace is ridiculously busy at times, several frequency (sectors) on combine at it's busiest times, They do a great job given that they are perpetually understaffed.

OCTA Aus, you need to get yourself to the States, talk to pilots who use this airspace, listen on frequency to the controllers working this airspace, they are not under the limitations that you work under.

(I am Porter)

Last edited by Hoosten; 13th Mar 2020 at 06:22.
Hoosten is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 06:05
  #471 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
George, Class E would have taken this IFR collision out of your Class G equation. You are descending into Class G in the same scenario already are you not?

The inevitable you are speaking of has just happened. Wishing for OCTA Aus to be not in the seat when it happens puts somebody else in the seat? It is outright horrible when these things happen in your sector, Controllers are just as let down by the airspace as pilots are.

(I am Porter)

Last edited by Hoosten; 13th Mar 2020 at 06:21.
Hoosten is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 06:14
  #472 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Hoosten View Post
OCTA Aus, you need to get yourself to the States, talk to pilots who use this airspace, listen on frequency to the controllers working this airspace, they are not under the limitations that you work under.
I will do my best when I go there later this year on my flying holiday. But regardless, even if I really do like it there is nothing I will be able to do to change it, the the effectiveness will be pretty limited. I will still be under the limitations I work under.
OCTA Aus is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 06:15
  #473 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
Captain Luddite,

Given that a road accident costs the community well over 1 million dollars per person. Given that the sectorisation, that is, the size of the sectors around Mangalore can already accomodate the implementation of Class E, there is already a one off 4 million cost to the community with zero benefit.

The costs of implementation are:
-Charts
-Controller Training
-Pilot Education
-HMI Upgrades

AND, staff the Groups the way they were meant to be. The sectors are already there.

I challenge you to tell the families of those killed that this country can't afford to implement solutions that would 100% prevented the MNG accident.

To my knowledge there has never been a mid air collision in controlled airspace in this country.

(I am Porter)

Last edited by Hoosten; 13th Mar 2020 at 08:38.
Hoosten is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 06:16
  #474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,335
The aircraft I flew through Avalon had a serviceable Garmin transponder Squawking 1200.

Capt. Bloggs, I’m sorry you feel disappointed by me.

I take issue with your statement that seems to me to encapsulate the whole problem of Australian aviation.

Finally, CASA has said enough is enough and it’s going to recommend ASA replace the E. On that point, have you written to the minister arguing that CASA should have the power to mandate airspace changes instead of just “recommending”? I didn’t think so.
Exactly what constitutes “enough”? This is the nub of the problem. CASA, ATSB and probably Airservices are deliberately NOT using risk management tools to arrive at ANY decisions regarding Australian aviation, therefore their decisions are capricious, personal, biased and flawed because they are not backed up by science.

This sort of shyte is what gives us the Angel Flight regulations, the AVMED colour vision saga, not adopting WAAS, temperature limits on aircraft use, the persecution of Dominic James and probably Glen Buckley and many others, possibly the Mangalore crash, possibly what are now Lockhart I and II and I don’t know how much more. Endless personal opinion, enshrined in costly, complex and ever increasing regulation.

I looked through the CASA airspace report in vain for the numbers of movements of light vs rpt aircraft and found nothing. No probabilities, no opportunity costs, no discounted cash flow. That makes the report so much hot air unless I missed something.

CASA doesn’t know “enough is enough” and neither do you or I because no one has tabulated the huge number of VFR movements through that airspace compared to rpt movements.

I am sick and tired of people shooting from the hip, repeating what their first instructor in the squadron or airline told them. Did you know we had a paranoid senior LAME at Ansett in my day? He was a lovely bloke and even happier when we made him chief inspector. Perfect for that role. However I get the impression that CASA is full of such people who “know best” and cannot be mollified by science and experiment, and worse, they get to write and enforce the regulations!

It is clear that you hold the view that jets and VFR should never mix. Is this, in your heart of hearts, based on logic and science? Class E seems to work in the USA. There is radar and ADSB coverage. Why cannot it work here? What is the science that prevents it working here? What risk mitigation that is available in the USA is not available here?

Or is this hatred of E airspace just visceral yank hating, ex Airforce, public service and airline snobbery? Failure to apply science and instead replace it with personal preference, would seem to suggest it is.

My own opinion is that you are right, there will be a mid air, but airspace will be only one factor, the others being overworked controllers, cost pressures on rpt pilots, insufficient use of ADSB, badly trained VFR pilots and a punitive regulatory environment and culture.

Last edited by Sunfish; 13th Mar 2020 at 06:27.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 06:20
  #475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
If you are interested, when you are in the States I can put you in touch with the 'cowboys' that fly this airspace, hell, I'll even grab a plane and we can shoot through some of this airspace. If you are converting your licence to foreign based I can organise the Flight Review to activate it.

PM me if interested.

(I am Porter)

Last edited by Hoosten; 13th Mar 2020 at 08:37.
Hoosten is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 06:39
  #476 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
I suggest that you have a think about why the “shambolic” situation at Avalon exists. I put it to you that it exists because the airspace fundamentalists forced the current arrangement on CASA.
The Avalon class E is ridiculous, but I doubt that anyone who understands class E would suggest that is an appropriate use of Class E. Avalon should probably be Class C or D. The only real reason for Class E as implemented at Avalon is that ATC too often deny clearances to VFR aircraft.

Some argue for Class E to replace Class C to allow access to VFR. This is the wrong reason. Instead ATC should routinely give VFR aircraft through Class C - and VFR pilots should be encouraged to use them (this should also reduce VCAs from people skirting the edge of CTA).

Class E is supposed to provide separation services to IFR aircraft. It should be replacing Class G, not Class C. Class E is designed to prevent the type of accident discussed in this thread.
andrewr is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 06:44
  #477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,020
Originally Posted by PorterHoosten
Doesn't matter that Captain Luddite has no clue how Class E is meant to work.
I know how it works, That's why I don't like it.

E D A yada yada yada. Call it what you like. If you're happy with jets mixing it in VMC E doing IFR Pickups and Dropdowns, throw in a VFR or two effectively NORDO, half of them yakking on Comm 2 on the CTAF trying to organise a landing sequence, all the while Seeing And Avoiding, be my guest. All I'll say is thank God for TCAS and the Big Sky Theory.

One of my compatriots flew in the US on RPT CRJs. He said almost every regional airport he went to had a tower.

Originally Posted by Sunfish
It is clear that you hold the view that jets and VFR should never mix.
Clean your glasses and read what I wrote in post 464.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 06:54
  #478 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 64
Posts: 335
”All I'll say is thank God for TCAS and the Big Sky Theory.“

Yup. That’s it in a nutshell.
George Glass is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 07:02
  #479 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,020
Originally Posted by AndrewR
Some argue for Class E to replace Class C to allow access to VFR. This is the wrong reason. Instead ATC should routinely give VFR aircraft through Class C - and VFR pilots should be encouraged to use them (this should also reduce VCAs from people skirting the edge of CTA).

Class E is supposed to provide separation services to IFR aircraft. It should be replacing Class G, not Class C. Class E is designed to prevent the type of accident discussed in this thread.
I think you will find that Dick Smith, the instigator of all this, would disagree. After all, if VFR aren't to be considered, just make the airspace Class C all over. As for "look, it's VMC, us IFRs don't need ATC, we'll just look out the window and avoid each other", I've addressed that already, a thousand times. It's nonsense. I can't, practically, lookout and "See and Avoid". It will be arranged vertical or horizontal segregation. Vision doesn't come into it because it doesn't work.

As you're tootling along in VMC as an IFR flight, are you really suggesting that the way you separate yourself (or would have ATC separate you) from other aeroplanes changes?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 08:33
  #480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,495
What service would have prevented this accident? No CTAF would be a good start, abbreviated circuit requirments...inbound, joining and base with intentions. on the way out lining up with intentions circuit departure followed by departure call to area controller. IFR in G is no different to what everybody had OCTA. So, before outbound made a lining up call they would have heard for the last ten minutes the interaction between area controller and inbound with inbound then broadcasting with intentions. If I was the inbound and heard the outbound calling lining up with intentions I would have called this by asking the guy to stay on the ground until I had become visual or over the aid which ever earliest. Outbound would have been delayed maybe five minutes at most. This was real IMC. call it training if you must but it is real IMC, the safety pilot aspect of the instructor becomes redundant.

AAA this is BBB 4500 10nm from the aid I am still IMC here for the VOR arrival what is your current vis conditions...BBB this AAA conditions look OC at 3500. AAA this is BBB can you hold till I am visual or over the aid.(..because this is what a tower would do anyway...)AAA, wilco.....OR....AAA lining up for Melbourne via VVVVV, AAA this is Melbourne, hold till BBB is visual or over the aid. BBB is reporting still IMC. AAA wilco

End of story, the world keeps turning and everyone enjoys a beer at the end of the day. Maybe the interactions between area and CTAF flipflop perfectly aligned with each individual call, one or both not monitoring the alt freq whilst broadcasting, outbound waiting to call area controller till airborne so not needing to get back on CTAF? who knows, end of the game was aluminium confetti. Everybody paid with their lives for what looks like a dumb procedure. JUST GET RID OF CTAF and remove the verbal diahorrea!
OZBUSDRIVER 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 © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.