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, 08:34
  #481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
Class E at Avalon was a political load of crap, it was implemented to appease certain people.

As I said the controllers do a remarkable job given what has been thrown at them. But the point remains that it is not Class E in reality, it has been modified and Australianised (in other words, effed up).

Put E where it will significantly improve and enhance safety, YMNG.

If Class E is not justified at YMAV, re-classify it, easy.

(I am Porter)

Last edited by Hoosten; 13th Mar 2020 at 12:06.
Hoosten is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 08:51
  #482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
What service would have prevented this accident?
E Base 1200 would have prevented it. Australian ATC, despite the morons running the place, have never put 2 together.

(I am Porter)
Hoosten is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 12:12
  #483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
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.
Captain Luddite,

How about posting an example of the letter you'd write to the families of the 4 people killed telling them that Australia can't afford Class E.

And how would you explain that the 4 million lost to the community was wasted and could have been spent providing probably 6 years of Class E in the sectors concerned?

Shit, forgot,

(I am Porter)
Hoosten is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 12:57
  #484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,020
WTF? Get a life, Hoosten you troll.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 13:43
  #485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
You can't take it can you? You can dish the trash out but when it comes to answering the hard stuff. You wilt. We have a name for people like you.

(I am Porter)

I'm not really, but whatever rocks your boat.
Hoosten is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 13:57
  #486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
Run along Captain L,

Report to moderator.

My job here is done. People are now discussing Class E and a modern airspace system. Most of them get it, you? Keep livin' in the dark ages old son.

You are unable to discuss any points, it's your way or the highway.

Tootle Pip

(I am Leadsled)
Hoosten is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 21:49
  #487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,202
I thought you were Lead Balloon. In any event...
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.
Yet...

That’s precisely what happens every day in Australian G. HCRPT in and out of aerodromes with no tower, while yakking on the CTAF and seeing and avoiding.

The response of some on this thread to the MNG tragedy seems in effect to be: We must retain G!
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.
Difficult to know where to start with all that.

There is evidence about the risk of operations in Class E. Millions of cubic kilometres of it and millions of movements through it over many decades. Yes: there have been mid airs in it, just as there will eventually be a mid air in Australian C.

Most pilots I know understand how E is supposed to work. And it works as it is supposed to work in almost all of the places in Australia where it’s been designated. The Avalon dog’s breakfast is a tiny percentage of E in Australia and is the product of a combination of factors some of which have nothing to do with objective risk and cost effective risk mitigation.

Resistance to Class E from CASA and ASA? Errrrmmm...they are the only organisations which have had the power to designate airspace for the last few decades! First Airservices, now CASA.

If CASA and ASA don’t like E, why did they designate it? It wasn’t the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster that designated it.

If CASA and ASA don’t like the E at Avalon, why is it still there? Why all this pussy-footing around? Wouldn’t Airservices have already “recommended” to CASA that CASA do its job, and wouldn’t CASA have been happy to “act” on that “recommendation”?


A suggestion as to what’s going on, if I may: There are differences of opinion within Airservices about the risks of Class E airspace. There are differences of opinion within CASA about the risks of Class E airspace. There are differences of opinion within the pilot population about the risks of Class E airspace. In a sensible and coherent airspace designation system, those opinions would be disregarded in favour of what happens in the real world: There would be assessments of objective risks and the costs of the available mitigations of those risks. There would be data. Numbers. $$$ figures. But as Sunfish pointed out, there is nothing like that in the review of the Avalon airspace. Instead: waffle, and the bizarre spectacle of the regulator (CASA OAR) in effect recommending to the regulated (Airservices) that the regulated make a recommendation to the regulator. I suggest that when this kind of bizarre behavior occurs, there’s more at play than just “the safety of air navigation”. Much more.

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 14th Mar 2020 at 05:54. Reason: Corrected a couple of grammatical errors
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 22:59
  #488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,020
and seeing and avoiding.
No. After all this time, you still don't get it.

What defences are there in place to prevent a midair between a VFR and an IFR in E?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 23:41
  #489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
What defences
are there in place to prevent a midair between a VFR and an IFR in E?
The same defences you have in your beloved Class G, EXCEPT.......You are being positively separated with other IFR.

If you hit a VFR who happens to be in IMC (as I know one PPRuNe VFR regular who likes to boast that his home made panel is fine in IMC) then what can you do about a criminal and deliberate negligent act (VFR flying in IMC)?

Balloon, Class E at Avalon was implemented to appease and shut one particular person up.

Last edited by Hoosten; 14th Mar 2020 at 08:43.
Hoosten is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2020, 23:55
  #490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Hoosten View Post

The same defences you have in your beloved Class G, EXCEPT.......You are being positively separated with other IFR.

If you hit a VFR who happens to be in IMC (as I know one PPRuNe VFR regular who likes to boast that his home made panel is fine in IMC) then what can you do about a criminal and deliberate negligent act (VFR flying in IMC)?

Balloon, Class E at Avalon was implemented to appease and shut one particular person up.

But surely a regulator with any integrity wouldn’t designate airspace just to shut one person up? Surely.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2020, 00:06
  #491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,020
Originally Posted by Hooson
The same defences you have in your beloved Class G, EXCEPT.......You are being positively separated with other IFR.
You obviously don't know how G works then. I talk to VFRs in G, they talk to me, and we avoid each other. That doesn't happen in E.

If you hit a VFR who happens to be in IMC (as I know one PPRuNe VFR regular who likes to boast that his home made panel is fine in IMC) then what can you do about a criminal and deliberate negligent act (VFR flying in IMC)?
No relevance to the discussion. Have you reported said person to CASA?

Originally Posted by Balun
But surely a regulator with any integrity wouldn’t designate airspace just to shut one person up? Surely
You never did like taking orders, did you Balon?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2020, 05:31
  #492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,399
My job here is done
I hope you turn your attention to the under resourced and under funded FAA, particularly aircraft certification, I guess they'll remain in the state they are as you wouldn't want to pay more tax.
How about posting an example of the letter you'd write to the families of the 4 people killed telling them that Australia can't afford Class E.
How about you post an example of the letter you'd write to the 346 folks killed in the MAX's because you can't afford adequate oversight of the manufacturer.

Last edited by megan; 14th Mar 2020 at 07:17.
megan is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2020, 06:04
  #493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,202
The 346 folks killed in the MAX's were killed by a corner-cutting aircraft manufacturer and the failure of the regulator to detect the corner-cutting. I'm not sure what that has to do with the causes of the tragedy at MNG.

Cap'n: When you talk to those VFRs in G and they talk to you, how do know they are the only VFRs in G and how do you know they are where they think and say they are? (I've never had any problem complying with the lawful commands of my superiors and the directions of ATC. What point you're trying to make is too cryptic for me.)
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2020, 06:38
  #494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,020
When you talk to those VFRs in G and they talk to you,
I don't, Balloon. It beggars belief that you'd ask such a question. Surely you already know the answer.

how do you know they are where they think and say they are?
Pretty easy; ask them twice, find out what they are going to do, ask them their distance, that's always correct from their ipad. It will become obvious where they are.

Plenty of other unknown in the system, like TCAS RAs because of controller and pilot stuffups, runway incursions and so the list goes on.

If you're so worried (although I suspect you are only asking because you have nothing better to do than annoy me) about all the potential failings of the system, put in Class A with ADS-B for VFR everywhere. Dick introduced User Pays (unlike hte USA) so it won't come out of my pocket...

I don't see an ILS being put into Lockhart River anytime soon. I wonder why...

The fact is, the current system is set up so that if the participants do the right thing, it'll work. There are defences (not including Se and Avoid). My point is that E has NO defences for VFR verses IFR. We would be knowingly introducing a system in which unalerted See and Avoid is the only defence.

I've never had any problem complying with the lawful commands of my superiors
And neither do the lads in the OAR. Get real and stop beating up on the troops. Do you seriously think they just created that Avalon E for hits and giggles??
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2020, 06:57
  #495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,202
Ahhh Cap'n, there you go mistaking administrative decision-makers for members of the military. The "lads in the OAR" who designate airspace are delegates of the power to do so, and are supposed to exercise those powers independently. The law says that an administrative decision made by a delegate under the dictation of someone else is an unlawful decision. If they don't understand this, they shouldn't be in the job. If they understand this but nonetheless capitulate, they are cowards or corrupt or both.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2020, 08:42
  #496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
You obviously don't know how G works then. I talk to VFRs in G, they talk to me, and we avoid each other. That doesn't happen in E.
Oh, I know how G works, I've spent plenty of time flying in it. Uhhhm, what prevents you from talking to a VFR in E? You obviously don't know how E works.
Hoosten is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2020, 08:58
  #497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
megan, regarding the MAX, I'm sure the lawyers involved from all party's will get the letter composition right. And I'm also sure that the regulator or Boeing won't get too many opportunities to go down that path again. That's what happens most of the time in the US.

In the case of MNG, what opportunity will there be to lawyer up? NONE, because the profit making ANSP was acting within its purview. The OAR will also sit there fat dumb and happy, nothing to see here. And CASA will simply say it was an accident.

Your talk about under resourcing, there is none when a profit is being made. Except when the resourcing is sacrificed for a return to government.

Well done you mate for your thoughtful reply that doesn't take away from the fact, your airspace is hopelessly inadequate in a number of high traffic areas.

Didn't you know

(I am Porter)

except when

(I am Leadsled)

Tootle Pip
Hoosten is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2020, 09:01
  #498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 175
But surely a regulator with any integrity wouldn’t designate airspace just to shut one person up? Surely.
Of course not, politics doesn't come into airspace management, only safety.
Hoosten is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2020, 12:11
  #499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
I will ask again.

What is the lowest level of Airservices surveillance coverage at Mangalore ?

Surely pilots who fly there regularly must have an idea.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2020, 12:20
  #500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
Most importantly it appears they don’t even have a beep back unit or a Unicom which would confirm that CTAF calls were on the correct frequency.
Dick Smith 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.