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 19th Feb 2020, 08:13
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
I'm suggesting that a call on area frequency requesting IFR traffic and requesting an airways clearance for an instrument approach to Essendon less than 20 min flying time away would be common practice. Are you really suggesting that its not prudent?? With an Instructor onboard??? With area frequency available on the ground?? When you are taking off expecting IMC???
Yes we are suggesting this is not prudent. 20 minutes is a long way from the CTA boundary. The correct IFR procedure would be to give the taxi call with the information required in the AIP (callsign, aircraft type, IFR, POB, dep, dest, runway). At this point you will be given a squawk code and a traffic statement. Then the next call required would be your departure call. ATC is not required to give you an airways clearance any earlier than 10 miles prior to entry. In fact I would suggest that you are wasting time requesting an airways clearance on the ground as the CTA probably doesn’t even belong to that controller and they can’t issue you a clearance. Multiple people have told you you are wrong already...
OCTA Aus is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 08:18
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1
The dew point spread for YMNG at 10:30 am indicates that 4100 AMSL would have been in cloud. Based on both their ADSB data ( FR24) AEM was on descent from 6000’ tracking for overhead the the MNG VOR to commence the VOR RNWY 23 approach. JQF flight plan YMNG-Lacey requires intercepting an outbound track of 148 within 5 NM. With impact being at approx 4 NM bearing 163, an ADSB ground track of 113 prior to impact indicates JQF was climbing at 600’/min to climb to above 3900 MSA AND intercept 148 outbound before 5 NM.
This seems to indicate both aircraft were following standard IFR procedures at non controlled Aerodromes OCTA. This leaves AIP ENR1.1-67 para 10.1.1 and 10.1.4 which essentially states self separation on the CTAF which requires significant 3-D situational awareness even with ADSB-In &Out in aircraft without any form of TAWS ( traffic awareness system ).
Tragic.
RIP.

Last edited by RealityMod; 19th Feb 2020 at 09:17.
RealityMod is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 08:23
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,063
There’s your problem, OA: You’re asking for a service that suits your operational requirements. The ‘s’ in Airservices and ANSP is silent.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 08:35
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
There’s your problem, OA: You’re asking for a service that suits your operational requirements. The ‘s’ in Airservices and ANSP is silent.
I would not disagree with your point that ASA needs to be more service orientated, particularly for GA aircraft. This is a leadership issue both in government and within the organisation senior management. However on this occasion OA seems to be making up his own procedures for no real benefit. However this may also be a misunderstanding between him and I regarding terminology. MANY people don’t understand that in class g you are operating IFR, but you dont have an airways clearance. So as soon as you give the taxi call you are operating IFR, there is no need to request the airways clearance. This should be given automatically prior to entering controlled airspace.
OCTA Aus is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 08:56
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: In the doghouse
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
Which bit?
AEM was not on its flightplanned route - correct. Look at Flight Aware. It looks like ATC did its normal trick of routing IFR traffic around Melbourne above the Visual Route. Typically they will keep you on vectors until the a/c exits the control step then do the "resume own navigation" trick.
AEM descended from 6000 ft about co-incident with the 145.7 / 122.4 boundary. How many times have you (as an IFR pilot?) have requested a descent only to have the response to ask the next controller? My guess is that traffic for descent was requested and responded on the same frequency as JQM. We'll soon know.
AEM descended to 4,000 ft which would be the rational selection for a direct entry to the VOR approach. Why would you go 20nm further and deal with more traffic to do an RNAV at MNG compared with YLTV??

JQM had an IFR plan filed for YMEN - look at flight aware - its there. Lacey / Colds / Monty is the setup for the RWY 27 RNAV or ILS. They are IFR waypoints. That points to an IFR plan.
I'm suggesting that a call on area frequency requesting IFR traffic and requesting an airways clearance for an instrument approach to Essendon less than 20 min flying time away would be common practice. Are you really suggesting that its not prudent?? With an Instructor onboard??? With area frequency available on the ground?? When you are taking off expecting IMC???
AKRO - a couple of points.

You never get a clearance out of MNG with your IFR taxi call - just your code and traffic. Yes they would have been given as traffic to each other. (Don’t get me started about asking for ‘code and traffic’ with an IFR call.. sure , even though ATC do this all day everyday, they somehow don’t know what you need to go flying !!) it is not procedure to get your cta clearance on the ground at MNG or any other class G CTAF unless you are taking off straight into CTA (that little joint near Avalon for example- can’t recall its name.) even if your plan is straight into the flight levels, you will generally start with centre (no clearance ) and then be passed to someone that gives you the clearance.

next - who cares where AEM was tracking - they were within their rights to request traffic to wherever they wanted.. and ATC would have told them what was there - JQF may not have been identified until very late in the piece and the Swiss cheese holes lined up.. You are right to say they would have been vectored in CTA but after that who knows, but they were not being vectored at the point the accident occurred - maybe they decided to go to SHT first or another waypoint?

next the separation issue, and this is really up to the pilots and ATC to give extra traffic or proximity warnings but again only if both aircraft were identified at the time . Did they make contact with each other, did they give clear concise and accurate calls about their alt and position etc etc. both these aircraft knew the area well, and I’m going to assume that their PICs did too. This will be the crux of the investigation I assume?

perhaps someone more current with the area can remind me of when you get identified out there but from memory it wasn’t til 3500 or so?
Homesick-Angel is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 09:32
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Going home
Posts: 289
Originally Posted by logansi View Post
JQF had an IFR flight plan

DCT LACEY COLDS MONTY YMEN ML MNG/N0135A070 SHT/N0135A030 MNG
That's a well trodden flight plan route for anyone who's done any IFR training in the Melbourne area. It looks like JQF was planning a practice RWY 26 ILS at YMEN with a missed approach back to Mangalore and then Shepparton. Departing Mangalore at A070, you normally don't request an airways clearance until approaching LACEY as ATC needs to coordinate traffic with arrivals in to YMML's RWY 27. At 7000 ft, you enter CTA on the LACEY to COLDS leg of your flight plan route.
VH DSJ is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 10:03
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Flightradar shows JQF only receiving a discrete squak code once passing through 3,900ft and less than a minute prior to loss of ADSB transmission.





mmm345 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 10:20
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,671
There’s your problem, OA: You’re asking for a service that suits your operational requirements.
I want the service we PAY for. Both in AsA fees and in the cost of implementing ADS-B
Old Akro is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 11:47
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin and PNG
Posts: 970
Accident only occurred about 12 hours ago and all the armchair experts are at it again! PPRuNe SMEs in action again!

Let the ATSB and the appropriate people investigate before making assumptions people.....

Duck Pilot is online now  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 12:09
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by Duck Pilot View Post
Accident only occurred about 12 hours ago and all the armchair experts are at it again! PPRuNe SMEs in action again!

Let the ATSB and the appropriate people investigate before making assumptions people.....

yes 12 hours ago BUT these guys posts above are just telling us how it is in the IFR OCTA World we live in. They’ve operated in that very area and are describing the procedures required to stay safe and offering experienced possibilities of how the Swiss cheese holes lined up. They know what they are taking about..,,,

A truly sad day.
ACMS is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 12:33
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 347
“They know what they are taking about..,,,”

Then they should contact ATSB, and the coroner, and make themselves available for giving expert evidence at the inquest.
tio540 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 12:36
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Duck Pilot View Post
Accident only occurred about 12 hours ago and all the armchair experts are at it again! PPRuNe SMEs in action again!

Let the ATSB and the appropriate people investigate before making assumptions people.....
Given the recent track record for the ATSB there is a good reason most of the people on here are sceptical of their ability to conduct an effective, unbiased investigation.
OCTA Aus is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 13:12
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,216
Then they should contact ATSB, and the coroner, and make themselves available for giving expert evidence at the inquest
Accidents always give cause for speculation. Discussion about possibilities is always educational, if you have issues with that don't read the threads.
megan is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 14:50
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Everyone here is no doubt well intended and in their own way seeking clarity in trying to understand the circumstances that lead to this tragic event. But pethaps all respect each others views and not indulge the attacks on each other or the system until more facts are clearly identified. Many are affected and mourning and as an industry we are also mourning the sad loss of our colleagues.
Breedapart is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 17:35
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Houston
Posts: 185
Accident only occurred about 12 hours ago and all the armchair experts are at it again! PPRuNe SMEs in action again!

Let the ATSB and the appropriate people investigate before making assumptions people.....
What? Wait 2 to 3 years for a report? By then it will be consigned to the back of your memory, any lessons or enhancements that could be made to a 'service' will be long forgotten. Convenient for the 'service provider.'

OPINION: The ANSP does not make a whole lot of money out of these flights, they don't care about these flights, they are a necessary hindrance in the ATC system. The ATC system in Australia is a 'profit making' machine. GA IFR is like a small job for a tradie, unblocking a drain for a plumber, installing a powerpoint for a sparkie. They're a pain in the arse. They want the big jobs. Same as ASA, GA IFR is a pain in the arse, ASA want the big jobs, QF, Virgin and the internationals.

I'll preface what I post with a couple of facts, I know for a fact that there are current and ex ATC's that post on this bulletin board. It's also a fact that some of these ATC's actually control this particular airspace.

FACT:

- If you request an airways clearance on the ground at MNG......you will NOT receive an airways clearance with the ATC's initial reply. You will receive a traffic statement and a discrete squawk code. This traffic statement will include known VFR traffic and any observed VFR traffic on the HMI. It is a waste of time asking for an 'airways clearance' on the taxy call.
- You will NEVER EVER be 'radar vectored' outside CTA or OCTA as it is termed. NEVER, not in a hundred years. So putting this into the accident mix is also a waste of time.

OPINION:

- This accident would not have happened had the appropriate class of airspace been used for this area. Class E.
- You wont, as airspace users, in your country, get the class of airspace required in that area, taking into account the traffic densities, because your ANSP will not get the return on the facilities and investment required. i.e. they don't want the little jobs, they can't charge you the 'real' cost of providing this service.

There is the human side to this, 4 families at minimum have lost members. The human side of this can't be calculated, lose a family member, you don't just say 'oh well, just an accident, carry on folks'

What is the cost when there are perfectly acceptable remedies that give these operations a chance? But they wont be implemented because of cost. And it's perhaps a very acceptable cost in the industry and publics eyes, but not to the ANSP, because they are a profit making machine.

Meanwhile, wait for 3 years for a report from a hopelessly underfunded and under resourced investigator. The coroner wont come to the conclusion that Class E would have prevented this, 3 years down the track, memories have faded and you're just waiting for the next avoidable accident.
Hoosten is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 18:58
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 347
Originally Posted by megan View Post
Accidents always give cause for speculation. Discussion about possibilities is always educational, if you have issues with that don't read the threads.
Discussion publically about possibilities, prior to any formal investigation, with a colonial inquest pending, is called subjudice, and also professional ignorance.

This has no place on a professional forum.




tio540 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 19:19
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 305
"This has no place on a professional forum".

Since when was PPRuNe a "Professional' forum?
Falling Leaf is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 19:22
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,063
Originally Posted by OCTA Aus View Post
Given the recent track record for the ATSB there is a good reason most of the people on here are sceptical of their ability to conduct an effective, unbiased and timely investigation.
Fixed it for you.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 19:29
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,011
Condolences to the families and also my thoughts are with the front line folk at AsA.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2020, 20:32
  #60 (permalink)  
ZAZ
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Victoria
Posts: 81
I just read the daiky rag two full pages, pilots names and descriptions of who they are.
My son called from army base, one of planes fell into their patch.
This is a trauma, affects us all in some way.
For me have been rethinking my ifr renewal due and usually at SHT MNG with local cfi.
Never liked the environment, helos, ctafs everywhere,
BUT these two IFR flights even in the arruval and departure phase should have been safer.
4000 feet is up in the cloud base I suspect student would be managing his tasks and on the panel not looking outside.
5 miles you have departed ctaf on climb in safety expecting inbound traffic notification intercepting outbound radial.
The FR track of the inbound aircraft seems straight north 358-000 into path of the aircraft climbing out in left turn.
HM times have we all done departures exactly like that?

Thats like a 18 VOR MTG left turn track out to Wendy.
But inbound RPTs talk to you when you are doing that in training, REX get you 50 miles out from centre.
So the question is regardless of the senaca getting a discrete code and would be ifr code 2000 seen by Centre the moment it is turned on, why no alert?
The inbound plane either cleared or otherwise would have notified left 6000 on descent and the collision rusk should have flagged.
I have done approaches IF a thousand times, and reading all the conversations here and in paper, this is very concerning even alarming.
This is the classic approach into MTG WG GTH MIA.
And last time I flew anywhere we ALWAYS call inbound, airborne outbound as per AIP.
Situational awareness preached by CASA for years at seminars.





ZAZ 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.