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 1st Jun 2020, 02:43
  #621 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Oz
Posts: 36
Son you don't want cta. You want g airspace.
iron_jayeh is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2020, 03:39
  #622 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,160
Originally Posted by iron_jayeh View Post
Son you don't want cta. You want g airspace.
How is G any more Ďeffectiveí than controlled airspace in solving the problem of needing to listen for potentially-relevant information on multiple frequencies in a single radio aircraft?

I canít imagine why any IFR pilot would Ďwantí G airspace in preference to E (or D or C or B or A), but some apparently do.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2020, 05:14
  #623 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 236
With a single radio I have the same problem, if not worse problems, in G.
Stickshift3000 is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2020, 07:08
  #624 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,663
Originally Posted by Stickshift3000 View Post
However I often rent an aircraft fitted with only a single radio; it's not possible to hear all relevant broadcasts when switching between the CTAF, AWIS and Centre (and other) frequencies.
Easy fix, hire an aircraft with two radios!

Oh wait, you canít, because over 70% of the GA fleet in this country are pre 1975 models!

(well not really, but you get the point)
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2020, 08:54
  #625 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,078
it's not possible to hear all relevant broadcasts when switching between the CTAF, AWIS and Centre (and other) frequencies.
Ah, the Good Ole Days ..

Before CTAFs MTAFs MBZs etc, if you were in Class G (OCTA) it was only the relevant FIA frequency to be monitored and communicated on.


CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 01:24
  #626 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Peninsula
Posts: 188
I think a fairly big point is being missed here. If it is VMC you don't need to sit on the ground waiting for an approach to terminate. If it was VMC both the IFR aircraft can cancel IFR and continue their airwork while 30 hundred aircraft depart the aerodrome. It happens on CTAF's in VMC every day between IFR training aircraft. 'Are you happy if we separate visually?' 'Yep'

If you are at Caboolture you're not waiting for anyone, there's no approach there. If there's an IFR doing some sort of let down procedure to LSALT and you had to 'wait' then I'd suggest there's a bigger problem, like, maybe your eyes are painted on? It won't be Class E that forces you to 'wait'

How many days a year at these places are you weathered in, forcing you to wait on the ground until an approach becomes visual? Yet again, it shouldn't be Class E that delays your departure. It will be Class E that stops you welding your aircraft to another.
Bodie1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 02:22
  #627 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YMMM
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by Bodie1 View Post
I think a fairly big point is being missed here. If it is VMC you don't need to sit on the ground waiting for an approach to terminate. If it was VMC both the IFR aircraft can cancel IFR and continue their airwork while 30 hundred aircraft depart the aerodrome. It happens on CTAF's in VMC every day between IFR training aircraft. 'Are you happy if we separate visually?' 'Yep'

If you are at Caboolture you're not waiting for anyone, there's no approach there. If there's an IFR doing some sort of let down procedure to LSALT and you had to 'wait' then I'd suggest there's a bigger problem, like, maybe your eyes are painted on? It won't be Class E that forces you to 'wait'

How many days a year at these places are you weathered in, forcing you to wait on the ground until an approach becomes visual? Yet again, it shouldn't be Class E that delays your departure. It will be Class E that stops you welding your aircraft to another.
Why would you cancel IFR? Operating visually clear of terrain and traffic is a perfectly acceptable IFR procedure. Hell, you can even request a VFR climb through class E if you have VMC. No need to throw away your surveillance and SARwatch services.

The important thing thatís relevant to this accident and class E is that the Seminole would not have been given a clearance on the ground to depart if there was overlying class E. In class G they shouldíve been given traffic but they werenít.
Nomde plume is online now  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 04:03
  #628 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Peninsula
Posts: 188
Why would you cancel IFR? Operating visually clear of terrain and traffic is a perfectly acceptable IFR procedure. Hell, you can even request a VFR climb through class E if you have VMC. No need to throw away your surveillance and SARwatch services.
Don't cancel it, no problem. You can still operate in the way I laid out.

The important thing that’s relevant to this accident and class E is that the Seminole would not have been given a clearance on the ground to depart if there was overlying class E. In class G they should’ve been given traffic but they weren’t.
'would not' not necessarily. Depends if a procedural clearance could have been issued.

'but they weren't' oh yes they were given traffic. It's the timing of the traffic delivery and the airspace limitations that will be subject to a fair amount of scrutiny in the investigation. You'll just have to wait until 2023-ish to find out.
Bodie1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 04:38
  #629 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YMMM
Posts: 71
You canít depart IFR unless you are cleared to LSALT as a minimum. And you wonít get a clearance if that level is occupied.

Same thing in class G except that they didnít get the traffic on the ground, they got it on departure. At which point the option to stay on the ground was gone.

you canít depart in to IMC and then decide to level off below LSALT or MSA because of traffic. Do you see what Iím saying?
Nomde plume is online now  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 06:32
  #630 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Peninsula
Posts: 188
You canít depart IFR unless you are cleared to LSALT as a minimum. And you wonít get a clearance if that level is occupied.
You CAN depart if it's a procedural clearance which includes climb above LSALT.
Bodie1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 06:37
  #631 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Peninsula
Posts: 188
Same thing in class G except that they didnít get the traffic on the ground, they got it on departure. At which point the option to stay on the ground was gone.
So now you're saying they did get traffic? Changing your story? Or just refraining from manipulating the facts of what actually happened to suit your agenda?

you canít depart in to IMC and then decide to level off below LSALT or MSA because of traffic. Do you see what Iím saying?
Yes, as an IFR rated pilot I'm aware of that. Beside the fact none of what I've posted suggests that you do that.
Bodie1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 06:48
  #632 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
Bodie. That is outrageous if the final report takes until 2003 to come out.

There could be further deaths in that time.

The ATSB would have enough information now to issue an emergency advice.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 06:52
  #633 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 59
Posts: 329
Originally Posted by Bodie1 View Post
'but they weren't' oh yes they were given traffic. It's the timing of the traffic delivery and the airspace limitations that will be subject to a fair amount of scrutiny in the investigation. You'll just have to wait until 2023-ish to find out.

ATSB report will take a considerable time to prepare and release. What about the ASA report, has that been released?
sunnySA is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 06:53
  #634 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 59
Posts: 329
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Bodie. That is outrageous if the final report takes until 2003 to come out.

There could be further deaths in that time.

The ATSB would have enough information now to issue an emergency advice.
Dick, what would this advice say?
sunnySA is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 07:11
  #635 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YMMM
Posts: 71
Bodie, I said they didnít get traffic on the ground. I was talking about how if there was CTA they wouldíve been denied a clearance on the ground. Read it.

They got traffic on departure. 2 minutes before they collided. and they collided at what was essentially LSALT. So even if they got the traffic right after takeoff, they still had no opportunity to do anything. Thatís the issue here. Nothing to do with playing VFR and visually separating as you seemed to think that everyone was missing.

My story is exactly that from the preliminary report, I suggest you read it so that you know what everyone else here is talking about.

My only agenda Is uncovering why so much known information was omitted from the preliminary report.
Nomde plume is online now  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 07:44
  #636 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
Sunny. A recommendation that AsA look at providing a class E service to low level at the airport because of the density of IFR traffic.

If they can do it for every IFR approach in the USA you would think we could do it at least at the busy airports.


This is a warning of what could happen at Ballina.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 08:01
  #637 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Peninsula
Posts: 188
Nomde plume, no, you specifically said that traffic wasn't given. Not that traffic wasn't given on the ground. If that's what you meant how about you construct the sentence accordingly.

I'll say it again, they may NOT have been denied a clearance in Class E if a procedural clearance could have been issued.

I've read the preliminary report, it means 2 tenths of sweet **** all. It has NO information in it that you can construct a cause from. There's nothing to 'uncover' from a preliminary report. In fact I don't know why they're published, it serves no purpose.
Bodie1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 08:02
  #638 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Peninsula
Posts: 188
Dick, the Renmark accident accident took 3 years, so has every other major accident report. This won't be any different.

Ballina is not a question of if, it's a question of when.
Bodie1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 08:06
  #639 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Peninsula
Posts: 188
SunnySA, I don't know anything about ASA or their investigation process. Traffic was given.
Bodie1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 08:21
  #640 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YMMM
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by Bodie1 View Post
Nomde plume, no, you specifically said that traffic wasn't given. Not that traffic wasn't given on the ground. If that's what you meant how about you construct the sentence accordingly.
The important thing that’s relevant to this accident and class E is that the Seminole would not have been given a clearance on the ground to depart if there was overlying class E. In class G they should’ve been given traffic but they werent.

Paragraphs: for when you have something to say that fits in two or more sentences. Not sure why youíre fighting that battle mate. No one is arguing they never got traffic. Look at my posts earlier in the thread, I said the exact same thing.

Originally Posted by Bodie1 View Post
I'll say it again, they may NOT have been denied a clearance in Class E if a procedural clearance could have been issued.
So youíre suggesting SIDs and STARs for all of these airports? Great idea. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Bodie1 View Post
I've read the preliminary report, it means 2 tenths of sweet **** all. It has NO information in it that you can construct a cause from. There's nothing to 'uncover' from a preliminary report. In fact I don't know why they're published, it serves no purpose.
You can construct that JQF was first given traffic info no more than 2 minutes before the two aircraft collided. It explicitly states that.

What I want to know is exactly what was said, and where were the two aircraft relative to each other when the calls were made. It would be very easy to construct by comparing the radar data vs ATC tapes.
Nomde plume is online now  

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.