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 2nd Jun 2020, 08:53
  #641 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Peninsula
Posts: 188
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.
So you’re suggesting SIDs and STARs for all of these airports? Great idea. Good luck with that.
For about the eighth time. If a procedural clearance can be given to the aircraft on the ground they wouldn't have been delayed.

mate, if you are going to make definitive statements about clearances you need to know what you're talking about, it's clear you don't.

You DON'T need Stars and SIDS to procedurally separate.

In class G they should’ve been given traffic but they werent.
For about the tenth time, the aircraft WERE GIVEN TRAFFIC IN CLASS G AIRSPACE. No, it wasn't done in a timely manner, this is a function of the limitation of this class of airspace.

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.
You will get that information, all of it. It's not a conspiracy and won't be hidden or redacted. You will have to wait 3 years, that's the way it goes. By that time the lessons of this will be conveniently forgotten.
Bodie1 is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2020, 09:25
  #642 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,158
Originally Posted by Bodie1 View Post
... You will get that information, all of it. ...


No we won’t. We’ll get the ATSB’s interpretation of the information.

We went through this with the ‘investigation’ of the ditching of NGA. The supposed ‘transcripts’ of transmissions contained what were either patent errors in the transcription or patent errors in the transmitted information, neither of which - in any event - were investigated and explained.

One wonders why the raw material is not published. (Actually, one no longer wonders...)

Lead Balloon is online now  
Old 3rd Jun 2020, 00:25
  #643 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Peninsula
Posts: 188
Lead, so the information came out eventually? My recall is not that good.
Bodie1 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2020, 00:29
  #644 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,158
Originally Posted by Bodie1 View Post
Lead, so the information came out eventually? My recall is not that good.
No it did not. At no point was any ‘raw’ recording ever published.
Lead Balloon is online now  
Old 3rd Jun 2020, 02:53
  #645 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,675
Bodie, I said they didn’t get traffic on the ground.
They got traffic on departure. 2 minutes before they collided.
This is pretty misleading. The ATSB report only says " At 1119, the air traffic controller passed traffic information to AEM about JQF departing from Mangalore. At 1122, JQF made a departure call from Mangalore, advising ATC of a planned climb to 7,000 ft. "
JQF had clearly made a taxy call on the area frequency - how else would the controller have known about the JQF being traffic for AEM???. The taxy call was made a 1111 or 13 minutes before the collision. It is highly likely that there was some mention to JQF about AEM in response to the taxy call, even if it was just mentioning that there was traffic with details to follow.

Both aircraft had filed IFR plans. Both were flying in accordance with their plans and or instructions by ATC. The filed plan of JQF and its climb to 7,000ft clearly put it in conflict with AEM's cruising level of 4,000 ft. Both aircraft has ADS-B transponders. AsA had returns from both aircraft's ADS-B transponders. The system had all the information it needed at predict that there was a conflict 13 minutes before the accident. Once the aircraft were airborne the ADS-B returns proved it, but the ATSB report gives no intimation that the ADS-B returns triggered any warning to the pilots.

The class G self separation of IFR aircraft debate is frankly bureaucratic masturbation. The aircraft were in IMC. See and be seen doesn't work outside the confines of air conditioned meeting rooms.

The problem with the preliminary report is that it does not give any radio transcripts. The report has cherry picked the information that it wanted to present. We don't know what was in the preceding calls. But its clear that there were preceding calls.

The ATSB has 2 credibility problems. The first is (as has been noted by others) the ATSB has a history of changing radio transcripts and secondly that it has a history of passing draft reports to AsA & CASA for comment before publishing the report AND making amendments requested by AsA & CASA.

Those of us who fly IFR have paid to install the mandatory ADS-B equipment to "improve safety" and we pay air navigation charges on a user-pays basis to have a controller oversee the flight. We do this to avoid exactly the situation of this accident.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2020, 07:51
  #646 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
If the “self separation “ was safe you would find other countries would copy us and save the so called extra cost of class E.

They don’t because it is a fail dangerous system.

And consider the cost of ADSB that is not used by ATC to separate aircraft in most low level airspace. What a waste of money.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2020, 09:17
  #647 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,250
Is it a fact that there is no beep back unit at Mangalore?

If so I would be prepared to fund one of these basic safety necessities.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2020, 09:54
  #648 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 144
I can only, with exasperation, say again that it all boils down to what the Minister considers to be a safe air traffic control system.
If the system is to be run as a cost recovery exercise, then it will never be As Safe As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). It will only be as safe as what money can be recovered from the users to fill Government coffers.
A national disgrace, but what other conclusion can be reached?

Dicks later post about his letter to the Airservice Board and article in the Australian, prove me correct.
The Board of Airservices, the Board of CASA and their CEOs simply do not care! Why becuase their boss does not care.

We can argue all we like in the columns of PPRuNe, it will not make one jot of difference.
Frankly I do not know what it takes to get a Government to take notice, for goodness sake let's close this interminable trail of argumentative emails.
Mr Approach is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2020, 12:01
  #649 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 453
From another report, where there were at least 3, possibly 5 aircraft trying to coordinate and fly the same approach in IMC:

In Class G airspace, pilots are responsible for separation from other airspace users and from terrain.

IFR aircraft in Class G airspace are provided with a traffic information service by an Airservices Australia (Airservices) air traffic controller (controller) about conflicting IFR and observed visual flight rules aircraft. The traffic information is based on pilot reports and, where coverage exists, air traffic service (ATS) surveillance data. The obligation to provide the traffic information ceases when the pilot reports changing to the CTAF.
...
The controller would not have been aware that the pilot was in instrument meteorological conditions, nor would the controller be aware of any position reports the pilot was making on the CTAF.
...
The provision of traffic information and alerts by controllers, however, are supplemental to the pilot’s responsibility to ensure separation from other airspace uses and terrain in Class G airspace.
andrewr is online now  
Old 3rd Jun 2020, 22:38
  #650 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
Those of us who fly IFR have paid to install the mandatory ADS-B equipment to "improve safety" and we pay air navigation charges on a user-pays basis to have a controller oversee the flight. We do this to avoid exactly the situation of this accident.
In the era of mandatory ADS-B, how many of you have installed ADS-B "IN" for traffic awareness?
MarcK is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 02:24
  #651 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,675
Australia does not support "ADS-B - in"
Old Akro is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 02:53
  #652 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Peninsula
Posts: 188
The timeframe of the traffic being delivered to the appropriate aircraft is moot. What's to say anything different would have happened had the aircraft had the traffic 10 minutes earlier? It's basically up to the pilots to arrange separation in this scenario. Why? Why should they be doing this? Class E would have had those aircraft positively separated. No prang.

This accident was caused by inappropriate airspace classification for the density of traffic.

Dick, I'm told that ASA haven't got a problem with being told to implement Class E, everywhere. That it's CASA getting in the way of it all.
Bodie1 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 03:06
  #653 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 241
Old Akro

No support is needed. You just need a receiver/display in the aircraft
Vag277 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 07:55
  #654 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,659
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
Australia does not support "ADS-B - in"
I've been doing this for the last 2+ years for $300.

Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 08:13
  #655 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 453
Easy to do on an iPad but not necessarily a good idea IFR.

Last week I was flying with my iPad and for a while it was showing my heading as 90 degrees different to what it actually was. I was VFR, so it was no problem, but I wonder whether it would cause situational awareness difficulties if it happened while IFR? Yes, pilots should be able to ignore the nice pictures and use the certified instruments, but it is very tempting to believe what the iPad is showing.
andrewr is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 08:52
  #656 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 162
And if we all had ADS-B in, what is the IFR-IFR separation standard that pilots would apply In Class G ?
Vref+5 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 08:58
  #657 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by Vref+5 View Post
And if we all had ADS-B in, what is the IFR-IFR separation standard that pilots would apply In Class G ?
If it looks too close, you just zoom in and make it bigger.
andrewr is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 10:20
  #658 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,158
Originally Posted by Mr Approach View Post
I can only, with exasperation, say again that it all boils down to what the Minister considers to be a safe air traffic control system.
If the system is to be run as a cost recovery exercise, then it will never be As Safe As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). It will only be as safe as what money can be recovered from the users to fill Government coffers.
A national disgrace, but what other conclusion can be reached?

Dicks later post about his letter to the Airservice Board and article in the Australian, prove me correct.
The Board of Airservices, the Board of CASA and their CEOs simply do not care! Why becuase their boss does not care.

We can argue all we like in the columns of PPRuNe, it will not make one jot of difference.
Frankly I do not know what it takes to get a Government to take notice, for goodness sake let's close this interminable trail of argumentative emails.
There is a common misconception that the Minister is the boss of the heads of independent statutory agencies like CASA and Airservices. One needs merely to read the legislation that establishes them to work out it’s not true.

The heads of these agencies are not supposed to care what the Minister thinks. That’s precisely the Parliament’s aim in setting up independent agencies. If the Minister has a strong opinion about some specific issue, the Minister can try to get the Parliament to change the legislation or get a binding general policy order made. There’s a bunch of flim flam about high-sounding plans and policies and other stuff, none of which overrides the specific regulatory powers and their exercise. (The airspace regulation legislation is a work of art that makes the Minister look important but, when you scratch the surface - by reading it - you realise it’s a facade.)

(In any event, successive Ministers ‘responsible’ for aviation regulation over the last couple of decades seem to me to have been little more than meat puppets. For a while there it looked like Barnaby Joyce had the temerity to think and decide stuff for himself, but the machine sorted him out. Senator Susan McDonald will be cured of her case of independent thought, too.)

The Parliament is the boss of the independent agencies. The Parliament makes and changes the laws that establish and fund the independent agencies and confer functions and powers on them.

The constituency of the Parliament is in my view the problem. The major party abdication of responsibility to the ‘professionals’ in the agencies is the problem. As I’ve said many times, while ever a majority of voters vote either for Labor or the Coalition, they both win. I’ll bet the majority of people who whinge about the state of aviation in Australia vote for either Labor or the Coalition. (As HL Mencken said: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”)

The solution is not another inquiry or commission. (And I note the pathetically small number of submissions made to the Senate inquiry into GA. There are more submission to the Senate inquiry into “the opportunities for strengthening Australia’s relations with the Republic of France”, FFS. It’s as if almost everyone in GA has no time on their hands at the moment to express a view, even if it is to provide glowing support for the efforts of CASA, ATSB and Airservices. Must be all that increased aviation activity out there.)

A smoking hole that used to be an RPT jet full of fare paying passengers flying in stone age G airspace will merely result in MORE power and MORE funding for the cabal of bureaucrats that have been in a symbiosis with major party governments for decades. That cabal is now effectively a mutual protection racket.

The solution lies in ending the duopoly. And the chances of that are somewhere between Buckley’s and none while ever people dedicate their finite energy to trying to change a meat puppet’s mind.
Lead Balloon is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 11:00
  #659 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,659
Originally Posted by Vref+5 View Post
And if we all had ADS-B in, what is the IFR-IFR separation standard that pilots would apply In Class G ?
At least you know they are there versus being totally blind. If you get no calls back and you see someone on there, you’ve got a fighting chance. It’s not something you have to watch like a hawk.

It doesn’t have to be on an iPad, there are other adsb-in options depending on your avionics stack. Are you likely to see those in your basic flying school IFR trainer though? Probably not.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2020, 12:37
  #660 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,201
An acquaintance lost their partner in an air accident. Their experience of CASA and the ATSB afterwards was less than stellar. The agencies fastened on a politically advantageous (or least damaging) interpretation of events and fitted their analysis to the desired outcome. You cannot trust a word they say.

A bit of advice: do not carry your logbook while flying, or carry it and send images and take images of your maintenance release before every flight and send them somewhere. Same with fuel dockets. That prevents ATSB from speculating about your flying and the state of the aircraft.
Sunfish 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.