Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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???
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
There’s your problem, OA: You’re asking for a service that suits your operational requirements. The ‘s’ in Airservices and ANSP is silent.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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???
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???
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?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
There’s your problem, OA: You’re asking for a service that suits your operational requirements.
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.....
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.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then they should contact ATSB, and the coroner, and make themselves available for giving expert evidence at the inquest
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.....
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has no place on a professional forum.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Victoria
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.