Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down
Iron, I don't and wouldn't ignore you because you exist in RAAus world. You're part of an airspace system. You have as much right as anybody to access airspace. A good airspace system acommodates all users. It provides appropriate protection for the density of traffic at any location.
Appropriate.
Sorry mate, but I won't back away from solutions that have been proven to work around the world in situations such as this. Get together a forum at any aeroclub in Australia and I'll meet you there and run you and your mates through it. I'll guarantee you that the other protagonists on this mighty forum won't. I'll bet you pounds to peanuts that when push comes to shove none of them will turn up.
You organise it, I'll be there, (you'll have to give me notice, I'm O/S).
Appropriate.
Sorry mate, but I won't back away from solutions that have been proven to work around the world in situations such as this. Get together a forum at any aeroclub in Australia and I'll meet you there and run you and your mates through it. I'll guarantee you that the other protagonists on this mighty forum won't. I'll bet you pounds to peanuts that when push comes to shove none of them will turn up.
You organise it, I'll be there, (you'll have to give me notice, I'm O/S).
Mutual traffic was given and acknowledged by both aircraft.
ATC met all of their responsibility regarding the class of traffic the aircraft were operating in. Not an ATC bash, far from it (well apart from the SME, that doesn't want to be an SME, that is passively being an SME)
This accident would not have happened, had the appropriate class of airspace been in place given the traffic density, given an ANSP that could staff the console, given an airspace regulator that had the gumtion to implement it.
I apologise to the precious petals that 'can't handle the truth'
Is that the offical opinion of ASA and do you represent them?
If so I think you will find that the U.S. has a requirement for the authority for such areas to have radar surveillance coverage so they can knock it off in the event of seeing a transit
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused - is this Hoosten of Houston or The name is Porter of Santa Barbara by another name (forget the rest by Shakespeare) ...
They write the same -
Mooney accident pilot refused a clearance at 6,500'
They write the same -
Mooney accident pilot refused a clearance at 6,500'
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused - is this Hoosten of Houston or The name is Porter of Santa Barbara by another name (forget the rest by Shakespeare) ...
They write the same -
Mooney accident pilot refused a clearance at 6,500'
They write the same -
Mooney accident pilot refused a clearance at 6,500'
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, apart form a slur that I apologised for, so sorry, I did lose a a very good friend in this accident, and 3 others lost their lives and the best you lot can come up with is 'nobody wants to pay for it'
Four dead, and more to come. But nobody wants to pay for it, until it's one of yours of course.
You, Sirs, the pair of you, are appologists for the 'lucky country' a 3rd world infrastructure country riding on the back of a resources boom. Without these resources you'd be wallowing in a recession. Keep kidding yourselves that you're 'the best'
You are incapable of analysis, clearly. You are incapable of research, clearly.
Four dead, and more to come. But nobody wants to pay for it, until it's one of yours of course.
You, Sirs, the pair of you, are appologists for the 'lucky country' a 3rd world infrastructure country riding on the back of a resources boom. Without these resources you'd be wallowing in a recession. Keep kidding yourselves that you're 'the best'
You are incapable of analysis, clearly. You are incapable of research, clearly.
As for my research, I have a significant amount of experience both as a pilot and as an ATC. By significant I mean enough to be able to comment in an educated way on matters related to the subject at hand. I am not an SME. If you want an SME to chat to go find GT.
I don't even in principle disagree with some of what you have to say. I believe there is room for substantial improvement in Australian airspace. However what you consider to be an improvement others may not agree. There are many other airspace users in Australia who all get consulted on any proposed changes, and a significant portion of the industry does not like the idea of class E airspace in the way you have suggested. Some of this is a lack of education on how Class E airspace works, some of this is because of a bias against Class E that was formed from a poor initial introduction of class E initially. And then frankly some of it is just competing agendas.
You stated that the class of airspace should be appropriate to the traffic volume. I think many people on here would agree that from an IFR aircraft perspective Mangalore is not what would be considered a busy aerodrome, sure it may have the occasional busy period but overall its not a particularly busy aerodrome and has a fairly similar traffic mix. There are many aerodromes I would have considered this likely before Mangalore where the traffic variety is huge with everything from hang gliders up to multiple RPT jets. They are the aerodromes I would have put class E airspace down to 1200ft at.
It really isn't your ideas to changing the airspace I have had objections with, its how you have treated people in here. You have attacked the controllers and that is out of line, I guarantee there is not a single controller in this country who does not give their absolute best for every aircraft in their airspace. I am yet to see an Australian ATC who claims to be the best in the world, however from my observations of ATC's who go to other countries they are absolutely capable. Just because they don't necessarily agree with you, the personal attacks aren't necessary. Given that I have not been innocent of attacks towards you in that respect I get that it kind of becomes a cycle of personal attacks, but its counter productive. I have no issue discussing things with you either on here or by PM, I ask that you do it in a respectful way though. I will give you the same in return.
As for the cost, regardless of what you say, there is a cost to making airspace changes. The resources to make changes are there, but they aren't endless. Keep in mind we are a country of 25 million trying to provide infrastructure to the same area you have 350 million people to pay for. It is important to use the resources where they will have the most benefit. You and I may disagree on where that is. The changes are there, they are happening, but its not going to happen overnight. And I am not sure it will match what you want. Outside of any potential cost issues, there is significant resistance from other sectors of the industry, a regulator who doesn't change anything quickly, and a general public who aren't pilots, and who as long as 737s aren't crashing into each other don't really care about airspace change. If you are interested in any of the airspace changes coming here is the link: Airspace Modernisation | Airservices
As for my research, I have a significant amount of experience both as a pilot and as an ATC. By significant I mean enough to be able to comment in an educated way on matters related to the subject at hand. I am not an SME. If you want an SME to chat to go find GT.
You might be surprised at my work history, my aviation experience and qualifications. It far outstrips anyone on here. If any of you can't bear the thought of that, seriously, I do not care. I'm also not a snowflake, go your hardest at me, I don't walk around all day downtrodden upset that people may not respect me, like me or for that matter agree or disagree. I have long moved past that, probably 30 years ago.
I won't appologise to anyone for posting when emotional about a topic, particularly this one. If it offends your sensibilities, that's too bad. If you note my post history, I give respect where I deem it belongs. I will not give it to someone, I feel, doesn't warrant it. I also do not care if any of you do not respect me. I'm from a generation that grew up a little differently and don't need a government telling other people how they should treat me.
Now if you really want to get down into the weeds, I apologised for my comments about a certain person I made on this forum. If you want to know, I have had face to face discussions with this person in the past, I have told him to his face what I think of his disgusting comments on a non aviation subject. I have said, I will always say to a persons face what I say on a forum. NO, I SHOULDN'T HAVE LET MY EMOTIONS GET THE BETTER OF ME WHEN I MADE THAT COMMENT (Not yelling but I do feel the need to emphasise that I apologise for that lapse in judgement)
If you want me to simplify my comments on Australian ATC:
The controller at the console does the job with the equipment, facilities and airspace that's placed in front of them. No beef with them, no problem.
ASA, however is where the systemic issues lay. Some rudimentary research suggests the best things ASA are good at are sexual discrimination and bullying and harrassment.
The controller at the console does the job with the equipment, facilities and airspace that's placed in front of them. No beef with them, no problem.
ASA, however is where the systemic issues lay. Some rudimentary research suggests the best things ASA are good at are sexual discrimination and bullying and harrassment.
Hoosten
To establish your credibility in this matter, it would be useful if you provided a summary of your experience and qualifications and, in particular, the basis for your understanding of and familiarity with the legislation establishing CASA and Airservices and the specific responsibilities placed on those organisations and the Australian Government requirements for cost recovery in the aviation world.
To establish your credibility in this matter, it would be useful if you provided a summary of your experience and qualifications and, in particular, the basis for your understanding of and familiarity with the legislation establishing CASA and Airservices and the specific responsibilities placed on those organisations and the Australian Government requirements for cost recovery in the aviation world.
You might be surprised at my work history, my aviation experience and qualifications. It far outstrips anyone on here
Look at the result, the possible causes and the desired outcome. Two aircraft collide in possible IMC whilst conducting IFR training. Both aircraft are OCTA, class G in the vicinity of a CTAF. It would appear that both are on area frequency and communicating with ATC. One aircraft has maintained an altitude for the previous 30 seconds which indicates a separation standard was in progress. Without blame, what would have resulted in the best outcome of four good people still being with us today? Both pilots given and maintain an altitude till verified passage? Both pilots receiving positive vectoring? One or both pilots having , at least, an operational real time ADS-B Rx unit (certified or not)? Or, one pilot held on the ground till the incoming aircraft is visual? Class G obviously only works in VMC.
IFR pays for a service in Class E and above. Could this be amended to allow a service, even in Class G, if there is reliable spacial traffic information? THE desired outcome is a separation standard in IMC in ALL airspace within the ADS-B coverage map.
EDIT to add- This entire incident would be expected to recorded in high fidelity from the raw 1090ES stream...wouldn't it? If not, why not?
IFR pays for a service in Class E and above. Could this be amended to allow a service, even in Class G, if there is reliable spacial traffic information? THE desired outcome is a separation standard in IMC in ALL airspace within the ADS-B coverage map.
EDIT to add- This entire incident would be expected to recorded in high fidelity from the raw 1090ES stream...wouldn't it? If not, why not?
OZBusDriver,
While I can agree with what I think is the overall thrust of your post, I feel there could be some misunderstandings in it that could benefit from clarification:
This is incorrect. Outside controlled airspace, there is no such thing as a separation standard. I know what you mean - that one aircraft appears to have been positively doing something about the known conflict - but separation is an ATC thing. Pilots don't apply it. Perhaps a better term is "deconfliction."
As you've described them, it sounds like you mean that these actions could have been directed by ATC. The two aircraft were in Class G, where ATC do not and cannot provide positive control instructions. ATC can (and must, and does) provide traffic information and can, if both aircraft are painting on whatever surveillance technology is in use in the area, provide suggested actions, but they can't provide positive control in uncontrolled airspace. Pilots get told about conflicts, and how they deconflict themselves is up to them.
This is not quite correct either. IFR pays for and receives a service in Class G airspace, too. The difference is that as described in AIP a Class G service includes traffic information only, not separation. Nothing precludes the ATC from suggesting solutions to impending conflicts (and indeed an ATC's duty of care demands it in many cases), but they remain suggestions only. In Class G airspace, pilots are responsible for avoiding other aeroplanes.
I think I know what you mean, but it isn't a separation standard that is the desired outcome. It's having aircraft operate safely in relation to each other without hitting. In CTA, this is done through the use of control instructions intended to establish and preserve separation standards, but in uncontrolled airspace, by definition, there's no requirement for a clearance and there's no requirement for pilots to follow ATC suggestions, so there can be no separation standards.
Semantics? Maybe, but I think an understanding of exactly what service pilots receive in which class of airspace is an important thing that is perhaps not as widespread as it could be.
While I can agree with what I think is the overall thrust of your post, I feel there could be some misunderstandings in it that could benefit from clarification:
One aircraft has maintained an altitude for the previous 30 seconds which indicates a separation standard was in progress.
Both pilots given and maintain an altitude till verified passage? Both pilots receiving positive vectoring?
IFR pays for a service in Class E and above.
THE desired outcome is a separation standard in IMC in ALL airspace within the ADS-B coverage map.
Semantics? Maybe, but I think an understanding of exactly what service pilots receive in which class of airspace is an important thing that is perhaps not as widespread as it could be.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just guessing from that coverage map, but I suspect the aircraft would come on ADSB around 4000-5000ft
I very much doubt it, stick to your 175/145. Interested in your answer to the above post, lay it on us so we can judge your credibility, bet you don't, you'll avoid with some weasel words.
Hoosten
To establish your credibility in this matter, it would be useful if you provided a summary of your experience and qualifications and, in particular, the basis for your understanding of and familiarity with the legislation establishing CASA and Airservices and the specific responsibilities placed on those organisations and the Australian Government requirements for cost recovery in the aviation world.
PM your email address to me and we'll go from there.
I very much doubt it, stick to your 175/145. Interested in your answer to the above post, lay it on us so we can judge your credibility, bet you don't, you'll avoid with some weasel words.
Look at the result, the possible causes and the desired outcome. Two aircraft collide in possible IMC whilst conducting IFR training. Both aircraft are OCTA, class G in the vicinity of a CTAF. It would appear that both are on area frequency and communicating with ATC. One aircraft has maintained an altitude for the previous 30 seconds which indicates a separation standard was in progress. Without blame, what would have resulted in the best outcome of four good people still being with us today? Both pilots given and maintain an altitude till verified passage? Both pilots receiving positive vectoring? One or both pilots having , at least, an operational real time ADS-B Rx unit (certified or not)? Or, one pilot held on the ground till the incoming aircraft is visual? Class G obviously only works in VMC.
-Wait for the ATSB to conduct the investigation.
-You don't know what you're talking about and have no right to speculate.
IFR pays for a service in Class E and above. Could this be amended to allow a service, even in Class G, if there is reliable spacial traffic information? THE desired outcome is a separation standard in IMC in ALL airspace within the ADS-B coverage map.
-It will cost too much.
-Nobody wants to pay for it.
-Who's going to pay for it all??
NOTE: Standard pprune response from the hidden residents.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...t-Coverage.jpg
Just guessing from that coverage map, but I suspect the aircraft would come on ADSB around 4000-5000ft
Just guessing from that coverage map, but I suspect the aircraft would come on ADSB around 4000-5000ft
This was done by CASA with the connivance of Airservices on the sole grounds of enhanced safety. It has to be “enhanced safety” since CASA keeps on telling us that it’s sole mission is enhanced safety to the exclusion of all other considerations.
Yet now OCTA, you purport to tell the Australian aviation community, that ADS-B was not expected to produce a safety benefit at all, “below 5000ft” and not in class G airspace anyway because Airservices just passes traffic and has no responsibility beyond that.
This is despite the known fact that most mid air incidents happen in the vicinity of the circuit.
To make matters worse for Airservices, anyone with a home computer could see the collision situation developing, but not Airservices.
I therefore ask the question: Could the Aviation community be justified in forming the impression that CASA and Airservices are total frauds? They have foisted and continue to foist useless technology on the Aviation community that cannot produce a measurable increase in aviation safety at all considering the way it is employed and is never going to?
I won’t ask the next question; why were they so keen to do this?