Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, for info the RAPACs last year suggested to ASA that they provide a chart with all the ADB stations marked together with estimated coverage at 3000ft. Seems that is too hard or not in their budget!
I think I need to rethink how I’d approach these hypothetical situations and will discuss this with my instructor next time I have a lesson.
What separation would the good folks here use in that situation? Vertical seems problematic - even 1,000ft below cloud may not give enough time to see the descending aircraft (who would be unlikely to see me). Lateral separation is better but harder to mentally visualize, describe accurately and agree on the radio confidently. Staying on the ground whenever someone is inbound IMC may cause long delays if busy but a safe option.
What separation would the good folks here use in that situation? Vertical seems problematic - even 1,000ft below cloud may not give enough time to see the descending aircraft (who would be unlikely to see me). Lateral separation is better but harder to mentally visualize, describe accurately and agree on the radio confidently. Staying on the ground whenever someone is inbound IMC may cause long delays if busy but a safe option.
As Hoosten mentioned, VFR just under cloud is problematic for a multitude of reasons (here's an example of a flight that hit some of the holes in the cheese). In fact, it's simpler if you don't think of the altitude as VFR or IMC. If you're flying IFR, fly to whatever IFR level is appropriate given the terrain and traffic. (Last thing you want is to bumble around low level VFR trying to figure out where IFR traffic is, only for it to pop out of cloud in front of you.)
If the weather is marginal, and you don't have full situational awareness to launch IFR, don't launch until you're ready.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Last thing you want is to bumble around low level VFR trying to figure out where IFR traffic is, only for it to pop out of cloud in front of you.)
If the weather is marginal, and you don't have full situational awareness to launch IFR, don't launch until you're ready.
If the weather is marginal, and you don't have full situational awareness to launch IFR, don't launch until you're ready.
I am now sure if I’m in that situation in future, I will wait on the ground (or call for clarification).
Thanks too Hoosten - and yes, my instructor is (like me) old enough to remember disco and life before mobile phones, with a genuine skill at passing on his experience.
I'd suggest the people who used to do that sort of work disappeared in the Great Acceleration of 2016.
What is the incidence of mid-air collisions in the USA per 100,000 or per Million GA hours? Very small I suggest. I am guessing that we have double the rate of the USA.
What level of IFR surveillance would Mangalore have if it was in the USA? In terms of traffic and proximity to capital cities, I am (again) guessing it would have Class E down to a lower level such as 1200' AGL.
Half an hour of looking at the various US airspace maps available on SkyVector is very instructive. I especially like to look at the airspace around San Francisco (world #22) which supports the equivalent of a SYD, a MEL, a MEB, 2 Bankstowns and a Willytown within a 30nm radius.
Within a 120 nm radius there are literally dozens of aerodromes, many uncontrolled, with Class E down to 1200' above the surface.
Given the elimination of many ground-based navaids across Australia and the concentration of IFR Training flights around the remaining network as a result, CASA as the "Safety" authority needs to take action to ensure adequate levels of infrastructure are built to suit the technology mix and traffic levels of the 21st Century.
What level of IFR surveillance would Mangalore have if it was in the USA? In terms of traffic and proximity to capital cities, I am (again) guessing it would have Class E down to a lower level such as 1200' AGL.
Half an hour of looking at the various US airspace maps available on SkyVector is very instructive. I especially like to look at the airspace around San Francisco (world #22) which supports the equivalent of a SYD, a MEL, a MEB, 2 Bankstowns and a Willytown within a 30nm radius.
Within a 120 nm radius there are literally dozens of aerodromes, many uncontrolled, with Class E down to 1200' above the surface.
Given the elimination of many ground-based navaids across Australia and the concentration of IFR Training flights around the remaining network as a result, CASA as the "Safety" authority needs to take action to ensure adequate levels of infrastructure are built to suit the technology mix and traffic levels of the 21st Century.
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 6th Mar 2020 at 00:02.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt they have a map.
Or perhaps I have just grown cynical
What is the incidence of mid-air collisions in the USA per 100,000 or per Million GA hours? Very small I suggest. I am guessing that we have double the rate of the USA.
Australia and the US had a similar rate of midair collisions involving general aviation aircraft during the period 1981-2003. The US had a higher rate of general aviation aircraft involved in collisions per flight hour away from the circuit area, which is consistent with the US having more general aviation flying activity and a higher traffic density
Back in the dim dark ages (early 80's), when I worked at Melbourne FS Centre, Mangalore, Cowes,and Wonthaggi were all very busy IFR navaid training locations. There were often multiple IFR aircraft at any one location, all doing their various things and managing not to hit each other. ATS was a directed traffic service from me, and then they worked it out between them. ATC did not monitor, and did not care, even if they could see them on radar, because they were OCTA, and that meant what it said on the tin. Strangely enough, no one hit anyone. How many hundreds, if not thousands of IFR training flights would have occurred in the vicinity of any one of those locations prior to and during the past 40 years? And no one hit anyone. Now two pilots who got the same service everyone else has had ie they were told about each other and left to sort it out, yet still managed to hit each other in what are pretty flukey circumstances. Is that the system's fault, or the pilot's? Or just bad luck? Because that just does happen some times.
Mid Air Collision Rate per 100,000 in US GA in 1981-1990: 0.067. Australia: 0.049
Mid Air Collision Rate per 100,000 in US GA in 1991-2003: 0.047 Australia: 0.048
The report also says:
The overall midair collision accident rate [in GA in Australia] was higher in the period 1961-1980 (0.074 per 100,000 flight hours) compared with the subsequent period 1981-2003 (0.048 per 100,000 flight hours), but the difference was not statistically significant.
Overall, for the period 1981-2003, the US had a lower number of hours flown per collision (930,000 hours) for general aviation aircraft relative to Australia (1,260,000 hours), indicating that general aviation in the US may have had a slightly higher risk for midair collisions. However, this difference was not statistically significant.
Unfortunately, there were no figures available for the number of hours flown or number of movements in or near the circuit area versus away from the circuit area for either Australia or the US. Based on the assumption that the proportion of flying in or near the circuit area was the same in Australia and the US, it was found that:
• Australia had a general aviation midair collision accident rate 1.1 times higher than that of the US in or near the circuit area during the period 1981-2003. This comparison excluded collisions involving aircraft deliberately flying close to each other. This difference was not statistically significant.
• The US had a general aviation midair collision accident rate 5.8 times higher than that of Australia away from the circuit area during the period 1981-2003. This comparison excluded collisions involving aircraft deliberately flying close to each other. The test of the difference between the two countries was not significant. However, this test had a low level of power to detect differences in the rates as the Australian rate was based on only one event (Moreton Bay, 1988). The fact that only one event also occurred during the period 1961-1980 (Cecil Plains, 1980) suggests that the Australian rate may be reasonably reliable. There was a significant difference in the hours flown per collision involving general aviation between the two countries, indicating that there was a higher collision risk in the US away from the circuit area relative to Australia.
• Australia had a general aviation midair collision accident rate 1.1 times higher than that of the US in or near the circuit area during the period 1981-2003. This comparison excluded collisions involving aircraft deliberately flying close to each other. This difference was not statistically significant.
• The US had a general aviation midair collision accident rate 5.8 times higher than that of Australia away from the circuit area during the period 1981-2003. This comparison excluded collisions involving aircraft deliberately flying close to each other. The test of the difference between the two countries was not significant. However, this test had a low level of power to detect differences in the rates as the Australian rate was based on only one event (Moreton Bay, 1988). The fact that only one event also occurred during the period 1961-1980 (Cecil Plains, 1980) suggests that the Australian rate may be reasonably reliable. There was a significant difference in the hours flown per collision involving general aviation between the two countries, indicating that there was a higher collision risk in the US away from the circuit area relative to Australia.
Originally Posted by Traffic
Now two pilots who got the same service everyone else has had ie they were told about each other and left to sort it out, yet still managed to hit each other in what are pretty flukey circumstances. Is that the system's fault, or the pilot's?
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 6th Mar 2020 at 11:34. Reason: added an "F"
True, which has a high likelihood of contributing to why it happened near an aerodrome, rather than near a navaid in a paddock. Is it known if these guys did talk to each other at all, whether on the CTAF or Area? I gather they had traffic via ATC, so they were "aware" of each other.
Now two pilots who got the same service everyone else has had ie they were told about each other and left to sort it out, yet still managed to hit each other in what are pretty flukey circumstances. Is that the system's fault, or the pilot's? Or just bad luck? Because that just does happen some times.
Is it known if these guys did talk to each other at all, whether on the CTAF or Area? I gather they had traffic via ATC, so they were "aware" of each other.
How do you know for sure “they were told about each other”?
How do you know for sure that what they were told about each other was accurate?
How do you know for sure that they received any or all of what they were told, and were aware of each other?
It seems odd that if ATS had accurate information about both aircraft, ATS would not have known about the risk of collision between them. Why do I occasionally hear Centre issue a ‘safety alert’ to aircraft in G, on the basis that the aircraft appear to Centre to be in close proximity?
Originally Posted by Balon
How do you know for sure “they were told about each other”?
How do you know for sure that what they were told about each other was accurate?
How do you know for sure that they received any or all of what they were told, and were aware of each other?
How do you know for sure that what they were told about each other was accurate?
How do you know for sure that they received any or all of what they were told, and were aware of each other?
Joey Hoosten said, in Post 220:
Originally Posted by Houstern
Mutual traffic was given and acknowledged by both aircraft.
Nor did Hoosten use the phrase “for sure”.
Hoosten: Do you have first hand knowledge of whether mutual traffic was given and acknowledged by both aircraft?
For those who don’t have first hand knowledge of facts asserted with carefree ease, maybe you should qualify your assertions with “Someone who knows told me that he said/heard ‘.....’. If you know for sure, say you know “for sure”. If you’re making an educated guess, say you’re making an educated guess.
I know it’s easy to attribute the cause to mistake/s by deceased pilot/s, but I thought we’d grown out of that a long time ago (ATSB’s behaviour notwithstanding).
And no one’s yet answered my question about Centre and safety alerts.
Hoosten: Do you have first hand knowledge of whether mutual traffic was given and acknowledged by both aircraft?
For those who don’t have first hand knowledge of facts asserted with carefree ease, maybe you should qualify your assertions with “Someone who knows told me that he said/heard ‘.....’. If you know for sure, say you know “for sure”. If you’re making an educated guess, say you’re making an educated guess.
I know it’s easy to attribute the cause to mistake/s by deceased pilot/s, but I thought we’d grown out of that a long time ago (ATSB’s behaviour notwithstanding).
And no one’s yet answered my question about Centre and safety alerts.
If ever there is a more boring, repetitive, useless statement on pprune, I'm yet to see it.
For about the 400th time, if you don't want to read the speculation, if it offends you, or somehow you think you are doing a noble thing by continually moaning about people speculating, don't read the thread.
I'm kinda wondering why you visit these types of threads?
Last edited by Hoosten; 7th Mar 2020 at 04:18.
It seems odd that if ATS had accurate information about both aircraft, ATS would not have known about the risk of collision between them. Why do I occasionally hear Centre issue a ‘safety alert’ to aircraft in G, on the basis that the aircraft appear to Centre to be in close proximity?
Because 2 IFR aircraft have been given mutual traffic in Class G aircraft, doesn't absolve the ATC from providing traffic or safety alerts if it's warranted.
NOTE: I am NOT saying this may have occurred at YMNG. It is NOT an accusation and it is not an ATC bash. Surveillance in that neck of the woods is known to be patchy.
My beef is purely with the class of airspace in this area. Australian pilots seem to labour under a few mis-conceptions:
- That if you are IFR OCTA you are separated or protected somewhat by a traffic statement.
- That any upgrade to a higher class of airspace will cost an exorbitant amount of money.
- That the existing way of doing things is the best money can buy.
Refusal to look at possible solutions and different airspace models, particularly as the traffic numbers increase in certain areas is just plain stupidity.
Originally Posted by Hoosten
- That any upgrade to a higher class of airspace will cost an exorbitant amount of money.
Dick Smith, who has been asked numerous times to do the same but has never answered, will be keen to know the answer.
How can it sensibly be Dick Smith’s or any other member of the public’s responsibility to do cost/benefit analyses for the various airspace options?
Surely if the OAR was doing its job, it would have these kinds of figures and the risk mitigation data at its fingertips? OAR should be able to say that the detailed analysis of implementation of and running Class E to 1,200’ in certain parts of the ‘J’ curve would cost approximately $X and save Y lives every Z decades (or maybe the number is zero lives saved?), and that OAR considers the expenditure of $X is justified/ is not justified.
Same with e.g. putting D at e.g. Port Hedland or Mildura.
Airservices should be able to state - and justify with data - that it would cost $X to establish and run e.g. D at e.g. Mildura and OAR should be able to state - and justify with data - why the risks mitigated would / would not be worth $X.
The question: “Who’s gonna pay?” is pretty silly if the cost and risks mitigated are not quantified first.
Surely if the OAR was doing its job, it would have these kinds of figures and the risk mitigation data at its fingertips? OAR should be able to say that the detailed analysis of implementation of and running Class E to 1,200’ in certain parts of the ‘J’ curve would cost approximately $X and save Y lives every Z decades (or maybe the number is zero lives saved?), and that OAR considers the expenditure of $X is justified/ is not justified.
Same with e.g. putting D at e.g. Port Hedland or Mildura.
Airservices should be able to state - and justify with data - that it would cost $X to establish and run e.g. D at e.g. Mildura and OAR should be able to state - and justify with data - why the risks mitigated would / would not be worth $X.
The question: “Who’s gonna pay?” is pretty silly if the cost and risks mitigated are not quantified first.