Mid-air collision involving Piper PA-44-180 Seminole, VH-JQF, and Beech D95A Travel A
Thread drift, yes, I've been guilty of one or two but why are pilots required to train on a piece of kit that they will rarely use - VOR? I understand an ILS approach, I understand a NDB approach, but really isn't this all old school.
Is it a case of "I had to do it, so you have to do it too"? Is it a rite of passage that marks entrance or acceptance into a group or society, in this case a pilot fraternity?
Why not RNP or GLS approaches?
Could an entrepreneur make a $ by setting up an VOR in a paddock and charging for use? Same for a NDB? ILS might be a bit expensive if AUSCAL needed to fly it flight test every 3 months but if the minima was pretty high, or the approach was practiced from 5000ft to 2000ft then accuracy should be must of a problem.
Last edited by tossbag; 31st Mar 2022 at 23:07.
Funny you should mention that, it's happening at AV and EN now. But it's still funnelling multiple aircraft into these navaids, there's not enough of them for an outdated training system that matches an outdates airspace system.
It's also important to remember that the radar plots had the two aircraft missing each other, it was a proximity alert that came up on the radar screen and showed JQF passing behind AEM, and then under it by 500ft shortly before the collision.
The other issue that really is at the center of the whole IFR training thing is why are NDB still a thing. All these VORs were shut down at various locations to leave the worst possible backup, showing that cost really does come before safety.
Last edited by 43Inches; 31st Mar 2022 at 22:46.
'Airprox events' (plural) are happening at Avalon.
References to ATSB notifications and investigations, please. I'm aware of one involving VH-PWQ in 2012. What are the others?
References to ATSB notifications and investigations, please. I'm aware of one involving VH-PWQ in 2012. What are the others?
Well when I heard one the other day where a VFR passed within 2nm same altitude of an IFR without visual sighting, what would you call that? I think people are not putting this to paper for whatever reason. Now class E is the controller required to put in a ticket for IFR vs VFR separation breakdown? I've noticed a few class C incursions I've heard on the radio recently are not making it into the ATSB list either, as well as some VFR into IMC as recent as a month ago, where a student reported in cloud on a solo navex and was assisted by ATS to break clear.
You're telling the story, 43, and you called them 'airprox events'. 'Airprox' has a definition. Do you know what it is?
And now you're asking questions about what controllers are required to do about things that happen in Class E. If you don't know the answers, maybe your judgments about Class E airspace aren't based upon a sound foundation.
How do you know that the violations of controlled airspace you heard did not "make it to the ATSB". You might find that, given the number of violations of controlled airspace that occur in Australia, ATSB doesn't bother putting each report up in lights on its website.
And now you're asking questions about what controllers are required to do about things that happen in Class E. If you don't know the answers, maybe your judgments about Class E airspace aren't based upon a sound foundation.
How do you know that the violations of controlled airspace you heard did not "make it to the ATSB". You might find that, given the number of violations of controlled airspace that occur in Australia, ATSB doesn't bother putting each report up in lights on its website.
Originally Posted by Tossbag
But the real cause here is that a 1970's-80's airspace system is being used despite having a 2000's onward radar/surveillance system. The equipment has evolved but the procedures and airspace has not, and it won't. Not until Ballina happens or elsewhere.
Mandate transponders in MBZs (yes, renamed from CTAF Rs
). Then we can have simple, "controlled" or "uncontrolled" airspace. Then we can get rid of this ABCDE nonsense. I mean, really, ABCD? What's the point? It really is just confusing, complicated theoretical, fanatical nonsense.As pointed out by the ATSB, this is the first ever midair between IFR aircraft OCTA. The first ever. And communications overload is the obvious reason. And that has been caused by the CTAF/ATC interaction. And that was brought about by? I don't see anybody suggesting traffic lights at every intersection.
Even with the current rules, the system is fundamentally sound, based on the evidence. It was even safer when we had Joe Bloggs in the FSU because the free in G cowboys had somebody to talk to. Allegedly, we've saved hundreds of millions of dollars since turning the system into the wild west. You can't have everything.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 31st Mar 2022 at 23:32. Reason: Grammar
Originally Posted by Lead balloon
You're telling the story, 43, and you called them 'airprox events'. 'Airprox' has a definition. Do you know what it is?
And now you're asking questions about what controllers are required to do about things that happen in Class E. If you don't know the answers, maybe your judgments about Class E airspace aren't based upon a sound foundation.
How do you know that the violations of controlled airspace you heard did not "make it to the ATSB". You might find that, given the number of violations of controlled airspace that occur in Australia, ATSB doesn't bother putting each report up in lights on its website.
And now you're asking questions about what controllers are required to do about things that happen in Class E. If you don't know the answers, maybe your judgments about Class E airspace aren't based upon a sound foundation.
How do you know that the violations of controlled airspace you heard did not "make it to the ATSB". You might find that, given the number of violations of controlled airspace that occur in Australia, ATSB doesn't bother putting each report up in lights on its website.
As pointed out by the ATSB, this is the first ever midair between IFR aircraft OCTA. The first ever. And communications overload is the obvious reason. And that has been caused by the CTAF/ATC interaction. And that was brought about by? I don't see anybody suggesting traffic lights at every intersection.
Point is if you think something else is doing the job for you you tend to be less cautious about the unexpected.
I mean they had to physically employ raised barriers at some rail intersections as cars just continued to hit trains, so they basically said stuff the driver, here's a big wall to stop you ramming our trains. Or just spend billions building tunnels and bridges so cars don't interact with the trains at all.
Now I know why ASA changed, all those years ago, from "No Known IFR traffic" to "No Reported IFR traffic". AEM was known about by ATS for 16 minutes before JQF taxied.
Great! The more G the better for me. Keep up the good work, 43 et al.
Mandate transponders in MBZs (yes, renamed from CTAF Rs ).
Maybe you mean Broadcast Areas (renamed from CTAF Rs renamed from MBZs renamed from MTAF renamed from..)?
Gawd, maybe CTAF Rs are back?
It's so hard to keep track of the humps on the Australian airspace camel.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 1st Apr 2022 at 00:43.
Mandate transponders in MBZs (yes, renamed from CTAF Rs ).
).
And how about 'we' mandate vertical self separation between departing and arriving aircraft..........hold on.........
And how about 'we' mandate the IFR traffic parameters to 16 minutes, because a full 16 minutes will give you time to come up with 'I'll climb to 4000 if you want to descend to 5000 until centre tells us we're clear'
"Tossbag". How appropriate.
If you think that being given traffic when they are only 6nm, 12 o'clock and opposite direction, climbing and descending, is OK when ATC knew they would be traffic way before then, then you are part of the problem.
If you think that being given traffic when they are only 6nm, 12 o'clock and opposite direction, climbing and descending, is OK when ATC knew they would be traffic way before then, then you are part of the problem.
I feel for the controller, condolences to all involved.
Tossbag,
I asked this on the previous page. Perhaps you missed it.
Originally Posted by Bloggs
You said in your ranting PM that I don't know how many VOR approaches I've done there, 5 IFR at a time is routine at MNG. That would immediately stop in E, would it not, or how would all that navaid training work then?
Centre thought they were clear until they weren't.
I asked this on the previous page. Perhaps you missed it.
You wait your turn in the hold, simple. Are you guaranteed any OCTA aerodrome arrival that you'll make an immediate approach?
If you don't want to wait, go up to SHT and do an NDB. Or go elsewhere, or practice the hold, or don't get VOR on your licence, or go to AV.
A serious question, Capn.
You said you want Australia to “mandate transponders in MBZs (yes, renamed from CTAF Rs)”. I'm genuinely trying to understand exactly what you mean.
I’m looking at GEN 2.2 Definitions and Abbreviations in the current Australian AIP Book, and neither CTAF R nor MBZ appears. I think CTAF R was ditched years ago, when the concept of “certified” versus “uncertified” (and registered and unregistered) aerodromes came into vogue. Before that there was the concept of MTAF and before that MBZ … I think … it could have been the other way around. But in any event CTAFs - ‘R’s or otherwise - are frequencies for use if an ‘in vicinity’ broadcast obligation arises but an MBZ is a zone within which specific broadcasts are mandatory. Also, someone invented ‘Broadcast Areas’ and, for Ballina, a SFIS within its BA. And someone resurrected an AFIZ at YPPD. (Rhetorical question: Is it any wonder that people out there are confused and here on pprune it’s difficult to have a sensible conversation?)
When you call for a mandate of transponders in “MBZs renamed from CTAF Rs”, what do you mean? Can you use the current language of the current rules, or just plain English, to explain.
For example, are you calling for transponders for all aircraft within a specified radius of and height above each aerodrome in G used by e.g. RPT aircraft, and specific mandated broadcasts by all aircraft within that zone? If yes, please specify the radius and height and aircraft operation parameters, and the specific content of and position at or circumstance in which each mandated call would be made.
I want to make sure I understand what you want. I'm not going to bag you - as if you'd care - for what you want (or anyone else for what they want). But if I reckon it won't achieve the outcome you think it will achieve, I will say so and try to explain why I have that opinion. Free country and all that...
You said you want Australia to “mandate transponders in MBZs (yes, renamed from CTAF Rs)”. I'm genuinely trying to understand exactly what you mean.
I’m looking at GEN 2.2 Definitions and Abbreviations in the current Australian AIP Book, and neither CTAF R nor MBZ appears. I think CTAF R was ditched years ago, when the concept of “certified” versus “uncertified” (and registered and unregistered) aerodromes came into vogue. Before that there was the concept of MTAF and before that MBZ … I think … it could have been the other way around. But in any event CTAFs - ‘R’s or otherwise - are frequencies for use if an ‘in vicinity’ broadcast obligation arises but an MBZ is a zone within which specific broadcasts are mandatory. Also, someone invented ‘Broadcast Areas’ and, for Ballina, a SFIS within its BA. And someone resurrected an AFIZ at YPPD. (Rhetorical question: Is it any wonder that people out there are confused and here on pprune it’s difficult to have a sensible conversation?)
When you call for a mandate of transponders in “MBZs renamed from CTAF Rs”, what do you mean? Can you use the current language of the current rules, or just plain English, to explain.
For example, are you calling for transponders for all aircraft within a specified radius of and height above each aerodrome in G used by e.g. RPT aircraft, and specific mandated broadcasts by all aircraft within that zone? If yes, please specify the radius and height and aircraft operation parameters, and the specific content of and position at or circumstance in which each mandated call would be made.
I want to make sure I understand what you want. I'm not going to bag you - as if you'd care - for what you want (or anyone else for what they want). But if I reckon it won't achieve the outcome you think it will achieve, I will say so and try to explain why I have that opinion. Free country and all that...