Mid-air collision involving Piper PA-44-180 Seminole, VH-JQF, and Beech D95A Travel A
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For info, a proposal went thru AVSEF (the RAPAC replacement) late last year suggesting for a number of good reasons that the term MBZ be returned for what is now a described as a BA. It had the suport of many in the industry. After some nagging CASA acknowleded it and said it preferred MBA = Mandatory Broadcase Area. It has not surfaced yet. just have to wait and see.....
Interesting. Thanks for that, triadic. I’m guessing the regulatory brains trust doesn’t want the area to be confused for some kind of designated airspace different to G.
It would therefore follow that if the Capn’s talking about mandating transponders for aircraft in ‘MBAs’ the outcome would be vastly different than mandating transponders for aircraft within a specified distance of every certified aerodrome – the current equivalent of places that used to be designated ‘CTAF R’. I hope the Capn will clarify what he wants.
I vote for: ‘BATMAN’ -- Broadcast And Transponder MANdatory. If Australia’s going to uphold its laughing stock aviation regulatory reputation, might as well ‘go hard’.
It would therefore follow that if the Capn’s talking about mandating transponders for aircraft in ‘MBAs’ the outcome would be vastly different than mandating transponders for aircraft within a specified distance of every certified aerodrome – the current equivalent of places that used to be designated ‘CTAF R’. I hope the Capn will clarify what he wants.
I vote for: ‘BATMAN’ -- Broadcast And Transponder MANdatory. If Australia’s going to uphold its laughing stock aviation regulatory reputation, might as well ‘go hard’.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 1st Apr 2022 at 22:04.
Heaven help us.
Where? Name the places.
What radius? Specify it.
What height or altitude? Specify.
And what would be mandated in these MBZs? Specify the equipment carriage and radio calls - equipment and words.
What radius? Specify it.
What height or altitude? Specify.
And what would be mandated in these MBZs? Specify the equipment carriage and radio calls - equipment and words.
Any RPT port OCTA to be a (insert name of new MBZ thing), dimensions 15nm of ARP, SFC to 5000ft agl or CTA LL. Carriage and use of VHF radio and mode C minimum Transponder mandatory. Calls to be made at boundary entering, on taxi, and entering or crossing any runway, on joining or departing the circuit and when conflict exists. Overflying aircraft should monitor (Insert name of new MBZ thing) frequency while overflying lateral limits but above 5000 agl for conflicts. Glider operations within (Insert name of new MBZ thing) boundaries to be on frequency. Frequencies to not conflict with any other within 200nm. All (Insert name of new MBZ thing) to be recorded and AFRU fitted, progressively ATS to have option to listen to/broadcast on AFRU if needed.
Further all operations above 5000ft AMSL required to be fitted with VHF radio and mode C transponder minimum. Non transponder or non radio equipped aircraft can request permission to operate within a defined area or a general NOTAM issued for a routinely used area for such aircraft up to 10,000ft AMSL marked on maps if recurrent. Permission should only be denied on the basis on reasonable chance of conflict with IFR aircraft in normal operations.
Further all operations above 5000ft AMSL required to be fitted with VHF radio and mode C transponder minimum. Non transponder or non radio equipped aircraft can request permission to operate within a defined area or a general NOTAM issued for a routinely used area for such aircraft up to 10,000ft AMSL marked on maps if recurrent. Permission should only be denied on the basis on reasonable chance of conflict with IFR aircraft in normal operations.
Last edited by 43Inches; 2nd Apr 2022 at 10:55.
Is your "SFC to 5000ft agl or CTA LL" whichever is the higher, or whichever is the lower? Given that you say that "[o]verflying aircraft should monitor (Insert name of new MBZ thing) frequency while overflying lateral limits but above 5000 agl for conflicts", it seems you're advocating the lower. Otherwise the overflying aircraft would, by definition, be in CTA.
If yes, you're advocating for the upper level of the Ballina BA/MBZ/MBA to be lowered to 5,000' AGL rather than remain at the 8,500' AMSL C LL / 6,500' AMSL C LL. Is that correct? It does make a difference to whether an aircraft overflying at e.g. 5,500' is obliged to make an entering call at the boundary.
And you're advocating for the Lismore, Casino and Evans Head CTAF to be changed to something other than 124.2. Correct?
The Port Hedland BA is 20 nm radius of the ARP up to 8,000' AMSL. Are you advocating for that to be reduced to 15 nm radius and 5,000' AGL? Given the kinds of traffic in the Ballina BA, there'd be no objective justification for the BA/MBA/MBZ dimensions to be larger at Port Hedland, would there?
If yes, you're advocating for the upper level of the Ballina BA/MBZ/MBA to be lowered to 5,000' AGL rather than remain at the 8,500' AMSL C LL / 6,500' AMSL C LL. Is that correct? It does make a difference to whether an aircraft overflying at e.g. 5,500' is obliged to make an entering call at the boundary.
And you're advocating for the Lismore, Casino and Evans Head CTAF to be changed to something other than 124.2. Correct?
The Port Hedland BA is 20 nm radius of the ARP up to 8,000' AMSL. Are you advocating for that to be reduced to 15 nm radius and 5,000' AGL? Given the kinds of traffic in the Ballina BA, there'd be no objective justification for the BA/MBA/MBZ dimensions to be larger at Port Hedland, would there?
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 2nd Apr 2022 at 21:45.
Is your "SFC to 5000ft agl or CTA LL" whichever is the higher, or whichever is the lower? Given that you say that "[o]verflying aircraft should monitor (Insert name of new MBZ thing) frequency while overflying lateral limits but above 5000 agl for conflicts", it seems you're advocating the lower. Otherwise the overflying aircraft would, by definition, be in CTA.
If yes, you're advocating for the upper level of the Ballina BA/MBZ/MBA to be lowered to 5,000' AGL rather than remain at the 8,500' AMSL C LL / 6,500' AMSL C LL. Is that correct? It does make a difference to whether an aircraft overflying at e.g. 5,500' is obliged to make an entering call at the boundary.
And you're advocating for the Lismore, Casino and Evans Head CTAF to be changed to something other than 124.2. Correct?
The Port Hedland BA is 20 nm radius of the ARP up to 8,000' AMSL. Are you advocating for that to be reduced to 15 nm radius and 5,000' AGL? Given the kinds of traffic in the Ballina BA, there'd be no objective justification for the BA/MBA/MBZ dimensions to be larger at Port Hedland, would there?
If yes, you're advocating for the upper level of the Ballina BA/MBZ/MBA to be lowered to 5,000' AGL rather than remain at the 8,500' AMSL C LL / 6,500' AMSL C LL. Is that correct? It does make a difference to whether an aircraft overflying at e.g. 5,500' is obliged to make an entering call at the boundary.
And you're advocating for the Lismore, Casino and Evans Head CTAF to be changed to something other than 124.2. Correct?
The Port Hedland BA is 20 nm radius of the ARP up to 8,000' AMSL. Are you advocating for that to be reduced to 15 nm radius and 5,000' AGL? Given the kinds of traffic in the Ballina BA, there'd be no objective justification for the BA/MBA/MBZ dimensions to be larger at Port Hedland, would there?
With regard to dimensions I really don't see the need for much past 15nm, as 5000 ft at 15nm is standard 3 deg profile for most high performance on descent and they easily meet that altitude on departure. Extend to 20nm or 25nm if you wish, or just make it that aircraft in class G should monitor CTAF at least out to 30nm (double the boundary) if practical, inbound or outbound. Above 5000ft center will in most cases see the transponder return and advise traffic.
For frequencies that area is indeed a unique set so lateral boundaries would have to be tweaked to fit in with most likely traffic.
And of course why ADS-B is not fitted to ground level at Ballina or Mildura is a mystery beyond comprehension.
It's coming to a point where collision avoidance systems are commonplace in cars, and will probably be mandated for future new vehicles. Yet aviation resists a pretty solid collision avoidance system based on technology available 30 years ago due to a price which is a fraction of what an aircraft costs relative.
Last edited by 43Inches; 3rd Apr 2022 at 00:30.
It's coming to a point where collision avoidance systems are commonplace in cars, and will probably be mandated for future new vehicles. Yet aviation resists a pretty solid collision avoidance system based on technology available 30 years ago due to a price which is a fraction of what an aircraft costs relative.
The suggestions so far:
- 20nm radius of an aerodrome in G to which RPT jets operate, or
- 15nm radius of an aerodrome in G to which RPT other than jets operate,
up to 5,000’ AGL or the base of CTA, whichever is the lower.
- Mandatory carriage of radio and transponder inside (and overflying, because radio and transponders will be mandated above 5,000’ AGL (Is AGL practicable?)
- Mandatory broadcasts on entry, at specified points in the circuit and otherwise for collision avoidance.
It would therefore appear that the current Ballina BA would be extended to encompass Lismore, Evans Head, Swan Bay and Tyagarah. Is that what’s intended? What broadcasts would be mandatory for an aircraft doing circuits at e.g. Evans Head?
For all those so keen on mandatory carriage of radios and transponders, you do realise that they are both mandated for VFR aircraft in E? I don’t understand why VFR pilots are competent to comply with equipment requirements if they’re mandated for carriage in some special zone – whoops, I mean ‘area’ – in G, but somehow become dangerous gumbies incapable of complying with the same requirements if they are flying in E. For those keen on mandatory specific calls, they can be mandated as much as for E as they are for G.
I’m waiting with bated breath for the rejuvenation of the MBZ concept rebranded to MBA, so that any further transponder mandate can be avoided and the designation of any new airspace can be avoided.CASA doesn’t want to upset the sports aviation bodies or the airlines or Air Services. Fiddling with the broadcast rules for G will, as usual, help to deliver Australia’s enviable air safety record.
- 20nm radius of an aerodrome in G to which RPT jets operate, or
- 15nm radius of an aerodrome in G to which RPT other than jets operate,
up to 5,000’ AGL or the base of CTA, whichever is the lower.
- Mandatory carriage of radio and transponder inside (and overflying, because radio and transponders will be mandated above 5,000’ AGL (Is AGL practicable?)
- Mandatory broadcasts on entry, at specified points in the circuit and otherwise for collision avoidance.
It would therefore appear that the current Ballina BA would be extended to encompass Lismore, Evans Head, Swan Bay and Tyagarah. Is that what’s intended? What broadcasts would be mandatory for an aircraft doing circuits at e.g. Evans Head?
For all those so keen on mandatory carriage of radios and transponders, you do realise that they are both mandated for VFR aircraft in E? I don’t understand why VFR pilots are competent to comply with equipment requirements if they’re mandated for carriage in some special zone – whoops, I mean ‘area’ – in G, but somehow become dangerous gumbies incapable of complying with the same requirements if they are flying in E. For those keen on mandatory specific calls, they can be mandated as much as for E as they are for G.
I’m waiting with bated breath for the rejuvenation of the MBZ concept rebranded to MBA, so that any further transponder mandate can be avoided and the designation of any new airspace can be avoided.
