Midair near Gympie, Qld
With the digital control of most radios and all of the electronic flight bags everybody is using, your radio should automatically change to the correct frequency based on your geographical location and altitude.
This is not rocket science and the XCOM radio could do this 18 years ago... this eliminates pilot error from 95% of the circumstances of being in an area on the wrong frequency.
This is not rocket science and the XCOM radio could do this 18 years ago... this eliminates pilot error from 95% of the circumstances of being in an area on the wrong frequency.
So what are the distance and altitude parameters used to e.g. switch from Area to a CTAF?
What is the ‘boundary’ for use of CTAF, Vag? On what chart, or in what para of ERSA, do I find that boundary?
This has been widely publicised by CASA and in safety seminars for decades. Not new.
AC91.10 Section 8.3.6
2 The pilot is inbound to an aerodrome. 10 NM from the aerodrome, or earlier, commensurate with aeroplane performance and pilot workload, with an estimated time of arrival (ETA) for the aerodrome.
3 The pilot intends to fly through the vicinity of, but not land at, a non-controlled aerodrome. 10 NM from the aerodrome, or earlier, commensurate with aeroplane performance and pilot workload, with an estimated time of
AC91.10 Section 8.3.6
2 The pilot is inbound to an aerodrome. 10 NM from the aerodrome, or earlier, commensurate with aeroplane performance and pilot workload, with an estimated time of arrival (ETA) for the aerodrome.
3 The pilot intends to fly through the vicinity of, but not land at, a non-controlled aerodrome. 10 NM from the aerodrome, or earlier, commensurate with aeroplane performance and pilot workload, with an estimated time of
This has been widely publicised by CASA and in safety seminars for decades. Not new.
AC91.10 Section 8.3.6
2 The pilot is inbound to an aerodrome. 10 NM from the aerodrome, or earlier, commensurate with aeroplane performance and pilot workload, with an estimated time of arrival (ETA) for the aerodrome.
3 The pilot intends to fly through the vicinity of, but not land at, a non-controlled aerodrome. 10 NM from the aerodrome, or earlier, commensurate with aeroplane performance and pilot workload, with an estimated time of
AC91.10 Section 8.3.6
2 The pilot is inbound to an aerodrome. 10 NM from the aerodrome, or earlier, commensurate with aeroplane performance and pilot workload, with an estimated time of arrival (ETA) for the aerodrome.
3 The pilot intends to fly through the vicinity of, but not land at, a non-controlled aerodrome. 10 NM from the aerodrome, or earlier, commensurate with aeroplane performance and pilot workload, with an estimated time of
To make this even easier for some pilots, many radios now have dual watch which can monitor the active and the standby frequency at the same time. If you are transiting through and overflying an airfield en route somewhere you would of course be on the area frequency and the local CTAF at the same time. Having this done mainly automatically for you has gotta be some sort of benefit because there are a lot of pilots out there flying with tunnel vision.
Technology, when used correctly can be your friend ! having said all of this I saw on the news headlines this morning something about testing a truck in Melbourne today without a driver on the main roads. This was something that was science-fiction 20 years ago
What is the ‘boundary’ for use of CTAF, Vag? On what chart, or in what para of ERSA, do I find that boundary?
Frequencies and boundaries are on the charts and in ERSA.
The other complication to the radio question is that gliders will often be on a discrete frequency. They are supposed to adhere to CTAF frequency and procedures, but en-route near an aerodrome they might be on glider freq. Usually ERSA specifies if there is a glider freq in use for nearby operations.
These sort of collisions are going to happen occasionally for various reasons. Having a good visual scan especially in the area around airfields will help, as with radio and apt procedures, but it will still happen when things align the wrong way. You can mandate costly transponders with ACAS fitted which will also possibly reduce the rate, but not stop it entirely. Lets face it, we spend billions on road safety and the road toll continues to rise steadily year on year with population, which shows the return on spent defenses has a very small effect on collision fatality rates. People just find somewhere else to collide or just not follow the rules, you can't bubble wrap the whole world. We have to remember this is no different to a high speed road collision with similar results, how they got to the position where they co-existed in the same space at the same time, we may never really know. Also radio is not some panacea that will fix this, a good proportion of mid air collisions in the USA occur in Controlled airspace, within visual range of the tower with both aircraft radio equipped.
PS I'll just clarify I mean the extra billions spent on road safety in the last 30 years or so. Obviously policing actions vs drunks and other illegal driving has had a marked decrease in fatalities back in the 70s and 80s and continuing. But the continued push for zero road toll is ultimately ridiculously costly and unattainable. Things like the installation of median strip barriers everywhere and ridiculously low speeds on open roads. Just costly with very little impact on the overall toll.
PS I'll just clarify I mean the extra billions spent on road safety in the last 30 years or so. Obviously policing actions vs drunks and other illegal driving has had a marked decrease in fatalities back in the 70s and 80s and continuing. But the continued push for zero road toll is ultimately ridiculously costly and unattainable. Things like the installation of median strip barriers everywhere and ridiculously low speeds on open roads. Just costly with very little impact on the overall toll.
What are aircraft manufacturers doing? CAPS, airbags in seatbelts, ADSB-In. It’s all happening, just not overly fast.
Would transmitting on a radio have prevented this accident?
Most of the places I operate in are saturated with absolute rubbish on the radio. Makes things worse, made up radio calls, 7 hour long readbacks.
Anytime I operate into an aerodrome where gliders operate I expect the worst, cos you're gunna get it. I've never met a glider pilot yet that knows what a radio is for other than to guide the tug pilot when they're starting a tow.
Most of the places I operate in are saturated with absolute rubbish on the radio. Makes things worse, made up radio calls, 7 hour long readbacks.
Anytime I operate into an aerodrome where gliders operate I expect the worst, cos you're gunna get it. I've never met a glider pilot yet that knows what a radio is for other than to guide the tug pilot when they're starting a tow.
The real danger here is that folks will spend their entire time eyes-in fiddling with the knobs and forget the joy of actually flying.
With gliders it seems it's not so much the lack of radio use ..more the fact that they're very likely to randomly change direction, at high speed and with a seemingly unbelievable turn radius, whilst looking for the next thermal instead of looking out for other aircraft around them. How gliders, hang-gliders and that ilk don't have more mid-airs is beyond me.
The real danger here is that folks will spend their entire time eyes-in fiddling with the knobs and forget the joy of actually flying.
On the technology front in cars and planes we are seeing the automation cause as many accidents as they are meant to stop. Active cruise control is a good example, great for highway cruising, but when you pull out into an exit and forgot its on, especially when its been slowed by preceding traffic it will suddenly let rip and accelerate back to 100kph or whatever as there's no conflict, except the now limited road space. Inevitably the startled driver panics and ends up in a fence or pole.
What are aircraft manufacturers doing? CAPS, airbags in seatbelts, ADSB-In. It’s all happening, just not overly fast.
Would transmitting on a radio have prevented this accident?
Most of the places I operate in are saturated with absolute rubbish on the radio. Makes things worse, made up radio calls, 7 hour long readbacks.
Anytime I operate into an aerodrome where gliders operate I expect the worst, cos you're gunna get it. I've never met a glider pilot yet that knows what a radio is for other than to guide the tug pilot when they're starting a tow.
Most of the places I operate in are saturated with absolute rubbish on the radio. Makes things worse, made up radio calls, 7 hour long readbacks.
Anytime I operate into an aerodrome where gliders operate I expect the worst, cos you're gunna get it. I've never met a glider pilot yet that knows what a radio is for other than to guide the tug pilot when they're starting a tow.
Radio is no excuse for not having a comprehensive lookout.
i had an air miss whilst instructing with a guy joining supposedly 300 ft above me ..he had forgotten to set QFE and had transmitted his altitude as height above airfield.
I had an air miss leaving a holding pattern, another in a holding pattern and two DC9s were saved from a collision on final approach by a colleague seeing the belly of the other aircraft through the eyebrow window.
20 years ago I spoke to an ex instructor who had a comprehensive aircraft company in the alps..he had stopped instructing because of the amount of collisions caused by the proliferation of electronic aids which led to fewer eyes outside of the cockpit; it’s no surprise that FLAM is now mandatory in the alps and even paraglider pilots are using similar collision avoidance systems.
i had an air miss whilst instructing with a guy joining supposedly 300 ft above me ..he had forgotten to set QFE and had transmitted his altitude as height above airfield.
I had an air miss leaving a holding pattern, another in a holding pattern and two DC9s were saved from a collision on final approach by a colleague seeing the belly of the other aircraft through the eyebrow window.
20 years ago I spoke to an ex instructor who had a comprehensive aircraft company in the alps..he had stopped instructing because of the amount of collisions caused by the proliferation of electronic aids which led to fewer eyes outside of the cockpit; it’s no surprise that FLAM is now mandatory in the alps and even paraglider pilots are using similar collision avoidance systems.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,580
Received 436 Likes
on
230 Posts
With the digital control of most radios and all of the electronic flight bags everybody is using, your radio should automatically change to the correct frequency based on your geographical location and altitude.
This is not rocket science and the XCOM radio could do this 18 years ago... this eliminates pilot error from 95% of the circumstances of being in an area on the wrong frequency.
This is not rocket science and the XCOM radio could do this 18 years ago... this eliminates pilot error from 95% of the circumstances of being in an area on the wrong frequency.
Here in U.K., my typical “daily” flight is only about an hour and twenty minutes but includes transit through the airspace of four major airports and three minor airfields, including the destination. I’ve just added up how many frequencies are needed. It’s fourteen (sometimes a couple more) and therefore the radios need very careful and timely management. Automatic and wrongly timed radio frequency changes would cause total chaos.
I would suggest that FLARM takeup in Australian gliding operations has probably been quite high. We know we have a visibility issue - we're hard to see from some angles, and the very modes of soaring flight involve potentially flying in close proximity to other gliders some of the time. I've looked at a few of the glider instruments panels appearing the Facebook pages for the club whose aircraft and esteemed member were involved in this accident. Those photos show FLARM units - and an up to date VHF radio. None of the photos were of the Astir involved in the accident, but given that for FLARM to be effective it needs to be fitted to all aircraft normally operating in the area, I would almost expect that it was fitted and operational in this aircraft. I can't comment as to whether it was fitted in the RAAA registered aircraft (I would almost expect not) and if it was, most probably we wouldn't be having this conversation. However, that's not altogether the point of raising this here. If the glider has FLARM fitted and operational there should be a record of the flight(s) up to and including the accident. This may be useful in establishing the movements of the glider involved.
Concerning radio reporting - I know my club was and is fastidious about radio reporting (on the CTAF as it happens). A radio check (amongst other essentials) is part of the challenge drill to the pilot by the person hooking on the cable prior to launch. It may be pre-launch policy Australia wide - I don't know (there was a time when I would have). However, even so I once had an aircraft from one of the training concerns operating out of Parafield flash past me about a hundred metres away when we were both still inside the CTAF boundary for our operation - there was no radio call heard by me or others in our network. This discussion could have been about me.
Factually, radios are only useful on avoiding potential conflict if they are used - especially by pilots transiting through a known CTAF location. Having said that, the CTAF frequency where I used to fly was /perhaps still is, so congested with input from over a dozen different aviation operations within radio range that useful or essential information can be doubled on another transmission, or filtered out by the crew in (say) an instructional flight. Working thermals keeps a us fairly busy, and concentration on the 'aviate' part of the equation can sometimes overtake the 'communicate' capabilities - as it perhaps always should, but at a potential cost if the information missed were to be critical. There are no easy answers in some of these issues. We all just have to be aware of the possibilities using eyes firstly, but also such other means as are available to keep it safe and avoid sad events such as this one. We can learn from this.
Concerning radio reporting - I know my club was and is fastidious about radio reporting (on the CTAF as it happens). A radio check (amongst other essentials) is part of the challenge drill to the pilot by the person hooking on the cable prior to launch. It may be pre-launch policy Australia wide - I don't know (there was a time when I would have). However, even so I once had an aircraft from one of the training concerns operating out of Parafield flash past me about a hundred metres away when we were both still inside the CTAF boundary for our operation - there was no radio call heard by me or others in our network. This discussion could have been about me.
Factually, radios are only useful on avoiding potential conflict if they are used - especially by pilots transiting through a known CTAF location. Having said that, the CTAF frequency where I used to fly was /perhaps still is, so congested with input from over a dozen different aviation operations within radio range that useful or essential information can be doubled on another transmission, or filtered out by the crew in (say) an instructional flight. Working thermals keeps a us fairly busy, and concentration on the 'aviate' part of the equation can sometimes overtake the 'communicate' capabilities - as it perhaps always should, but at a potential cost if the information missed were to be critical. There are no easy answers in some of these issues. We all just have to be aware of the possibilities using eyes firstly, but also such other means as are available to keep it safe and avoid sad events such as this one. We can learn from this.