Midair near Gympie, Qld
Just as with using AM phone on common frequencies to allow all in the vicinity to listen to and be aware of traffic local broadcasts I consider related data transmissions should also be transmitted en clair (ie. an open protocol) so that all can receive such information regardless of the make of their equipment.
I regularly ride motor bikes in city traffic. Some days it seems every few minutes I need to take avoiding action because some numpty car driver is paying more attention to text pings or whatever on their phone then actually driving a car. Perhaps they needs a flarm..
I wonder if the phones will be checked reference the thread starter subject ?
I wonder if the phones will be checked reference the thread starter subject ?
I can understand that 'our' gliders present a few challenges to other pilots transiting know gliding operational sites and elsewhere.
Radio calls when doing so are indeed welcome, but if there are (say) five gliders in the air at that location, we're unlikely to be of much assistance if each of the airborne aircraft replies with their altitude, position and intentions, because it's quite likely that all of them will have a different story to tell (Multiply by the additional aircraft number where applicable). I agree that it's bad if there is a wall of silence. Ideally the instructor for the day should be the one to respond - or secondarily the duty pilot or log keeper. Even then, all that can be realistically offered is a broad report on how many gliders are airborne, and (perhaps) an indication on how high convection is going. No-one is likely to be above that level.
Similarly, when out of a task somewhere (or indeed at any time for that matter) our altitude is unlikely to be a constant factor - we'll be descending when on glide, and most likely circling when climbing. I still agree that spot altitude, speed, heading and intention should willing shared when asked, but when the primary details are under constant change, everyone will soon tire of five or ten minute transmissions from every glider on the frequency in use (which is another variable anyway).
All modern "GRP" gliders are white - they have to be for structural reasons - few places more critically so than in the harsh Australian summer sun. We've tried conspicuity (Dayglo) markings on non critical surface areas, but it proved to be not worth the complication - there was no benefit. Ditto for for strobe (or led) lights in the obvious locations. Again, it didn't noticeably improve the visibility of the aircraft so equipped. Conversely perhaps, the visibility from inside most gliders is about as good as it gets.. For the most part, we have a pretty well unobstructed view of the air into which we are flying which leads me to a further point.
I can assure you that all glider pilots have "constant lookout" drilled into them right from the very beginning of the instructional flights. Whether they continue to do so into their solo flying adventures can't be monitored effectively other than by the individual themselves - or PNF if there are two POB. The check instructor on the annual flight check flight(s) is invariably watching for this, and will be quite scathing if it's deficient. I know from my own flying that one tries to keep a constantly updated mental picture of where the others are. Every time there is a collision of any sort between any aircraft, anywhere, we take the event and the consequences on board, and apply any lessons learned to our own discipline the next time each of us is enjoying the privileges and all the other emotions and experiences that being able to fly bestows on us. That is about the only good thing we can take out of the two sad collision events which have been under discussion here and elsewhere in recent days.
Please note that I no longer fly - my comments are based on how it was when I was closely involved. I do keep up with subsequent developments, and for the most part, I think my comments would be valid in the current situation - at least where I used to fly.
Radio calls when doing so are indeed welcome, but if there are (say) five gliders in the air at that location, we're unlikely to be of much assistance if each of the airborne aircraft replies with their altitude, position and intentions, because it's quite likely that all of them will have a different story to tell (Multiply by the additional aircraft number where applicable). I agree that it's bad if there is a wall of silence. Ideally the instructor for the day should be the one to respond - or secondarily the duty pilot or log keeper. Even then, all that can be realistically offered is a broad report on how many gliders are airborne, and (perhaps) an indication on how high convection is going. No-one is likely to be above that level.
Similarly, when out of a task somewhere (or indeed at any time for that matter) our altitude is unlikely to be a constant factor - we'll be descending when on glide, and most likely circling when climbing. I still agree that spot altitude, speed, heading and intention should willing shared when asked, but when the primary details are under constant change, everyone will soon tire of five or ten minute transmissions from every glider on the frequency in use (which is another variable anyway).
All modern "GRP" gliders are white - they have to be for structural reasons - few places more critically so than in the harsh Australian summer sun. We've tried conspicuity (Dayglo) markings on non critical surface areas, but it proved to be not worth the complication - there was no benefit. Ditto for for strobe (or led) lights in the obvious locations. Again, it didn't noticeably improve the visibility of the aircraft so equipped. Conversely perhaps, the visibility from inside most gliders is about as good as it gets.. For the most part, we have a pretty well unobstructed view of the air into which we are flying which leads me to a further point.
I can assure you that all glider pilots have "constant lookout" drilled into them right from the very beginning of the instructional flights. Whether they continue to do so into their solo flying adventures can't be monitored effectively other than by the individual themselves - or PNF if there are two POB. The check instructor on the annual flight check flight(s) is invariably watching for this, and will be quite scathing if it's deficient. I know from my own flying that one tries to keep a constantly updated mental picture of where the others are. Every time there is a collision of any sort between any aircraft, anywhere, we take the event and the consequences on board, and apply any lessons learned to our own discipline the next time each of us is enjoying the privileges and all the other emotions and experiences that being able to fly bestows on us. That is about the only good thing we can take out of the two sad collision events which have been under discussion here and elsewhere in recent days.
Please note that I no longer fly - my comments are based on how it was when I was closely involved. I do keep up with subsequent developments, and for the most part, I think my comments would be valid in the current situation - at least where I used to fly.
Originally Posted by 43Inches
There can be problems with this if too many vehicles in an area are transmitting, you can actually saturate the receivers ability to decipher all threats. What happens after saturation point probably then defeats having the devices broadcasting. A bigger question is how to avoid these events happening in close proximity to airports, naturally it's where aircraft converge and there are many limits to what see and avoid can do, even in controlled airspace where you are given traffic many collisions have occurred between known traffic, some with ACAS. Just have to watch the warbird collision in the US, should never have happened but it did. The biggest cure is orderly traffic flow, so everybody is doing what they are expected to do. Most collisions occur near a field when somebody is doing something not expected in the course of departing or arriving. I'm all for ACAS but its only one defense and a last one at that after all others have failed.
Now it seems that traffic alert systems are a must have though the government, or CASA, or somebody else, must pay to have these systems installed.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
That’s unfortunate, as I doubt that the Queensland police and Coroner will be in a position to understand that:
- aircraft X is ‘administered’ by organisation A
- aircraft Y is ‘administered’ by organisation B
- CASA is neither organisation A nor organisation B
- both aircraft X and aircraft Y were supposed to be complying with rules of the air and radio carriage and usage rules administered by CASA, and
- CASA and ATSB aren’t inclined to get involved.
Only in Australia.
- aircraft X is ‘administered’ by organisation A
- aircraft Y is ‘administered’ by organisation B
- CASA is neither organisation A nor organisation B
- both aircraft X and aircraft Y were supposed to be complying with rules of the air and radio carriage and usage rules administered by CASA, and
- CASA and ATSB aren’t inclined to get involved.
Only in Australia.
Isn't that what is required of these Approved Self-Administering Aviation Organisations (ASAO)??
Article from Australian Flying magazine
https://www.australianflying.com.au/...pie-crash-atsb
https://www.australianflying.com.au/...pie-crash-atsb
Originally Posted by 0ttoL
Surely the GFA must investigate the glider part & RAAus must investigate the aircraft part?
Isn't that what is required of these Approved Self-Administering Aviation Organisations (ASAO)??
Isn't that what is required of these Approved Self-Administering Aviation Organisations (ASAO)??
An RAAus Accident Consultant (AC) is only there to assist the police in their investigation and to gather the facts and present them to RAAus. Under no circumstances are staff expected to lead the investigation. RAAus ACs do not have any jurisdiction under the Transport Safety Investigation (TSI) Act 2003.
Originally Posted by Bosi72
There is no offical ATSB report, nor there will be any. This is a matter for Police to investigate, which will likely involve both RAAus and Gliding Federation Australia.
However, we can discuss and put ourselves into either position, and what would we do differently.
Personally I would love to see FLARM gliders on my efb, and I believe glider pilots would love to see ADSB powered traffic on their FLARMs too.
Unfortunately this is not possible due to legal and technical limitations of two standards.
However, we can discuss and put ourselves into either position, and what would we do differently.
Personally I would love to see FLARM gliders on my efb, and I believe glider pilots would love to see ADSB powered traffic on their FLARMs too.
Unfortunately this is not possible due to legal and technical limitations of two standards.
After the ATSB refused to investigate this incident, RAAus say they will no longer investigate fatal accidents, believing ATSB is the correct body to investigate.
Dear Members,
It is important to share with you an update on RAAus’ recent decision to not investigate a fatal accident that occurred at Kybong in Queensland involving an RAAus registered aircraft and a VH- Registered Glider, resulting in the death of two Australians.
In recent years, as a result of the ATSB choosing not to investigate sport aviation fatal accidents, RAAus has played a crucial role in formally supporting state police and Coroners, to assist them in understanding the circumstances around how/why an accident occurred. An artefact is that our participation has masked the fact that the ATSB have not been involved. Because of this our staff have endured WHS risk associated with deploying to accident sites, our reputation has at times been tainted due to our inability to share the reports we write as they ‘belong’ to the Coroner thus impeding the safety benefits for all aviators, and our members have funded a function that is not a core activity of RAAus. Moreover, this activity is one that is funded for other airspace users while our members are excluded from such safety dividends while contributing to the funding of the ATSB via the tax system. We have also been subjected to strong criticism due to the lack of independence in our findings despite us being faced with little alternative but to investigate our own. Nevertheless, we are proud of the significant work performed over the years to improve safety and provide some degree of closure for the loved ones of fatal accidents.
During recent discussions with the ATSB Chief Commissioner we were informed that the decision as to whether or not to investigate lies within the ATSB prioritisation system. That is, where can they focus their efforts (and funding) for the ‘greatest public benefit’. For the recent accident at Kybong we contend that in applying their prioritisation system, the ATSB should have investigated this accident given the high airspace risk that is evident and that an investigation would yield significant benefits for ALL airspace users, not just sport aviation organisations. RAAus is strongly of the view that an independent understanding of the circumstances into this accident is essential and that the ATSB is best placed to do this. This is a view shared by many others in the industry.
The ATSB enjoys a host of protections under the TSI Act 2003, whereas RAAus does not. It is for this reason and those mentioned above that we have made repeated (unsuccessful) representations to the ATSB Chief Commissioner and that we will once again be making representations to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to seek the appropriate level of funding for the ATSB. This would mean that RAAus members are afforded the same status that is given to other aviators and transport users in our community in recognition of the role we play in the sector and our position in the industry as Australia’s largest cohort of private aviators.
The Board has therefore resolved that RAAus’ default position will be to not deploy staff/investigators to future fatal accidents, irrespective of ATSB’s position, to ensure we protect our people and the organisation. The CEO has been charged with making the assessment on our level of involvement which may still involve deployment however the role we would play will be significantly different from what we have done previously. We remain committed to supporting police, local authorities and Coroners wherever we can. There will be further work done on this matter including the continued seeking of legal advice. Should we shift our position in the future we will advise members accordingly.
Michael Monck
Chairman
(for the board)
Dear Members,
It is important to share with you an update on RAAus’ recent decision to not investigate a fatal accident that occurred at Kybong in Queensland involving an RAAus registered aircraft and a VH- Registered Glider, resulting in the death of two Australians.
In recent years, as a result of the ATSB choosing not to investigate sport aviation fatal accidents, RAAus has played a crucial role in formally supporting state police and Coroners, to assist them in understanding the circumstances around how/why an accident occurred. An artefact is that our participation has masked the fact that the ATSB have not been involved. Because of this our staff have endured WHS risk associated with deploying to accident sites, our reputation has at times been tainted due to our inability to share the reports we write as they ‘belong’ to the Coroner thus impeding the safety benefits for all aviators, and our members have funded a function that is not a core activity of RAAus. Moreover, this activity is one that is funded for other airspace users while our members are excluded from such safety dividends while contributing to the funding of the ATSB via the tax system. We have also been subjected to strong criticism due to the lack of independence in our findings despite us being faced with little alternative but to investigate our own. Nevertheless, we are proud of the significant work performed over the years to improve safety and provide some degree of closure for the loved ones of fatal accidents.
During recent discussions with the ATSB Chief Commissioner we were informed that the decision as to whether or not to investigate lies within the ATSB prioritisation system. That is, where can they focus their efforts (and funding) for the ‘greatest public benefit’. For the recent accident at Kybong we contend that in applying their prioritisation system, the ATSB should have investigated this accident given the high airspace risk that is evident and that an investigation would yield significant benefits for ALL airspace users, not just sport aviation organisations. RAAus is strongly of the view that an independent understanding of the circumstances into this accident is essential and that the ATSB is best placed to do this. This is a view shared by many others in the industry.
The ATSB enjoys a host of protections under the TSI Act 2003, whereas RAAus does not. It is for this reason and those mentioned above that we have made repeated (unsuccessful) representations to the ATSB Chief Commissioner and that we will once again be making representations to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to seek the appropriate level of funding for the ATSB. This would mean that RAAus members are afforded the same status that is given to other aviators and transport users in our community in recognition of the role we play in the sector and our position in the industry as Australia’s largest cohort of private aviators.
The Board has therefore resolved that RAAus’ default position will be to not deploy staff/investigators to future fatal accidents, irrespective of ATSB’s position, to ensure we protect our people and the organisation. The CEO has been charged with making the assessment on our level of involvement which may still involve deployment however the role we would play will be significantly different from what we have done previously. We remain committed to supporting police, local authorities and Coroners wherever we can. There will be further work done on this matter including the continued seeking of legal advice. Should we shift our position in the future we will advise members accordingly.
Michael Monck
Chairman
(for the board)
interesting...... they investigate people falling of bicycles, people falling off horses, people bitten by sharks, people hit by space debris, but if you fly a recreational aircraft it seems that you just don't matter
Originally Posted by mcoates
interesting...... they investigate people falling of bicycles, people falling off horses, people bitten by sharks, people hit by space debris, but if you fly a recreational aircraft it seems that you just don't matter
How close do you want the ATSB to investigate the accident ? How far do you take it? …Maybe their recommendation would be that all Australian pilots should have airline standard training and licensing and only fly airline standard aircraft under full ATC control..
Perhaps if it were say the third of type ultralight to lose a wing in the last year then you would expect the ATSB to have a look-see.
At any rate, it appears the Police are looking into it so it ain’t case closed just yet.
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
At any rate, it appears the Police are looking into it so it ain’t case closed just yet.
Originally Posted by Cloudee
I think that RAAus are making the point that the ATSB is the body to conduct this investigation and are trying to pressure them to do so.
And...
There's always been a perceived conflict of interest in RAAus investigating its own. That's not a criticism of the individuals concerned. Perceived conflicts of interests aren't about individuals' integrity. It's about the nature of the circumstances in which they find themselves.
RAAus was always caught between a rock and a hard place on this issue. I'm amazed it's taken them this long to face the reality.
There's always been a perceived conflict of interest in RAAus investigating its own. That's not a criticism of the individuals concerned. Perceived conflicts of interests aren't about individuals' integrity. It's about the nature of the circumstances in which they find themselves.
RAAus was always caught between a rock and a hard place on this issue. I'm amazed it's taken them this long to face the reality.
From their website:
"The ATSB is responsible for investigating accidents and transport safety occurrences involving Australian-registered civilian aircraft (excluding recreational and sport aviation)" About the ATSB | ATSB
Surely RAAus wanted to be self regulating?
This is a tragic accident but seems more the domain of the police and the coroner than ATSB, as it doesn't appear to be an airworthiness issue..
"The ATSB is responsible for investigating accidents and transport safety occurrences involving Australian-registered civilian aircraft (excluding recreational and sport aviation)" About the ATSB | ATSB
Surely RAAus wanted to be self regulating?
This is a tragic accident but seems more the domain of the police and the coroner than ATSB, as it doesn't appear to be an airworthiness issue..
Since when have aviation incident investigations by ATSB/BASI etc been confined to "airworthiness issues"? I could have sworn that there are these things called 'the rules of the air', enshrined in the civil aviation rules, compliance with which has some benefit for aviation safety. Since when have the local coppers been trained in the rules of the air, radio carriage and use rules.etc?
Unsurprisingly, RAAus wanted the good bits of 'self regulation' but didn't want the bad bits.
(And BTW, what the ATSB says about what it is "responsible" for is self-serving and inaccurate.)
Unsurprisingly, RAAus wanted the good bits of 'self regulation' but didn't want the bad bits.
(And BTW, what the ATSB says about what it is "responsible" for is self-serving and inaccurate.)
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
Since when have aviation incident investigations by ATSB/BASI etc been confined to "airworthiness issues"? I could have sworn that there are these things called 'the rules of the air', enshrined in the civil aviation rules, compliance with which has some benefit for aviation safety. Since when have the local coppers been trained in the rules of the air, radio carriage and use rules.etc?
Unsurprisingly, RAAus wanted the good bits of 'self regulation' but didn't want the bad bits.
(And BTW, what the ATSB says about what it is "responsible" for is self-serving and inaccurate.)
Unsurprisingly, RAAus wanted the good bits of 'self regulation' but didn't want the bad bits.
(And BTW, what the ATSB says about what it is "responsible" for is self-serving and inaccurate.)
