ASD-B IN – A different perspective on the recent hype

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by 43 Inches

One of the main concerns was radio traffic for control services, so a main concept in GAAP was to reduce radio traffic by not requiring full clearances and the traffic just followed each other with joining 'instructions'. The only clearance required was the take-off and landing part.

The waffle that has crept into ATC procedures lately really has significant safety implications in complex, busy situations.

Wash your mouth out with soap, 43. Australia-unique concepts/procedures cannot be allowed and ICAO Class D procedures WILL be implemented!! HWMBO said so!

Now back to normal programming.

If ADSB-In could be verified as accurate, then it would make the big boy's lives easier out in the sticks when dealing with bug smashers and frighteners.

[Mr Mossberg]

Class D was implemented to calm down (read, shut up) a prominent aviation identity. Except it isn't really Class D is it. Class D you can call inbound from anywhere, what we really have is GAAP re-named Class D. Carrum and Braahton were the only inbound reporting points I could find without putting it into the pad or GPS, meaning, you could find Carrum while still looking out the window instead of having to navigate via GPS via the other points cos they've all blended in to the urban sprawl. By the looks of that pic, most of them are going to head in via Carrum.

[ER_BN]

Seaworld

Extrapolating ATSB's "concept"...to reality.

Were the helicopters fitted with ADS-IN?

Surely that crash showed the "limitations of see and avoid" as per ATSB?

[Squawk7700]

Originally Posted by Mr Mossberg

By the looks of that pic, most of them are going to head in via Carrum.

The GMH building is another one. I saw a photo of it the other day on Facebook from back in the day. It was seemingly the only large building for kilometres. Now it’s completely lost in a sea of factories. I haven’t personally used that approach point for years as it heads to the busier circuit, is further to taxi, it backs more onto the training area and it’s entirely over suburbia. So as you say, Carrum is the preferred as it doesn’t have all that, plus it has beach to land on.

[43Inches]

Surely that crash showed the "limitations of see and avoid" as per ATSB?

If you are referring to the Moorabbin mid-air collision, CGT did see UPY and was taking avoiding action when they collided. My issue is why a solo student was using the Western Circuit, in days gone the Eastern circuit was used for solos as it had less inbound/outbound/crossing traffic, and the tower always had the ability to bring aircraft inbound via GMH and Academy for an overhead join to the Western circuit if the Eastern circuit was busy. The tower also has a better view of the Eastern circuit for traffic management.

The GMH building is another one. I saw a photo of it the other day on Facebook from back in the day. It was seemingly the only large building for kilometres. Now it’s completely lost in a sea of factories. I haven’t personally used that approach point for years as it heads to the busier circuit, is further to taxi, it backs more onto the training area and it’s entirely over suburbia. So as you say, Carrum is the preferred as it doesn’t have all that, plus it has beach to land on.

GMH as the name suggested was part of the General Motors Holden production facilities, sold in 1997. There were significant, stand out, saw tooth factory buildings, in isolation surrounded by a lot of parked vehicles.

[ER_BN]

Originally Posted by 43Inches

If you are referring to the Moorabbin mid-air collision

43inches, thanks and my apologies...No, I was referring to the mid air at Gold Coast between two helicopters 02/01/23.

ATSB A0-2023-001.

[sunnySA]

Originally Posted by sunnySA

Perhaps the real question is "how" rather than "who"?

On reflection, perhaps the question is why?

[PiperCameron]

Originally Posted by ER_BN

Extrapolating ATSB's "concept"...to reality.

Were the helicopters fitted with ADS-IN?

Surely that crash showed the "limitations of see and avoid" as per ATSB?

Unless both aircraft were fitted with some kind of ACAS/TCAS (which usually doesn't rely on ADS-B anyway) or the pilots were using aural alerts on an EFB of some sort (Foreflight, etc.), I don't see what relevance ADS-B IN would have in prevention of that accident. Whilst flying VFR, it's important to keep eyes outside to maintain situational awareness - not stare at a screen and hope for the best.

There are bound to be recommendations for better SA coming out of that accident, and it will be interesting to see what those are.

[Mr Mossberg]

The GMH building is another one.

Agreed, that and Academy. Funnelling aircraft in to an aerodrome via points that nobody can spot anymore. Not real smart. So pilots are using their EFB to find an inbound reporting point as well as spot the other 3 aircraft that reported amongst your call.

[BronteExperimental]

Originally Posted by Mr Mossberg

Agreed, that and Academy. Funnelling aircraft in to an aerodrome via points that nobody can spot anymore. Not real smart. So pilots are using their EFB to find an inbound reporting point as well as spot the other 3 aircraft that reported amongst your call.

If nobody can spot them, then there ain’t much chance of two being in the same place then is there?

[compressor stall]

Originally Posted by BronteExperimental

If nobody can spot them, then there ain’t much chance of two being in the same place then is there?

au contraire. Ever used Direct to function on a GPS?
and the head is inside looking at a screen… all the more likely

[Mr Mossberg]

If nobody can spot them, then there ain’t much chance of two being in the same place then is there?

I don't like putting people down in public, but you're not very bright are you.

Read what I wrote again slowly. Have a think about it. If you need me to break it down for you, let me know.

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by Mr Mossberg

Agreed, that and Academy. Funnelling aircraft in to an aerodrome via points that nobody can spot anymore. Not real smart. So pilots are using their EFB to find an inbound reporting point as well as spot the other 3 aircraft that reported amongst your call.

It's actually a very good point, watching a flight bag display, or even traffic display inside the aircraft takes a lot of time away from an effective visual scan. Very different to ACAS, which only alerts you when it detects a conflict. Another example of seemingly good technology that can work against safety in some respects.

[BronteExperimental]

I take your points, but you can’t have it both ways.
if someone is direct to the reporting point then chances are they do have their eyes outside. That’s a good thing.
if they are staring at an EFB then they may well have at least have some idea about potential conflicts. I agree that heads down direct to is probably a bit dopey. Is there any evidence to suggest this is what happens or are we just guessing? I certainly don’t do that.

What’s the proposed solution? No reporting points? Just call 3miles from the D anywhere?
do we think that improves things?

[Squawk7700]

I’m not even sure if YMMB tower can see ADSB traffic yet!

Can anyone confirm this?

When I got ADSB at about the start of the rebate period, they told me they can’t see anyone on ADSB.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Ever used Direct to function on a GPS

That's the thing isn't it. GPS is accurate. A published waypoint programmed in is essentially exactly the same spot for everyone. Using GPS the chances of being in exactly the same spot as someone else is proportionally higher than if just DR or visual nav was being used.

[PiperCameron]

Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was

That's the thing isn't it. GPS is accurate. A published waypoint programmed in is essentially exactly the same spot for everyone. Using GPS the chances of being in exactly the same spot as someone else is proportionally higher than if just DR or visual nav was being used.

Nah... The GPS might be accurate but some of these folks can't even FLY straight, let alone follow a magenta line VFR.

Is it just me or is the size of the average Cessna circuit at YMMB getting larger these days?? I expect sometime soon they'll be outside 3 miles and turning base at Carrum with the rest of us.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I’ve been a bit busy and will catch up on some of the important earlier posts, but I have to say that – as with ADS-B IN - TCAS/ACAS is not the panacea either, at least not for aircraft in the vicinity of GAAPs – sorry ‘D Metropolitan’ - when they are busy. Lots of traffic in ‘close’ proximity.

When I started training and did flights in and out of YSBK, it was three parallel runways in operation, 3 aircraft rolling, 3 on short final, me on long final with an aircraft off each wing on final to the other runways, inbound traffic behind and outbound traffic in the general opposite direction (hopefully at least 500’ vertical separation). What do we think TCAS/ACAS would be doing during all of this?

As touched on earlier, it will be very interesting to see what avionics were fitted to the helicopters involved in the Seaworld tragedy.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Looking at the in chopper footage again, it doesn't appear that the pilot is particularly looking anywhere but outside. It's not like his attention is attracted to a particular instrument, and then he reacts by looking in the threat direction. He seems oblivious up to the moment of impact.

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was

Looking at the in chopper footage again, it doesn't appear that the pilot is particularly looking anywhere but outside. It's not like his attention is attracted to a particular instrument, and then he reacts by looking in the threat direction. He seems oblivious up to the moment of impact.

The collision threat is always the hardest to see as it won't have any relative motion, it will appear stationary to the target until the collision. The brain will pick up movement in the periphery relatively easily, to pick up collision course objects your scan needs to sweep the danger areas with periodic focus as you sweep. The helo pilot may have been alerted to something in that direction, but may not have considered it an immediate danger, just something being pointed out.