The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

S211 Down Port Phillip Bay

Old 27th Nov 2023, 02:51
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,906
Received 206 Likes on 107 Posts
Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA
Depends on how much damage the aircraft has sustained and if it's controllable. I have no problems with the PIC's decision to go to Essendon as a known airfield he had planned for given the (as far as we know) very light damage that was able to be visually seen from the cockpit. MB not suitable, extra track miles to Avalon for minimal gain given the condition of the aircraft. It's been explained in depth in this thread from pilots with real world experience in this type of flying, with a lot more experience than I have.
I think you mean LESS miles to Avalon.

interesting channel 9 I think reported he was inverted when they came into contact or just before.
ADSB shows a manoeuvre of sorts at around the time of impact.



Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2023, 02:52
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,303
Received 171 Likes on 88 Posts
Originally Posted by WetCompass
Which would be?
You'll find out on the day.
Capt Fathom is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 27th Nov 2023, 02:54
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Posts: 569
Received 72 Likes on 25 Posts
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
I think you mean LESS miles to Avalon.

Not if you're going coastal to stay in glide range of land while you do your admin. Tracking coastal you'd have to keep trucking PAST EN/ML to get to Avalon. On Flight aware data you can see him decelerating to a speed not much higher than his later approach speed while tracking coastal, quite possibly doing that admin prior to making a decision.
junior.VH-LFA is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2023, 03:19
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,906
Received 206 Likes on 107 Posts
Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA
Not if you're going coastal to stay in glide range of land while you do your admin. Tracking coastal you'd have to keep trucking PAST EN/ML to get to Avalon. On Flight aware data you can see him decelerating to a speed not much higher than his later approach speed while tracking coastal, quite possibly doing that admin prior to making a decision.
You need to get out a ruler. They were so close to half way across the bay that it offered far better options to the west and the flight would have been over far less water than the eastern side.

If the wind was close to 17 as PC says it was, then YMAV looks more attractive yet again versus 26.

Thereís no doubt it was a better option, but other factors took over, as you would reasonably expect them to. The biggest surprise to me is they didnít climb to give more options.
Squawk7700 is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 27th Nov 2023, 03:39
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 571
Received 86 Likes on 66 Posts
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
The biggest surprise to me is they didn’t climb to give more options.
He probably wanted to ensure contact with the ground and eyes outside would minimise his chances of another mid-air on the way home! (It was a fairly hazy day)

..but, yes, you're right. I'm sure ATC would have cleared him into the Class C up the top end of the bay in an instant if he'd asked. Maybe he did? I've not heard the YMEN tower comms so no idea.

Last edited by PiperCameron; 27th Nov 2023 at 04:17.
PiperCameron is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2023, 04:16
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 3,041
Received 27 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by WetCompass
Yep, still straw manning.
If YOU were involved in a mid air mid Port Phillip Bay and Avalon was available, you would pass that up and go to home base? Even given all the other alternatives require flying over built up areas?
There is not enough information in your question for any pilot to make that decision. How much, if any damage is there to the aircraft? How is the aircraft performing and handling? What's the weather? What services do I require and where are they best addressed? And that would include get information out to help find the other aircraft after you land.

If the aeroplane was performing ok and I considered the damage contained, yes I would consider the option of overfly built up areas and go to home base which would be more familiar. If the aeroplane wasnt performing it would depend. You can't make a blanket decision until you have all the facts. You can certainly pre think what options are available, but you can't make the decision until you see what you have and what you don't have after the incident.

Lots of light aircraft fall from the sky when the engine stops. Should they all avoid flying over built up areas all of the time? Or should they carefully consider there options and always have a plan B?



donpizmeov is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2023, 05:35
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,906
Received 206 Likes on 107 Posts
yes I would consider the option of overfly built up areas and go to home base which would be more familiar
Side-note: I keep seeing this word. He is a Jetstar pilot, if he hasn't flown into Avalon dozens of times I'll eat my hat!
Squawk7700 is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 27th Nov 2023, 05:47
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,314
Received 245 Likes on 118 Posts
He was a Jetstar pilot. He left Jetstar early last year or possibly early 2021 and he flew the 787 for many years before that. His recent experience with Avalon was probably as an airshow display pilot. It doesn't matter though, for reasons only he could consider he chose EN.
Lookleft is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by Lookleft:
Old 27th Nov 2023, 21:13
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2022
Location: Victoria
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Interesting that 7 News reporting that ATSB did not need the wreckage to be recovered and were happy to leave it where it lay.
Would that imply they already have all the information they require?

DARKMAIZE is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2023, 22:14
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,314
Received 245 Likes on 118 Posts
They would have the two surviving pilot statements of what happened, probably video footage and evidence of an unsurvivable impact. The wreckage is of more use to the Coroner than to the investigator's.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2023, 04:57
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 643
Received 20 Likes on 6 Posts
WetCompass

I had a student at 2FTS during the formation flying phase, who was having issues with what to do and say when the wingman loses contact and calls “blind”. When we sat down and discussed it, he showed me his preparation notes. He had written down every possible scenario like this:

LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, descending
WING, below safety height, turning towards, descending
LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
WING, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
LEAD, below safety height, turning away, descending
WING, below safety height, turning away, descending
LEAD, above safety height, turning towards, climbing…..

​​​​​……and so on and so on. Below each heading he wrote down every action and radio call, it went on for literally PAGES of text. The problem with this method is that when faced with a scenario, he was spending way too long trying to remember the exact mental cassette (that’s how old I am…) to plug in before acting — and when faced with a slight variation to his prepared responses he couldn’t cope because he didn’t have the exact response.

It was because he spent too much effort trying to learn the ANSWERS when he should have been learning the FORMULA:

Get me safe
Get wing safe
Get above safety height
Organise a height separation
Organise a rejoin

It’s not specific for every scenario, and you may call it winging it, but it gets the job done. As 601 said above: that’s why you get paid the big bikkies…

You remind me of that student: always looking for the exact answers, never thinking on his feet.
ruprecht is offline  
The following 9 users liked this post by ruprecht:
Old 29th Nov 2023, 01:32
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2023
Location: Leongatha
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Alternate to Avalon

Reference made above to "tracking coastal within glide distance of land" to Essendon.
Newsflash. Port Phillip Bay is an almost entirely enclosed body of water and one can "track coastal" in either direction. A route over the heads via Port Arlington and Point Henry leaves a tiny over water segment, and is shorter than tracking to Essendon. In fact, distance is not a factor if your aircraft is in good shape, the engine is turning and burning and you have fuel in the tanks.
In dismissing Avalon as an option someone referred to the perils of taking a direct track as it was "over deep water". Deep water only becomes an issue if you are concerned about losing control and spearing in. Hellooo! If that is a concern, under no circumstances should you choose a destination which requires flight over built-up areas. To be brutal, if the aircraft was at risk of catastrophic failure, the deep water only becomes an issue for recovery of bodies.
As for comparison with US Air 1549 (Sullenberger)?
That is the reddest of red herrings. Sullenberger's choice of alternates was limited by having 0/2 engines running and sfa altitude. He, in fact, chose the option of ditching in the Hudson for the very reason that an attempted approach to Teteboro could have put lives on the ground at risk.
The S211 had wing damage but it seems there were no issues with fuel or engine function, so choice of airport on those grounds was not a factor.
There seems to be a level of emotional reaction here in supporting those involved.
Understandable, perhaps.
But that, plus $5, will get you a cup of coffee.
Capt Bigglesworth is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2023, 19:37
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: Earth
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Lookleft
He was a Jetstar pilot. He left Jetstar early last year or possibly early 2021 and he flew the 787 for many years before that. His recent experience with Avalon was probably as an airshow display pilot. It doesn't matter though, for reasons only he could consider he chose EN.
Maybe Essendon was chosen because that's where the car was parked. Not for anyone else to judge.

It is a sad industry if command decisions are to be made on the basis of what keyboard warriors might opine after the event.

Last edited by flyinghorseman; 29th Nov 2023 at 19:47.
flyinghorseman is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by flyinghorseman:
Old 29th Nov 2023, 20:30
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,303
Received 171 Likes on 88 Posts
Posted by Capt Bigglesworth….

Where have I read all that before?
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2023, 20:39
  #275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by ruprecht
WetCompass

I had a student at 2FTS during the formation flying phase, who was having issues with what to do and say when the wingman loses contact and calls ďblindĒ. When we sat down and discussed it, he showed me his preparation notes. He had written down every possible scenario like this:

LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, descending
WING, below safety height, turning towards, descending
LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
WING, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
LEAD, below safety height, turning away, descending
WING, below safety height, turning away, descending
LEAD, above safety height, turning towards, climbingÖ..

​​​​​ÖÖand so on and so on. Below each heading he wrote down every action and radio call, it went on for literally PAGES of text. The problem with this method is that when faced with a scenario, he was spending way too long trying to remember the exact mental cassette (thatís how old I amÖ) to plug in before acting ó and when faced with a slight variation to his prepared responses he couldnít cope because he didnít have the exact response.

It was because he spent too much effort trying to learn the ANSWERS when he should have been learning the FORMULA:

Get me safe
Get wing safe
Get above safety height
Organise a height separation
Organise a rejoin

Itís not specific for every scenario, and you may call it winging it, but it gets the job done. As 601 said above: thatís why you get paid the big bikkiesÖ

You remind me of that student: always looking for the exact answers, never thinking on his feet.
Four variables, lead/wing, above/below, towards/away, climbing/descending. That's 16 cases. So maybe 16 pages to enumerate the procedure, and there may be scope to compress that if some of the procedures are common to some of the cases. Not only that but you can rigorously test your principles based method against every case and make sure it works. What a motivated student and great learning opportunity for instructor and student.
georgeeipi is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2023, 22:00
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 571
Received 86 Likes on 66 Posts
Originally Posted by Capt Bigglesworth
Reference made above to "tracking coastal within glide distance of land" to Essendon.
Newsflash. Port Phillip Bay is an almost entirely enclosed body of water and one can "track coastal" in either direction.
Newsflash for you then, sir: "tracking coastal" in the majority of posts in this thread refers to the Melbourne Coastal VFR route between Carrum and Melbourne City - as clearly marked on charts and used by anyone wanting to track along the eastern shore of Port Phillip towards the city wishing to avoid a mid-air with anyone coming the opposite direction. Just FYI. This airspace is under the control of ML CTR on 135.7, whereas the other side is (mostly) under AV APP 133.55
PiperCameron is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2023, 22:14
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,906
Received 206 Likes on 107 Posts
Originally Posted by PiperCameron
Newsflash for you then, sir: "tracking coastal" in the majority of posts in this thread refers to the Melbourne Coastal VFR route between Carrum and Melbourne City - as clearly marked on charts and used by anyone wanting to track along the eastern shore of Port Phillip towards the city wishing to avoid a mid-air with anyone coming the opposite direction. Just FYI. This airspace is under the control of ML CTR on 135.7, whereas the other side is (mostly) under AV APP 133.55
That's a big assumption, I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest. You don't track the VFR coastal route in a jet at 200+ knots. That's just for pilots to transit Moorabbin to keep close to the beach.

To get back to YMEN it would require one frequency change to 125.1 and to get to Avalon it would be one change to 133.55. The Avalon airspace starts around 8nm out and Essendon is ~7nm out to make contact.



Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2023, 00:11
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 6,004
Received 531 Likes on 243 Posts
Lots of light aircraft fall from the sky when the engine stops. Should they all avoid flying over built up areas all of the time
The big fellas drop stuff on the suburbs as well up to and including engine pods, most damaging was a 747 shedding two pods then the airframe crashing into a block of apartments resulting in a large death toll, should ALL aircraft be banned from over flying the suburbs on that basis? More to worry about is a motor vehicle parking in your bedroom, happens on a regular basis.
It is a sad industry if command decisions are to be made on the basis of what keyboard warriors might opine after the event
Particularly when that command decision produces an outcome of no consequence, I can't believe the Avalon discussion going on here, I'd expect better from experienced aviators - sorry.
megan is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 30th Nov 2023, 01:58
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 615
Received 70 Likes on 29 Posts
Originally Posted by megan
I can't believe the Avalon discussion going on here, I'd expect better from experienced aviators - sorry.
I think you might be making an assumption there .

Four variables, lead/wing, above/below, towards/away, climbing/descending. That's 16 cases. So maybe 16 pages to enumerate the procedure, and there may be scope to compress that if some of the procedures are common to some of the cases. Not only that but you can rigorously test your principles based method against every case and make sure it works. What a motivated student and great learning opportunity for instructor and student.
Sure, but thatís just for a single scenario. Now consider everything else that might go wrong on a given trip, and how many different possibilities youíd have to work through. How many pages would you have to write, and how big would your brain have to be to be able to apply it all? Being a motivated and well-prepared student is great, but itís got to be in a way that can be applied practically. (Which I think was Ruprechtís point.)
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 30th Nov 2023, 02:10
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard
I think you might be making an assumption there .



Sure, but thatís just for a single scenario. Now consider everything else that might go wrong on a given trip, and how many different possibilities youíd have to work through. How many pages would you have to write, and how big would your brain have to be to be able to apply it all? Being a motivated and well-prepared student is great, but itís got to be in a way that can be applied practically. (Which I think was Ruprechtís point.)
The student would have enumerated 16 cases, that potentially could be simplified to fewer given a principles approach as Ruprecht says.
Aviation safety is an incremental process. Somebody writes out the 16 pages and then should publish it in one of the aviation journals. And then others can read it and improve on it. There are hundreds of thousands of pages in the aviation journals. This is how science works and how we have the super safe aviation systems we have today.
My heart sank when I read Ruprecht's post. It seems he shut down part of a really good process. In medicine they have the concept of the scientist-practitioner. Every medical specialist at some point has done a research project and knows how the scientific process works. What a pity we don't do that in aviation.
georgeeipi is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.