Almost head-on prang at Lake Macquarie (nee Aeropelican)
Thread Starter
Almost head-on prang at Lake Macquarie (nee Aeropelican)
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-i...red-aerodromes
"The pilots of two aircraft involved in a runway accident at Lake Macquarie did not hear each other on the radio, nor see one another, before a near collision occurred and one aircraft struck the ground while taking avoiding action, an ATSB investigation report details."
<snip>
“This accident highlights the limitations of unalerted see-and-avoid around non-towered aerodromes,” Mr Macleod said.
“Reducing the collision risk around non-towered airports is one of the ATSB’s key SafetyWatch concerns, and this accident serves to remind pilots of the importance of effective radio communications to increase traffic awareness, and to ensure an effective visual scan to identify conflicting traffic.”
"The pilots of two aircraft involved in a runway accident at Lake Macquarie did not hear each other on the radio, nor see one another, before a near collision occurred and one aircraft struck the ground while taking avoiding action, an ATSB investigation report details."
<snip>
“This accident highlights the limitations of unalerted see-and-avoid around non-towered aerodromes,” Mr Macleod said.
“Reducing the collision risk around non-towered airports is one of the ATSB’s key SafetyWatch concerns, and this accident serves to remind pilots of the importance of effective radio communications to increase traffic awareness, and to ensure an effective visual scan to identify conflicting traffic.”
talk about stating the bleeding obvious!
“Reducing the collision risk around non-towered airports is one of the ATSB’s key SafetyWatch concerns, and this accident serves to remind pilots of the importance of effective radio communications to increase traffic awareness, and to ensure an effective visual scan to identify conflicting traffic.”
“Reducing the collision risk around non-towered airports is one of the ATSB’s key SafetyWatch concerns, and this accident serves to remind pilots of the importance of effective radio communications to increase traffic awareness, and to ensure an effective visual scan to identify conflicting traffic.”
I hate this adoption of the term "non-towered" airports. In Australia, they are uncontrolled airports in Class G airspace.
The term non-towered is a US term that people have heard and assumed it means the same as uncontrolled. It does not, because in the US it is possible to have an airport without a tower, controlled from the local Air Traffic Centre using Class E airspace, hence a non-towered airport.
I have flown through one near Seattle called Port Angeles. IFR flights are provided with ATC and traffic information on observed VFR flights. The pilot monitors ATC and the local CTAF. I recall we were vectored for a ten-mile ILS while a colleague from the same company as our pilot was coordinating his opposite direction departure VFR. None of this was coordinated with Seattle Centre, but obviously the controller saw a radar paint. He calmly gave opposite direction traffic to our pilot, who equally calmly advised he was aware of the traffic on the CTAF and that the other pilot had already advised he was clear of the ILS approach.
It is a technique that provides protection for IFR flights at moderately busy airports, that do not reach the criteria for Class D airspace and a control tower. It would, for instance, be useful at perhaps Ballina or some of the airports in the Pilbara.
The term non-towered is a US term that people have heard and assumed it means the same as uncontrolled. It does not, because in the US it is possible to have an airport without a tower, controlled from the local Air Traffic Centre using Class E airspace, hence a non-towered airport.
I have flown through one near Seattle called Port Angeles. IFR flights are provided with ATC and traffic information on observed VFR flights. The pilot monitors ATC and the local CTAF. I recall we were vectored for a ten-mile ILS while a colleague from the same company as our pilot was coordinating his opposite direction departure VFR. None of this was coordinated with Seattle Centre, but obviously the controller saw a radar paint. He calmly gave opposite direction traffic to our pilot, who equally calmly advised he was aware of the traffic on the CTAF and that the other pilot had already advised he was clear of the ILS approach.
It is a technique that provides protection for IFR flights at moderately busy airports, that do not reach the criteria for Class D airspace and a control tower. It would, for instance, be useful at perhaps Ballina or some of the airports in the Pilbara.
Last edited by Geoff Fairless; 14th Feb 2024 at 00:38. Reason: Spelling mistake
I hate this adoption of the term "non-towered" airports. In Australia, they are uncontrolled airports in Class G airspace.
The term non-towered is a US term that people have heard and assumed it means the same as uncontrolled. It does not, because in the US it is possible to have an airport without a tower, controlled from the local Air Traffic Centre using Class E airspace, hence a non-towered airport.
The term non-towered is a US term that people have heard and assumed it means the same as uncontrolled. It does not, because in the US it is possible to have an airport without a tower, controlled from the local Air Traffic Centre using Class E airspace, hence a non-towered airport.
* I say that because R Areas are often used in Australia to create what is essentially Military Controlled Airspace. I do not believe that was ICAO's intention (Annex 2 - Rules of the Air) and if you look at US and UK airspace you will not see it used as such. US military airports generally (there are always exceptions) have a Class D CTR surrounded by Class E CTA, and the UK simply provides for a Military Air Traffic Zone (MATZ) in place of Class D but with no associated R Area. Our military should be able, with the required infrastructure and ATC/Pilot training, to segregate their military flying from civil flying without having to deny access to the airspace. Note: The definition of R Area in Australia, as elsewhere, requires that the flight of aircraft is restricted, it does not allow for access to be denied.
"Restricted Area: An airspace of defined dimensions, above the land areas or territorial waters of Australia, within which the flight of aircraft is restricted in accordance with certain specified conditions."
They're trying to put a band aide over those kinds of dubious R areas through recent changes to reg 6 of the Airspace Regs. Presumably they'll become 'military operating area' Deltas.
