|
Near miss sparks docs' safety plea
THE Royal Flying Doctor Service wants transponders made compulsory in all aircraft.
The call comes after a near collision with a light plane in the state's South-East. The RFDS Pilatus PC12, carrying a pilot and three medical staff, and a 50-year-old Aeronautica Macchi AL60 with two people on board, came within 6m of each other about 56km northwest of Mt Gambier. The RFDS pilot told the Australian Transport Safety Bureau his Pilatus "rocked" as they passed during the incident in July last year. His aircraft was on its way to Mt Gambier for a medical retrieval, while the Aeronautica had been bought in Tasmania and was being flown back to South Australia. The Aeronautica was not fitted with a transponder unit, which would have transmitted its exact location to the RFDS aircraft. RFDS general manager of aviation and operations Barrie Hocking said that despite the RFDS pilot having followed all published procedures, a potentially serious incident had occurred. He said all aircraft that flew in and out of "uncontrolled" airfields in regional and remote areas should be equipped with transponders. "All high-performance aircraft accessing regional ports, not just the RFDS, are exposed to the risk of mid-air collision," Mr Hocking said. "All RFDS aircraft are equipped with transponders and (Terminal Collision Avoidance Systems) that will alert pilots of other aircraft. Mandatory transponders in all aircraft would place another layer of defence in the system to prevent a mid-air collision." In a report to the ATSB, the pilot of the small plane said he did not have a full appreciation of the proximity of his planned outbound track with the Adelaide-Mt Gambier inbound track. His plane was not fitted with a transponder and he was flying directly into the sun. The RFDS pilot told the ATSB that after descending through the cloud base and transmitting his intended flight path, he saw the other aircraft pass to the left of him flying in the opposite direction. "The other plane was in such close proximity that his aircraft `rocked' as it passed," the pilot said. SIDEBAR "HOW DRAMA UNFOLDED" CASA FINAL REPORT On 1 July 2010, an Aeronautica Macchi S.P.A. AL60 aircraft, registered VH-ELI (ELI), departed Devonport, Tasmania (Tas.) for Portee Station, South Australia (SA) with planned refuelling stops at King Island, Tas. and Hamilton, Victoria (Vic.). While enroute from King Island to Hamilton, the crew observed low cloud along the track and diverted to Mount Gambier, SA to refuel. After departing Mount Gambier, the crew observed that the left fuel tank gauge was indicating half full. The crew discussed the situation and elected to continue the flight. Also, the directional gyro had to be aligned twice by the crew due to gyroscopic precession. As a result, the aircraft diverted to the left of the planned track by about 2-4 km. The crew commenced correcting the track when an inbound Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-12/45 aircraft, registered VH‑FDK (FDK), passed to the left in close proximity. It was estimated that the distance between the two aircraft was between 5 and 15 m horizontally and about 20 ft vertically. While the operator of FDK determined that their pilot had complied with the required procedures, they advised the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) that they will be conducting an internal education to remind pilots that maintaining a lookout and the use of radio telephony procedures are the primary tools used for traffic separation, supported by the traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS). THE QUESTIONS: I have to ask, why was the doc so low (730m) when he was 53km away from Mount Gambier? Don't ALL VH registered aircraft have to be fitted with a transponder? discuss: |
GEN 1.5 6.1.1
All aircraft must be fitted with a serviceable Mode A and Mode C, or Mode S, SSR transponder for operations within classes A,B and C airspace and any class of airspace at or above 10,000FT AMSL |
Have you possibly misunderstood the wording they have used? I read that as the pilot had commenced his descent from cruise (which they don't specify) down to circuit height of 2500ft, Not that he was almost at 2500ft.
|
Quite timely after last nights Air Crash investigation TV episode involving the 737 and the private Embrayer jet.
At that low altitude it's every pilot for himself looking out the windows.... (ironic that the doc has THE doc's rego FDK) |
AusNic
yep. you may have something there. I wonder how low the cloud base that the PC emerged from was? |
At that low altitude it's every pilot for himself looking out the windows.... The technology exists but so do luddites. |
Kelly
the point being made is that the TCAS fitted to the RFDS aircraft would have identified ELJ as traffic/threat etc. In regards to an exemption, depends on any legislation that would need to be passed. |
If transponders were mandatory, a fifty year old aircraft would probably be able to get an exemption. The only exemptions to be considered should be for aircraft that do not have a suitable electrical system - and then they should have limitations placed on them. Dr :8 |
This is indeed a worry & I am not surprised but just to present the facts here not ALL RFDS A/C have TCAS, besides TCAS is fine but only under certain conditions as mentioned amongst these pages. TCAS doesn't separate planes, pilots do:-)
I'd like a dollar for every time I came too close to a pvt A/C especially ones being flown by foreign students under the VFR. R/T is a huge problem out there as well, some really have no basic idea of navigation either preferring to use GPS for ALL tracking situations. Here's a doozy of an Eg. I was coming into a CTAFR some time ago & was trying to get a picture of where this guy was whom also was inbound to said CTAFR. I asked basic info regarding his position. You know radial or brg from the station distant out etc.This guy stumbled, fumbled & in the end had no idea where he was in relation to any aid. In fact he started to get very nervous on the radio & mucked up all the radio calls showing a high level of "I don't have a clue'! I landed ahead of him & then he came in about 2 mins afterwards, downwind LDG I might add. I tried to call him on the radio whilst he was taxiing in (low workload for him) just to help him in some way (cause this guy was dangerous to others)but he never said boo & parked well away from the normal GA area. Now that's a worry! I know it's a little off topic but in some ways all the fancy instruments won't help you when there are pilots out there with such little knowledge. Oh btw before some of you get on yr high horses the A/C in question was a C210, an A/c that ought to have been flown by someone whom was switched on, 160kts is not to be sneezed at! TCAS was for many years not considered for the SE Section's A/c due cost & the fact that being presented with multiple targets in & around a busy CTAF actually can work against you in a SP environment. The eyes & good training/airmanship by ALL is yr best defense:ok: Wmk2 |
My initial thoughs were also at what altitude they passed each other. I imagine it would be mighty expensive to run a jet under 10,000 so I'd expect they were in at least class E which, as we all know, requires a transponder.
Perhaps another point to look at might be that the closing rate of these two higher performing craft would still have, more than likely prohibited either pilot from turning away even if thy did see each other. Perhaps our CASA friends should look at also requiring high speed aircraft to carry a transponder and not limit things to altitiude levels. Just my 2 cents rocket |
Its called training, communication, and see and avoid. its been going on since the Wright brothers.
|
Its called training, communication, and see and avoid. its been going on since the Wright brothers.
Couldn't agree more. There may be more to the story than has been told yet, but at face value I'd say it would be a pretty poor show if the RFDS pilot couldn't see and avoid the Trojan bumbling along down sun of him. Gawd, he should just about have been able to hear it coming:). |
TCAS was for many years not considered for the SE Section's A/c due cost & the fact that being presented with multiple targets in & around a busy CTAF actually can work against you in a SP environment. The eyes & good training/airmanship by ALL is yr best defense I used to think it might be too much of a distration SP, but now that I have it, I completely disagree. It is just as relevant to single pilot as multi-crew ops - if you know how to use it EFFECTIVELY. Eyes/training/airmanship won't completely prevent a mid-air, it's as simple as that. You might be the best PC12 pilot in the world, it will make f*ck all difference if some 70 year old PPL descends on top of you on base, after having accidentally selected the wrong CTAF frequency. You can't see in all directions from the cockpit of a plane. Your abilities/eyes/training/airmanship are but 50% of the collision equation - two pilots are involved. I completely agree that transponders need to be mandated. I also think on GA aircraft, it should be required to be left in ALT permanently with a WoW inhibiting transmission on the ground or similar. Airservices have indicated with mandatory transponders their ground equipment and maintenance costs would save millions and millions of dollars per year - and that part of the money saved could be used as grants so those without tranponders can be subsidised the purchase/installation costs. What is this, the 1930s? We have had the technology to completely fix this problem for thirty odd years, and yet still 4 people can come so close to death in a TCAS equipped aircraft. |
'See and avoid' isn't much help at a closing speed of around 270 + 120 = 390 kts shortly after descending through the cloud base.
|
My initial thoughs were also at what altitude they passed each other. I imagine it would be mighty expensive to run a jet under 10,000 so I'd expect they were in at least class E which, as we all know, requires a transponder. Perhaps another point to look at might be that the closing rate of these two higher performing craft would still have, more than likely prohibited either pilot from turning away even if thy did see each other http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...6/68/VHELI.JPG 'See and avoid' isn't much help at a closing speed of around 270 + 120 = 390 kts shortly after descending through the cloud base |
270 below 10? Naughty, naughty. |
That's okay 'pete' yr entitled to yr opinion we all are, I believe that cost & the fact that TCAS in a SP environment isn't the answer. No single answer will be a fix for this problem planes will continue to collide as long as mankind desires to be free of our earthly bounds it's just part of the acceptable risk.
What did we all do pre TCAS? We looked out the window where practicable & we had pilots with good airmanship/skills in the air, the latter less & less these days. Everything about aviation is balanced against cost. 270 kts TAS/GS you guys are drawing a long thin bow there. Wmk2 |
..............really?...........than see and avoid it should be. Not sure that aircraft would go out of sight in a week. I was thinking of the jet variety.
Still I agree if we have the technology we should embrace it and USE IT especially if it prevents midairs. Rocket |
TCAS only becomes a problem in a very high traffic environment with contra circuits. You will get 1 and 2 alerts on a sunny afternoon in these environments.
There is a huge difference between 270KTAS GS and KIAS. EN 1.1 65.1 clearly states Indicated Airspeed. Some people might call it a grey area, I say they need to reprint their AIP because its black and white. :ok: I would like to know what time of day? How solid was the cloud base? These questions could be taken a long way; perhaps a change in attitude of how VFR pilots operate? |
That things been for sale for 10 years, must have sold for about what? 20 grand?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:15. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.