And I love the ATSB bit about the unknown and therefore unnamed passengers who allegedly sited the Tobago.

No way that could ever be checked.

I am with le Pingouin on the RA. Please explain.

I understand RAs mainly occur in controlled airspace due to pilot or controller error.

Are you suggesting this is an airspace design problem?

With so many of our airlines operating into places like Ballina and Port Macquarie where there is no transponder requirement for VFR I suppose there is less chance of RAs occurring.

But you don’t complain about this. I am proud I negotiated the most onerous class E transponder requirements in the world. I sold it on the fact that VFR may get reduced delays. I was conned on that one- the E was changed to C but the transponder requirement remained. Part of the almost complete lack of ethics in the Canberra system!

Total one way ratchet of increasing costs and screwing GA. Ha Ha. Chickens coming home to roost. Training industry almost destroyed. Must make you feel terrible!

SWTT,
If that is the way the airspace was set up, above whatever the height of C was, the answer is yes.
I suppose you know that you can fly over Los Angeles International (and many other major US airports) in Class B airspace, in designated lanes, and nobody gets their knickers in a twist.
A lot of you could do with a dose of experience outside Australia, but particularly in US and Canada, to see how easy it is, things that you seem to imagine are beyond the pale (or, if you prefer, Pale).
And how well Class E works.
Tootle pip!!

Nice attempt at a diversion Dick. The question (yet again) is if the aircraft were going to miss by as much as you claim and it was never a problem then why was there a TCAS RA event?

Because there has never ever been a requirement or training for a VFR pilot using alerted see and avoid with another aircraft to remain so far apart that a RA does not take place.

CASA has not seen a requirement for that.

Le Ping,
Do you actually know anything about the programming of TCAS/ACAS in various modes. I do.
If you did, you would understand there is nothing inconsistent with an adequate separation determined by visual on the other aircraft and an RA.
During the same period there was what was, in my opinion, a far worse event north of Brisbane.
In my opinion, and many others, an airline aircraft changed heading to deliberately create a loss of separation event to discredit the trial, such was the vehement opposition to change by domestic airline pilots.
All these years later, sadly, nothing has changed.
Tootle pip!!

How many RAs do you reckon take place each year in our existing wound back airspace that you like so much?

Doesn’t that mean we should change the airspace?

Ha ha Gotcha!

Leadsled. The Tobago pilot in The Launceston incident always claimed that the 737 turned towards him.

Very interesting.

Is that the same corrupt Canberra system you availed yourself of when you spoke to Barnaby and Albo about changes to the CASA Act? If Canberra is corrupt then its because those with money and influence have access to the politicians that ordinary people don't have. If you are so sure about the corruption in the ATSB then go to the media with evidence and name names.

I'm guessing you won't.

What are you, a five year old!:ugh:

Look left. What I did was totally open. I put the proposal into the media in a totally open way. I put my name to the proposal in a totally open way.

I have never donated a cent to either of them.

I do not need the changes. I am fortunate to be able to afford any extra cost your Canberra mates can dream up.

Others are not so fortunate.

A cannot come up with any ATSB names because I have never been able to find out who was responsible for the investigation. No one would pick up the phone and explain where they believed I was mistaken.

And I failed with Barnaby and Anthony.

And I am a 74 year old who has benefitted from the previous leaders who got this country going.

I am angry and fed up with our current group of non leaders- aren’t you?

No not 5. But I still have a sense of fun. Gotcha!

Well, yer doing enough "blabbing continuously" here, why wouldn't we expect it on your airwaves? :ok:

You can't blame Le P, Dick. Those that work for these government departments are brainwashed into thinking that they are doing the right thing. Team meetings, steering committees, continuous improvement sessions, team lunches, the list goes on of the things that give employees a warm and fuzzy feeling to make them feel valuable. It's a hard pill to swallow that think that you're contributing to something that maybe unsafe, inefficient and not for the greater good, so any wonder he's defending the system that employs him.

Sort of a bit like North Korea?

The secrecy and lack of names is similar!

This is a professional pilots rumour site. Will you Wallys please rack off.

You've clearly done the research so how about you inform us how many there are? And whether they're en-route or TMA. Got me nothing.

But there was a requirement to remain clear of IFR routes was there not? Something the Tobago pilot clearly didn't do, at least not with his brain engaged. 1 in 60 rule anyone? That is why there was a TCAS RA event.

Why didn't the Tobago pilot pipe up and say something? He thought they were going to be clear? He thought bloody well wrong. And that's why it was a whole crock.

Do tell about the event north of Brisbane. Any reference to a report?

I'm fully aware TCAS RAs and visual separation aren't mutually exclusive. The question is why did the Tobago pilot put himself where he was by thinking a whole two degrees difference in radial was adequate and why didn't he pipe up once he heard the 737.

A requirement for VFR aircraft to remain clear of IFR routes would be as much nonesense now as it was then. It can’t be done now, and couldn’t be done then.

One wonders how all of those commercial aircraft flying in and out of airports in the US deal with all the RAs. That’s why I won’t fly on any commercial airline in or out of or within the US. It’s dangerous.

How many RAs are there in the US? How many in E? How do they deal with an RA? They obey it.

As opposed to the open slather of E! Flying within lanes is a whole different ball game to flying random tracks in E.

That's what you also said of current RAAF members in an MDX thread. One of your unconvincing, throw away lines, Dick.

I reckon that if you disagree with an organisation, there's no reason to try to collectively denigrate the individuals.

No Gerry. Not the individuals. It’s the lack of proper leadership. Williamtown has the worst airspace in the world. Single engined planes still being held orbiting at low level over the sometimes rough ocean at Anna Bay where the pilot and passengers, quite often young kids ,will likely die if an engine failure occurs. CASA recommended class D to solve the safety problem. Same classification as Heathrow. But no change has taken place.

Le Ping. The Tobago pilot did not do what you state. The ATSB report is a lie. I have spoken to the pilot many times.

Why do you reckon the ATSB has continually refused to give the pilot a copy of the transcript of his communication to the tower on that day?

Because it would expose the real agenda of the report I reckon.

Not a government department and the last time we had a team meeting was in the early 2000s - we'd discuss things like procedure changes, SAR scenarios and learning from mistakes made.

Thanks for the laugh.

How about you produce some evidence or it's just paranoia and conspiracy theories.

So much for your "interesting" comment: "The Tobago pilot subsequently advised ATSB investigators that he was aware that the appearance of cross-tracking was probably an illusion which resulted from the strong wind".

I bet you must be frustrated when you hear how much simpler and user friendly airspace and procedures are in other countries but we can’t copy here.

It’s about resistance to change. Requires good leadership to communicate the advantages of copying the best proven safe systems from around the world.

I was amazed that Leddie actually brought that up, because this incident, and the Tobago, show in black and white how stupid terminal E really is.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...aair200401273/

It actually demonstrates how risks are grossly over-exaggerated in Australia.

When ATCers and the likes of Bloggs contemplate a risk, they contemplate the disaster of a mid-air collision - a perfectly reasonable and rational consequence to contemplate. After all: that’s why air traffic controllers and flight information services folk and pilots are paid the big bucks.

But the fact is that their perceptions of the consequences of a mid-air collision result in them grossly over-estimating the probabilities of a mid-air collision. This phenomenon is called “cognitive bias”.

This phenomenon is not controversial or subject to debate. It’s how the human mind naturally works.

The only thing you’re asked to do is consider, objectively rather than on the basis of cognitive bias, how air traffic control systems work in other countries - countries in which the volume of traffic is similar to and in some cases greater than those in Australia. Having considered those other systems, you’re then asked to contemplate why the disasters you contemplate don’t happen at the frequency your cognitive bias drives you to believe they would be happening.

Why hasn’t it been raining aluminium at Broome?

You do realise that no class of airspace is collision risk free?

Bloggs. With the Lancair incident if the Virgin crew had kept descending on the direct route there would have been no RA.

Look at Leadsled post 175!

LeP,
Of course they are, they are at a much lower level than the cap on (say) KLAX Class B. I suggest you have a look at the whole vertical structure of ICAO/FAA airspace in US.
If there is E over B,C,D the rules for E apply in E.
It is that simple.

Shouldn't be too hard to find, of course the "VFR private" pilots was castigated, until a few loudmouths found out he was a highly experienced professional pilot. Look up the ATSB lists. The issue I am raising is that the airline aircraft, having been given traffic, turned towards the "threat", was never able to produce a plausible and convincing explanation for the turn.

Tootle pip!!

LePing,
Actually, one of the recommended ways of dealing with RAs is to disable the RA function on the transponder, so that they do not become a distraction in the terminal area.
Bloggsy,
Amazing, isn't it, that the world is full of stupid people, except Australia domestic pilots, who know better.
I suppose you understand that E is not limited to US airspace??
Tootle pip!!

A warning from personal experience at Alice Springs many years ago. An incident report was filed by myself which resulted in me being blamed by BASIS.CAA? . The Departmental investigator provided "proof" by way of a written copy of tape transcripts between myself in a Departmental F27 engaged on navaid testing, an Ansett B727 in the circuit, and ATC.

On reading the paper transcripts furnished by the investigator I realised that whoever did the transcription from the ATC tapes had little idea of R/T language and had included words which I had certainly never made but which he thought I made and which in turn completely changed the meaning of what actually happened.

For example one written transcript showed the words as "Are we clear?"
However the ATC tape showed I said "Airways Clearance."

There were other "fake words" written in the transcript wrongly interpreted by whoever did the transcript from the ATC tapes.

My advice from that experience is that a pilot undergoing a grilling for a perceived violation, where evidence is produced by way of a written transcript from ATC or other sources, should demand to listen to the actual tape recording, rather than meekly accept what someone has transcribed to paper.

LeadSled, don't be lazy - you know exactly what you're referring to and want to use as part of a discussion so you can provide us with a link, after all if it shouldn't be too hard for me to find on the vaguest of descriptions then you'll find it a doddle.

You might turn the RA function off to prevent them being triggered but I very much doubt they'd turn it off during an RA event. What level would they disable it at? Surely lower than 10,000ft?

I see Bloggsie has done the work for you LS. I must say your claim that the manoeuvring of the 737 was a deliberate attempt to make it worse utterly unbelievable and quite pathetic. Up there with Dick's claim about the other report being total lies.

The 737 turning right is not exactly a mystery if the crossing point was in front of both aircraft - the Lancair would have been on the 737's left and would likely have appeared to the left on the TCAS display so the tendency would be to turn right.

Whether turning left or right will be the best direction depends on the geometry of the situation. Unfortunately TCAS is very poor at showing relative motion.

"See and avoid" just doesn't work too well when the "see" bit is missing.

I can't disagree with that statement. Its just a pity that the good leadership is nowhere to be found. What does seem to be in abundance though is dictatorship (my way or the highway) and a lot of FIGJAM.

Le ping. I agree. Visual sighting is no good. A airspace everywhere is clearly necessary.

But how come we have all these jet airline aircraft in terminal G which other countries don’t allow ?

I know. We did it that way in the 1950s and the concrete has set!

LePing,
That is a matter of your opinion, I simply disagree that there was ever a satisfactory explanation of the actions of the PIC of the heavy.

As you may or may not know, there was a NAS review team that examined EVERY report that was filed during the "trial", the efforts of a group of so called "professional" pilots, opposed to change, was quite amazing.

Almost all the "airmiss" and other incident reports filed were dismissed as attempts to discredit the trial. One of the lulus was opposite direction traffic with 2000' separation filed as an incident, and we had the nonsense of one group of pilots letting down in the restricted area near Ballina and flying down the coast back to Ballina in G, to avoid this 'orribly dangerous E.

The review team was made up of a cross section of people, CASA, industry and independent, my views on that Brisbane "incident" are based on interviews with the pilot of the light aircraft, the report of the review team and the ATSB report.

It will not surprise you that I do not wholly agree with the "contents" of the ATSB report, and your conclusions will be just as slanted by your preconception bias.

Given ATSB's track record, to this day, does that surprise you?

Tootle pip!!

A similar thing happened in the ‘investigation’ of the NGA ditching.

The report contained supposed transcripts of weather information transmitted to NGA. The report quoted e.g. “999” as part of a weather information transmission. The report did not say whether the original words were “nine hundred and ninety nine” or “nine nine nine” or “niner niner niner”. Whetever the case, there was a patent error in either the transcription or the weather information transmission - there was a digit missing....

As I recall, this was not the only patent error.

Unless I hear CVR or ATS tapes myself, I’m dubious of the accuracy of transcripts.

If the pilots of the 737 hadn't seen the Lancair how on earth could they deliberately fly towards it to make the situation worse and trigger an RA?

Have you ever considered those reports being submitted because the system was new and if even relatively minor incidents weren't reported it would be seen that everything was working perfectly - the lack of reports would be taken as lack of problems. Been there done that - no complaints filed equals no problems. Who had an agenda to dismiss them so quickly?

You're hardly a balanced and impartial observer here either.