Yes we are suggesting this is not prudent. 20 minutes is a long way from the CTA boundary. The correct IFR procedure would be to give the taxi call with the information required in the AIP (callsign, aircraft type, IFR, POB, dep, dest, runway). At this point you will be given a squawk code and a traffic statement. Then the next call required would be your departure call. ATC is not required to give you an airways clearance any earlier than 10 miles prior to entry. In fact I would suggest that you are wasting time requesting an airways clearance on the ground as the CTA probably doesn’t even belong to that controller and they can’t issue you a clearance. Multiple people have told you you are wrong already...

The dew point spread for YMNG at 10:30 am indicates that 4100 AMSL would have been in cloud. Based on both their ADSB data ( FR24) AEM was on descent from 6000’ tracking for overhead the the MNG VOR to commence the VOR RNWY 23 approach. JQF flight plan YMNG-Lacey requires intercepting an outbound track of 148 within 5 NM. With impact being at approx 4 NM bearing 163, an ADSB ground track of 113 prior to impact indicates JQF was climbing at 600’/min to climb to above 3900 MSA AND intercept 148 outbound before 5 NM.
This seems to indicate both aircraft were following standard IFR procedures at non controlled Aerodromes OCTA. This leaves AIP ENR1.1-67 para 10.1.1 and 10.1.4 which essentially states self separation on the CTAF which requires significant 3-D situational awareness even with ADSB-In &Out in aircraft without any form of TAWS ( traffic awareness system ).
Tragic.
RIP.

There’s your problem, OA: You’re asking for a service that suits your operational requirements. The ‘s’ in Airservices and ANSP is silent.

I would not disagree with your point that ASA needs to be more service orientated, particularly for GA aircraft. This is a leadership issue both in government and within the organisation senior management. However on this occasion OA seems to be making up his own procedures for no real benefit. However this may also be a misunderstanding between him and I regarding terminology. MANY people don’t understand that in class g you are operating IFR, but you dont have an airways clearance. So as soon as you give the taxi call you are operating IFR, there is no need to request the airways clearance. This should be given automatically prior to entering controlled airspace.

AKRO - a couple of points.

You never get a clearance out of MNG with your IFR taxi call - just your code and traffic. Yes they would have been given as traffic to each other. (Don’t get me started about asking for ‘code and traffic’ with an IFR call.. sure , even though ATC do this all day everyday, they somehow don’t know what you need to go flying !!) it is not procedure to get your cta clearance on the ground at MNG or any other class G CTAF unless you are taking off straight into CTA (that little joint near Avalon for example- can’t recall its name.) even if your plan is straight into the flight levels, you will generally start with centre (no clearance ) and then be passed to someone that gives you the clearance.

next - who cares where AEM was tracking - they were within their rights to request traffic to wherever they wanted.. and ATC would have told them what was there - JQF may not have been identified until very late in the piece and the Swiss cheese holes lined up.. You are right to say they would have been vectored in CTA but after that who knows, but they were not being vectored at the point the accident occurred - maybe they decided to go to SHT first or another waypoint?

next the separation issue, and this is really up to the pilots and ATC to give extra traffic or proximity warnings but again only if both aircraft were identified at the time . Did they make contact with each other, did they give clear concise and accurate calls about their alt and position etc etc. both these aircraft knew the area well, and I’m going to assume that their PICs did too. This will be the crux of the investigation I assume?

perhaps someone more current with the area can remind me of when you get identified out there but from memory it wasn’t til 3500 or so?

That's a well trodden flight plan route for anyone who's done any IFR training in the Melbourne area. It looks like JQF was planning a practice RWY 26 ILS at YMEN with a missed approach back to Mangalore and then Shepparton. Departing Mangalore at A070, you normally don't request an airways clearance until approaching LACEY as ATC needs to coordinate traffic with arrivals in to YMML's RWY 27. At 7000 ft, you enter CTA on the LACEY to COLDS leg of your flight plan route.

Flightradar shows JQF only receiving a discrete squak code once passing through 3,900ft and less than a minute prior to loss of ADSB transmission.

I want the service we PAY for. Both in AsA fees and in the cost of implementing ADS-B

Accident only occurred about 12 hours ago and all the armchair experts are at it again! Pprune SMEs in action again!

Let the ATSB and the appropriate people investigate before making assumptions people.....

yes 12 hours ago BUT these guys posts above are just telling us how it is in the IFR OCTA World we live in. They’ve operated in that very area and are describing the procedures required to stay safe and offering experienced possibilities of how the Swiss cheese holes lined up. They know what they are taking about..,,,

A truly sad day.

“They know what they are taking about..,,,”

Then they should contact ATSB, and the coroner, and make themselves available for giving expert evidence at the inquest.

Given the recent track record for the ATSB there is a good reason most of the people on here are sceptical of their ability to conduct an effective, unbiased investigation.

Accidents always give cause for speculation. Discussion about possibilities is always educational, if you have issues with that don't read the threads.

Everyone here is no doubt well intended and in their own way seeking clarity in trying to understand the circumstances that lead to this tragic event. But pethaps all respect each others views and not indulge the attacks on each other or the system until more facts are clearly identified. Many are affected and mourning and as an industry we are also mourning the sad loss of our colleagues.

Quote:

---

Accident only occurred about 12 hours ago and all the armchair experts are at it again! PPRuNe SMEs in action again!

---

What? Wait 2 to 3 years for a report? By then it will be consigned to the back of your memory, any lessons or enhancements that could be made to a 'service' will be long forgotten. Convenient for the 'service provider.'

OPINION: The ANSP does not make a whole lot of money out of these flights, they don't care about these flights, they are a necessary hindrance in the ATC system. The ATC system in Australia is a 'profit making' machine. GA IFR is like a small job for a tradie, unblocking a drain for a plumber, installing a powerpoint for a sparkie. They're a pain in the arse. They want the big jobs. Same as ASA, GA IFR is a pain in the arse, ASA want the big jobs, QF, Virgin and the internationals.

I'll preface what I post with a couple of facts, I know for a fact that there are current and ex ATC's that post on this bulletin board. It's also a fact that some of these ATC's actually control this particular airspace.

FACT:

- If you request an airways clearance on the ground at MNG......you will NOT receive an airways clearance with the ATC's initial reply. You will receive a traffic statement and a discrete squawk code. This traffic statement will include known VFR traffic and any observed VFR traffic on the HMI. It is a waste of time asking for an 'airways clearance' on the taxy call.
- You will NEVER EVER be 'radar vectored' outside CTA or OCTA as it is termed. NEVER, not in a hundred years. So putting this into the accident mix is also a waste of time.

OPINION:

- This accident would not have happened had the appropriate class of airspace been used for this area. Class E.
- You wont, as airspace users, in your country, get the class of airspace required in that area, taking into account the traffic densities, because your ANSP will not get the return on the facilities and investment required. i.e. they don't want the little jobs, they can't charge you the 'real' cost of providing this service.

There is the human side to this, 4 families at minimum have lost members. The human side of this can't be calculated, lose a family member, you don't just say 'oh well, just an accident, carry on folks'

What is the cost when there are perfectly acceptable remedies that give these operations a chance? But they wont be implemented because of cost. And it's perhaps a very acceptable cost in the industry and publics eyes, but not to the ANSP, because they are a profit making machine.

Meanwhile, wait for 3 years for a report from a hopelessly underfunded and under resourced investigator. The coroner wont come to the conclusion that Class E would have prevented this, 3 years down the track, memories have faded and you're just waiting for the next avoidable accident.

Discussion publically about possibilities, prior to any formal investigation, with a colonial inquest pending, is called subjudice, and also professional ignorance.

This has no place on a professional forum.

"This has no place on a professional forum".

Since when was PPRUNE a "Professional' forum?

Fixed it for you.

Condolences to the families and also my thoughts are with the front line folk at AsA.

I just read the daiky rag two full pages, pilots names and descriptions of who they are.
My son called from army base, one of planes fell into their patch.
This is a trauma, affects us all in some way.
For me have been rethinking my ifr renewal due and usually at SHT MNG with local cfi.
Never liked the environment, helos, ctafs everywhere,
BUT these two IFR flights even in the arruval and departure phase should have been safer.
4000 feet is up in the cloud base I suspect student would be managing his tasks and on the panel not looking outside.
5 miles you have departed ctaf on climb in safety expecting inbound traffic notification intercepting outbound radial.
The FR track of the inbound aircraft seems straight north 358-000 into path of the aircraft climbing out in left turn.
HM times have we all done departures exactly like that?

Thats like a 18 VOR MTG left turn track out to Wendy.
But inbound RPTs talk to you when you are doing that in training, REX get you 50 miles out from centre.
So the question is regardless of the senaca getting a discrete code and would be ifr code 2000 seen by Centre the moment it is turned on, why no alert?
The inbound plane either cleared or otherwise would have notified left 6000 on descent and the collision rusk should have flagged.
I have done approaches IF a thousand times, and reading all the conversations here and in paper, this is very concerning even alarming.
This is the classic approach into MTG WG GTH MIA.
And last time I flew anywhere we ALWAYS call inbound, airborne outbound as per AIP.
Situational awareness preached by CASA for years at seminars.

What needs to be fixed is the media’s approach to sharing images of the scene prior to people being removed. It’s such a blatant disregard for basic respect particularly for concerned friends and family . I’ve unfortunately been on site at two different fatalities over the years, and the media’s tactics on the ground are nothing short of evil.

Rubbish. Sub Judice - two words, not one - occurs when an investigation or inquiry under the control of a judge is occurring, and where the publishing of material is likely to interfere or affect the investigation/inquiry and/or affect the judicial outcome. It's a very long bow to claim that discussions on Prune, before any inquiry bar the ATSB one, has been announced could affect any legal inquiry!

I don't like or agree with finger-pointing at pilots who aren't here to defend themselves, but, given the delay in any investigation, either ATSB or by a Coroner, discussions here can prove beneficial by raising possibilities and causing others to think about how they operate and could it happen to them. If, by doing so, just one pilot changes their behaviour in a positive way, then the discussions have served their purpose.

One of the few things I've agreed with here:

Investigation need to be quicker. There is really no reason for them to take so long

If the aircraft were talking to each other you would have expected the arriving aircraft to maintain 5000 with the outbound one climbing to 4000 until clear of each other.

Indeed - the one on this thread is already done.

As an IFR M/E instructor in a previous life, I have operated at MNG many times in all sorts of WX. If the communications are appropriate then usually all is well. What this thread says in many ways is there is a significant lack of understanding of what the appropriate procedures are in Class G/CTAF. The MULTICOM saga of a year ago showed exactly the same. Many pilots say what they think the other pilot or the controller wants to hear but there is very little instruction on this aspect of radio communications, in fact the last time I looked it is not subject to any examination - just what your instructors teach you (!). In fact there are CFIs about that all have a different idea on what to say and when and then the CASA safety advisors have a different view on it as well. This may only be a small hole in the cheese, but believe me it is a serious one that needs to be addressed with some detailed instruction and some standardisation. As someone said above, if it was IMC and they were talking to each other (??) why did they not provide themselves with at least 1000ft separation?
It should be known that you don't get a clearance on the ground at places like MNG, so why ask? All that is needed is a taxy call to start your SAR and perhaps obtain a SSR code. Every commercial pilot should know that navigation responsibility when OCTA (except in an emergency) is the responsibility of the PIC and that means you will not be radar vectored when OCTA. The appropriate use of 2 Coms is an issue in this event and will no doubt be looked into. It was mentioned that some instructors turn the radio volume down at times - really? You should get another job if you do that.

A very sad event, may they RIP. I hope we can learn from the results of the investigation.

I agree. Some of the terminology and discussion in this thread raises alarming concern of people’s understanding of how IFR works in different types of airspace; not withstanding the accident itself and how it came to happen.

Agree 100%

The event itself is truly tragic but if we can learn from this incident and stop similar accidents in the future then it is something we should all benefit from as pilots.

The biggest complaint I have is that this type of investigation could take three or four years for completion and result. This is three or four years that people have to forget about the incident, the new people joining aviation won't know about what happened and so on.

Old news is bad news so the only way pilots can benefit in situations like this is to have a speedy release of factual information and at least keep it in our minds reminding us of the dangers at we CAN be exposed to every time we go flying

agree, well said.

KRAviator, clearly your expertise lies with Google.

The coronial investigation is already underway, and rules apply now. Keep Googling!

yes very true, I’m sure a lot of IFR guys and girls will have a re think of their OCTA CTAF procedures and separation standards......some from reading this and that’s a good thing.

I don’t think SJ rules apply to coroner’s inquiries. Although it’s a coroner’s court and coroners have quasi-judicial powers and protections, the proceedings are executive rather than judicial.

Are you able to point to anyone held in contempt of a coroner’s court for expressing an opinion on the cause of someone’s death? I heard someone on ABC Radio National this morning stating, categorically, that yesterday’s tragedy in Camp Hill was a murder suicide.

I did - and guess what I found from the Victorian Government solicitors office?

Fairly similar to what I wrote above based on my understanding of the concept, wouldn't you say? Be interesting to hear your understanding of those "rules" you talk about...

If you Google again you could give advice on medicine, as well as law.

Is the Coroner “administering justice” or are they reviewing facts in order to make recommendations and findings?

I also read the words “free speech” in there of which we are all entitled to.

you're kidding yourself of you think we have free speech. But that's a while different topic

It seems JQF was a flight test based on media reports.

I have not been to Mangalore for a few decades. Is the old control tower still in place?
Perhaps the traffic levels justify re-activating the tower?

Quote:

---

Indeed - the one on this thread is already done.

---

I'm sorry, you say it's done? I've missed the conclusion, could you post it?