Probably not an accurate idea. ATC generally won’t let the aircraft know they are identified until after the departure call is given, as we try to not interfere too much during critical phases of flight. Imagine how it would look if someone missed a crucial CTAF call just because we told them they were identified...

As for what would have most likely prevented this, well Hoosten is correct. E at 1200ft AGL would have done the job and is probably achievable. I’m assuming the inbound aircraft was inbound for air work, so probably what would have happened for the separation would be clear the inbound to a level 1000ft above the outbound aircraft LSALT, and then procedurally clear the outbound aircraft. They would have been separated while in IMC. I’m not totally certain, but I believe that is something like what Hoosten is suggesting. Nobody would have been unduly delayed, it isn’t particularly difficult, and the separation is done by the professional paid $200k per year to do it.

As for Unicom, they are very rare over here. I am slightly surprised MNG doesn’t have an AFRU though.

Unicoms of the proven US style don’t exist in Australia due to CASA concrete minds.

Without an AFRU how do the pilots know they are on the correct frequency when calling in the blind.? Do they just presume that no reply means no traffic present?

A fail dangerous system.

Even my farm strip at Gundaroo has an AFRU.
They don’t cost much!

Not much compared with the cost of four human lives

Dick, from my recollection the surveillance went down to around 2500-ish. That was before ADSB became more widespread. I don't think it has improved significantly since the introduction.

I'll give you another act of stupidity in CTAF's and whomever has propogated and perpetuated it, the 'downwind' 'base' & 'final' calls. For Godsakes. It is ridiculous.

A lot of these airports are owned/operated by the local councils. I don’t think that’s the case with MNG, however in a lot of places they are. And most of them know very little about aviation operations. They possibly don’t know what an AFRU is, and why it’s important. Then no matter what the price is they aren’t going to pay it if they don’t see it as necessary.

Quote:

---

As for what would have most likely prevented this, well Hoosten is correct. E at 1200ft AGL would have done the job and is probably achievable.

---

I'll guarantee you, it would not have happened, simply wouldn't have. Australian ATC haven't put two together. Worldwide it is an incredibly low occurrence of ATC caused collision whether inside or out of controlled airspace.

Quote:

---

I’m assuming the inbound aircraft was inbound for air work, so probably what would have happened for the separation would be clear the inbound to a level 1000ft above the outbound aircraft LSALT, and then procedurally clear the outbound aircraft. They would have been separated while in IMC. I’m not totally certain, but I believe that is something like what Hoosten is suggesting. Nobody would have been unduly delayed, it isn’t particularly difficult, and the separation is done by the professional paid $200k per year to do it.

---

Procedural radial separation is one way of doing it, another way is to delay the aircraft on the ground. Yet another way is to improve the surveillance to lower levels, less delay. If anyone wants to bang on about costs, yes, putting radar surveillance out there would be prohibitive. But guess what's come along and is being used more and more in GA cockpits, all while your ANSP is feeding the trough in Canberra.

ADSB would do the job just fine. Put an ADSB groundstation at all the aerodromes where the class E ceiling is lowered to 1200ft, and change the rules so we can assume radar separation when issuing the clearance to the aircraft on the ground. I’m not sure exactly what an ADSB ground station costs, but if the NBN had been done properly instead of the half effort job they did then it would have been pretty easy.

There was ADSB coverage at Mangalore only it wasn’t provided by Airservices.

That is a little misleading.

You would be referring to someone installing a non-certified ADSB raspberry-pi box at their house, connected to the internet and uploading to fligtradar24, wouldn’t you?

Which I might add that ATC do not have visibility over, for obvious reasons. I understand the FR24 even has full coverage at water level on Eildon.

You are right Squawk. That is what I was referring to. I know Airservices require bulletproof reliability, etc. but I suspect that low cost hardware is eventually going to utterly disrupt their business and technology model.

That technology is a linux based computer - bulletproof reliability again, an internet connection and software defined radio.

That is available for less than $500 I think.

You program the radio to capture ADSB transmissions as well as CTAF calls.

That could give you 1) “intelligent” AFRU capability - last transmission, aircraft inbound and outbound from ADSB, and suchlike. I haven’t scoped how or what to transmit.

2) Pump the Adsb data to a website and app that give you “software surveillance radar”.

3) use the data for landing fees etc.

You could then mandate mandatory adsb out for vfr aircraft where they may encounter ifr traffic.

ADS-B receivers are normally installed by Airservices on their radio towers. According to ERSA 122.4 can be received on the ground at MNG and the 5000 foot ADS-B coverage diagram includes the MNG area; I do not, however, know what ADS-B coverage is available on the ground or below 5000 feet.
If the 122.4 mast does not have an ADS-B receiver them it would be very cheap and straightforward to install one.
Alternatively Aireon offers a space-based ADS-B service via Iridium satellites that is compatible with current ATC systems and can provide a 5NM separation standard. This means that with some engineering and signing a contract Airservices can offer IFR separation services over the whole continent.
That would however require an expansion in the number of ATC positions in the two ATC Centres, something that, under our system, somebody has to pay for.

Given the very explicit rules about training flights in the MNG area listed in ERSA I am surprised that there is no CTAF. Radio instructions contrary to the legislated requirements in CAR166 are below and it all seems to take place on the area frequency!

• The MNM radio broadcasts are taxiing, entering, departing: Inbound, Joining, Base and Final with position, altitude and intentions.Note:
• Pilots must respond to radio requests from other TFC for their intentions, position or altitude.
• Base/Final broadcast is to include a nominated ACFT landing sequence number, determined by your position behind preceding airborne ACFT (e.g. Warrior ABC final 23 touch and go number 2

If there was an MBZ or CTAF then there would be nothing to stop anyone, Mangalore airport, the local flying school or a bored retired pilot/ATC setting up a UNICOM. The radio has to be licensed by ACMA and the operator needs a flight radio operators certificate unless they hold a pilot's licence. They can also obtaina weather observers certificate from the BoM and make observations for pilots. There are also no regulations prohibiting the use of Flight Radar 24 by a UNICOM operator, the AIP even allows limited traffic information. Perhaps industry should determine it's own safety instead of waiting for the Government?

What am I missing here ?
i thought Mangalore had a CTAF 121.1 😳

It does, and has had since they were introduced.

These APP people - the world doesn't exist outside 30NM :)

Piston/Eyre,
So sorry, you are correct, I missed it when I read the ERSA entry, so read my post to say - There is nothing to stop anyone.....
Seriously a UNICOM service could make all the difference, for a number of reasons. Don't wait for the Government - we should do it ourselves.

I'm not sure it would have.

A UNICOM would not know about the inbound aircraft until it called, and when that happened hopefully the operator would have stepped back and let the two aircraft talk to each other and arrange self-separation, both having been given traffic by ML CEN.

One of the issues reported by the industry after UNICOM trials a few years back was that on occasions they contributed to frequency congestion.

As to why there are not many here, comments made on this forum in the past were who would pay their salaries and indemnity insurance in the event of something going wrong.

Of the 37 mid-airs between 1968 and 2003:
And of course, Coolangatta 1998

But the MOS139, which aerodrome operators abide by, does not.

The US has unicoms everywhere and there is no problems with salaries and insurance.

Keep putting up these myths and we will keep going with the higher risk by not having US style non prescriptive unicoms!

There's no myth. Who pays the salary, the installation, the licence fee? You keep saying it's free. It's not. There is obviously a cost, and it is one our industry is quite clearly not prepared to pay.

Traffic: Oh but you will pay. Whether you are prepared to or not.

You will pay in landing fees and insurance premiums whether you like it or not. If you can’t pay, you will disappear.

If a 100+ pax jet goes in, that will cost your insurers maybe $140 million. Add hull cost and casualties and damage on the ground. Say $200 million. Now do the probabilities and discounted cash flow. Only then can you talk about affording it. The stupidity extends further to requiring an annual government dividend.

We are talking about Unicoms, right?