Affordable safety: It's inescapable.

It terrifies me that there are probably a lot of near-misses where they do have that few-second/20ft gap - and they're never noticed, never reported, or possibly just never made public. This one just happened to not have that gap.

I've had one incident in VFR where Melbourne Centre called to say that someone was heading straight towards me at the same altitude (I was heading just about due north at 4500ft, they were heading just about due south at 4500ft). Even after that call I never managed to spot the other plane, so I can't tell how close we were - but without that call it could have been very close indeed.

I dont disagree, there has to be a cost benefit analysis to safety. But many people in this thread seem to want the safety but aren’t willing to accept the cost. It’s about reducing the risk down to an acceptable level. And I would suggest the chances of 2 aircraft colliding in the way these 2 did would have been very slim. In fact I suspect it would be nearly impossible even if you tried to recreate it....

I had a near miss some 8 months ago. 20ft below me, opposite direction, through a CTAF at circuit height, close to Melbourne.

I obtained the rego and track from FlightAware and which clearly showed what happened and sent it to the ATSB. My friend was not far behind and he probably only avoided a midair because I quickly warned him. He also logged it with them.

I got nothing back from the ATSB. My friend called for an update and was advised that it was all about priorities and this wasn’t a priority.

Our own private investigations revealed that the pilot is well into his 90’s and has a history of this kind of flying behaviour and lack of radio use.

All it would have taken was a quick call to CASA to follow up with the pilot for a please explain and the potential to save lives in the future. But... nothing but crickets...

I agree.

Subject to any 'left field' factors coming out of a competent investigation, it will be interesting to see whether anyone has the integrity to say: Infinitesimally low probability events still happen. All the rules, procedures, gizmos, training and experience don't stop the holes in the Swiss cheese lining up forever.

My experience might be out-of-date, but on an IFR renewal (last millennium) I had to fly from MB to Cowes to fly the NDB and then a DME approach back into MB. On the way down to Cowes it was real IFR, there was an aeroplane shooting the NDB, another waiting in the holding pattern, and another aeroplane crossing our tracks from somewhere from the East. That felt like high workload to me, particularly on a renewal flight. Flight services informed us of the other aircraft, and we negotiated our separation with each other. Crossing aircraft flew above us, the guy doing the approach did the missed approach and climbed on the missed approach until he got above us, and I went into the holding pattern above the other aeroplane in the holding pattern and waited for him to fly his approach. Doesn't it work something like this today, even though it's Class G?

Governments these days just don't get that throwing money at problems won't eliminate them.

ATC positioning was not that accurate some years ago in class G. On one IFR night flight, out of cloud east of Melbourne, we were told of traffic that was overtaking us on the port-side. All three pilots were fixated looking for traffic in that direction and after a minute or so, one of the pilots turned to check starboard where we saw an old twin with no strobes approx 400ft diagonally separated on the same heading. ATC was content with this until the PIC asked for greater vertical separation. We had just had a ADS-B/s installed when they were not mandatory and assume this other old twin did not. Does anyone know how accurate the system would have been if we both had newer transponders?

The reason the radar separation standard is 5NM is because it has to allow for the errors in the system. At a guess I would assume the SSR radars are accurate to within 2NM. Therefore at 5NM apart by radar you should still be 1NM apart even if both radar positions are at the extremes of their errors. So yes, I’m not surprised that an aircraft was on the opposite side to what the radar said. The raw RADAR feed that goes into Eurocat actually is quite a mess, it goes through many filters and radar processors before it goes onto the control display.

ADSB would likely be far more accurate, I believe it broadcasts position twice every second. However the position symbol in the control system will still only update once every 5 seconds.

This is the most sensible post in the thread so far.

An analogy is two bullets fired from 2 different guns hitting each other in mid flight. Those four poor souls were just extremely unlucky. I feel very sorry for their families and have remembered them in my prayers.

Any further outrage at how the rules are dangerous is tantamount to the current WHS adage that "every accident is preventable"... with the benefit of hindsight... Utter bull****.

I think I can see another positive for ensuring you get the 4G model with any iPad or Android device now. Currently I have a mini as my primary device, but it doesnt have 4G. I pair it to a BadELF for GPS and was thinking of WiFi hotspotting to my mobile to get traffic in via the EFB app. But it looks like most of these, the DRX included, need WiFi to connect to EFB. It does GPS and ADSB so would remove the need for the BadELF for me, but I would lose the iPhone hotspot ability. I then have an iPad Pro 11" with 4G which I main use for planning, and due to size, is the backup device in case anything goes wrong.

I am now regretting not getting the 4G iPad Mini. Until we are all on ADSB this will be a problem with some traffic coming from the EFB apps, and other from ADSB.

There are units available that have ADSB receiver, GPS and AHRS in them all over wifi on the one unit. I got one for US$269 but I haven’t tried it with 4G off on the iPad. On paper, it does exactly what you need.

A couple of years ago at Jandakot a Caravan was on final for the parallel runway 24R. He decided at about 200 feet to do a left orbit instead of going around which put him straight onto a collision course with me on final for 24L so at 200 feet AGL I had to dive to avoid a collision. Witnessed by two ATC, my student and the other pilot admitted it. Reports duly submitted.

ATSB said it wasn't an issue as he had "gone around on Base" which was complete rubbish and proven by Webtrak. CASA? "Nothing to do with us as the AOC holder is over East".

I lost all faith in the ATSB that day, though it wasn't the first time they had changed the facts around I'd never known them to disregard a report from ATC before.

Meanwile recently I was on upwind at a CTAF in VMC when an IFR guy decided to do an instrument approach for the reciprocal to the runway in use. We had to make a steep turn to avoid him on upwind as he came belting down his approach straight towards us. He was using IFR RNAV position reports in a CTAF full of VFR aircraft, skydivers, helicopters and scenic fights so few of us great unwashed VFR people had a clue where he was or his intentions. I didn't even bother putting in a report, there's no point. I would probably just get blamed for it anyway.

One of my studes is a glider pilot, they use a thing called FLARM, anyone here familiar with that?

FLARM is one of several available Personal Collision Avoidance Systems (PCAS).

FLARM is a proprietory position/ALT/speed transmitter and receiver, widely used in the glider community. If two aircraft have FLARM installed, they can both see each other. The FLARM receiver analyses the relative movements of other FLARM equipped targets and accordingly prioritises traffic alerts presented to the pilot.

A newer, and less expensive PCAS is PilotAware. While it too has its proprietary position/ALT/speed outgoing signal (which only other PilotAware users can read), the PilotAware receiver sees other aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out, TPX S, TPX C, FLARM or PilotAware. Similar to FLARM, it can display traffic in various ways (incl on TCAS-style traffic radar screens), filter and prioritise threats, and can also generate spoken, explicit traffic alerts.

20 GA midairs since 2001.Did I read that right?

Can anyone recommend an ads/flarm in solution that works with dynon skyview? .....that doesn’t cost >$1000?

Not quite for Skyview, however something I didn’t know existed until I just googled it.

https://www.ozpilot.com.au/air-avion...SABEgIjKfD_BwE

Andrew R and Leadballoon - do you guys actually fly aeroplanes? "We know aircraft in IMC cannot adequately self separate". I do this stuff every day. How about "mate you maintain 5000 and I'll stay at 4000 until passed." There you go - positive separation. Even if the higher aircraft has to maintain 5000 until over the VOR to ensure a totally accurate position comparison, then so be it.

Flying into Mildura some days would give a reasonable chance of a repeat/inadvertent recreation sadly. I think anyone would be a fool to accept an aircraft with a TCAS MEL into YMIA at the moment. I know I certainly wouldn’t. You need that backup tool for when the circuit tools can’t tell east from west or north from south. “I’m 5miles north tracking south inbound for straight in runway 36” “I’m due west of the field tracking east sorry due east my heading is 090”.

I’m often baffled by how many people struggle with basic orientation stuff. It’s not typically a surprise which general direction you are going to arrive from.

The tools for risk management have existed for 50 years at least. No one can say"we can't afford it" or "nobody will pay for it" without doing the risk management sums - probability of occurrence times cost of occurrence vs. cost to mitigate.

Take Ballina perhaps. What is the cost and probability of a fully loaded B737 mid air with a VFR light aircraft?

If everyone was listening on appropriate frequencies and talking to each other then surely these incidents wouldn't happen.

I'm not IFR but flying in and out of caboolture you talk to people who are in the same area and self separate.

The thought of instructors turning down radios is a little scary.

Quote:

---

If it is keeping them awake at night due to the risk then I would suggest they cease operating into those places. A tower very well may be a smart idea in those places however no one seems willing to pay for it.....

---

Yrs, do that, people in these areas can just hop in their car and drive instead right? I'm betting you live in Brisbane or Melbourne right?

No one seems willing to pay for it...........Let's ponder that. Who paid for the existing towers? Who are you suggesting should pay for a tower at any of these places? What makes you think that existing users of your system aren't already paying?

Looks to me like you're on the ASA kool-aid.

All of your previous posts are typical of the ASA justification for lack of service. I'm tipping you're pretty green in this 'game.' If you aren't you'd know that Class E airspace is the solution. But whilst ever that costs a dime good ole ASA wont have a bar of it. Cost, cost, cost.

Eurocat HMI air situation display updates every 200ms. I don't believe there is a five second update cycle anywhere else in the chain.

I do fly a bit. I get the concept of mutually arranged separation. It assumes each aircraft is aware of and communicating with each other.

Do you reckon AEM and JQF were aware of and communicating with each other? I don’t reckon they were, and I reckon there’s a reason.

The ASD very well may update every 200ms. However the surveillance position symbols update every five seconds. If you zoom in close enough you can actually see the update, count 5 seconds, and then see the next update. I believe it’s a hangover from when all surveillance was SSR and 5 seconds was how long one sweep of the radar took.

Agreed but from the looks of the radar returns people have posted here (if accurate), and either by self separation or because ATC we’re giving them warnings, it looks like JQF tried to level out at 4K . If Going to LACEY, you would normally climb straight to 7000. Something caused them to stop that.

I concur that even with all factors , this is such a horrible fluke of a collision when you take all things into consideration.

surely 20 mid airs can’t be right in that time frame ? World wide maybe?

Mildura would wanna sort out radar to the ground ASAP ..

Never mind flarm and FR24. Look at this https://consultation.casa.gov.au/reg.../consult_view/

Did my CPL at Bendigo and Chris was the ATO for my flight test. Fond memories of him. There could not have been many people in GA more experienced or with a better name than Chris Gobel. He ran a tight operation, which is probably why Bendigo Aviation Services had such a good safety record.

Any word on the funeral?

Hi Leady and Homesick Angel - just want to clarify my comments which you guys responded to. My comment was not regarding this tragedy. I was responding to Andrew R's stand alone comment of "We know aircraft in IMC cannot adequately self separate". I was pointing out the fact that IFR aircraft CAN adequately separate themselves. Most of the fails I give out at work when doing airborne checks are based on pilots not ensuring "positive" separation. "you go left, I'll go right" is not positive separation. (actually that should be you go right and I'll go right if approaching head on). Separation must be based on altitude, DME, radial/bearing, or geographical features.

As I said, I wasn't referring to this case. The experience levels in this accident were certainly high enough to ensure positive separation one would think. So what went wrong? At this stage, God only knows.

Reference the comments about Mildura - yep, I reckon an accident is on its way there. Why the hell do flying schools send training flights out in waves??? We did that in the military but we were operating in protected Restricted airspace. Mildura and Ballarat send em out in waves and arriving aircraft are greeted with 6 in the circuit or none in the circuit. Surely they can do better than that.

the Coroner mostly conducts an investigation into certain deaths and fires as required by the ACT where the identity of the deceased or the cause of death is unknown. The Coroner only carries out an inquest as a follow-on to a small number of those investigations.

The SJ rules apply but a Coroner is part of the judiciary and generally thought to be trained to disregard what might be prejudicial in jury trials. . An inquest is also a civil matter so the threshold is again far higher than in criminal matters. The fact that there will almost certainly be no criminal charges arising and that discussions here are not savaging reputations of the deceased are further factors that might be considered if contempt proceedings were contemplated.

There is no right to free speech...merely a right to freedom of political communication found by the High Court. We have no federal Bill of Rights unlike almost every other first world nation much to our shame in the international scene.

NB I have little experience in the Coroner’s Court and this is my personal opinion, not legal advice and anyone concerned should therefore seek independent advice from a suitably experienced practitioner.

Yes... goes with what I’ve been saying. Like it or not, if everyone was forced to fit ADSB out and have an ADSB in-display, the risk of mid-air’s would be reduced, but you’re not going to end up with every aircraft with an iPad or TSO’ed display any time soon.

The idea of the reduced cost ADSB units being permitted seems to be a positive move and I assume they have weighed up the chance of erroneous information being sent and decided it’s not an issue or at least they are asking us if we think it is.

You’ll still need ADSB-in though as even if everyone has out, you’re relying on the controller to help you avoid a collision.

There is also no way you will get adsb mandated in all ra aircraft or gliders etc.

Agreed TTL: They “can” self-separate as a matter of abstract principle. Whether they can in a particular set of circumstances depends on that particular set of circumstances.

IF - big IF -JQF was in fact deliberately levelled out at around 4,000’ there will be a reason. And it cannot logically be that PIC JQF understood that AEM was also at around 4,000’.

Successful self-separation depends on a mutual understanding of the same set of ‘facts’ - either accurate or inaccurate. Doesn’t matter whether the ‘facts’ are true or untrue, provided that the understanding is mutual.

And I agree (“absolutely” and “100 percent”) re Mildura. I’ve said it many times in many different ways: If the level of risk to which passengers on HCRPT aircraft are exposed during flights in and out of Mildura are ‘acceptable’ to the regulator and the operators, I can’t see why the regulator bothers with the risks of e.g. ‘Community Service Flights’ (other than for reasons of political expediency).

CASA's risk and risk mitigation strategy in so many ways is managed by absolute over regulation. The idea that if there are enough regulations, we can make aviation safe, is just laughable.

Just watch the regulator run for cover if it turns there are systemic factors in this event that could have been mitigated by pragmatic oversight.

This is a terrible tragedy and I hope the senseless loss of life was not in vain if there are lessons to be gained from this..

If JQF was on a flight test the PIC would not have had any input in organising traffic separation. His role is to observe and asses the candidate and only take over if safety is an issue. Maybe he was to late in taking over?

That’s a little too far fetched to think that the instructor sat back to watch the student continue into a mid-air!

not as far stretch as you would think, 7700.

They would have been given trafic information from Mel center on taxi, of AEM a fair distance to the south inbound with intentions and an estimate. For an inexperienced IFR candidate they may have assumed they would be well out of the way before their arrival plus their intended tracks weren’t the same. As the examiner they would obviously have a more accurate idea. However do they intervene and stop the test on the ground or do you give them a chance to manage the situation. Maybe he have them too much of a chance.
7700, the IFR and examining world is a lot different to bashing around Tooradin in a Jab.

I’m pretty certain that both instructors would have a greater respect for the preservation of life, than to deliberately place themselves, their student and the aircraft deliberately into harms way for the sake of teaching the student a lesson!

Hopefully the pilot of the third aircraft at Mangalore, VH-TFX, will provide the answer to this unfortunate accident.