Flown the US GG, operated in a danger area under VFR and the airline service happily flew through as well. Would that occur in Oz? Times change and the introduction of technology such as TCAS etc helps. Funny thing though, flew Vietnam which was all VFR and the only mid air I heard of, and saw the results, was between a Porter and Cobra, forget the exact details, but occurred landing/taking off, the wreckage of both lying in the grass not 50 feet from the runway.

Could things in Oz be better? Of course they could, but where does the money come from, what area of the budget do you cut to divert the cash to aviation, or raise taxes? If you cut your cloth according to your situation, you limit what you do to take account of the resources you have is an old saying.

Was the "danger" area military related?

If so I think you will find that the U.S. has a requirement for the authority for such areas to have radar surveillance coverage so they can knock it off in the event of seeing a transit.

Australia is the 15th largest economy in the world with one of the highest per capita incomes yet we keep convincing ourselves that we cant lead in anything. The recent accident on the Sydney - Melbourne train line is just another example. Truth is politicians hate infrastructure. They like things that are cheap, simply and popular not expensive , complex and contentious. They bow to populist campaigns of special interest groups and can't resist pork-barrelling. Think sport rorts.........Public Service entities like the old Department of Aviation have disappeared or been emasculated. So much easier to just keep digging stuff out of the ground. Forty years of cr#p has left Australia with substandard infrastructure pretty well in every sector of transportation. And we put up with it. You get what you deserve. I’ve got a feeling the next 30 years are going to be confronting.........

Quote:

---

You don't have mid airs in the good old USA, with wall to wall radar? F-16 and Cessna in South Carolina 2015 taking two lives in the Cessna and loss of F-16 say otherwise. Get off your high horse. Mid airs, like all other accident causes, will always be with us. The very first was in 1910 in Milan, Italy (non fatal) and the first fatal 1912 in France. Though it was a while ago, who can forget this Cessna 172 collision San Diego, 135 people aboard the 727 and seven people on the ground in houses, including two children, two onboard Cessna killed, nine others on the ground were injured and 22 homes were destroyed or damaged by the impact and debris.

---

High horse? Yeah OK, if that's what you want to think.

Not much has changed in 42 years eh? Have you seen how IFR aircraft are managed in high density areas?

You also don't know what or where my high horse is. I've got a bit of experience in a few jurisdictions.

Quote:

---

Of course they could, but where does the money come from, what area of the budget do you cut to divert the cash to aviation, or raise taxes?

---

One thing the Australian government has done a superb job on is brainwashing you lot into thinking the bucket is perenially empty. 'We'll all be rooned'

It's a pity you didn't listen to old mate Packer a little closer.

+1 to Hoosten and Glass. We used to have first class infrastructure. Nowadays we get wall to wall lazy public servants and greedy private contractors instead trying to tell us that the crap they provide is really rolled gold.


Remove government bullshyte and concentrate on outcomes. I don’t give a flying **** about gender equity, gay rights, diversity, aboriginal considerations, sensitivity training, glass ceilings, lean sigma and all the other crap government departments spend money on. I want to see overworked managers supporting frontline workers, not the other way round. I want to see decisions made by EXPERIENCED PEOPLE USING GOOD DATA, not some business school graduates theory of what “should” happen.

Hoosten, A couple of well loved Australianisms:

"Don't you know who I am?" and "Please explain?"

Instead we could listen to people like Hoosten and glass that want us to spend money based on incidents that we don't know the cause?

Mate some pilots don't want this stuff. Lets just wait to see what the report says.

But again like I said, that's not the pprune way.

You should listen to hoosten, he’s an expert, he even tells you so in his message. Nothing says expert more to me than having to tell people you’re an expert, and slandering people who happen to disagree with your point of view...

So OCTA, do we live in the best possible aviation world where our regulators are the most intelligent, kindest and just leaders in history who have designed, created and administer an aviation earthly paradise in Australia?

One can compare and criticize the outcomes without having to necessarily design a new system yourself.

To put that another way, I’ve flown into LAX, SFO, Sea Tac etc., etc. and just looking out the window you will see more varied aircraft going about their business in ten minutes than all day in Melbourne or Sydney. Heavy jets, business jets, military and GA down to Cessna 172s, all without a care, yet in Australia that is judged impossible, but it can’t be. Why they even have an air national guard! Imagine that! Civilian pilots flying military jets on weekends! The horror! Why they even visit local airports! How can this be without aluminium raining from the sky?

No we don’t live in the best possible aviation world, no one does. Of course there are things to improve and there all ways will be. I have no issue with positive, well thought out improvements to the system, or even civilised, reasonable debate.

What I have an issue with is someone saying they know of several methods that would have prevented an accident without even knowing how the accident occurred. At this point all anyone knows is that two aircraft likely collided. I also have an issue with someone who is so full of their own self importance that they think they are the only one who knows anything about aviation. That their first solution to anyone who disagrees with their point of view is to attack their intelligence, their physique or any other infantile way they can attack that person for having the nerve to disagree with them.

I have no issues with people disagreeing with me, and there is a good chance I’m not right with everything I say. But I am willing to bet hoosten would not talk to people in public the way he does on here so perhaps he should try a little bit of respect.

And there's nothing like a brainwashed Australian ATC posturing and presenting his/her expert opinions, fresh out of the academy, fresh from the 'you are the best ATC's in the world' 'that costs money, nobody wants to pay' 'you control 11% of the earths surface' (wow-wee!)

You can't stand the fact that you control very little air traffic (in movements), that somebody else does it better than you and your global relevance is insignificant when it comes to ATC. I don't see any ANSP taking advice from you on any airspace matters. (Apart from poor South Pacific nations that can afford 0$ advice) You are isolated in your own little backyard, geographically isolated enough to be able to bull**** your domestic 'customers' that 'this is the best system money can buy'

Come one, come all, I could not care in the slightest that you 'don't know who I am.' Put your arguments forward, try an argument without 'but no one wants to pay'

I'd like to read that argument, but none of you user pays apologists has been able to move past that, not one of you.

How many of you experts have used that particular block of airspace?

Quote:

---

What I have an issue with is someone saying they know of several methods that would have prevented an accident without even knowing how the accident occurred.

---

Are you serious? You can't be.

Quote:

---

At this point all anyone knows is that two aircraft likely collided.

---

Is that all that is known, again, are you serious?

Quote:

---

I also have an issue with someone who is so full of their own self importance that they think they are the only one who knows anything about aviation.

---

This is laughable, one look at your post history to see your expert opinions on all matter of subjects. I couldn't care less whether you do this by the way, it's no skin off my back. Again, the only argument you've got is 'no one wants to pay'

Quote:

---

That their first solution to anyone who disagrees with their point of view is to attack their intelligence, their physique or any other infantile way they can attack that person for having the nerve to disagree with them.

---

I'll address one of your other points not quoted here, would I speak to people in person the way I speak here? Yes I would and do. I had a discussion with the person concerned, face to face. He too is not shy of putting his point of view forward. I have more respect for people like him than experts who tell everybody they're not really an expert but they are really, considering their post history. And guess what, if you are an ATC, that kinda does make you an SME. So how about doing what any good SME does and do some research.

Quote:

---

I have no issues with people disagreeing with me, and there is a good chance I’m not right with everything I say.

---

You kind of do, you can't handle that anybody else may have a little more experience than you, in more disciplines than you, in more jurisdictions than you.

Signing off, 'FIGJAM, Don't you know who I am' Hoosten.

Given you seem to have more knowledge on it, what did happen? I am particularly curious about comms if you can shed some light?

Hoosten, I suggest you take your disgraceful, abuseful attitude someplace else. You are the worst of the Internet.

Agree 100%

So, apart form a slur that I apologised for, so sorry, I did lose a a very good friend in this accident, and 3 others lost their lives and the best you lot can come up with is 'nobody wants to pay for it'

Four dead, and more to come. But nobody wants to pay for it, until it's one of yours of course.

You, Sirs, the pair of you, are appologists for the 'lucky country' a 3rd world infrastructure country riding on the back of a resources boom. Without these resources you'd be wallowing in a recession. Keep kidding yourselves that you're 'the best'

You are incapable of analysis, clearly. You are incapable of research, clearly.

User CP > Your Control Panel > Edit Ignore List.

Hoosten if all you've read is that nobody wants to pay for it then you need to step away. It means you're not tuning clearly and missing points.

Here's my take. I'm RA pilot. I don't want mowancta to deal with, and I include E because there's requirements for that airspace I don't always meet. So I also have an agenda. Same as every living person.

So if the pilots were given traffic and one or both of them ignored it and didn't communicate with the other pilot, whos fault is it? Wouldn't the easiest thing be to say hey maybe someone made a mistake and we learn grin it and move on? I know that doesn't fit you're agenda so you'll just ignore me and move on but I've had my say.

Sonething I've noticed in a lot of fatal accidents is that no-one wants to blame the pilots. It's sad, they're good people and just made a couple of mistakes and don't deserve this but it happened (I can give two examples right now). They always want some external blame to cope with their grief.

Quote:

---

Given you seem to have more knowledge on it, what did happen? I am particularly curious about comms if you can shed some light?

---

Mutual traffic was given and acknowledged by both aircraft.

ATC met all of their responsibility regarding the class of traffic the aircraft were operating in. Not an ATC bash, far from it (well apart from the SME, that doesn't want to be an SME, that is passively being an SME)

This accident would not have happened, had the appropriate class of airspace been in place given the traffic density, given an ANSP that could staff the console, given an airspace regulator that had the gumtion to implement it.

I apologise to the precious petals that 'can't handle the truth'

Quote:

---

User CP > Your Control Panel > Edit Ignore List.

---

Do it, simple. I haven't got anybody on my ignore list. I wouldn't ever resort to snowflake world.

Iron, I don't and wouldn't ignore you because you exist in RAAus world. You're part of an airspace system. You have as much right as anybody to access airspace. A good airspace system acommodates all users. It provides appropriate protection for the density of traffic at any location.

Appropriate.

Sorry mate, but I won't back away from solutions that have been proven to work around the world in situations such as this. Get together a forum at any aeroclub in Australia and I'll meet you there and run you and your mates through it. I'll guarantee you that the other protagonists on this mighty forum won't. I'll bet you pounds to peanuts that when push comes to shove none of them will turn up.

You organise it, I'll be there, (you'll have to give me notice, I'm O/S).

Is that the offical opinion of ASA and do you represent them?

Was quite some time ago CM, military training area, there were no comms with an ATC unit required, don't know about the airline traffic, you were never aware of the airline traffic until you eyeballed the aircraft. All strictly VFR 0 to 10,000, if IMC prevailed we were unable to operate in that particular block below 10,000.

I'm confused - is this Hoosten of Houston or The name is Porter of Santa Barbara by another name (forget the rest by Shakespeare) ...

They write the same -

https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...l#post10621591

Certainly not beyond the realm of possibility, they both write very similar and have the same general attitude of contempt towards anyone they don’t agree with.

If what you have said is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then you are emotionally compromised and you are acting from an emotional aspect rather than a rational aspect at the moment. I know losing friends flying sucks, I have also lost several good friends flying throughout the world and it really sucks. And when it happened I behaved exactly like you did. The only advice I can give is either remove the emotion from your posts, or don't post until you can.

As for my research, I have a significant amount of experience both as a pilot and as an ATC. By significant I mean enough to be able to comment in an educated way on matters related to the subject at hand. I am not an SME. If you want an SME to chat to go find GT.

I don't even in principle disagree with some of what you have to say. I believe there is room for substantial improvement in Australian airspace. However what you consider to be an improvement others may not agree. There are many other airspace users in Australia who all get consulted on any proposed changes, and a significant portion of the industry does not like the idea of class E airspace in the way you have suggested. Some of this is a lack of education on how Class E airspace works, some of this is because of a bias against Class E that was formed from a poor initial introduction of class E initially. And then frankly some of it is just competing agendas.

You stated that the class of airspace should be appropriate to the traffic volume. I think many people on here would agree that from an IFR aircraft perspective Mangalore is not what would be considered a busy aerodrome, sure it may have the occasional busy period but overall its not a particularly busy aerodrome and has a fairly similar traffic mix. There are many aerodromes I would have considered this likely before Mangalore where the traffic variety is huge with everything from hang gliders up to multiple RPT jets. They are the aerodromes I would have put class E airspace down to 1200ft at.

It really isn't your ideas to changing the airspace I have had objections with, its how you have treated people in here. You have attacked the controllers and that is out of line, I guarantee there is not a single controller in this country who does not give their absolute best for every aircraft in their airspace. I am yet to see an Australian ATC who claims to be the best in the world, however from my observations of ATC's who go to other countries they are absolutely capable. Just because they don't necessarily agree with you, the personal attacks aren't necessary. Given that I have not been innocent of attacks towards you in that respect I get that it kind of becomes a cycle of personal attacks, but its counter productive. I have no issue discussing things with you either on here or by PM, I ask that you do it in a respectful way though. I will give you the same in return.

As for the cost, regardless of what you say, there is a cost to making airspace changes. The resources to make changes are there, but they aren't endless. Keep in mind we are a country of 25 million trying to provide infrastructure to the same area you have 350 million people to pay for. It is important to use the resources where they will have the most benefit. You and I may disagree on where that is. The changes are there, they are happening, but its not going to happen overnight. And I am not sure it will match what you want. Outside of any potential cost issues, there is significant resistance from other sectors of the industry, a regulator who doesn't change anything quickly, and a general public who aren't pilots, and who as long as 737s aren't crashing into each other don't really care about airspace change. If you are interested in any of the airspace changes coming here is the link: Airspace Modernisation | Airservices

Quote:

---

As for my research, I have a significant amount of experience both as a pilot and as an ATC. By significant I mean enough to be able to comment in an educated way on matters related to the subject at hand. I am not an SME. If you want an SME to chat to go find GT.

---

Here we go 'Don't you know who I am?'

You might be surprised at my work history, my aviation experience and qualifications. It far outstrips anyone on here. If any of you can't bear the thought of that, seriously, I do not care. I'm also not a snowflake, go your hardest at me, I don't walk around all day downtrodden upset that people may not respect me, like me or for that matter agree or disagree. I have long moved past that, probably 30 years ago.

I won't appologise to anyone for posting when emotional about a topic, particularly this one. If it offends your sensibilities, that's too bad. If you note my post history, I give respect where I deem it belongs. I will not give it to someone, I feel, doesn't warrant it. I also do not care if any of you do not respect me. I'm from a generation that grew up a little differently and don't need a government telling other people how they should treat me.

Now if you really want to get down into the weeds, I apologised for my comments about a certain person I made on this forum. If you want to know, I have had face to face discussions with this person in the past, I have told him to his face what I think of his disgusting comments on a non aviation subject. I have said, I will always say to a persons face what I say on a forum. NO, I SHOULDN'T HAVE LET MY EMOTIONS GET THE BETTER OF ME WHEN I MADE THAT COMMENT (Not yelling but I do feel the need to emphasise that I apologise for that lapse in judgement)

If you want me to simplify my comments on Australian ATC:

The controller at the console does the job with the equipment, facilities and airspace that's placed in front of them. No beef with them, no problem.

ASA, however is where the systemic issues lay. Some rudimentary research suggests the best things ASA are good at are sexual discrimination and bullying and harrassment.

Hoosten
To establish your credibility in this matter, it would be useful if you provided a summary of your experience and qualifications and, in particular, the basis for your understanding of and familiarity with the legislation establishing CASA and Airservices and the specific responsibilities placed on those organisations and the Australian Government requirements for cost recovery in the aviation world.

I very much doubt it, stick to your 175/145. Interested in your answer to the above post, lay it on us so we can judge your credibility, bet you don't, you'll avoid with some weasel words.

Look at the result, the possible causes and the desired outcome. Two aircraft collide in possible IMC whilst conducting IFR training. Both aircraft are OCTA, class G in the vicinity of a CTAF. It would appear that both are on area frequency and communicating with ATC. One aircraft has maintained an altitude for the previous 30 seconds which indicates a separation standard was in progress. Without blame, what would have resulted in the best outcome of four good people still being with us today? Both pilots given and maintain an altitude till verified passage? Both pilots receiving positive vectoring? One or both pilots having , at least, an operational real time ADS-B Rx unit (certified or not)? Or, one pilot held on the ground till the incoming aircraft is visual? Class G obviously only works in VMC.

IFR pays for a service in Class E and above. Could this be amended to allow a service, even in Class G, if there is reliable spacial traffic information? THE desired outcome is a separation standard in IMC in ALL airspace within the ADS-B coverage map.

EDIT to add- This entire incident would be expected to recorded in high fidelity from the raw 1090ES stream...wouldn't it? If not, why not?

OZBusDriver,

While I can agree with what I think is the overall thrust of your post, I feel there could be some misunderstandings in it that could benefit from clarification:

This is incorrect. Outside controlled airspace, there is no such thing as a separation standard. I know what you mean - that one aircraft appears to have been positively doing something about the known conflict - but separation is an ATC thing. Pilots don't apply it. Perhaps a better term is "deconfliction."
As you've described them, it sounds like you mean that these actions could have been directed by ATC. The two aircraft were in Class G, where ATC do not and cannot provide positive control instructions. ATC can (and must, and does) provide traffic information and can, if both aircraft are painting on whatever surveillance technology is in use in the area, provide suggested actions, but they can't provide positive control in uncontrolled airspace. Pilots get told about conflicts, and how they deconflict themselves is up to them.
This is not quite correct either. IFR pays for and receives a service in Class G airspace, too. The difference is that as described in AIP a Class G service includes traffic information only, not separation. Nothing precludes the ATC from suggesting solutions to impending conflicts (and indeed an ATC's duty of care demands it in many cases), but they remain suggestions only. In Class G airspace, pilots are responsible for avoiding other aeroplanes.
I think I know what you mean, but it isn't a separation standard that is the desired outcome. It's having aircraft operate safely in relation to each other without hitting. In CTA, this is done through the use of control instructions intended to establish and preserve separation standards, but in uncontrolled airspace, by definition, there's no requirement for a clearance and there's no requirement for pilots to follow ATC suggestions, so there can be no separation standards.

Semantics? Maybe, but I think an understanding of exactly what service pilots receive in which class of airspace is an important thing that is perhaps not as widespread as it could be.

ADSB is mandated for all IFR planned aircraft.

Can anyone advise where the nearest ADSB ground station is to Mangalore?

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...t-Coverage.jpg

Just guessing from that coverage map, but I suspect the aircraft would come on ADSB around 4000-5000ft

Quote:

---

I very much doubt it, stick to your 175/145. Interested in your answer to the above post, lay it on us so we can judge your credibility, bet you don't, you'll avoid with some weasel words.

---

I will not post any of this here. Been there and done that. If you PM me your email address, I'll lay it all out for you.

Quote:

---

Hoosten

---

Same goes for for you, I will not, for a number of reasons.

PM your email address to me and we'll go from there.

And there we have it. All of the 'holier than thou' hyocrites. Pontificating about name calling and put downs. Good onya mate, that's what they say down there right?

Quote:

---

Look at the result, the possible causes and the desired outcome. Two aircraft collide in possible IMC whilst conducting IFR training. Both aircraft are OCTA, class G in the vicinity of a CTAF. It would appear that both are on area frequency and communicating with ATC. One aircraft has maintained an altitude for the previous 30 seconds which indicates a separation standard was in progress. Without blame, what would have resulted in the best outcome of four good people still being with us today? Both pilots given and maintain an altitude till verified passage? Both pilots receiving positive vectoring? One or both pilots having , at least, an operational real time ADS-B Rx unit (certified or not)? Or, one pilot held on the ground till the incoming aircraft is visual? Class G obviously only works in VMC.

---

-Stop speculating on the cause of this accident.
-Wait for the ATSB to conduct the investigation.
-You don't know what you're talking about and have no right to speculate.

Quote:

---

IFR pays for a service in Class E and above. Could this be amended to allow a service, even in Class G, if there is reliable spacial traffic information? THE desired outcome is a separation standard in IMC in ALL airspace within the ADS-B coverage map.

---

Stop right there Bucko

-It will cost too much.
-Nobody wants to pay for it.
-Who's going to pay for it all??

NOTE: Standard pprune response from the hidden residents.

‘Let me get this straight. ADS-B was rammed down the throat of IFR Aircraft owners and operators, five years(?) in advance of the U.S. mandate. This was done at huge expense, not to mention inconvenience.

This was done by CASA with the connivance of Airservices on the sole grounds of enhanced safety. It has to be “enhanced safety” since CASA keeps on telling us that it’s sole mission is enhanced safety to the exclusion of all other considerations.

Yet now OCTA, you purport to tell the Australian aviation community, that ADS-B was not expected to produce a safety benefit at all, “below 5000ft” and not in class G airspace anyway because Airservices just passes traffic and has no responsibility beyond that.

This is despite the known fact that most mid air incidents happen in the vicinity of the circuit.

To make matters worse for Airservices, anyone with a home computer could see the collision situation developing, but not Airservices.

I therefore ask the question: Could the Aviation community be justified in forming the impression that CASA and Airservices are total frauds? They have foisted and continue to foist useless technology on the Aviation community that cannot produce a measurable increase in aviation safety at all considering the way it is employed and is never going to?

I won’t ask the next question; why were they so keen to do this?