That fact they hit means that someone was obviously not fully aware of the others position.
All I am saying is a possible hypothesis is the pilot under assessment has not suitably dealt with the traffic by staying on the ground like an experienced pilot would and when the time has come to intervene the examiner has made the assessment that it should be ok and it wasn’t.

These things aren’t black and white. 7700 with your extensive experience, you should know that.

Is an “experienced pilot” not including someone training for their IFR? For your hypothesis to hold water, you’d need to know the experience level of the pilot being examined. Same goes for the other pilot under instructions, are you aware of his experience?

In order to get your point across here, it is not necessary to attempt to make a sarcastic personal attack against me.

As sad as any accident is, the loss of separation features prominently among ATSB reports, and that's when they are under positive control air traffic wise. The fact was bought home to me while looking up 747 events on their web site recently. The worlds largest mid air death toll was the result of a 747 and Il-76 meeting over India, the largest potential was a JAL DC-10 and JAL 747 missing each other by 10 metres at FL360. Didn't QF have a 747 miss a C-5 by a like amount over Malaysia or Thailand, result of the C-5 giving a wrong estimate?

Quote:

---

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!

---

You can be damn sure that this is the case. I don't know of any sane FE or IFR Instructor that would allow a situation to develop that would result in a possible mid-air. I'm also sure that if CASA became aware of any such rogue that the FER would 'placed on hold'

Considering that IFR traffic was passed to and acknowledged by both aircraft, the answer to this one is most likely recorded on the CTAF frequency. Hope to Christ the recording is complete.

Sadly we’ve been here before.

ATSB AR-2008-044(2)

Can’t find the report

This one perhaps: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r-2008-044(2)/

That’s the one. Sorry, couldn’t get the link to copy.

Sadly accidents happen , we don't live in a perfect world! I knew CG, top guy, hard to believe he was involved in this but there you go, humans are fallible! Very few wake up in the morning and plan their deaths in this manor. Again it happens, we are human, learn from their mistakes and fly safer, end of story!

machtuk, don’t think that explanation will cut it in the subsequent investigation. The risks inherent in CTAFs are well documented , which is why I posted the link to now long forgotten inquiry. Airservices has a lot of questions to answer.

what questions?

If pilots do what they should then these issues won't happen. I don't know mangalore but if you introduce control to these airports then you increases charges, RA unable to use them (my problem with it) and bigger delays on clearances.

I've heard aircraft on area frequencies basically ignore traffic advice only to 2 minutes later be told by atc they had better move.

Again until we get the investigation we won't know what the cause is but I think we should consider things before asking for more cta.

Airservices or CASA?

CASA is the airspace authority and aviation safety regulator. Only they have the authority to declare airspace, change the classification of airspace and direct a change be made to the level of ATS or pilot procedures etc.

Both. The National Airspace System , a brilliant bureaucratic oxymoron, sowed the seeds of failure from day one. The ATSB inquiry expresses it better than I can.

709 incidents , 60 serious, between 1/1/03 and 31/12/08.

709

Nothing quite so stupid as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Yeah I’m sure incidents are unheard of in other airspace systems....

Quote:

---

Yeah I’m sure incidents are unheard of in other airspace systems....

---

Don't make excuses for a piss-poor airspace system. Four people are dead in an easily avoidable accident. Unfortunately the complexities of airspace design and systems are beyond a simple explanation to a coroner, a politician or anyone else that makes the decisions to properly administer and regulate an airspace system.

Admit it, you are a 3rd rate airspace admin. You are the pig with lipstick, you look shiny and new to anyone with little knowledge of what goes on behind closed doors. Too lazy, too ignorant to go out into the big wide world and see how a modern, properly resourced 'not for profit' administration keeps the public safe.

It's all well and good to say it's pretty simple to arrange your own separation on a CTAF frequency in IMC. I have been in that holding pattern with 3 others while one is shooting an approach. Of course if you rip VOR's and NDB's out of the ground, where else are you going to go? The nature of the IFR training done in Australia is that VOR's and NDB's are required by those who pay for it.

But you'll come back with, 'no one wants to pay for it' You're on the Kool-Aid, it's paid for many times over.

There are some fairly straight forward solutions, Class E being one of them. Airservices doesn't want a bar of it, Your CEO can't staff the airspace you've got let alone any new classifications. It all fits in nicely with CASA's in-action on this front.

Where is the like button!!

+1

I’ll second that.

I don't see why OZRunways can't have an arrangement with something like FlightRadar24 to display their traffic as an overlay. OZRunways own traffic system is hopeless as it won't show anyone who isn't using the same app.

I know it would still rely in a data connection but in reality, 4G data is pretty good around most busy class G and not having to switch apps to Flight Radar 24 to get a quick glimpse of the traffic situation would be a godsend to situational awareness.

OzRunways will already show ADS-B traffic if you have compatible hardware on board - and you won't need a data connection to see it. You will still need data to receive OzRunways-derived traffic though.

Too many variables to be reliable.

Get one of these and encourage everyone you can to get ADSB out transponders and hopefully CASA will go ahead with the lesser cost ADSB option...

https://www.ozrunways.com/store/adsb/ping.jsp

PS if you’re switching across to Flightradar24 whilst flying, you need to use the split screen function on your iPad so you can fit the two apps on the screen at the same time. It’s a little tricky the first time but once you’ve got it you’ll be laughing.