ATSB REPORT: Near hit - C152 and RPT - King Island

[Garfly]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5770910/ao-2016-017-final.pdf

 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

How soon after departure do you switch from local to area frequency?

 

 

[alf jessup]

You would think once you were out of the 10 mile ctaf area

 

 

[facthunter]

Possibly as soon as you are out of the circuit area, in circumstances like those. On almost reciprocal tracks it's especially dangerous. GNSS makes everyone track more accurately. Stay away from common tracks that people climb and descend on when your level is in amongst the likely profiles of the other aircraft. The only safe method is to visually sight passing traffic, maintaining vertical separation until you do. Not continuing the descent in this instance made it more dangerous. Any descent below 6500 should be considered unsafe till the aircraft have passed each other or they agree that visual separation can be achieved and maintained safely. Nev

 

 

[johnm]

There should be an agreed understood rule that you fly right of track - though in this instance may not of helped ? - fly a mile or 5 off track - irrespective of the vertical separation thingy

 

 

[facthunter]

I have always tried to fly OFF track when not in controlled airspace by about 10 miles where a set of waypoints has busy aerodromes with climbing and descending traffic associated with them. Having it to the right ( say) keeps opposite direction traffic separated like you have at some lanes of entry. Maintaining vertical separation till visual passing confirmed, or distances established by DME/radar seems to have been and maybe still is the most positive method, requiring both to have established radio contact between themselves or a ground station coordinating. Thinking it's a big sky doesn't cut it. Nev

 

 

[Pearo]

I am spoiled, all the planes I fly have 2 com's. I always have centre tuned in on one, and CTAF on the other. In saying that, I had fuel issue once and was broadcasting inbound CTAF call when BNE Centre was trying to contact me with traffic info.

 

More than once, I have heard Brisbane Centre mention me regarding a potential conflict, so I am anal about having area frequency tuned in now. If area goes quiet, I get nervous and start checking to make sure I have the correct frequency tuned in!

 

 

[VFR Pilot]

ADSB would be good in these situations.

 

 

[flying dog]

Ok, I am only at page 5 (table 1).

 

16:45:47 ATC contacts MYI to pass IFR traffic to them.

 

Huh?

 

MYI are the RPT - right? Are there TWO RPT planes in this story? If so, why aren't they both shown and not just MYI?

 

and who is "Aircraft 2"? Although nicely mentioned in the PDF, the use of the number 2 is problematic as there are already 2 planes in the story. So is it just a "lazy way" of referring to one of the EXISTING planes in the story, or is it YET ANOTHER plane? In which case wouldn't it be aircraft 3?

 

I may not be good with this language, but reading this is becoming confusing.

 

Also to add to the confusion:

 

King Island is a CTAF. Common Traffic Advisory Frequency.

 

Just below the second part of Table 1 on page 6 is the weather report.

 

King Island Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF)

 

Notice it is the last 3 letters of CTAF.

 

Yeah, ok, there are only so many "TLA" and "FLA"s available, (Three Letter Acronyms and Four Letter Acronyms) but having two which mean so much differently yet so close to each other is problematic.

 

Page 7 is worrying.

 

"They use an iPad with a popular navigation application, and were able to maintain the flight-planned track far more accurately than relying on navigation using a map. There was no traffic awareness facility on this software application."

 

Ok, it is stated there is no traffic awareness facility.

 

But it raises the question to me: Where were their eyes? INSIDE or OUTSIDE the cabin?

 

I have been in a very similar situation (Right seat) and it really worried me when the pilot was flying EYES INSIDE the cabin to stay out of restricted air space, when there was a very easy train track to follow. (No prizes for guessing where we were.)

 

I am not sure of the "requirements" of this part of a trip (King island to where ever they were going.) but I am guessing it is a ONE LEG trip. That is: They take off at point A and fly to point B.

 

All this fandangled stuff is dangerous if incorrectly used!

 

You get the track from A to B, factor in the wind and determine the heading.

 

You take off, and turn to the heading. Climb to altitude but maintain heading.

 

You are looking at the altimeter, VSI and compass.

 

How it is described here is "Looking at the iPad and following the purple line." Which to me is NOT VFR.

 

No, I am not perfect and have had my own "adventures". Guilty. And sure: Hindsight is a luxury.

 

For someone who says they have done it "many times" and to be making those kind of mistakes..... Well..... I'm sorry. To me, a re-think is needed.

 

(Hey, I am typing as I read)

 

Yes, the pilot goes on to say that "in future they would not fly an almost reciprocal track to the inbound IFR aircraft. Instead, they intend to track a coastal route...."

 

Good, they have seen the mistake and corrected. But again: The iPad part isn't REALLY needed other than the PLANNING phase.

 

Plan the track from the Barwon Heads to the mainland.

 

Easy. The first phase would be simple. Take off, climb, head for Barwon Heads THEN fly the compass to the main land. (Sorry for the poor wording of the last part of that. I hope you understand what I mean.)

 

I love all the modern things, like GPS, and "smart" phones. But they have their place.

 

Complacency is DANGEROUS! Relying on them too much is where things go wrong.

 

I am very glad that there were no casualties from this and that both (both - does that include THREE parties?) parties have become wiser from it.

 

I am slightly curious if there was a change of undies required by either party at the end of events.

 

 

[aro]

I don't think the Cessna pilot did anything wrong. They seemed to make all the calls you could ask for on the radio.

 

The main problem was the RPT missed hearing some calls despite having 2 radios, presumably while they were making their own calls on CTAF.

 

There seems to be 2 main problems:

 

1) The RPT made an assumption about where the Cessna would be (below the layer of clouds)

 

2) ATC assumed the RPT would hear all the Cessna's radio calls. "Traffic is Cessna 150 RZP reported climbing to 5500" would be better than "Did you hear the call from RZP?" You really need to know what they said before you know if you heard it. It appears that they didn't hear the call ATC was referring to, only other calls.

 

 

[facthunter]

The info on level re the C-150, tells the RPT that below a certain height he has to satisfy himself that it is safe, because the other aircraft is "somewhere down there" so proceding below say 6500 safely has problems. You know the other aircraft is on a roughly reciprocal track also so your vertical separation is paramount till both aircraft have passed and confirmed that fact. Other assumptions re cloud amount and what the other pilot will do in relation to it are just assumptions and unless you are sure, you are NOT sure. Nev

 

 

[flying dog]

So no comment on "Aircraft 2" the THIRD aircraft and where it fits in to the scheme of things?

 

 

[facthunter]

Like you say. It's too confusing. Has it got anything to do with it? Nev

 

 

[Garfly]

I agree. There's something strange about the way that report was written. Why call it "Aircraft 2"? Why not give its registration number like all other aircraft mentioned in despatches. I started to imagine that it must have been some kind of secret military flight or something. Usually these reports are models of clarity but this one is a bit weird. It raises as many questions as it provides answers.

 

 

[flying dog]

Well, as I stated in my post:

 

There are the given TWO aircraft in the scenario.

 

Suddenly there is this "Aircraft 2" declared but never identified.

 

If it is an UN-KNOW, then it should be Aircraft 3. Yeah?

 

(And people get paid to write these reports.)

 

Sorry, but as bad as I am with clarity and this language, the report IS badly written and is confusing.

 

 

[ben87r]

Obviously wasn't there so I will keep my comment brief but I would be very hesitant to continue descent through another AC reported level without knowing that I was past their reported distance OR they had reported maintaining 1 or more miles off GPS track OR they were N/S/E/W of a location/feature and I was on the other side. Still being in/above IMC only the first two would apply here.

 

On another note most PPL/RA guys normally give a good amount of room for the commercial/rpt boys and girls if they are uncomfortable dealing with the separation especially with IFR traffic which is greatly appreciated and may not be thanked enough. Not to say that it wasn't the case here.

 

 

[aro]

Aircraft 2 was identified as a RPT inbound to King Island, but only the 2 aircraft involved in the incident were identified by call sign. From the report:

 

the crew of a regular public transport (RPT) aircraft (’Aircraft 2’) also broadcast on the CTAF. The crew advised that they were at 30 NM inbound to King Island and on descent through FL 115.3 The pilot of RZP responded to this broadcast, and reported RZP’s position and their intentions. After a brief radio discussion, the pilot of RZP agreed to advise the crew of Aircraft 2 when RZP was close to the northern coast of the island (Figure 1). The crew of Aircraft 2 had temporarily stopped their descent at 6,500 ft until they could confirm that they had safely passed RZP

 

 

Seems clear. The aircraft are identified in the order they made the first significant radio calls. Aircraft 1 = the Cessna RZP. Aircraft 2 = RPT inbound. Aircraft 3 = Second RPT inbound MYI. Incident was between Aircraft 1 and Aircraft 3.

 

Reading the report again, there seems to be a lot of "Where are you?" type calls going on even between the 2 RPT. To me it suggests a problem with self arranged separation with more than 2 aircraft. With all the calls going on across 2 different frequencies, MYI never actually found out what RZP was doing (even though they told ATC they had the information - they didn't know about the calls they didn't hear because they were transmitting).

 

Obviously wasn't there so I will keep my comment brief but I would be very hesitant to continue descent through another AC reported level

They didn't hear the reported level. They did choose to stop the descent, unfortunately it was at 5300 when RZP was climbing to 5500.

 

 

[flying dog]

So........

 

There was (were?) MYI and RZP. As declared in the title.

 

Therefore there are ALREADY two aircraft in the scope.

 

Whether you want to call MYI "aircraft 1" or "aircraft 2" and vice versa for the other is purely academic.

 

However the person who wrote the article then goes on to use the identifier "Aircraft 2" and not stating to which they were referring is really slack reporting.

 

 

[aro]

use the identifier "Aircraft 2" and not stating to which they were referring is really slack reporting

They do identify it... read the report, or even the bit I quoted. It's clear.

 

If you want an actual callsign... I suspect there are protocols about not identifying aircraft that were not involved in the actual incident. Their radio calls were significant which is why they are mentioned.

 

 

[flying dog]

Well, hang on...... Again I am confused.

 

If QUOTE:

 

I suspect there are protocols about not identifying aircraft that were not involved in the actual incident. Their radio calls were significant which is why they are mentioned

 

UNQUOTE

 

Actually that doesn't make sense now either. Either they ARE or they ARE NOT involved.

 

(Added way after typing and put in later on reflection)

 

They are NOT INVOLVED, why were they mentioned in the first place?

 

And again I ask: WHY WERE THEY REFERRED TO AS AIRCRAFT TWO and not THREE when there were already TWO aircraft named and identified?

 

I am getting a headache from this and all the other crap going on just now.

 

 

[ben87r]

They didn't hear the reported level. They did choose to stop the descent, unfortunately it was at 5300 when RZP was climbing to 5500

True, but they did descend through the last level maintained by aircraft 2 after becoming aware of traffic without assured separation. I would have wanted to have spoken with them before further descent.