Lack of Airmanship

[facthunter]

Spot on.

 

Love it, jcamp, Nev...

 

 

[Ben Longden]

A few months ago at Shepp, the active was 18 and there were a few AC in the circuit. Then a VH registered Chipmunk does a straight in approach on 36 without any radio calls, (I was on base leg) takes the main taxiway to the refuelling bowser and parks in the middle of the apron, so no traffic can either taxi past or go to refuel.

 

I checked the cockpit of the Chippy, and the VHF was fitted...

 

B'stard.

 

BUT, on the other hand we had the annual comp against the RVAC at Shepp last weekend, and there were an average of six planes in the circuit at any one time, and the airmanship had to be seen and heard to be believed. It was brilliant.

 

Ben

 

 

[youngmic]

Ozzie

 

Ozzie,

 

Your comment on airmanship was spot on, I would like to hope you are part of the younger set of the aviation community, but I suspect your from the older generation of well mannered and well taught aviators.

 

Ultralights,

 

I would be very hesitant indeed to pass comment on the airmanship of another pilot who I had just had a near miss with until I had spoken with that person and ascertained the exact circumstances.

 

Particularly in a public forum.

 

I am curious as to your comment that the other aircraft was VH reg., what are you inferring?

 

I once nearly landed a turbine Thrush on one of my bosses (not intentionally, he was a good boss) who was flying a radial Air Tractor at the time, we were both seasoned Ag pilots who fly with our eyes outside of the cockpit yet with me approaching faster and higher his aircraft was obscured by the long nose and forward low wing of the Thrush. Obviously he did not have eyes in the back of his head, even if he had, the helmet would've buggerd rearward vision, nor would he be looking over his shoulder crossing over the fence to see if he was about to be mowed down.

 

I never saw a thing, he reported that my wheels passed either side of his cockpit just passing outside of the prop disk area.

 

You can look, you can maneuver, you can look, but just some times you just won't see it.

 

At the end of the day near misses will occur, the professional thing to do is remain conciliatory about the event. This will enhance future cohesion and safety.

 

Regards

 

Mick

 

 

[Flyer]

The government and CASA are getting more and more ammunition for implementing ADS-B as it's becoming apparent that we cant see and avoid ourselves. :black_eye:

 

Gentlemen, can we have constructive comment happening rather than a slanging match between us and them, whoever them are (VH maybe).

 

Ultralights had a problem and by his own admission smoked the bloke on the radio. O.K. maybe if he didn't smoke the bloke they maybe could have had a chat and sorted it out.

 

I had an "incident" and I managed to have a chat with the bloke a bit later. No harm done and no further issue.

 

Ben, did anybody have a word to the Chippy driver?

 

I think that BrentC has a good point as does Big Pete. If a stuff up occurs, dont hit the roof, sort it out as calmly as possible and dont loose sleep over it.

 

Take one from the bucket of luck and put it in the bucket of experience.

 

As Big Pete says, good manners dont cost anything. My mother-in-law has suggested to me on more than 1 occasion that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

 

We ALL make mistakes, it's part of life. Believe it or not, that's how we learn.

 

If the other pilot has missed seeing you, be thankful that your own training has caused you to see him and deal with the situation in whatever manner is appropriate before a disaster occurs.

 

Lets try and sort things out in a civil manner and make sure we give CASA no grounds on which to implement changes.

 

United we stand and divided we fall.

 

I'll hop off my soapbox now, thanks for listening.

 

Regards

 

Phil

 

 

[facthunter]

Notable VH ?

 

Perhaps the reason that we comment on the fact that VH is involved, is that we expect better of them. ( subtle inferiority complex?) I personally don't differentiate. I've seen pretty bad efforts by all groups at times. I believe the way forward is by awareness, training, and self-discipline. There are dreadfull blind spots on most aircraft. we have to live with that, or should I say ADAPT TO IT, in a visual environment. I don't think that you will live long enough to learn by your OWN mistakes. Others have died to provide you with examples to learn by.

 

As for getting upset with someones actions while you are flying, it's absolutely remarkable how your flying performance deteriorates, under these circumstances. I've observed it personally, in other pilots, in training and work situations, and I'm sure I'm not immune, either. Abusing someone over the radio is a no-no, regardless of what your feelings are at the time, and it does have safety implications.

 

A sign I saw outside a church once was "mud thrown is ground lost". (maybe relevant). Nev..

 

 

[Guest browng]

When I was a freshly minted PPL in the UK, immediately after my Nav Flight Test and full of myself, I decided to plan my own Navex as the NFT was 'too easy' and I knew I could do better. I set myself a triangular track that took me close to, but not into the airspace of an RAF airfield from which the USAF was operating A-10s. Now this was long before the GPS existed outside the US Military, and navigation was dead reckoning and map to ground. Anybody here who has flown in the UK will know that the problem there is not a lack of landmarks, but a plethora, you can be looking for a village and have 5 within your field of view, likewise roads. Well I managed to misidentify a road early in the flight, and then 'made' the subsequent landmarks fit my expectations. The upshot was that I tracked directly across the approach of an active fast jet airfield 5 miles out, and only realized it was not my intended turning point when I saw the helicopter they had sent up to shoo me away.

 

The point of this story is that mistakes do happen, particularly to young inexperienced and overconfident pilots, and we need to be constantly aware of that. Now when I landed back at my destination I was directed to report to the tower where the RAF base Commander was on the phone, and I fully expected to be charged and have my license pulled, but no, what I got was a lecture that is burned into my brain to this day, an uncompromising but totally constructive lecture that forensically analyzed my string of cockups and made me fully aware of my own limitations. There was never an official 'incident' recorded, and it ended with that phone call, but I have never succumbed to overconfidence or arrogance since, that debacle made me a better pilot from that day. Now it could have gone differently, I could have been reported, charged, fined, and had my license suspended, but that RAF officer turned my mistakes into a learning opportunity that you couldn't buy for quids. In the subsequent years I have always tried to do the same when I see mistakes made, I see no point it making an already bad situation worse, it solves nothing and is counter productive.....just my 2c worth on the subject.

 

 

[Yenn]

As facthunter says abusing someone over the radio is not on. It could be construed as illegal use of the radio. The use of radio is set out for all to see and to legally be able to chastise someone you would need to be on the chat frequency, not the CTAF and I think you would be talking to yourself.

 

I know that if I was asked to change to 123.45 to be chastised I would stick with the CTAf at least while in the area. Person to person on the ground would be the best approach and bearing in mind that most of the problems are not intentional, a softly softly approach might suit. From experience the other party will not admit fault but may get to thinking about the situation.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Some very wise heads here.

 

Excellent post browng, and point very well made.

 

The "mud thrown is ground lost" is perfect Nev.

 

The last thing we need is incidents of "air rage".

 

 

[Ultralights]

Just an update on things, i have been contacted by the ATSB over the incident to give a full account of what happened, and apparently the pilot of XKX mistakenly assumed my aircraft was the skipper that landed in front of me, and therefor didn't keep a watchful eye out as he assumed the sky was clear based on the radio calls. fair enough, an easy mistake to make i guess if you are unfamiliar with aircraft types, the ATSb have been pretty helpful about it all, and looking back on it all, i see how it is easy to make simple mistakes, so based on that, i dont blame the other pilot so much, and will take it on board as a learning experience. basic lesson, keep an eye out no matter the radio chat.

 

as for having a go on the radio, i am a little embarrassed about that bit, though i didn't use offensive language, the call was pretty much.. xkx there is a jabiru you almost hit on finals! have a look out your window next time! 940, going round.

 

my initial intention was to go an talk to him on the ground, but he departed before i could finish the circuit. though being a non confrontational type person, i was just going to ask him if he saw me at all and heard my calls.

 

so i guess the lesson to be learnt from it all is, even with radio calls,, make sure you have Visual conformation of the other aircrafts position as well. when flying into bankstown, the tower asks for visual conformation when giving you traffic info, so the same should go for CTAF's and other uncontrolled airfields as well. dont obviously call you have traffic visual, but make sure you look for the aircraft when it makes a call.

 

 

[Yenn]

I have a problem in a busy circuit as it was at Bundaberg at the airshow. Told to follow the C172 i was wondering which of the several Cessna's was really meant and all I could do was follow the nearest in front of me. It looks as if I could have done the same as your XKX.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Ultralights,

 

I see from reading some of your other posts that you work (or have worked) in the RAAF avionics section. I am wondering if you think some sort of an anti collision warning device may have helped in the situation you described - perhaps you think an ADSB unit may have helped ?

 

HPD

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

One thing to consider is Hoxton Park itself. It has a bit of a history for this sort of thing

 

 

[Mazda]

There are problems with ADS-B. Remember the planned ADS-B fitment for GA is for ADS-B 'out' only, which will give no information to us. ADS-B in is quite expensive. If you choose to fit ADS-B in, there is no audio read out (due to patenting issues I think) so you have to keep your head in the cockpit and look at a screen instead of looking out.

 

If there are aircraft in the circuit with no transponder (or they've forgotten to turn it on, or it is a GAAP where they are not supposed to have it on in the circuit), you'll have your head in the cockpit looking at the screen but these aircraft won't show.

 

The only way is to look out! Never assume! People may not have a radio, it might be on the wrong frequency etc.

 

A friend of mine had an engine failure at 2RN some years ago and had to glide into Hoxton. After making his May Day call he tried to change the frequency to Hox but the radio knob fell off. He was a bit too busy aviating at the time to worry about it and made it safely to Hoxton. Someone then apparently abused him for not making an inbound call (then slunk away when the emergency services turned up).

 

Why don't we push for UNICOMs? At least there would be another pair of eyes there for some advice.

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't think a transponder is used as part of ADSB, but i may be wrong. I thought it was a separate piece of equipment related to GPS for location.

 

Will have to go back and look up the info I have if I can find it.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I don't think a transponder is used as part of ADSB, but i may be wrong. I thought it was a separate piece of equipment related to GPS for location.Will have to go back and look up the info I have if I can find it.

Transponder and GPS and transmitter for 1090ES = ADS-B out.

 

Mike

 

 

[Mazda]

That's right Mike. Yenn, there are several types of ADS-B and that is one of the problems. At the moment we are looking at 1090 ES for Australia, but in other parts of the world they are planning to use dual UAT/1090 (USA), VDL-4 (parts of Europe) and I'm not sure what else.

 

The US isn't mandating ADS-B until 2020, and that is only for aircraft flying in Class C or B airspace or flying above a certain level. I think it could be as high as 10,000 feet. The bug smashers will probably be on UAT, so the big US manufacturers like Garmin etc will most likely make UAT units, not 1090 units. The problem with UAT is that I think a transponder is required as well as a UAT out unit (because TCAS needs to work with a transponder, and the US type of low level ADS-B needs a different out unit). However UAT can give extra benefits to pilots like real-time weather information.

 

What a mess!

 

 

[Guest Rocko]

No radio's?

 

I noted quite a number of the close calls people described involved aircraft either not fitted with radio's or who weren't using them.

 

There's no excuse for people not using radio's fitted to aircraft, apart from their using the same excuse for not using the brain fitted in their cranium.

 

However, radio's are cheap. You could set yourself up with a handheld and headset (From Ian, of course ;) for as little as $500 nowadays. Hand helds work reasonably well, and lets face it, anyone still using the excuse they like the "Ol' school flying" without radio's is nothing but a menace to themselves and others. Bit like the excuse "I'm driving an old vintage car, so I don't have to have a seatbelt"...might be technically correct, but it's no ticks for IQ, and a fast track for earning a Darwin award.

 

Additionally, if the "Expense" of owning and operating a radio is too high, then I'd HATE to see what shortcuts they take on maintenance to save $$$, when vital communication equipment is considered "too expensive"

 

Isn't it about time it became mandatory that we ALL had AND used radio's? Who, exactly, wouldn't want this to occur? Even more pointedly, who exactly, thinks this isn't a good idea?

 

Cheers,

 

Scotty

 

 

[Mazda]

Scotty I don't think the problem is that they don't have a radio - most of these incidents are due to people being on the wrong frequency, or having the wrong com selected on the panel, or maybe even faulty radio at places with no confirmation that you are on frequency.

 

Anyone can be on the wrong frequency. It happens all the time in ATSB reports - even with airline jets with 2 crew. Radio alerting is great but relying purely on radio alerting could be dangerous.

 

 

[facthunter]

Radio inoperative.

 

No thing indicates to you, that your radio is not working. We used to use the squelch knob to get hash and then back off a bit to get the volume right. This does not seem to work on a lot of radios . Something as simple as knocking the volume control knob can deprive you of incoming calls. Under NAS2.c there is no radio check and unless someone acknowledges you , the whole circuit could be flown, and you would not know that you are not transmitting. Someone's only got to have a jammed transmit button and no-one gets anything on that frequency anyhow. You cannot rely on radio. Nev..

 

 

[youngmic]

To Sumarise

 

So to sumarise to date, what we have established is;

 

• You can't rely on radio.
   
   
  
• You can't rely on sight.
   
   
  
• You can't rely on present technology.
   
  

 

Given that each of the above will offer varying degrees of < 100% collision avoidance, and given that collisions have occurred using all of the above simultaneously. :yuk:

 

The sum total of all percentages must therefore be less than 100% collision avoidance. Mmmm...risky stuff this flying caper. :ah_oh:

 

So is it correct to believe that the more defenses or systems that are working toward the task of collision avoidance the closer to 100% collision free you will achieve. Or is it the case where the addition of a system results in a net loss and therefore reduces the total percentage. Mmmm.. confusing to. :confused:

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I like this...we're on about the Swiss Cheese.

 

I reckon that the more defenses we have the better, except if they keep us head down when we should be eyes out.

 

I'll give you an example of a defense: The AFRU

 

I grabbed an a/c on Sunday, did a pre-flight, got in and made a taxi call and got no beepback or voice. So I checked the squelch, checked the headset volume...made a call to another a/c I knew was in the circuit - nothing. Finally I worked out that the volume was right down and hey presto I had radio.

 

The AFRU is a great part in the safety chain.

 

I reckon we are talking about an accumulation of safety with each additional defense.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Mazda]

Nev that's a bit misleading about NAS 2c. The actual plan was to have UNICOM operators and AFRU units all over the place. Some people say that they don't want UNICOM operators (why??), they say it should be a full tower or nothing. Crazy if you ask me. Remember that parts of NAS 2b were wound back and NAS 2c was modified by our airline friends.

 

On UNICOMS, I bet all of you would be able to help out other pilots. All you'd have to say would be "There are two aircraft in the circuit on runway 01 and there are showers to the south". It would be even better if you said, "There's an aircraft doing circuits but I haven't heard any radio calls from him - he's on base now" or similar. You don't need to be an air traffic controller!

 

 

[Whack777]

Interesting thread. Mazda ... there used to be part of CASA called Flight Service who provided just what you are talking about. I'm not sure what vintage you are but I know all the older pilots will remember the service well.

 

A couple of weeks ago I was on my way down from Sydney to Melbourne in the trusty Jab and had to land at Wagga for fuel. Inbound, my track basically put me on the cetreline for Rwy 22, I was 5 min out at 4500 feet and about to descend when up came the Qantas Dash 8 on the CTAF frequency on descent for a straight in on RWY 22 and passing 9000'. They were going to beat me to the airport by about a minute... so we had a chat and after checking that I didn't have a transponder (I guess so they would look for a TCAS indication) I advised I would track well to the left of the 22 centreline while maintaing 4500' until they were below me... and asked them to keep a very good look out to which they assured me they would.... so we sorted ourselves out. It was just the way it was meant to work. No problem... I watched them land as I arrived over the airport and overflew to join the circuit. Other traffic on the trip was a glider near Echuca (which I never spoke to) but it was at my level.

 

Likewise on the way back home to Sydney I had a couple of aircraft pass almost head on... one was an ultralight that I never spoke to and the other Cessna on the Goulburn CTAF and we talked to each other.

 

It's not perfecty safe... but if you keep your eyes open and out of the cockpit we shouldn't hit anything... I only hope other pilots, especially the faster planes chasing my tail (which is just about everything) are doing the same thing and not staring too long at their GPS's and instruments.

 

... and on looking out I always find it sobering to know that the plane you're going to hit is the dot that doesn't change position relative to your winscreen.

 

... great thread guys!!!

 

Regards Wayne

 

 

[facthunter]

Where are we (&you)

 

Youngmic, you have to rely on sight,( unless you are in controlled airspace,) and an awareness of where someone might be, based on where they last were, plus a 6th sense. It's an extremely awful feeling when you have lost sight of an aircraft that you know is close by. It's not really an acceptable situation, so therefore to be avoided if possible. It's a high workload situation & a real challenge . I can't see technology being the answer in a circuit situation either(clutter & head in cockpit).

 

Mazda, I agree, it's not what it could have been, it's what we got and now still have. The alternative scenario that you present is far preferable and in a more reasonable world, would have occurred, were it not for the influence of powerful groups with vested interests. It's all very fine to have full towers, & fire trucks standing by for a small number of aircraft, but who pays?.

 

Dick Smith, (occasionally a controversial figure) no doubt tried to get efficiency, ie. reduced costs into the system but ran into a wall of resistance, and if ever he wrote a book on it, I for one would be very keen to read it. Nev..

 

 

[Flyer]

individual stuff

 

So to sumarise to date, what we have established is;

• You can't rely on radio.
   
   
  
• You can't rely on sight.
   
   
  
• You can't rely on present technology.
   
  

 

. :confused:

Correct.

You cant rely on one on its own being perfect 100% of the time.

 

If you combine them and use them properly you will make it much safer for you and your fellow pilots.

 

I had a radio go to lunch on me the other day and I can tell you my eyesight became pin sharp in nanoseconds. It also transpired that I had probably been flying for an hour without radio.

 

I had another pilot in the aircraft with me so his eyes got put into action as well. Every radio call was doubled and prefixed with "transmitting blind" (a first for me).

 

I had 2 go arounds before I was satisfied that the runway was clear.

 

As it turns out the other guy on the runway (1 of my instructors) was watching as well so we would have been safe.

 

We did a quick debrief on the whole scenario and I did everything by the book except reset the radio (turn off then back on). Scared me a bit realising that nobody could hear me.

 

Another one taken from the bucket of luck and put into the bucket of experience. :)

 

Regards

 

Phil