ADS-B Could We End Up Against A Similar Situation?

[jackc]

Unfortunately, I suspect we will because on many things Aviation we seem to follow others for better or for worse.

Don't be surprised to find that CASA, ASA, RAAus and others get their ideas from forums like this one, not to mention Aviation publications from overseas, too. 

i also suspect our comments are read by the above because we probably end up a laughing stock in some of the office space of these organisations.  However it’s up to us to battle on and rail against some of the useless overbearing regulatory b/s that is being planned for Aviation.

This ADS-B business could and maybe be used against us.  The below could be incentive to just turn it off, because regulators could use it AGAINST us?

 

See here: https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/opinion/2021/05/11/faas-use-of-ads-b-against-pilots-is-gas-next-big-problem/?fbclid=IwAR2ZnKV4Ya_I3Sp9lEv13GZ2wjKmQd1WHcDiyZCMz39r0ZVNBFz5w6sjnWk

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Supporters of ADSB, traffics displays on EFBs and Air traffic control should have a look at this recent midair in the USA. It supports the findings in a report by the ATSB that the majority of collisions occur in the circuit area, in controlled airspace and CTAFs. What was missing in all of these accidents was a proper lookout. Are pilots being taught an effective scan technique? All of the modern technologies and ATC still fail, an effective lookout in VMC will save your life. 

 

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/259802

[turboplanner]

They may well pick up ideas from the forums because a lot of good ideas are put forward, I visited a CASA office once to get accurate iinformation of a forum dialogue and about ten of them knew all about it and there was great amusement at the battle. That also exposes us when we talk crap or criticise CASA for an ASA regulation etc, or rail against theses administrative bodies when it's a Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications.  

 

Today, when we walk into a Car Parts facility, all we have to do is give our Registration Number, and the salesperson can see the Make, Model, Year, Breakpoint, and VIN to make sure we get correct parts.

Victoria Police and I assume other States and Territories are well advanced in rolling out millions of dollars worth of on board recording equipment which sends real time registration plate numbers back to a central database and relays unregistered, stolen cars and outstanding fines to the officers patrolling.

Police collect evidence of crimes from our mobile phone locations, CCTV and mobile phones.

Even Voicemail can be retrieved and used as evidence.

ASA radar shows every aircraft going everywhere. A few of us were in the Tower at Tullamarine (where there is/was a Centre office) for training one night and a pilot ona Night VFR training exercise called in to report he was Overhead Eildon. The Centre guy sniggered and said "He thinks he is, but he's 40 Nm east! Even without ADSB it's not hard to see an unmarked aircraft scurrying around. During the Covid lock down phases where aircraft were prohibited from flying, a few made the new when they were met at the destination airfield by local Police.

Personally I wouldn't get to worried about it. Both Public Liability and Sanctions only kick in if there's an offence.

An example is the Cherokee pilot who descended below 500 feet over a river, hit a powerline, his passenger was killed and he was charged with Manslaughter (fortunately for him the charge was later dropped.)  

 

[Thruster88]

19 minutes ago, Roundsounds said:

Supporters of ADSB, traffics displays on EFBs and Air traffic control should have a look at this recent midair in the USA. It supports the findings in a report by the ATSB that the majority of collisions occur in the circuit area, in controlled airspace and CTAFs. What was missing in all of these accidents was a proper lookout. Are pilots being taught an effective scan technique? All of the modern technologies and ATC still fail, an effective lookout in VMC will save your life. 

 

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/259802

Here is another, no amount of looking could save the cessna which was below the rockets nose. A screen would have shown their relative position if both aircraft had been equipped. Yes the rocket pilot should have sighted and followed the cessna. A rare happy ending. I am a supporter of ADS-B in all flying objects.

 http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/09/team-rocket-f1-rocket-n540lk-and-cessna.html

[jackc]

Turbs I am sorry, but I am beginning to think you are using all the precedents you mention as an excuse  for Aviation regulators to crap on us all, as well?

We all know the crappy world we live in, but should one of the last bastions of aviation enjoyment be subject to overbearing  regulation?

I am all for keeping people safe, any loss of life for any reason is sad.  However IF regulators say they want safety while penalising our collective financial rear most facing orifices, that is a insult to the most ordinary human being. Expect pilots to find ways around it all because of the ‘smiling at you regulators’, trying to screw us over.

 

[kgwilson]

Primary radar is good for spotting aircraft whether they have a transponder or not  but hopeless when the aircraft is low and there is hilly or mountainous terrain. Also composite aircraft do not provide as good a reflected image as metal does. It doesn't spot many aircraft below 5000 feet flying around this sort of terrain which is why their original dumb idea of lowering class E to 1500 feet AGL & requiring a transponder was such a joke.

 

Peer to peer in/out ADSB is a cheap and very effective use of technology to detect aircraft and help avoid potential collision because it gives pilots all the information they need to do this in real time and is not reliant on a 3rd party sitting in an office looking at a screen with dozens of little dots travelling in all directions.

 

I asked ASA if they would support installation of portable ADSB (CASA approved Skyecho 2) in recreational aircraft & dispense with the requirement for a transponder in class E. Their response was that they cannot interrogate ADSB. Why do they want to? Power and Control of course. Adding another 2-3000 transponders into the mix would only increase their workload and lead to even more failures.

[jackc]

No doubt about it, the Skyecho has always been the most logical choice......but in the regulatory world that does not mean much.....

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

but should one of the last bastions of aviation enjoyment be subject to overbearing  regulation?

The last bastion of aviation enjoyment has been going for about 40 years and AUF and then RAA Inc. and then RAA Ltd

If you look at the classes and rules, you can see that the freedoms are still there; you can still build your own aircraft, you can still maintain your own aircraft, you can still take off from a country strip or your paddock and not see another aircraft.

What has happened is that some people have bought a different class of aircraft and are trying to elasticise these to do GA type activities like cross-country flying, and flying into populated airpsace classes.

That group of people and aircraft who are having to deal with what they see as more difficult regulations.

On the other hand the GA licensed pilots and GA registered aircraft go through those regulations during training and have the equipment on the training aircraft.

Two different classes of flying with the top end of one trying to merge with the other, and with the bottom end of the other watching whats happening and trying to merge with it where there are opportunities (e.g. RPL)

 

 

 

[jackc]

28 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

 

Your last sentence says it all, everyone is trying to raise the entitlements in the various Aviation sectors......it’s natural for human beings to want more and in most cases that’s a good thing but.......never leave behind the origins of it all.

That's why why I have suggested  Foundation Aviation as back in the AUF days, as a basic start to Aviation.

Basic aircraft flying at low height with minimal instrumentation are only a danger to themselves.......IF they choose to ignore the law of flight, gravity etc.

You are more dangerous in a car IF you ignore the basics of safe driving......to yourself AND others.

I am a supporter of safety devices in anything that leaves the ground,   we need to make sure those devices are ones the provide the most benefits, without going over the top.

 

[Yenn]

Can the airservices radar spot my Corby flying at whatever altitude and know what that altitude is? I doubt it, I even doubt that they would spot it at all at less than 5000'

That means that if they bring in the 4500' E level, they will never know if I am in or out of it. It only remains for me to stray a bit high and there is the possibility that they cannot warn me or others of my presence in class E.

[Markdun]

The biggest risk to me from flying where I do are military heavy rotor wing aircraft flying at or below circuit height over my airstrip in what are regular trips for some commodore from Nowra to Canberra and back. They don’t monitor the area frequency (in my case Canberra approach east), nor do they have their own radar turned on.  My correspondence with them was to the effect they use ‘see and avoid’ and that’s what they are going to keep doing, and they declined my invitation to land, have a coffee and discuss how we could better maintain safe separation.  Of-course, the military are exempt from CASA and ASA rules.  I’ve ended up buying a SkyEcho because most of the time they do have their ADSB turned on.  It still scares the bejesus out of me after having a blackhawke fly by me (<300m) in and slightly below my altitude on a downwind to land.
 It also scares me when Canberra approach ‘clear’ inward bound aircraft to Canberra in Class G airspace from Lake Bathurst at 4500’, when controlled airspace at that altitude, doesn’t begin 10nm further in towards Canberra.  I always get tge feeling those guys think ATC has the responsibility to avoid conflicting paths from the time they are advised they are cleared and not when they leave Class G....maybe I’m wrong on that.

[Markdun]

Yenn, Don and I were once asked by Canberra ATC to identify ourselves as we were flying east from Murrumbateman towards Canberra.  He was in his VP2 and I was in a Minimax.....probably around 4500’.  They could have only picked us up by their primary radar....and they had no idea of our height.  I’m also told that primary radar (Mt Majura) at Canberra also picks up trucks on the Federal Hwy...and that one truck was nearly targeted with a missile when a US president was visiting.

[Yenn]

From what I have seen all choppers seem to think they are not included in the rules. They also don't seem to have been included when brains were handed out, or at least some of them don't.

[jackc]

Sounds a whole lot safer to fly at 500 feet under the old AUF rules than in those places.....even a truck on the Federal Highway is in danger 😞 

[pmccarthy]

Latest mid-air collision yesterday. Unbelievable result.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/05/12/small-plane-crash-mid-air-collision-cherry-creek-reservoir-denver-colorado/

 

[pmccarthy]

Re previous post - this plane landed safely! Hit by a Cirrus that popped its chute.

Edited May 13, 2021 by pmccarthy

[FlyBoy1960]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

Sounds a whole lot safer to fly at 500 feet under the old AUF rules than in those places.....even a truck on the Federal Highway is in danger 😞 

Agree, EXCEPT all those drones are now hanging around at those altitudes.

[Garfly]

To me the Denver midair shows again that 'see and avoid' and 'a proper lookout' while good and necessary are not sufficient, even when alerted to danger - in this case by the tower.  How often do we need to be told that the best of scans are blocked by solid objects, often in crucial directions.  

A scan of a screen display (for nearby threats) - even in the circuit - need be no more distracting than a glance in your mirrors when driving. Nobody suggests mirrors are dangerous or 'useless' on motor vehicles - though, to be sure, fixating on one could be. Mirrors show us what no amount of peering out front can. So does ADSB. Why must it be either/or?

 

Anyway, here's yet another video showing the failure of X-ray vision (as back-stop to radio failure): 

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

22 minutes ago, Garfly said:

To me the Denver midair shows again that 'see and avoid' and 'a proper lookout' while good and necessary are not sufficient, even when alerted to danger - in this case by the tower.  How often do we need to be told that the best of scans are blocked by solid objects, often in crucial directions.  

A scan of a screen display (for nearby threats) - even in the circuit - need be no more distracting than a glance in your mirrors when driving. Nobody suggests mirrors are dangerous or 'useless' on motor vehicles - though, to be sure, fixating on one could be. Mirrors show us what no amount of peering out front can. So does ADSB. Why must it be either/or?

 

Anyway, here's yet another video showing the failure of X-ray vision (as back-stop to radio failure): 

 

 

 

 

Public Liability - With See and Avoid the Duty of Care is totally with the PIC, legals are clear and risk to authorities is minimal.

[Garfly]

 

Legals are a luxury for the living, which, thanks to the Cirrus chute, is everyone in this case ;- )

 

 

[jackc]

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Public Liability - With See and Avoid the Duty of Care is totally with the PIC, legals are clear and risk to authorities is minimal.

Not sure how/if legal action could be taken against a dead PIC as an investigation could not be completed.......dead people can’t talk.  Assuming the the crash was fatal for the PIC:-( 

[turboplanner]

30 minutes ago, jackc said:

Not sure how/if legal action could be taken against a dead PIC as an investigation could not be completed.......dead people can’t talk.  Assuming the the crash was fatal for the PIC:-( 

It's actually a routine procedure; the plaintiff sues the Pilot's Estate.

The plaintiff has to prove that a duty of care was owed and breached and in doing that it's not required that the PIC is alive; in fact most defendants who are alive don't talk on legal advice.

There are also penalties, where the defendant has taken action to remove assets for just such a  case as this.

Sometime people say they can do what they like, it's their life but if someone else is disadvantaged in a subsequent accident, there will be a claim.

A typical example of tis is where the husband was flying illegally, or more commonly not complying with safety standards, and a wife and young children are left behind. They will usually be awarded an amount of money to allow the wife to live on as if she were still married, and raise the chidren in the home and the children are financed through their school years.

This is not legal advice, just a general description of what might happen. The best way to bring yourself up to speed is spend about the cost of an hours duel, and get the information direct from a lawyer who specialises in public liability.

 

 

[jackc]

Best policy is to stay away from Courts and Lawyers, either way.....right or wrong it’s gonna cost grief and money, regardless.......

[turboplanner]

12 minutes ago, jackc said:

Best policy is to stay away from Courts and Lawyers, either way.....right or wrong it’s gonna cost grief and money, regardless.......

As a defendant you don’t get that option.

[Markdun]

Turbo, what you say sounds more like USA law.  You may not realise, but Australia is actually a different country, with different laws.  The ability of a surviving family to sue a deceased person’s estate is quite complicated here.  A mother who saw her 5 yo son run over and squashed to death by a concrete truck is entitled to nothing, unless she can prove she suffered psychological damage ‘nervous shock’.  But the point I have made before is just as relevant, the amendments to Australian States’ and territories’ tort law statutes, specifically excludes liability when a person voluntarily engages in an activity that is an inherently dangerous recreational activity such as pony club, rugby league or flying light recreational aircraft.  A family of a person killed, who was voluntarily engaged in flying recreational aircraft...which is inherently dangerous, would have no case.  NZ is even better....there, negligence tort liability is mostly abolished through their universal no-fault Accident Compensation Scheme, that insures everyone injured is compensated....just the lawyers don’t get their fees.  Go read the current version of the NSW Civil Liability Act; I think you will be surprised.