Jabiru and Jetstar near miss by 600ft

[Admin]

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/jetstar-plane-and-a-light-aircraft-narrowly-missed-colliding-near-byron-bay/news-story/f852d8034c2eead3526a56791dd25543

 

[Garfly]

From the report:

"What has been done as a result

The Ballina Airport broadcast area was expanded to a radius of 15 NM in January 2021 and an Airservices Australia surveillance flight information service (SFIS) began operating in August 2021. The SFIS provided traffic information to aircraft operating within the broadcast area on the airport’s common traffic advisory frequency.

 

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has advised that the current Ballina Airport airspace review (due for release in February 2022) utilises data that includes transiting aircraft. Additionally, CASA has developed an airspace risk modelling system (ARMS) that should provide an enhanced capability to consider transiting aircraft.

 

CASA also advised that an initiative by the Australian Government to increase the uptake of automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) equipment in general aviation would result in improved aircraft detection. While the proposed CASA actions have the potential to address the safety issue, this will largely depend on the conclusions of the current Ballina Airport airspace review and the effectiveness of the new ARMS. As such, the ATSB will monitor and assess their effect on the safety issue."

 

I wonder if CASA's Ballina Airport airspace review (due for release in February 2022) has been released yet?  I haven't been able to find it. Anyway, we now need urgent clarification as to whether a device such as the SkyEcho2 would have obviated this situation entirely.  I suspect it would have but it's hard to get hard data as to whether any, or all, RPT cockpit displays/TCAS currently in service are capable of being triggered by these affordable transponders, which, by the way, are always transmitting accurate 3D position/trend data, and are one result of the initiative by the Australian Government to increase the uptake of automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) equipment in general aviation.  Also, whether the proposed SFIS (surveillance flight information service) would be capable of detecting SkyEcho type targets.

 

 

 

Final report here: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5781013/ao-2020-062-final.pdf

Edited March 30, 2022 by Garfly

[Old Koreelah]

A sobering incident; one of our little bugsmackers could kill hundreds of innocent passengers.

In the scheme of things, my SkyEcho2 was an inexpensive safety investment.

 

While I totally understand the expension of Ballina’s broadcast area, it now covers my mate’s long flat paddock, where I hoped to someday land my plane- if it ever dries out.

 

 

[onetrack]

This episode is disquieting on many fronts. The pilot of the Jab appears to be in need of remedial training.

 

1. He appears to have a poor understanding of the operation and modes of his transponder.

 

"The transponder fitted to 24-7456 was capable of operating in mode 3A and 3C. In mode 3A (ON), the equipment would transmit the configured transponder code only. In mode 3C (ALT) the
equipment would transmit the aircraft’s altitude in addition to the configured transponder code. The pilot of 24-7456 had elected to set the transponder to mode A only, so the altitude of the aircraft was not being transmitted.

The pilot incorrectly believed there were no requirements relating to the use of modes 3A and 3C."

 

2. Despite transiting the same area frequently (8 times a year), he was unaware of radio phraseology used by commercial airline crews.

 

"The pilot reported being unfamiliar with the radio phraseology commonly used by passenger transport flight crew, including reference to waypoints such as OPESO."

 

3. The pilot of the Jab appears to place a casual reliance on inadequate radio calls, not appearing to realise that missed calls are frequent, and not broadcasting his position more frequently when he should have known he was transiting known commercial flight paths. He missed important radio calls. He seems to be unaware that commercial flights use Ballina-Byron frequently. The reliance on visual contact with commercial flights is totally inadequate, I wouldn't like to try and spot a commercial airliner on descent crossing my flight path at 400+ kts. Trying to make visual contact with a high speed commercial aircraft closing at an angle is an even worse proposition. It seems the pilot of the Jab is too reliant on commercial aircraft avoiding him. The workload on the Jetstar crew would have been high, preparing for landing, the last thing they need is an RA aircraft tooling through their path with a casual attitude.

 

Note that the Jetstar crew still failed to see the Jab early in the piece, and when they finally did, it was far too late to take evasive action.

 

 

[facthunter]

I believe they use 250knots below 10,000 ft these days.. Radio needs to be used appropriately in these circumstances to back up visual reliance. I don't know the distance to run to approach involved  and that would dictate the descent profile though it varies on pilot judgement and conditions. Nev

Edited March 30, 2022 by facthunter

[turboplanner]

We've discussed this level of training on this site several times. Even at 250 kts  the closing times are scary and you really have to be on your toes to identify what the RPT pilot just said and meant.

 

I wonder if the Jab pilot had enough insurance to cover the situation if the other aircraft had gone down?

[peterg]

Can an aircraft with an avionics master and a Mode C Transponder be configured to turn the Transponder on with Mode C when the avionics master is turned on?

 

[aro]

7 hours ago, Garfly said:

Anyway, we now need urgent clarification as to whether a device such as the SkyEcho2 would have obviated this situation entirely.  I suspect it would have but it's hard to get hard data as to whether any, or all, RPT cockpit displays/TCAS currently in service are capable of being triggered by these affordable transponders

The Airbus had TCAS which was quite capable of detecting the existing transponder, if it was correctly turned to mode C. The main advantage of ADSB is knowing the callsign if you have an ADSB receiver. I don't know whether the Airbus would display the callsign from ADSB.

 

4 hours ago, onetrack said:

The pilot reported being unfamiliar with the radio phraseology commonly used by passenger transport flight crew, including reference to waypoints such as OPESO

 

VFR pilots are required to navigate by visual references, and are not required to have IFR training or charts. IFR pilots operating in an environment with VFR aircraft are *supposed* to use visual references in broadcasts intended for VFR aircraft. If they can't give a visual reference e.g. in relation to the airport it suggests their situational awareness is lacking.

 

[Thruster88]

2 hours ago, peterg said:

Can an aircraft with an avionics master and a Mode C Transponder be configured to turn the Transponder on with Mode C when the avionics master is turned on?

 

You could leave the transponder on ALT all the time, the reason this is not done is to avoid false activation of TCAS systems by aircraft that are on the ground. Should turn from standby to ALT when about to enter the runway.

[peterg]

6 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

You could leave the transponder on ALT all the time, the reason this is not done is to avoid false activation of TCAS systems by aircraft that are on the ground. Should turn from standby to ALT when about to enter the runway.

Yep, aware of that - when I did my CIR a looong time ago the drill was standby to alt at the holding point and back to standby as part of post landing checks.

 

My query was more about whether it was easy to do from an electronic wiring point of view - could be a bonus for RA-Aus pilots who share airspace on a regular basis with larger well-equiped A/C but operate primarily out of smaller airfields.

[Ian]

All Aircraft should have a cheap and inexpensive ADSB in and out. Open source hardware/software implementation should be sponsored by the Government.

ADSB should also include an identifier based on the pilots id and a  nonce to stop replay attacks. 

The current implementation is just a bit dumb and prone to spoofing.

[APenNameAndThatA]

I’m not convinced that this was the Jab pilots fault. 

 

1. IIRC, it is legal to fly without a transponder at all. Or a radio. If traffic avoidance systems don’t alert pilots to transponders that are not transmitting height, then then that is a fault with those systems. If RPT planes can’t pick up traffic with a transponder, then that’s the fault of the RPT plane. 

 

2. The pilot was 12 NM from Ballina and only twice the RPT plane’s circuit height. From my perspective, he was a reasonable distance from the airport. If people made calls every time they went within 15 miles of an airport there would be non stop radio traffic. 

 

3. 3000 feet is low. IFR traffic is not supposed to be there, hence vertical cloud separation is not needed. 3000 feet for RPT traffic 12 miles from an airport? Too low. If I’m 12 miles from an airport, at 3500 ft, I’m not expecting to fly *over* a Boeing. 

 

4. IIRC, it would have been legal to be there with no radio at all, in a different plane. 

 

FWIW, I leave my transponder on ALT at Archerfield. Tower never complains. One less thing to mess up. 

 

Happy to be corrected.

[APenNameAndThatA]

Let me say the same thing differently. The fewer people on the plane, the less safe it is supposed to be. That means that it is illogical to try and have RA-Aus pilots tasked with keeping RPT planes safe in Class G. If there was nearly a crash, then that’s for the RPT people to fix. 

 

I note that some people are saying the Jab pilot needed to be better trained AND people have said that RAAus people should have access to controlled airspace. See the problem? (In fairness, you could have a very different training and testing requirement for that endorsement… and certified radios and transponders?) 

[APenNameAndThatA]

Lowering Class E. You all still against it?

 

The way I see it, being down on the Jab pilot AND not wanting Class E lowered is illogical. Maybe Class E needs to be down to ground level if RPT pilots are going to transit at circuit height. 

 

 

😆

Edited March 30, 2022 by APenNameAndThatA

[APenNameAndThatA]

Here’s my next hot take. The VFR traffic was a x-thousand feet plus 500, and the IFR/big Traffic was at x-thousand feet. 600 ft is actually greater than standard traffic separation. Normal situation. Nothing to see. 

[lee-wave]

48 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Here’s my next hot take. The VFR traffic was a x-thousand feet plus 500, and the IFR/big Traffic was at x-thousand feet. 600 ft is actually greater than standard traffic separation. Normal situation. Nothing to see. 

Agree ...  I regularly pass underneath Gatwick approach traffic with less then 500 ft separation.   

[Garfly]

 

33 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Lowering Class E. You all still against it?

 

The way I see it, being down on the Jab pilot AND not wanting Class E lowered is illogical. Maybe Class E needs to be down to ground level if RPT pilots are going to transit at circuit height. 

😆

Your glib rhetorical question is scarcely deserving of a serious answer but I'll  say "Yes, for sure".   

 

There was a very long, detailed and often well argued thread on the Class E issue here, last year. In the end ATSB backed off their proposal in the face of overwhelming opposition from all quarters.  This included, by the way, a stinging rebuke from one airline pilot's organisation which argued, inter alia, that it would be unfair restriction to impose on recreational pilots.

 

Mixing RPT and recreational traffic in Class G is a tricky airspace management problem where safety and equity (regarding free and safe access) needs to be delicately balanced.   

 

By the way, I'm not 'down on the Jab pilot' either; our habit here of going straight to pilot error risks missing the points being made by the writers of this report. It's about mixed traffic airspace management in Class G.  Better procedures plus universal affordable ADSB - and yes, additional training for mixed traffic environments should see the system work well.

As recreational users, maybe we should be relieved that the cost of setting up a Class D controlled airspace in such places as Ballina tends to be a brake on it happening.  Otherwise we'd be excluded from heaps more horizontal space to add to the vertical threat to our G space from crazy Class E lowering proposals. 

 

[Garfly]

45 minutes ago, lee-wave said:

Agree ...  I regularly pass underneath Gatwick approach traffic with less then 500 ft separation.   

That is an utterly different situation from what's being discussed here.  Please read the report. We're talking of a very serious Airprox incident.  Serious lessons need to be learned. Yes, you can fly your ultralight 500' below airliners landing at Sydney, too, on the Victor One coastal route.  But you must remain in Class G while the commercial traffic above must keep to its Class C LL.  That minimum separation is structured into the system.  In this incident both aircraft - airliner and ultralight - were in Class G. They were depending basically on CTAF procedures to self separate and those failed for a variety of reasons.  Their 600' of vertical separation was down to sheer luck. There is absolutely nothing "Normal situation. Nothing to see." about this.  Sheesh!!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Garfly

[aro]

10 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

If traffic avoidance systems don’t alert pilots to transponders that are not transmitting height, then then that is a fault with those systems. If RPT planes can’t pick up traffic with a transponder, then that’s the fault of the RPT plane. 

The Airbus picked up the transponder, but didn't know the height. Without the mode C height information they don't know whether the traffic is at e.g. 3000', 9000' or 30000' (but they can probably guess its not 30000' by the speed.) They probably regularly see traffic which is not transmitting height, but usually they can assume it is 20000+ below them.

 

10 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

3000 feet is low. IFR traffic is not supposed to be there, hence vertical cloud separation is not needed. 3000 feet for RPT traffic 12 miles from an airport? Too low.

If you're going to land, you have to come down. The Airbus was on the published instrument approach. There are similar approaches around many airports.

 

10 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Lowering Class E. You all still against it?

Class E provides ATC separation between IFR and other IFR aircraft i.e. aircraft that can't see each other. Separation between VFR and VFR and VFR and IFR works the same in Class E as Class G so it wouldn't have made a difference. (Australia has some Class E bastardizations due to various people who prefer Class G and don't want Class E to work, but separating IFR from IFR is what is supposed to happen.)

 

If you want separation for RPT in a high traffic environment, what you probably need is Class D and a tower. They don't want to do that due to cost, so come up with various justifications not to do it.

[onetrack]

10 hours ago, lee-wave said:

Agree ...  I regularly pass underneath Gatwick approach traffic with less then 500 ft separation.   

You appear to be missing the important factor in the Jab airprox incident - ATC is watching you carefully every inch of the way at Gatwick, and the SE of the U.K. - in the Jabs case, there was no ATC watching, separation was dependent on alert pilots and competence on the Jab pilots part, in understanding the level of risk involved in a mid-air with an RPT aircraft along his planned route.

[kgwilson]

South Grafton (YSGR) is 7NM from Grafton (YGFN) & there is not a lot of RPT traffic. When I am flying and hear the Rex broadcast their 25NM inbound on CTAF I respond with standard info (callsign, location, altitude & intentions) every time. I don't carry a transponder. I always get a courteous reply & if flightpaths are relatively close I will turn away & advise the new heading. Same thing with the Westpac helicopter that often is transiting to/from Grafton Base Hospital. 

 

Good concise communication is simple & appreciated by all.

 

Ballina is pretty busy but the CA/GRS should be keeping tabs on everything going on. I have not read the full report but the last time I was there it was busy. There was flight training, private RA & GA commercial and RPT. It was hard to get a call in as the CA/GRS kept rabbiting on the whole time & even asking questions which they are not supposed to do. Ballina is busier by far than Coffs but does not have ATC. Building a tower & setting up the system might be expensive but IMO that is the answer. They can easily create a low level Victor lane either seaward or inland for transiting traffic.

[APenNameAndThatA]

11 hours ago, Garfly said:

 

Your glib rhetorical question is scarcely deserving of a serious answer but I'll  say "Yes, for sure".   

 

There was a very long, detailed and often well argued thread on the Class E issue here, last year. In the end ATSB backed off their proposal in the face of overwhelming opposition from all quarters.  This included, by the way, a stinging rebuke from one airline pilot's organisation which argued, inter alia, that it would be unfair restriction to impose on recreational pilots.

 

Mixing RPT and recreational traffic in Class G is a tricky airspace management problem where safety and equity (regarding free and safe access) needs to be delicately balanced.   

 

By the way, I'm not 'down on the Jab pilot' either; our habit here of going straight to pilot error risks missing the points being made by the writers of this report. It's about mixed traffic airspace management in Class G.  Better procedures plus universal affordable ADSB - and yes, additional training for mixed traffic environments should see the system work well.

As recreational users, maybe we should be relieved that the cost of setting up a Class D controlled airspace in such places as Ballina tends to be a brake on it happening.  Otherwise we'd be excluded from heaps more horizontal space to add to the vertical threat to our G space from crazy Class E lowering proposals. 

 

You are not down on the Jab pilot, and you don’t want Class E lowered. Just as I said you should be. 

[APenNameAndThatA]

11 hours ago, Garfly said:

That is an utterly different situation from what's being discussed here.  Please read the report. We're talking of a very serious Airprox incident.  Serious lessons need to be learned. Yes, you can fly your ultralight 500' below airliners landing at Sydney, too, on the Victor One coastal route.  But you must remain in Class G while the commercial traffic above must keep to its Class C LL.  That minimum separation is structured into the system.  In this incident both aircraft - airliner and ultralight - were in Class G. They were depending basically on CTAF procedures to self separate and those failed for a variety of reasons.  Their 600' of vertical separation was down to sheer luck. There is absolutely nothing "Normal situation. Nothing to see." about this.  Sheesh!!

 

 

 

 

 

And here I was thinking that social media was supposed to be entertaining. The flip side, and I actually mean this sincerely, is that if you have RPT at 3000 ft 12 miles out from the airport, in Class G, this sort of incident is *INEVITABLE*, which means that hand wringing and pearl clutching is just silly.

[APenNameAndThatA]

3 hours ago, aro said:

The Airbus picked up the transponder, but didn't know the height. Without the mode C height information they don't know whether the traffic is at e.g. 3000', 9000' or 30000' (but they can probably guess its not 30000' by the speed.) They probably regularly see traffic which is not transmitting height, but usually they can assume it is 20000+ below them.

 

If you're going to land, you have to come down. The Airbus was on the published instrument approach. There are similar approaches around many airports.

 

Class E provides ATC separation between IFR and other IFR aircraft i.e. aircraft that can't see each other. Separation between VFR and VFR and VFR and IFR works the same in Class E as Class G so it wouldn't have made a difference. (Australia has some Class E bastardizations due to various people who prefer Class G and don't want Class E to work, but separating IFR from IFR is what is supposed to happen.)

 

If you want separation for RPT in a high traffic environment, what you probably need is Class D and a tower. They don't want to do that due to cost, so come up with various justifications not to do it.

If the airbus saw they were on a collision course and were at 3000’ then it is on them to decide for themselves that there is no traffic to their left. 

 

If the airbus is on the published approach then they need to be confident they can see and avoid. They are somewhere that it is legal to be with no radio and no transponder and one pilot and little training.

 

The thing about Class E is that people have to have a transponder, and it has to transmit height… 

[APenNameAndThatA]

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

You appear to be missing the important factor in the Jab airprox incident - ATC is watching you carefully every inch of the way at Gatwick, and the SE of the U.K. - in the Jabs case, there was no ATC watching, separation was dependent on alert pilots and competence on the Jab pilots part, in understanding the level of risk involved in a mid-air with an RPT aircraft along his planned route.

Seriously, the RPT has 170 passengers and two pilots. They had proportionally more responsibility.