Jabiru and Jetstar near miss by 600ft

[Agamemnon]

This is quoted directly from AvPlan's website.

 

"Cellular based traffic solutions such as AvPlan Live help to bridge the gap where ADSB-in is not available. These systems rely on an EFB sending position reports to a ground system periodically and that ground system sending back known traffic. The update rate for these system is generally very good, but rely on having cellular coverage in the aircraft and users using the same EFB product. For GA VFR and RA aircraft, these tend to fly at lower levels where cellular coverage is usually better, alleviating some of the issues with cellular coverage.

 

Cellular systems currently only depict aircraft using the same EFB product. Since the introduction of AvPlan Live in 2015 we have been willing to share traffic data on a reciprocal basis with the other main EFB vendor in Australia, but they do not wish to enter into such an agreement. If this policy were to change, data could start to be exchanged in a matter of days. It is not difficult or expensive to do.

 

Our cellular based traffic system, AvPlan Live, also includes feeds from ground based ADSB and FLARM receivers. Traffic received by these  ground units is also displayed on AvPlan EFB. If you also have an ADSB-in receiver, the traffic via the attached device will replace that received from the ground."

[Bruce Tuncks]

I note that nobody has wondered how to apply these things ( CTA, ADSB, etc ) to flocks of soaring birds. There is a bunch of pelicans which commute between the river near Waikerie and lake Alexandria. I have seen them at 12,000 ft. They are wonderful to watch , the gaggle splits up as they glide along, but as soon as they find a thermal, they all come together again. They are big birds. Bigger than the plentiful eagles.

Personally, I would prefer to hit a pelican instead of a Cessna, but they do have the potential to stop your engines or penetrate a windscreen. And there are thousands of then, outnumbering us lot at least a thousand to one. But all you have to do to avoid them is to fly above the thermals. Yep, coming to land and taking off are problem areas.

 

[peterg]

3 hours ago, Agamemnon said:

we have been willing to share traffic data on a reciprocal basis with the other main EFB vendor in Australia, but they do not wish to enter into such an agreement. If this policy were to change, data could start to be exchanged in a matter of days. It is not difficult or expensive to do.

 Does anyone know the reason why Ozrunways is against the initiative?

 

Seems sensible to me.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yep, I reckon this whole thing is staged to prevent sensible cockpit-based solutions,

[Hwansey]

I once had the privilege of operating large RPT aircraft.  Sometimes into airports that were OCTA.  B747, B767, and B737. Big aircraft fly 3 degree approach paths. Ie 300’ / nm.  They also need track miles to slow down. B767 was roughly 1nm level flight, idle thrust to lose 10 knots.  From 250 knots, a B767 would require around 15 track miles from 3000’ HAT.  B737 would require around 13.  Standard procedures, no speedbrake and flap/gear extensions at configuration speeds.

B767 circuit.   Downwind Flap 5 (around 170 knots),  passing abeam the threshold, start the clock, turning base after 20 seconds, select gear down Flaps 20, at Gear down select landing flap, complete the landing checklist, turning final at around 800’ HAT, Vref30+5 (around 130 knots). 
Flying a visual circuit in a large Boeing is actually quite difficult because it was not practiced and the energy and inertia must be carefully managed. 
In my time on the B737, we would fly a GNS approach ideally, but at the end of the day we were required to operate by the rules. If there were aircraft in the circuit, we flew a circuit.  We were required to assume that other aircraft had no awareness of the requirements or tracking for an instrument approach if the conditions at the field were such that aircraft were operating VFR in the vicinity.

I respectfully submit that The propensity of RPT operators to waive standard circuit procedures loads those operators with the onus - not those aircraft that are operating within the rules that are applicable to them.  

[APenNameAndThatA]

18 hours ago, peterg said:

 Does anyone know the reason why Ozrunways is against the initiative?

 

Seems sensible to me.

 

I asked OzRunways support. The tl;dr of their reply is the last bold paragraph

 

The longer version is the following email exchange, which also gives more clues. I asked them the following. 

 

Hi. You know how AvPlan and OzRunways only display traffic from people on the same system? AvPlan says they would trade information but that OzRunways does not want to. Is that true?

 

The replied the following

 

Thanks for contacting Support.
OzRunways traffic is our own in-house system that only displays other OzRunways users who are flying, have an internet connection, and have their traffic system switched on. It's a great situational awareness tool but it does have its limitations.
For this reason, we recommend the use of a portable ADS-B in and out device in VFR aircraft. As expected, the Government is investing heavily in ADS-B for VFR aircraft which suggests they are one the same page as us in that ADS-B is the safest option.
https://business.gov.au/grants-and-programs/automatic-dependent-sur...

What we typically recommend is to get a SkyEcho portable ADS-B IN & OUT device. This device is included in the rebate program above.(https://www.ozrunways.com/store/adsb/skyecho.jsp)
Skyecho 2 hooks up to OzRunways, picks up ADS-B OUT signals from other aircraft and displays them just like the regular OzRunways traffic on your map. All IFR aircraft and a growing number of VFR aircraft are ADS-B OUT equipped so you'll notice a receiver like the SkyEcho will allow you to see a lot more traffic.
If your aircraft isn't already ADS-B OUT equipped, the SkyEcho will give you portable ADS-B OUT functionality which means anyone with an ADS-B IN receiver can pick you up too.
The great thing about using an ADS-B receiver is that it doesn't rely on having an internet connection, it picks up signals directly from other aircraft.

Devices capable of portable ADS-B OUT are called Electronic Conspicuity devices and you can read more about that here: https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/airspace/commu...
For a bit of a shorter summary check out our article here: https://ozrunways.tenderapp.com/kb/frequently-asked-questions/skyec...

If your aircraft is already ADS-B OUT equipped you could get something like the uAvionix Ping which is an ADS-B IN receiver only, and therefore a bit cheaper. (https://www.ozrunways.com/store/adsb/ping.jsp)

Let us know if you need further assistance.
Regards,

 

I asked them 

 

Are you not allowed to answer my question? It was as follows....

 

A different person, maybe a more senior one said the following. 

 

We believe that ADS-B is the way to go. We run and control our own traffic system and will continue to do so at least until ADS-B is ubiquitous. For a host of reasons – reliability and user data privacy being the big ones – we are not looking to make our traffic data available externally.
For all the reasons [redacted by me, not that it's a secret] mentioned above we typically point people in the direction of ADS-B devices, fixed or portable as appropriate.

 

So, I asked them

 

How would sharing your data decrease reliability? 

 

"Traffic is one of those things where you want the data to be as up-to-date as possible. Looking at a traffic icon that is 20-30 seconds or more behind its actual location is not particularly useful. Sending and receiving data through more servers etc. introduces more latency and the end result is traffic symbols that have some unknown amount of delay in them.
This is just another reason we recommend ADS-B – signals are transmitted & received directly by the hardware in the aircraft meaning it's about as instantaneous as you can get, and it doesn't rely on any internet or cellular connectivity."

 

My own view is that knowing where someone was a mile ago is better than nothing when out and about and even in the circuit, but could still cause confusion in the circuit. My loyalty to OzRunways is unabated. 

Edited April 4, 2022 by APenNameAndThatA

[onetrack]

Quote

For a host of reasons – reliability and user data privacy being the big ones – we are not looking to make our traffic data available externally.

And right there in that statement, is the guaranteed eventual death of OzRunways - just as online newspapers that try to charge you a constant monthly fee just to look at the low-grade, biased, badly edited, reproduced crap they write, will eventually die a slow death.

The newspapers information is largely available for free elsewhere, and no-one likes to pay for "exclusive" information that isn't particularly exclusive at all.

 

Neither Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, Mozilla, or the dozen other leading hosters of internet information and knowledge, keep their information and knowledge secret for the general public.

They found a way to pay for their systems vias ads or voluntary contributions, without charging the users, and accordingly, all these internet giants are worth up to hundreds of billions, and are ubiquitous - and still free for users, and providing those users with information the users desire - and which free information makes the users keep coming back.

[APenNameAndThatA]

51 minutes ago, onetrack said:

And right there in that statement, is the guaranteed eventual death of OzRunways - just as online newspapers that try to charge you a constant monthly fee just to look at the low-grade, biased, badly edited, reproduced crap they write, will eventually die a slow death.

The newspapers information is largely available for free elsewhere, and no-one likes to pay for "exclusive" information that isn't particularly exclusive at all.

 

Neither Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, Mozilla, or the dozen other leading hosters of internet information and knowledge, keep their information and knowledge secret for the general public.

They found a way to pay for their systems vias ads or voluntary contributions, without charging the users, and accordingly, all these internet giants are worth up to hundreds of billions, and are ubiquitous - and still free for users, and providing those users with information the users desire - and which free information makes the users keep coming back.

I suppose it does suggest a worrying attitude. 

[Thruster88]

We don't buy ozrunways for the traffic. We buy it so we have current required documents at a cheaper price and more convenient format. Flight planning, navigation and some traffic are just a bonus. EFB is not going away.

 

When I hear a plane fly over out here in the country less than 50% have an adsb transponder, ozrunways or avplan.  Traffic is not a priority for many pilots.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Thruster88

[Love to fly]

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

We don't buy ozrunways for the traffic. We buy it so we have current required documents at a cheaper price and more convenient format. Flight planning, navigation and some traffic are just a bonus. EFB is not going away.

 

When I hear a plane fly over out here in the country less than 50% have an adsb transponder, ozrunways or avplan.  Traffic is not a priority for many pilots.

Lucky we are all different I guess.  I don't buy OzR at all.  I do buy AvPlan for the current complete document set in a convenient searchable format.  ERSA, AIP, DAPs etc.  And very much for flight planning.  Not for navigation - I have other tools onboard for that.  Traffic is a major bonus.  And AvPlan showing Flarm (lots of gliders around here) and some ADSB is great, more complete traffic would be better.

[Garfly]

36 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

We don't buy ozrunways for the traffic. We buy it so we a current required documents at a cheaper price and more convenient format. Flight planning, navigation and some traffic are just a bonus. EFB is not going away.

 

When I hear a plane fly over out here in the country less than 50% have an adsb transponder, ozrunways or avplan.  Traffic is not a priority for many pilots.

Yeah, the the display of cell traffic is, after all, an added safety bonus on top of everything else the EFBs do.  It's never claimed to be comprehensive. And all seem to agree that (affordable) ADSB IN-OUT is where it's at, anyway, so it's more and more a moot point.

 

That said, I've often wondered what the actual reasons were behind OzRunways reluctance to share its user data with the competition, so I was interested in what PenName was able to elicit there. And, on the face of it, I've no reason to doubt the stress they put on the 'reliability' argument even if some comparative advantage reasoning is part of the blend.

 

As to our EFBs being mainly a cheap and easy map pack, well, the thing is, it can be so clumsy trying to avoid your protractor sliding all over the iPad screen and the dividers tend to leave permanent marks. And the distance measuring is all over the place.  So what the heck, we might as well cheat and use that little moving airplane that somehow knows where we are - and everything else.

 

And yes, 'traffic' is not a priority for many pilots; it's mainly for those a little obsessed with trying "to avoid flying in front of the RPT😎"  😉

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

There is no real risk except where there is a concentrating factor, like an airfield or an airspace boundary, or these days, by accurately flying between well-used places with an electronic nav system. I once calculated that the risk involved in 30 aircraft flying blindly over Australia's wheatlands will have a near miss or collision once every 20,000 years. Of course, if you look out the window then you will reduce this risk, but by how much was beyond my ability to calculate...

[Agamemnon]

23 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

There is no real risk except where there is a concentrating factor, like an airfield or an airspace boundary, or these days, by accurately flying between well-used places with an electronic nav system. I once calculated that the risk involved in 30 aircraft flying blindly over Australia's wheatlands will have a near miss or collision once every 20,000 years. Of course, if you look out the window then you will reduce this risk, but by how much was beyond my ability to calculate...

Yes but as you say above aircraft do not fly randomly in most instances. Altitudes and tracks congregate around airspace boundaries, corridors, airfields etc. So all of a sudden once every 20,000 years becomes something much riskier.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yes, the near misses or actual collisions have all been in places like you say, Aga.

Once I saw a Cessna just north of the Kapunda township. We were both there because of an airspace boundary. Even worse, we were both near the same altitude. There is a jump in altitudes  there and we were both flying as high as we were allowed.

 

[turboplanner]

I saw the tail fin of a C210 up close sliding from left to right across my windscreen so gracefully when I was inbound from a Moorabbin reporting. Almost clipped  him with my wing.

[peterg]

4 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I saw the tail fin of a C210 up close sliding from left to right across my windscreen so gracefully when I was inbound from a Moorabbin reporting. Almost clipped  him with my wing.

Must have been a long time ago - not many 210's at YMMB these days (or elsewhere)

 

Also, that sort of proximity in the Melbourne area will often generate an alert call from ML Radar - I got one a week ago for other VFR traffic nearby

[turboplanner]

19 minutes ago, peterg said:

Must have been a long time ago - not many 210's at YMMB these days (or elsewhere)

 

Also, that sort of proximity in the Melbourne area will often generate an alert call from ML Radar - I got one a week ago for other VFR traffic nearby

About the mid 80's. I went up to the tower afterwards, and they said they couldn't find it.

 

[Ian]

The response from ozrunways is fatuous. They don't want to share purely for commercial reasons. Government should simply require that all EFBs share relevant information directly with a Government forwarding service. ie directly from the device in a standard format, not via their processing centres.

• Ozrunways devices gets positioning information from GPS satellites. It comes with a timestamp provided by an atomic clock. So they can send a message with a timestamp, and a vector describing location etc and identification.
• The network delay in a signal being sent back to the provider is less than 50ms (1/20th of a second) assuming that the sender is in Perth and the receiver is in Melbourne or Sydney. ie the worst case network creates a delay of half the time it takes to blink.

It take virtually no time to duplicate and forward messages of this type, it's done all the time in centalised logging systems capable of processing hundreds of thousands of messages a second on commodity hardware which would allow for many years of growth for Australian or US air traffic. It's the processing and sending consolidated updates to users which takes time. This isn't needed by either party, they have their own processing.

The network is unreliable so the messages don't need sent reliably just information like last known location, then a view like the following can be displayed with the last known location.

https://www.lightningmaps.org/#m=oss;t=3;s=0;o=0;b=0.00;ts=0;z=6;y=-37.5968;x=144.0582;d=2;dl=2;dc=0;

 

[onetrack]

16 hours ago, turboplanner said:

I saw the tail fin of a C210 up close sliding from left to right across my windscreen so gracefully when I was inbound from a Moorabbin reporting. Almost clipped  him with my wing.

And of course, in the airprox report, the final summary said you were primarily at fault, because you didn't practice keeping a proper lookout .....

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by onetrack

[turboplanner]

12 minutes ago, onetrack said:

And of course, in the airprox report, the final summary said you were primarily at fault, because you didn't practice keeping a proper lookout .....

 

Ha ha, I saw him so I figured I had that one covered, but relied on the requirement for the 210 to give way to his right. 

[Garfly]

Well, if we can't rely on obeisance to Rules and Regulations to keep us safe, what can we rely on? 

 

Oh, wait ....                     

[turboplanner]

40 minutes ago, Garfly said:

Well, if we can't rely on obeisance to Rules and Regulations to keep us safe, what can we rely on? 

 

Oh, wait ....                     

This was before electronic control was abandoned in favour of see and avoid.

[APenNameAndThatA]

13 hours ago, Ian said:

The response from ozrunways is fatuous. They don't want to share purely for commercial reasons. Government should simply require that all EFBs share relevant information directly with a Government forwarding service. ie directly from the device in a standard format, not via their processing centres.

• Ozrunways devices gets positioning information from GPS satellites. It comes with a timestamp provided by an atomic clock. So they can send a message with a timestamp, and a vector describing location etc and identification.
• The network delay in a signal being sent back to the provider is less than 50ms (1/20th of a second) assuming that the sender is in Perth and the receiver is in Melbourne or Sydney. ie the worst case network creates a delay of half the time it takes to blink.

It take virtually no time to duplicate and forward messages of this type, it's done all the time in centalised logging systems capable of processing hundreds of thousands of messages a second on commodity hardware which would allow for many years of growth for Australian or US air traffic. It's the processing and sending consolidated updates to users which takes time. This isn't needed by either party, they have their own processing.

The network is unreliable so the messages don't need sent reliably just information like last known location, then a view like the following can be displayed with the last known location.

https://www.lightningmaps.org/#m=oss;t=3;s=0;o=0;b=0.00;ts=0;z=6;y=-37.5968;x=144.0582;d=2;dl=2;dc=0;

 

I like OzRunways, so I didn’t want this to ve true. ☹️

[Flightrite]

How did we ever survive pre digital when GA was flourishing? 
I use both OZ & AV, both have their advantages but to me OZ is simpler if flying grass roots, AV much better for IFR planing etc.

Driving heavy metal OCTA into Ctafs is a risk, an acceptable risk, this event has been hyped up a fair bit I reckon!