Jabiru and Jetstar near miss by 600ft

[APenNameAndThatA]

2 hours ago, kgwilson said:

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.

You are familiar with the Swiss cheese model?  

[Garfly]

20 hours ago, Garfly said:

There was a very long, detailed and often well argued thread on the Class E issue here, last year. In the end ATSB ASA 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 an unfair restriction to impose on recreational pilots.

When I wrote above that it was the ATSB who backed off their proposal, of course, I meant to say ASA (AirServices Australia.) So my apologies to ATSB who had nothing to do with it.

 

While I'm at it, I may as well re-link to that AusALPA (Australian Airline Pilots Association) submission on ASA's Class E proposal. It's a good read; an example of what a nuanced, well constructed argument on a complex issue really looks like. 

 

Posted April 1, 2021 (edited)

 

https://www.ausalpa.org.au/Portals/5/Documents/Submissions/2021/210215 AusALPA Submission to Airservices re Lowering Class E on the East Coast V2.2.pdf?ver=2021-02-23-134706-453

 

This was my comment on it at the time:

 

"My attention was caught by this bit where they're scathing of the Airservices 'Fact Sheet'

 

"Class E does not restrict access for VFR aircraft”

This Fact Sheet heading is completely misleading ... //  ... The change in airspace classification will also change the VMC requirements (Class E has more restrictive requirements than much of Class G), materially reducing the number of flying opportunities and days available to VFR pilots.

 

At first, I wondered what they were referring to but I guess it must be the less stringent 'clear of cloud'  VMC requirement in Class G, not above 3000' (or 1000' AGL).  That's what they must have meant by  'reducing flying opportunities and days available to VFR pilots'.  ...  It's interesting that it was the airline pilots who spotted this additional anomaly, basically on our behalf.  Good on them."

Edited March 31, 2022 by Garfly

[bushcaddy105]

No matter what procedures, airspaces or surveillance equipment on board, pilots make mistakes. Some years ago an A320 RPT flew underneath me on a straight-in arrival when I was in the circuit area and about to descend to circuit height. I estimated 400 ft. separation; they reported 300. To their credit, they admitted to ATSB that their inbound calls were on the PAL frequency - at 0930 hrs. 

[APenNameAndThatA]

2 hours ago, Garfly said:

When I wrote above that it was the ATSB who backed off their proposal, of course, I meant to say ASA (AirServices Australia.) So my apologies to ATSB who had nothing to do with it.

 

While I'm at it, I may as well re-link to that AusALPA (Australian Airline Pilots Association) submission on ASA's Class E proposal. It's a good read; an example of what a nuanced, well constructed argument on a complex issue really looks like. 

 

Posted April 1, 2021 (edited)

 

https://www.ausalpa.org.au/Portals/5/Documents/Submissions/2021/210215 AusALPA Submission to Airservices re Lowering Class E on the East Coast V2.2.pdf?ver=2021-02-23-134706-453

 

This was my comment on it at the time:

 

"My attention was caught by this bit where they're scathing of the Airservices 'Fact Sheet'

 

"Class E does not restrict access for VFR aircraft”

This Fact Sheet heading is completely misleading ... //  ... The change in airspace classification will also change the VMC requirements (Class E has more restrictive requirements than much of Class G), materially reducing the number of flying opportunities and days available to VFR pilots.

 

At first, I wondered what they were referring to but I guess it must be the less stringent 'clear of cloud'  VMC requirement in Class G, not above 3000' (or 1000' AGL).  That's what they must have meant by  'reducing flying opportunities and days available to VFR pilots'.  ...  It's interesting that it was the airline pilots who spotted this additional anomaly, basically on our behalf.  Good on them."

Until I followed this thread, I had no idea that there would be IFR traffic routinely below 3000 ft and not right next to an airport. So, someone could be at 3000 ft vfr right next to a cloud, and a RPT plane could be right beside it in cloud. And the vfr plane could have no radio and no transponder legally? WTF? 

[turboplanner]

5 hours ago, bushcaddy105 said:

No matter what procedures, airspaces or surveillance equipment on board, pilots make mistakes. Some years ago an A320 RPT flew underneath me on a straight-in arrival when I was in the circuit area and about to descend to circuit height. I estimated 400 ft. separation; they reported 300. To their credit, they admitted to ATSB that their inbound calls were on the PAL frequency - at 0930 hrs. 

Which airport?

[Bruce Tuncks]

Those pilots should all be made to fly gliders in competitions where you have up to 30 gliders in one thermal. Midairs? surprisingly few.

The worst gaggle I was ever in was near Cunderdin, where the r/h thermal was at the same point where you had to take a l/h turnpoint photo.

I was so busy dodging other gliders that I forgot the photo!

[turboplanner]

38 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Those pilots should all be made to fly gliders in competitions where you have up to 30 gliders in one thermal. Midairs? surprisingly few.

The worst gaggle I was ever in was near Cunderdin, where the r/h thermal was at the same point where you had to take a l/h turnpoint photo.

I was so busy dodging other gliders that I forgot the photo!

Correct - if you disregard cruise speeds which determines available reaction time, and you also disregard human reaction time when things are normal vs when you become aware of something travelling at several times your speed and often using different (but correct) language like 26 miles DME on the 125 radial, and you have seconds to work out were he is and which way he's pointing.

[Ian]

The key point is that we can do better. People will continue to make mistakes.

Increasing visibility or all types of flying vehicles be they A380s, ultralights or drones is a good idea.

While it would be nice to get ADSB on all aircraft even a simple app on a mobile phone apps which reports position to a Government service would be beneficial as numerous airport have mobile coverage especially those in congested areas. 

That more responsibility accrues on those with the highest risk would imply that RPT transport would have an obligation to check these sources as part of their standard ops.

I know that it would be far from perfect however often the perfect is the enemy of the good.

The key considerations should be:

• Is it better than the status quo
• Is it accurate enough to provide useful information.
• Is it ubiquitous enough to make a difference without being onerous

While devices like SkyEcho2 are great, they're still too expensive for some to be ubiquitous. I'm willing to be that all involved parties in this incident had mobile phones with reception and accurate enough to make a difference.

 

Technically, in many ways aviation is probably one of the most backward industries on the planet. People still comment on flat screen displays the size of a shoebox when every house and workplace has hundreds of similar displays many times the size. The processes associated with flying are incredibly mandraulic, error prone and expensive and this reality is evidence by accidents like this one. We really should be doing better however the reality is that similar incidents will continue to eventuate.

[bushcaddy105]

5 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Which airport?

5 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Which airport?

Hervey Bay

[onetrack]

23 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

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

O.K. - So, you're flying a light aircraft at 600kg maximum weight, with maybe 100kt maximum cruise, and an ability to take quick evasive action - yet you insist an RPT doing 250kts and weighing around 40 tonnes say, has a greater responsibility to spot you, and get out of your way? 

You sound like the car driver who cuts in front of a road train, and then brakes, expecting them to avoid you, "because they're professionals" - or the sail boat operator who insists he has right of way over a bulk tanker on intersecting courses, "because the rules say power gives way to sail".

I would've thought a good RA pilot, when planning and carrying out a flight route relatively close to an airport that is used by RPT, would continually check on the potential flight path conflict involved with any arriving or departing RPT aircraft around that airport.

But I guess the world still contains plenty of people who think they're the only ones using that section of road, water, or airspace, for miles around, and who regularly fail to keep up a proper level of alertness.

I have a policy that has stood me in good stead for decades. "Might is right" - and I greatly respect and give wide berth to those who are in control of large chunks of metal travelling at high speeds, with their resultant inability to make major course corrections rapidly, due to their weight, size, and speed. 

 

[Garfly]

52 minutes ago, onetrack said:

I would've thought a good RA pilot, when planning and carrying out a flight route relatively close to an airport that is used by RPT, would continually check on the potential flight path conflict involved with any arriving or departing RPT aircraft around that airport.

Indeed ... and better still, check on actual flight path conflicts with an ADSB-IN device.

(Which, at a glance, shows all nearby commercial flights right on your EFB map - and many light a/c too, of course.)

 

For those not ready for the $900 SkyEcho2 IN/OUT solution (until the govt. subsidy comes good?) the $300 IN-only Ping (for example) will, at least, let you see them.   https://www.uavionix.com.au/pingusb/

 

Unless, that is, you remain confident in the eyes-always-outside / see-and-be-seen  / no-fancy-toys, approach.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by Garfly

[Bruce Tuncks]

He looked up what we made here in Australia...  only bushmasters. The rest of that stuff ( and I reckon anti-ship missiles should be first on the list) we buy from overseas.

[Bruce Tuncks]

My new jabiru 230 came with a zaon radar anti-collision system, and it appears to work ok. Now it is a really cheap setup, I'm sure that an airline could do a lot better.

Why on earth do they not use something like this? Especially if they were going to operate outside of CTA...   and what about soaring birds? I can imagine a flock of pelicans putting engines out.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

AND I hasten to add that I never fly anywhere near airliners. Gosh if they were to see you even in the distance, I reckon men with guns would be there when you landed.

[onetrack]

One has to remember that the decision to install TCAS on all RPT aircraft was driven solely by America's worst MAC in modern times, between a B727 and a Cessna - Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 182.

144 people lost their lives thanks to a multitude of errors, not the least of which was the Cessna pilots believing that any RPT aircraft in close proximity would sight them and avoid them.

 

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

3 hours ago, onetrack said:

O.K. - So, you're flying a light aircraft at 600kg maximum weight, with maybe 100kt maximum cruise, and an ability to take quick evasive action - yet you insist an RPT doing 250kts and weighing around 40 tonnes say, has a greater responsibility to spot you, and get out of your way? 

You sound like the car driver who cuts in front of a road train, and then brakes, expecting them to avoid you, "because they're professionals" - or the sail boat operator who insists he has right of way over a bulk tanker on intersecting courses, "because the rules say power gives way to sail".

I would've thought a good RA pilot, when planning and carrying out a flight route relatively close to an airport that is used by RPT, would continually check on the potential flight path conflict involved with any arriving or departing RPT aircraft around that airport.

But I guess the world still contains plenty of people who think they're the only ones using that section of road, water, or airspace, for miles around, and who regularly fail to keep up a proper level of alertness.

I have a policy that has stood me in good stead for decades. "Might is right" - and I greatly respect and give wide berth to those who are in control of large chunks of metal travelling at high speeds, with their resultant inability to make major course corrections rapidly, due to their weight, size, and speed. 

 

False analogies, obviously. The RPT aircraft did not spot the RAAus aircraft even though it had twice as many pilots and etc. 

 

Genuine questions, would you not have transited 12 miles from the airport at 3500 ft? If not, would you say it was poor airmanship? Should it be made illegal? 

Edited April 1, 2022 by APenNameAndThatA

[APenNameAndThatA]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

My new jabiru 230 came with a zaon radar anti-collision system, and it appears to work ok. Now it is a really cheap setup, I'm sure that an airline could do a lot better.

Why on earth do they not use something like this? Especially if they were going to operate outside of CTA...   and what about soaring birds? I can imagine a flock of pelicans putting engines out.

 

zaon seems to have stopped trading in 2013

[kgwilson]

Neither of the aircraft in this incident heard the others broadcast. The Jabiru didn't hear the second broadcast after VGP had passed the OPESO waypoint either. CA/GRS heard the 40 mile inbound from VGP and provided traffic information. The Jabiru apparently did not provide intentions, just that they were 4 miles East of Lismore & descending. Presumably they were outside the Ballina 10NM MBZ at the time so were not at the time mandated to make a call.

 

With Ballina, Lismore, & Casino all sharing 124.2 there is constant busy radio and you have to listen carefully all the time.

 

We had CASA visit us at South Grafton & our opinion and full concensus was to give Ballina its own frequency. Casa has an issue with this due to the overlapping ILS systems. Casino is to get its own frequency in July but this won't help much. As mentioned earlier a tower is the only viable option in my opinion. Once control is established and designated Victor lanes in place this sort of problem will be dramatically diminished.

[aro]

19 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

So, someone could be at 3000 ft vfr right next to a cloud, and a RPT plane could be right beside it in cloud. And the vfr plane could have no radio and no transponder legally?

If you are relying on the "clear of cloud" provisions below 3000' (rather than the cloud clearances required above 3000') you are required to have a radio and be on the appropriate frequency.

[aro]

4 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

My new jabiru 230 came with a zaon radar anti-collision system, and it appears to work ok. Now it is a really cheap setup, I'm sure that an airline could do a lot better.

Why on earth do they not use something like this?

What do you think TCAS is? I'm sure the Zaon system still relied on other aircraft having a transponder giving altitude information.

 

I'm not sure of the details of TCAS, but I think it actively interrogates transponders. I think most other systems rely on primary radar to trigger a response from Mode A/C transponders.

[aro]

5 hours ago, Garfly said:

For those not ready for the $900 SkyEcho2 IN/OUT solution (until the govt. subsidy comes good?) the $300 IN-only Ping (for example) will, at least, let you see them

Avplan (and I assume OzRunways) takes data from various ADSB receivers. So if you have mobile reception and the other aircraft is in range of a receiver (which is likely close to a city) you can see ADSB traffic without any additional hardware.

 

However, the information received via the internet does have a delay. I also have an ADSB receiver, and sometimes I see the same traffic in 2 places. It can sometimes be several miles difference for fast aircraft.

[Garfly]

1 hour ago, kgwilson said:

As mentioned earlier a tower is the only viable option in my opinion. Once control is established and designated Victor lanes in place this sort of problem will be dramatically diminished.

But kg, wouldn't that be at the cost of RAAus aircraft being excluded from Ballina altogether?  Would you be happy with that?

What do you think about the official measures already taken to obviate repetition (The Ballina SFIS, 15 nm Broadcast Area etc.)

 

See AIP SUP doc attached.

BALLINA B'CAST ZONE.pdf

[Garfly]

54 minutes ago, aro said:

Avplan (and I assume OzRunways) takes data from various ADSB receivers. So if you have mobile reception and the other aircraft is in range of a receiver (which is likely close to a city) you can see ADSB traffic without any additional hardware.

AFAIK,  AvPlan and OzRwys only display 'traffic' from their own (participating) users.

Although devices like SkyEcho2 can of course be set up to display on the EFB map screens.

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by Garfly

[Thruster88]

21 minutes ago, Garfly said:

AFAIK,  AvPlan and OzRwys only display 'traffic' from their own users.

They also display adsb traffic if a receiver dongle or SkyEcho is used. I will have adsb in and out in my $5k thruster tomorrow for the Parkes flyin, should be able to avoid flying in front of the RPT😎

[Garfly]

Just now, Thruster88 said:

They also display adsb traffic if a receiver dongle or SkyEcho is used. I will have adsb in and out in my $5k thruster tomorrow for the Parkes flyin, should be able to avoid flying in front of the RPT😎

Yes, sorry, I meant off their own bat (with nothing else needed).