Collision Avoidance

[Roundsounds]

51 minutes ago, Mike Gearon said:

So, that’s what’s going on! 
 

I was trying to work out why an obviously experienced pilot was asking!

An odd remark, I asked a couple of pretty straightforward questions. As stated I’ve been out of GA instructing during the introduction of ADSB and other traffic awareness devices and was curious as to what’s being trained around SA.
I find the contrast in RT at Class G airports from the early 2000s and now to be quite marked. It got me thinking as to why, it seems pilots now don’t build a mental traffic model, they rely on constant broadcasts and more recently tech devices requiring head down attention for collision avoidance. The tech devices should enhance safety, but when used inappropriately may in fact reduce safety. 
I find the practice of a taxi, line up, rolling, airborne, turning crosswind, downwind, mid downwind, base, final, short final, clear of the runway (whilst still on the flight strip) to be common broadcasts with some pilots making all of them. 

[Garfly]

I don't think cockpit traffic display systems are a part of basic training now, nor in the foreseeable future.

Instructors would surely be teaching circuit situation awareness in the ordinary eyes-outside way. That only makes sense. 

[pmccarthy]

Calls for taxi, entering RWY, turning downwind, turning base, turning final, clear of the runway are standard teaching by most instructors at most airfields and they make sense. Any more are superfluous unless there is a conflict.

[Garfly]

There are good reasons for saying only what's needed but RT minimalists can be as much to blame as maximalists for causing poor SA in busy circuits.

 

Have standards declined?  I don't know. Anyway, new tech ain't to blame (at least, not yet).

 

The big difference I see is between pilots who practise circuitry every day and those who blunder on stage once in a blue moon.  Hmmm ... time to find a circuit that's busy and an instructor that ain't.   ;- )    

   

[Bosi72]

As you know learning, especially in aviation, never stops.

 

To my understanding from the posts above, you are an experienced instructor who was out of GA for a long time? 

 

I suggest reading the most recent version of Aviation Instructor's Handbook (FAA-H-8083-9B), currently used for PIRC exams. There are some good topics on SA, ADM, technologies...

 

 

[Mike Gearon]

Found the little USB. Testing on ferry. Probably too windy to fly later today and ferry captain is warning me we may not return from Phillip island this morning due to forecast 30kn winds.
 

very interesting to see the green from Uavionics more up to date than the blue from Avplan. 700ft higher. 1.3nm further along on a course change.

That alone is worth the wires and extra bits.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Worth a read

[IBob]

On 14/04/2022 at 10:55 AM, Garfly said:

And they seem to be promoting the mid-field Crosswind join lately

presumably because it's less likely to conflict with departing traffic.

 

 

Source: CASA's AC91-10 v1.1 from late last year.

Click to expand.

 

I hadn't been following this thread, so only just came across this, and it really made me sit up: the reason being that I had a very near miss on takeoff last year with an aircraft making an overhead rejoin.

 

The swiss cheese evolved as follows:
We had both made radio calls, but were (evidently) not specifically looking out for each other.

I was on takeoff, solo, and climbing steadily, was 700' AGL at the threshold.

He crossed approx 200M beyond the threshold at approx 900', at which point I was between 770' and 879', closer to the latter as it appeared to me.

It spoiled my day, and I'm sure it spoiled his.

We were both very fortunate that is all it did.

 

CAA here have since published a tutorial on overhead rejoins, designed evidently to educate, but containing no new information.
It has the joining aircraft crossing the strip over the threshold at 1000' AGL.
Had the other pilot done that in our event, we would have been fine
BUT

Note he was only a bit offset from the threshold...can easily happen
Note, he was only a bit low...can easily happen.
Note, I wasn't looking for him, or he for me: poor airmanship...but can happen.
And there is your swiss cheese.

Since that event, I am more attentive to radio calls from joining traffic, also careful to climb with good forward vision after takeoff, while looking out very carefully.
And  when rejoining myself, I do not aim to cross at the threshold: I aim to cross approx 1/3 back from there, as in the above diagram.
I should very much like to see this last item introduced here NZ. But that seems very unlikely under the current administration, who have simply doubled down on a very old tradition.

 

 

[RVB]

On 15/4/2022 at 5:21 PM, Roundsounds said:

Lots of comments about circuit entry, I’m keen to learn how people develop and maintain their situational awareness (SA) of other traffic? Or do you rely on updated SA when you make a broadcast and hope other traffic respond? 

 

[Kununurra]

It seems like dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t.

To much radio chatter ie taxi, entering rolling can be seen by some as not required.

Interesting perspective, how does anyone know who is around to gain SA if there is no broadcasts?

My thoughts are, if no one is around then you are not bothering anyone. If there is aircraft inbound 10m etc. then they will hear your broadcast and start to build a mental picture of what is happening in and around the circuit.

 

Don’t rely on replaying a radio measure to assist you as time is of the essence, there is enough to do on take off without reaching for the switch to replay a radio message.

 

If you are not sure of who is in the circuit or if a conflict exists, don’t take off to establish who is going to conflict with you as that could only end bad.

 

See and avoid is what should be your priority, if you can’t see how the hell can you avoid?

 

 

 

[Mike Gearon]

CASA have a pretty straight forward pamphlet.

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-05/radio-procedures-in-non-controlled-airspace.pdf

 

I’ve just reviewed 166. Definitely worth a refresh. As usual hangar talk has conflicting information on CTAF calls.

 

This is interesting…."Could”  is very different from a direct request in regard to other aircraft. I have this over western port pay on a fairly regular basis where I could reduce altitude to increase separation or hope the higher aircraft will increase altitude. I’ll use the magic word “could” where “please” is as below open to liability! Who knew!

 

11.8 Under no circumstances should a pilot attempt to direct other traffic. Direction of air traffic (as opposed to alerting, requesting or advising) is an ATC function and should not be performed by pilots in flight or on the ground. Pilots who seek to direct other pilots as a pseudo-air traffic controller, either innocently or to obtain expedited traffic movement, are acting beyond common courtesy and are potentially operating outside the law. Such actions may expose pilots to liability if their direction results in an accident.
Example of appropriate request or advice: ”Alfa Bravo Charlie, could you maintain five thousand? We will maintain six thousand until we have passed you.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, Kununurra said:

It seems like dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t.

To much radio chatter ie taxi, entering rolling can be seen by some as not required.

Interesting perspective, how does anyone know who is around to gain SA if there is no broadcasts?

My thoughts are, if no one is around then you are not bothering anyone. If there is aircraft inbound 10m etc. then they will hear your broadcast and start to build a mental picture of what is happening in and around the circuit.

 

Don’t rely on replaying a radio measure to assist you as time is of the essence, there is enough to do on take off without reaching for the switch to replay a radio message.

 

If you are not sure of who is in the circuit or if a conflict exists, don’t take off to establish who is going to conflict with you as that could only end bad.

 

See and avoid is what should be your priority, if you can’t see how the hell can you avoid?

 

 

 

There is a vast difference in radio traffic frequency in City, high volume operations where clipped speech and being ready to transmit the SECOND the last person finishes are both essential or you get way behind the action and are a nuisance to others, hence the "see and be seen" requirement which throws responsibility to the participants vs the country airstrip with up to about three in the circuit. Those circuits are often frequented by people who have actual conversations rather than use the required, short, terminology.

 

At the first airfields, there's nothing for it but to try to build up time in the whirlpool to build your radio skills, but most important to practice, practice, practice so you don't have to think of what to say.

 

At the second, the chatter doesn't usually matter until one day it might. Entering the runway, and Entering the runway and backtracking for XX are both important in country airfields because an inbound aircraft, can replan his circuit based on what you've told him. There have been plenty of accidents over the years where someone landed on or collided with someone else who hadn't made a call.

 

 

[PapaFox]

And then you get the likes of Mildura airport where their Terms of Use for the airport says that all aircraft shall call downwind, base and final amongst other calls. That would have been a nightmare when the pilot academy was operating there.

[turboplanner]

27 minutes ago, PapaFox said:

And then you get the likes of Mildura airport where their Terms of Use for the airport says that all aircraft shall call downwind, base and final amongst other calls. That would have been a nightmare when the pilot academy was operating there.

If you want to use Mildura Airport, then that's what you do there, so just put that in your reminder list for Mildura. Many Airports specify their own particular procedures which are used to cope with local issues. I agree it's a pain if you're trying to memorise a standard procedure.

[Garfly]

12 hours ago, Kununurra said:

See and avoid is what should be your priority, if you can’t see how the hell can you avoid?

 

Well, as you suggest, radio can help. 

But anyway, for at least 30 years, the authorities have been warning against relying on "See and Avoid". 

Back in 1991 ATSB put out their report "The Limitations of the See and Avoid Principle".

(see attached - still worth a read) 

 

This is from the preface:

 

" ... this collision and others which occurred in the late 1980s drew attention to the deficiencies of the see-and-avoid concept. The Coolangatta accident report stated that: ‘As a result of this accident, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation has undertaken to conduct an evaluation and prepare a report on the practicability of the see and be seen (see-and-avoid) principle in controlled and non-controlled airspace.’ (BASI report 881/1042). 

 

And now, three decades on (in the context of government subsidies for VFR ADSB - including cheap EC units) we had this from AirServices Australia:

 

"We have been focussing on clarifying the case for change in leveraging surveillance technology to reduce reliance on visual sighting of aircraft and pilot self-separation, particularly in airspace of increased risk profile."

 

 

Anyway, if and when ADSB becomes effectively universal for flying machines - as it is, now, in the US - I think the problem with eyesight will be largely solved.

 

We still need to look outside though, at least until those pesky pelicans get with the program.

 

But hey, that's the whole point of recreational aviation - looking outside.  (IFR is just for going places.  ;- )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

see_and_avoid_report_print.pdf

Edited May 14, 2022 by Garfly

[Roundsounds]

9 hours ago, PapaFox said:

And then you get the likes of Mildura airport where their Terms of Use for the airport says that all aircraft shall call downwind, base and final amongst other calls. That would have been a nightmare when the pilot academy was operating there.

It’s not in the ERSA, so not enforceable. In fact it goes against the CASA recommendations and it could be argued these requirements could reduce safety under certain circumstances. 
The “alerted see and avoid” procedures rely on only making the prescribed routine broadcast, thus leaving time for any calls to prevent potential conflicts.  

Edited May 14, 2022 by Roundsounds

[turboplanner]

9 hours ago, Roundsounds said:

It’s not in the ERSA, so not enforceable. In fact it goes against the CASA recommendations and it could be argued these requirements could reduce safety under certain circumstances. 
The “alerted see and avoid” procedures rely on only making the prescribed routine broadcast, thus leaving time for any calls to prevent potential conflicts.  

It's not a rule, it's a Contractual Agreement; nothing to do with CASA or CASA regulations.

[facthunter]

IF it came to a court case operating according to the CASA rules would have to be safer as  a defence as THEY are the responsible SAFETY Authority.  Excessive transmission can act against optimum safety where congestion is occurring. Nev.

[Thruster88]

5 hours ago, turboplanner said:

It's not a rule, it's a Contractual Agreement; nothing to do with CASA or CASA regulations.

Turbo, if I fly to Mildura, a certified public airport with no PPR and have read the ERSA as required I don't believe I have entered into a contract.  The local traffic regulations section has nothing about additional radio calls.  

[Garfly]

I wonder if that Mildura 'rule' was put in place at the behest of the RPTs that use the place. 

I get the feeling that when they're forced to mix it up in G-space with the hoi-polloi, they prefer the chatterboxes they know over the strong silent types they don't.

Anyway, no wonder Qantas got behind the VFR Mode-S subsidy scheme.

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Having operated Jets into small Aerodromes with plenty of GA traffic, I wouldn't think a lot of chatter is what they want. The less time spent mixing it in the circuit, the better when your circuit speeds are so different. To that end, a straight in approach is best, though in the early days of such mixing it was resisted.  We had more radio facilities then. Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

Turbo, if I fly to Mildura, a certified public airport with no PPR and have read the ERSA as required I don't believe I have entered into a contract.  The local traffic regulations section has nothing about additional radio calls.  

A contract in contract law is very simple; it consists of an offer and an acceptance of that offer. Mildura are making an offer of conditions to be followed if you want to use their airport. If you use it, you accepted that offer resulting in a legally binding contract.

 

 

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

IF it came to a court case operating according to the CASA rules would have to be safer as  a defence as THEY are the responsible SAFETY Authority.  Excessive transmission can act against optimum safety where congestion is occurring. Nev.

The way I read it and I'm not a lawyer and your version is complex, but I think you would have to go to the CASA wording first which from my memory was that there are no long compulsory broadcasts, just recommended and less and you are responsible for separation not the tower/radio any more. If Mildura doesn't have a high radio traffic, and the times I've been there it's been almost a ghost airport, abd there have been some near misses the airport has taken some responsibility back by nominating where you have a contract to call.

 

Who came off worst legally may depend on the type of accident.

[facthunter]

It's a question of the authoritative source for the correct procedure. It would be hard for  a Council to assert they knew more than CASA about how things should be done in an aviation context such as this is. More talk is not always better. Nev

[onetrack]

CASA regulate all airspace movements under the Office of Airspace Regulation, the operational arm of CASA. Once you leave the ground in any device lifted by airflow, you're under the control and direction of CASA via the OAR.

 

A council owing an airport is restricted to control of the airport, and its grounds only. A council trying to issue binding air movement regulations to control aircraft movements towards its airport, is overstepping its authority, and any air navigation/control orders it issued wouldn't stand examination in a court of law. Not a legal opinion, merely my personal opinion.

 

If there was any reportable aviation incident within the approach area of the airport in question, I could not see anyone getting very far in court trying to blame air navigation instructions issued by the council running the airport, for the incident.

 

Point 6 in the official legislation under "Function and powers of CASA in connection to Australian-administered airspace", appears to make things quite clear to me (my bold and italics) - 

 

"The legislation and regulations which govern airspace administration enable CASA to:

·    determine the class of airspace and controlled aerodromes in Australia;

·    designate prohibited, restricted and danger areas;

·    designate flying training areas;

·    designate air routes and airways;

·    provide directions relating to air routes, airways and facilities;

·    publish the particulars of air traffic services; and

·    review the Instruments containing declarations, designations, determinations and directions at least every 5 years. 

 

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L01589

 

Edited May 15, 2022 by onetrack
added link...