Mid-air collision at Caboolture - 28/07/2023

[Roscoe]

On 29/7/2023 at 2:17 PM, spacesailor said:

Same thing happens at the Oaks.

Landing ' Camden ' aircraft over fly the Oaks runway. 

Trainees are told to keep their heads down & never go hight than the circuit hight . 

spacesailor

Sorry thats rubbish!

Take a look at the VFR Charts for the notation that describes the procedure for overfly not below 2500ft.

CCT Alt at the Oaks is 1900ft.

Where did this info come from??

[Kyle Communications]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

There are nesting issues

If SPA had used the into wind runway it wouldn't have mattered about EVR

If EVR hadn't turned down his radio perhaps he wouldn't have crossed the runway

Aircraft taxying for the into wind runway should have been expected etc.

Who had the obligation to give way to the right etc.

Different weightings at different phases.

 

Regardless of what runway was being used. Crossing 06/24 to get to 11/29 you are required to STOP before the crossover and look. Not necessary for any radio call of crossing but the requirement like any runway crossing anywhere is to STOP and look. The radio is a secondary input

[turboplanner]

16 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

Regardless of what runway was being used. Crossing 06/24 to get to 11/29 you are required to STOP before the crossover and look. Not necessary for any radio call of crossing but the requirement like any runway crossing anywhere is to STOP and look. The radio is a secondary input

I take it he didn’t stop. They’re some of the things ATSB would be going through.

[Kyle Communications]

No he didnt stop and just went straight across as the pawnee was touching down. The Pawnee would have expected him to stop so elected to do a go around after just touching down..which is what I would have done I think..as usually thats what I was taught .

[Kyle Communications]

When in doubt go around

 

[aro]

The student pilot is a red herring.

 

The tug pilot said he was going to stop before the crossing runway, which would have been clear of both the taxying and departing aircraft. The problem with that is that it's a gamble that you won't have to go around, for any reason. The taxying aircraft wasn't a problem, the conflict was with the departing aircraft.

 

Maybe we need to recognize that LAHSO style operations are a bad idea at GA/uncontrolled airports.

 

I know it's pretty common to end flight reviews by pulling the power on downwind for a glide approach to the cross runway, with a broadcast that we will stop before the intersection. It isn't meaningfully coordinated with the traffic on the other runway in case of a go around. Maybe that's a risk that we shouldn't be taking.

[derekliston]

I never turn the radio down. In fact I use an airband receiver to hear what is happening before I start the engine. We only have a single runway at Warwick but in calm or 90° crosswind conditions that still gives the possibiy of conflict. I often hear traffic, in particular gliders, call landing short or landing long, but I’m a wussy pilot, I don’t go until I know I’m clear! The biggest concern nowadays is traffic not using radio, which I have said many times before. I know there is no requirement if they don’t hear radio traffic, but it only takes two pilots with the same mindset for conflict to exist!

[RFguy]

59 minutes ago, aro said:

I know it's pretty common to end flight reviews by pulling the power on downwind for a glide approach to the cross runway, with a broadcast that we will stop before the intersection. It isn't meaningfully coordinated with the traffic on the other runway in case of a go around. Maybe that's a risk that we shouldn't be taking.

I'll not unusual for me to land (full stop)  on the cross at my home aerodrome  -  Cowra (grass) WITH  another landing for a full stop on the main at the other end which is about 1km from the RWY  intersection....but ! that's with good radio comms, (IE it has been coordinated)  and with other experienced (5000hour+) pilots of  aircraft that I know personally .  it's easy to pull up my plane 200m before the intersection on the grass-, and the other guy can pull up their plane 600m BEFORE the intersection ,  that's easy peasy- so I think horses for courses......the other pilot in the other plane knows the potential complications.  I do not think it is hazardous unless BOTH of us have to go around..... which said situation would be highly unlikely.  But I wouldnt do it somewhere I didnt know. 

Now if you add a third plane in there that hasnt got good comms and / or a complete handle on everything, then that becomes a hazard for sure. 

Edited September 10, 2023 by RFguy

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, Roscoe said:

Sorry thats rubbish!

Take a look at the VFR Charts for the notation that describes the procedure for overfly not below 2500ft.

CCT Alt at the Oaks is 1900ft.

Where did this info come from??

Not sure what he is getting at - I fly out of The Oaks.

 

You are correct regarding the charts, circuit height  and the minimum overfly altitude BUT it is not uncommon to have aircraft overly (particularly those inbound to Camden) below this altitude.

 

As I see it, Camden Tower will instruct (amongst other things) the inbound aircraft to maintain heading and altitude not below 1800ft  - way too many pilots, anticipate this instruction and are already on decent to 1800ft thus entering The Oaks "airspace".

 

Adding to this, is the likelihood that the Camden in bound aircraft is on Tower frequency 120.1 & Sydney Centre area frequency 124.55 not on /  monitoring / overflying call The Oaks 126.7

[Roscoe]

8 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Not sure what he is getting at - I fly out of The Oaks.

 

You are correct regarding the charts, circuit height  and the minimum overfly altitude BUT it is not uncommon to have aircraft overly (particularly those inbound to Camden) below this altitude.

 

As I see it, Camden Tower will instruct (amongst other things) the inbound aircraft to maintain heading and altitude not below 1800ft  - way too many pilots, anticipate this instruction and are already on decent to 1800ft thus entering The Oaks "airspace".

 

Adding to this, is the likelihood that the Camden in bound aircraft is on Tower frequency 120.1 & Sydney Centre area frequency 124.55 not on /  monitoring / overflying call The Oaks 126.7

It was more the comment about TRAINEES INSTRUCTED  TO KEEP HEADS DOWN and DONT GO ABOVE CCT ALT that stirred me up!

[Roscoe]

5 minutes ago, Roscoe said:

It was more the comment about TRAINEES INSTRUCTED  TO KEEP HEADS DOWN and DONT GO ABOVE CCT ALT that stirred me up!

Not difficult to descend fron 2500ft to 1800ft from the Oaks inbound to Camden……anyway, off topic, discussion is about different circumstances at another Airport

[Kyle Communications]

1 hour ago, aro said:

The student pilot is a red herring.

 

The tug pilot said he was going to stop before the crossing runway, which would have been clear of both the taxying and departing aircraft. The problem with that is that it's a gamble that you won't have to go around, for any reason. The taxying aircraft wasn't a problem, the conflict was with the departing aircraft.

 

Maybe we need to recognize that LAHSO style operations are a bad idea at GA/uncontrolled airports.

 

I know it's pretty common to end flight reviews by pulling the power on downwind for a glide approach to the cross runway, with a broadcast that we will stop before the intersection. It isn't meaningfully coordinated with the traffic on the other runway in case of a go around. Maybe that's a risk that we shouldn't be taking.

No its not a red herring it is the start of the distaster..its the bit that triggered it. The pawnee may have called he was going to stop short but it looked like he was going to land a bit further than what he had planned. You MUST STOP at the crossover regardless It is in the ops manual and also just common sense. I have the benefit of seeing all the video and reviewing it many times as I had to recover it and send it to the coroners evidence folder and the ATSB.

[turboplanner]

22 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

No its not a red herring it is the start of the distaster..its the bit that triggered it. The pawnee may have called he was going to stop short but it looked like he was going to land a bit further than what he had planned. You MUST STOP at the crossover regardless It is in the ops manual and also just common sense. I have the benefit of seeing all the video and reviewing it many times as I had to recover it and send it to the coroners evidence folder and the ATSB.

You also must use the into-wind runway. The Pawnee shouldn't have been there.

[kgwilson]

I still don't know why anyone would turn the radio volume down to do a runup. Even with ANR you will still have some (even if only minor) engine noise and anyway you are looking for RPM drop and if the engine runs rough at runup you will feel this. I'd really like to know the reason for doing it. There are holes beginning to align with decision making and communications but the proverbial straw is the Cessna taxiing across the runway intersection without communicating this intention and the crash happens as a consequence of this. 

[facthunter]

I don't think this investigation is finalised and I'm a bit uncomfortable about making conclusions HERE.Nev.