ATSB prelim report vid on The Oaks mid-air.

[Garfly]

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

What does this relate to?

[Thruster88]

I would appear that the Cessna 182 intended a landing at the oaks and had joined the down wind for runway 36. Why there were no comms from the 182 will probably never be known. Radio failure, wrong frequency, it may have given the pilots a false sense of security hearing nothing on the ctaf.

 

Not a fan of left and right circuits like we now have at cowra on 15-33 with all traffic to the west potentially going head to head. Traffic on a screen, could be a life saver or three.

[skippydiesel]

We will never know why the C182, with two experienced pilots on board, was;

 

Not calling on or apparently monitoring, The Oaks CTAF.

At circuit height.

If joining, was doing so on 36, opposite to established traffic on 18 (including the Jab he collided with).

 

His transceiver had been working, minutes earlier, on the Camden frequency - failed to switch over? selected wrong frequency? failure? (unlikly).

It was a Saturday morning in reasonable weather (moderate turbulence at altitude), normally busy with small aircraft movements,  why did the C180 pilots not think it was strange that they had no comms with The Oaks (which shars 126.7 with nearby Mittagong).

The Jab had a SkyEcho2, presumably the C180 had a operational transponder (would have been required to enter Camden airspace) how did ATC not see the two aircraft on a collision course?

How did the Jab pilot not "see" the C180 with his SE2 on iPad?

How did none of the 3 pilots see the other aircraft?

 

So many questions, that will never be answered - very sad for all.

 

 

 

[coljones]

On 20/12/2024 at 3:37 PM, skippydiesel said:

We will never know why the C182, with two experienced pilots on board, was;

 

Not calling on or apparently monitoring, The Oaks CTAF.

At circuit height.

If joining, was doing so on 36, opposite to established traffic on 18 (including the Jab he collided with).

 

His transceiver had been working, minutes earlier, on the Camden frequency - failed to switch over? selected wrong frequency? failure? (unlikly).

It was a Saturday morning in reasonable weather (moderate turbulence at altitude), normally busy with small aircraft movements,  why did the C180 pilots not think it was strange that they had no comms with The Oaks (which shars 126.7 with nearby Mittagong).

The Jab had a SkyEcho2, presumably the C180 had a operational transponder (would have been required to enter Camden airspace) how did ATC not see the two aircraft on a collision course?

How did the Jab pilot not "see" the C180 with his SE2 on iPad?

How did none of the 3 pilots see the other aircraft?

 

So many questions, that will never be answered - very sad for all.

 

 

 

You don't need a transponder for Class D or G.

[skippydiesel]

4 hours ago, coljones said:

You don't need a transponder for Class D or G.

Your point?

[BurnieM]

I understood that while the C182 had a transponder it did not have ADS-B.

 

The travel distance from Camden to the Oaks is very short and it would not take much to forget to change.

There, but for the grace of god ...

 

[Bosi72]

On 20/12/2024 at 3:37 PM, skippydiesel said:

How did the Jab pilot not "see" the C180 with his SE2 on iPad?

How did none of the 3 pilots see the other aircraft?

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2024/report/ao-2024-054

The report says APN had a Mode A+C transponder, which does not transmit GPS data, hence not visible to ADSB IN receivers; however, Mode A+C is visible to ATC.

 

Transponder is mandatory for controlled airspaces (A,C,D,E).

 

[440032]

No transponder is required in D. (because Class D eg Camden is not radar controlled airspace.)

CASR Part 91 MOS 26.68A sets out surveillance requirements.

[skippydiesel]

You guys did not read the JAB HAD AN SE2 and the C189 HAD A TRANSPONDER - do I have to explain further????😈

[Garfly]

On 20/12/2024 at 3:37 PM, skippydiesel said:

How did the Jab pilot not "see" the C180 with his SE2 on iPad?

Skippy, I think that is one of issues being argued.  ADSB-IN devices, like the SE2, can't "see" old style transponders.

In any case, for what it's worth, the ATSB report says that on-board video shows the Jab pilot looking outside on downwind, just prior to impact.

 

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 12:19 AM by Garfly

[Garfly]

 

On 20/12/2024 at 3:37 PM, skippydiesel said:

How did the Jab pilot not "see" the C180 with his SE2 on iPad?

 

By the way, for what it's worth, even if the Cessna did have ADSB-OUT, it'd have been against official RAAus advice to use an SE2/iPad in the circuit, anyway.

 

[The ATSB, on the other hand, seems keen for electronic conspicuity to be used to the fullest; way more trustworthy than our lyin' eyes.]

 

Ref.  the minute 1:01:45 to 1:02:45 in this RAAus video from last year:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuW5yzC-j5M&t=3724s

 

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 01:26 AM by Garfly

[skippydiesel]

22 minutes ago, Garfly said:

 

By the way, for what it's worth, even if the Cessna did have ADSB-OUT, it'd have been against official RAAus advice to use an SE2/iPad in the circuit, anyway.

 

The Jab was returning from an aborted X country. The C180 from Camden circuits.  Dont know about you, my transponder & SE2, go on just prior to TO and are not shut down until after Landing (usually on taxiing in).

 

C180 (GA registered) would have had his transponder on, to do circuits at Camden.

 

Not that I get to fly with other pilots these days, however no recollection of transponders (once on) being shut down in circuit.

[Garfly]

3 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

The Jab was returning from an aborted X country. The C180 from Camden circuits.  Dont know about you, my transponder & SE2, go on just prior to TO and are not shut down until after Landing (usually on taxiing in).

C180 (GA registered) would have had his transponder on, to do circuits at Camden.

Not that I get to fly with other pilots these days, however no recollection of transponders (once on) being shut down in circuit.

Yeah, I agree!  For what it's worth, I don't hold to the official RAAus line - that is, generally to diss ADSB-IN devices. 

They seem very determined to stick to the "See and Avoid" doctrine (that's how I read that minute of their video [above].)

But do you accept that the Jab would not/could not have electronically "seen" the Cessna's (non-ADSB) transponder (even if he hadn't been looking outside)?

That's the only point of difference, I think.

[skippydiesel]

I guess so. Its rumoured that the C180 was scheduled for a refurb, part of which was a brand new transponder (ADSB - Out) sitting on a desk at Shellharbour/W Gong.

 

As for See  & Avoid - Yes this is very much the party line and will likly remain so, for aircraft without ADSB - IN plus automated aircraft proximity warning.

 

I endeavour to be a good See & Avoid pilot, aided by Comms, OzRunwys + SE2 (very recent) BUT am a skeptic, as to its efficacy, without having some sort of clue as to where tool look in the first instance.

[facthunter]

Radio  can help. People could listen on 2 frequencies ?   VERTICAL separation is absolute. You can't collide.

[Markdun]

What was the wind at ground level like?  Just relevant to whether the Cessna was intending to land in the opposite direction or not.  I note that at Camden the circuit by the Cessna was landing towards the SW, so why reverse at the Oaks?  I’d like to know whether there was any descent to circuit height as well.  My guess is that after an intensive test flight the two pilots in the Cessna were mentally exhausted and the turn over the Oakes towards home at Shellharbour had them both relaxing.  This is like most mountaineering accidents occurring on the way down after sumitting, ie after you have achieved your goal: as Tigger said ‘going up is easy, it’s the coming down that is difficult’.

 The other thing about see and avoid is that objects on collision course do not ‘move’ in relation to the background and our primitive eye-brain system is best at picking up movement, so we don’t see (eye & brain) the very thing that will smash into us, yet we do see that tiny wedge tail eagle circling.  See and avoid DOESNT work, because you only see what you don’t need to avoid.

[Bosi72]

20 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I endeavour to be a good See & Avoid pilot, aided by Comms, OzRunwys + SE2 (very recent) BUT am a skeptic, as to its efficacy, without having some sort of clue as to where tool look in the first instance.

The scary bit is that even if you see the traffic on your iPad and know where to look, you still can't see it with your eyes. 

[turboplanner]

13 minutes ago, Markdun said:

What was the wind at ground level like?  Just relevant to whether the Cessna was intending to land in the opposite direction or not.  I note that at Camden the circuit by the Cessna was landing towards the SW, so why reverse at the Oaks?  I’d like to know whether there was any descent to circuit height as well.  My guess is that after an intensive test flight the two pilots in the Cessna were mentally exhausted and the turn over the Oakes towards home at Shellharbour had them both relaxing.  This is like most mountaineering accidents occurring on the way down after sumitting, ie after you have achieved your goal: as Tigger said ‘going up is easy, it’s the coming down that is difficult’.

 The other thing about see and avoid is that objects on collision course do not ‘move’ in relation to the background and our primitive eye-brain system is best at picking up movement, so we don’t see (eye & brain) the very thing that will smash into us, yet we do see that tiny wedge tail eagle circling.  See and avoid DOESNT work, because you only see what you don’t need to avoid.

Someone just plugged this prelim report here.

The ATSB people will still be obtaining data at this stage so a lot could come up by the time of the final report.

 

[Neil_S]

23 hours ago, Garfly said:

 

 

By the way, for what it's worth, even if the Cessna did have ADSB-OUT, it'd have been against official RAAus advice to use an SE2/iPad in the circuit, anyway.

 

[The ATSB, on the other hand, seems keen for electronic conspicuity to be used to the fullest; way more trustworthy than our lyin' eyes.]

 

 

Hi,

 

I'm not sure that video can be interpreted as saying don't use SE2 in the circuit - he says not to be fixated on it, which I would agree with. However, I raised this very point at the RAAus Parkes seminar earlier this year where this was discussed, and we agreed that as a) we don't have eyes in the back of our heads, and b) we can't see through the aluminium/fabric/plastic of our fuselages, that using just our eyes to "see and avoid" cannot detect what is behind us (or above or below) and so the ADSB-IN on our iPads in the circuit can be very useful. As always, the technology is a useful adjunct to the Mark One eyeball, and should be used accordingly - to fill in the gaps where we can't see in this case. A glance at the iPad is all that is required, then probably followed up with a radio call to confirm position and intentions. 

 

Cheers,

Neil

[Garfly]

19 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Someone just plugged this prelim report here.

The ATSB people will still be obtaining data at this stage so a lot could come up by the time of the final report.

Yeah, you won't be contradicted on that, preliminary means preliminary. 

BTW, 'someone just plugged this prelim report here'  following the ATSB's making it and 'plugging it into' the World Wide Web, presumably so that all concerned might benefit from what's been established so far (as opposed to some of what's been bandied about so far).

Your problem with the 'plugging' is?

[Garfly]

21 minutes ago, Neil_S said:

Hi,

I'm not sure that video can be interpreted as saying don't use SE2 in the circuit - he says not to be fixated on it, which I would agree with. However, I raised this very point at the RAAus Parkes seminar earlier this year where this was discussed, and we agreed that as a) we don't have eyes in the back of our heads, and b) we can't see through the aluminium/fabric/plastic of our fuselages, that using just our eyes to "see and avoid" cannot detect what is behind us (or above or below) and so the ADSB-IN on our iPads in the circuit can be very useful. As always, the technology is a useful adjunct to the Mark One eyeball, and should be used accordingly - to fill in the gaps where we can't see in this case. A glance at the iPad is all that is required, then probably followed up with a radio call to confirm position and intentions. 

Cheers, Neil

 

Yes, fair enough Neil, I cited the original video so that the presenters would speak for themselves and listener-readers interpret likewise.

 

[Ref.  the minute 1:01:45 to 1:02:45 in this RAAus video from last year:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuW5yzC-j5M&t=3724s  ]

 

Anyway that difference of approach on the issue between some of us and the RAAus published position goes back a ways:

 

 

 

[kgwilson]

The 2 major issues from a communication and electronic perspective as far as I can see are.

 

1 The C182 made no radio calls and no aircraft detection equipment either in or out.

2. The Jabiru did have a working radio, made calls on the correct frequency, appeared to be keeping a lookout and had a conspicuity device in and out.

 

Comments.
 

The Jabiru had already established the active circuit.

The C182 made no radio calls & if they did on the Camden frequency why was this not mentioned?

The C182 had a mode A/C transponder only visible only to ATC, not to the Jabiru.

Why did ATC not see both aircraft?

Why were the aircraft on opposing circuits?

 

I hope the final report will establish reasons/answers for these comments. It is really hard to see any aircraft coming towards you as the frontal profile is small and the closing speed would have been well over 200 knots. as far as I am concerned the SE2 should be on all the time even though it may not be of a lot of use in a circuit scenario, at least it will tell you if another ADSB out aircraft is around. Sadly not the case here.

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Garfly said:

Yeah, you won't be contradicted on that, preliminary means preliminary. 

BTW, 'someone just plugged this prelim report here'  following the ATSB's making it and 'plugging it into' the World Wide Web, presumably so that all concerned might benefit from what's been established so far (as opposed to some of what's been bandied about so far).

Your problem with the 'plugging' is?

The collision was correctly posted back in October and has 6 pages of worthwhile data on it.

[Garfly]

8 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

The collision was correctly posted back in October and has 6 pages of worthwhile data on it.

Ah, okay, so that's what you meant?!  Yes, it probably could have/should have been attached to the original post.

(Maybe still can be?) On the other hand there might be some value in starting the discussion over since so much of the early info was wrong.