Communication

[skippydiesel]

A topic much debated  - when, where & what to say.

 

An example of ongoing dangerous communication failure;

 

The Oaks airfield CTAF 126.7:

Within Sydney Center 124.55 Class G airspace

Overfly min alt 2500 ft

7 Nm to the west of the much larger busier Camden, Tower 120.1 About 4 Nm to Camden airspace

The Oaks is a reporting points for aircraft coming from the West, entering Camden and is often overflown by aircraft departing to the West.

Aircraft entering Camden airspace do so at 1800 ft &  Departures 1300 ft. 

Despite its proximity, Camden ERSA does not mention The Oaks

Camden departure instructions require aircraft to switch to Syd Cen 124.55 on departing Camden - no mention of west bound aircraft needing to switch to The Oaks 126.7

 

A few months ago, a Cessna, from Camden, entered The Oaks airspace/circuit. No Oaks pilot, active at the time, recalls any communication from the two very experienced pilots in the Cessna. The Cessna and an Oaks Jabiru collided, at circuit height - all three pilots were killed.

 

Despite this recent tragedy, aircraft appearing to be bound for/from Camden, continue to overfly The Oaks without any radio communication at all. Hard to judge but often seem to be under the 2500 ft ceiling.

Hailing on 126.7,  results in silence.

 

There is no doubt that it is congested airspace, with demanding radio communication from transiting pilots, while trying to meet altitude and tracking targets, but does this excuse not even a courtesy call to inform Oaks pilots of their presence &  intentions?.

 

The majority of The Oaks pilots are RAA. The Camden pilots GA

The RAA pilots may not always use the correct phraseology but they always try to communicate - not so the Camden GA.

 

Do we need another tragedy to bring about basic communication from Camden GA pilots???😈

 

 

[BurnieM]

Has the report been issued for this collision yet ?

 

Comms was definitely an issue but both the examiner and pilot being tested were aware of The Oaks.

The examiner was a Shell Harbour local.

 

I believe the Cessna was at 1300 (Camden circuit height) and then climbed into the Jabiru at 1900 (The Oaks circuit height).

 

 

[skippydiesel]

The accident  is subject if another thread on Forum - This thread is about how to get the overflying pilots to communicate😈

[BurnieM]

Both of the Cessna pilots knew about the Camden and The Oaks comms requirements and yet did not perform them (Oaks comms).

At least one of the Cessna pilots had flown in this area many times.

 

From a distance this looks like a fatigue/workload overload rather than a straight comms issue.

 

Edited March 26 by BurnieM

[skippydiesel]

3 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

Both of the Cessna pilots knew about the Camden and The Oaks comms requirements and yet did not perform them. 

At least one of the Cessna pilots had flown in this area many times.

 

From a distance this looks like a fatigue/workload overload rather than a straight comms issue.

 

 

How does fatigue explain the majority of Camden in/out transitions, above The Oaks, making no calls at all and not even monietring the CTAF?😈

[BurnieM]

Not saying there is not a real Camden/The Oaks comms issue.

 

Just saying that this mid-air collision is not the best example to drive action.

Or maybe it is. 

A loud and well known incident could maybe drive extra education and training.

It is just logically comms was only one factor and the reason for lack of comms was not lack of knowledge in this incident.

 

Edited March 26 by BurnieM

[skippydiesel]

Sorry BurnieM - I repeat this is not about THE ACCIDENT, it's about past & ongoing lack of communication from pilots entering/leaving Camden via The Oaks.  THE ACCIDENT is but a symptom of what's been happening for a long time and continues to this day.

 

Camden pilots just don't acknowledge the presence of the airfield - No communication, often violate our airspace. 

 

I flew yesterday -  up with me, three aircraft apparently not on/monitoring  126.7.  While on ground, doing some work on my plane, with handheld monitoring transiting aircraft (X6) - not one made a call. This is situaton normal, even when The Oaks may have significant number of aircraft departing/arriving and students training in the circuit.

 

How do we get Camden pilots to communicate?😈

[BurnieM]

Probably The Oaks traffic needs to use the same CTAF as Camden.

 

But then does The Oaks traffic make uncontrolled calls or is there a pseudo  semi-controlled calls from/to Camden and what format does this take and what control does Camden have over The Oaks movements ?

As it is I understand that Camden puts limits on the number of aircraft allowed to be in the circuit at Camden.

 

[skippydiesel]

"Probably The Oaks traffic needs to use the same CTAF as Camden."

 

Camden is controlled airspace (has a tower).

 

I can see how having the same radio frequency would reduce transiting pilots workload but at the same time would congest the airwaves, likly making communication worse. Also I am not sure how the Tower would deal with aircraft movements that are 7 Nm away, out of sight.

 

"But then does The Oaks traffic make uncontrolled calls or is there a pseudo  semi-controlled calls from/to Camden and what format does this take and what control does Camden have over The Oaks movements ?"

I Dont understand. Please expand

 

"Camden puts limits on the number of aircraft allowed to be in the circuit "

 

That Camden have a limit to the number of aircraft in the circuit does not impact on The Oaks - its the aircraft entering/leaving the circuit, transiting The Oaks,  that is the problem.

 

To me this is a lack of training/personal discipline problem -

• Have the GA pilots received appropriate training & follow up BFR,  looking at the obligation to communicate,  when transiting within 10 Nm of an airfield?
• Is there a mechanism to bring the failure to communicate  (with The Oaks) to the attention of  the flying community based at Camden?
• Penetration of airspace, as for the above?

Should it be impractical to try and get the Camden pilots to do the right thing - could The Oaks inbound (to Camden) reporting point be removed or relocated away from The Oaks?

The above may not address the dot point problems, which collectively demonstrate poor pilot behaviour but would relocate the risk away from The Oaks😈

[aro]

Camden has 3 inbound reporting points within 15 miles, why does The Oaks inbound point even exist? Get rid of it and create a danger area 3nm radius around The Oaks to 2500'. Seems like a simple solution.

[skippydiesel]

1 minute ago, aro said:

Camden has 3 inbound reporting points within 15 miles, why does The Oaks inbound point even exist? Get rid of it and create a danger area 3nm radius around The Oaks to 2500'. Seems like a simple solution.

Hmm! There's a thought.

Personally I would like to see the height go to 3000 ft . Reason being, The Oaks circuit height is 1900 ft, overfly is technically above 2400 ft, however most quote & go for 2500 ft. We appear to get a lot of overflying aircraft at 2500 & well below (even down to circuit height). 3000 ft gives a nice buffer, from transiting aircraft for those  arriving/departing  The Oaks. 😈

[aro]

6 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Personally I would like to see the height go to 3000 ft .

It's all within D552 (Flying Training) up to 4500 already so you could probably argue that the upper level should be the same.

[BurnieM]

When suggesting options you have to be careful that one of the options IS NOT 'shut down The Oaks'.

 

It seems to me that the relationship between Hobart anad Hobart Cambridge is similar with a common CTAF.

How does this work ? Can anybody comment ?

 

[skippydiesel]

12 minutes ago, aro said:

It's all within D552 (Flying Training) up to 4500 already so you could probably argue that the upper level should be the same.

Are you suggesting transiting aircraft, not below 4500 ft?

The "ceiling" over The Oaks is 7500 ft however just to the east its 4500 ft - it would be near impossible for aircraft to descend to 1800 ft, for entry to Camden airspace ie they would still be down around 3000 ft over The Oaks.😈

[BurnieM]

Departing upwind Camden 24 goes almost exactly over the The Oaks

as does long final for 06

 

Removing The Oaks (THK) reporting point probably does not change a lot.

 

Edited March 27 by BurnieM

[BurnieM]

Camden ground height 230 ft AMSL

The Oaks ground height 879 ft AMSL

 

In order to climb above The Oaks circuit height (lets say 1500 ft AGL at The Oaks)

879 + 1500 = 2379 ft AMSL

Height to climb from Camden to above The Oaks circuit  - 2379 - 230 = 2149 ft to climb

6.8 NM from Camden reference point to The Oaks.

Lets subtract 1 NM for The Oaks circuit - 6.8 - 1 = 5.8 NM

 

Departing upwind 24 at 100 Kt you have 3.5 minutes to climb 2149 ft

(or 4.4 minutes at 80kt)

 

Edited March 27 by BurnieM

[aro]

16 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

The "ceiling" over The Oaks is 7500 ft however just to the east its 4500 ft - it would be near impossible for aircraft to descend to 1800 ft, for entry to Camden airspace ie they would still be down around 3000 ft over The Oaks.

From the chart, it looks like they could go 8 miles north to Mayfield or 6 miles south to Picton. Get rid of The Oaks as an approach point.

[BurnieM]

You are still stuck with the Camden 24/06 runway orientation.

This is the longest and only sealed runway at Camden.

 

[kgwilson]

This is an issue that is there due to the rules around RA where RA pilots do not have access to CTR. If they did then Camden CTR could include the Oaks & everyone would be on the same frequency.

 

A similar situation is at Blenheim in NZ where the main RPT (& also a minor military presence) Airport (Woodbourne) & the recreational, gliding & sport pilot aerodrome (Omaka) are only 5km apart & at the same altitude. On arrival you contact the tower & they clear you to enter the circuit & report back when on the ground. You must get a clearance for takeoff & departure from ATC. I've flown in there a number of times & it works well & there is a lot of activity as well. I think it is still the same. The difference is that all RA aircraft are on the same register & RA pilots must have a CTR endorsement & I assume a transponder. If RA finally gets access to CTR (30 years later than the rest of the world) then this problem would go away.

 

[aro]

9 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

6.8 NM from Camden reference point to The Oaks.

Lets subtract 1 NM for The Oaks circuit - 6.8 - 1 = 5.8 NM

 

Departing upwind 24 at 100 Kt you have 3.5 minutes to climb 2149 ft

Most aircraft operating at Camden have ailerons. Somewhere in that 6.8 miles they could include a turn.

 

24 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

Departing upwind Camden 24 goes almost exactly over the The Oaks

as does long final for 06

6.8 miles is a loooooong final - stretching the definition a bit.

[BurnieM]

Ok stretching it a bit.

At YSHL I have heard 20 NM long finals from RPT aircraft.

 

Just trying to paint a picture of the relationship between Camden and The Oaks for those unfamiliar with this area.

 

[aro]

There's an instrument approach, if I read it correctly it's about 2250' in the vicinity of The Oaks, depending how far from the field you measure it. I assume aircraft flying the approach should be talking to ATC who can hopefully see traffic at The Oaks if they have a transponder.

[skippydiesel]

"..........ATC who can hopefully see traffic at The Oaks if they have a transponder"

 

Most (all?) do, although not a requirement.

 

I know that Sydney Control monitor aircraft on  "instruments" and have experince of hearing aircraft on  converging course/altitude being warned by Sydney. Does not seem to be foolproof as THE INCIDENT illustrates. Could Sydney have been "blanked" by terrain? 😈

[skippydiesel]

Thanks for all the responses.

 

Unfortunatly no one (including myself) seem to have a solution for the lack of good airmanship exhibited by so many Camden GA pilots.

 

Is this just a Camden culture or is it more widespread???

 

I used to fly out of Camden, in the distant past, when it was still owned by us the people (Feds)I recall a good community atmosphere.

A more recent, 2 month, experince - hard to say but I had the impression that much of the past community atmosphere may have evaporated.

 

Could there be a general loss of pilot discipline/courtesy, with the privatisation of the field and greater pressure for financial viability?😈

 

Edited March 28 by skippydiesel

[walrus]

Skippy: "Unfortunatly no one (including myself) seem to have a solution for the lack of good airmanship exhibited by so many Camden GA pilots."

 

With respect NO!

 

Either explicitly or implicitly, there is a mental hierarchy in communications in that communication rules are governed by the airspace class. Camden traffic would expect the Oaks users to inform them of their activity, on the applicable Camden frequency, not the other way around.

 

Do you expect every inbound A380 to announce its arrival on the Penliegh or Riddells ck frequency?

 

Where does it say that RA traffic cannot communicate with GA traffic?

 

Edited Sunday at 06:58 AM by walrus