Mid-air collision near Moorabbin airport

[motzartmerv]

Yep, all good stuff fella's (and ladies)...

 

pelerous, no mate, i wasn't confusing HPD's post with yours regarding breakups..

 

The following is a cut paste job from a thread entitled "close call at camden"

 

From High planes drifter,

 

"Motza, there seems to be a lot of near miss' reported lately - in my 20 odd years of Ultralight and spam can flying I have rarely heard of it... strange.

 

From what I recall, there has only been one mid air fatality in Ultralights - thats about .05% of total fatalities (half of one percent)

 

Now, when we have Billion dollar ADSB contracts floating around, we suddenly get a flurry of mid air incidents reported."

 

Thats the post i was referring to.. oh, he was only talking about ultralights.. silly me..

 

cheers

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Yep, all good stuff fella's (and ladies)...pelerous, no mate, i wasn't confusing HPD's post with yours regarding breakups..

The following is a cut paste job from a thread entitled "close call at camden"

 

From High planes drifter,

 

"Motza, there seems to be a lot of near miss' reported lately - in my 20 odd years of Ultralight and spam can flying I have rarely heard of it... strange.

 

From what I recall, there has only been one mid air fatality in Ultralights - thats about .05% of total fatalities (half of one percent)

 

Now, when we have Billion dollar ADSB contracts floating around, we suddenly get a flurry of mid air incidents reported."

 

Thats the post i was referring to.. oh, he was only talking about ultralights.. silly me..

...and your piont motzartmerv ?

 

Edit; I get it - so you think ADSB would of saved the day eh Motza ? do tell how it would of worked in this situation, I'm interested to know.

 

 

[BLA82]

HPD think about this

 

I personally believe this thread has been handled extremely well. We have highlighted some issues without laying any blame and that is absolutely fantastic and the way that these types of threads should go. It all comes down simply to the words that are used in the post and it is so obvious that that has gone into almost all posts here in this thread before the submit button was pressed - after all these years I really think we are on to something here that differentiates us from the gutter posting in other forums.THANK YOU!

We finnaly get it right and you post more comments aimed personally at people, lets just keep it objective:off topic:

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

HPD think about this

 

We finnaly get it right and you post more comments aimed personally at people, lets just keep it objective

BLA82, perhaps you would like to re-read the thread - I am replying to an attack on myself.

 

And thinking about it BLA82, It seems you are determined to single me out as well ?

 

 

 

[BLA82]

BLA82, perhaps you would like to re-read the thread - I am replying to an attack on myself. And thinking about it BLA82, It seems you are determined to single me out as well ?

 

No HPD I don't worry about personally atacking people, I am not trying to single you out, your doing that all by yourself:thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Interesting BLA82. I have re-read this thread a couple of times.

 

Here are my first two posts again -

 

Probably best to wait and see what the ATSB find before we engage in speculation.

 

and

 

Yeah, ... I'm yet to learn anything of value from this thread, though I guess there will be some experts who will tell me exactly what the problem was

 

I think my comments are fair and reasonable - Considering how many posters to this forum critizise the media for writing/speculating incorectly on aircraft acciedents.

 

My third post to this thread was an attempt to be concilitory - aparently all it did was to embolden some.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

HPD please take right foot from mouth before trying to fit left foot in….

Flyer, best tell me what was wrong with my posts :)

 

 

[Ben Longden]

My thoughts;

 

First up; My condolences to the family, relatives and mates of the pilot and to all the crew at the RVAC.

 

Secondly; Moorabin Airport was there looooong before any housing.

 

Thirdly; Lets give the guys from the ATSB room to move and figure out what went on.

 

Fourthly; I still would rather fly than drive. Its a lot safer in the sky than on the roads.

 

Ben

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Ok..ok..setttle down fella's..

 

HPD, i wasn't saying a thing about ADSB.. you said earlier that you don't recall saying midairs are so rare they don't factor in, so i cut and pasted YOUR comments from another thread to remind you that you indeed did post comments belittling the reporting of midairs as some sort of hype for the ADSB..

 

Again, i didn't mention ADSB in my post, the only mention of it was in YOUR post..Remember now??

 

And now that you mention it, Yes, in my opinion ADSB may have prevented this accident..

 

A collision happened didn't it, thats not speculation, its fact, look at the pics.. The ADSB is an anticollision device is it not??does this make me an avionics salesman?? does this make me an anti ultralight crusader?? of course not..

 

Was your question serious, or an attempt to draw me out into discussion on your pet hate??...if so, it appears you have succeded..

 

Lets just remember a young man lost his life, im quite unhappy that this thread has deteriorated into what it is now, and appolagise for the part in this that ive played..

 

Mate, i think what you said in PM was a valid point, why not contribute that and other things like it instead of jumping in and stirring the pot with comments like "i am yet to learn a single thing from this thread"..your obviously one of the most experianced guys on this forum, and well learned in all things aviation, why not offer something constructive instead of jumping on people??

 

with all respect...

 

cheers

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

HPD, i wasn't saying a thing about ADSB.. you said earlier that you don't recall saying midairs are so rare they don't factor in, so i cut and pasted YOUR comments from another thread to remind you that you indeed did post comments belittling the reporting of midairs as some sort of hype for the ADSB..Again, i didn't mention ADSB in my post, the only mention of it was in YOUR post..Remember now??

 

And now that you mention it, Yes, in my opinion ADSB may have prevented this accident..

 

A collision happened didn't it, thats not speculation, its fact, look at the pics.. The ADSB is an anticollision device is it not??does this make me an avionics salesman?? does this make me an anti ultralight crusader?? of course not..

 

Was your question serious, or an attempt to draw me out into discussion on your pet hate??...if so, it appears you have succeded..

 

Lets just remember a young man lost his life, im quite unhappy that this thread has deteriorated into what it is now, and appolagise for the part in this that ive played..

 

Mate, i think what you said in PM was a valid point, why not contribute that and other things like it instead of jumping in and stirring the pot with comments like "i am yet to learn a single thing from this thread"..your obviously one of the most experianced guys on this forum, and well learned in all things aviation, why not offer something constructive instead of jumping on people??

I see I'm being miss-quoted in parts.

 

..."an attempt to draw me out into discussion"... motzartmerv, you did the cut and past of the bits YOU wanted bought into this thread - bit disingeneous 'mate'

 

I have no intention of discusing the thread starter acciedent as such until I have a aciedent report to work with.

 

Seems me having a concern for the family and friends of the pilot involved in the thread starter incident are grounds to be attacked in this forum

 

 

[motzartmerv]

'Mate' who's attacking you??...The bits i cut and pasted were in response to YOUR denial of ever saying midairs are insignificant (in number)

 

quote from High Planes Drifter

 

"Seems me having a concern for the family and friends of the pilot involved in the thread starter incident are grounds to be attacked in this forum "

 

Ive read and re-read your post's...all of them...and not once did you express any concern or compasion for those involved.. even the so called 'speculators' offered some words of condolance towards the poor guy and his friends..and yet we are attacking you for your concern for the victim?? what concern?? if you have any, you havn't expressed it, only saying lets wait for the report , and, you havn't learned anything from the thread.. wow man, what magnificent expressions of concern,,,

 

keep it real MATE.thumb_down

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

The bits i cut and pasted were in response to YOUR denial of ever saying midairs are insignificant

Motzartmerv, those comments were not in this thread until you introduced it.

 

Here are my first two posts again -

 

Probably best to wait and see what the ATSB find before we engage in speculation.

 

and

 

Yeah, ... I'm yet to learn anything of value from this thread, though I guess there will be some experts who will tell me exactly what the problem was.

 

...Ive read and re-read your post's...all of them...and not once did you express any concern or compasion for those involved.. even the so called 'speculators' offered some words of condolance towards the poor guy and his friends...

Motza, If you bothered to read any of my posts in other accident related threads you would plainly see the reason for my concerns ...Do I have to spell it out, every-single-post ???

 

 

[motzartmerv]

other threads?? you were complaining about being attacked in this one and i was mearly pointing out 1 possible reason..

 

so you've expressed enough "concern" in other threads to make any more "concern" giving beneath you for this particular thread and this particular unfortunate victim?? why post anything ever again then.. we will all just assume your incredible concern carries to victims and there families for all future incidents..(which could be any of us) almost every other poster on this thread has also expressed concern and condolances on other threads. it appears spelling it out is not beneath some..

 

 

[BLA82]

Motzartmerv, those comments were not in this thread until you introduced it.

Here are my first two posts again -

 

Probably best to wait and see what the ATSB find before we engage in speculation.

 

and

 

Yeah, ... I'm yet to learn anything of value from this thread, though I guess there will be some experts who will tell me exactly what the problem was

 

Motza, If you bothered to read any of my posts in other accident related threads you would plainly see the reason for my concerns ...Do I have to spell it out, every-single-post ???

HPD Build a bridge and get over it, someone has lost their life lets feel sorry for them. Your ego is irrelevant and we don't want to hear your wining anymore. Lets get back to the topic!!!

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Great.

 

Come home from a great night soaking up some "cultcha" and find this. I too was impressed at the way things were being handled earlier. We have been trying to lighten up on the moderation to see how it goes. The answer seems to be :- badly.

 

As stated often, the main rule is "no personal attacks". And this in a thread about a terrible accident. Where's the respect?

 

Let there be no more posts about who said what, or there will be mass deletions and sin binning.

 

 

[Flyer]

HPD, I've removed the reference to you in my post. I was having a joke but given the way this thread has swung I can see you aren't in the mood.

 

It was in reference to something somebody else said and it was no more than a throw away line.

 

I wont do it again.....

 

 

[facthunter]

How quickly it can change..

 

Thanks starti, Look fella's whilst I enjoy a good stoush, it's too easy to get into selected quotes and over-reactions for perceived (or real) put-downs. A lot of the responses are unnecessary as IF you waited a while , you would cool off and often you will see your own response as an over-reaction.

 

Also , give the rest of us out here a bit of credit for not being all that stupid and we can make up our own minds, for ourselves, on the worth (or otherwise) of your contribution.

 

The one and perhaps the only thing that I have become "concerned' about on occasions only is when obviously MY post, and those of some others, has NOT been READ carefully, and a very wrong conclusion has been arrived at. I am always happy to take responsibility for what I write ( and apologise for it's obvious inadequacy on occasions ) but I have difficulty with answering criticism for some thing that YOU THOUGHT I wrote.

 

What I am trying to say, is , the written word especially in the context of "LIVE" forums has great potential for going "off the rails". We see it all the time in other places don't we?

 

Isn't it a fundamental fact, that the other person has a right to his/her opinion .Now it is easy to SAY this without really meaning it at all. Only by force of argument involving logic and facts should we engage and convince the others.

 

The best quote I ever saw on a Church Billboard was" MUD THROWN, IS GROUND LOST" Nev..

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Apart from the less savoury parts of this thread, three factors worth pilots being aware of have been repeatedly stated. There is a fourth and far more important one that we MUST ALL be constantly aware of.

 

There is no speculation or opinion on this - it is clear fact and a lot of quotes have been given on it in this thread. It is the power of media reporting influencing public opinion and in consequence political reaction.

 

It is a simple numbers game: Three journos have the power to stir up three million people. Pollies look at the consequent perception that they are not keeping the masses from harm adequately enough and can/will stamp on three thousand pilots who can proportionately do them less harm in an election.

 

If we do not give the journos aviation accident/incidents to write about then all remains quiet and calm. That is not going to happen so for our very freedoms it is essential that all of us attempt to minimise the occurrance.

 

Forums such as this (if handled responsibly and with decorum) have a major part to play in education awareness. Increased levels of awareness sharpen us up and will reduce the accident/incidence rate in consequence.

 

So really it is up to ourselves in the first instance because it is ourselves that cause the accidents. There is that rather hackneyed saying that "those who fail to learn the lessons of the past condemn themselves to repeat them". You cannot do that if you do not know about them or be able to extract value discussion from what does happen.

 

Without wishing to go off topic it is worth outlining two examples of end-game consequences.

 

HPD has very real and reasonable concerns regarding ADSB - something that has the clear potential to wipe out recreational flying totally if the system is mandated. There is no future in putting $25,000 of gear in a $5000 rec. aircraft - it is just not going to happen!

 

ADSB would appear to be a reaction to making 'flying safer' because pilots are perceived as not being capable of making it safe enough.

 

Conversely, the HORSCOTs report of the early 1980s resulted from an appalling and escalting accident record that was politically unsustainable. With input from our own industry we emerged with an entirely new and viable ultralight movement and some of the most enlightened aviation legislation in the world!

 

Our future is in our own hands and the highest level of accident awareness we can obtain can only assist in securing that future. Let us reflect that by our conduct on this forum.

 

Tony

 

 

[Flyer]

How true Tony,couldn't agree more, especially about the sheep being stirred up by the uninformed sensationalising media leading to kneejerk reactions by a dropkick of politicians.....:confused:

 

 

[vk3auu]

I'm not too sure that ADSB will be a lot of assistance at busy places like Moorabin and Bankstown because the damn thing will be going off all the time. It is basically designed to stop the big boys from running into one another and they get much greater separation distances than smaller GA are used to. Someone tell me if I am wrong. We would be better off with FLARM.

 

David

 

 

[Mazda]

ADS-B would not have helped. There are a lot of misconceptions about it.

 

First, there are two ADS-Bs. "In" and "out". The planned proposal gives ADS-B "out" only for GA. That means neither one of these two aircraft would have traffic on each other. They'd need ADS-B "in" for that.

 

Even if they did have "in", there is no audio warning, no "climb" etc. Just traffic on a screen. And in the circuit having heads down looking at a screen might even lead to more problems.

 

 

[skybum]

ADS-B is just another transponder...At a cost of $25,000???...I do not think so. Mis-information like this is unwarranted, Tony! You are no different to the media in this regard.

 

This accident has happened in a highly regulated PROCEDURAL airspace. Electronic surveillance doesn't work well in the busy circuit area of a GAAP.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Mazda, i didn't know that about the ADSB in and out thing..so whats the point of it then, so the big ones don't run into the small ones... sorta sounds like something already out there and operating...TCAS... who the hell cooked this one one up??:hittinghead:

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Mazda, i didn't know that about the ADSB in and out thing..so whats the point of it then, so the big ones don't run into the small ones... sorta sounds like something already out there and operating...TCAS... who the hell cooked this one one up??:hittinghead:

Merv,

 

I'm going to have a crack at this one. Here's the simple answer: The SSR units are getting old, starting to break down and it's getting difficult to get parts. The solution?

 

1. Implement ADSB-Out;
    
    
   
2. Replace expensive en-route SSR units with cheap ADSB ground stations;
    
    
   
3. Use the parts thus freed up to keep the terminal area SSR units running for longer.
    
    
   

 

 

That's not opinion that's what Airservices say they are doing.

 

ADSB as others have pointed out comes in two main flavours - ADSB-Out and ADSB-In which by default is both out and in. The key parts of the system are a xpndr, and a GNSS receiver. The xpndr must be 1090 Extended Squitter capable. Oh that's the other thing - ADSB ain't ADSB! There are a number of "standards" and as one might guess the US in their low airspace have chosen a different standard to almost everyone else. That has the unfortunate effect of meaning that "cheap" mass produced units to the standard that we are using (1090ES) are not going to come along any time soon.

 

In addition to the other kit ADSB-In needs a 1090ES receiver and a CTID - Cockpit Traffic Information Display. Again don't think Garmin 495 or something simple and useful like that. The Garmin 495 uses TIS and TIS needs a specific ground station and no there aren't going to be any of those in Australia.

 

BTW 1090ES is the ICAO recommended standard and is used extensively around the world - it is just not going to be used in US lower airspace as far as we know.

 

So what Airservices wants is ADSB-Out - that tells them where you are but doesn't tell you anything. Just like a xpndr as we know it now. If you want traffic info then you need to cough up for ADSB-In, that's much more interesting. In the case of ADSB-Out I think in reality we will be looking at sub-$5K and maybe sub-$4K. For ADSB-In think around $7-10K ultimately in our kind of aircraft.

 

Want ADSB-In now? It will cost you a bucketload. ADSB-Out is not much better presently.

 

For an interesting analogy Google "AIS" which is the maritime equivalent and which has been mandated by IMO for some time now.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest Ken deVos]

ADS-B is just another transponder...At a cost of $25,000???...I do not think so. Mis-information like this is unwarranted, Tony! You are no different to the media in this regard.This accident has happened in a highly regulated PROCEDURAL airspace. Electronic surveillance doesn't work well in the busy circuit area of a GAAP.

I'm unsure of GAAP procedures, so please correct me if wrong.

 

My understanding is that transponders are in standby mode for circuit opps, but Charlie is required for inbound/outbound. Is this correct?