Garfly

Absolutely, and Senator Xenophon's concluding points make it clear how widespread the industry's disdain for the Mandarins was and, pretty much, remains: 1.22 Ultimately, this inquiry has exposed serious and significant flaws in Australia's aviation safety systems. The general industry attitude towards both the ATSB and CASA is incredibly concerning; it is a mixture of fear, suspicion, disappointment and derision. 1.23 It is my view that CASA, under Mr McCormick, has become a regulatory bully that appears to take any action available to ensure its own shortcomings are not made public. This poses great risks to aviation safety, and the safety of the travelling public. Equally, the ATSB—which should fearlessly expose any shortcomings on the part of CASA and other organisations to improve aviation safety—has become institutionally timid and appears to lack the strength to perform its role adequately. Both agencies require a complete overhaul, and I believe it is only luck that their ineptness has not resulted in further deaths so far. There is an urgent need for an Inspector-General of Aviation Safety, entirely independent of the Minister and his department, to be a watchdog for these agencies. 1.24 In the end, this report raises many questions. But if we wish to bring about change and improve aviation safety, we will clearly need to look beyond our inept regulators and ask: who will guard the guards themselves? Senator Nick Xenophon Independent Senator for South Australia May 2013 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed_inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/report/d01

Yes, I totally agree that the system is biased so that, in the end, it's mostly the pilot who's to blame. Which is why, in my view, we end up with endless reams of barely decipherable NOTAMs, all of which, we're, nevertheless, obliged to absorb in every last detail before we take-off. (And I note that the NTSB quite agrees with me ;- ) Anyway, I'd be happy to substitute "aviation officialdom" for "regulators" in regard to the ATSB's long lasting campaign to push for CDTI. But, in any case, CASA has been just as keen. They're the ones who (surprisingly, I thought) were quick to facilitate the approval process for conspicuity devices as part of the system. And, I don't believe either organisation is playing games when it comes to this issue. (I can't say the same for ASA, though, with its loopy Class E proposals.) In the end, the regulators are regulated by Parliament. And the Nick Xenophon Senate Enquiry into the Pel-Air ditching was a case where the government actually did its oversight job on behalf of the pilot and of justice. And in that case the ATSB and CASA stood together in the dock. "Additional Comments by Senator Nick Xenophon Who guards the guards themselves? 1.1 I would like to acknowledge the many submitters to this inquiry, and in particular the individuals who were involved in the incident itself. Their information and testimonies were invaluable to the committee and I appreciate their contributions, particularly in light of how distressing it was for them to relive the accident. 1.2 As the committee states, this inquiry was not an attempt to re-examine the circumstances of the ditching of Pel-Air VH-NGA, or to conduct an aviation accident investigation. Instead, it focussed on the reporting standards and activities of the ATSB and CASA in relation to the ditching, and general governance, transparency and accountability issues. 1.3 However, what is clear from this inquiry is that, while the pilot of the flight did make some erroneous decisions, he essentially became a scapegoat for serious regulatory failures on the part of CASA and the ATSB. // ..... " https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed_inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/report/d01

Basic research might lead to this ATSB safety report from April 1991: A few excerpts: "The see-and-avoid principle serves a number of important functions in the Australian air traffic system. However, while it undoubtedly prevents many collisions, the principle is far from reliable. The limitations of the see-and-avoid concept demand attention because increases in air traffic may impose an accelerating level of strain on see-and-avoid and other aspects of the air traffic system." "Perhaps the most damning evidence against see-and-avoid comes from recent trials carried out by John Andrews in the United States which have confirmed that even motivated pilots frequently fail to sight conflicting traffic." "See-and-avoid has been described as a maritime concept originally developed for slow moving ships which is now out of place in an era of high speed aviation (Marthinsen 1989)." "The Americans, having recognised the limitations of the concept, are looking to other methods such as the automated airborne collision avoidance system (TCAS) to ensure traffic separation." Sounds like a warning to me. see_and_avoid_report_print.pdf

Say what? Better we spend our 'basic research' time on History and Social Psychology to explain why we humans tend to cling to principles and dogma beyond their obvious use-by date - not to mention countless other unforced group-think errors. I don't catch your drift. Yes and no. Nobody can transmit 1090 Mhz signals without government approval [ADSB-OUT] Anyone can receive/display such signals. The liberty to have either IN or OUT on board would be meaningless if your likely 'collidees' had neither. Our regulators are not the problem here. They have been warning against relying on "see and avoid" for at least 30 years.

This is the video the ATSB posted to accompany its "cockpit visibility study", a follow up to it's Mangalore final report: And the still image below is from a series used to illustrate the limitations of "see and avoid" in this case. It shows the 13-seconds-to-crash view from the Left Seat Pilot's perspective. In fact there'd been some clouds about - making it worse - but this imagery uses CAVOK for a best-case outlook. The lower left section shows what a standard CDTI (cockpit traffic display) would have shown the pilots had one been installed. The yellow text is the aural warning that such a system would have provided at that point (not the first warning, BTW; aural or visual ). CLICK THUMBNAIL TO EXPAND: A Sky Echo2 type conspicuity device would have displayed the threat differently - on a tablet device - but, in the ATSB's view would likely have served the same collision-avoidance purpose. Anyway, there's lots more detail in the actual report https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2022/aair/as-2022-001

This is a follow-up study by the ATSB into the "see and be seen" implications of the Mangalore accident. Feel the exasperation. It seems the lag to fear most is the one due to ideological inertia. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2022/aair/as-2022-001 What the ATSB found The study found that the pilots of both aircraft were unlikely to have acquired the other aircraft visually due to meteorological factors, aircraft closing speed and shielding of the opposing aircraft by cockpit structure with 2 of the 4 pilots likely having the opposing aircraft shielded from their view at key moments. The ATSB analysis indicated that even in clear conditions, more favourable to visual acquisition, the closing speed and shielding by the aircraft structure would have limited opportunities to acquire the other aircraft. Neither accident aircraft was equipped with ADS-B IN systems. The study shows that had the aircraft been equipped with this technology the pilots would have been alerted to the position of the other aircraft much earlier than by visual acquisition. Both a cockpit display of traffic information with an ADS-B traffic alerting system or an electronic conspicuity device connected to an electronic flight bag application could have provided this. // ...

Aro, I don't notice the lag you speak of, other than with internet based displays, of course [as opposed to ship to ship systems - including SE2]. Even from the ground, I can see the target turn as soon as the aircraft in sight does. [I suppose there's some delay, even with radio TX/RX.] Anyway, with the accident we're discussing here, there were, what?, twenty long seconds wherein a quick scan - in either cockpit - might have done the job. And yes, normally, in the circuit we are 95% eyes outside - sometimes pre-alerted, sometimes not. Still, we spare a second or two for the ASI, the fuel pump, hatches, harnesses ,Ts&Ps, fuel quantity and, depending, maybe even a second or two for a traffic display. After all, we're aware of how many times one aircraft has descended, oblivious, onto another on final - after having been converging for a good half minute or so. I'd guess that any road user with some miles under the belt can recall times when that last-second, double-check of a side mirror has saved them swapping paint with a fellow traveler - mere inches away. I don't see a big diff. BTW I think that it's in the circuit that aural traffic alerts might be distracting and more trouble than they're worth. (Nothing's quicker at getting 'the picture' than the visual cortex ;- )

Who's talking about "working from a screen" or "separation standards" (whatever they may be in this context)? It's about habitually glancing at a screen - as at mirrors in our cars - and avoiding mid-airs using real time imagery, whenever 'seeing' and chatting cannot cope. What's really tempting is to put your faith in the bigness of the sky. We can't see through metal and we can't see behind without using "gadgets" of some kind. There's a reason the US went for (pretty much) universal ADSB/CDTI take-up. An exasperated ATSB must be close to recommending we do the same.

Precisely! ... or this airport. I'm pretty sure the final report of this accident will say again what was said of the tragic Mangalore midair (where again, both involved PICs were experienced instructors); that even quite affordable, readily available tablet based CDTI gear (cockpit display of traffic information) could well have averted this accident. How long will the "strictly eyes-outside-the-cockpit " principle stand in the way of so obvious a safety improvement? (Cue image of pax frantically tapping shoulder of pilot peering out ahead.) It's a kind of mindless ideology lag at the core of the problem. Look how long it took for the safety benefits of GPS tech to be accepted - and finally embraced (well, by most, anyway). It took a good generation or more. That's human factors of the group-think variety! ATSB MANGALORE.pdf

Yep, "Utopia" ain't the half of it.

No, not always. And yes, definitely. Turn back to airport in a Tripe? "Let's face it. Our planes are not great gliders." Re: Turn back to airport in a Tripe? https://www.shortwingpipers.org/forum/showthread.php?12704-Turn-back-to-airport-in-a-Tripe Yes, but very few C172 captains turned up in full dress uniform.

Well, the Tripe seems to have been the bee's-knees for charter biz back then. Just ask mini chauffeur and First-Officer Muldoon of Executive Air Transport. [Click thumbnail for full size.]

On YT: "Now that GAMI's G100UL is fully approved and awaiting distribution, owners are hearing questions about how unleaded fuel might cause valve damage in aircraft engines. It was once a thing in car engines, but in this video, AVweb's Paul Bertorelli examines the issues and finds valve seat recession an unlikely consequence of using unleaded aviation fuel" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovJBJjZTjsk

Ha, ha, nice image. But, drift, per se, isn't a problem; the catching of it, though, sometimes is.

Oh, yeah, I think most would agree with that. By making it almost impossible to get lost GPS/EFBs have taken much of the sport out of air navigation. The plus side is that the anxiety around getting lost has also gone, so you can better enjoy the other aspects of flying y'self around. But the OP's question was not about having the max fun from flying but how to efficiently complete an ASA/NAIPS flight plan when the necessary waypoint designators were hard to find. First off, I'd have thought you'd have been the last person to suggest that what CASA requires is a reliable measure of common sense. ;- ) And second, CASA does not require you to carry paper if you have EFB charts. I reckon the wise pilot would have to answer "well that depends". But the legendary wise pilot (if he/she remains so mid crisis) is not going to rely on any single 'system' if he/she can help it. You'd be a fool to entirely trust your compass, too. Or even your watch. (Much less those many numbers you had so much fun jotting down the previous night.) 😉

OME, if you'd shout yourself one of those newfangled EFBs, every aeronautical chart for the whole country would be at your fingertips. And they'd be current. You'd not have to sweat lat/long bullets to manage the simple task of finding BODD / Boddington. hkaneshiro your question was a good one and good answers have already been posted above: OzRwys (or AvPlan) is your friend. All the waypoints you mentioned are immediately apparent when you turn on the appropriate layer. (No need of the permanent clutter that'd be necessary on paper.) And they will appear (on demand) on every chart-type in the system - WACs, VNCs, VTCs etc. Of course, there are way more WPs available than are shown in the plan samples below - the others have been cleaned up (by deselecting the layer). Also, such a plan can be formatted for NAIPS and then submitted from the device with a just few clicks. As you'd well know, the EFB is way, way more than "a quick reference source of navigational information whilst in flight." CLICK THUMBNAIL FOR FULL REZ.

Very interesting Mike! Looking forward to further reports. That solid one-piece undercarriage member is very impressive. The U-bolted individual legs of the earlier Rangers never did inspire a lot of confidence (though they seem to work ;- )

So, it seems like this new Microair is the first available low cost solution to having a proper transponder, i.e enabling an RAAus aircraft to operate in Class E and, presumably, if the time ever comes, to enter and/or transit Class C & D? Is that right?

https://shop.raa.asn.au/co-gas-alarm

What fact am I to check? That a Forbes journalist - in fact - once wrote that the Wrights were, at a certain time, "obsessed with secrecy". You want me to check that fact? FACT CHECK: It's online. I supplied the link. It's there. Go read it. Or do you want me to personally research and "check" whether there was any justification for that journalist to publish such an opinion in their article in the first place? Well, that writer - and that journal - has no need of any defence from me; but if they did, I could offer nothing better than continuing their quote from where I left off: "Chanute urged the brothers to try for some of the aviation prizes that were being offered for flights of specified times and distances, which would have established their dominance in the public's mind. They refused. "We would have to expose our machine more or less, and that might interfere with the sale of our secrets," they wrote to a friend in January 1906. "We appreciate the honor and the prestige that would come with the winning of a prize...but we can hardly afford at the present time to jeopardize our other interests in doing it." In my opinion, that is fact enough on which anyone might reasonably base such an opinion. Anyway, it's hardly even a criticism of the Wrights. The article universalises their dilemma (which is what makes it a good piece of writing); anyone in the Wrights' shoes would have had to decide whether it was better to reveal or to hide their experiments during that delicate phase of development. It was clear to all that a lot was at stake. And finally, I would remind you that my links to those 3 articles was prefaced with: "Yeah, Capt. Google turns up heaps of interesting versions of that story" Truth be told, I don't really care who is credited with inventing the aeroplane. But being accused of spreading false news, that's something I care about.

It's great to see old Arthur walk and talk:

OME, I reckon Tooraweenah's airport, as a kind of living/working historical monument, is a bit like the one at Old Bar, NSW. Take a look at the various monuments etc that the town has erected to its airport - they are clearly proud of it and keen that it keeps going as a working strip. They even got it Heritage listed. I'd be happy to make that case in an email if you think it would work. If you click on these thumbnails, hopefully the texts will be readable.

That's what I thought, and why I posted it. As you say, much about flying is still not appreciated by a lot. IMHO by the time they've learned to walk all children have Newtonian physics sussed out, at least to the level they'll need when they learn to fly. Actually as they try to copy birds they'll need to unlearn a lot of it, otherwise they're likely to pull-back to save their 'fall'. It's not that Newton was wrong (on that score, anyway) it's just that 'book learning' and instinct are not team players.