turboplanner Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Another of life's little hazards seems to be becoming more prevalent. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/tighter-regulations-mooted-after-unmanned-runaway-aircraft-comes-dangerously-close-to-moorabbin-airport/story-fngnvmhm-1226647726645 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chird65 Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Another of life's little hazards seems to be becoming more prevalent.http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/tighter-regulations-mooted-after-unmanned-runaway-aircraft-comes-dangerously-close-to-moorabbin-airport/story-fngnvmhm-1226647726645 I wonder how a X-Tail airshp would be safer. me thinks they said an X-Plane model of the airship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 That the airport/tower was difficult to contact is of the most concern isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 That the airport/tower was difficult to contact is of the most concern isn't it? I've never had any trouble calling them up, 118.1 or 123.0 will do it, never tried on the phone though. It would be pretty worrying to have something like that drift through Melbourne CTA , turned out alright but,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 I've never had any trouble calling them up, 118.1 or 123.0 will do it, never tried on the phone though. ,, I was refering to people on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 I was refering to people on the ground. Yeh I know, just being a smart a55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted May 26, 2013 Author Share Posted May 26, 2013 I've never had any trouble calling them up, 118.1 or 123.0 will do it, never tried on the phone though. It would be pretty worrying to have something like that drift through Melbourne CTA , turned out alright but,,,, Finding a phone number for the tower is not easy these days if you are in a hurry; the old AIRFLASH PRIORITY CALL died many years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spriteah Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Reads of someone has way too much money to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted May 26, 2013 Author Share Posted May 26, 2013 It looked to me like a Government Department with a "crew" like that, but hard to know if it was a UAV which got out of radio range with neutral controls or a balloon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 This is an unforseen problem when you ban guns that would have been a simple solution 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying dog Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Ok, the village idiot here..... How does being able to contact the "tower" benefit anyone when a "runaway aircraft" is the problem? Be it manned or otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 I suppose the tower can alert others FD They would have the best idea where aircraft were and the only ones with authority to direct people. ( I think X tail has rudder and pitch control) You can contact the tower in a simulator by flying straight at it. Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying dog Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Um, Ok, so if a pilot sees it why couldn't he alert other planes in the area? If the "blimp" is heading for CTA, go to the area frequency and advice "centre" of the risk? That pilot would have the best concept of what is going on rather than telling a thrid party to get something done. Is it we are becoming like the americans and can't actually do things ourselves unless we are directed to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted May 29, 2013 Author Share Posted May 29, 2013 Ok, so if a pilot sees it why couldn't he alert other planes in the area?If the "blimp" is heading for CTA, go to the area frequency and advice "centre" of the risk? Good point although at 1900 feet it might be hard to see against the ground further out. The problem is that most people on the ground or in the air may not realise anything wrong. It was the people controlling it who had the most urgent need to make contact, and that's where the difficulty comes in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 The pilot could , and should alert other planes . The tower has the authority to require planes to do one thing or another in the interests of safety. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying dog Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Good point although at 1900 feet it might be hard to see against the ground further out.The problem is that most people on the ground or in the air may not realise anything wrong. It was the people controlling it who had the most urgent need to make contact, and that's where the difficulty comes in. Yeah, so the people "controlling" it... (or more so in this case NOT controlling it). But I am still not seeing where/how the tower comes in to the equation. They - the people (not) controlling it - would/should have aviation radios and the like. So if they "lost control" of it, they can just as easily broadcast a warning to pilots in the area. I'll go and put my head in the hole where it has been for a while now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying dog Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Ok, quickly indulging the idea "they" need to contact the tower. They can't/the tower doesn't answer. After only a couple of tries, "they" should have called Melbourne traffic control and advised them. Obviously I am really missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 The fact it was out of control was only really an issue if it entered airspace. Contacting center would have been a good idea, but remember center dont give you traffic "generally" when VFR, so as far as they were concerned it was another aircraft doing random manouvres. The issue would be to IFR acft or to acft inside CTA, ie Moorabbin. Its interesting that they weren't able to contact the tower, I would have thought that being so close to airspace they would have had some idea what they were doing and givin the tower a courtesy call before launching, and establishing contact at least. Im not familiar with the airspace down there but I would also assume there are Danger areas depicted on the maps which indicate places that "un manned aerial vehicle testing" might take place?. There are a couple out west of Wollongong that we are aware of.Al beit they are rarely used. Our airfield has been used to test a "drone" on several occasions and the guys doing it are normally up to speed on all the rules etc and we take it pretty seriously, all the planes out of the air etc. We dont Notam it but we do monitor the area and local CTAF freq's and give all the transiting acft the heads up. The story above seems to me to be an amateurish show. Im not sure how the rules relate to giving calls on VHF with no licence, on the ground etc. OPerhaps they dont accomodate for this type of thing yet, I would not be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted May 29, 2013 Share Posted May 29, 2013 Another of life's little hazards seems to be becoming more prevalent.http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/tighter-regulations-mooted-after-unmanned-runaway-aircraft-comes-dangerously-close-to-moorabbin-airport/story-fngnvmhm-1226647726645 If that was the United States, they would have scrambled six F-15s and shot it down five minutes after being reported. Where were the RAAF's hornets? Unless it was ASIC who was operating this? This part sounds a bit mysterious to me: "Mr O'Malley said the airship's operator, which has not been revealed, ..." Why was this not published? one may ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted May 29, 2013 Author Share Posted May 29, 2013 Perhaps that's in the long arm of the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now