Collision at Tyabb

[motzartmerv]

With an incident posted in another thread relating to a near miss that highlighted the radio calls as a contributing factor, a bit of research found this which happend just last week. :

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-205.aspx

 

A J160 and a 152 had contact in flight. Its early days for the investigation and thankfully nobody was hurt.

 

It appears that an over transmission 'may' have played a part.

 

Without stirring the pot, there is cause for a bit of a look at radio procedures being taught and used at some airfields.

 

In another thread a pilot explained that he was shocked that nobody seemed to hear his, downwind, base, and (2) final calls. Car 166 spells out the 'required' use of radio calls. Im wondering if too many calls is still causing problems. I recall that too many calls was one strong reason the regs were changed.

 

What are we teaching? What are you learning? Im interested to know. One thing ive learned is that different airfields seem to have different radio 'culture'. Some seem to give a detailed breakfast , lunch and dinner menu, while others are more reserved with their calls..Some no existent.

 

I personally prefer less calls, rather than more. A turning base with intentions call as a ' default' call for want of a better phrase as a minimum?

 

The other point I think that will be raised by this accident is the fact that two pilots failed to see each other in time to avoid the collision. Its easy to say "why the hell didnt the 152 see the jab" but as usual, there is obviously more to it then that. For instance, a glide approach with no flap puts the attitude quite high and once beyond a certain point on the approach, rendering the visibility of the threshold non existant. So dont lay the boot in just yet..:)

 

Thank heavens nobody was hurt!!!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

that's a close call, could have ended a lot worse. always need to look hard for that plane coming into land, their not easy to spot some days.

 

 

[facthunter]

Look more than once and really LOOK. You eyes behave strangely at times as the brain fills in gaps. CASA did a good article on it . It should be part of your human factors material. Nev

 

 

[Bandit12]

There is also some great literature about eyewitness accounts that would be useful in human factors - backing up the brain's ability to fill those gaps in what is/was being seen.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Without stirring the pot, there is cause for a bit of a look at radio procedures being taught and used at some airfields.

I wouldn't even think of calling it stirring the pot - radio procedures in both GA and RA have fallen into an appalling state and the party deserving the most blame in my opinion is CASA for degrading one our major senses over the years by constant changes fir minute gains at best, and loss of the original safety reason at best.

 

Someone somewhere in the last 30 years came up with a conclusion that we take in information 70% with our eyes and 30% with our ears, and that may have been behind the thinking of our air authorities over the years, but if you only just look at the proximity incidents which make it to the ATSB, it's easy to see it's just a matter of time before one of these incidents will carry all the way through and take down a heavy aircraft with passengers.

 

 

[Camel]

In 2003 there was the National airspace reform which changed a unique Australian aviation practice which was giving a position and intention broadcast when entering a new area frequency and any conflicting traffic would respond, since that they have introduced multicom, got rid of MBZ, got rid of GAAP, made circuit broadcast to every leg and now replaced by CAAP 166 to only entering CTAF, joining a circuit or entering a runway and taxi as mandatory.

 

They pushed the see and avoid and now the reality to be safe in some places you need at least two radios to know what is going on. The changes since 2003 have not all been good the best in my opinion was multicom, flight follow doesn't seem to work or get used as there is no radar coverage, ADSB was meant to be all go in 2008, flight watch seems to have been degraded.

 

So my point is all the big ideas to make Australian airspace like USA has failed because we don't have radar coverage and has made a mess of our system.

 

Name Changes don't help, Traffic-All stations. GAAP- class D, CTAF R-MBZ -CTAF lic or reg, Restricted - R1,R2,R3.

 

If all was put back prior 2003 and give us multicom I would be happy.

 

See and avoid only works when you get a clue on the radio where traffic may be found and scan at that place if there is too much radio information it becomes difficult to monitor and respond, short calls give conflicting traffic enough info to respond with more info. I have experienced pilots talking so much that I needed to get a broadcast out and wasn't able to in time.

 

The Airservices seminars I went to in 2003 the Air Traffic controllers who hosted these knew the problems and were scared, they said keep broadcasting like before as you will never get punished for broadcasting on area frequency, people seem scared to broadcast on area frequency and compared to the old days it's quite on there in most places.

 

 

[Powerin]

I was taught to make radio calls on every leg and it seems to be the culture at YSWG. The RPT boys and girls especially like to know where everyone is and will try, from at least 20 miles out, to get a picture of where everybody is going to be when they join the cct, or more often land straight in and often on the reciprocal to the active runway.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

That's interesting pow. Thanx:) I personally do t think they need that many calls to keep the picture . 2 or 3 planes in the cct will just be a constant rabble of calls and could have the opposite effect. And really Increase the risk of missed calls or over transmitted calls. Just my personal opinion :)