Jabiru and Jetstar near miss by 600ft

[aro]

41 minutes ago, Garfly said:

AFAIK,  AvPlan and OzRwys only display 'traffic' from their own (participating) users.

Avplan definitely displays most ADSB traffic, plus traffic from glider networks.

 

I was giving OzRunways the benefit of the doubt, but if it doesn't I think that is a deficiency.

[Garfly]

Hi Aro, I found this just now on the AvPlan site, is there something I'm not getting?

 

"AvPlan EFB supports pretty much every ADSB-in device, except those made by Garmin. With an attached ADSB-in receiver, AvPlan EFB will accurately depict every ADSB-out equipped aircraft within a wide radius of your location." 

https://www.avplan-efb.com/avplan/traffic-displays/#:~:text=AvPlan EFB supports pretty much,in Australia since February 2017.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by Garfly

[aro]

Yes, Avplan will display most ADSB traffic without a any ADSB in receiver. Here is a screenshot from a few minutes ago. I don't think all these aircraft are actively using Avplan:

 

Traffic received from the servers is in blue, traffic from an ADSB-in device is green. The ADSB-in device usually gives a slightly more recent picture - I would guess between 10-30 seconds.

 

Avplan actually shows more traffic than e.g. FlightRadar24, because FlightRadar24 filters out police etc. traffic.

[Old Koreelah]

2 hours ago, aro said:

…However, the information received via the internet does have a delay. I also have an ADSB receiver, and sometimes I see the same traffic in 2 places. It can sometimes be several miles difference for fast aircraft.

We need some smart person to write a clear, simple guide explaining how these traffic systems work and their limitations.

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

3 hours ago, aro said:

If you are relying on the "clear of cloud" provisions below 3000' (rather than the cloud clearances required above 3000') you are required to have a radio and be on the appropriate frequency.

What about if you are in a tiger moth with no electrical system? (Not a rhetorical question.)   

[APenNameAndThatA]

IMHO, they should keep RPT traffic above 3500 feet if they are not within 10 miles of an airport. Furthermore, if there are VFR corridors printed on VFR maps then there could be IFR corridors printed on VFR maps, too. The corridors could start at 6000, and change pattern at 3000, and people to interpolate to work out where the RPT traffic would be. Of course, greater minds than mine would have thought about this.   

[Garfly]

2 hours ago, aro said:

Yes, Avplan will display most ADSB traffic without a any ADSB in receiver. Here is a screenshot from a few minutes ago. I

Thanks for the info, Aro.  I finally found this page on the AvPlan blog which explains the current EFB  "traffic" display situation.  It also urges us to lobby OzRwys to have them pool their user data so that both platforms' [cell based] info would be available to all.  Anyway, the closer we get to universal ADSB IN-OUT, the more the cell based method will become obsolete. 

 

https://www.avplan-efb.com/avplan/traffic-displays/

[Garfly]

1 hour ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

IMHO, they should keep RPT traffic above 3500 feet if they are not within 10 miles of an airport // ... Of course, greater minds than mine would have thought about this.   

LOL, if not greater minds (hardly) - nor humbler opinions (ditto) - we might, at least, expect that minds of experience; ones having an actual grasp of aviation realities, have thought about this.     ;- )

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by Garfly

[turboplanner]

4 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

We need some smart person to write a clear, simple guide explaining how these traffic systems work and their limitations.

 

Or better still, follow the rules we are required to fly by; a maverick, non-standard piece of electronic gear not approved for Australia, is not going to help you after a collision.

[Garfly]

 

 

Turbs, I don't know what "maverick" stuff you're referring to, but SkyEcho2 electronic gear - merely glanced at - would likely have prevented the Mangalore accident and averted the Ballina airprox incident. 

 

Which might be why they are not only approved for Australia but 'strongly encouraged' by the aviation authorities. Must we wait for it to become sanctified as a Rule for the obvious safety message to be accepted? 

 

From the ATSB Mangalore report:

 

"The ATSB also strongly encourages the fitment of ADS-B transmitting, receiving and display devices as they significantly assist the identification and avoidance of conflicting traffic. The continuous positional information that ADS-B provides can highlight a developing situation many minutes before it becomes hazardous – a significant improvement on both point-in-time radio traffic advice and ‘see-and-avoid’. The ATSB also notes that ADS-B receivers, suitable for use on aircraft operating under both the instrument or visual flight rules, are currently available within Australia at low cost and can be used in aircraft without any additional regulatory approval or expense." 

ao-2020-012-final-3.pdf

Edited April 1, 2022 by Garfly

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Garfly said:

 

 

Turbs, I don't know what "maverick" stuff you're referring to, but SkyEcho2 electronic gear - merely glanced at - would likely have prevented the Mangalore accident and averted the Ballina airprox incident. 

 

Which might be why they are not only approved for Australia but 'strongly encouraged' by the aviation authorities. Must we wait for it to become sanctified as a Rule for the obvious safety message to be accepted? 

 

From the ATSB Mangalore report:

 

"The ATSB also strongly encourages the fitment of ADS-B transmitting, receiving and display devices as they significantly assist the identification and avoidance of conflicting traffic. The continuous positional information that ADS-B provides can highlight a developing situation many minutes before it becomes hazardous – a significant improvement on both point-in-time radio traffic advice and ‘see-and-avoid’. The ATSB also notes that ADS-B receivers, suitable for use on aircraft operating under both the instrument or visual flight rules, are currently available within Australia at low cost and can be used in aircraft without any additional regulatory approval or expense." 

ao-2020-012-final-3.pdf 4.33 MB · 0 downloads

What counts after a crash is what each pilot was required to do. The rest is just talk.

[kgwilson]

15 hours ago, Garfly said:

But kg, wouldn't that be at the cost of RAAus aircraft being excluded from Ballina altogether?  Would you be happy with that?

What do you think about the official measures already taken to obviate repetition (The Ballina SFIS, 15 nm Broadcast Area etc.)

 

See AIP SUP doc attached.

BALLINA B'CAST ZONE.pdf 999.71 kB · 3 downloads

I have a PPL so could go there anyway. BUT I do not have a transponder. I didn't install one as I thought (wrongly) that technology would have overtaken this WW2 invention by now & I was keeping weight & cost down.

 

CASA is the problem, 100%.

 

When I came here in 2005 I was totally oblivious to the poor relationship between the Aviation sector and the regulator. RA in NZ have had access to CTR for at least 20 years. There is a CTR endorsement to the RA Pilot certificate for access and the aircraft must be fitted with a transponder. There are more aircraft per head of population in NZ than Australia and a lot of controlled airspace in a small area, far more compact than here.

 

The system is logical and simple and I do not know of any problems at all. Back in the early 2000s we had lots of RA aircraft flying in from airstrips all around Hamilton & the Waikato to fill up with Avgas from the aero club bowser. Even then there were half a dozen 737 flights a day & 2 internationals plus other propellor RPT, GA & Commercial traffic. Add to this a British based flight training school, CTC with 40 Diamonds & the aero clubs 4 training aircraft & it was pretty busy.

 

I knew all the controllers personally as the tower was 25 metres from the clubhouse & they used to have a beer at the club bar. Back then control was all with tickets & racks with binoculars for visuals. it worked.

 

Ballina needs a tower, inland and seaward victor lanes should be established, RA need access to CTR and all this kerfuffle would be history. There is a good precedent. Just look over the ditch.

Edited April 1, 2022 by kgwilson

[Ian]

15 hours ago, Garfly said:

AFAIK,  AvPlan and OzRwys only display 'traffic' from their own (participating) users.

Although devices like SkyEcho2 can of course be set up to display on the EFB map screens.

The key issue associated with most collisions is visibility. Radio calls are for visibility both current state and future actions but they're a pretty blunt instrument, you only need to review the number of errors and retransmits of radio calls. There is opportunity, capability and moral imperative to increase visibility to ensure safety.

All EFB type services with Internet connectivity should be required to log to a central Government which in turn provides a feed an integrated feed or the current state in real time, rather than to their own fragmented proprietary systems.

The value of networks inherently relates to the number of participants, fragmenting them reduces their value. Imagine if your mobile phone could only call people on the same network as your provider.

In terms of the timeliness of the information GPS systems get their time from atomic clocks so temporal accuracy is easy. From a transactional level there's not that much information, even single instances of spatial systems can scale to hundreds of thousands of transactions per second which should cater to the Australian concurrent traffic demand well into the future.

The bottom line is that this would cost a fraction of the cost of towered airspace and provide greater benefit.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by Ian
typo

[kiwiaviator]

11 hours ago, Garfly said:

Thanks for the info, Aro.  I finally found this page on the AvPlan blog which explains the current EFB  "traffic" display situation.  It also urges us to lobby OzRwys to have them pool their user data so that both platforms' [cell based] info would be available to all.  Anyway, the closer we get to universal ADSB IN-OUT, the more the cell based method will become obsolete. 

 

https://www.avplan-efb.com/avplan/traffic-displays/

I have started using Avtraffic https://avtraffic.com/ as another tool. The thing I love about it is that it works with the main EFB's, uses pooled ADSB data, shows FLARM traffic, and best of all gives effective audible traffic alerts in my BT headset. That allows me to keep my vision outside where it belongs. I would strongly encourage everyone to invest $20/yr for this product. Downside is needing an active internet connection however most high density traffic areas have this.

[Garfly]

35 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

What counts after a crash is what each pilot was required to do. The rest is just talk.

Okay, so you've nothing to say about the the contradiction between your 'maverick electronic gear' position and ATSB's 'strong encouragement' of the use of that gear, for safety's sake. 

And you scarcely acknowledge the obvious fact that ADSB gear is all about preventing accidents not the fascinating task of investigating what people had been "required to do" before they died. 

 

Just talk, eh?  Yeah, right.  Just talk.

 

 

 

[Ian]

8 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Or better still, follow the rules we are required to fly by; a maverick, non-standard piece of electronic gear not approved for Australia, is not going to help you after a collision.

The key message is that the existing controls based upon humans and radio calls are inherently weak and do lead to accidents.

ATSB is making it clear that they acknowledge this deficit and that existing measures should be upgraded.

Technologies such as ADSB provide significantly improved situational awareness to all parties reducing the likelihood of accidents.

 

However the weakness of this approach is that not all parties have these devices and in the interim alternative approaches should be considered.  

 

 

[Garfly]

1 hour ago, Ian said:

The key issue associated with most collisions is visibility. Radio calls are for visibility both current state and future actions but they're a pretty blunt instrument, you only need to review the number of errors and retransmits of radio calls. There is opportunity, capability and moral imperative to increase visibility to ensure safety.

All EFB type services with Internet connectivity should be required to log to a central Government which in turn provides a feed an integrated feed or the current state in real time, rather than to their own fragmented proprietary systems.

The value of networks inherently relates to the number of participants, fragmenting them reduces their value. Imagine if your mobile phone could only call people on the same network as your provider.

In terms of the timeliness of the information GPS systems get their time from atomic clocks so temporal accuracy is easy. From a transactional level there's not that much information, even single instances of spatial systems can scale to hundreds of thousands of transactions per second which should cater to the Australian concurrent traffic demand well into the future.

The bottom line is that this would cost a fraction of the cost of towered airspace and provide greater benefit.

 

 

Ian, I agree that the EFB providers should be firmly encouraged (if not coerced) to share their participating users' data.

 

On the other hand, I think that with affordable ADSB gear (soon to be govt. subsidised?) we're in the process of leap-frogging those various cell network solutions. After all,  ADSB data is instantaneous, needs no network and operates aircraft to aircraft, anywhere.  Even an IN-only set up will display all nearby commercial flights (and an ever growing number of amateur ones).

 

But, yes, in the interim, a combination display (ADSB, plus cell etc. - which the EFBs already manage) is what we need. And that should be optimised, so OzRwys please pool your stuff with AvPlan, at least until ADSB is effectively universal.  And that situation might eventually be enshrined as L.A.W - Law.

 

Just, as now, drivers are required to have - and use - rear/side-view mirrors (whilst, at the same time, attending to the world outside the windscreen). Amazing what humans are capable of.

Edited April 2, 2022 by Garfly

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Garfly said:

Okay, so you've nothing to say about the the contradiction between your 'maverick electronic gear' position and ATSB's 'strong encouragement' of the use of that gear, for safety's sake. 

And you scarcely acknowledge the obvious fact that ADSB gear is all about preventing accidents not the fascinating task of investigating what people had been "required to do" before they died. 

 

Just talk, eh?  Yeah, right.  Just talk.

 

 

 

No, just what happens after you've collided. It's far from just talk.

[Garfly]

2 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

No, just what happens after you've collided. It's far from just talk.

Turbs, I'm really interested in engaging you in discussion on this but your obscure one liners give me nothing to get hold of.

 

Not a bad tactic, I guess   ;- )

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Ian said:

The key message is that the existing controls based upon humans and radio calls are inherently weak and do lead to accidents.

ATSB is making it clear that they acknowledge this deficit and that existing measures should be upgraded.

Technologies such as ADSB provide significantly improved situational awareness to all parties reducing the likelihood of accidents.

 

However the weakness of this approach is that not all parties have these devices and in the interim alternative approaches should be considered.  

 

 

Part of the issue is that the exceptions which allow recreational flying were based on those people, having just come out of the paddocks and under 300', staying away from busy airports, and have drifted into the current areas they fly today informally. The extreme ends are send them back out again or make them pay the same cost as GA. This is a safety area, so a Go/No Go area legally, so while an affordable solution is the goal, they can't offer an alternative that's non-compliant.

[onetrack]

The bottom line is, the eyeball Mk 1 and the human attached to it is extremely fallible, and nowhere near as competent as good quality electronic devices.

In every MAC report, the investigators include reams of paragraphs about the major limitations of "see and avoid".

 

In every MAC crash report, especially the ones in clear visibility conditions, there is always the lines that the pilots did not see the other aircraft, despite often looking for it.

Add in a bit of piloting casualness with regard to precisely and quickly establishing the whereabouts of the other aircraft, that is potentially on a collision course, and you've got the recipe for an MAC.

 

Add in the problems of a descending aircraft that is going through constant and steady altitude changes - then add in aircraft that have decided to change their heading without communication advice - then add in missed calls because of cockpit workload, or because of radio transmissions made at the same time - then you have outstanding potential for an MAC.

 

Remember that missed critical radio transmissions, or interference with critical radio transmissions have featured very large in some of the worlds worst air disasters - including Tenerife.

Accordingly, any reliable electronic anti-collision device you can add to your aircraft, has to vastly reduce your chances of having an MAC, due to all of the above. 

 

Even relying on radar and ATC has its limitations, as described in the Mangalore crash. When regularly competent 10,000hr and 20,000hr pilots and instructors die in MAC's, because they had no reliable electronic guidance, it shows up the fallibility of human control of aircraft over MAC potential.

[Garfly]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Part of the issue is that the exceptions which allow recreational flying were based on those people, having just come out of the paddocks and under 300', staying away from busy airports, and have drifted into the current areas they fly today informally. The extreme ends are send them back out again or make them pay the same cost as GA. This is a safety area, so a Go/No Go area legally, so while an affordable solution is the goal, they can't offer an alternative that's non-compliant.

Of course, Recreational has merged with GA over the years.

GA even have a recreational licence now.

But so what?  This is not about the past it's about the present and the future.

As Thruster88 said earlier in this thread:

 

"I will have adsb in and out in my $5k thruster tomorrow for the Parkes flyin, should be able to avoid flying in front of the RPT😎"

 

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2022 by Garfly

[Thruster88]

Ended up taking the RV with the same cheap gear, traffic was light. Radio and a screen gives very good situational awareness. As they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

6 hours ago, turboplanner said:

What counts after a crash is what each pilot was required to do. The rest is just 

[Love to fly]

On 01/04/2022 at 7:18 PM, Garfly said:

AFAIK,  AvPlan and OzRwys only display 'traffic' from their own (participating) users.

Although devices like SkyEcho2 can of course be set up to display on the EFB map screens.

 

 

 

AvPlan natively (without SkyEcho or similar) shows ADSB traffic from ground receivers. So its fairly effective.  You can of course add a Sky Echo to make it ADSB out etc.
"In 2013 we introduced the first ADSB-in capability into AvPlan EFB and in 2015 introduced AvPlan Live which expanded this to include other AvPlan EFB users. In 2018 AvPlan Live traffic was expanded to include data via a network of ground based receives to show some ADSB and FLARM traffic as well."