Mid-air collision at Caboolture - 28/07/2023

[Roscoe]

On 29/7/2023 at 2:17 PM, spacesailor said:

Same thing happens at the Oaks.

Landing ' Camden ' aircraft over fly the Oaks runway. 

Trainees are told to keep their heads down & never go hight than the circuit hight . 

spacesailor

Sorry thats rubbish!

Take a look at the VFR Charts for the notation that describes the procedure for overfly not below 2500ft.

CCT Alt at the Oaks is 1900ft.

Where did this info come from??

[Kyle Communications]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

There are nesting issues

If SPA had used the into wind runway it wouldn't have mattered about EVR

If EVR hadn't turned down his radio perhaps he wouldn't have crossed the runway

Aircraft taxying for the into wind runway should have been expected etc.

Who had the obligation to give way to the right etc.

Different weightings at different phases.

 

Regardless of what runway was being used. Crossing 06/24 to get to 11/29 you are required to STOP before the crossover and look. Not necessary for any radio call of crossing but the requirement like any runway crossing anywhere is to STOP and look. The radio is a secondary input

[turboplanner]

16 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

Regardless of what runway was being used. Crossing 06/24 to get to 11/29 you are required to STOP before the crossover and look. Not necessary for any radio call of crossing but the requirement like any runway crossing anywhere is to STOP and look. The radio is a secondary input

I take it he didn’t stop. They’re some of the things ATSB would be going through.

[Kyle Communications]

No he didnt stop and just went straight across as the pawnee was touching down. The Pawnee would have expected him to stop so elected to do a go around after just touching down..which is what I would have done I think..as usually thats what I was taught .

[Kyle Communications]

When in doubt go around

 

[aro]

The student pilot is a red herring.

 

The tug pilot said he was going to stop before the crossing runway, which would have been clear of both the taxying and departing aircraft. The problem with that is that it's a gamble that you won't have to go around, for any reason. The taxying aircraft wasn't a problem, the conflict was with the departing aircraft.

 

Maybe we need to recognize that LAHSO style operations are a bad idea at GA/uncontrolled airports.

 

I know it's pretty common to end flight reviews by pulling the power on downwind for a glide approach to the cross runway, with a broadcast that we will stop before the intersection. It isn't meaningfully coordinated with the traffic on the other runway in case of a go around. Maybe that's a risk that we shouldn't be taking.

[derekliston]

I never turn the radio down. In fact I use an airband receiver to hear what is happening before I start the engine. We only have a single runway at Warwick but in calm or 90° crosswind conditions that still gives the possibiy of conflict. I often hear traffic, in particular gliders, call landing short or landing long, but I’m a wussy pilot, I don’t go until I know I’m clear! The biggest concern nowadays is traffic not using radio, which I have said many times before. I know there is no requirement if they don’t hear radio traffic, but it only takes two pilots with the same mindset for conflict to exist!

[RFguy]

59 minutes ago, aro said:

I know it's pretty common to end flight reviews by pulling the power on downwind for a glide approach to the cross runway, with a broadcast that we will stop before the intersection. It isn't meaningfully coordinated with the traffic on the other runway in case of a go around. Maybe that's a risk that we shouldn't be taking.

I'll not unusual for me to land (full stop)  on the cross at my home aerodrome  -  Cowra (grass) WITH  another landing for a full stop on the main at the other end which is about 1km from the RWY  intersection....but ! that's with good radio comms, (IE it has been coordinated)  and with other experienced (5000hour+) pilots of  aircraft that I know personally .  it's easy to pull up my plane 200m before the intersection on the grass-, and the other guy can pull up their plane 600m BEFORE the intersection ,  that's easy peasy- so I think horses for courses......the other pilot in the other plane knows the potential complications.  I do not think it is hazardous unless BOTH of us have to go around..... which said situation would be highly unlikely.  But I wouldnt do it somewhere I didnt know. 

Now if you add a third plane in there that hasnt got good comms and / or a complete handle on everything, then that becomes a hazard for sure. 

Edited September 10, 2023 by RFguy

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, Roscoe said:

Sorry thats rubbish!

Take a look at the VFR Charts for the notation that describes the procedure for overfly not below 2500ft.

CCT Alt at the Oaks is 1900ft.

Where did this info come from??

Not sure what he is getting at - I fly out of The Oaks.

 

You are correct regarding the charts, circuit height  and the minimum overfly altitude BUT it is not uncommon to have aircraft overly (particularly those inbound to Camden) below this altitude.

 

As I see it, Camden Tower will instruct (amongst other things) the inbound aircraft to maintain heading and altitude not below 1800ft  - way too many pilots, anticipate this instruction and are already on decent to 1800ft thus entering The Oaks "airspace".

 

Adding to this, is the likelihood that the Camden in bound aircraft is on Tower frequency 120.1 & Sydney Centre area frequency 124.55 not on /  monitoring / overflying call The Oaks 126.7

[Roscoe]

8 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Not sure what he is getting at - I fly out of The Oaks.

 

You are correct regarding the charts, circuit height  and the minimum overfly altitude BUT it is not uncommon to have aircraft overly (particularly those inbound to Camden) below this altitude.

 

As I see it, Camden Tower will instruct (amongst other things) the inbound aircraft to maintain heading and altitude not below 1800ft  - way too many pilots, anticipate this instruction and are already on decent to 1800ft thus entering The Oaks "airspace".

 

Adding to this, is the likelihood that the Camden in bound aircraft is on Tower frequency 120.1 & Sydney Centre area frequency 124.55 not on /  monitoring / overflying call The Oaks 126.7

It was more the comment about TRAINEES INSTRUCTED  TO KEEP HEADS DOWN and DONT GO ABOVE CCT ALT that stirred me up!

[Roscoe]

5 minutes ago, Roscoe said:

It was more the comment about TRAINEES INSTRUCTED  TO KEEP HEADS DOWN and DONT GO ABOVE CCT ALT that stirred me up!

Not difficult to descend fron 2500ft to 1800ft from the Oaks inbound to Camden……anyway, off topic, discussion is about different circumstances at another Airport

[Kyle Communications]

1 hour ago, aro said:

The student pilot is a red herring.

 

The tug pilot said he was going to stop before the crossing runway, which would have been clear of both the taxying and departing aircraft. The problem with that is that it's a gamble that you won't have to go around, for any reason. The taxying aircraft wasn't a problem, the conflict was with the departing aircraft.

 

Maybe we need to recognize that LAHSO style operations are a bad idea at GA/uncontrolled airports.

 

I know it's pretty common to end flight reviews by pulling the power on downwind for a glide approach to the cross runway, with a broadcast that we will stop before the intersection. It isn't meaningfully coordinated with the traffic on the other runway in case of a go around. Maybe that's a risk that we shouldn't be taking.

No its not a red herring it is the start of the distaster..its the bit that triggered it. The pawnee may have called he was going to stop short but it looked like he was going to land a bit further than what he had planned. You MUST STOP at the crossover regardless It is in the ops manual and also just common sense. I have the benefit of seeing all the video and reviewing it many times as I had to recover it and send it to the coroners evidence folder and the ATSB.

[turboplanner]

22 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

No its not a red herring it is the start of the distaster..its the bit that triggered it. The pawnee may have called he was going to stop short but it looked like he was going to land a bit further than what he had planned. You MUST STOP at the crossover regardless It is in the ops manual and also just common sense. I have the benefit of seeing all the video and reviewing it many times as I had to recover it and send it to the coroners evidence folder and the ATSB.

You also must use the into-wind runway. The Pawnee shouldn't have been there.

[kgwilson]

I still don't know why anyone would turn the radio volume down to do a runup. Even with ANR you will still have some (even if only minor) engine noise and anyway you are looking for RPM drop and if the engine runs rough at runup you will feel this. I'd really like to know the reason for doing it. There are holes beginning to align with decision making and communications but the proverbial straw is the Cessna taxiing across the runway intersection without communicating this intention and the crash happens as a consequence of this. 

[facthunter]

I don't think this investigation is finalised and I'm a bit uncomfortable about making conclusions HERE.Nev.

[Garfly]

 

Midair collision involving Jabiru J430, VH-EDJ, and Piper PA-25-235, VH-SPA, Caboolture Airfield, Queensland, on 28 July 2023 | ATSB

WWW.ATSB.GOV.AU

 

 

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

I find it extraordinary that;

• Its down to the airfield owner to "mandate departure calls" - This is as a result of the communication pendulum swinging to far from its earlier regulated call regime, to one that is at the pilots discretion. The Jab pilot may not have broken any rules/regulations, under the current discretionary communication regime but certainly displayed a failure of airmanship which was the primary (not only)  cause of the  incident. The authorities, are at fault here - need to wined back the relaxation of communication requirements to something not as regimented as the past but giving more guidance than it does today.
• The ATSB/CASA are removing references to the use of the term "active runway" Yea Gads WHY??? This is a useful term that departing/landing/inbound pilots use to describe the runway in use. A pilot disregarding the current active runway does so at considerable risk to one & all. While its the PIC's prerogative to decide on a TO/Landing direction, it behoves the PIC choosing not to conform to current traffic movement,  to alert all active aircraft as to his/her intentions.

It would seem, from the video, that CASA/ATSB are seeking to distance themselves from any responsibility in this communication failure.😈

[Thruster88]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I find it extraordinary that;

 

 The Jab pilot may not have broken any rules/regulations, under the current discretionary communication regime but certainly displayed a failure of airmanship which was the primary (not only)  cause of the  incident. 

I believe the jab pilot held a ATPL casa licence. It is far more likely that the radio simply failed.

 

I have a friends aircraft at my farm atm, the radio worked perfectly until suddenly it failed to transmit or receive.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

He was a A380 check captain..and of course we know how reliable the radios used in Jabs are. There are plenty of threads about them

[dan3111]

4 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I find it extraordinary that;

• Its down to the airfield owner to "mandate departure calls" - This is as a result of the communication pendulum swinging to far from its earlier regulated call regime, to one that is at the pilots discretion. The Jab pilot may not have broken any rules/regulations, under the current discretionary communication regime but certainly displayed a failure of airmanship which was the primary (not only)  cause of the  incident. The authorities, are at fault here - need to wined back the relaxation of communication requirements to something not as regimented as the past but giving more guidance than it does today.
• The ATSB/CASA are removing references to the use of the term "active runway" Yea Gads WHY??? This is a useful term that departing/landing/inbound pilots use to describe the runway in use. A pilot disregarding the current active runway does so at considerable risk to one & all. While its the PIC's prerogative to decide on a TO/Landing direction, it behoves the PIC choosing not to conform to current traffic movement,  to alert all active aircraft as to his/her intentions.

It would seem, from the video, that CASA/ATSB are seeking to distance themselves from any responsibility in this communication failure.😈

I think it’s a bit unfair to blame all on  the jab pilot ,as anyone that has flown the same scenario on the same field would see the challenges of the jab pilot faced. He taxied to the furthest possible holding point from the hangers to take off. To conform with  most of the traffic of the day was using that runway he was taxing to . The area  Radio frequency is shared by three local  airfields calls often get missed or talking over the top of . You have to ask why the procedure has changed now .  Casa wouldn’t allow Caboolture to have our own radio frequency for the airfield.with high traffic 6 flying schools and over 100 aircraft based there .  

[skippydiesel]

Thruster/Kyle,

 

Recently at The Oaks; A many thousands of hours ex airline pilot/instructor, conducting a final (?) check ride for a CPL student (many hours/) in a C180, failed to broadcast/monitor our CTAF. This communication failure, for whatever reason, combined with them being within our circuit, opposite direction to Active runaway,  resulted in a mid air with a Jab - All three pilots died needlessly.

 

You may speculate to your hearts content, as to the failure to communicate (wrong frequency/radio failure/etc) the fact remains, communication failed with fatal consequence.

 

I know nothing of Caboolture however(from the video)  there are similarities with The Oaks & both incidence - Failure of;

• Airport management to establish published rules about when a runway direction is preferred .
• Camden bound/departing aircraft to respect/communicate with The Oaks CTAF.
• Of some Oaks pilots to use the Active, when its more convenient (shorter taxi) to Take-Off/Land down wind

Good communication (in/out) is one of the cornerstones of air safety & pilot responsibility.

 

IF?? the Caboolture Jab radio had a problem why did the pilot continue with the Take-Off.  

IF??? 06 was the "Active " runway why was the Jab pilot using runway 11??

IF??? 11 was the Active why was the Tug using 06??

 

While both the Jab & Tug pilots were within their rights to declare which runway they preferred to use, this privilege comes with the requirement for good communication, to minimise the chances of an incident. 

 

😈

 

[kgwilson]

Aviation is littered with scenarios that should never have happened, many when all the procedures and communications were carried out correctly. CASA uses a lot that ended up as near misses as case studies in the hope that we can learn from them. While we continue to learn and hopefully reduce the likelihood of such events, we will never eliminate them. 

 

Every now and again, against all odds the holes in the proverbial Swiss cheese will align and we will go through the process all over again.

[skippydiesel]

11 hours ago, kgwilson said:

Aviation is littered with scenarios that should never have happened, many when all the procedures and communications were carried out correctly. CASA uses a lot that ended up as near misses as case studies in the hope that we can learn from them. While we continue to learn and hopefully reduce the likelihood of such events, we will never eliminate them. 

 

Every now and again, against all odds the holes in the proverbial Swiss cheese will align and we will go through the process all over again.

My point is that the requirement for communication, has been watered down, by CASA, to a ridiculously low level.

 

While communication alone will not "fix" every potentially dangerous situation, it goes a long way to informing pilots as an aid to making the safe decision.

 

The, at pilot discretion, communication we have now, is just a recipe for on going disasters. Pilots rely on known standards/actions - its called consistency. There can be little/no consistency in placing the essential tool of communication, at the discretion of pilots - some degree of standardisation need to be brought back.😈

[Kyle Communications]

David was a very experienced pilot. The big problem with the Microair is that when it fails and this is the most common failure mode I have seen with them is that they "appear" to be working perfectly but in actual fact they dont. They are working but not on the correct frequency. They head off around 148 mhz but they still transmit and receive. The only real way to confirm is ask for a radio check BEFORE takeoff or while running up then you can be reasonably sure its working. I am not sure the if the later versions of the radio this issue has been solved as I wont look at them anymore. The dual runway operation was always a bone of contention with quite a few of us at YCAB but thats another story that wont be discussed here

[skippydiesel]

Kyle,

 

Do you know the radio failed or are you speculating?

 

"The dual runway operation was always a bone of contention..."

 

As it should be - "The ATSB/CASA are removing references to the use of the term "active runway" ..." IF YCAB had a known "Active" this incident may not have happened with or without communication between the two aircraft.

 

What is stopping the owner from designating a preferred runway ?? Given the poor visibility (trees) from one threshold to the next, would this not be a sensible safety precaution???😈