Garfly

Yet you can spread tonnes of Super all day long up and down countless acres and not for a second take your mind off the job. Go figure! ;- )

Yes, I reckon that'd be the case, SP but in that post I was referring to an Archerfield near-miss story in the latest Flight Safety Australia mag: https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2023/03/too-close-for-comfort/

That's quite an interesting case. Yeah, there'd be a lot of (competing) thoughts running through any such pilot's head - whether to pull or not, the big red handle. But destruction of the plane ain't likely to be one of them. Even sans insurance. Anyway, there's no guarantee that wheels running on paddock or backroad would do less damage. Cirrus have their reasons for urging the big pull when in doubt. For myself, the question of whether that nicely installed - but untested - BRS in the Skyranger will actually work if called upon, does prey on my mind, a bit. Which is why one reason for hitting the silk early would be in case it doesn't work; there still might be time to set up for a conventional forced arrival. (Which is how it turned out in this case above.) Another, issue would be: do I really want to end up hanging from my straps - after an otherwise okay forced landing - with a powerful explosive right by my head, now on a half-pulled, hair-trigger? For that reason (all else being deemed equal) it may be better to eliminate that danger - to self, pax and first responders - by giving the rocket it's head, aloft, and returning to earth hands free and happy. On the other hand, if the landing did appear pretty straightforward on a nice piece of flat earth then it'd be real tempting to avoid becoming famous on the evening news and the "Aircraft Incidents and Accidents" forum. In any case, I doubt that a serious consideration would be whether or not my chosen way would be deemed 'chute-worthy' by a jury of my (remote) peers. ;- )

And remembered to this day, 75 years on, in Nundle.

Without one, the choice is easy. With one, it can get complicated.

Flying Harry of Iceland rides his Nynja to a Fly-in at BIEG (Egilsstaður) over on the east coast. And takes part in a local Skyranger family reunion ;- )

This got me to wondering what the industry standards were in that regard. I found these tidbits interesting: https://www.ifr-magazine.com/training-sims/flight-traffic-displays/ "TCAS is the touchstone that all systems reference. It interrogates surrounding transponders much like ATC secondary surveillance radar. The system must have a 14-mile range, but most extend to 40." So the range of our SE2s is not so shabby, after all; at least in their primary (air-to-air) role and at our relatively leisurely closure rates. Regarding Traffic Advisory standards: "Proximate traffic is within six miles and 1200 feet, but not a threat. TAs and RAs are based on a closest point of approach (CPA) based on time. (Provisions exist for slow closure rates.) An aircraft with a CPA of 20-48 seconds sets off a TA, with higher altitudes yielding the longer times. A target with a 15-35 second CPA sets off an RA in TCAS II." And regarding CDTI (Cockpit Displays of Traffic Information) standards when TCAS info is combined with that of ADSB et al: "TCAS, TAS, and TCAD follow the same display scheme. TIS adds a vector showing an aircraft’s ground track in 45 degree increments. ADS-B mixes things up. Traffic display standards for ADS-B traffic relay directional information by using an arrowhead symbol in either white or cyan. An altitude climbing or descending arrow, a directional vector line extending from the point of the arrowhead, and call sign are also shown for ADS-B Out traffic. Non-ADS-B craft show as “Pacman” symbols with altitude and climbing/descending arrows provided by TIS-B. Ground traffic displays as brown/tan. Ground vehicles are also brown/tan as a top-view rectangle with “wheels” that take some imagination to see. Combining TCAS or TAS with ADS-B modifies the display of traffic. Non-ADS-B Out traffic will be depicted using standard TCAS symbology. Display of traffic with ADS-B Out will show new symbols combining the arrow head into either an amber circle for a TA and red square for an RA."

Yes, something to be aware of: OUT is universal but IN isn't, in commercial/ IFR aviation. I'd still like to know how many RPTs - jets and turboprops - that venture down among the G weeds, have ADSB-IN traffic displays. I can't understand why they wouldn't. Yes ... but also 'carry personal "IN" devices for situational awareness'.

Yeah, well I guess we'll figure it out as we go along. It'd be great if CASA did some comprehensive field trials of EC gear and published the data. But I don't see it happening soon. In the meantime, little experiments like the one done by kgw (above) can help us calibrate our expectations regarding the INs and OUTs of the SE2. Actually the IN part we can figure out for ourselves. That evidence is right before our eyes.

I'm keen to know, for instance, at about what distance an RPT (or other IFR flight) might pick me up on their fish-finder, If we discover that we're converging somewhere in Class G space. If we each have a map view of the other's relative position it makes our radio back and forth a lot quicker and more effective. I also found it interesting that Glen reckons we're likely to have at least 20nm 'visibility' to an AirServices base station. It helps to know that if you're in some kind of emergency situation knowing that Area can see you; it would free you up to take care of aviating. Also handy to know even if you're just planning the safest route around tiger country (and trying to remain conspicuous). I have found that even the audible alerts offered by the AvTraffic app gives you plenty of time to identify and avoid a threat. Typically, it seems to be a good 30 secs or more. (Although when used as a stand alone app it is subject to cell system delays, of course.) Don't know about others. Yes, if one or the other aircraft has the other on their "radar" - and they're talking - it should be okay. But just knowing what to reasonably expect from this fairly new, low-cost tech seems pretty desirable to me. Not only about 'range' but anything and everything else about it; another tool in the safety kit bag.

Glen, so would you expect proper TSO'd ADSB-IN / CDTI gear to 'pull in' your average EC target over greater distances than, say, another EC/EFB device would?

That's a handy number, since many of us fly with a 10nm ring of confidence on our EFBs anyway.

Yes, good point. Just because we 'see' targets 40miles away, doesn't mean we're 'seen' at that distance. Not that we'd need to be, by other traffic. To be seen at a distance by ATC, though, might be useful (or not ;- ). The low-power of the SE2, then, amounts to a self-filtering mechanism, preventing us, the aerial hoi-polloi, from cluttering traffic displays over vast areas. (≈5000 sq. miles given a 40mile range).

Yes, that article saying that "it is expected that with a new ATC system on the way, SkyEcho2 transmissions will be displayed to controllers, for situational awareness only, using distinctive symbology" suggests that it's just a software tweak (if anything at all) that was needed to allow EC 1090 transmissions to display. Anyway, I guess it means that Area controllers, too, for the most part, are able to see us now - given line of sight and <40NM. There are quite a few RAAus aircraft that operate out of Canberra - including a certain CT with the moniker 0000 (which they used to call "double zero, double zero" but now [by special arrangement?] goes by "Charlie Tango, double zero"). The rest are addressed by numbers alone - minus the generic "Romeo". E.g: "eighty seven, fifty-five". Of course, these aircraft, would be using proper Mode S transponders, since no EC thingy is kosher in Class C). Yes, for sure, or as the Feds put it "The prime objective of SkyEcho2 is air-to-air traffic awareness"

Thanks for doing that experiment kgw. This is good to know. The authorities seem a bit quiet as to the when and where of ATC's 'awareness' of EC devices. I wonder if it's already happened, right across the country. The next question is, what percentage of commercial/IFR aircraft are already equipped with ADSB-IN of some kind? For example, are most (all?) RPT flights, able to see EC devices on their CDTIs - as we see them, on our ADSB/EFBs? (TCAS, I understand, still doesn't cut it for that purpose.) At any rate, here's the official advice from a couple of years back: VFR and visible _ Flight Safety Australia.pdf Can ATC ‘see’ my SkyEcho2? The prime objective of SkyEcho2 is air-to-air traffic awareness – the device is not certified to the performance standards needed for ATC separation services. Nevertheless, CASA envisages the device being used for situational awareness by ATC. By early this year, the Airservices Australia ATC system had not been modified to display SkyEcho2; however, it is expected that with a new ATC system on the way, SkyEcho2 transmissions will be displayed to controllers, for situational awareness only, using distinctive symbology which will prevent the application of surveillance separation standards to those aircraft. Given the COVID crisis, there is uncertainty about when this capability may be delivered by Airservices Australia.

Yeah, but I gather it was an issue of being on the wrong frequency at the wrong time. "When I look back on the incident, I wonder what more I could, or should, have done to prevent it from even happening. Lessons learnt: Perhaps if I had listened out on the Brisbane Centre frequency as well as the Archerfield Tower frequency during our direct track to Park Ridge, we may have been alerted to the presence of the twin. As it turned out, the only things that saved us from a mid-air collision on that day were pure luck and a sliver of time"

"THE FIRST WE KNEW ABOUT THAT AIRCRAFT WAS WHEN ITS NOSE APPEARED IN THE TOP OF OUR WINDSCREEN, SLOWLY OVERTAKING US AND GRADUALLY DESCENDING." https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2023/03/too-close-for-comfort/

Especially when they're also Rock Stars! (see lower right)

As Sam Goldwyn famously put it: “Let's have some new cliches.”

Absolutely, you've got to sift heaps of chaff on YT - and most social media. As you say, the Comments are susceptible to a whole world of opinionated ignorance. On the upside, there's a large installed base of subject-savvy contributors, as well. One has to grit one's teeth and be ready to speed-scroll. That being said, it's gonna do my head in if I have to be told, once more, that "There are old pilots and there are bold pilots ...blah, blah, blah." ;- )

As are others in their own way.

Wow, sorry to misdirect you and waste your time on a mere forum.

Really? I found a few of them that added more than I'd gathered from some other forums. AMREP 3 weeks ago I have many thousands of hours acting as PIC on this model. I don't buy the rudder trim issue. I can think of no reason for the rudder trim to be set fully in one direct or the other except for checking that it has unrestricted full travel during the ground checks. Could have become distracted and failed to center it again after the check. However, This airplane has some pretty serious balls when you open the throttles for takeoff. I can't imagine a pilot of a twin turboprop not immediately aborting the takeoff at the first sign that the airplane was pulling incredibly hard in one direction or the other. The incredibly strong pull would have happened long before the airplane was fast enough to fly. I.e., if it was the rudder trim issue, it would have pulled so hard prior to 'RedLine' that it would have been suicide to not abort and keep it on the ground at ALL costs! Sadly, when everyone in the airplane is lost, we have to go with what we think might have happened. My guess is )and I am one of a handful of pilots around the globe that don't automatically become a crash investigator immediately after an accident) that there was more to this than meets the eye. My sympathy to their families. Wally Wally 3 weeks ago This still haunts me I knew Max the driver, we used to cross paths on various charters, I’m convinced Max had a medical event and simply couldn’t handle this flight on the day. I’ve got 4000 hrs on type, the plane can handle the full trim deflection, Max couldn’t. RIP to all Darryl Day 3 weeks ago Thank you, I wondering how an experienced pilot could make so many errors before flight and then during the flight fail to raise the gear and apply rudder once airborne. Makes sense now. Animula 3 weeks ago That makes sense because the longer roll than normal and the gear being left down too. He must have had something major distracting him and thought he would get past it as he took off, but then he figured out it was too serious and sent the mayday but couldn’t manage the aircraft because of whatever was going on. 3 weeks ago Thx Wally, I came to comments to see if someone with knowledge could verify my suspicion that it wouldn't have been trim. 4 passengers is a light load. Seems like something else was likely. Charles Brewer 6 days ago Thanks for your video. Some comments though. You said the retail centre was just outside the airport. In fact it was built within the original airport grounds. This is an increasing problem in Australia as airports have been sold off to private operators. //... In the event of an emergency there is now no where an aircraft can safely put down! This is a growing problem. At Bankstown (YSBK) the 18/36 runway was closed years ago and the area converted into commercial real estate. //... At Camden (YSCN) a nursing home has been built in line with the runway in a position that used to be rural land and was available for aircraft in an emergency. An aircraft cannot return to the runway unless it has reached around 1,000 ft,//... In the case of Camden, that means into the nursing home! Local Councils must be held to account for their irresponsible planning decisions.

This is a video analysis of the Essendon accident. Interesting discussion in Comments section if you 'Watch on YouTube'.

Yes, to err is human; to minimise tragedy is the job of Aviation Safety organisations. For over a century they've done a pretty good job, working on the assumption that something can be done; even with humans.