Jump to content

Mangalore incident today (19/2/2020)


Recommended Posts

This sort of collision could be eliminated if aircraft had glider-type flarms. These cost about $700 and they use a gps plus a low-powered radio to talk to each other and sound an alarm if the little computer decides there is any possibility of a collision. ( They use an array of lights to indicate where the other aircraft is.) They often go off if you fly in company with other gliders and they sure keep your head turning. On one occasion, I was alone and near a 4000 ft cloudbase when the flarm went off and sure enough, another glider was going the other way. The concentrating factor was the line of cloud. ( In fact we would have missed, but I would never have been aware of the potential midair without the flarm)

My guess as to why flarms are not used for GA is that there would not be much profit in it for the "safety" bureaucracy. Gosh, it empowers pilots and not the officials. But also my guess is that a certified version of the flarm would be $50,000 or so. It costs millions to certify something apparently.

At Gawler, all the tugs and gliders have flarms, and hardly any of the planes.

IFR is a whole world on its own; if you think of the failsafe rail system where one train has to leave a sector before another can enter, it's not dissimilar to that with both pilots and Airservices personnel working the plan. This is the system RPT and Charter work to and is safer than your $700.00 gismos when you look at the big picture, but something slipped through the cracks here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Lets remember that this is a CTAF airport, not a class C/D with atc from the ground up.

Allowance needs to be made for vfr aircraft operating in the area with the ifr traffic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets remember that this is a CTAF airport, not a class C/D with atc from the ground up.

Allowance needs to be made for vfr aircraft operating in the area with the ifr traffic.

Yes, it is, but when flying an IFR flight plan at certain points you will automatically receive traffic at others you have to call for it etc, you will be on different frequencies at different times etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Machtuk

We can only assume at this stage that both A/C where aware of each other be it from ATC info or 1on1 Comms with each other. Usually in these circumstances separation is worked out by the pilots involved ATC can only 'paint' a picture for you. We will never know if they where viz or not. RIP to all four aviators?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Far from allowing pilots to go to sleep, the flarm system makes you look out like never before.

And yes, Turbs is right in that there will one day be an authorized system to do the same thing at a much higher price. In the meantime, I can only agree that it was a sad day and send all my sympathy to the families of the deceased.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Far from allowing pilots to go to sleep, the flarm system makes you look out like never before.

And yes, Turbs is right in that there will one day be an authorized system to do the same thing at a much higher price. In the meantime, I can only agree that it was a sad day and send all my sympathy to the families of the deceased.

My ADSB-in (raspberry pi) device also made me look outside keenly in exactly the right direction. Often, in good VFR with my 20/20 vision I still couldn’t see the oncoming “paint” aircraft until the last 15 seconds, (thankfully with good spacing each time). I believe pilots often overestimate their visual capabilities, and oncoming speeds leave little time for evasive action. I’m a big advocate for flarm and ADSB-in traffic awareness systems.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My ADSB-in (raspberry pi) device also made me look outside keenly in exactly the right direction. Often, in good VFR with my 20/20 vision I still couldn’t see the oncoming “paint” aircraft until the last 15 seconds, (thankfully with good spacing each time). I believe pilots often overestimate their visual capabilities, and oncoming speeds leave little time for evasive action. I’m a big advocate for flarm and ADSB-in traffic awareness systems.

The early anecdotal information is that AEM was on descent in cloud and JQF was on climb out in cloud at approximately 4100' and both were operating to IFR flight plans; I agree about VFR, the radio procedures we used to have, which came out of the blood of the very heavy aircraft traffic associated with WW2, were excellent for pinpointing other aircrtaft, but were cut back by the Government officially on cost grounds, but also likely on liability grounds.

 

IFR is a different form of flying under a different set of rules. PIC obligations are different and the work load is much higher, and IFR is based on all aircraft following the same procedures.

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about VFR, the radio procedures we used to have, which came out of the blood of the very heavy aircraft traffic associated with WW2, were excellent for pinpointing other aircrtaft, but were cut back by the Government officially on cost grounds, but also likely on liability grounds.

 

I was trying to find google references to this statement so I’m not asking stupid questions I could have solved.....Came across this accident report instead...https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4462266/ao-2011-100_final.pdf

 

Makes you want to never night fly again!

 

Question if you don’t mind...I’m puzzled over how VFR radio procedures have changed and what was cut back and how it related to costs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to find google references to this statement so I’m not asking stupid questions I could have solved.....Came across this accident report instead...https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4462266/ao-2011-100_final.pdf

 

Makes you want to never night fly again!

 

Question if you don’t mind...I’m puzzled over how VFR radio procedures have changed and what was cut back and how it related to costs?

Mike

 

The radio procedures essentially haven't changed but the requirements have, prior to the early to mid nineties (too long ago) all VFR flights were conducted on a full reporting basis (the same as IFR flights) departure calls, position reports (+- 2 minutes) and in contact with flight service at all times. Departure from your planned track had to be approved by flight service etc. This ensured that all traffic was monitored at all times.

 

I fly both VFR and IFR and I make the same departure, enroute and inbound calls for both and you have some people criticise you for it (while VFR) but I don't care others out there know exactly where I am.

 

The difference now with VFR is that unless you are in CTA/CTR/PRD/class D there are very few calls that have to be made there are no mandatory departure calls, inbound calls or enroute calls required in class G you can get in and go where ever you like without telling anyone anything

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to find google references to this statement so I’m not asking stupid questions I could have solved.....Came across this accident report instead...https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4462266/ao-2011-100_final.pdf

Makes you want to never night fly again!

You picked a complicated case; this was a day VFR flight which became later and later.

 

You can train and be endorsed on a PPL for Night VMC, and a lot of pilots used to do that in the 1970s when hire rates were around $25/hour, on the grounds that if they were delayed close to last light they could save themselves, or that they could do the whole flight Night VFR. This requires continual reference to the ground just like day VFR, so you are not flying on instruments, just at a higher level of standard (e.g. flight planning LSALT.)

 

Its popularity died quickly, I think because it's too marginal in terms of weather, and the black holes to the horizon as paddocks get bigger and homestead lights further apart.

 

Question if you don’t mind...I’m puzzled over how VFR radio procedures have changed and what was cut back and how it related to costs?

A ot of changes have taken place in radio over the decades making it hard to unlearn the old and learn the new; too much to try and cover (or find) here, but I'll give you one example, Full Reporting.

At one stage you could chose a flight plan with no ATC supervision (e.g. out to the training area, or local), SARTIME, or Full Reporting. Full Reporting triggered ATC to supervsise your whole flight, sector by sector. Let's say you were flying French Island, Wonthaggi, Latrobe Valley to Bairnsdale, you would report departure time, then you had to report Wonthaggi within 2 minutes of your flight plan or ATC would call you to make sure you were still there. If you didn't call in within 15 minutes that automatically triggered an emergency. Full Reporting was dropped to reduce costs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Aldo you are correct. I started flying with all those mandated calls, but now I call when taxi ing and listen in on the appropriate frequency. Some do this with out a transponder, but I like the transponder on. I have been called up several times by ATC to find out my intentions, but they didn't know who they were calling.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Machtuk

turbo I've always believed the old Class 1V rating (NVFR) was bloody dangerous! A license to kill yourself big time! When I did my Class 1V a hundred years ago my DOT examiner said when I had passed the flight test DON'T use this priveledge unless it's your last resort! In those days no light planes had had A/P, no GPS and very basic instruments, it was hard work flying around MNG doing my Ngt circuits training never lone outback! I got caught once many years ago coming back from the BDV races in a C210, issues left me with the last 30 mins in the dark into BHI, thank Christ for Flight Service, the guy stayed back for my arrival, never again in a SE plane!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Night VFR is really an illusion. Occasionally on a beautiful moonlit night out in the flat and drier parts for the state ,it's OK but I agree with you as to it's risks. CASA by another name back then off the record said it's a crock and the PIFR rating was the way to go. I agree with that fully. .Even THAT has risks. Look at the Lockhart River crash. There's no room for error. .. Never trust just ONE source of information. Always have a backup check. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike

 

The radio procedures essentially haven't changed but the requirements have, prior to the early to mid nineties (too long ago) all VFR flights were conducted on a full reporting basis (the same as IFR flights) departure calls, position reports (+- 2 minutes) and in contact with flight service at all times. Departure from your planned track had to be approved by flight service etc. This ensured that all traffic was monitored at all times.

 

I fly both VFR and IFR and I make the same departure, enroute and inbound calls for both and you have some people criticise you for it (while VFR) but I don't care others out there know exactly where I am.

 

The difference now with VFR is that unless you are in CTA/CTR/PRD/class D there are very few calls that have to be made there are no mandatory departure calls, inbound calls or enroute calls required in class G you can get in and go where ever you like without telling anyone anything

That’s well worth asking about.

 

Interesting how it’s changed. I’ve been reading Radio calls for VFR by Jeff Kanarish. Well... I read bits when I’m on commercial flights and suitably bored. He’s mainly using the book as an outlet with stories on his time as a commercial pilot and explains what everyone does wrong. I put it down while training because it wasn’t much help (IMO) . Now, with a bit of experience it does make more sense. It’s more Jeff has a whinge with helpful bits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how in the USA you get your Private and it allows you to fly day and night. Doesn't seem to be much of a problem.

I wonder how many accidents have been caused by last light in Australia? I heard about one rushed approach resulting in a bent 172 at a DoT safety seminar. How many low fuel/out of fuel accidents because landing to refuel would make last light a serious consideration?

 

Sure, flying single engine at night presents you with a problem. Unless within easy glide of a lit runway, might be best to pull the parachute in your Cirrus SR20/22. It is a calculated risk, just like the one you take when you fly over essentially unlandable country by day, or as Bruce Tuncks keeps saying, our ridiculous ATC system puts you over tiger country at a far lower altitude than you would use if there was no ATC.

 

ADSB is a great 1990's system based on 1940's ATC philosophy but we have a 21st century problem. Obsolete before implementation.

 

Flarm is a great technology demonstarter but there there have been quite a few glider/glider mid airs where both were Flarm equiped. Flarm as currently implemented has severe technical limitations due airframe shielding and the extremely low power of the rf transmitter. Antenna diversity with one external on top and another underneath would help.

 

Another Flarm like system designed from the outset for aircraft to aircraft traffic awareness, not a substitute for ATC radar like ADSB, would be best. With now 1440 channels on a VHF comms radio in Europe, surely two channels could have been given over to the very minor data requirements of a Flarm like system. You wouldn't even know it was there as far as voice comms go. Use of VHF and the same comms antenna would minimise installation costs. Could be built in to new comms radio or stand alone.

 

If Australia had gone ahead with implementation of USA type airspace Mangalore would have been Class E for the two aircraft in the mid air and full separation service. Can't have that, Airservices wants to make money to pay their inflated executive salaries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very busy airspace around Mangalore, especially to the east. Grim outcome. Always very sad.. Nev

I’m based at Club Mang and it really is only busy at times. Quite often (mostly) I find myself as the only acft in the circuit.

 

the school seems to fly in waves so there is often a flurry of activity as they take off or return, then nada again.

 

generally most (students) seem pretty good at ensuring separation.

 

tragic event possibly made worse if they were both IFR and unaware of their proximity to one another. Normally I hear ATC (FIA) advising IFR of other IFR and general info re VFR above the CCT. These two may have been on different freq at this point. I operate both freq in the CCT, but IFR seem pretty good on calling on both freq

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how in the USA you get your Private and it allows you to fly day and night. Doesn't seem to be much of a problem.

I am NVFR, and have flown country NVFR - it’s different and training should be mandatory as is the case. You literally are flying in the Abyss and are 100% on instruments with no horizon and minimal if any artificial light. Flying near cities or large towns is akin to VFR, but Australia has lots of nothingness- trg is good as is the biennial reqt

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its popularity died quickly, I think because it's too marginal in terms of weather, and the black holes to the horizon as paddocks get bigger and homestead lights further apart.

 

I had a very quiet panic learning night flying in Nebraska as I’d guess most first time night pilots must. As soon as the first farm house lights registered I was fine. Had a horizon. Next was an all black horizon in pattern at new airport and instructor gave me a nudge to keep the turn from too steep. I was definitely IFR for that turn and hadn’t acknowledged it. I guess that’s why reading the report on that pilot in night VFR hit home. He was as reported a cautious pilot and just too many things compounded. Darkness, cloud and rain where the report he appears to have had for destination was going to be okay.

 

Good info on the work load and costs. Understood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You point out the problems , fine, but how is VFR , IFR ? .100% on instruments is not VFR. No horizon means you need a substitute for the horizon for determination of aircraft attitude.. The Artificial Horizon was introduced with the concept of ATTITUDE Instrument flying skjlls being taught. Most of them toppled when pitch and bank limits were exceeded. IF you did Aeros you CAGED the gyro instruments before doing them so they would not damage themselves. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

not flying any more, sad but....gotta say the thing that scared me most was who else was up there with me....didn't matter if it was near an airport, miles from anywhere, 1,000 feet or 5,000, I always thought that if 'it' happened that would be the cause. I had faith in myself and my aircraft, but the big unknown is simply whether or not I was going to be at the same place and time as someone else.....I'm just sayin'

 

BP

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's up to you. It's not the answer in every situation. Just don't make it compulsory. and it wouldn't have saved anyone in the Mt Erebus situation. Ie off track and hit a hill in no vis. ie white out. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...