A mini rant – or; a ride on my pet hobby horse; ignore it if you like:-
Five, for tea and biscuits; One for serious bollocking.
Positive separation is what Air Traffic Control (ATC) provide; Tower hours of operation: 0615 - 2030 Mon-Fri.
“Air traffic control was unaware of the developing near collision, the report said, as the controller was “not effectively monitoring the aircraft” due to their attention being focused elsewhere.”
Bit 'fluffy' in the language use there director; was the tower fully manned, or not? To enter the Albury (AY) airspace a clearance is required, this is a specific directive, based, in part, on the Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA). The tower controller would be fully aware of the position and ETA of both aircraft. The ATR's ETA would have been known for quite a while. The PA28's time of request for entry to the zone is not mentioned in the report, however there are clearly defined VFR approach points and several 'check points' at which the local aircraft could request a clearance to enter the 'zone'. So, in any event ATC would have been aware of the position and ETA of both aircraft. It begs a question – why were the aircraft not 'sorted' out long before both entered the circuit? Two aircraft, this close in controlled airspace – and all ATSB can come up with is “focused elsewhere” and not even sure if it was collective loss of focus or a single loss of focus. There is a systematic problem, it needs to be properly addressed.
The PA28 operation has not been critically examined. Where did the flight request clearance? Was an ETA provided? Were there two radio's in the aircraft. There were two qualified pilots on board; one an instructor – were they monitoring both Area and AY frequencies? If not, why not? Melbourne Centre and the Tower – would have provided enough information for the crew to realise they were going to arrive in close formation with the ATR. This is a loss of situational awareness – even if the tower was closed – the potential conflict should have been resolved long before the close call. The chances of 'spotting' the ATR were slim – only on the Right downwind leg could they have 'seen' the aircraft; once base leg was turned – the focus would be on the runway; had the ATR been ahead of them; they might have spotted it. But it was behind.
The ATR has no excuse whatsoever. TCAS and being IFR, traffic information; they too have the ability to monitor all frequencies; the check list would be complete nothing to do but fly an easy straight in. The conflicting aircraft would have been on the TCAS; you could reasonably expect at least one professional pilot to be looking outside for the symbol showing (flashing) so clearly on the screen in direct view– but no
“The incident triggered the traffic collision avoidance system on the Virgin ATR72, and the pilots executed a missed approach.” At 22 m and 110 horizontal – Hell, the PA28 was bloody near in the ashtray by then.
That's my tea and biscuits crew sorted; but the bollocking is reserved for this Muppet:-
Bollocks 1 - ATSB transport safety director Stuart Macleod said “the circumstances of the near collision illustrated the “danger of assumption and incomplete situational awareness”. A bit more to it methinks; deserving more than a glib, slippery, politically correct throw away line. Nearly another major mid air in our skies and stating the bleeding obvious will not prevent another incident. This was a complete failure of system, demonstrated, almost in blood, bodies and fire. But ATSB are happy to feed happy horse shit to an unsuspecting public. The chances of a mid-air collision happening are slim; but not infinite. Every close call shortens the odds -
Bollocks 2 - "the two aircraft came within 22m of a crash because both pilots were oblivious to the other’s position." Oh, FCOL they were fully aware – the PA28 told to sight and follow; the ATR fully aware and the TCAS serviceable. Who writes dribble like this; and, why is he still employed by ATSB.
Bollocks 3 - “As the Piper was operating under visual flight rules, separation between the two aircraft was the pilots’ responsibility,” in CTA – really?
Bollocks 4 - "The ATSB report found neither pilot was aware of the position of the other aircraft despite the Piper being told to follow the ATR 72". Given the visual dynamics it was a long shot to expect the PA 28 to spot the ATR – however, there was an instructor on board who should never have allowed the turn to be made without sighting or positive information of where the ATR actually was. The ATR had both TCAS and ATC to define where the PA 28 was – and should not have pressed on without positive confirmation of adequate separation.
Rant over – just get cranky when ATSB gloss over and obfuscate a serious event. Aye, Murphy had a bit to do with this episode – but, in this day and age around heavy passenger traffic there should never be any doubt about who's on first and what's on second – even in gin clear blue skies.
Toot – toot.
Five, for tea and biscuits; One for serious bollocking.
Positive separation is what Air Traffic Control (ATC) provide; Tower hours of operation: 0615 - 2030 Mon-Fri.
“Air traffic control was unaware of the developing near collision, the report said, as the controller was “not effectively monitoring the aircraft” due to their attention being focused elsewhere.”
Bit 'fluffy' in the language use there director; was the tower fully manned, or not? To enter the Albury (AY) airspace a clearance is required, this is a specific directive, based, in part, on the Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA). The tower controller would be fully aware of the position and ETA of both aircraft. The ATR's ETA would have been known for quite a while. The PA28's time of request for entry to the zone is not mentioned in the report, however there are clearly defined VFR approach points and several 'check points' at which the local aircraft could request a clearance to enter the 'zone'. So, in any event ATC would have been aware of the position and ETA of both aircraft. It begs a question – why were the aircraft not 'sorted' out long before both entered the circuit? Two aircraft, this close in controlled airspace – and all ATSB can come up with is “focused elsewhere” and not even sure if it was collective loss of focus or a single loss of focus. There is a systematic problem, it needs to be properly addressed.
The PA28 operation has not been critically examined. Where did the flight request clearance? Was an ETA provided? Were there two radio's in the aircraft. There were two qualified pilots on board; one an instructor – were they monitoring both Area and AY frequencies? If not, why not? Melbourne Centre and the Tower – would have provided enough information for the crew to realise they were going to arrive in close formation with the ATR. This is a loss of situational awareness – even if the tower was closed – the potential conflict should have been resolved long before the close call. The chances of 'spotting' the ATR were slim – only on the Right downwind leg could they have 'seen' the aircraft; once base leg was turned – the focus would be on the runway; had the ATR been ahead of them; they might have spotted it. But it was behind.
The ATR has no excuse whatsoever. TCAS and being IFR, traffic information; they too have the ability to monitor all frequencies; the check list would be complete nothing to do but fly an easy straight in. The conflicting aircraft would have been on the TCAS; you could reasonably expect at least one professional pilot to be looking outside for the symbol showing (flashing) so clearly on the screen in direct view– but no
“The incident triggered the traffic collision avoidance system on the Virgin ATR72, and the pilots executed a missed approach.” At 22 m and 110 horizontal – Hell, the PA28 was bloody near in the ashtray by then.
That's my tea and biscuits crew sorted; but the bollocking is reserved for this Muppet:-
Bollocks 1 - ATSB transport safety director Stuart Macleod said “the circumstances of the near collision illustrated the “danger of assumption and incomplete situational awareness”. A bit more to it methinks; deserving more than a glib, slippery, politically correct throw away line. Nearly another major mid air in our skies and stating the bleeding obvious will not prevent another incident. This was a complete failure of system, demonstrated, almost in blood, bodies and fire. But ATSB are happy to feed happy horse shit to an unsuspecting public. The chances of a mid-air collision happening are slim; but not infinite. Every close call shortens the odds -
Bollocks 2 - "the two aircraft came within 22m of a crash because both pilots were oblivious to the other’s position." Oh, FCOL they were fully aware – the PA28 told to sight and follow; the ATR fully aware and the TCAS serviceable. Who writes dribble like this; and, why is he still employed by ATSB.
Bollocks 3 - “As the Piper was operating under visual flight rules, separation between the two aircraft was the pilots’ responsibility,” in CTA – really?
Bollocks 4 - "The ATSB report found neither pilot was aware of the position of the other aircraft despite the Piper being told to follow the ATR 72". Given the visual dynamics it was a long shot to expect the PA 28 to spot the ATR – however, there was an instructor on board who should never have allowed the turn to be made without sighting or positive information of where the ATR actually was. The ATR had both TCAS and ATC to define where the PA 28 was – and should not have pressed on without positive confirmation of adequate separation.
Rant over – just get cranky when ATSB gloss over and obfuscate a serious event. Aye, Murphy had a bit to do with this episode – but, in this day and age around heavy passenger traffic there should never be any doubt about who's on first and what's on second – even in gin clear blue skies.
Toot – toot.