[Peetwo]

Popinjay to the rescue on ADSB for VFR aircraft - Part II

Via the UP:

Clinton McKenzie

Another advertisement from the ATSB about ADS-B IN.

This time the advert has been triggered by a “near collision” between two VFR aircraft in the Moorabbin training area.

VFR aircraft.

In a Delta area.

The ATSB keeps dealing with this issue as if there are only ever ‘isolated pairs’ of aircraft. One Sling and one Piper Cherokee. One Seminole and one Travel Air.

If all the ‘ifs’ line up and there are just two aircraft in proximity, laterally, and the pilot of one or both aircraft ‘see’ and accurately interpret the traffic display of ADS-B IN at a glance down in the cockpit, great. But then there’s the common reality of busy airspace.



Which of the displayed aircraft, if any, is a collision risk to me on my track WAD - TWRN? (This is just a snapshot from the EFB provider supplied data, without my conspicuity device connected. Just assume they are ADS-B IN symbols in green.) You have the luxury of looking at a much bigger and stable display on your computer monitor.

(The latest ATSB advert includes a text box that says: “ATC Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA) between AEM and JQF.” Maybe Airservices should do in the Melbourne FIR what’s been done in the Brisbane FIR: Just turn off the SCTA functionality below 4,500’ so that ATC is not bothered by the nuisance.)

I finally note, again, that the Beaver and Otter in the Alaska tragedy were both fitted with ADS-B IN with all sorts of bells and whistles alerting capability … that wasn't functioning properly.

And from a AAI SME, via the AP email chains:

This is a legal minefield. Maybe they've been reading Clinton M’s work! The ATSB seem to be doing CASA’s sales job. I’ve never heard of any Accident Investigation Agency talking $$ for a deal, in-lieu of an investigation. Plus, I note the rebate offer of up to 50%, capped at $5,000 (to those eligible), ends on the 31 May 2024??? Is that when its ok to cease improving safety?? It seems odd, particularly under the ATSB banner.

Mangalore seemed like an effort to protect ATC, now we have “in-lieu of an investigation….” you can get rebated equipment - maybe steak knives too?  It seems like separation risk control is shifting from ATC to pilots. When you consider the funding of Onesky, the funding arrangements must be questioned.

VFR pilots in training areas are learning the skills of aviating and shouldn’t be spending time ‘heads-down’ whilst training. It may help pilots/instructors/ATC, but I can imagine what ADSB-IN would look like at an inbound point to busy GA airfield, ie Moorabbin or Bankstown.

I’m all for technology being used to improve things, but this should be based on a safety case and systemic investigation, not just dragging out the “Limitations of See and Avoid” BASI did about 30 years ago.

VFR training airfields will always have traffic issues. They have specific risks, when compared to the industry in general. Is this the right risk control for that environment?

There’d be plenty of data to support that.

I’m sure there’s more angles to this bizarre scenario. Betts needs to remind his people of their Acts and how the system is designed to work.

MTF? - I definitely think so...