[Peetwo]

CM & CO burst the bubble on Popinjay/Kinley/Spence ADS-B advertorial! -

Via the UP:

Clinton McKenzie

Inbound to YMMB.

Ready…Setty…Stare!


Remember: You’ll be looking at a small display in a cockpit being rattled around by turbulence.

---

Squawk7700

I feel like Rainman looking at that pic and can see 3 or possibly 4 conflicts.

---

Clinton McKenzie

Well done! All you need to do is keep staring at that screen and your situational awareness task is done. The completeness and accuracy of the displayed traffic data is guaranteed!

---

ER_BN

Clinton,

Thanks for the inbound YMMB graphic, I've passed it onto someone far more qualified to comment than me, but the display and the associated irony of the MNG tragedy is noted.

RE: The MNG accident, seeing the ATSB investigation was just bumptious hubris and incompetence does anyone know when the coroner's inquiry is?

You mentioned 4 STCAs, perhaps it was my failure in reading the report properly but I could only see two re JQF and AEM? The initial and a re-alert.

It would be my understanding that after the first STCA was acknowledged by the controller, the STCA acronym remained constantly in both the aircrafts' track labels on the Air Situation Display until collision.

At a time before the collision the STCA re-alerted (that does not invalidate the previous sentence) but the derelict ATSB investigation never explained the reactivation.

There are a huge number of shortcomings in the report and I can sympathise with many pilots and controllers who have mentioned the word "cover-up".

When confronted with CONSPIRACY or INCOMPTENCE, I am an incompetence person myself as I think we reached "peak human" long ago.

That doesn't mean self interest, greed or snouts in the trough haven't played a part in decision making in AsA, CASA or ATSB.

Given the Senate Estimates are just a joke, I have sent off info to the NACC, though given the state of the Australia and the reported number in the NACC inbox, no doubt it's a far queue.

At least Lead Balloon can smile given that by all their comments in the MNG reports and their associated simplistic distraction of ADSB-IN, ATSB by implication if not by statement has declared CLASS G is safer for VFRs than IFRs. I have to laugh when Australian controllers issue traffic "alerts" VFR to VFR in G. The phrase "Get your hand off it" comes to mind. Sort out your IFR to IFR first. More surveillance has led to laziness in the whole process.

I honestly believe without surveillance (Radar or ATSB) and with FIS still existing MNG would not have happened.

Where's FSO Griffo when you need him...What, in OAP luxury at Mar a Lago....Half his luck!!

Australia - Centre of Excellence only in Mediocrity.

---

Clinton McKenzie

Re STCA’s, I’ve revisited the ATSB Report on the Mangalore tragedy. It says, with my bolding added:

In the time between JQF taking off and the collision, there were three STCA alerts generated.

…

On the basis of analysis conducted by an ATC subject matter expert and technical detail provided by Airservices, it was assessed that:

The first STCA, at 1122:42, was a nuisance alert generated by JQF conflicting with VFR traffic in the Mangalore circuit area.

A second STCA, at 1122:49, occurred as the controller passed traffic information to JQF (Figure 13). At that stage, indications were that the aircraft would pass abeam each other. The STCA was assessed by the controller but not cleared from the screen at this point.

The controller re-inspected the two aircraft at 1123:30 after JQF had turned towards the planned outbound track. The velocity vectors indicated that lateral displacement would be maintained, with JQF passing behind AEM in about one minute. At that time, the controller’s display showed AEM at 4,800 ft while JQF was at 3,400ft.

A final STCA alert occurred at 1123:51. The controller zoomed in to inspect the aircraft flight paths and altitudes again and acknowledged the STCA at 1124:09. The controller identified that JQF was going to pass across the track of AEM, but at that time, 11 seconds prior to the collision, indications on the controller’s display showed AEM at 4,500 ft and JQF at 4,000 ft, with 0.9 NM lateral separation between the aircraft.

So I’ll correct my ‘4’ to ‘3’ (though I’m still digging to find the provenance of my original ‘4’).

Perhaps your ‘2’ comes from Figure 13, described as “Recreation of STCA display at 1122:49”, which shows only 2 STCA ‘boxes’?

Of course, a recreation of the circumstances at 1122:49 excludes the “final STCA” which “occurred at 1123:51”. It’s very hard for me to fathom the logic behind the ATSB’s decision not to include the closest STCA in time to the collision in the recreation of the STCA display. The ATSB went to the trouble of recreating the display showing the velocity vectors as not intersecting at the time of the 1122:49 STCA but decided not to recreate the display showing the velocity vectors at the time of the STCA immediately preceding the collision. Go figure.

Of course, all of this is OK for IFR aircraft because there is no separation standard in non-controlled airspace. Meanwhile, some VFR pilot has an attack of the vapours after seeing another aircraft in close proximity in a published flying training Delta, and the ATSB uses that as basis for another advert for ADS-B IN, which advert included a recreation of the STCA. Go figure.

---

missy

Originally Posted by Clinton McKenzie
The real answer to missy's question is the one of which I suspect missy is aware

Nope, I'm not sure that I do, divergent procedures either sides of on arbitrary line on a map that arcs 50miles north of Sydney and across the continent. National standardisation? Oversight by CASA?Periodic investigations by ATSB?
Probably a corporate history somewhere, someone would know but I do wonder who the BN Centre manager was who authorised the change? Who was the Safety Manager at the time? Who was the ATC GM or Head ATC at the time? Wouldn't the controller Union ( Civil Air ) raise an objection?

---

ER_BN

Clinton,

Thanks for your prompt clarification.

The STCA system by its very nature works on conflict pairs and in my previous post I noted I was referring to those STCAs specifically regarding the JQF/AEM pair.

As far as I can tell that is what the ATSB report indicates so we are in agreement.

Not sure what you meant by Perhaps your ‘2’ comes from Figure 13, described as “Recreation of STCA display at 1122:49”, which shows only 2 STCA ‘boxes’?
For tracks under the jurisdiction of the controller, the yellow "box" around the track labels of the two relevant aircraft is part of the TAAATS Eurocat Human Interface (HMI) to highlight the two aircraft and is yet to be acknowledged by the controller. 1 STCA in the circumstances of the MNG accident correctly produces 2 "boxes".

No one should assume that any ATSB graphical "re-creation" accurately aligns with what the controller saw on the TAAATS Eurocat Human Machine Interface.

My feedback to controllers at the time was that the STCA HMI would be displayed from 1122:49 to collision.

On the assumption that this is correct, the ATSB never explains why the STCA system changed the STCA HMI on JQF and AEM's track labels from Acknowledged status back to Unacknowledged status at 1123:51.

It would have been one of the first things I would have determined as part of the technical investigation, and I have done more than one hundred of them.

I have no idea whether that is what really happened or was displayed to the controller. Problems with TAAATS Eurocat Replay! That's the rhinoceros in the room!

And we haven't yet mentioned the elephant or the hippopotamus in the room either!

All this could be viewed as farcical but four humans died...

Do you think a GA pilot organisation might ask when the Coroner's Inquiry is going to happen?

Or are we happy that the memory of the 4 pilots is tainted by an inaccurate and incomplete ATSB report?

If you want to talk, PM me and I will call.

Have a good one!

---

PiperCameron

Originally Posted by Clinton McKenzie
Well done! All you need to do is keep staring at that screen and your situational awareness task is done. The completeness and accuracy of the displayed traffic data is guaranteed!

Exactly. You've just missed the non-ADSB equipped aircraft in the mix... me!!

It probably seems busy to those unfamiliar with YMMB airspace and unaware there are two parallel runways in operation, but all I see looking at that pic is a normal busy day at Moorabbin, with the CAE-Oxford Cessnas doing their usual 3-mile circuits and the queue building at Carrum. As far as conflicts go, I have no idea where UUD is going, but then it's an LTF Sling (probably student solo) and you'd want to hope the other guy inbound has him in sight. Situation Normal.

Suffice to say, the YMMB Tower Controllers do an amazing job keeping the kiddies in line day-in day-out.

MTF...P2