Busy, busy, busy.
The following is a boilerplate catchall ATSB put out for media benefit. For a Choc frog – who can tell me what essential, specific part of the ‘scheduled’ investigation missing?
“As part of the investigation, ATSB investigators will analyse available flight path data and audio transmissions, review weather information, aircraft maintenance and flight crew records, and conduct witness interviews.”
I’ll give you a hint – HERE –
I’ve probably got three years to save up for the CF prize; there will be no ‘book’ running for the result of the ATSB deliberations; however, for the closest in ‘word count and conclusion to the final ATSB report there is a liquid prize on offer.
Extract – LMH:-
Hitch - “[we] really have very little idea about what unfolded, except to say that trusted safeguards failed to keep four people safe.
Good point Hitch – but I wonder what are the safeguards ‘in place’? There were two qualified, experienced men, one in each aircraft, that qualifies as a safeguard. There were serviceable radio’ on board each aircraft, that also qualifies as a safeguard. But, the only ‘true safeguards’ – when push came to shove – was the ability of those two safeguards to keep the aircraft separated. ATC involvement ceased once the obligation to ‘inform’ each aircraft of the others presence: end of. It is not a bad system at remote locations where conflicting traffic is a rare event – even allowing for coincidence. But is it a ‘good’ system for airspace with a relatively high density of traffic – which is conducting ‘training and testing’ of IFR operations? I think we’ve all been in a situation where two or even three aircraft are conducting a let down at the same aid – ‘follow my leader’ is an old game, often played. But, IMO while the rules of ‘airmanship’ have not changed (since Pontius) the operating environment has. Radio congestion is a factor; the urge to turn the volume down on ‘centre’ while concentrating on CTAF and self separation, opens the gate to missed or confusing radio calls; which in turn reduces the concentration level of those operating. Particularly during ‘training’ where the instructing pilot needs to be talking. The notion of a ‘sterile cockpit’ is a sound one – particularly when playing for real. The accident airspace gets busy, noisy and the possibility of ‘confusion’ and crossed wires is increased. I just wonder if some form of ‘controlled’ airspace would eliminate the problem? Just saying – even if only a Class E wedding cake situation – during peak periods – positive separation and peace of mind. Maybe even hand that space to the military – a feed and patch – give ‘em somewhat to do – What?
Hitch – “Its the inevitable examination of those safeguards that I suspect will result in some changes to aviation in Australia”.
How I wish that was so. It should be so – but then history and rhetoric and ‘cost’ have a track record to consider. ATSB is a ‘corporation’ now, with KPI bonus, executive salaries and bonus to pay, expensive ‘consultants’ ;and, in huge debt and much hot water with One Sky etc. The battle for reform of airspace has a long, bitter history, the carnage and waste in monumental proportions. IMO ‘inevitable change’ is an outside runner, I’ll lay 12/1 against anything ‘positive’ arising from the tragedy.
Hitch – “Until the ATSB releases its preliminary findings in a few weeks time, etc.
Yes, well – I reckon the Easter Bunny will beat that home, with Santa Claus running home second.
No matter – only random thoughts, not evidence based, but a neatly phrased ‘thinker’ from Hitch sure opens the doors to speculation. Nice one….
Toot - toot
The following is a boilerplate catchall ATSB put out for media benefit. For a Choc frog – who can tell me what essential, specific part of the ‘scheduled’ investigation missing?
“As part of the investigation, ATSB investigators will analyse available flight path data and audio transmissions, review weather information, aircraft maintenance and flight crew records, and conduct witness interviews.”
I’ll give you a hint – HERE –
I’ve probably got three years to save up for the CF prize; there will be no ‘book’ running for the result of the ATSB deliberations; however, for the closest in ‘word count and conclusion to the final ATSB report there is a liquid prize on offer.
Extract – LMH:-
Hitch - “[we] really have very little idea about what unfolded, except to say that trusted safeguards failed to keep four people safe.
Good point Hitch – but I wonder what are the safeguards ‘in place’? There were two qualified, experienced men, one in each aircraft, that qualifies as a safeguard. There were serviceable radio’ on board each aircraft, that also qualifies as a safeguard. But, the only ‘true safeguards’ – when push came to shove – was the ability of those two safeguards to keep the aircraft separated. ATC involvement ceased once the obligation to ‘inform’ each aircraft of the others presence: end of. It is not a bad system at remote locations where conflicting traffic is a rare event – even allowing for coincidence. But is it a ‘good’ system for airspace with a relatively high density of traffic – which is conducting ‘training and testing’ of IFR operations? I think we’ve all been in a situation where two or even three aircraft are conducting a let down at the same aid – ‘follow my leader’ is an old game, often played. But, IMO while the rules of ‘airmanship’ have not changed (since Pontius) the operating environment has. Radio congestion is a factor; the urge to turn the volume down on ‘centre’ while concentrating on CTAF and self separation, opens the gate to missed or confusing radio calls; which in turn reduces the concentration level of those operating. Particularly during ‘training’ where the instructing pilot needs to be talking. The notion of a ‘sterile cockpit’ is a sound one – particularly when playing for real. The accident airspace gets busy, noisy and the possibility of ‘confusion’ and crossed wires is increased. I just wonder if some form of ‘controlled’ airspace would eliminate the problem? Just saying – even if only a Class E wedding cake situation – during peak periods – positive separation and peace of mind. Maybe even hand that space to the military – a feed and patch – give ‘em somewhat to do – What?
Hitch – “Its the inevitable examination of those safeguards that I suspect will result in some changes to aviation in Australia”.
How I wish that was so. It should be so – but then history and rhetoric and ‘cost’ have a track record to consider. ATSB is a ‘corporation’ now, with KPI bonus, executive salaries and bonus to pay, expensive ‘consultants’ ;and, in huge debt and much hot water with One Sky etc. The battle for reform of airspace has a long, bitter history, the carnage and waste in monumental proportions. IMO ‘inevitable change’ is an outside runner, I’ll lay 12/1 against anything ‘positive’ arising from the tragedy.
Hitch – “Until the ATSB releases its preliminary findings in a few weeks time, etc.
Yes, well – I reckon the Easter Bunny will beat that home, with Santa Claus running home second.
No matter – only random thoughts, not evidence based, but a neatly phrased ‘thinker’ from Hitch sure opens the doors to speculation. Nice one….
Toot - toot