Garfly

Brendan, this is the extent of your local QNH Area as shown in OzRunways (if that's what you were asking about): CLICK FOR FULL REZ:

Another thing I took away was just how much time there was - a good 5 mins - between Centre's first traffic advisory and the collision. Time enough for all the 'taps and glances' needed to track on a moving map the icon of a pre-alerted threat. (But then, there must have been some pretty full-on instruction going on at the time, in both cockpits.)

Mike, when you said, a few posts up, that: "I’m not naming names or locations etc." I think something went awry with the forum's Quote feature such that it looks like Thruster is replying to my question to you. In any case, on that issue, I don't see a problem, per se, with the opinion (that is, that a cockpit traffic display would NOT likely have prevented Mangalore). For all I know, the argument might have made a point - or turned something up - we could've learned from. When all's said and done, we're all of the same Safety-First faith (just as, I guess, we'd all claim to be doggedly anti-dogma ;- )

Juan's take on Bathurst (the second part of this vid.)

Where did you hear that, Mike?

Oh, yeah? That's not what the ATSB Mangalore report suggests; concluding that the use of even basic traffic display devices (had they been available) could have provided the situational awareness needed to save the day (after all traditional methods had failed). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWt57chwc8U

Yes, in its Closest Points page OzRunways shows BRG (from) any waypoint (not only airports/VORs) as R-XXX degrees which needs to be translated to the nearest quarter quadrant for CTAF comms. Anyway, for that precision, a glance at the Map Page is enough to show distance/bearing from the runway.

Well, Nev, there's no excuse for anyone here with an EFB being unable to do it. A quick tap and glance gives instant distance and bearing from ALL nearby points. In this example: "32.4 NM on the 201 radial (or SSW) from YPMQ." would be the quick reply. (Or, the displayed position from any other place on the list.)

Yeah, when it comes to that, this ATSB video on the Mangalore accident is worth another look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWt57chwc8U

Agreed, Skippy, but that's sort of what I meant by 'strip'. Maybe 'layer' would work better.

Yeah, good comms and a sharp lookout work pretty well most of the time. But in this episode of the Flying Reporter (UK) we see how hard it can be to get a good mental picture of just who is where in a busy circuit, despite everyone's best efforts to talk, look and listen. After all, just the term "downwind" can indicate a strip of air a mile long and half-a-mile wide. Sure, getting on the blower can help narrow the search but, at the same time, we're trying to keep the chat down when it's busy. Anyway, the relevant bit of the vid is 08:00 to 18:00:

A US perspective from a recent Air Facts Journal: What's wrong with the teardrop pattern entry : Air Facts Journal AIRFACTSJOURNAL.COM Having solved the impossible turn and other manufactured crises, the aviation training industry (or at least some YouTubers and keyboard warriors) has now turned its attention to the teardrop pattern entry...

This 30 minute piece by John Oliver (from 6 months ago) is a seriously funny take on the whole Boeing fiasco. He brings it all together in an entertaining, but super well researched, package. There's nothing especially new in it for anyone who's followed the story closely, however, the parody of the Boeing corporate ad at the end (from around 25:00) is definitely worth a watch IMHO.

Generally (with exceptions) the not-below-500' rule applies in Australia (over sparsely populated areas). See VFRG pp. 44-49 https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-02/visual-flight-rules-guide.pdf Whereas flight below 500' is generally allowed in the US (the exceptions are outlined by Trent Palmer in the video.) According to the FAA AIM: "While 14 CFR Part 91.119 allows flight below 500 AGL when over sparsely populated areas or open water, such operations are very dangerous."

ABC's Four Corners on the complicated failure of Rex Airlines. Screening tonight 30 Sep. 24 Flight Club - ABC News WWW.ABC.NET.AU Four Corners is the home of Australian investigative journalism. Meanwhile, a kind of preview in this radio program:

Trent Palmer's take on this issue is interesting, given his own run-ins with the FAA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCwj9iKVUF4 (Obviously, in Oz, we don't have the same freedoms they do in the US around low level ops.)

"All the world is queer save thee and me, and even thou art a little queer." Robert Owen (1771 -1858) ;- )

BTW, this video gives some insight into what's involved in such testing - at least in the US. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj5F1FFPYb8&t=781s At 24 mins it's longer than it needs to be but for peeps with enough interest, it might be worth the slog.

Yeah, yours is a Mode A/C transponder, Moneybox. advisory-circular-91-23-ads-b-enhancing-situational-awareness.pdf This CASA Advisory Circular (updated a year back) is pretty informative and shows the regulator's current thinking about ADSB gear for the VFR mob. A possibly relevant bit: "4.4 About Mode A/C Transponders Mode A/C transponders are obsolete technology that have been replaced or are in the process of being replaced in most parts of the world by Mode S transponder technology. Australia already requires IFR aircraft to have a Mode S transponder as an essential component of ADS-B OUT equipment. For VFR aircraft, there are circumstances where a Mode S transponder is required, specifically: for operations at major capital city aerodromes for aircraft manufactured on or after 6 February 2014 where a VFR aircraft is modified by having its transponder installation replaced. Aircraft owners who continue to use an older Mode A/C transponder should be aware that older transponders may appear to function correctly and be able to pass routine pressure altitude encoder testing, yet be unserviceable because no longer meets the full performance requirements. For example, CAO 100.5 and airworthiness directive (AD) AD/RAD/47 identifies that transponders using electron tube technology (such as cavity oscillators) may suffer from reply pulse anomalies as the components age. The CAO or AD (as applicable) requires periodic testing for such anomalies and, if detected, requires repair or replacement. Since the cost of repairing a transponder by replacing its cavity oscillator is significant, the cost-effective solution is likely to be replacement transponder. In this case, a Mode S transponder is the logical choice. " Also, a search of this site will turn up heaps of (locally oriented) discussion on transponders and "conspicuity devices" such as SkyEcho2s

Absolutely. No tool covers all the angles, including (and maybe in the case above, especially) the Mk2 eyeball. But then, the ATSB has been warning for decades against excessive faith in the human eye, in the sky (even in the absence of aerial cowboys) : see_and_avoid_report_print copy 2.pdf But sure, fixating on any one SA source (inside or out) isn't good; we have to learn to use new awareness tools intelligently. As has been said before, safe driving calls for skilfully splitting one's attention between three mirrors and the view out front. You'd come to grief quick-smart fixating on just one of your mirrors. But who'd willingly go out on the highway without those multi-view gadgets attached? Anyway, it'd be illegal and I reckon soon it'll be the same to fly any flying machine without ADSB (for similar reasons).

Yes, Juan explains (c. 04:40) that the Cessna PIC told him they'd tried to find the Swift on the ADSB-IN screen when they couldn't locate it by looking outside. Juan's hypothesis involves the classic high-wing/low-wing mutual occlusion scenario.