turboplanner

Do they give a list or source for their info? I wouldn't have thought it'd be anywhere near that high a figure....

No, just a line. You could search "collision" on ATSB and extract the non-relevant ones.

Been a few more than we remembered; this from today's Melbourne Age: "20 mid-air collisions in Australia since 2000"

One of the instructors who perished is a legend here in YBDG. Chris Gobel ran a flight training school here for well over 25 years and very well known, respected and liked. He trained hundreds of pilots many going on to commercial airlines and is held in very high regard by CASA as an advanced instructor. He will be sadly missed by many and remembered this Friday night meeting at the clubhouse.

Same goes for the CFI at Tyabb; hence me being cautious about any obvious cause.

I read that both planes were doing IFR training. That means only one pair of eyes available in each plane for see and avoid. Neither of those planes have what you would call really good visibility. Plus an instructor would have been watching the student as well. Did this occur in a danger area for flying training?

Maybe the recordings of radio traffic could throw some light on why it happened.

It is a popular field, used to be the Alternate for Essendon in the DC6B days and can be busy with training or a peaceful place for a break. I arrived at the same time as a Focker Friendship doing IFR training many years ago, and learnt an important lesson about orientating yourself before you arrive, but although it is used a lot for IFR training I wouldn't call it dangerous. After all, you may come across an inbound or outbound IFR flight at any field in Australia, maybe not every month, maybe not every year, but it's not an issue if you are flying VFR and following correct approach/circuit/departure procedures and correct radio procedures.

GA debaters seem to have narrowed it down to several different scenarios, but as I mentioned earlier IFR is a lot more complex than our flying and a lot of other factors are involved, along with Airservices and aids being involved, so I think a lot of recorded data has to be considered before we'll know.

IFR after 1st January 2020 = ADSB,

Regardless of "key transmissions" they should have been seen that's the whole point of ADSB. Something went wrong big time maybe one ADSB was not working and they where not listening or transmitting on the correct frequency. Swiss cheese event????

This accident needs to be investigated and findings made public.

I think this one is going to rightfully scare a lot of RA and GA people into the reality that ADSB, is not the magic solution which allows a pilot to disregard other forms of ensuring separation.

There already has been one squeal for TCAS, but you then look at an era like we had in the 1970s where the communication/navigation equipment was worth more than the airframe and engine.

As to your last point, I think this will be receiving a very thorough analysis by ATSB. It has some complicating factors in it like where each aircraft came from and where each aircraft was going, and the formal notification and pilot to pilot notification as a result.

.....drudgery of Question Time where he as the first Minister for Aviation to parry every question he was even asked, and......

[Turbo respectively points out that it was a Tyro GS1 which made the Bass Strait crossing. As even the village idiot would know, the GS only had a half litre fuel tank, designed to keep pilots like bull close to the airfield under the watchful eye of the CFI. The GS1 had the necessary 200 litre long range tank which was formed for use as a seat, thus saving weight, and also had the MK IV wheel arramgement.]

Both aircraft were flying to IFR plans; both were responsible for maintaining separation, and there is currently considerable discussion among experienced GA pilots about where ATSB sits in this. In IFR some of the key transmissions come from a long way away from the airfield. Who transmitted what and when and on what frequency may be key to this one.

.....aviation issue, so the voters moved him on in favour of Darwin Chestnut who was a dairy farmer and descendant of the Man from Snowy River who once flew.....

"...tell a DC3 from a Melbourne tram when he was Minister for Aviation; in fact he thought he was in charge of aviaries, and actuall told reporters he loved parrots and......."

.......become part of the RAAF fleet complete with roundels, and the pilots will be required to wear uniforms. In Canberra the CiC Act 2020 will be passed. This Act not only makes the Prime Minister Commander in Chief of Australia's Defence Department, but allows him to override the laws of the States, so that at the first whiff of smoke he can order the Drifters to Attack [we know they don't have guns, but it's jargon for "turn your water tank taps on"] and hitch a ride to the fire scene from wherever he may be holidaying. The Act also authorises him to shake anyone's hand whether they are Labor or not, and is also authorised to give away free beers if necessary. or...............

Some updates in this: 'Tragedy': Four dead after two planes crash in mid-air over central Victoria

This is just awful. I can't remember the last time we had a major MAC in Australia. My condolences to all the families involved

We had one about ten years ago at Moorabbin when the tower called a near first solo to turn crosswind well before the crosswing turn point and an instructor and student smacked into him as he turned downwind. He spun all the way down and drilled the ground, but the instructor managed to get the other aircraft down.

Piper Seminole from Moorabbin, Beech Travelair from Tyabb.

Separation issues which we've covered here recently, but complicated enough to wait for ATSB.

I'm enjoying this thread, by all accounts there ought to be bodies and airplanes littering the countryside!?

Good point; there seems to be an absence.

.........perplexed; he wasn't going to by flying anywhere because he didn't have a seat. What could he do? Could he.......

........ then you need a tighter turn because of the tailwind but you remember your instructor warning about steep turns in the circuit. Some subtle rudder pressure brings the nose around a bit quicker, some back pressure to avoid catching up with the slow guy ahead and ... oops!

You certainly can spin in this way, but that's not what I was getting at wne I brought this up. The following is from "The Killing Zone, how and why pilots die" by Paul A. Craig.

"Aerodynamics of the Turn.

Avoiding low-altitude steep turns and low aerobatics all together is the safest course of action. But what is it about these maneuvers that become deadly at low altitude? Why does the airplane seem to fall out from under a pilot when in these maneuvers?

The airplane's wings must provide lift to counteract all "down" forces. Weight or gravity is the "down" force that we easily understand, but while flying other forces come into play. These additional forces can team up with gravity and reduce the effectiveness of lift. [When an aircraft is flying straight and level the lift exactly opposes weight]. These lift and weight vectors are fairly simple, but things get complicated when the airplane turns.

In a medium bank turn the first problem is that the lift vector is now leaned over, in the turn. [When the lift vector is leaned over we lose effective lift because the lift vector no longer directly opposes weight.] So in a turn we lose lift.

Meanwhile the turn wil also produce centrifugal force. This is the swaying force you feel in your car when you make a fast turn. Centrifugal force joins forces with gravity to form a resultant load. This is more commonly called the G force. The actual force of the earth's gravity does not get stronger when you turn, but when you add gravity and centrifugal force together it places an extra load on the wings. From the wing's point of view it is being asked to carry a greater load.

The wing is being asked to carry a greater load at the exact moment when lift is reduced and the wing is less able to carry a greater load.

Something has to give. The accelerated stall takes place . Ordinarily the stall speeds are painted on the airspeed indicator. The slow end of the white arc is the stall speed with flaps down and the slow end of the green arc is the stall speed with the flaps up. But in a turn the colors of the airspeed indicator can no longer be trusted. The airplane can and will stall even though the airspeed is well within the green arc. It stalls faster than the indicator says it should; that's why it's called an accelerated stall.

At shallow banks, the G force is not much above 1G. But when a pilot makes a 60-degree level turn, the G force jumps to 2Gs. That means a 2000 pound plane now effectively weighs 4000 pounds in the turn. More importantly, the wings must support 4000 pounds. That is a great deal to ask - to get 4000 pounds of lift from the wings of a 2000-pound airplane. The wings probably will not be able to do it and lift is lost; the airplane stalls."

After being trained on how to turn an aircraft with aileron, and how to turn more sharply if needed, and after reading recent posts, I'd be surprised if anyone here would be tempted to try and sharpen a turn using rudder, but let's say they do; they have misused the controls and they probably know it.

However, in the example I've given above, when you start playing with steep turns from about 45 degrees, you need to know the factors, like throttle settings you are going to use, you need to know what you can and can't do from theory lessons, not from something simple like keeping the ball in the middle, and that's why I give the angle of bank much more attention than I did in my first few years. Reading those paragraphs changed my attitude to showing off my tight turns overnight.

Believe what you like. You are wrong.

In some cases yes, but I didn't want to confuse new students by quoting the people who will never get it.

Turbs you are probably right, but what matters is which aspects of the training "stick".

Not every instructor has the gift of prefect communication.

I know one new pilot who concentrated on doing nice square turns in the circuit, because that's what he thought was most important. Other aspects seemed to be secondary, such as airspeed, attitude, bank angle, altitude, angle to aiming point...

These are the patterns required to be flown (see various CARS and CAAPs), so nice square turns are mandatory, so that other pilots can predict what you are likely to do, so you can't just make up your own circuits.

Every one of the Instructors I've even had, gently guided me around that rectangle and at the correct height; you do a LOT of circuits with instructors so if one spend the circuit asleep (as one of mine did) you quietly drop him and choose someone else.

All of the aspects you mentioned are important in their own way, and I've found Instructors are quick to break up any obsession with just one aspect of flying. You really do have to learn it all and get it all going at once.

We've had the discussion many times where someone from a country airfield that may never fly with another aircraft in the circuit scratches his head at all these formal practices, and I accept that it's hard to visualise what we do in the cities with10+ aircraft in the circuit and 2 or three on final alone. You would appreciate that for three to get down you have to be proceeding in a reasonable order so one doesn't get too close and have to go around. A pilot practising correct formal principles will have a much safer time in the City or at a fly in.

The pilot has been taught that you mustn't exceed 30° of bank in the circuit and so boots in some rudder (so as not to be seen banking excessively) to skid it around without adding bank or power. This makes the nose drop and roll a little, so they pull back and add opposite aileron and keep adding the same inputs until it's all over.

I don't believe any pilot has been taught "you mustn't exceed 30 deg", but isusually rold to do rate 1 turns in the circuit because that gives a bigger margin of error, and has everyone doing the same thing in the same place.. GA pilots rarely spend much time on rudder, so are unlikely to use such an unnatural action as you describe, although I suppose some RA pilots might decide the rudder is to turn, thereby discarding all their BAK training, which I felt would have killed any thought of doing this, and I couldn't see any instructors saying "Don't worry about it mate, just give it heaps of rudder!"

......their left ear to check for a.......

............those jargon-spouting YSBS XXXXX will be at the bottom of the heap facing CASA checks like we used to, and.....

....action, which might not cause too much damage to Captain, because thre was very little to remove, would result in OT becomeing unbalanced and operating outside his envelope (avref), which could mean.......

Keeping the bank angle lower is a double edged sword. It encourages people to do a flat (unbalanced) turn if they want to tighten the turn. (Very bad habit).

The turn to final is particularly attention concentrating. You usually muck it up when you have a downwind on base. That means you would have a fair amount of crab on final in any case and the downwind on base gives an illusion of going a bit fast, so you have a couple of potential problems already. ANY time you bank to cause a turn, you will need more lift and more lift means more drag, so add power or lower the nose or do a bit of both depending on where you are. Low speed with the ball off centre is a bad combination.. A tiny bit of extra back stick and it's over . Steep turns are not dangerous if done the right way. Balanced and with a margin above the NEW stall speed and at low levels you are not concentrating on watching your airspeed all the time so must be aware of any pitch control movements and your planes attitude changes which will affect your airspeed. Nev

Well you've demolished everything I've said, so maybe you could expand on the following:

If you are doing a balanced 30 degree turn, and if you don't line up with the runway you're going to do a go round; how would it encourage you to do a flat unbalanced turn?

The same principles apply, even though you're crabbing; if you can't line up you go round, what's wrong with that.

If you use Rate 1 turns (30 deg.) in the circuit consistently you become aware during your training of the dynamics, so why would you randomly start playing with lowering the nose or adding more power in a turn which is already managed?

You should already have been trained for circuit speeds, the circuit doesn't change, you're still flying in a slug of air so why would you suddenly start flying at low speed with the ball off-centre?

If you are in a balanced 30 degree turn, why would you be applying "a tiny bit of back stick" when you already have back stick applied for the bank?

No, steep turns are not dangerous if done the right way, but in my training steep turns were taught at altitude, and with a particular throttle setting. Are you suggesting people should be routinely doing them in the circuit?

It's the turn onto finals that can make me nervous. You have slowed down to circuit speed and then then a small overshoot can make that turn steeper than you meant it to be. Add in some ground-effect turbulence and you can have a stall/spin too close to the ground to recover.

I reckon the worst accident in my 45 years at Gawler was an ex-747 captain doing one of these in a Sonerai type plane with a Volkswagen engine on its first flight. Power failure was a big factor too, but the stall-spin caused the impact I think.

Have the results of any investigation ever been published?

Well you’re only doing one final for a start, and we all under and overshoot for that 500’ turn. If you stick to Rate 1 turns in the circuit you are not likely to spin. If that leaves you too far past the runway line, you do a go round, still no issue. If you make 60 degree turns as some do, you’re at 2 g, stall is at a much higher speed and you’re one unexpected buffet away from a spin. Why would you do it? But some always do. Even here, in my training I was able to achieve a best recovery from an incipient spin of 150’. Could I do that this morning? No, I could probably come out before I hit the ground if I remembered the correct throttle and rudder inputs, so really would have no hope of a 100% surety which is why I do 30% turns. I have never overrun the runway so much as to yank back on the strip, so that would be the first sign that I had to spend a few hours with an instructor, but why even then would I not just make a go round. The solution is pilot behaviour.

.....Blazer and the badge with her name on it. Normally she was very quiet and formal, but without Mavis there to set the standard it was clear she was out of control. Locksie's face was buried between her appendages and he was gasping for air, so he did the only thing a fireman could do; he grabbed for his fire axle in its holster, and then......