skwdenyer Page: 1 of 1

skwdenyer
January 30, 2025, 15:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817341

Quote:

Originally Posted by Climb150

It's easy Do you see the traffic? Yea or no. If there is an ounce of uncertainty you say no. This guy either thought he did or he didn't see it but said he did.

You can be certain and still be looking at the wrong aircraft.

We have actual technology to remove the need for a pilot\x92s eyes to be the only line of defence. For some reason it wasn\x92t being used properly here.

Subjects: None

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

skwdenyer
January 30, 2025, 20:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817647

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meehan Mydogg

Hi all, I\x92m a UK lapsed PPL and, having listened to the recordings of the ATC comms during this incident, a number of things strike me.

1. The ATC (local controller, or LC) was entirely blameless and appears to have followed all the rules.

As a counter to that, the local controller seems to have taken few steps to prove to his own satisfaction that the Helo pilot categorically knew which traffic they were both talking about.

Asking questions which can only be answered by demonstrating knowledge is an art. Asking a question related to discrimination of information that can be answered yes/no is easier but much less satisfactory.

That lack of mutual understanding seems to be a likely proximate cause of this tragedy.

Subjects ATC

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

skwdenyer
January 31, 2025, 12:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818171

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prob30Tempo TSRA

Is there any audio suggesting the heli acknowledged the instruction to pass behind ?

it seems fairly obvious where the blame lies but more interesting is the systematic failures that lead to them being there .

Does it seem obvious where the blame lies? I don\x92t see a great deal of consensus here.

Subjects Pass Behind Pass Behind (All)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

skwdenyer
January 31, 2025, 15:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818303

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lascaille

What's your source on that?

You're suggesting that the civilian ATC controller was talking to the helo on UHF and separately talking to the civ traffic on VHF?

Because it's clearly the same controller voice. What's the published UHF frequency for the civ traffic controller to use?

His first video had responses from the helo, just not all of them... The civ ATC is sending to the helo on VHF and receiving on UHF? Is that mentioned anywhere on the VAS Aviation channel? Because the LiveATC recordings page has clips which include all the audio with no mention of splices being made.

From airnav.com:

This isn\x92t UHF; just a different VHF frequency.

Subjects ATC

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

skwdenyer
February 03, 2025, 20:52:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820884

Quote:

Originally Posted by fdr

?.

Was there a change to the definition of VHF and UHF that we didn't get the memo on?

Our own versions of the 60 have needs for VHF along with FM, UHF and HF, secure or not. Presumably the USA doesn't use an ICOM A23 or similar when dropping in to some towns local airstrip. ARC-231"s? using a UHF freq when mixing with civil traffic would be self limiting, presumably the tapes will indicate the helo was on VHF freq not the UHF one.

The ITU definition of UHF is 300MHz to 3GHz. Hence I this wasn\x92t UHF.

It seems that radio marketers do call 257.6 MHz UHF. Go figure

Subjects: None

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

skwdenyer January 30, 2025, 15:46:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817341	Quote: Originally Posted by Climb150 It's easy Do you see the traffic? Yea or no. If there is an ounce of uncertainty you say no. This guy either thought he did or he didn't see it but said he did. You can be certain and still be looking at the wrong aircraft. We have actual technology to remove the need for a pilot\x92s eyes to be the only line of defence. For some reason it wasn\x92t being used properly here. Subjects: None 1 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
skwdenyer January 30, 2025, 20:57:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817647	Quote: Originally Posted by Meehan Mydogg Hi all, I\x92m a UK lapsed PPL and, having listened to the recordings of the ATC comms during this incident, a number of things strike me. 1. The ATC (local controller, or LC) was entirely blameless and appears to have followed all the rules. As a counter to that, the local controller seems to have taken few steps to prove to his own satisfaction that the Helo pilot categorically knew which traffic they were both talking about. Asking questions which can only be answered by demonstrating knowledge is an art. Asking a question related to discrimination of information that can be answered yes/no is easier but much less satisfactory. That lack of mutual understanding seems to be a likely proximate cause of this tragedy. Subjects ATC Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 1 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
skwdenyer January 31, 2025, 12:43:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818171	Quote: Originally Posted by Prob30Tempo TSRA Is there any audio suggesting the heli acknowledged the instruction to pass behind ? it seems fairly obvious where the blame lies but more interesting is the systematic failures that lead to them being there . Does it seem obvious where the blame lies? I don\x92t see a great deal of consensus here. Subjects Pass Behind Pass Behind (All) Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes'). Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
skwdenyer January 31, 2025, 15:43:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818303	Quote: Originally Posted by Lascaille What's your source on that? You're suggesting that the civilian ATC controller was talking to the helo on UHF and separately talking to the civ traffic on VHF? Because it's clearly the same controller voice. What's the published UHF frequency for the civ traffic controller to use? His first video had responses from the helo, just not all of them... The civ ATC is sending to the helo on VHF and receiving on UHF? Is that mentioned anywhere on the VAS Aviation channel? Because the LiveATC recordings page has clips which include all the audio with no mention of splices being made. From airnav.com: This isn\x92t UHF; just a different VHF frequency. Subjects ATC Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 1 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
skwdenyer February 03, 2025, 20:52:00 GMT permalink Post: 11820884	Quote: Originally Posted by fdr ?. Was there a change to the definition of VHF and UHF that we didn't get the memo on? Our own versions of the 60 have needs for VHF along with FM, UHF and HF, secure or not. Presumably the USA doesn't use an ICOM A23 or similar when dropping in to some towns local airstrip. ARC-231"s? using a UHF freq when mixing with civil traffic would be self limiting, presumably the tapes will indicate the helo was on VHF freq not the UHF one. The ITU definition of UHF is 300MHz to 3GHz. Hence I this wasn\x92t UHF. It seems that radio marketers do call 257.6 MHz UHF. Go figure Subjects: None No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes'). Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Posts by user "skwdenyer" [Posts: 5 Total up-votes: 3 Page: 1 of 1]¶