Jetstar leaves Launceston in the dark?
Thread Starter
Jetstar leaves Launceston in the dark?
Report from crikey.com.au
Jetstar leaves Launceston in the dark?
Ben Sandilands writes:
Jetstar is under the Australian Transport Safety Bureau spotlight for allegedly taking off from Launceston Airport for Sydney last Wednesday night in total darkness. The jet which could have carried up to 180 passengers on board was reported as taking off without runway lights. It is illegal and seriously unsafe for aircraft to take off in darkness.
Runway lights define the sides, start and finish of the strip as well as the taxiway exits, providing pilots with critical information in the event of an aborted takeoff or an urgent return to an airport because of an engine failure, fire on board or other emergency. It is a pilot's responsibility to ensure the lighting is on.
Two Qantas pilots who were alleged to have taken off from Launceston without activating the runway lights on 23 October 2001 in a 737 with 77 passengers on board were committed for trial on 4 November 2005 on charges brought under the Civil Aviation Act.
These charges, that they operated an aircraft recklessly and in a manner endangering life, carry a penalty of up to five years jail if proven.
However both pilots, one of whom has since retired, recently applied for a stay of proceedings in the drawn out case, which has cost Qantas large sums to defend, and which is the first ever criminal prosecution of a major Australian airline for breaches of the air safety regulations. A decision on that application is not expected until late next month. Now it seems the CDPP which is prosecuting that case may have to decide on similar action against Jetstar, depending on any recommendation from CASA the air safety regulator, and the technical investigation announced this morning by the ATSB.
A spokesman for Jetstar says "We have a proactive safety culture ... (and) ... we are providing information to the ATSB. We had an experienced technical crew on board that flight. We do not intend to run a commentary on this until the matter is investigated."
Ben Sandilands writes:
Jetstar is under the Australian Transport Safety Bureau spotlight for allegedly taking off from Launceston Airport for Sydney last Wednesday night in total darkness. The jet which could have carried up to 180 passengers on board was reported as taking off without runway lights. It is illegal and seriously unsafe for aircraft to take off in darkness.
Runway lights define the sides, start and finish of the strip as well as the taxiway exits, providing pilots with critical information in the event of an aborted takeoff or an urgent return to an airport because of an engine failure, fire on board or other emergency. It is a pilot's responsibility to ensure the lighting is on.
Two Qantas pilots who were alleged to have taken off from Launceston without activating the runway lights on 23 October 2001 in a 737 with 77 passengers on board were committed for trial on 4 November 2005 on charges brought under the Civil Aviation Act.
These charges, that they operated an aircraft recklessly and in a manner endangering life, carry a penalty of up to five years jail if proven.
However both pilots, one of whom has since retired, recently applied for a stay of proceedings in the drawn out case, which has cost Qantas large sums to defend, and which is the first ever criminal prosecution of a major Australian airline for breaches of the air safety regulations. A decision on that application is not expected until late next month. Now it seems the CDPP which is prosecuting that case may have to decide on similar action against Jetstar, depending on any recommendation from CASA the air safety regulator, and the technical investigation announced this morning by the ATSB.
A spokesman for Jetstar says "We have a proactive safety culture ... (and) ... we are providing information to the ATSB. We had an experienced technical crew on board that flight. We do not intend to run a commentary on this until the matter is investigated."
Nunc est bibendum
I find it hard to believe that any crew would take off at night without the runway lights on.
So the question is 'who' reported it? What is their expertise? Are they credible?
I wonder if they are the same 'who' that reported the alleged QF incident- which we'll never know as the QF report was a CAIR. Do they have an axe to grind about aircraft operations in the evening at Launy.
The final issue of course is that perhaps both of these aircraft did in fact take off without the runway lights. Given that two professional crews have managed to make an error in this way then perhaps there is something about Launy that makes this possible.
So the question is 'who' reported it? What is their expertise? Are they credible?
I wonder if they are the same 'who' that reported the alleged QF incident- which we'll never know as the QF report was a CAIR. Do they have an axe to grind about aircraft operations in the evening at Launy.
The final issue of course is that perhaps both of these aircraft did in fact take off without the runway lights. Given that two professional crews have managed to make an error in this way then perhaps there is something about Launy that makes this possible.
Pretty basic stuff, PPL NVFR turn runway lights on prior to taxi or arrival and if you see the light flashing on the windsock reactivate prior to landing or departure.
Bet you if you were a GA driver and got sprung taking of without runway lights, CASA would screw you for everything and a bit more.
Bet you if you were a GA driver and got sprung taking of without runway lights, CASA would screw you for everything and a bit more.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was allegedly captured by the security camera, other than that I have no other information. As Keg mentioned though, if it has happened twice at Launy and nowhere else that uses PAL ,then it suggests that there might be a problem with the Launy setup. As there is an agent why can't the lights be left on?
Bottums Up
Depending on the actual circumstances, it's not too difficult a situation to occur.
I can recall at least one occasion, when acting as F/O re-activating the PAL on line up, as the Capt who was PF hadn't noticed the flashing PWI, which wasn't flashing as we entered to back track.
I can also recall at least one occasion, where a colleague had the RWY lights extinguish during the takeoff roll. The decision at the time was continuing was a better option than rejecting.
Either of the above scenarios, not noticing the flashing PWI or, having them go out during the takeoff roll, is a far cry from a conscious decision to takeoff without the required lighting. A decision I doubt any RPT jet operator would make.
I can recall at least one occasion, when acting as F/O re-activating the PAL on line up, as the Capt who was PF hadn't noticed the flashing PWI, which wasn't flashing as we entered to back track.
I can also recall at least one occasion, where a colleague had the RWY lights extinguish during the takeoff roll. The decision at the time was continuing was a better option than rejecting.
Either of the above scenarios, not noticing the flashing PWI or, having them go out during the takeoff roll, is a far cry from a conscious decision to takeoff without the required lighting. A decision I doubt any RPT jet operator would make.
One would have thought that the airport safety officer might have alerted the crew?
Might pay for ASA to keep the tower open longer, that's if they can staff it!
Do many aircraft still do night freight into YMLT, do they have problem's with the lights?
Might pay for ASA to keep the tower open longer, that's if they can staff it!
Do many aircraft still do night freight into YMLT, do they have problem's with the lights?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: US
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lighting time cycle is a bloody trap - especially if there are distractions when the IWI flashes and the auto broadcast occurs. SOOOOO, it's a good idea to rekey the lights just before taxy.
But no idea if that was in fact the problem the other night.
But no idea if that was in fact the problem the other night.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might be on the wrong track but the flashing windsock wasn't working at COOMA last year until the electricians fixed it.
A couple of take-offs were "interupted" when the lights suddenly went out.
A couple of take-offs were "interupted" when the lights suddenly went out.
I wonder if they are the same 'who' that reported the alleged QF incident- which we'll never know as the QF report was a CAIR. Do they have an axe to grind about aircraft operations in the evening at Launy.
Keg,
That's a fair question. And maybe someone did put in a CAIR. I met a local pilot who claims to have seen the event and claims to have reported it. He didn't sound to me like he had an axe to grind. Perhaps he just thought he had a duty to report what he thinks he saw.
Does Launie have a problem with the lights? I suppose someone will check them out. Launceston had a pretty dodgy mixed airspace system without radar for a while there when the new airspace system (MK iv ??) started. Someone woke up to the safety implications, changed the airspace and got a radar happening to boot. Problem solved. I guess they saw the light
Pithblot
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Where is Scurvy when ya need him?
probably enough light that it was not dark yet the camera's made it look dark. I would believe that should be checked out first. Any novice photographer would know that!
J
probably enough light that it was not dark yet the camera's made it look dark. I would believe that should be checked out first. Any novice photographer would know that!
J
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I grew up in a world where jet RPT=Controlled airspace. Even as I recall F27 freighters to Launie had the tower manned. So I have a view on all of that.
And more....what would you do if a Guardian Angel appeared next to those of us with say 10,000 hrs and offered an envelope containing details of all the times we a)took off without checking the windsock, b) took off without doing the Before T/O checklist, c) took off without properly checking the departure and engine out tracks for weather,d)took off without doing an engine run in icing conditions e) took off without actually physically checking each of the required RW lights, f) took off without a T/O clearance etc etc..........who of us would open the envelope?
Keg or someone like him was right. If this happened, lets find out why and not shoot the crew.
And more....what would you do if a Guardian Angel appeared next to those of us with say 10,000 hrs and offered an envelope containing details of all the times we a)took off without checking the windsock, b) took off without doing the Before T/O checklist, c) took off without properly checking the departure and engine out tracks for weather,d)took off without doing an engine run in icing conditions e) took off without actually physically checking each of the required RW lights, f) took off without a T/O clearance etc etc..........who of us would open the envelope?
Keg or someone like him was right. If this happened, lets find out why and not shoot the crew.
Rather than prosecute the alleged culprits, shouldn't we be asking WHY?, as alluded to by a couple of previous posters!
Remember the Comair CRJ accident at Lexington, Kentucky. A CRJ departed off an unlit runway. As it turned out, the wrong runway, and of inadequate length.
No pilot would do this. But it happened!
WHY ?
Remember the Comair CRJ accident at Lexington, Kentucky. A CRJ departed off an unlit runway. As it turned out, the wrong runway, and of inadequate length.
No pilot would do this. But it happened!
WHY ?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pithblot,
The radar at Lt has certainly made the airspace safer, but don't think for a second that it's installation there was anything more than a political. If the E over D debacle hadn't happened, neither would the radar.
The radar at Lt has certainly made the airspace safer, but don't think for a second that it's installation there was anything more than a political. If the E over D debacle hadn't happened, neither would the radar.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where I am operating from there is a switch that changes the PAL system from the 30 minute cycle to permanently on. If I have a night flight or know that I will be returning after dark I turn it to the permanent setting. That way, with the standby power generator, I don't have any alternate worries due to lighting.
I would have thought that Launie, and for that matter any port where RPT is operating after tower hours, would have had something similar and that the agent could be shown how to use the thing.
If that transgresses some security thingy then why not do what Alice Springs does and leave em on all night.
I would have thought that Launie, and for that matter any port where RPT is operating after tower hours, would have had something similar and that the agent could be shown how to use the thing.
If that transgresses some security thingy then why not do what Alice Springs does and leave em on all night.
I know of two aerodromes with Jet RPT at night where the safety guys just goes over and turns the key on the lights so they are on mains power. Eliminates any lighting/PAL problem. Then before he leaves he just turns the key for it back to PAL. Pretty simple.
Nunc est bibendum
The papers may have gotten it wrong but this report is interesting. My added emphasis.
This would indicate to me that the lights were off for part or all of the take off and an incident report filed- and that the crew also became aware of it at some stage. That brings us back to the 'why' that I implied earlier- and others have asked about much more bluntly. Why did this occur? What is it about Launy that causes this to happen...possibly for the second time! 
Stay vigilant folks. Aviation is always finding new ways to bring us undone!
Air safety authorities are investigating reports that a Jetstar plane took off from Launceston Airport, in northern Tasmania, one night last week without runway lights.
The A-320 Airbus was on a scheduled flight to Sydney. It is not known how many passengers were on board.The Australian Transport Safety Bureau says runway lights are a normal part of operations and it would be a safety issue if they were not used.The Bureau's Julian Walsh says an investigation is underway.
"Jetstar advised the Bureau that an aircraft had taken off from Launceston during hours of darkness and it appears that the runway lights were not on when the aircraft took off," he said.
A spokesman for Jetstar, Simon Westaway, says the airline reported the matter within 24 hours of it occurring. He says Jetstar will not comment further while an investigation is happening. "I can confirm that as the result of an aviation safety investigation report publicised today by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Jetstar has previously and will continue to work with regulators around this matter."
The A-320 Airbus was on a scheduled flight to Sydney. It is not known how many passengers were on board.The Australian Transport Safety Bureau says runway lights are a normal part of operations and it would be a safety issue if they were not used.The Bureau's Julian Walsh says an investigation is underway.
"Jetstar advised the Bureau that an aircraft had taken off from Launceston during hours of darkness and it appears that the runway lights were not on when the aircraft took off," he said.
A spokesman for Jetstar, Simon Westaway, says the airline reported the matter within 24 hours of it occurring. He says Jetstar will not comment further while an investigation is happening. "I can confirm that as the result of an aviation safety investigation report publicised today by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Jetstar has previously and will continue to work with regulators around this matter."
Stay vigilant folks. Aviation is always finding new ways to bring us undone!