Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
Not commenting on what happened in this specific case, but how can someone’s ‘Ops Manual’ override e.g. the ‘in vicinity’ CASRs? Anything ‘non-standard’ should be in ERSA itself (or e.g.NOTAMs), so that ‘ordinary’ pilots can find information where it’s ordinarily found.
A very good point,
LB - and one that is relevant considering
some posters here seem to be fixated on the FACT "a landing aircraft always has right of way" without considering the context of that clause and how it interrelates to
other CASR's and "the Caboolture SOP's"
Acting on the (admittedly possibly incorrect) assumption the Jab
was using the active runway and the Pawnee
wasn't (due to the reported shorter taxi after rollout), CASR's say "a landing aircraft has right of way", but also say "landing on the runway that
is not the into-wind runway must not risk the safety of those using the into wind runway" while you also have the Caboollture Airport SOP's that quite definitely say
"All operators at YCAB are advised that any pilot selecting a runway other than the one which is clearly the ‘active’ runway (by virtue of into wind and minimum cross wind component and established circuit traffic), or that has been nominated as the ‘active’ runway by a radio information communication, then such pilot will lose all right of way privileges and shall conduct the landing or take-off procedure such as to give way to, and maintain separation from all other circuit traffic."
If, as has been reported, the Pawnee wasn't using the active, I'd be quite nervous if I was its' pilot...