KRUSTY 34
I am saying it is a general problem in Australia, where something called "radio procedures" takes precedence over good communications.
In operations in uncontrolled airspace, this is exacerbated by the widespread assumption of "might is right", and the notion that, somehow, RPT or larger aircraft have a self assumed right of way over "lesser" traffic.
This is not "universal", of course, but far too frequent to be just the occasional "bad apple in the barrel". Indeed, I have sat in far too many consultation meetings, where representative of one of the pilot unions have demanded such rights of way.
I am sure (I hope) that you understand that there is no such right. In no other country, in which I have operated, have I ever heard the bullying, hectoring and attempted direction of general GA traffic by self confessed "professionals". Indeed, one of the pleasures of flying in the US and Canada, is the the spirit of cooperation displayed by all airspace users, the agro. one hears all to often in Australia is entirely absent.
In fact, perhaps you would like to look up the PCH study, one of several on operations in G, that confirmed the problem.
The scene is set for a "Reason" model of failure.
I well remember one such example, that gave me much amusement. The Captain of a domestic flight (in this case not a Regional) sought to direct the activities of a Cessna single on a Queensland country aerodrome. Unfortunately, the light aircraft was not being commanded by a "weekend warrior" or a "blundering bug smasher", but, in fact, the Director if Flight Operations of his employer. Ouch!!
And tea and biccies with his boss, come Monday?
In another case, NSW country, arriving RPT directed a C-150 to break off its approach, so as not to delay the RPT, about 8 miles in trail, at that point. Bad move, the pilot of the C-150 would be one of the more knowledgeable people around, rules of the air wise, and a very senior Canberra public servant, very conversant with matters aviation.
Perhaps you remember the very serious incident at Orange ( look up the ATSB report) of the Regional inbound "directing" a light twin in an IMC missed approach, to break off the published missed approach, because it would delay the said Regional, which was intending to arrive straight in, downwind, opposite direction to prevailing circuit traffic.
The rules laid down, including CAR 166, are all too often not treated with the respect that they should. That having to do a circuit, rather than a straight in, costs time and money, is no excuse.
Undoubtedly, some of you who read these forums will recall a Notice to Flight Staff ( or whatever it is called at the particular Regional operator, the one with the big brother) as the result of a series of incidents at a NSW coastal airstrip and elsewhere, reminding them of not only of the law and the rules good airmanship, but the "mother-ship's" strict policy on the subject of safety before schedule.
Tootle pip!!
Agreed. I have too seen this way to often, I now understand the logic behind your comments.
Only two weeks ago I corrected an FO for doing this whilst in my aircraft.
But I also think this might not have been the case here. Maybe the other aircraft did not make radio calls in response to a taxiing call.
We can only speculate. Wait for the ATSB report.