To LeadSled (and apologies to others…)
LeadSled says “Go even further back to the night the TAA B727 on takeoff hit the taxing CPA DC-8. Once again, pedantic and slavish Australian (and non-ICAO) "radio procedures" played a big part in the accident. “ and “As to the B727/DC-8 --- why was the DC-8 still on the runway?
Because the clearance was something like: "Take next taxiway right, backtrack, call ground xxx.x"
This is exactly what the DC-8 did --- followed the clearance in internationally accepted/ICAO terms, at the next taxiway, they did a 180 and backtracked on the runway.”
You are incorrect – the instruction was “take next taxiway right – call on 121.7” – nothing confusing about that and to say that “pedantic and slavish Australian (and non-ICAO) "radio procedures" played a big part in the accident” is nonsense.
Regarding the tragic B200 accident at Sydney, the B727 was never a factor in that accident (there were, however, a number of factors involved that you conveniently fail to mention and that appear on pages 28-29 of the accident report. They include: environmental conditions - 39 deg C plus sun glare, overweight ops by approx 128kg, a likely reduced power take-off technique used by the company, a company policy of not using the auto feather system even though it was fitted to this aircraft, using a hand microphone to transmit and turning toward the "dead" engine”. Therefore given the above factors do you still agree with your statement that “had he not been cleared No2 behind a B727, in all likelihood the aircraft would have made it”? In my opinion this sort of distortion and misinformation from you just backs up my claims that you endeavour to denigrate the Australian system at every opportunity.
Regarding the ATSB report into the Norfolk ditching – I do agree that there has been an apparent fundamental shift here and agree with the Senate inquiry as this report is way off what I would have expected from the ATSB. However, that report has little to do with the 2 events you have raised.
Lastly, I have absolutely no issue with your comment “Rest assured, I shall continue to criticise associations/unions and individuals who stand in the way of advancements in cost/benefit justified risk reduction, or much needed reforms, or associations that promote "changes" that are for the benefit of the associations, particularly commercial benefit , and not aviation in general, for whatever reason” however what I do have an issue with is the amount of distortion and misinformation you throw around with gay abandon to try and make your point.
My apologies to others for the thread hijack here but LeadSled needs to be exposed for his misinformation.
VH-MLE