Jetstar leaves Launceston in the dark?

[Teal]

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."

[Keg]

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.

[Stationair8]

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.

[Waghi Warrior]

HERE WE GO AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!
:ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh:

[newsensation]

Schedule before safety or was it supposed to be the other way around.... :=

[permFO]

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?

[Capt Claret]

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.

[Stationair8]

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?

[Statorblade]

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.:confused:

[mention1]

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.

[KRUSTY 34]

Does anyone know why Qantas, as stated by Mr Sandilands, has spent large sums defending this?

[pithblot]

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

[Jabawocky]

Where is Scurvy when ya need him?:suspect:

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:ugh:

[Captain Sherm]

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.

[Capt Fathom]

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 ?

[Roger Standby]

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.

[PLovett]

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.

[neville_nobody]

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.

[bushy]

Is it true that CASA is a subsiduary of Qantas?

[Keg]

The papers may have gotten it wrong but this report is interesting. My added emphasis.

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."

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! :eek:

Stay vigilant folks. Aviation is always finding new ways to bring us undone!

[FFRATS]

Quote "A spokesman for Jetstar says "We have a proactive safety culture ... (and) ... we are providing information to the ATSB."
Just like MEL GoAround :rolleyes:
Told by Perth LAME J* parked at gate there the other day without any nose in guidance or GND staff marshaling. :D It was also reported but buy GND staff. I'm sure J*crew self reported within 24hrs..
FFRATS

[permFO]

I would think that J* reporting the incident within 24 hours simply indicates that they were doing the right thing by reporting the incident ASAP. I don't think it implies anything about when the the lights were or were not on. If they were not on at the commencement of the take-off roll then that is a very serious issue. If they went out as the aircraft "took-off" then it was probably the safer option to continue.

Who is going to do a full on rejected take-off at 100kts at a place like Launy when it has suddenly gone dark? The answer is simple. Have the lights switched on manually by the ground staff for all RPT movements outside of ATC hours.

[Keg]

I agree permFO. I hope my comments didn't imply criticism of the crew. Continuing at anything above (say) 80 knots would probably be the lesser of two evils IMHO.

I hope these guys don't get screwed around like the QF drivers did!

[Sue Ridgepipe]

If they were not on at the commencement of the take-off roll then that is a very serious issue.

FFS!:mad:
I know you guys seem to think that all J* pilots are complete morons, but please...:rolleyes:

[Stationair8]

Perhaps one of the locals got a knock-back from Qantas/Jetstar group?

One would have thought that the airport safety officer would have said something if he was airside at the time of departure?

I heard another very interesting story about a foggy morning in YMLT , no tower and a jet departure, bit like the CRJ in the America.

[Islander Jock]

If it was right on last light. The Aearodrome Reporting Officer or Safety Officer would not necessarily intervene. The only time I turn lights on manually is if there is particularly low vis during daylight and the PE cell activates the timer. Or if the crew ask me to turn the lights on because of some other problem.

[aulglarse]

Stationair8, only 800m vis required for a 'foggy morning' with tower not active.

[Stationair8]

Was the tower shut due to lack of staff?

Last light for Wednesday 11/03/07 was 0906 UTC, still pretty light in the southern latitudes this time of the year and coming up to a full moon.

[Jabawocky]

I think ASA management have a lot to answer for...... we all know they have been caught with their pants down in Launie.......and they do not like it at all.

Easier to blame their woes on staff shortages and cover up their ,,,,,,,, nuf said!:ugh:

J:(

[Stationair8]

aulglarse, fully aware of the 800m vis required for a foggy morning.

But to line up at taxiway B YMLT for a departure to the north is probably a bit brave, with the tower not open fortunately something was said by somebody and the aircraft backtracked and departed from the threshold of 32.

[Dick Smith]

As pilots we normally learn from the mistakes we have made or the mistakes of others – I do anyway. I’ve said before on this site that whenever a mistake is made by a pilot, no matter how stupid, I always think, “When will I do that?”

The problem is that when the alleged Qantas incident took place (over 6 years ago) we were never able to learn anything of the details because the legal action taken by the DPP has prevented people from being open about what could be a major safety issue. If the Qantas aircraft in 2001 did actually take off without turning on the runway lights at Launceston, many pilots (including myself) would like to know how this happened and what the circumstances were, so we could make sure we did not make the same error.

Rather than the Civil Aviation Safety Authority asking the pilots to write an article for Flight Safety magazine, they decided to put the matter to the DPP and take legal action.

I understand that the original Launceston incident is still being fought out in the Hobart courts, and none of the important safety information has become apparent. I also understand that there has been no incident report filed with the ATSB because the Qantas pilots in question stated that the incident did not happen. Obviously if it didn’t happen we can’t learn anything from this, but if it did happen (as the DPP and CASA insist) there must be a reasonable explanation on why two professional pilots would depart Launceston without the runway lights being on.

It sounds to me as if CASA and the DPP have a lot to answer here. Let’s hope the full story comes out before there is a needless loss of life.

[Kangaroo Court]

Dick, for once I think we can all agree with you.

[Stationair8]

If it had been one of the GA operators doing night freight into YMLT, CASA would done something alright pulled the AOC and hung the pilot by his short and curlies.

Makes a bit of a joke about your brochure that you produced when you headed up CAA in the 90's Dick, airline travel is safe in the big jets and risk is greater in the small aircraft, but I suppose the old PA-31 pilot can turn them lights on.

[Capt Claret]

I reckon for safety and the information of the greater pilot fraternity, all accidents and incidents, along with interesting and relevant editorial stories, should be collated on a regular basis and published in a book or magazine.

It could be called something like, "The Crash Comic", or, "The Aviation Safety Digest". :hmm:

We had one of those a long, long, time ago! :{

Change of Direction

I thought Aussies were supposed to be the epitome of The Fair Go.

It seems more and more the wider PPRUne fraternity wants to bag the **** out of some one who makes a mistake, and argue that they're just incompetent, rather than to wonder "how did it happen"? "What factors contributed to such an error?"

Bloody sad really, there's all together too much bitchiness on these pages, bugger all support, and less and less learning for all of us. :(

[Dick Smith]

Stationair8, thanks for reminding me of the airline safety brochure. For those who are interested, see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_43.php).

Of course what the brochure explained was the different levels of regulated safety which exist under Australian law. The actual regulations have to be enforced right across the board to be effective. If enforcement just takes place against the small operator and not against the large airline, we are surely heading for problems.

It is interesting that the only enforcement action that I know of that has ever been taken against a large airline has now resulted in over six years of delay with the issues never being canvassed fairly in court, in front of a judge or jury. Of course the small operator would not have the hundreds of thousands of dollars required to prevent such a matter going to court.

[Capt Wally]

It's hard to believe that any pilot never lone ones that are meant to be at the top of the 'tree' would intentionally T/Off without rwy lights but as others have mentioned we do ( 'we' as in humans), to understand an exact answer as to why would be impossible, heavens knows we have zillions of phycho's guru's probing our every thought right from the interview stage & they would know even less as to why! We always learn from our mistakes in aviation so we ought now to be learning from these incidents & making changes for the better. Screwing the flt crews responsible doesn't achieve a thing other than the 'big stick' mentality which harms more than it does good. If you lock up these particular crew then someone else will do it for whatever reason/s another time that's for sure so lets trust that the bofins in charge of that 'big stick' fix the problem for they are the root of the problem in the first place.



CW

[bushy]

There are different levels of REGULATION in different sections of Australian aviation.
REGULATION IS NOT SAFETY.

[HIALS]

I think this incident highlights the subtle but significant degradation of services to the aviation industry - as provided by the Government. Call it Air Services Australia or CASA - both seem somewhat incompetent by global standards.

The provision of safety is best achieved by having layers of operational support wrapped around the operation of an aircraft. That way, any single-party failure shouldn't lead to a 'system wide failure' because of shared responsibility.

In this case, there are no layers. When the pilots made an error, or got distracted, or focused on other matter, or the lighting system malfunctioned, etc., there was no alternative but an error.

In my opinion - 180 seat aircraft (like the A320) should not operate into airports that don't have proper controlled airspace and towers.

Are we running an Airline Transport System, or just GA in big aircraft?

[Stationair8]

As I said before the regulator seems to turn a blind eye to the big guys, but stuff up in GA mate and then they get real nasty.

How many GA operators lose their AOC in the last 10 years and many airlines lose their AOC?

Look at the AD drama last week for a lot of little companies yet Qantas have a little drama in a B747 with electrical power, but we don't see CASA ground all the B747 do we?

[bushy]

Is there really much difference between GA and the airlines? Apart from the good PR system the big airlines have?
GA is part of Australia's air transport system. An essential part.

[Capt Wally]

"Bushy" quite correct. It's interesting to read that there may appear to be two sets of rules for both GA & the Airlines. Whether it be so or not the underlying factor is that whether yr in a GA plane taking off for Eg. from an airport without rwy lighting for whatever reason or in a High Capacity Plane doing the same thing the 'cargo' is exactly the same, mine, yrs & everyone elses life isn't worth any less if their not in a so called higher protected environment as the airlines.
The only differnence to the level of safety of the two diff sectors here (GA & Airlines) is the level of maintenance. Flight decisions should be the same whether it be from a Jumbo jet skipper or a C172 PVT pilot.

CW

[Pundit]

If you were less than V1 when the lights went out would you abort?

[Capt Claret]

No.

Statistically, a high speed abort is often more fraught with danger than continuing. Just because the calculated ASDA/ASDR is ok, doesn't, IMHO, mean one should.

[otto the grot]

My company uses an arbitrary figure of 100 knots, below which we stop for anything that rears its' ugly head. Above this figure and up to V1, which if heavy, could be up to 160+kts, we stop only for something that will really sting us in the ar$e. Lights going out would not be something to stop for above 100. Below 100...... definately.

[Hugh Jarse]

The only differnence to the level of safety of the two diff sectors here (GA & Airlines) is the level of maintenance.

Surely you can't be serious, Capt. Wally? No, I won't call you Shirley.

Average crew (plural) experience
Average age of A/C
Recurrent Training & Checking

Just to name a couple.

Play the ball mate, we don't even know if the allegation is true.

[Zed]

Stationair8

Quote
aulglarse, fully aware of the 800m vis required for a foggy morning.

But to line up at taxiway B YMLT for a departure to the north is probably a bit brave, with the tower not open fortunately something was said by somebody and the aircraft backtracked and departed from the threshold of 32Un Quote

It is standard SOP to back track the runway in those conditions and with no Twr.

Back to the Areoclub.

[triadic]

I will go as far as to say that a take-off in a large aircraft without runway lights is not that uncommon. I have seen it occur at least twice.

With the very effective lights fitted to aircraft these days the absence of runway lights would not be difficult to overlook.

In the two cases I saw, both crews were not aware the runway lights were off during their departure until advised the next day. So one must ask, how many times does it occur with no witnesses on the ground ?? A lot more than most of us would estimate??

[max autobrakes]

A couple of simple questions.
How many different type of PAL systems now exist in Australia?
What techniques are involved in the activation of these systems?
Until recently what was published in Qantas manuals reference activation of a PAL system, did they even mention the new system?
The flashing windsock lights to warn of impending PAL cycle ending, which windsock should this be?
Which windsock is shown as the primary windsock at YMLT on JEPP charts?
At YMLT which windsock actually flashes at the end of the PAL cycle and what colour is it ?

Does anyone now think the system may just be a fault here and not the pilots?:eek:

[Normasars]

Triadic,

Have you been to Launy in the dark? I don't care how good the a/c lights are mate, LT is " the black hole of calcutta" at night. Blind Freddy would know the lights weren't on(if this was actually the case) down there.

Just MHO but basic airmanship would dictate that the PAL/PCL would be activated or cycled before calling Centre for IFR traffic and taxiing.

[wobblepump]

In the good old days of the AFAP, a directive would have been issued to all Pilots, not to operate in and out of this particular airport unless the lights were manually switched on by an agent on the ground. This directtive would be withdrawn only after the ongoing problems of radio switching and warnings was sorted out.
No fare paying passenger could argue with that, and in fact would demand it.
The QF incident, six years ago is ongoing and I would venture to say the legal fees involved would not be cheap. I would assume this latest incident will attract the same angle of prosecution.

Leaving the lights on 24/7 until fixed would be a cheaper option.

So, since there is no direction from either the AFAP and AIPA on this issue I would suggest Pilots use some commonsense when operating into and out of this airport and not leave themselves open to criticism/prosecution to this perceived unreliable lighting arrangement.

[triadic]

Normasars:



Have you been to Launy in the dark? I don't care how good the a/c lights are mate, LT is " the black hole of calcutta" at night. Blind Freddy would know the lights weren't on(if this was actually the case) down there.

Yes, many times, but I believe you miss my point in the effectiveness of the landing lights on modern large aircraft... it is close to daylight in front of the a/c and I am therefore suggesting that it would not be that hard to miss it if the lights were in fact not on, given other possible workload issues that occur around that point.

Mind you, I do believe there should be appropriate procedures in place for such locations where the pilots must activate the lights, and of course they must in such cases be followed. It is a fact of life that RPT jet pilots do not get that much exposure to such locations or procedures, which only increases the chances of such an occurrence.

The bottom line of my post is that I don't believe we are dealing with an occurrence that is isolated or rare, but in fact takes place more often than we might think. We must look at the system and procedures and not knee-jerk by blaming the pilots!

:sad:

[Capt Wally]

"HJ" I stand by my statement "The only differnence to the level of safety of the two diff sectors here (GA & Airlines) is the level of maintenance."

The reason is because of things like CFIT for Eg. it's very real & the following (yr statement) means zip !

Average crew (plural) experience
Average age of A/C
Recurrent Training & Checking

You can have all the proceedures under the sun to make flying safer as the airlines strive to achieve but as we have seen such as the Eg. of T/Off without rwy lights it can boil down to no more than the Level of maint. that's safer not the type or class of pilot!

Call me 'Shirley' if you wish just never call me late:E


CW

[Normasars]

Triadic,

Mate, if ANYONE taxied out of the RPT apron at night in LT without PAL ie no taxi leadout lighting and the rest to either HDG PT(ie 14R or 32L) and HOLD SHORT LIGHTS!!), then I am sorry YOU ARE BLIND. It is "darker than Kamahl" mate.

I stand by my statement that Blind Freddy would notice that there were NO LIGHTS ON.

PS I know exactly how good the lights are on modern a/c and it would not make one bit of difference.

But the rest of your post I agree too.

[Stationair8]

So an interesting CRM issue,

1.the aircraft is dispatched by an engineer surely he would have said something prior to pulling the connection to the aircraft.

2. if the aircraft departed from Rwy 32 it would have taxied past the Fire Station Tower, now surely they could have called up the aircraft on the Ctaf frequency, or contacted Jetstar and got them to call the crew. Would have been to bad if the aircraft had a problem and needed the fire crew obviously they were to busy doing whatever firies do when you are at work.

3. where was the aerodrome safety officer asleep or having a feed or didn't give a f@#k

4. Did the crew activate the lights and then there been a power failure and the lights have cycled off,did the tower switch the lights over to the AFRU system when they went home?

Great to see that an airport that has 1,000,000 pax a year has a control tower that closes at 9.00 pm or even earlier when they can't staff it, airport fire service that takes no notice of whats going on the aerodrome, "hey Fred whats that glowing in the dark at the end of the airstrip", "dunno Barry I am watching Home and Away", must be a great little cash cow for Air Services Australia !!!!!

[Stationair8]

Perhaps the Virgin, Jetstar, Flying Doc, charter and night freight people that operate into YMLT after the tower is shut should call the aerodrome safety officer up and get him to activate the lights for your arrival, likewise for your departure and also get him to do a runway inspection prior to your arrival and departure after all it is up to us as pilots to cover all bases and our arses and that way their can be no arguments in relation to the lights being on.

Would fellow Ppruners agree?

[Waghi Warrior]

Might have been the same firies and airport safety officer who witnessed the Qantas 737 take off in the dark as well and replied when asked, I saw nothing, I know nothing and that's a fact !

Sounds like a bit of a carbon copy of the Qantas incident to me. Next there will be an accident because of this issue at Launceston.

Simple and very easy fix to all of this, "LEAVE THE TOWER OPEN 24/7" as it was before, if it costs more so well beit. I'm sure the average passenger wouldn't mind paying an extra couple of bucks to have the tower and RFF available during abnormal hours if they knew it may save there lives in the event of an accident.

CRM issue ? This is a classic Swiss Cheese model just waiting for all the holes to line up !

Statisticly Australia is due for a major hull loss, and Launceston just might be the place in the middle of the night due to the runway lights not being on !

[Capt Claret]

Of course, because of our blame culture, we couldn't possibly consider that the lights went out during backtrack or line up, and because of the high intensity landing lights mentioned above, it wasn't noticed.

[Stationair8]

So from now on anyone who operates into YMLT when the tower is shut at night time, make sure the airport safety officer puts the lights on for your arrival and departure, does a runway inspection prior to your arrival and departure so that we don't get another incident at YMLT.

If you have any problems with the aerodrome lights let somebody know ie Melbourne Centre so that it is recorded and then contact ATSB

[PPRuNeUser0182]

As an interesting side note, on the ATSB weekly report (week ending 22 Feb, page 8) there is an item from Melbourne where the runway lights extinguished for 5 seconds on a 737s landing roll.

Charlie

[PPRuNeUser0182]

Also page 20 on the weekly report has the runway lights failing in Cairns for an aircraft on final.

Charlie :confused:

[Roger Standby]

I'm not sure of the follow up procedures after trying to activate PAL, but I reckon I hear someone trying to activate PAL on area frequency just about every night shift.

I work the Launey airspace at night regularly and have never had anyone mention anything about a problem with the lights.

[pithblot]

Stationair8

So from now on anyone who operates into YMLT when the tower is shut at night time, make sure the airport safety officer puts the lights on for your arrival and departure, does a runway inspection prior to your arrival and departure so that we don't get another incident at YMLT.

If you have any problems with the aerodrome lights let somebody know ie Melbourne Centre so that it is recorded and then contact ATSB




The Safety Officer's number in Launie is 0407305595, call sign Car 8:ok:

Cheers,

PITHBLOT

[Stationair8]

Thanks for that.

A phone-call to him or a call up on the CTAF frequency prior to departing or arriving at YMLT to verify the lights are on would be cheap insurance and also as a witness if somebody dobs you in to CASA/ATSB

[aulglarse]

One more thing to add Stationair8, never rely on a single runway destination airport at night or day if poss carry DIVERT fuel.:ok:

[Jabawocky]

So from now on anyone who operates into YMLT when the tower is shut at night time, make sure the airport safety officer puts the lights on for your arrival and departure, does a runway inspection prior to your arrival and departure so that we don't get another incident at YMLT.

Stationair8.....are you trying to earn some extra overtime mate:ok:

[Marauder]

I think he is there all night egardless, certainly when I used to lurk @ 02:00. And yes very helpful with the PALC when it used to have a mind of its own.

[Van Demon]

Zed said
It is standard SOP to back track the runway in those conditions and with no Twr.I'm curious as to why you would backtrack half the runway length (from Bravo) in those conditions as opposed to the full length. What am I missing?

[tasdevil.f27]

Simple and very easy fix to all of this, "LEAVE THE TOWER OPEN 24/7" as it was before, if it costs more so well beit. I'm sure the average passenger wouldn't mind paying an extra couple of bucks to have the tower and RFF available during abnormal hours if they knew it may save there lives in the event of an accident.ASA cant even keep it open during the day let alone all night. The safety officers are there 24/7, so call them if you need them. They are only to happy to assist you. Also i did about 12 months of night shift at Launnie, never heard / saw anyone have problems with the lights?

[Stationair8]

Likewise Van Demon, why backtrack on the runway when you have a parallel taxiway.

Is that C### Bruce still a safety officer at Launceston?

[Prado]

Having paxed out of Launnie regularly, (at least once a week) over a period of 3-4 years in the late 90's on dear old AN, I can honestly say that, even on the foggiest of mornings, the aircraft only ever entered the runway at the threshold, never from any of the other taxi ways. Sure we may have sat at the threshold for a while, waiting for the fog to clear, but that's Launnie for you.

The SOP's sure must have changed since those times!!

As for this incident, just where are the safety mechanisms? What were the Firies doing, where was the safety officer when the aircraft was departing? I agree with stationair8, for an airport that processes 1 million pax a year, there should be plenty of revenue left over from the airport's operating costs, given the exhorbitant fees that would be charged to the operators, to put some more focus on operational support for the pax and crews!!

Perhaps the political push for maintaining the current hours of operation for the tower should also be directed to ensuring the safe operation of the airport at all hours!

Cheers
Prado

[Dog One]

Pretty expensive manning the tower after 10pm for two freighter movements. Sure it should be manned for RPT jet aircraft, its really a duty of care issue for Airservices to ensure safety for the travelling public. Unfortunately, from all accounts, Airservices management are screwed up, and the they are too busy trying to save dollars rather than providing a service. If Rudd is serious, he should clean Airservices out , make it a government body that charges what it costs to operate, rather than a profit centre. The trouble with the Labor party is that they still have the mentality that people who travel by air are rich, and therefore can afford to pay!

[tasdevil.f27]

From the Examiner newspaper today.

Two Qantas pilots charged with recklessly operating an aircraft on take off from LST nearly seven years ago were granted a permanent reprieve in Hobart's Supreme Court yesterday.

blah blah blah (back ground story info)

Supreme Court Justice Pierre Slicer granted the men a permanent adjourment of their case, but its up to the DPP's Tim Ellis to decide whether he will appeal against the decision.
Justice Slicer said his judgement had been influenced by delays in the case and the loss of significant primary evidence since the alleged event took place seven years ago.

[tasdevil.f27]

Is that C### Bruce still a safety officer at Launceston?

You know him Stationair8? Yes he is still there, and still the same! All the other blokes are great, dont hassle you unless really do something wrong. But he loves to pick on people all the time.

[Thylacine]

Flying blind: time to look at our air infrastructure
Ben Sandilands writes:
Crikey.com 29/4

Having failed in its long, costly and flawed prosecution of two Qantas pilots for recklessly endangering public safety is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority going to run with the ball over a similar incident involving two Jetstar pilots earlier this year?

On 23 October 2001, multiple witnesses reported a Qantas 737 takeoff from Launceston Airport without runway lights.

CASA launched a criminal prosecution against both pilots which ended in the Supreme Court in Tasmania yesterday when Justice Pierre Slicer granted a permanent stay because, among other things, the investigation had failed to preserve vital evidence.

On 12 March this year a Jetstar A320 was recorded by a security camera as taking off from the same airport without lights, but on this occasion, the independent safety investigator, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau launched its own as yet incomplete inquiry.

That evidence has been preserved.

Both incidents raise the same serious concerns for passenger safety, but have ended in the hands of two different bodies.

The ATSB is not an enforcer of safety laws. If it finds evidence of criminal activity, that is, the pilots disregarded the prohibition on taking off from an unlit runway, it can drop its inquiry and leave it to CASA to pursue.

If it finds however, that something else, such as a systems failure, caused the black takeoff, it will pursue a technical analysis and issue safety recommendations if necessary to the world’s aviation authorities and airlines using A320s.

In the 2001 incident, CASA took action because it saw it as a deliberate breach of the law rather than a safety issue warranting the technical skills of the ATSB which, tellingly, never pursued it.

Two issues are now unresolved. One is the capacity of the authorities to prosecute alleged acts of reckless indifference to safety by pilots, and the other the risk that systemic issues are causing runway lights which are supposed to be remotely activated by pilots to fail.

In recent months the ATSB incident database has recorded a number of claims that runway lighting systems have switched themselves off before departing airliners have started or completed their takeoffs.

Put beside well-documented failures by AirServices Australia to provide full air traffic control on important air corridors at night, the combination of dark skies and dark runways ought to be causing concern in the government over the state of air transport infrastructure and its safety implications.

[Stationair8]

Glad to see Bruce is still alive, must be a miracle.

Seven years and no conviction, bet you CASA are spewing lots of dollars in legal fees etc.

[jaded boiler]

Might be a little lesson coming out of the Jetstar Launy incident as to the benefits of union membership.

(Awaiting incoming from the chief google economist/proto-fascist in residence paf).

[Jabawocky]

Two Questions

What happened to the carrers of these two QF guys with respect to currently flying or able to return to work?

What has happened with the two J* guys also?

J

[Capt Wally]

yeah 'jab' I was wondering the same thing, like that TV show......."where are they now?"
I was actually in Launy just last night & find it hard to believe that any crew would intentionally T/Off without rwy lighting, damn that's dark when taxing onto the rwy with the lights off (well would be).

'stationair8'..........."CASA spewing lots of dollars?"(that would be an understatement) you mean WE as in the tax payers are spewing lots of dollars!:bored:

Christ lets hope that all concerned has learnt something from this, afterall aviation has been & will always be about learning!

CW

[Dog One]

I think if you look at CASA's history, you will find that they (CASA) never seem to do any good in the courts in Tasmania. Whether or not its the system, or the hired in staff, they never seem to win.

[Stationair8]

Tasmania has some quirky law, that allows a judge to drop the charge if the person is over 60 and hasn't committed a previous crime.

Funny how CASA spend a small fortune to take two pilots too court, but turn a blind eye to Air Services Australia who like to have closed towers when RPT jets arrive at YMLT, YMHB, Avalon etc.

Lets see your press statement on that MR Gibson.

[Capt Fathom]

Back to basics....

Can anyone believe that two professional pilots would recklessly endanger the lives of 70 passengers.
The Captain says they reactivated the lights.
The worse case scenario here is that the lights on the 737 are so bright!, the pilots may not have noticed the runway lights extinguish!

Is that reckless endangenment?

The Judge got it a hundred percent right!

CASA should be ashamed!

[Keg]

Yes. You imagine the conversation:

Captain: "Hey bloggs, why don't we, just for fun, take off without the runway lights on".

Bloggs: "Geez Skipper, what a bloody great idea. That'll be great experience"

Or the alternative:

Bloggs: "Looks like the lights have gone off boss"

Captain: "Don't worry about re-activating them. We don't need them anyhow".

Bloggs: "Fair enough. I'd hate to think that they'd charge us for using them twice".

:ugh: :rolleyes: :mad:

[PLovett]

Stationaire8

Tasmania may have some quirky laws but the charge was brought under Commonwealth legislation. The Feds uses the state court structure to hear breaches of Commonwealth laws and Commonwealth processes apply.

Further, I don't think it is up to the Tasmanian DPP, Tim Ellis, to decide about the future of any appeal but rather the Commonwealth DPP.

Bit embarrassing to have to admit that you have lost some evidence along the way though. Justice Slicer does not tolerate fools easily and I expect that there were some harsh words for counsel for the Government when that came to light. :uhoh:

[Capt Wally]

This countries judicial system is a joke, (we see/hear it all too often) right or wrong this particular outcome must have us (Aussies) with egg on our faces from those looking from outside in !:bored:

'Keg' well said, funny but ridiculously true!



CW

[Soulman]

In the primitive system at LST there is no call back or "electronic receipt" if you will, to indicate that you have been successful

Been a few months since I've ventured into LST but I thought it had the callback on the AFRU?

[Stationair8]

Thanks for that PLovett.

I remember our FOI telling us about CASA taking an ATO to court in Tasmania in the early 1990's for being a naughty boy, and he was likewise letoff and the reason given was that he had no prior convictions and was over sixty.

Would have cost the rat a few dollars to defend their pilots but at least they stood behind the crew.

[Dog One]

S8

You wouldn't be referring to the case of the desk IRT renewals would you?

[SHAGGS]

He is Dog ! :ok:

[Dog One]

Well, that was an interesting case, found guilty, no fine or anything, let off because of age. Because of that, CASA can't revoke ATO approvals, so allowed to continue as an ATO! Interested to hear Plovett's comments on such a legal system.

[PLovett]

Dog One

Age is only a factor in the equation where a charge can be dismissed under the Probation of Offenders Act. Basically a magistrate has the powers to find a complaint proven but because of a number of factors, age, seriousness (or lack of) the charge, previous clean record, risk of reoffence etc. can then dismiss the complaint.

The case that you refer to, IIRCC, was not an instrument rating renewal but an endorsement on an aircraft type. It concerned an ATO who I later met and who assisted me when I needed some help so I am not going to drag his name or past through these pages.

Suffice to say every jurisdiction has similar provisions which is why mandatory sentencing is so bitterly opposed by the legal fraternity because it removes judicial discretion in sentencing.

[Stationair8]

PLovett our very experienced FOI certainly put a different slant on that particular case and he was very pi%%ed off with the way it was thrown out of court.

His parting comment was something about paper endorsements and fax machines!

[birdstrike100]

Stationair8

You not only know Bruce you have spoken to him in the last week,c&*t is a very strong word isnt it.:=

[PLovett]

justapple

You may be right or I may be comfusing it with another case entirely. The trouble with old age.:{

[Tarmac Terrier]

I will try to Answer for you Max
Number of PAL systems I belive two in AUST both operation instrutions in ERSA.
Qantas Maunal not much in any operators Manuals I dont know(Trainning).
Windsocks at YMLT both flash and auidable warning during last 10 mins (Nice Voice too). But of course if you are lined up and the lights have not been activated none of these sytems work, Even the one to get a Tarmac Terrier to hit the override for Perminent actiation till ATC is back on shift.
to me its simple if the "On" switch don't work fix it before you leave.

PS Im not an english teacher and can't find spell cheque .LOL
:suspect:

[Tarmac Terrier]

Been awhile since some have been to Launy as PAL audibale notification has been active since the change from PAL to ARFU + PAL.

How many ways can you spell auidabill.;)

[Stationair8]

birdstrike100, sorry haven't had the pleasure of dealing with Bruce since the days of flying for Par Avion.
Regards
VH-WGT

[Dog One]

I remember Bruce from wayback in the days of DC9 ops. Probably remember you too S8, that bloody Islander use to block up the Flinders - Lt track and ruin our descent profile. Bruce must be close to retiring by now.

[Tarmac Terrier]

He is only about 44 so YMLT will be smiling for a while.:D:rolleyes::D