Airprox above Launceston

[Canary51]

Virgin and Jetstar got TOO close last night (around 10pm). Tower closed, as per normal closing time. No TCAS, but nose to nose and not much lateral!

First in o/shoot and second much too close. First then dosen't follow o/shoot as published. Second then o/shoots and swish/swish!

Why is it so silent out there?

[hoss58]

No TCAS advisory/resoulution?:eek:

Maybe it wasn't as close as the goss would have it.

Fly safe and play hard.

Regards to all.

Hoss58

[THE IRON MAIDEN]

First DOESN'T follow published Missed Approach?

:=

Now Im no genuis, but I would have thought that it was required to do so,
unless first was in VMC?

[Capt Fathom]

Canary, you claim so much.
Were you part of the crew on one of those aircraft?
If not, it's mere heresay.
swish/swish.

[tasdevil.f27]

Was pax onboard DJ 610 last night, very low cloud base (a little fog also) and we did a missed approach. First approach was at just after 10pm, tower closed and runway lights were not able to be adjusted. Y have stage lighting?

Not sure about how close we were at other times, but did see Jetstar above us heading back to Nile as we came back in our 2nd attempt on 32L and seemed to be plenty of separation. We were nearly at the gate when Jet* landed behind us.

Why virgin continue to bring 610 in at 10pm in winter is amazing. last winter we had numerous flights having trouble getting in after 10pm, had it been 9pm as is during summer months would have less problems and an open tower to adjust runway lights to suit the conditions.

[SM4 Pirate]

There was lots of talk about the 'horrible' replays at work today. I'm not saying anything more, but swish/swish may not be too far from the truth if what I heard has legs.

[Capt Fathom]

I eagerly await the ATSB Report! :D

[Roger Standby]

Heard the same thing at work today. Believe the radar tapes may get a look at, if not already.

[Dehavillanddriver]

If they were operating OCTA - then everyone can look at the radar tapes until their eyes go square, there is no standard with which to separate the two aircraft other than dont hit each other.

The rules that apply when the tower is open are not valid when its closed.

If there was no TCAS event then they were not all that close.

[breakfastburrito]

If they were operating OCTA - then everyone can look at the radar tapes until their eyes go square, there is no standard with which to separate the two aircraft other than dont hit each other.
Which begs the question, what are 300+ RPT pax even doing there in the first place?

[hoss58]

Morning all (as Bill Lawrie would say)

It's been a while since i was in LST. Would be interested to know what the radar coverage low level i.e cct area is like in LST these days. Would the "radar tapes" show anything.

Fly safe and play hard.

Regards to all.

Hoss 58

[Blockla]

I wouldn't want to comment one way or the other about the rumours that are going around at work, ATC, where 'video' tapes and audio have been at least played, but to speculate about how close they were or weren't in this forum is pretty reckless.

Fact there was an event, who did what and when will be discovered when investigated properly.

Swish/Swish is probably a bit steep if there was no RA, but lateral segregation of a lmited nature can be enough for TCAS not to "go off"; that doesn't mean it was or wasn't a safe situation; depending on the conditions at the time. But as an ATC, we use "swish/swish" to often describe an event where there was less than an ATC separation standard; this doesn't necessarily mean "too close"; but it may.

If there was no TCAS event then they were not all that close. Really? Perhaps action was taken milli-seconds before the TCAS blurted? We will never know until it's investigated.

Hoss, there is a radar head on the aerodrome, so I'd guess if it was working, pretty damn good coverage.

[hoss58]

Thanks for the infor Blockla.:ok:

As i say it's been quite a while.

Fly safe and play hard.

Regards to all.

Hoss58

[Stationair8]

Were the runway lights on?

Them security cameras would have caught it no doubt!

[tasdevil.f27]

lol. Can say they were on! Even the safety officer was down near the threshold reporting on visibilty to both crews (no, not bruce either!)

[Stationair8]

Good to see the tower is closed again as per the Notam just issued.

[Catwalker]

The tower is closed? I just checked the AOPA briefing site, but didn't find any mention of that.

[Teal]

Ben Sandilands' take on it (crikey.com.au)

Virgin and Jetstar go head to head over Launceston

In pilot parlance passenger flights by Virgin Blue and Jetstar played "swish swish" over Launceston Airport last Thursday night, just after the control tower closed at 10pm. However, apart from some patchy references to the incident on the Pprune (http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=d19efde8-ce3a-409a-93a1-5ea99cac8521&rid=44be183c-15b0-4bae-a566-293b64559a5f) (professional pilot rumour network) message board, there is nothing but silence so far from the airlines or the authorities. This is odd. Usually false rumours are quickly buried, and Pprune runs enough of them to keep the legal departments of news media organisations in a state of high anxiety all year.
These are the bare bones of the incident. Virgin Blue flight DJ610 from Melbourne, a 737 with 144 seats, decided to go around for a second landing attempt because fog was starting to form over the runway at Launceston immediately after the control tower clocked off. A similar decision was made by a Jetstar A320 configured with 180 passenger seats which was also approaching the airport some eight kilometres or more behind the Virgin Blue flight. However as Jetstar climbed away it passed Virgin Blue travelling in the opposite direction, apparently not quite head on, but not quite in a "usual" manner either.
Was this a near miss? Or was it just a non-serious and inadvertent degradation of the separation standards required for air traffic around an airport that for some reason shuts down tower supervision in the minutes before as many as 324 passengers could be about to land? It is possible that there is nothing in the incident that requires an investigation by the Australian Safety Transport Bureau because each jet’s pilots were fully aware of the situation. Maybe it doesn’t matter because low cost flying, profit hungry airports and AirServices Australia are all hairy chested professionals who don’t need sissy stuff like terminal control? Or maybe it needs a hard look. Some answers either way would be welcome. Oh no, not welcome. For anyone who wants to read a load of tripe, Google up the Miller Report that arose from the squalid Queensland coronial inquest into the black deaths in the Transair crash at Lockhart River in 2005.
The Miller Report is all about trying to manage disclosures of dangerous practices in aviation by locking down the sort of criticism the independent investigator, the ATSB, made of the non-regulating safety regulator CASA presumably on the basis that smothering contrary voices might stop bad airline practices turning into piles of body bags. It won’t work.

[tasdevil.f27]

Virgin Blue flight DJ610 from Melbourne, a 737 with 144 seats

Was a 737 -800 for a start. Another useless article from that reporter who has looked at this site for some sort of story.

I'd like to know where we were supposed to have been to close. After our first missed approach we continued north for a fair distance before turning back and tracked towards Nile. Only saw the A320 once and it was certainly not head on, it was higher and to one side of us ???????

[Maggott17]

Hey Tas,

did you carry out the published missed approach?

If not, you had better 225 yourself.

[Capt Fathom]

There is no doubt as to where Mr. Sandilands got his story from!

Swish/Swish. Never heard it before....

Straight from the Canary's beak!

[tasdevil.f27]

I was only paxing.

[Stationair8]

Catwalker,

NOTAM C93/08
TWR not avbl 05 040415 to 05 041145.

On Naips at 1630 yesterday when flight planning.

[Dubya]

Hey Maggott17,

There are other procedures available than the published missed approach... and therefore a 225 is not warranted... or is it correctly called a 2593 these days....?

check your facts

back to journo school for you.....:ugh:

[Dog One]

Only goes to show how run down our ATC system is. Its time that the government took control of Airservices, and ensured that all aerodromes where RPT jets are operating to have ATC coverage.
How bloody silly that the tower ceases operation 10 mins before two jets are due on a foggy night. Its a bit like turning off traffic lights in the cities after midnight to save power.

[Catwalker]

Stationair8,
NOTAM C93/08
TWR not avbl 05 040415 to 05 041145.

On Naips at 1630 yesterday when flight planning.
Thanks for that!

[Chapi]

Tower close at published time because either 1) airlines did not want to pay for ATC extension to cover their arrivals, or 2) Controller was at max limit of shift time (and no extra staff available).

So, two RPT jet crews who are used to being controlled and separated by ATC, not accustomed to self-separating in a CTAF, who do not necessarily appreciate how much airspace is required to achieve separation in imc, doing what they think is separation.

Except that they end-up pointing at each other - maybe not TCAS close - but close enough - a bit too close.

Happens more than you think, although, not usually with two high-capacity RPT jets!

[tasdevil.f27]

from the ATSB

Following missed approaches for runway 32, the leading aircraft was climbing to 3,100 ft and the following was climbing to 4,000 ft. The leading aircraft then made a shallow turn towards the following aircraft. ATC received a short term conflict alert on both aircraft. As the following aircraft entered VMC at 2,000 ft, the crew observed the leading aircraft approaching from directly ahead. TCAS indicated the aircraft as 5 NM apart. The investigation is continuing.


the tassie media has now picked up the story

[captaintunedog777]

No TCAS alert....No problem morons!:ugh:

[ferris]

Know nothing about this except for this thread, but two things spring to mind:
1. Why would anyone be interested in the lateral guidance provided by TCAS (especially if there are radar tapes)?
2. Who cares by what margin they missed, as long as they had organised to miss? If they hadn't organised it, then it still doesn't matter by how much, because then it was just luck (and hence the problem capt).

[89 steps to heaven]

No TCAS alert....No problem morons

Don't agree. TCAS does not always see everything. I have had aircraft on our situation display, passed traffic and been told that they could not see the conflicting traffic on their TCAS. Aircraft had passed before TCAS found it.

Some pilots seem to forget that TCAS is an aid to safety, not the be all.

[Maggott17]

"There are other procedures available than the published missed approach... and therefore a 225 is not warranted... or is it correctly called a 2593 these days....?"

At night, in IMC and RPT jet?

Why did you invade IRAQ Dubya?

[Back Seat Driver]

CAR 163 Operating near other aircraft
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft so close
to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

Apparently there was not a TCAS RA -all OK

AIP GEN 1-5 7.2 The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) requires that all TCAS Resolution Advisory alerts, which involve a breakdown in separation only, are to be treated as immediately notifiable occurrences (ENR 1.14 sub-para 2.1.1e. refers).

No need to self report because it didn't happen - all OK

Sounds to me like they operated within the rules applying at the time.
I hope we don't have another LAUNY witch hunt like the last shameful effort by our 'out of their depth' witch hunters.

[Dubya]

Yes Maggott,

at night, in IMC, and RPT... other procedures are available, and are sometimes different to published missed approaches.
The pilot would also have had available to him (or her) the single engine contingency (aka escape procedure) which can be used in a situation if you get to the bottom of an approach, then suffer engine failure and don't get visual. The published missed approach will kill you. In this case it is okay to use the single engine contingency....
What I am trying to say, is that we can't comment on what the crews did on this occasion. They may have used procedures that you and I have no idea of....and been totally legal in doing it.......:p

[Chapi]

" 2. Who cares by what margin they missed, as long as they had organised to miss? ... "

The problem is that they may have organised their own separation, but not being used to non-controlled CTAF ops, RPT jet crews underestimate what is required to achieve separation and because they are not used to clearly defining their actions sometimes their "separation" as understood by one crew is not the same as understood by the other.

In this case, I think that they were lucky the were visual on top, 'cause if they had all been in imc it might have been a much different story.

[Back Seat Driver]

I don't want to play the man, but.......
That is a load of chapidiocy :yuk:
'What If's' - don't count

[Vref+5]

Just a thought, how about the airspace reverting to Class E instead of G when the tower closes (as it does in the US - even when there is no radar coverage in the terminal area)?

The critics of the NAS did not want procedural E at LT, the result was reverting to the previous airspace model and the installation of radar at LT. Now we have radar why can't the airspace be changed to E and have MC provide positive separation between IFR and traffic information on VFR?

In G there is no separation standard listed therefore there was no airprox. The ATSB will say this in the report, just as they did in both the previous LT and ML incidents (if my memory serves me correctly) where IFR/VFR aircraft converged in Class E (in the ML case observed on radar) and an RA occured (if my memory serves me correctly again - please correct me if I am wrong as i don't have time to re-read the reports).

As previously stated TCAS the last line of defence, this was made abundantly clear by the critics of Class E last time. Therefore it would be unwise to say that in Class G if you don't get an RA everything is okay.

[missy]

'What If's' - don't count

They should count - anything else it luck. Did the pilots consider, discuss the options.

With Virgin making an approach, Jetstar should have held at 4100ft (in case Virgin went round). With Jetstar following Virgin on the approach and Virgin having gone round to 3100ft, when Jetstar went round Virgin should have climbed to 4100ft (to allow Jetstar to climb as per the published missed approach).

[Cruis'in FL410]

Excerpt from the Hobart Mercury




........ATSB director of aviation safety investigation Julian Walsh confirmed the investigation of last week's occurrence involving Jetstar and Virgin Blue aircraft.

Mr Walsh said the planes did not pass each other in opposite directions and the pilots had been communicating with each other.

"Jetstar made a missed approach and as it climbed away the aircraft were on a converging path but preliminary investigations indicate they were not closer than five miles," he said.

Mr Walsh said the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System had not been triggered.

He said both aircraft were in contact with the Melbourne control tower because the Launceston tower had closed.

Radar data would show the flight paths of the aircraft, speed and altitude information.

"That will give us a replay of what the two aircraft were doing and the audio data from the aeroplanes will tell us what they knew of each other," he said.

Virgin Blue spokeswoman Amanda Bolger said: "Virgin Blue has made its own internal inquiries and the ATSB will follow its processes but from our investigations we're satisfied that at no stage were the aircraft less than five miles apart."

Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said the airline had provided an incident report to the ATSB.

Mr Westaway said a "go-around" had been undertaken by pilots.

[nafai]

'Only goes to show how run down our ATC system is. Its time that the government took control of Airservices, and ensured that all aerodromes where RPT jets are operating to have ATC coverage.'

Those from within would have no problem if this occurred and safety became the #1 priority vice profit, as of course it should be.

[GANKER]

Got caught in fog there nearlly fifteen yrs ago and nothing seems to have changed and nothing ever will unless someone plows in!
Even then I doubt whether things would even change then, Launy is Launy!:ugh:

[Capt Fathom]

Somebody ploughing-in will not change the fog situation at Launy! :rolleyes:

PS: 40 posts and not a peep from Canary, the thread starter! :confused:

[Back Seat Driver]

Interesting that Missy knows what the crew should have done, and in what order. I don't, I wasn't there. With fog around, either runway might have been suitable and usable. Tasdevil.f27 says that VB used 32L for the 2nd approach and JQ was still above. 'After the event' WHAT IF's count for naught. Professional pilots pre-brief on Contingency Planning, and leave What If's to the wannabes and neverwillbes.
We don't need another unsubstantiated LAUNY beat-up like the action taken against the QF crew with the supposed lights out incident. Hearsay affected the 2 QF guys lives, even though there was no supporting evidence.

[peuce]

As Vref+5 said ...

I"n G there is no separation standard listed therefore there was no airprox"

As a punter, am I pleased that my Jet RPT aircraft is flying in dodgy weather, near another Jet RPT aircraft, in airspace that has no separation standards?

Damn right, I'm not:*

[DirtyPierre]

He said both aircraft were in contact with the Melbourne control tower because the Launceston tower had closed.
No wonder they nearly hit, they were talking to Melbourne Tower not Melbourne Centre.

Bloody good radios we have in towers these days!:rolleyes:

[Maggott17]

Dubya speaks crap again.

"Yes Maggott,

at night, in IMC, and RPT... other procedures are available, and are sometimes different to published missed approaches.
The pilot would also have had available to him (or her) the single engine contingency (aka escape procedure) which can be used in a situation if you get to the bottom of an approach, then suffer engine failure and don't get visual. The published missed approach will kill you. In this case it is okay to use the single engine contingency....
What I am trying to say, is that we can't comment on what the crews did on this occasion. They may have used procedures that you and I have no idea of....and been totally legal in doing it...."

Both engines in both aircraft in were working. NO contingency options available.

IF you start an Instrument Approach you either land or CONDUCT THE PUBLISHED MISSED APPROACH.

If the conditions were IMC, how did they both get below MSA without starting an approach?

If they were both above the MSA who bloody cares.

Now where are those weapons of mass destruction DUBYA?

[Maggott17]

He said both aircraft were in contact with the Melbourne control tower because the Launceston tower had closed.

Good pick up Dirty Pierre.

Even ANSA management do not allow an aircraft in the circuit area at YMLT to talk to YMML tower.

The guys in ML tower wouldn't know what to say to the aircraft in cira at LT anyway.

"Ah.... Ah.... contact Melbourne Centre....ah ah standby for frequency information....ah..ah..QANTAS 418 RWY 27 Line up behind the company 747 on final."

[missy]

BSD said Tasdevil.f27 says that VB used 32L for the 2nd approach and JQ was still above.

Thats the whole point. DJ was below JQ during the initial approach, then when DJ went round at some point they would have been above JQ (probably at above 1200-1500ft agl at opposite sides the aerodrome). It is how they then got to be below for the second approach that is the interesting aspect of this.

[Back Seat Driver]

Missy, where did you get the 1,200-1,500 ft figure from? Access to the radar tapes, if so you shouldn't be publishing it here, OR as I suspect just pluck it out of your @rse. Why can't an aircraft in trail of another climb through the leads altitude, (with appropriate separation). You have demonstrated an ability to read the YMLT approach chart but have no knowledge of the dynamics of the event or the circumstances in which they occurred. Why should the crew of the 2 aircraft be subject to your misguided allegations? Leave it to the responsible people who will deal in fact, not fanciful conjecture.
Already this thread has made it into the mainstream (albeit CRIKEY) media.
By the way Mr.Sandilands.. swish/swish, never heard it before, but it reminds me of a horses tail, and we all know what a horses tail is connected to, a horses......

[Catwalker]

"By the way Mr.Sandilands.. swish/swish, never heard it before, but it reminds me of a horses tail, and we all know what a horses tail is connected to, a horses......"

An excellent point.

[missy]

Back Seat Driver said Why should the crew of the 2 aircraft be subject to your misguided allegations?

And which particular allegations (misguided or otherwise) are you referring to? I don't think I have introduced any allegations to the debate.

I think there was a degree of luck with this reported airprox. I'd much have this as a learning experience for all concerned. It would be interesting to have this scenario in the SIM and see what pilots did.

[Back Seat Driver]

Quote Missy #38 With Virgin making an approach, Jetstar should have held at 4100ft (in case Virgin went round) Do you know for a fact that JQ was holding while DJ carried out the approach. Perhaps JQ were still miles away. I don't know, I wasn't there.
Quote Missy when Jetstar went round Virgin should have climbed to 4100ft Why? Perhaps by then they were nowhere near the missed approach track.
Quote Missy It is how they then got to be below for the second approach that is the interesting aspect of this. Aircraft pass each other a zillion times a day, why is this 'interesting'?
Apparently the 2 aircraft were in proximity of some sort, but there is no evidence that the proximity was in any way less than that required. By making these statements you suggest that the crews erred otherwise you're just sprouting your own guesses. My point to you is Missy, I don't know what they should have done, because I wasn't there, and unless you were, you don't know either.

Lastly Missy I think there was a degree of luck with this reported airprox I've never met an airline pilot who left anything to luck. If you made that kind of accusation about any professional pilot, in a bar anywhere, you'd be drinking by yourself little Missy.

[Arctaurus]

BSD

Great post that reintroduces some perspective and reality about this so called "incident".

Comments by some of the contributors here defy belief.:ugh:

[Tarmac Terrier]

Some one said "you stay at 3200 as I'm at 4200" it may have been 3100 / 4100 it was one thous diff anyway. :p

[Roger Standby]

There'll be no one watching tonight. Tassie airspace (along with a few other sectors around the country) TIBA for 7 hours.:uhoh:

[Jabawocky]

I know.....but I can't help myself:E

Its time to trott out the map again, suggest you print a copy and take it with you:hmm:

J:}

http://file043b.bebo.com/2/large/2008/01/25/00/4525920200a6707299238l.jpg

[Vref+5]

We are the only western country that I know of (I fly regularly around Europe, US, Asia, Middle East) that allows 2 high capacity RPT jets to operate at the same airport without a published separation standard (note - saying "you stay at 4100, I'll maintain 3100" on the CTAF is not a published standard) Anyone see a problem here? With more 190's and possibly RJs coming into the country operating at regional airports, there is going to be more of these incidents - it's a statistical fact.

If you don't learn from other's mistakes, you are doomed to eventually make the same ones.

[Roger Standby]

Jaba,

You'd better contact AsA docs and get them to send out an ammendment form for your map. Scurvy D.Dog still not returned to service.:hmm:

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Rog,
.
Tis a bit like the Knight's scene from Monty Python's Holy Grail .... :E
.
... funny, they seem ‘armless’ enough, most of the time :}
.
.... hat .... coat .... bayonet .... DOOR! :ok:

[Jabawocky]

Hey Rog

I am sure he will in good time, however unless they resource his Tower with enough ATC's the result might be the same.......:ugh:

J:ok:

PS aanyone see the news today?
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=570538

[Roger Standby]

Finally some press. Anyone know if it made the Tele? Online media good, but it needs to get to Joe Public.

Scurvy,

AsA is so Monty Pythonesque it's terrifying:eek: Hope to see you back soon:ok:

[Stationair8]

Notice a Notam issued for the tower to be closed Friday morning.

When is Scurvy. D. Dog back?

[jetstar1]

Launy Tower closed again this arvo and tomorrow arvo also...

C111/08
TWR NOT AVBL
MELBOURNE FIR NOTAM C3233/08 REFERS
FROM 05 310400 TO 05 311145
C112/08
TWR NOT AVBL
MELBOURNE FIR NOTAM C3234/08 REFERS
FROM 06 010400 TO 06 011145

C3237/08 REVIEW C3233/08
LAUNCESTON CLASS D AND C AIRSPACE F125 AND BLW RECLASSIFIED CLASS G
DUE NON AVAILABILITY OF ATS
FIS AVBL MELBOURNE CENTRE 126.5
CTAF FREQ 118.7(R)
FROM 05 310400 TO 05 311145

C3238/08 REVIEW C3234/08
LAUNCESTON CLASS D AND C AIRSPACE F125 AND BLW RECLASSIFIED CLASS G
DUE NON AVAILABILITY OF ATS
FIS AVBL MELBOURNE CENTRE 126.5
CTAF FREQ 118.7(R)
FROM 06 010400 TO 06 011145

Listening on area frequency, there have been 4 RPT movements within 15 minutes (2 x A320, 1 x B737, 1 x DH8C)... by my calculations up to 590 pax seats... this is getting ridiculous!

[Stationair8]

Absolutely amazing.

1,000,000 passengers a year and Airservices Australia can't staff the tower.

Imagine the spin the PR gurus will put on this, staffing issues, unscheduled sick leave, holidays, we are trying to find somebody to put in the tower, somebodies cat died blah blah blah.

Imagine the bull**** the PR guys have to come up with when we have another near miss when its a CTAFR.

Bet if Canberra tower closed due to staffing issues , it would be fixed asap.

Hurry up and get back to work Scurvy.D.Dog.

[Jabawocky]

And not just Scurvy, how about the 2 or 3 other ATC's that ASA tell the Govt they have and are meant to have.

If there was a Royal Commission into the Launy fiasco some folk at ASA would be in deep do-do......... probably should be sacked!:ugh:

Its a disgrace!

As you say if that was Canberra...........

Unfortunately the truth hurts and the facts are hard to bury :=

I better quite before I start more trouble!

J

[Stationair8]

Probably cardboard cutouts!

Local politicians must be in bed with Airservices Australia management, not a peep out of the gutless elected members.

Doing a google on the local politicians and this is what you get:

Mr Dick Adams ALP

Ms Jody Campbell ALP

Mr Guy Barnett Liberal

Funny how we don't see them taking the fight up with Airservices Australia.

Notice CASA don't seem to do much either, you scratch my back and I scratch your back, nudge nudge wink wink.

If only the travelling public knew the truth.

[SM4 Pirate]

Bet if Canberra tower closed due to staffing issues , it would be fixed asap. Careful what you wish for...

C3260/08

TEMPORARY RESTRICTED AREA ACTIVE

ATC, FIS AND ALERTING SERVICES NORMALLY PROVIDED BY CANBERRA TERMINAL CONTROL UNIT IN CLASS C AIRSPACE WITHIN 30 NM OF CANBERRA ARE NOT AVBL DUE TO STAFF SHORTAGE. SERVICES AFFECTED:

APPROACH AND DEPARTURES CONTROL PROVIDED BY CANBERRA APPROACH ON FREQUENCIES 124.5 AND 125.9. ACCESS TO EFFECTED AIRSPACE WILL BE RESTRICTED CANBERRA TOWER OR MELBOURNE CENTRE WILL CONTROL ACCESS TO THE RESTRICTED AREA PILOTS-IN-COMMAND ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLISION AVOIDANCE WITHIN THE AFFECTED AIRSPACE.MANDATORY BROADCAST AND TIBA PROCEDURES APPLY WITHIN THE AFFECTED AIRSPACE AND ARE DETAILED IN AIP GEN 3.3.

DIRECTED TRAFFIC INFORMATION WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE. ADJACENT ATC UNITS WILL PROVIDE ADVICE REGARDING POTENTIAL COLLISION HAZARDS, WORKLOAD PERMITTING. FLIGHT INFORMATION SERVICE (FIS) AVAILABLE FROM ATS UNITS PROVIDING FIS IN ADJACENT AIRSPACE OR FROM PILOT BRIEFING

SAR ALERTING WILL BE PROVIDED BY CANBERRA TOWER ONLY FOR THOSE FLIGHTS LANDING AT CANBERRA AERODROME. SARTIME-BASED ALERTING SERVICE FOR OTHER FLIGHTS WILL BE AVAILABLE ON REQUEST FROM FLIGHTWATCH ON HF.

WHERE APPLICABLE ATC WILL ISSUE INBOUND AIRCRAFT A STAR CLNC. IN CONTINGENCY AIRSPACE, TRACKING IS AT PILOT DISCRETION. PRIOR TO OPERATING IN THE AFFECTED AIRSPACE, PILOTS MUST: OBTAIN A BRIEFING ON CONTINGENCY PROCEDURES FROM MELBOURNE CENTRE OPERATIONS DIRECTOR ON +613 92357597 AND IF INTENDING TO ARRIVE OR DEPART FROM CANBERRA OBTAIN A PROGRAMMED LANDING OR TAKE-OFF TIME.

PILOTS MUST ALSO:
OPERATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IFR AND DISPLAY NAVIGATION AND ANTI COLLISION LIGHTS AT ALL TIMES. OPERATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANDATORY BROADCAST PROCEDURES ON 125.9 MHZ. CONTACT CANBERRA TOWER ON 118.7 MHZ PRIOR TO JOINING OR APPROACHING THE CIRCUIT AREA. RE ERSA FAC C-18 FLIGHT PROCEDURES POINT 4: TRA REPLACES TOWER AIRSPACE ARBITER: AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA 61 3 92357579 CONTROLLING AUTHORITY: CASA

SFC TO 8500FT AMSL FROM 05 311000 TO 05 311300

C3261/08

DIRECTED TRAFFIC INFORMATION, FIS AND ALERTING SER PROVIDED BY CANBERRA TERMINAL CONTROL UNIT, IN CLASS G AIRSPACE WITHIN 30 NM OF CANBERRA NOT AVBL DUE TO STAFF SHORTAGE.

SERVICES AFFECTED: RADAR AND DIRECTED TRAFFIC INFORMATION, PROVIDED BY CANBERRA TERMINAL AND CANBERRA RADAR ON FREQUENCIES 124.5 AND 125.9. TIBA (TRAFFIC INFORMATION BROADCAST BY AIRCRAFT) PROCEDURES APPLY TO IFR FLIGHTS OPERATING WITHIN THE AFFECTED AIRSPACE AND ARE DETAILED IN AIP GEN 3.3. CTAF FREQ AND PROCEDURES REMAIN UNCHANGED.

FLIGHT INFORMATION SERVICE (FIS) AVAILABLE FROM PILOT BRIEFING OR FLIGHTWATCH. SARTIME-BASED ALERTING SERVICE AVAILABLE ON REQUEST FROM FLIGHTWATCH. PRIOR TO OPERATING IN THE AFFECTED AIRSPACE, PILOTS OF IFR FLIGHTS MUST OBTAIN A BRIEFING FROM MELBOURNE CENTRE OPERATIONS DIRECTOR ON +613 92357597. WHERE AN AIRCRAFT HAS TWO VHF RADIOS, MONITOR THE APPROPRIATE FIA FREQUENCY AND CTAF AND BROADCAST AS REQUIRED.

PILOTS OF IFR FLIGHTS MUST ALSO:
1. OPERATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IFR AND DISPLAY NAVIGATION AND ANTI COLLISION LIGHTS AT ALL TIMES.
2. WHERE AN AIRCRAFT HAS TWO VHF RADIOS. MONITOR 126.35 AND BROADCAST AS REQUIRED.

FROM 05 311000 TO 05 311300

[Stationair8]

Probably not many politicians travelling at that time, could be a hassle for the paper run pilot.

[Roger Standby]

Back to the original topic. Unbelievable as it sounds, even thought the controller provided traffic to the two a/c, because the controller didn't say "traffic alert" as the two went past each other, the final determination of this investigation has been recorded as "ATS attributable".:*:rolleyes:

[ferris]

Well, Rog, that is probably the correct determination. As long as there is an explanatory clause dealing with the mismanagment of ANS.

Or at least add the word "ATS management attributable".

If the world wants to know where all those dollars are that should be used to provide services, they need look no further than, say, AsA's legal bills. Rumour has it that the venerable AsA recently won an international tender to provide services to a foreign government. AsA then dicked around the staff for the contract to the point that they decided to give it a miss. AsA allegedly now facing $10 million damages legal action. Probably the stuff of another thread- but just goes to show how they operate and where the money that could be used to staff towers, actually goes.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Gag Select - OFF
.
Stationair
.
I am doing EVERTHING I can to return, have been for months. :ugh:
.
Without saying too much, I would use this analogy:-

...would a bear walk back into the same woods where it knew traps and shooters (with a penchant) were (from past experience) known to be waiting? :hmm:
.
The traps and shooters are not local BTW
.
They know what needs to be done! :suspect:
.
Gag Select - RESET :*

[Stationair8]

Hey Scurvy, apparently it's all ticky boo in Launceston Tower, Senator Kerry O'Brien says in the estimates hearing that another person has been transferred and the person on long term sick leave will be returning soon.

Don't you just love happy endings!!!!

definition of soon-next week, next month, next year?

When you get back give my regards to Bwuce in Car8.

[Roger Standby]

Launy closed the whole day today. Spent all day playing Launy approach along with everything else on the 400x400nm wide screen. Zoom in, Zoom out, zoom in, zoom out. Gotta love the magical words "switching to the CTAF", lol. Fun and games? Hmmm... Thank God it was a Sunday.

Desperate now, Scurvy, Come on down...

[RektlSfinkta]

I was curious about the radar at LT. I gather from Roger's comments above that LT approach is now provided using radar by a controller in ML CEN. Do the controllers in LT TWR now only provide TWR services, as opposed to the procedural tower it used to be?

[jetstar1]

RektlSfinkta,

Launy airspace is still procedural 8500 and below. They have a feed from the radar (TSAD) but it is not used for separation. ML CEN gets the use of all the toys.

j*1

[Roger Standby]

RektlSfinkta,

The Launy Approach line was tongue in cheek. My point was that with the tower closed, not only were we running a huge block of airspace but also had constant distractions of zooming into Lt to provide potential TRAFFIC ALERTs. With the tower closed, the airspace is "G" below F125 (tower owns up to A085, when it's open).

The irony these days is that controllers are more likely to be stood down for something that happpens in G or E airspace than in C or A.:(

[campdoag]

I'm still confused how this is even an issue................ High capacity jets and turboprops operate in class g airspace every day of the year at a number of australian airports that are just as busy as launy!! B737 F100 B717 DH8 into Karratha, B737 ATR42 DHC8 EMB120 SF340 into Mt Isa most afternoons. Professional Jet and turboprop crews are not #&ckwits they are more than capable of seperating themselves. NO RA both crews aware of each other.... NO ISSUE!! People just get too excited on this site somtimes...........

[BN APP 125.6]

Nice wind up

[Freedom7]

campdoag

High capacity jets and turboprops operate in class g airspace every day of the year at a number of australian airports that are just as busy as launy!!

Show me your movement rates to prove this.

NO RA both crews aware of each other....

So how close is to close?

People just get too excited on this site somtimes...........

Right up to the point they slam into each other.

[desmotronic]

Show me your movement rates to prove this.



Aircraft Movements - Launceston Airport Change
Year end 30 June (thousands) 2007 06 to 07
Regular public transport 9.7 2.1%
General Aviation 4.8 (12.7%)
Total 14.5 (3.3%)



Mount Isa Website Facts and Figures

Mount Isa Airport operates:

• Domestic RPT services, provided by Qantas
• Regional Domestic services, operated by ******, both scheduled and charter
• In addition there are many General Aviation operators based at Mount Isa Airport

Key passenger statistics:

• 163, 000 passenger movements in the financial year 2006/07.
• Growth in passengers from 2005/06 to 2006/07: 18.34%
• Average annual growth rate over 6 years (from 2001/02 to 2006/07): 15.42%

[DoctorBoner]

Don't confuse passengers with aircraft movements. If Mt Isa were to be doing 160K, that puts it not far behind Bris and Melbourne:rolleyes:

[desmotronic]

No confusion, if the website provided aircraft movement data i would have obviously provided it.

[Freedom7]

Quote:
Show me your movement rates to prove this.


Aircraft Movements - Launceston Airport Change
Year end 30 June (thousands) 2007 06 to 07
Regular public transport 9.7 2.1%
General Aviation 4.8 (12.7%)
Total 14.5 (3.3%)


These are not acft movement rates.

No confusion, if the website provided aircraft movement data i would have obviously provided it.

Someone is confused?

Mount Isa Website Facts and Figures

Mount Isa Airport operates:

• Domestic RPT services, provided by Qantas
• Regional Domestic services, operated by ******, both scheduled and charter
• In addition there are many General Aviation operators based at Mount Isa Airport

Key passenger statistics:

• 163, 000 passenger movements in the financial year 2006/07.
• Growth in passengers from 2005/06 to 2006/07: 18.34%
• Average annual growth rate over 6 years (from 2001/02 to 2006/07): 15.42%

Go to the APAL website and see how many PAX they pump through gates, I think its a little bit more than Mt.Isa............................

Thread drift, but I await campdoag's figures:O

[Stationair8]

Launceston 1,000,000 passengers last financial year in a mix of A320, B737 and Dash 8.

December 2007 100,000 passengers for the month.

[NAMPS]

Fair dinkum...it just gets worse.

C1123/08
TWR NOT AVBL
MELBOURNE FIR NOTAM C3234/08 REFERS
FROM 06 010400 TO PERM

[Stationair8]

Scurvy.D.Dog are you back in the tower yet?
BBQ talk a few weeks back had you coming back asap.

[RektlSfinkta]

I heard back in Jan or Feb that another controller had been selected for LT TWR, but may be some delay in arrival due release from another area of AsA. Has that controller not arrived yet?

[Roger Standby]

That controller is due to be in Lt by Jan at the latest, due to being unable to be released from current duties.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Stationair, Roger et al,
.
Friday clearance (assuming no hiccups), Tuesday, back to the dolcet tones :E
.
That is of course as long as the 'cease-fire' holds :suspect:

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

:E .... dunno
.
You two really need to get a room or sumit :}
.
... ewww :yuk:

[ollie_a]

ATSB report released

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/1573068/ao2008030.pdf

[denabol]

This on the ABC. I thought Sandilands was a Crikey reporter.

Has a go at what the report didn't mention.

ABC The Drum Unleashed - Cost cutting provokes foggy stuff-up (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2941179.htm)

But nothing about it on his blog??

[Jabawocky]

Are they not all done during tower hours now? I think they are but may be misguided.:confused:

[The Chaser]

Jaba, correct :ok:

Unless, (as was the case here), they are running VERY late :ooh:.

Not pointing any fingers or anything, but why did the B738 decide to hold where they did? :uhoh:

[Capn Bloggs]

Scurvy.D.Dog are you back in the tower yet?

NO! He's going to Broome! :}

[ymlt2]

Tower closes at 2200 local EST, tower can stay open for longer if requested but that's pretty rare. Usually if any are running late its CTAF procedures for them!