REX Runway Incursion Taree 23/03/2012

[Ovation]

From Aviation Herald - surprised it hasn't been posted sooner.


Incident: REX SF34 at Taree on Mar 23rd 2012, runway incursion

By Simon Hradecky, created Monday, Mar 26th 2012 13:22Z, last updated Monday, Mar 26th 2012 13:24Z

A Rex Regional Express Saab SF-340B, registration VH-ZLH performing flight ZL-728 from Taree,NSW to Grafton,NSW (Australia), entered one of Taree's two runways (runway 04/22 4930 feet/1500 meters long, runway 12/30 1850 feet/560 meters long) while a private aircraft was taking off on that runway.

The Australian Transportation Safety Board ATSB reported the private aircraft overflew the Saab 340 with a vertical separation of about 300 feet. An investigation has been opened into the serious incident.

[ohallen]

Nearly as surprising as the reported runway EXCURSION at Williamtown that took out lights and not a word.Refer ATSB site.

[Stiff Under Carriage]

Ohallen, why don't you expand on our comment?

Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the incident of the opening post!

What are you suggesting?

[RENURPP]

'Summary
Summary
During a night take-off, a departing aircraft veered off the runway striking one of the runway side lights.
The investigation is continuing.
*
General Details
Date: 19 Mar 2012 Investigation Status: Active
Time: 2038 ESuT Investigation Type: Occurrence Investigation
Location: Williamtown Airport
State: NSW Occurrence Class: Operational
Occurrence Category: Serious Incident
Report Status: Pending
i think he was simply saying he was surprised neither incident made it to PPrune. Fair nough comment I reckon.

[Stiff Under Carriage]

Fair enough RENURPP. The YWLM incident is very light on details.

[Ovation]

Well, come on, somebody out there must know more about the Willamtown "excursion".

Type, Operator, Call-sign?

Summary
During a night take-off, a departing aircraft veered off the runway striking one of the runway side lights.
The investigation is continuing.
*
General Details
Date: 19 Mar 2012 Investigation Status: Active
Time: 2038 ESuT Investigation Type: Occurrence Investigation
Location: Williamtown Airport
State: NSW Occurrence Class: Operational
Occurrence Category: Serious Incident
Report Status: Pending

[LeadSled]

Incident: REX SF34 at Taree on Mar 23rd 2012, runway incursion

Why am I not the least bit surprised??

Tootle pip!!

[Stiff Under Carriage]

Why LeadSled? Why?

[LeadSled]

Stiff,

Because these kind of incidents, of varying seriousness, but effectively initiated by Regional crews, and not the dreaded "blundering bug smasher" ( an increasingly rare and endangered species) are relatively common.

The big difference with this one, is that it was actually reported. Most aren't, as far as I, and other interested parties, can determine.

The revised CAR 166 ( complete) has improved things a bit, but the essential mindset of "radio procedures", as opposed to "communications" is still a major problem with training and subsequent operations.

Tootle pip!!

[KRUSTY 34]

Interesting post LedSled.

If I didn't know better I'd think you were saying Regional crews are mostly responsible for this type of incident because they have been trained rote fashion in circuit radio procedures, rather than applying sound airmanship and traffic awareness to back it up!

Is this true?

[LeadSled]

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!!

[KRUSTY 34]

Not a lot of point engaging in a p!ssing contest LedSled. Except to say...

I've been engaged in regional services for more than 20 years. In that time (as you could probably appreciate) I have seen just about every example of airmanship, from the excellent, to the truly appalling! For what it's worth I have always treated other airspace users with professional curtesy and respect. If we need to slow down or widen out to accommodate other traffic, then that's just a given. if you see examples of bad behavior, then I suggest an incident report should be mandatory. That'll sort them out.

Putting aside people's prejudice's, on both sides of the fence, I can only say... It's difficult to legislate against the odd D!ckhead or Arseh@Le, and beware of assumptions. For as any professional aviator will tell you, they are the Mother of all F#ckups!

[Stiff Under Carriage]

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.

[apache]

Is there a beep back unit installed at Taree?

One of the requirements for RPT above 9 pax seats or 3500kgs is either an AFRU or air ground radio operator.

This might get more interesting as the report unfolds.

[Ozgrade3]

Speaking as humble lowly Grade 1 instructor, who flies into ports with regional RPT traffic on a daily basis I can say 99% of the RPT are prety cool and professional. A few have gone out of their way to accomodate us when my student is nervous or fumbles a bit as is the norm for early nav training. Many thanks to those guys, both Qlink and Rex.

Personally, I allways try to stay out of the way of the RPT or charter guys, i understand the time pressure you guys are under. It isnt much of an impost for me to change HDG by 10 deg or hold a level to allow the bigger guy a clear run in or out. I also try to instill this thinking into my students.

Ive also had Rex and QF tell me they will hold a level to allow me a clear run out, this is helpful when my levels are limited due to cloud. That was much appreciated as well.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Most student pilots are **** scared of RPT. A student or weekend warrior can fall in a heap if an RPT barges in with non standard calls, being agressive etc. Good radio procedures and some courtesy can greatly lower a students anxiety and prevent a mental overload cockup on the part of the student.

Standard radio calls are vital, many students in VIC and NSW are not native English speakers. " taffic XYZ, SAAB xxx is outbound on the NDB letdown......................." tells the student nothing. Your bearing and distance/alt from the field is much more useful.

If you hear someone on the CTAF whos voice is obviously not a native English speaker, speak slow clear and concise. If they dont understand your call, they ignore it. However, if the student knows where you are, what you are about to do and communicate, they are pretty good.

Occasionally you get a RPT driver who will push in, entering the runway to backtrack when you are turning final, even after I've made numerous calls. I understand you need to get going, talk to me, I can extend my downwind, slow down etc to give you a chance to get away. But to ignore my calls and then push in is just rude. Yes, us lowly bug smasher guys have a job to do too.

Overall, the system works pretty well, especially when everyone helps each other out. Thats what I love about this industry.

[Old Fella]

No doubt the ATSB will get to the truth of this potentially disasterous confliction. The undoubted fact is the light aircraft took off over the RPT aircraft which entered the runway whilst it was occupied by the light aircraft. It is not difficult to visually check the runway 04/22 at Taree, a basic check which every pilot should make, before entering the runway. It seems pretty evident that possibly two unacceptable actions were taken in this event. The RPT should not have entered an occupied runway and the light aircraft, if he was not already taking off and had insufficient runway in which to safely abort, should not have taken off with the RPT on the runway. Situational awareness and communications each seem to have been lacking in this case. I look forward to the findings.

[Jack Ranga]

In ALL of my dealings with regional RPT they have shown nothing but respect and courtesy. I've had them slow up for me despite my offering to bugger off while they land.

Was conducting a practice instrument approach in the Tommy one day and they held for me to complete it, once again while I offered to knick off. I'd be surprised if this incident was due to 'radio procedures'

Would be interested to see the report once it was completed.

[Lucerne]

There are thousands of incidents that don't make it to Pprune. There are also many accidents that don't rate a mention on here.

[Capt EFIS]

No AFRU at Taree, however, I would think that there would be company procedures in place to confirm the crew are on the correct frequency.

I guess we'll have to wait until the ATSB report come out to find out what happened.

[Stiff Under Carriage]

Is there a beep back unit installed at Taree?

One of the requirements for RPT above 9 pax seats or 3500kgs is either an AFRU or air ground radio operator.

This might get more interesting as the report unfolds.


No beep back for TRE itself,however Taree forms part of a common CTAF encompassing Port Macquarie, and Taree. Port Macquarie has a beep back, so AFRU response to that confirms correct freq. in addition to that there is a company procedure in place on ground due to shielding from Port and it's AFRU.