Vincent take over Brindabella

[falconx]

Hearing Vincent have taken on some of Brindabella routes and staff. Interesting to note using SF340's perhaps we can see some competition down the track with rex

[Horatio Leafblower]

GSE has been delivered to Narrabri and the old Pelican ground handling team have been trained to use it.

...sorry did someone say "old"? :ooh:

[goodonyamate]

whats with the ZK rego?

[waren9]

why deal with casa if you dont have to?:E

[Going Nowhere]

Saab's are all VH- registered now, I believe.

Just the QuadraPuff on the ZK- side.

[Bladeangle]

Interesting...

Anyone know what sort of numbers Brindies were getting out of there each day?

Weren't they operating a metro on that route?

I heard a rumour the owners of the J32's were starting another Newcastle based operation "pelican air"...

[Fieldmouse]

All regional route quarterly figures to Sydney are published here. Re daily flights I suppose you'd have to dig up a schedule for each port. Looks like Narrabri-Sydney is maxing out around 14-15000 pax pa.


airport (http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/content/quarterly-passenger-statistics-nsw-air-routes-and-sydney-airporthttp://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/content/quarterly-passenger-statistics-nsw-air-routes-and-sydney-airport)Quarterly passenger statistics for NSW air routes to and from Sydney Airport | Transport for NSW (http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/content/quarterly-passenger-statistics-nsw-air-routes-and-sydney-airport)

[Bladeangle]

Thanks Fieldmouse! That puts it into perspective.

[Fieldmouse]

In the official figures is a bit of FIFO stuff either via charter from Syd and Brisvegas. I even think Brindy had a RPT route out of Brissy same as Tamworth.

[Going Nowhere]

The Saab and the 146 did a few BNE-NAA-SYD flights late this week.

Vincent Aviation plans to provide daily passenger service between Narrabri and Sydney | Vincent Aviation (http://www.vincentaviation.com.au/news/vincent-aviation-plans-provide-daily-passenger-service-between-narrabri-and-sydney)

Vincent Aviation to host a scenic flight for the Narrabri Shire Community on Saturday 18th January | Vincent Aviation (http://www.vincentaviation.com.au/news/vincent-aviation-host-scenic-flight-narrabri-shire-community-saturday-18th-january)

[Gordon77]

From the Vincent Aviation Australia website, it seems they are applying only for Narrabri-Sydney at this stage.

It seems unlikely to me that they would fly the BAe146 into Narrabri, even for publicity purposes....

Bye for now,

G

[Horatio Leafblower]

Promise you Gordon old mate, the BAe146 was in Narrabri on 10th January and subsequently also.

[Trojan1981]

Smells like a broker job to me. Probably AVMIN eyeing off a FIFO. Perhaps the Whitehaven project?

[Gordon77]

Thanks Mr Leafblower,

Looks like I stand corrected- I bet the 146 is the biggest plane into Narrabri in ages... looking forward to seeing some pics- I'll have a scout around on the interweb.

Bye for now,

G

[megle2]

The 146 has some spare capacity seeing jets have been banned by Casa from operating into the new Miles runway. No papi. Second thoughts maybe as it's a ZK rego it still goes there

[Lord_Lucan]

According to Flightaware, ZK-ECO was last in Miles on Jan 7th.

[Going Nowhere]

What? Do CASA think it's impossible to land a jet without PAPI? :ugh:

Better ban them from Roma while they're at it.

[Capt Claret]

The rule might be considered OTT but it's there.

5.3 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA and subject to paragraph 5.4, an operator must not permit turbo-jet aeroplanes to use runways that are not equipped with electronic or visual approach slope guidance.

5.4 Paragraph 5.3 does not apply to runways at nominated alternate aerodromes.

[falconx]

Wasn't the papi an issue with Jetgo and the 145 to barcaldine

[Oktas8]

If the aircraft is ZK registered....

Rule 121.71:

(b) A holder of an air operator certificate must ensure that an aeroplane performing an air operation under the authority of the holder’s certificate does not use an aerodrome for landing or taking-off unless the aerodrome has—
(1) rescue fire equipment that is appropriate to the aeroplane type and is acceptable to the Director; and
(2) for turbojet and turbofan powered aeroplanes, an operating visual approach slope indicator system, except when the aeroplane is performing a precision instrument approach that includes glideslope guidance.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Smells like a broker job to me. Probably AVMIN eyeing off a FIFO. Perhaps the Whitehaven project?

Tick... tick... tick... congratulations you get 100%.

[BPA]

Recent newspaper article also said VAA will be operating the ATR once a week from SYD on a FIFO contract.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Leighton's are handling the construction of Maules Creek for Whitehaven and Virgin got the gig to do the 300+ bods/week FIFO.

... I'm told the BAe146 is -or was- covering for the lack of ATR airframes VARA have available at the moment.

[Agent86]

It won't just be jets that need PAPI soon.

The MOS 139 revision will mandate it for anything over 20,000Kg

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project AS 14/02 (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_101877)

[Cactusjack]

Word around the pub is that Scaretrans tried to add Coffs and Tamworth to their AOC to take up some of the Brindy gap, but they were somewhat 'unsuccessful' for numerous reasons. Also rumoured was that one or both of the local Councils wanted to see an improved 'due diligence' on behalf of Scaretrans as well :=

[skurgler]

How does Jetgo handle 30 at Osbourne when a roaring Norwesterly is blowing.

It's bound to happen sometimes

[Going Nowhere]

I guess it'll also affect Alliance sending the F70 into Miles...

[travelator]

82.5 refers to hi-cap RPT. I would suggest that awk and chtr are not subject to this.

[megle2]

GN Correct, was going there but not know, don't think there are any RPT jets into Miles just charter

[Agent86]

Travelator
I would suggest that awk and chtr are not subject to this.
You're right about 82.5 ...however MOS 139 already covers JET ops and you need Slope guidance for regular operations.

Section 9.9.1
A visual approach slope indicator system shall be provided to serve the approach to a runway, whether or not the runway is served by electronic
approach slope guidance, where one of the following applies:
(a) The runway is regularly used by jet-propelled aeroplanes engaged in air
transport operations.
(b) CASA directs that visual approach slope guidance be provided,
because it has determined that such a visual aid is required for the safe
operation of aircraft

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

ATR-72 BNE-NAA-BNE yesterday, by the way

[Bellcrank 74]

Virgin Australia Regional ATR72-600's will be operated on a 'Charter' basis SYD-NAA-SYD on Mon and Thurs evenings from 6 Feb
Mondays VA9101 SYD-NAA 1835/1955 VA9104 NAA-SYD 2025/2145


Thursdays VA9103 SYD-NAA 1730/1850 VA9102 NAA-SYD 1920/2040

[LeadSled]

CAO 82.5
5.3 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA and subject to paragraph 5.4, an operator must not permit turbo-jet aeroplanes to use runways that are not equipped with electronic or visual approach slope guidance.

5.4 Paragraph 5.3 does not apply to runways at nominated alternate aerodromes.
Folks,
While I would be the first to agree that it is always nice to have approach slope guidance, "need" to have is another thing.

The genesis of the rule goes back to the late 1950s and early 1960s and the very early jets (QF 707-138A & B) and the very very slow acceleration times for those early jet engines.

With modern engines and their response times, there is no longer any need to differentiate between "turbine" engined aircraft, and any other form of engine.

But, as always, once a rule is on the books ------ !!! In may other ways, CASA want to treat "turbine" engines as "new and different", despite the fact they have been around since the end of WW II --- just ask the Citation Mustang operators.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Of course, if we had WAAS, just about every IFR operator would be able to have the equivalent of ILS for every approach, everywhere.

[Mach E Avelli]

:ugh:Dredging through much CASA dross, I see one version of 'regular operation' is once a week or more.
So a crew in current practice, flying say weekly, to a familiar airport is at greater risk of undershooting or overshooting (or whatever slope guidance guarantees to prevent) than a crew who may have never been to a place, and is possibly diverting there under some duress - like mechanical failure, weather or fuel shortage? Or goes there on a one-off charter?
Someone, please explain this logic?

Surely, within reason (such as suitable weather and terrain), operating without slope guidance is either safe, or not safe? We are not talking wide body jets, simply those likely to be using typical country airports with at least 1500 metres of runway.
Or is it really possible to be a little bit pregnant after all?

[waren9]

i think its more about the likelihood of having to divert in the first place.

being able to nominate a closer alternate with perhaps less economic penalty than 1 with slope guidance further away.

no slope guidance is just one hole in the cheese thats perhaps not normally acceptable, but ok for alternates that are not likely to be used anyway.

but given casa hands out exemptions like lollies it all means nought anyway

[Mach E Avelli]

To gain an exemption, an operator is supposed to offer an 'equivalent level of safety'. That could be as simple as imposing conservative weather minima above the circling minima or requiring landings to be day only.

The slope guidance rule and its non-applicability to an alternate seems more like it is based on some idea of odds. The alternate relief from the requirement destroys any safety argument, so what else can it be other than simply playing the odds?

[waren9]

nothing.

affordable safety i think they call it.

[Hailstop3]

Well the Alliance F70 was in Miles yesterday so looks like someone has taken their common sense pill at CASA. Certainly no PAPI or approaches there yet.

[bankrunner]

It won't just be jets that need PAPI soon.

The MOS 139 revision will mandate it for anything over 20,000Kg

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project AS 14/02

Obviously because in millions of flying hours and hundreds of thousands of landings in regional areas, there have been a whole ton of incidents, that the general public isn't privy to, involving F50s, Q400s etc where lack of slope guidance was an issue :E

[BNEA320]

SYD-NAA-SYD ?

Is anyone looking at SYD/OOM ?

Seems like no one is interested in some of old Brindabella routes at all.