Near miss at Toowoomba

[CYHeli]

From the ATSB website. (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-061.aspx)

The ATSB has commenced an investigation into a runway incursion involving a Cessna 172 and a De Havilland DHC-8, at Toowoomba Airport, Queensland, on 28 March 2014.
When on short final for runway 29, the pilot of the Cessna 172 sighted the De Havilland DHC-8 entering the runway. The pilot landed and stopped short of the taxying DHC-8. The crew of both aircraft reported not hearing radio broadcasts from the other aircraft.:eek:

[VH-XXX]

Someone is headed for a few demerit points, that's for sure :O :{ :sad: :uhoh:

[Andy_P]

Questions from the newbie... Radio work aside. Firstly, should the DHC-8 looked for someone on final before entering the taxiway? Assuming here you get a good view from a dash 8?

Second, should the pilot of the 172 done a go around rather than landing? Once again I might be showing some ignorance here, but guessing the reason for not going around would be insufficient time/distance to climb higher than the dash 8?

Not speculating here, rather just inquiring. I like to think that quizzing all this stuff will help to make me a better pilot when I eventually get there.

[VH-XXX]

should the pilot of the 172 done a go around rather than landing?

Absolutely yes.

insufficient time/distance to climb higher than the dash 8?


Not likely given that the 172 had time to land and pull up before reaching the -8.


The 172 should not have landed. If the 172 had gone around, there would not have been an ATSB incident report lodged.

[mcgrath50]

An engine out with sufficient runway to pull up or nice grass next to the runway to land on would be about the only time I can think off the top of my head to continue an approach onto an occupied runway.

Even if it's somewhere long like Avalon or the Gold Coast where you know you can pull up and get off the runway even in the worst circumstances, go around. For an extra .1 and 10L of fuel you'll avoid the investigation.

[mikewil]

For an extra .1 and 10L of fuel you'll avoid the investigation.

In a 172 it should cost no more than 4L of fuel. I cannot understand why someone would not go around under the circumstances unless his wheels were already on the runway before noticing the other aircraft entering the runway.

[sarge75]

Report states he was on short final, so wheels were not yet on the tarmac

[Andy_P]

If the 172 had gone around, there would not have been an ATSB incident report lodged.

That just answered one of my other questions! Twice now I have had aircraft taxi onto the runway when I was on final (same aircraft btw) and I just did a go around. Both time with instructor. Was wondering why that did not require an incident to be logged.

[Captain Nomad]

Aircraft on the runway always has right of way BUT it is polite airmanship to give way to aircraft about to land rather than taxi out in front of them and force a go-around (not suggesting that was what happened). BUT it is not always easy to see small light aircraft - especially without radio 'alert' and from inside a busy cockpit/environmental factors etc - don't assume the other guy is going to see you and wait for you... Beggars belief that the aircraft on short final didn't go around...

[Guilders]

Captain Nomad; mind confirming your quote with a reference?:\

[601]

Aircraft on the runway always has right of way BUT it is polite airmanship to give way to aircraft about to land rather than taxi out in front of them and force a go-around

If it was a 747 on final would there be a different take on the above quote?

If an aircraft is on final you don't enter the runway.


Before anyone jumps on me and states that a 747 would not be at TWB, it is just an example.

[Wally Mk2]

'Nomady' adding to '601' above. I think you maybe misguided there with that belief (A/C on rwy has ROW) in this case. The better statement would have been you can't land (unless in an Emerg) on a Rwy already occupied & not by just an A/C either. Obviously the lightie had ROW due his position in the circuit.

Obviously both pilots would not have done this deliberately (well we hope not anyway) so either there was some misunderstanding re where who was or what some intentions where or the Dash simply didn't see the lightie on short final. We don't know the exact details here there could have been sun-glare (if it was daylight I haven't read the report as yet), could have been inadequate R/T proc's.

I'd like to think that the Lightie driver will be more at the ready to go around rather than land if he/she comes across this another time.

We all learn & it's when we stop learning that it becomes very dangerous.

Wmk2

[Possum1]

Sounds like the DHC-8 was lining up at the other end at Rwy 11. Had it been entering Rwy 29, the report would be talking about a near collision or near miss and the first officer should have seen the 172 looming large in his side window.

When I am on short finals I am focussed on the threshold steady in the windscreen and my airspeed. The other end of the runway, 1341m away, would be in my peripheral vision and would not be noticed in detail until focussing on it in the flare and hold-off, if then.

Also remember there is the infamous hump in the middle of the runway at Toowoomba, making aircraft potentially lining up to face each other invisible from each end.

To state the obvious, someone has probably been on the wrong frequency, or had the volume turned down.

[Blueskymine]

A landing aircraft always has priority over one taking off.

However an aircraft can't land if some muppet enters the runway while you're on final!

[VH-XXX]

The report clearly says that the 172 sighted the Dash 8 entering the runway. It couldn't be any clearer; therefore the 172 should not have landed. It couldn't be more simple. It will be interesting when we read in several months (years) what actually happened :)

Captain Nomad says: Aircraft on the runway always has right of way

Guilders says; Captain Nomad; mind confirming your quote with a reference?

Guilders - let me get this straight, you need a reference for this ? :(

Possum1 says: Sounds like the DHC-8 was lining up at the other end at Rwy 11. Had it been entering Rwy 29, the report would be talking about a near collision or near miss and the first officer should have seen the 172 looming large in his side window.

Not necessarily, but probable. The holding point Alpha-3 for 29 is perhaps 270 metres from the start of the keys and by the time the Dash 8 rolled onto the runway and lined up (presuming they weren't backtracking, it would be well over 300 metres). Unlikely, but stranger things have happened :ok:

[VH-XXX]

However an aircraft can't land if some muppet enters the runway while you're on final!

You might be right BlueSkyMine... it appears the Muppets may have been in the aircraft.

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101004184402/muppet/images/9/9c/GMC-OpenAirplane.jpg

[Capn Bloggs]

Captain Nomad says: Aircraft on the runway always has right of way
Guilders says; Captain Nomad; mind confirming your quote with a reference?

Guilders - let me get this straight, you need a reference for this ?

I suspect that Guilders had his tongue firmly in his cheek, XXX. Obviously waiting for the Captain to finish his squirm manoeuvre! :)

Listen for the Beepback!! Not that they are really important...the one at Learmonth has been out of service for 12 months now... :cool:

[Captain Nomad]

I just managed to accidently close my reply window where I had posted a few relevant references. Couldn't be bothered doing it again. Maybe I didn't word my first post very well so if you want to argue technicalities you might want to trot out:

CAR162
(8) An aircraft that is about to take‑off shall not attempt to do so until there is no apparent risk of collision with other aircraft.

But in reverse, if you want to try landing on an occupied runway and claim you had right of way and have done nothing wrong - go ahead "Make my day!"

Initiating 'squirm' manoeuvre...! :}

[Capn Bloggs]

CN, check 3 subparas up:

(5) An aircraft in flight, or operating on the ground or water, shall give way to other aircraft landing or on final approach to land.

Continue squirming! :}

[Captain Nomad]

AIP ENR1.1 ss48.5.6
When on the final leg, confirm that the runway is clear for landing...

And if it is not - go ahead and land anyway 'cos you have right of way...! := :}

[Hempy]

or
ENR 1.4 - 17

h. A landing aircraft will have priority over a departing aircraft if the latter cannot take off with prescribed separation standards.
I. An aircraft landing or taking off will be given priority over taxiing aircraft.

Doesn't mean the goose in the 172 was 'legal' to land though, it just means that if he had plowed into the Dash and killed everyone, the Dash pilots would have copped the blame in the subsequent investigation

[Wally Mk2]

'Nomady' no one here is disputing that the guy had ROW landing with an A/C on the Rwy that's a given what I think my learned colleges are trying to say here is that a departing A/C must give way to a Ldg A/C whom has the right of way but only whilst the Rwy was clear, once the Dash entered the Rwy all bets where off.
All we have here & what the crux of the conversation is that there was an A/C on the Rwy obviously oblivious to the fact that an A/C was on short final to land & the Ldg A/C should have gone around due the obvious danger not so much the rules, common sense would dictate now is not a good time to land!


Wmk2


Wmk2

[Capn Bloggs]

Hang on a minute, CN. You said the aircraft on the runway had right of way. That's wrong. A landing aircraft has right of way.

Now, on to this incident, obviously the Dash should have given way to the lighty, and the lighty should not have landed with the Dash on the runway from Hempy's common-sense POV (which obviously I don't disagree with!). Until we know who said what and who saw what, we can't know who was in the right or wrong.

[Pinky the pilot]

As someone once said to me
]"You only have the right of way if the other person gives it to you!":hmm:

In other words, it would all be somewhat academic if all you had in the end were two wrecked and smoking piles of aluminium!:ugh:

[Captain Nomad]

Moral of the story, don't post after night shift when you might 'word' things incorrectly.

Now, on to this incident, obviously the Dash should have given way to the lighty, and the lighty should not have landed with the Dash on the runway from Hempy's common-sense POV (which obviously I don't disagree with!). Until we know who said what and who saw what, we can't know who was in the right or wrong.

Agreed.

You said the aircraft on the runway had right of way. That's wrong. A landing aircraft has right of way.


Agreed - up to the point where if a landing aircraft knowingly lands on an occupied runway, which then opens a can of worms for prosecution based on rules surrounding recklessness and creating collision risks (or rather, not taking appropriate action to avoid).

Back to bed...

[roundsounds]

Facts:
Dash 8 should not have entered runway as the C172 had right of way (CAR 162).
C172 should not have landed on the now occupied runway.
Unknown:
Correct RT used?
Did either / both crew not see each other?
Comment:
This could've ended a whole lot messier than it did. Let's hope something is learnt from the incident and that we don't have another layer of RT added to ops in the circuit area.

[Andy_P]

Good read. I am just studying the air law now for BAK. Last part I need to tidy off before I take the written exam. So I trotted off to read up some of the CAR's relating to right of way. I was pretty sure landing aircraft had right of way, but now I am totally sure!!!

FWIW, the 2 times I had to go around because an aircraft taxied onto the runway we climbed out to the right of the runway (deadside) so I was able to maintain visual contact with the aircraft on the ground. I assume that is the standard procedure.

Its interesting reading the stuff about who should have done what and the stubbornness around who was right and who was wrong. Being a motorcyclist and a mariner one thing I have learned over the years is there is no place for arrogance in either. I often see this same debate both in motorcycle and marine arena. At the end of the day, if some breaks the law I don't care, I am only interested in self preservation so I do what I have to do to survive.

There is one exception though, yacht racing... We have rescue boats on standby and there is always crashes :}:eek::E

[tecman]

I just noticed the time of the incident and realized that it's that bit more concerning as it was after last light. Probably be the usual story of someone with the wrong comm selected but I wonder if the C172 had all the lights on. I wouldn't be chancing a night landing on an obviously occupied strip, but would likewise hope that I'd not taxi in the path of a properly lit aircraft on short final. However, as someone has mentioned, if the Dash 8 was lining up on the reciprocal runway, the hump could conceivably have obscured a C172 on very short final. Don't know the Toowoomba strip but the hump effect is a trap at other places (like 04/22 at Parkes), at least for aircraft actually on the ground.

[Captain Nomad]

It's like having a green arrow to turn at an intersection while driving your car. Technically you have right of way but there is a pedestrian crossing the road to which you must give way to first. An aircraft on the runway is like that pedestrian crossing the road. While the landing aircraft has the right of way over a departing aircraft they should give way to a runway obstruction under normal circumstances.

There are at least two wrongs here and they don't make a right! The first wrong was the failure of the taxiing aircraft to give way to a landing aircraft. The second wrong was for the landing aircraft to continue the landing after noting an aircraft entering the runway. The question is, who is more in the wrong?!

I doubt we would be reading about this if the C172 had gone around.

Doesn't mean the goose in the 172 was 'legal' to land though, it just means that if he had plowed into the Dash and killed everyone, the Dash pilots would have copped the blame in the subsequent investigation

I wouldn't be so sure they would cop ALL the blame... Especially as we know that the landing aircraft was aware of the aircraft on the runway before he landed. I would like to see the non-existent regulation that gives a landing aircraft not in distress 'right of way' and permission to land with an aircraft already 'on' a runway...

And don't worry Bloggs, if I know about you I promise I'll give way to you before entering a runway - yours is bigger than mine!

[004wercras]

Who was the Dash operator?

[VH-XXX]

Skytrans, formerly Toll if I'm not mistaken...

[Capn Bloggs]

And don't worry Bloggs, if I know about you I promise I'll give way to you before entering a runway - yours is bigger than mine!
Don't worry, CN, I recently "gave way" to someone who should've been giving way to me! I decided discretion was the better part of valour... :ok:

"You only have the right of way if the other person gives it to you!"
Saying of the month! :D

[Hempy]

Doesn't mean the goose in the 172 was 'legal' to land though, it just means that if he had plowed into the Dash and killed everyone, the Dash pilots would have copped the blame in the subsequent investigation

I wouldn't be so sure they would cop ALL the blame... Especially as we know that the landing aircraft was aware of the aircraft on the runway before he landed. I would like to see the non-existent regulation that gives a landing aircraft not in distress 'right of way' and priority over an aircraft already 'on' a runway...
!

Well, the only reason we know the pilot saw the Dash 8 was because he lived to tell the tale...

and that the ATSB consider 'landing on a closed or occupied runway' as an Immediately Reportable Matter, i.e a ' accident or serious incident'.

So, as mentioned, if the 'pilot' of the 172 did in fact see the Dash, and then considered it 'safe' to continue with a landing despite what (in surely any reasonable terms) basic airmanship and the ATSB would suggest is a situation that is plainly NOT safe, then either

a. he had an engine failure on final, or
b. he is an idiot who doesn't deserve a licence

:-)

edit: doesn't change my opinion by the way, unless the pilot called over the radio 'aircraft on the runway I'm going to land' or something before he became a charred stump, the ATSB would surely find that no idiot would be stupid enough to intentionally land on an occupied runway and therefore the Dash pilots would surely wear it for the regulatory reasons mentioned above.

[Black_Knight]

its seems like one hell of an assumption that the C172 pilot actually saw the dash 8 on the runway. So far no one commenting has said they would consider landing on an occupied runway. any reasonably student would make a go around in the given situation if the saw the hazard.

its interesting to see the first assumption is that the hazard was seen and ignored or deemed safe and not that the hazard went unseen.

There are plenty of examples of low light\night landings where a runway incursion has occurred and the landing pilots couldn't see the aircraft on the runway.

[VH-XXX]

its seems like one hell of an assumption that the C172 pilot actually saw the dash 8 on the runway.

With all due respect BLACK KNIGHT, you need to read the 2 paragraphs of the ATSB report.

From the ATSB report:

When on short final for runway 29, the pilot of the Cessna 172 sighted the De Havilland DHC-8 entering the runway.

Therefore:

The pilot of the 172 saw the Dash 8.
The pilot of the 172 landed on the runway whilst the Dash 8 was still on the runway (we haven't determined at which end).

It couldn't be more simple, which is why we are even reading this.

Hence my initial post:

Someone is headed for a few demerit points, that's for sure :O :{ :sad: :uhoh:

[Dexta]

The other possibility is that the C172 gave a "turning final" call just as the -8 gave an "entering runway" call cancelling each other out. We have had it here a couple of times, fortunately all without major incident. If you stick to the required calls (CAR166C & CAR243 + CAAP166-1(1) sec.6), i.e. C172 only gave a joining circuit call then maintained a listening watch, the -8 gave the entering call then the C172, upon hearing the -8 could give a warning "on short final" call. Too many radio calls is dangerous, make the required calls and listen, then respond where appropriate.

[Possum1]

Would not AvData be holding a recording of any transmissions at the time of the incident and would they release it?

[VH-XXX]

The radio calls are not relevant, CTAF procedures are what they are.... even if the radio's were turned off, down or were on another frequency, the 172 pilot saw the Dash 8 and should not have landed. It couldn't be more simple.

[outnabout]

Just a thought - last light was at 08.19UTC / 1819 local. This occurred at 20.39. So, what if?

What if the 172 was coming in from cross country and is running on fumes?

Or the engine was making a nasty sound, and pilot wanted to get it on the ground quick smart?

Or does a days work then climbs into the trusty ole Cessna at sunset to get to town so they're ready bright & early tomorrow? Or does a days work & just pops out to do circuits for currency? The prelim report doesn't say if the 172 was doing night circuits or popped up on short final out of nowhere.

Yes the 172 said they saw the Dash 8 and still landed BUT doesn't a Dash 8 have 2 sets of eyes vs 1 set of eyes in the c172 - I am assuming that the pilot was the only pob in the 172.

Doesn't a Dash 8 have all sorts of gear to avoid planes & planets?

Maybe ole mate thought to avoid air services charges (it has been known to happen) & Dash 8 crew, not hearing anything on CTAF, got busy with Brisbane centre......

What if...

(Somewhere in my battered brain cells ...... early 1990s? A Cessna coming in to land went around to make way for a departing Metro? Cessna then ran out of sky and / or fuel and 3? People were seriously injured.. Details are very hazy but think it might have been in WA??).

[Oakape]

That's what your fixed reserve is for. You would be having a really bad day if you had used your fixed reserve due to other circumstances & then had an aircraft taxi onto the runway in front of you when on final.

Either way, if he chose to land on an occupied runway, or had no fixed reserve on arrival & had to land on an occupied runway, he has some questions to answer.

[VH-XXX]

The aircraft is owned by an Aero Club...

[Mail-man]

Skytrans, formerly Toll if I'm not mistaken...

Do/did toll operate dash 8's?

[Cactusjack]

Skytrans, formerly Toll if I'm not mistaken...

Gee, what a surprise. NOT.

[Going Nowhere]

I believe the Dash operated for Toll by Skytrans out of DRW for a while a few years ago.

[megle2]

Three pages that should be covered by two or three posts
Jeez

[Brian Abraham]

Second guessing what might have happened is pointless. Wait for the report. Stuff happens, as in,

Young lass was backtracking for take-off to do some solo consolidation when an aircraft, which had only just taken off for a distant destination, suddenly appeared on finals. Unable to establish comms, and with its apparent intent on landing, she took to the bush.

The reason

http://users.netconnect.com.au/~njah1/king2.jpg
http://users.netconnect.com.au/~njah1/king3.jpg

Pilot was on approach freq rather than the required circuit freq due to having his hands full with a recalcitrant airframe, a desire to maintain comms with an agency that may be in a position to offer aid, and wanting to get on the ground ASAP.

Doesn't always go by the book. Keep the eyes open.

[Arm out the window]

Fair cop if there's an emergency, but for f@@k's sake, the landing aircraft has the right of way - no point trying to make it out to be any different.

Naturally a landing aircraft won't continue the landing, or shouldn't, if some plonker lines up in front of them, but surely it's clear who's in the wrong if that happens?

[Mach E Avelli]

The ATSB would do well to focus on why the Dash 8 crew missed the presence of the C172 in the first place. Look at SOP. Do they call on CTAF just so they can commence taxying, then go off CTAF frequency to Centre for IFR traffic and to initiate SAR? Maybe their second radio is still tuned to CTAF, but is one pilot exclusively monitoring it to the exclusion of all other duties while the first guy is on Centre? Highly unlikely - too much would be happening with the checklist for that to work in real life.
Not saying this is foolproof, but our operation calls Centre first, then switches to CTAF until airborne. After that initial contact, Centre frequency is then set to a very low volume so it does not interfere with anything that could pop up on CTAF. If Centre want to talk before we are clear of the circuit area they get the old "stand by" reply.
Also does their SOP involve much 'quacking' to the instruments and running long checklists while taxying? The distraction of this can drown out some lone voice making a cryptic transmission like "XYZ final runway..."
Made worse if said transmission does not repeat the place name at least twice.

As for the unfortunate 172 pilot, if CASA get nasty his wallet and licence could cop a flogging. If he was legally operating after last light, that would not be an issue. If he was not, well he's stuffed. But assuming he was legal, much may depend on whether his admission to sighting the Dash 8 was early on final or very late on final. If early, he is probably due some attitude readjustment, courtesy a friendly CASA FOI, who will not be happy until the pilot is not happy.
If he saw the Dash 8 late, he could argue that it was better to land because he had plenty of stopping distance. Whereas, a go around with potential engine malfunction could have risked a collision with the other aircraft. Anyway, that would be my story.....

If this had occurred in the USA it is unlikely to have even raised eyebrows. 'Landing after' is routine. Probably less risky than going around in busy airspace. This, in the land where they really did invent aviation. For us to re-invent.

[Capn Bloggs]

Do they call on CTAF just so they can commence taxying, then go off CTAF frequency to Centre for IFR traffic and to initiate SAR?
How very true, MEA. Commercial expediency leading to very high workload radio work.

[Wally Mk2]

'BA' tnxs for posting that piccy I remember it well, I wasn't the driver poor old Frank was doing the driving that day near crapped himself he did:E but I went down to collect the machine after they patched it up in WSL. Big fat nasty DEAD bird:-)
No APP freq involved though but we get the idea:ok:

I'd like a buck for every time I was confronted by 'farmer Brown' over the years (when I was in one of the above machines) in his Cessna filling my windscreen at some country strip, just gotta keep ya eye out for the 'simple flyers' out there:)

Wmk2

[Kharon]

Wally_2 – [I'd] like a buck for every time I was confronted by 'farmer Brown' over the years (when I was in one of the above machines) in his Cessna filling my windscreen at some country strip" etc.

Had a mini BRB session last evening; one interesting topic was this thread. Between the four of us we reckoned on average, to have had half a dozen memorable, 'serious and notable' experiences apiece over the (many) years; go a rounds with traffic issues etc. Then there were the unquantifiable WTF stories (ala Wally), which came down to 'head-shakers' of the minor irritant variety. Rough figures, I know but it gives the idea; couple of the tales were of the very scary kind and duly reported. It's always a tough call, knowing what to 'report', what to have a quiet word with a CP/PIC about and what to ignore as being simply part of the job. **** happens - right.

I guess the point is that this type of event is a repetitive 'incident' rather than a once in a blue moon event. Compared to the thousands of 'safe', pilot organised separations in year, the percentage is probably insignificant and well within any cost/benefit risk matrix. Mathematically the probability of a 'face to face' occurring are higher than the reported incidents, but the probability of a 'contact' are much less, i.e. not too many mid air incidents caused by the scenario here.

It makes it hard to justify the expense of Unicom or FSU, rather than CTAF at the busier aerodromes, but in situations such Mach. E and Bloggs define; it's not the known traffic, but the unknown (or missed) traffic creeping into the frame during a 'busy' period that is the high risk element, particularly during taxi, runway entry, backtrack, take off and initial climb. Just saying - my two bob's worth, I consider anything moving on the ground 'blind' until I know, that they know.

[Cactusjack]

I was scrolling through the ATSB site to see if there were any updates on this incursion as yet. I noticed the ATSB has Skytrans listed as a LOCAP operation? Aren't they a HICAP operation? If they are in fact LOCAP, when was their AOC amended and 'downsized'? If though they are a HICAP operator would the ATSB site in fact be incorrect in its details? And dear oh dear, if the ATSB can't even get those simple facts correct how can they possibly determine what the root cause of the incursion was :ugh:
My bold:

Aircraft 1 details
Aircraft manufacturer: de Havilland Canada
Aircraft model: DHC-8-102
Aircraft registration: VH-QQD
Serial number: 245
Operator: Skytrans
Type of operation: Air Transport Low Capacity
Sector: Turboprop
Damage to aircraft: Nil
Departure point: Toowoomba. Qld
Destination: Brisbane, Qld

Link:
Investigation: AO-2014-061 - Runway incursion involving a Cessna 172, VH-WGL and a De Havilland DHC-8, VH-QQD at Toowoomba Airport, Qld, on 28 March 2014 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-061.aspx)

[Wally Mk2]

CJack I think you will find that a Hi Cap AOC is pax No's Abv 38 seats/4.2 Tonnes(that's over 100Kg's each pax, fat bastards us Aussies:-) & seeing as QQD is the baby Dash that I assume is why.

Could be wrong but a quick Google search found the answers

Wmk2

EDIT: Okay lets just say that QQD fits in the Lo Cap:-)

[A-Thousand-To-Go]

The operator is HiCap, the report is stating that the type of operation (flight) was LowCap;
Type of operation: Air Transport Low Capacity

You're confounded by the difference in operation and operator.

[jmmoric]

The report doesn't state what taxiway the DHC8 came from, or how much distance was available for the C172 to land on.

But there are some dangers involved in a go-around, like performance with a full flap setting, and a full load (not sure about the C172 though, but I've tried it in an elderly C172 with low HP, damn hard to gain speed and altitude at the same time, you need the altitude to clear obstacles, and the speed to retract the flaps)

Not considering my experience, but if the pilot deemed it safest to land, he was in his right to do so.

But as said earlier, wait for the report.

I'm a little puzzled that a go-around wouldn't have generated a report though? We usually see a go-around due traffic on the runway as an "evasive manouver", and therefore a incidentreport has to be filed.

This made me laugh:

"A report will be released within several months."

[VH-XXX]

In Australia a go-around would only normally be an issue for RPT traffic and in particular in controlled airspace, even moreso if an aircraft was on the runway. It's not an issue for a couple of private aircraft such as a Cessna and something bigger.