PDA

View Full Version : Sunshine Coast Airport Jetstar Mess


wheels_down
10th Jun 2020, 00:27
No investigation of Fatigue in the report (again). I wonder how much runway they had left.

The flight crew of VH-VQG recorded the aerodrome wind direction as 230° (Magnetic) when planning their approach. However, local aerodrome wind direction was reported as 329° (Magnetic).
On the morning of 4 November 2019, an Airbus A320-200 aircraft, registered VH-VQG (VQG), was operating a scheduled passenger flight from Sydney, New South Wales, to Sunshine Coast, Queensland (Qld). As the aircraft was on final approach to land, a proximity event occurred with an Aero Commander 500 aircraft, registered VH-UJS (UJS), which was departing Sunshine Coast Airport on the reciprocal runway. The two aircraft paths converged, until the pilot of UJS conducted a right turn and increased the separation between them. The flight crew of VQG continued the approach and UJS continued to Maryborough, Qld, without further incident. The time of the incident was outside the operating hours of Sunshine Coast Airport air traffic control tower and it was therefore operating as a non-controlled aerodrome.
What the ATSB foundThe ATSB found that important radio broadcasts made on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) were not heard by the flight crew of VQG and the pilot of UJS regarding each other’s position and intention. These included the inbound broadcasts made by VQG and the take-off broadcast made by UJS. In addition, the flight crew of VQG determined the most suitable runway based on the radio-transmitted aerodrome weather information service. However, this was either recorded incorrectly or heard incorrectly such that the chosen runway was the less favourable of the two options for the wind direction. This resulted in the aircraft approaching the opposite runway to other aircraft at the time. Finally, the pilot of the departing aircraft did not confirm the location and intention of the inbound aircraft prior to commencing take-off, as it was assumed the inbound aircraft would use the most suitable runway for the conditions.
Safety messageWhen operating in uncontrolled airspace and around non-towered aerodromes, it is important to ensure that the location and intention of surrounding traffic is well understood and communicated prior to commencing take-off or landing.

The ATSB SafetyWatch highlights the broad safety concerns that come out of our investigation findings and from the occurrence data reported to us by industry. One of the safety concerns is safety around non-controlled aerodromes (https://www.atsb.gov.au/safetywatch/safety-around-aeros.aspx). The ATSB SafetyWatch page provides information and resources about staying safe around non-controlled aerodromes. In addition, the ATSB booklet A pilot’s guide to staying safe in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2008/avoidable-1-ar-2008-044(1)/) outlines many of the common problems that occur at non-controlled aerodromes, and offers useful strategies to keep yourself and other pilots safe.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (https://www.casa.gov.au/) has also produced a resource booklet ‘be heard, be seen, be safe’ which is in relation to radio procedures in uncontrolled airspace, and highlights that radios must always be used in conjunction with a safe ‘see-and-avoid’ procedure.


https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2020/ctaf-separation-incident/?fbclid=IwAR0rtcMUaBU-tFtiznLMsXvzOF98LoJBAbwHWnOmWwwiNybJ1X2awrTGO9M

Pundit
10th Jun 2020, 00:41
We are supposed to learn lessons from incidents, that is how the industry develop the excellent safety record we enjoy. Sadly, ATSB reports are substandard and this is another example of an incomplete investigation.

TimmyTee
10th Jun 2020, 00:42
It beggars belief that the report wouldn’t actually provide the correct AWIS!
I’d say it’s pretty crucial to the findings and actions. It briefly mentions the correct wind direction but nothing else. Why not?

It’s completely reasonable to assume that since “both” the JQ crew heard and recorded a completely wrong wind direction, there was absolutely no way they could acceptably then rely upon their recorded wind strength either.

Going into a very short strip for a 320, you really want to know the tail wind strength (which they had assumed was a headwind until late final).

So in recognition that they had recorded an incorrect AWIS, it shocks me that “However, they assessed it was safer to continue with the approach due to the other aircraft ... de-conflicted with, and although there was a tailwind, it was assessed as within tolerance.“

Did they eyeball a max tailwind of 10kts versus say, 13kts? Did they disregard their wind direction, but still rely on their wind strength? (Without now knowing the direction). Seems pretty risky for a strip that definitely doesn’t allow for mucking around.

If I know there’s wind blowing there, and other aircraft are using the reciprocal runway, no way I’d be landing a 60T jet into Maroochy without sourcing the correct wind information. Would not be happy if I were to learn I was on that flight.

wheels_down
10th Jun 2020, 01:00
both” the JQ crew heard and recorded a completely wrong wind direction
Well we don’t know that exactly. The report doesn’t offer any confirmation they both heard the reading. Or if one relayed the heading misheard wrong, to the other, who then just assumed it was right, when it wasn’t. Just more detail apart of a wider range of detail missing from the report.

I wonder if Jetstar conduct their own internal in depth investigation compared to the ATSB reports which are constantly full of holes. I just can’t imagine this would sit well with the Training Department, just accepting what little detail the bureau offers and move on.

When did the crew last sign off, what rest did they have, ATIS?, how many passengers onboard, how heavy, how much runway left, crew interviews.....is what you just expect in a FAA report.

IsDon01
10th Jun 2020, 01:56
RPT operations into CTAFs.

Im surprised we haven’t had more incidents let alone fatalities.

novice110
10th Jun 2020, 01:58
I find it odd that the Aero Commander acknowledged an inbound jet 8 miles North East, and decided to take off to the North about one minute later.

Without a quick CTAF call to check on position before rolling ?

ozbiggles
10th Jun 2020, 02:31
It reads like a minimum effort report when there are a number of issues that could have seen an accident with an RPT jet. Mid-air, wrong runway direction on a ****ty short runway, RPT into CTAF again, mis heard, mis understood radio calls, assumptions made (we have all been there). The headline result from the ATSB was people should listen to things. What about discussing what defences were absent to stop the multitude of holes lining up particularly when people have a mental model made that’s isn’t correct. How stable was the approach and what was the tailwind and performance figures for the landing?

non_state_actor
10th Jun 2020, 02:54
I find it odd that the Aero Commander acknowledged an inbound jet 8 miles North East, and decided to take off to the North about one minute later. Without a quick CTAF call to check on position before rolling ?

UJS made all the correct calls so did VQG for that matter. The problem was UJS rolling call was at the same time centre kept calling VQG so they didn't hear it as they would have been talking to centre. It took UJS 90 seconds from taxi call to airborne. In that time VQG was dealing with two other aircraft and talking to centre. My guess would be that VQG crew weren't expecting UJS to get airborne that quick

Going Nowhere
10th Jun 2020, 03:05
Possibly confused when ATC said the jet was due “about 36” and also get their compass quadrants ass about?

Mistook this as using runway 36.

It wouldn’t be the first time a pilot has got their heads and tails confused.

Checklist Charlie
10th Jun 2020, 03:09
The AC500 wouldn't have been a 'gun runner' by any chance? They are observed to not hang around on the ground for very long after engine start!

CC

Mr Approach
10th Jun 2020, 04:24
Another crazy example of how badly stuffed up the Australian airspace and it's arbiter CASA has become!

Apparently, at MCY, CASA OAR carried out one of their safety assessments based on the fact that either PT traffic movements or pax had passed the arbitrary limits decided by the Minister, Mr MacCormack, in the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01386), and decided MCY should be a controlled airport.
CASA OAR then designates the aerodrome to be controlled, but ignores it's responsibility under the Airspace Regulations 2007 Paragraph 2d (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019C00278) to set the times the tower should be operating. It hands it over to Airservices, another agency managed by the Minister who no doubt offered to cover all the PT schedules. If, however, JQ says they do not want to have the tower on duty because (in the Australian system) they have to pay for it, the Federal Governemnt (CASA and Airservices) are happy to leave the JQ passengers in the lurch to save Alan Joyce a couple of dollars. It does this REGARDLESS of the safety assessment that was made in the first place!
OAR also has the option to impose Class E airspace when the Tower is not on duty, as occurs in advanced aviation nations. (you've heard that phrase "world's best practice", no doubt). There is no technical reason why Brisbane Centre should not also have an anomometer read-out from MCY so the correct wind could have been passed
Now that may not have mitigated this issue because it seems that the Commander was VFR, and could depart witha tail wind if the pilot thought it benficial, however there is also a regulation in Part 139, allowing a UNICOM to operate on the CTAF. This allows anybody with an AROC, including the airport owner or Jetstar, to provide a limited service on the frequency that may or may not have mitigated this incident.

I am appalled that ATSB should just accept that the Government mandated airspace model should be allowed to pass without comment. You should look after your Boss - if there had been a mid-air then it would have been Mr. MacCormack's fault. The buck stops on his desk......

TimmyTee
10th Jun 2020, 04:32
Well we don’t know that exactly. The report doesn’t offer any confirmation they both heard the reading.

Yeah, we do:

“Prior to commencing the descent, both flight crewmembers of VQG independently listened to the Aerodrome Weather Information Service (AWIS) for Sunshine Coast Airport. Both reported hearing that the wind was from 230° (Magnetic) at 6 or 7 kt”

Reckon it’s a case or “fk, lets just say we both heard it, and the other aircraft must have been wrong”?
Why else would you tell an investigation you both independently listened, and came up with the same, wrong answer?

das Uber Soldat
10th Jun 2020, 06:23
Yeah, we do:

“Prior to commencing the descent, both flight crewmembers of VQG independently listened to the Aerodrome Weather Information Service (AWIS) for Sunshine Coast Airport. Both reported hearing that the wind was from 230° (Magnetic) at 6 or 7 kt”

Reckon it’s a case or “fk, lets just say we both heard it, and the other aircraft must have been wrong”?
Why else would you tell an investigation you both independently listened, and came up with the same, wrong answer?
Its SOP at JQ for both pilots to independently listen to the AWIS to confirm its information. And if you've ever heard the MCY AWIS, it can sometimes not be the clearest when enunciating. Knowing the crew, I find it highly unlikely they just 'made it up' for the investigators, but either made a mistake or the AWIS had failed in some way.

We shouldn't be flying 320's into CTAFs, period.

neville_nobody
10th Jun 2020, 06:48
Won't be the first time the AWIS is nowhere near the actual wind indication. The wind may also have changed just as they were listening to it as well. Probably should have double checked the actual wind when it was not near the forecast though.

TimmyTee
10th Jun 2020, 07:07
Knowing the crew, I find it highly unlikely they just 'made it up' for the investigators, but either made a mistake or the AWIS had failed in some way.

We shouldn't be flying 320's into CTAFs, period.

An incorrect AWIS that services RPT jets into a short strip is a pretty big threat.
And if they alternatively made a mistake, then how did they have any confidence to continue with no idea of wind conditions on the ground (and having just witnessed an aircraft departing in the opposite direction?)

Why was this not questioned and examined in the investigation and report? Seems like a very simple and obvious question that I’m sure would have been asked...

blackburn
10th Jun 2020, 14:28
Mr Approach, the Aero Commander was IFR and that makes no difference as to whether the pilot may make use of a tailwind (Flight manual max 10 kts) for departure or arrival in the same manner as that quoted for the A320.

KRviator
10th Jun 2020, 23:09
Why was this not questioned and examined in the investigation and report? Seems like a very simple and obvious question that I’m sure would have been asked...You would think so wouldn't you. But from another ATSB report (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5777935/ro-2017-014_final.pdf) into a recent train derailment, the crew were operating at 80kph, though they were supposed to be limited to 60kph due to 'paperwork'. There was no question asked about why the crew were 20kph over the limit, or what they thought the limiting speed was. The ATSB simply said they were 20kph over - presumably because they don't want to rock the boat with ARTC - another federal body...

PoppaJo
10th Jun 2020, 23:48
The double standard has been around for a while now.

Read over some of the Tiger reports from early last decade. Detail was high with charts, speeds etc included. They were essentially taken to the cleaners and rightly so.

Blueskymine
11th Jun 2020, 00:27
A landing aircraft has priority over one taking off.

Its not practicable to overfly and look at a windsock on a jet. So you use the AWIS and your onboard instruments with a wind vector.

If the tailwind exceeds your landing capability you get out of there.

As for the aero commander, taking off into the path of an incoming jet who’s been making appropriate radio calls. Along with the AFRU. Sounds like just another GA pilot in a rush who messed up and passed the buck.

KRviator
11th Jun 2020, 00:49
A landing aircraft has priority over one taking off.

Its not practicable to overfly and look at a windsock on a jet. So you use the AWIS and your onboard instruments with a wind vector.
If the tailwind exceeds your landing capability you get out of there.
As for the aero commander, taking off into the path of an incoming jet who’s been making appropriate radio calls. Along with the AFRU. Sounds like just another GA pilot in a rush who messed up and passed the buck.Pretty big call right there...

The Aero Commander took off using the most prudent runway, and indeed the runway other aircraft had been using. From the ATSB report, JQ landed on the least prudent runway for the conditions. It wasn't the GA pilot who screwed up the AWIS reception. It was BOTH Jetstar pilots. It wasn't the GA pilot who landed on a comparatively short runway when it was obvious they had no real idea of the wind direction after recognising they had screwed it up. It was BOTH Jetstar pilots. It wasn't the Aero Commanded who advised BN CTR they were "aware" of the AC500 when asked, it was the Jetstar crew. The AC500 pilot made a taxiing and a rolling call for RWY36, neither of which were responded to indicating a potential conflict by the (two) Jetstar pilots. IT wasn't until they turned onto the 5NM final that they sought to confirm the position of the AC500, showing they had no idea what was going on either.

Mr Approach
11th Jun 2020, 01:41
Mr Approach, the Aero Commander was IFR and that makes no difference as to whether the pilot may make use of a tailwind (Flight manual max 10 kts) for departure or arrival in the same manner as that quoted for the A320.

Hi Blackburn - in that case the US use of Class E airspace would have prevented the incident because ATC would have explained why they were not able to provide an IFR clearance from the reciprocal runway. (Note: This does depend on how the Class E is designed and operated. For instance the design of the so-called trial of Class E at Ayers Rock would not have mitigated this incident. That is because Airsvices only wants to provide a "service" where it is costless, but not where it would invlove employing more ATCs. Unless of course the Minister tells them to - which returns me to my point)

Lookleft
11th Jun 2020, 03:14
Interesting that the Ballina CTAF keeps the JQ COO awake at night and allegedly it has one more chance before the services are pulled. From memory this is the third incident at MCY when it is operating as a CTAF that a JQ aircraft has nearly collided with another aircraft. At what point does Jetstar ban operations into MCY when the tower is closed or does the new runway come with extended Tower operating hours?

wheels_down
11th Jun 2020, 06:22
Is Class G refresher training offered by your companies?

I gather this company does not as some of those recent Ballina issues are basic CTAF stuff.

TimmyTee
11th Jun 2020, 07:57
A landing aircraft has priority over one taking off.

Its not practicable to overfly and look at a windsock on a jet. So you use the AWIS and your onboard instruments with a wind vector.

If the tailwind exceeds your landing capability you get out of there.

As for the aero commander, taking off into the path of an incoming jet who’s been making appropriate radio calls. Along with the AFRU. Sounds like just another GA pilot in a rush who messed up and passed the buck.

You work for Jetstar from memory yes?
What an alternate, misdirected and almost embarrassing interpretation of the facts presented.

No one said they should overfly? But once you establish that you have incorrect conditions on the ground, you sure as hell establish the correct ones. Did the crew know if the tailwind was going to exceed their landing capability? If so, how?

The other bloke made every call necessary (and even a non-required call). Both the Jetstar crew missed every single one of them.

They then proceeded to have a near head on, and chose to then proceed to land on to a now know, non-into wind runway, with no valid or reasonable way of knowing the wind direction or strength.
Or was it a case of “well we got the direction wrong, we’ll be on the ground in 60 seconds, but I’m CERTAIN we got the strength correct”. Surely the safe and cautious thing to do is go around in that situation (or join downwind for 36)..

But I guess it’s a small victory in avoiding a too low gear :)

Colonel_Klink
11th Jun 2020, 09:00
What is landing performance like in the 320 at MCY?

At MCY, a relatively heavy 737 has very fine margins when it comes to LDR and any downwind component.

I feel this is something the ATSB report probably should have delved into a little more as well....

sunnySA
11th Jun 2020, 09:04
...recorded a completely wrong wind direction
Lucky there won't be any confusion with the new runway alignment, 13/31, hang on a sec

Vref+5
11th Jun 2020, 09:21
Does AirServices still have the contract to run some FAA Class D Towers in the US? A couple were in Hawaii from memory. You know the ones, Class D airspace with surrounding E, and D defaulting to E outside Tower hours, work well over there apparently with a mix of 121, 135, and 91 VFR operations. The airspace model that apparently couldn’t work here at places like MCY....

sunnySA
11th Jun 2020, 09:32
Does AirServices still have the contract to run some FAA Class D Towers in the US?
No, and the contract cost ASA quite a few dollars as they reportedly miscalculated employee entitlements.

Sunfish
11th Jun 2020, 09:56
Wheels: Is class G refresher training offered?

Thank you for the best laugh of my week.

I had kingairs and business jets in the (class G) circuit yesterday. mixing it with GA and RAA. No problems

Lapon
11th Jun 2020, 10:51
We shouldn't be flying 320's into CTAFs, period

This.

Why is it that ATC is only provided during 'business hours' and not for high capacity jet arrivals/departures.

It seems ridiculous that ATC comes on watch after the RPT jets have come and gone rather than starting an hour hour or so earlier. Not unique to MCY.

das Uber Soldat
11th Jun 2020, 11:34
You work for Jetstar from memory yes?
What an alternate, misdirected and almost embarrassing interpretation of the facts presented.

I'm not sure why you're carrying on like a bit of a ********, but ill have a look at your post.

1. But once you establish that you have incorrect conditions on the ground, you sure as hell establish the correct ones.
2. Did the crew know if the tailwind was going to exceed their landing capability? If so, how?
1. How did they establish they had the wrong wind conditions? They had both written down the wind from the AWIS and believed it correct. The fact an AC50 took off the other direction is irrelevant to that fact. Ever bankrun mate? Landing 18 and T/O 36 with tailwind is common practice at every airport I ever flew the AC50, as it was for everyone else who operated it. The terminal is at the southern end of the field. Nobody taxis all the way to north to depart 18 unless they absolutely have to. If I believed the AWIS said 230/6 knots then it is hardly unexpected that the AC50 would do just that. Further, what was the wind? Did the AWIS record it correctly? Given that the recording wasn't available for the investigation, how do you know that the JQ crew both independently made a mistake in transcribing it?

2. They believed the wind to be 6-7 knots. They had run flysmart before arrival for 10kts of tailwind and it came back good, making the direction redundant. Thats how. Did you even read the report?

The other bloke made every call necessary (and even a non-required call). Both the Jetstar crew missed every single one of them.
JQ also made every necessary call. And what do you mean JQ missed "every single one of them". What evidence do you have for that?

06:31.53, UJS made its taxiing call. They heard it. So what, that doesn't affect them, they have right of way as the landing aircraft. They have made 3 inbound calls by this point. They continue.
06:32.24 - BN CEN tells UJS JQ is turning 8 mile final, landing in less than 4 minutes. UJS is on the ground, not lined up, hears a 60 tonne jet is 4 minutes lined up on final opposite direction, and decides to line up and roll anyway. I can totally see how you're putting this on the JQ crew. Given that the Shrike hasn't reported any intention to depart, JQ continues believing he's holding short, as legally required.
06:33.30 - UJS makes a ROLLING call. Not an entering the runway call. He's rolling. With JQ now 2.5 minutes from landing, opposite direction. AT THIS SAME INSTANT BN centre makes repeated attempts to call JQ, thus they didn't hear it. Nor would they have expected to hear an aircraft enter and start a takeoff roll when they are head to head.
06:34:35 - JQ reports 5 mile final, asks where UJS is.. He's airbourne. Now we have a conflict.

The report states UJS believed JQ was on approach from the south, and didn't even visually look to the north as he began his takeoff roll.

So why you've decided to go off laying this entire thing at the feet of the JQ crew is a mystery to me, further as to why you're abusing others for pointing out that culpability here is shared between both aircraft. I personally see a string of holes in the cheese lining up in a way that could have happened to nearly any of us, but I'm not such an arrogant twit that I behave as if it couldn't.

They then proceeded to have a near head on, and chose to then proceed to land on to a now know, non-into wind runway, with no valid or reasonable way of knowing the wind direction or strength.
The report addresses this, had you bothered to actually read it.

"The flight crew of VQG discussed conducting a missed approach as a result of the proximity event. However, they assessed it was safer to continue with the approach due to the other aircraft in the area that they had already de-conflicted with, and although there was a tailwind, it was assessed as within tolerance"

As stated in the report, flysmart was conducted to assess landing performance in a 10 kt tailwind. You are talking entirely out of your ass.

But I guess it’s a small victory in avoiding a too low gear :)
Oh how I'd love to know what airline you fly for. There but for grace of etc etc.

So in summary, What an alternate, misdirected and almost embarrassing interpretation of the facts presented.

wheels_down
11th Jun 2020, 11:35
Wheels:

Thank you for the best laugh of my week.

I had kingairs and business jets in the (class G) circuit yesterday. mixing it with GA and RAA. No problems
Sunny seems to be operator specific.

sunnySA
11th Jun 2020, 12:40
This.

Why is it that ATC is only provided during 'business hours' and not for high capacity jet arrivals/departures.

It seems ridiculous that ATC comes on watch after the RPT jets have come and gone rather than starting an hour hour or so earlier. Not unique to MCY.

It's called affordable safety. Flight out of ATC hours costs less than a flight when the TWR is open. Simple maths. If ASA changed the opening hours then the airlines would reschedule their arrival times to earlier. Same, same for closing times. Business hours means that either a single ATC could operate the TWR, or maybe 3 ATCs over slightly longer hours. Extend further then you probably need a 4th ATC per day.

Lapon
11th Jun 2020, 23:38
It's called affordable safety. Flight out of ATC hours costs less than a flight when the TWR is open. Simple maths. If ASA changed the opening hours then the airlines would reschedule their arrival times to earlier. Same, same for closing times. Business hours means that either a single ATC could operate the TWR, or maybe 3 ATCs over slightly longer hours. Extend further then you probably need a 4th ATC per day.

I guess I just hold an old fashioned view that Airservices are there to provide a service (not a dig at individual controllers of course, just the system). It seems somewhat pointless operating outside the hours of major passenger movements

neville_nobody
12th Jun 2020, 01:15
It's called affordable safety. Flight out of ATC hours costs less than a flight when the TWR is open. Simple maths. If ASA changed the opening hours then the airlines would reschedule their arrival times to earlier. Same, same for closing times. Business hours means that either a single ATC could operate the TWR, or maybe 3 ATCs over slightly longer hours. Extend further then you probably need a 4th ATC per day.

Airlines don't build their schedules to avoid ATC more a case of people wanting to be places at a certain time which means early/late flights from regional towns/city. REX run an entire airline on that principle.

PoppaJo
12th Jun 2020, 02:41
Avalon is one. Aircraft run from 6am-12am in two shifts. First out and last in are outside of tower.

Large amount of IFR stuff happens at Avalon each night from Oxford and Ballarat, which can go as late as 1am. Wouldn’t be the first time I go in at 12am with half dozen others playing in the circuit, all with questionable English radio skills.

Solution is extend the tower by an hour.

Vref+5
12th Jun 2020, 04:26
At what point does Jetstar ban operations into MCY when the tower is closed or does the new runway come with extended Tower operating hours?[/QUOTE]

5 seconds after the smoking hole in the ground appears, like always

TimmyTee
12th Jun 2020, 04:54
I'm not sure why you're carrying on like a bit of a ********, but ill have a look at your post.

1. How did blah blah blah...

So in summary, if I type enough emotional garbage, it must be true

Wowee. Bolding galore, capslock-spamming, rose coloured glasses in full effect. Any chance you’re a Jetstar pilot and/or are mates with the crew? Did the fact that almost everyone on here agrees they fudged it in a bit touch a nerve?

das Uber Soldat
12th Jun 2020, 05:39
Wowee. Bolding galore, capslock-spamming, rose coloured glasses in full effect. Any chance you’re a Jetstar pilot and/or are mates with the crew? Did the fact that almost everyone on here agrees they fudged it in a bit touch a nerve?
Good work you twit, entirely ignore the total disassembly of your ignorant tripe and have a cry at me, as if where I work affects my ability to do something you clearly didnt, ie read the report.

Go back to the spotters forum.

PoppaJo
12th Jun 2020, 05:58
AirAsia managed to get the Avalon Tower hours extended 3hrs longer when they launched operations into Avalon. Jetstar meanwhile was carrying 550 odd pax in the same outside of tower period previously anyway.

They normally open the Tower if freighter is inbound also. I assume if your a certain size and above you get the tower. Not sure how it works.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
12th Jun 2020, 06:57
If, however, JQ says they do not want to have the tower on duty because (in the Australian system) they have to pay for it,
Does the airline get a say in whether the TWR is open or not? I would have thought that those Terminal Nav costs (for a A320 at YBSU approx $1k = approx $5 a seat) would be passed on to the passenger. Be very interesting to see if a standard ticket is more expensive during the hours of operation of the TWR vs outside the hours. If it is the same, either JQ is absorbing the cost in the first instance (unlikely), or pocketing the difference in the second instance (more likely). The Firies are open early and the pax pay for that, and JQ would collect and pass it on via their nav fees.

j3pipercub
12th Jun 2020, 07:38
Interesting incident. As others have highlighted, an operating Class D tower would have solved the problem.

Anyone that's thinks they would never find themselves potentially in a similar set of circumstances is a fool. Ctafs are problematic as anyone who has ever had the misfortune of trying to de-conflict in a high performance aeroplane.

j3

Oriana
12th Jun 2020, 08:41
Flying RPT jets into CTAF's is f@cking bull****.

That should have been the ATSB summary.

tiddles52
12th Jun 2020, 09:36
Flying RPT jets into CTAF's is f@cking bull****.

That should have been the ATSB summary.
there are loads of smaller airports with hardly any traffic, and there are loads of virtual towers now, where the controller is sat in a room looking at CCTV and radar screens miles away from the airport.

Sooo for CTAFs with RPTs why not have a single Australia wide virtual tower that can look after all these smaller fields at once. I understand workload could increase simultaneously at many, in which prioritise the airliners and have the others stay outside the zone until the controller can deal with it.

G

missy
12th Jun 2020, 13:39
Single visual tower that can look after all these smaller fields at once. Can't see any issues, now which radio do I use for which field, which handset do I use for which field, or are you suggesting just a single frequency? Data transfer latency issues might be a bit of a problem.

Capn Bloggs
12th Jun 2020, 15:57
Missy, +1. Tiddles, rediculous. Do you even know what we do in Australia?

aussieflyboy
12th Jun 2020, 17:12
Flying RPT jets into CTAF's is f@cking bull****.

That should have been the ATSB summary.


Shows how highly skilled those aviators in WA are. How do they manage to successfully (mostly) separate each other in those dangerous CTAFs that are dotted around the Pilbara.

The folks piloting those 737, F100 and 717s are true skygods...

Some would call them brave... others would call them cowboys... I think we all agree they are simply hero’s of the sky...

bobjones
12th Jun 2020, 20:41
Sky gods! Please. Try flogging around the Pilbara in an F28 in the middle of the wet at night, doing a NDB letdown. Landing at Broome, 1500m , during a cyclone,acontaminated... ask the Black Ant.
bob

neville_nobody
13th Jun 2020, 02:01
Sky gods! Please. Try flogging around the Pilbara in an F28 in the middle of the wet at night, doing a NDB letdown. Landing at Broome, 1500m , during a cyclone,acontaminated... ask the Black Ant.
bob

With the next aircraft 400 miles away?? So all you had to focus on is flying the instrument approach accurately?? The workload has increased notably just because of the sheer volume of traffic. How many Jet operators were in Perth or Brisbane 20 years ago? How many 737/F100s went into CTAFS 3-4 times a day??

Flying RPT jets into CTAF's is f@cking bull****. That should have been the ATSB summary.

There is some truth to this and it really depends on the traffic mix. If most of the operators are professionals then I think you can get away with no ATC. However when you have large mix of aircraft types and a combination of Airwork/Medivac/Private/Rotory and Jet RPT the they need to bring in ATC.

Lapon
13th Jun 2020, 02:42
The WA CTAFs are predominantly in the Pilbara, and the traffic is predominantly North-South bound jets, so not as difficult to mix with vs the likes of MCY where you have every aircraft type arriving and departing in every direction.

Throw in centre calling on one frequency while local traffic is simultaneously broadcasting on the other frequency then missing calls somewhere at somepoint is inevitable.

Flying RPT jets into CTAF's is f@cking bull****.

That should have been the ATSB summary.

Agreed, but too to realistic to expect any change.

brokenagain
13th Jun 2020, 02:42
I’m sure it’s still the same now, but a few years ago it wasn’t unusual in the Pilbara on a Tuesday morning to have double digit numbers of 737/A320/Fokkers lobbing in and out of half a dozen airfields all within 50NM of each other, all uncontrolled. Throw in a few passing through charter or survey lighties, and it becomes a very busy and risky area to operate in.

ORIENTATION MAP - PILBARA MINE AREA, WESTERN AUSTRALIA (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a20-h36.pdf)

What a mess!

Capn Bloggs
13th Jun 2020, 03:11
ORIENTATION MAP - PILBARA MINE AREA, WESTERN AUSTRALIA (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a20-h36.pdf)
Now that IS a sight for sore eyes! :D

Capn Bloggs
13th Jun 2020, 03:16
ask the Black Ant.
Would that be GM? You're being a bit harsh, IMO.

Capn Bloggs
13th Jun 2020, 03:20
Throw in centre calling on one frequency while local traffic is simultaneously broadcasting on the other frequency then missing calls somewhere at somepoint is inevitable.
My point, over many years, exactly. And that is exactly what E airspace is all about. Two separate worlds operating in the same place and at the same time.

When taxiing, I've always thought calling on the CTAF first, then Centre second is a bad idea.

The Bullwinkle
13th Jun 2020, 06:51
Shows how highly skilled those aviators in WA are. How do they manage to successfully (mostly) separate each other in those dangerous CTAFs that are dotted around the Pilbara.
The sarcasm is noted but whenever I've done that type of flying it's usually only been two sectors, out and back to Perth, coming off rest and feeling reasonably refreshed before commencing those flights.

I’m sure it’s still the same now, but a few years ago it wasn’t unusual in the Pilbara on a Tuesday morning to have double digit numbers of 737/A320/Fokkers lobbing in and out of half a dozen airfields all within 50NM of each other, all uncontrolled. Throw in a few passing through charter or survey lighties, and it becomes a very busy and risky area to operate in.
And that's a major difference. These guys were flying into a CTAF at night, possibly their 4th sector at the end of a long day. Fatigue would most likely be a contributing factor.

Lead Balloon
13th Jun 2020, 07:45
My point, over many years, exactly. And that is exactly what E airspace is all about. Two separate worlds operating in the same place and at the same time.

When taxiing, I've always thought calling on the CTAF first, then Centre second is a bad idea.
I genuinely struggle to understand the points you try to make, Cap’n, as I am very aware of how much experience you have.

The Centre frequency is the same for VFRs and IFRs in E, just as it is in any other class of airspace.

And the fact that an aerodrome’s CTAF is different from the ‘surrounding’ Centre frequency will remain a fact while ever the CTAF concept exists, irrespective of the class of the ‘surrounding’ airspace.

George Glass
13th Jun 2020, 07:55
Round and round we go.

This and other threads such as the Mangalore accident thread can be summed up simply.
Non radar CTAFS are inherently dangerous.
The risk is acceptable when traffic volumes are low.
The risks are NOT acceptable for high capacity RPT jet traffic.
The Mola mola’s of this world are the problem, not the solution.
Remember , manned towers were REMOVED under the nut job DS regime at this and other airports.

Can we get real and move into the 21st century ?

The Bullwinkle
13th Jun 2020, 08:00
The Mola mola’s of this world are the problem, not the solution.
LMAO! Very clever!!! :ok:

Lead Balloon
13th Jun 2020, 09:00
Round and round we go.

This and other threads such as the Mangalore accident thread can be summed up simply.
Non radar CTAFS are inherently dangerous.
The risk is acceptable when traffic volumes are low.
The risks are NOT acceptable for high capacity RPT jet traffic.
The Mola mola’s of this world are the problem, not the solution.
Remember , manned towers were REMOVED under the nut job DS regime at this and other airports.

Can we get real and move into the 21st century ?
The “nut job DS regime” removed them in the context of the then-prevailing circumstances.

In any event, assuming the decision to remove them was the wrong one, why have they not been reinstated? The “nut job” regime has been gone for decades.

George Glass
13th Jun 2020, 09:24
The “nut job DS regime” removed them in the context of the then-prevailing circumstances.

In any event, assuming the decision to remove them was the wrong one, why have they not been reinstated? The “nut job” regime has been gone for decades.

Quite so.....

Subsequent regimes have been incompetent.

Lead Balloon
13th Jun 2020, 09:35
Gosh. So all that legislation - the Airspace Act - and all those regulatory reorganisations - OAR being moved from Airservices into CASA - has not made a difference?

Astonishing!

(Actually, it isn’t astonishing. It’s sad that Dick didn’t then and doesn’t now realise the patsy he continues to be taken for.)

B772
14th Jun 2020, 11:49
Sky gods! Please. Try flogging around the Pilbara in an F28 in the middle of the wet at night, doing a NDB letdown. Landing at Broome, 1500m , during a cyclone,acontaminated... ask the Black Ant.
bob
A long time since BME was 1500M with B767-200 operations. BME now 2368M

bobjones
14th Jun 2020, 19:45
You missed the point B772.... in those days NBD approach only at BME. No GPS, No TCAS. Flight service in headland and Derby above 10,000’. Oh we had a primitive rad alt.
So please don’t carry on about the sky gods of today, you may not be aware there were literally thousands of flyin workers out of Karatha, Newman and Parabadoo OCTA.
And yes Broome today is a piece of piss in a 772, autobrake 3.
Bob

ECAMvsEICAS
14th Jun 2020, 23:08
You missed the point B772.... in those days NBD approach only at BME. No GPS, No TCAS. Flight service in headland and Derby above 10,000’. Oh we had a primitive rad alt.
So please don’t carry on about the sky gods of today, you may not be aware there were literally thousands of flyin workers out of Karatha, Newman and Parabadoo OCTA.
And yes Broome today is a piece of piss in a 772, autobrake 3.
Bob

Oh, I see, only SKYGODS of yesterday need apply here. Good on ya bob, hypocrite.

bobjones
15th Jun 2020, 19:46
Ah, Ecam v EICAS. Flown both. Never a sky god, never will be only takeoffs equalled landings and 26000 hours. Yes I’m a sham.
grow up

TriJetFlying
16th Jun 2020, 18:28
Hey Bob, I bet you were a pleasure to fly with...

bobjones
16th Jun 2020, 20:28
Flew that and can assure I didn’t lead a sheltered life like most of you guys pissing on about octa in WA. Try Africa broadcast zone .

Bob

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
17th Jun 2020, 11:42
And that's a major difference. These guys were flying into a CTAF at night, possibly their 4th sector at the end of a long day. Fatigue would most likely be a contributing factor.
If you are referring to the incident which is the subject of this thread, it happened at 0635 in the morning, most likely the first sector of the day.

The Bullwinkle
17th Jun 2020, 11:53
If you are referring to the incident which is the subject of this thread, it happened at 0635 in the morning, most likely the first sector of the day.
Fair enough, I didn’t realise that.
So they must have departed Sydney at around 6:00am or thereabouts (Daylight saving time) and therefore definitely their first sector of the day.

Lookleft
17th Jun 2020, 23:56
Its always useful to actually read the report before commenting on what the potential contributing factors are. One aspect that hasn't generated a lot of discussion is the flawed procedure of the crew having to listen to two radios simultaneously. I know a lot of crews will split the radio monitoring between them so that the PF monitors and responds to Center and the PM monitors and responds to the CTAF. Good CRM then has the two pilots advising the other of what was said. The "third" radio is the communication between the crew doing SOP calls and reading checklists which can often override the calls from the radio. It is not surprising then that calls get missed such as the Center call to the jet that the Aerocommander was taxiing. The other grey area IMHO is flying the RNP on a VMC day. It is neither a 10 mile straight-in approach or three legs of the circuit. Had the JQ crew done the RNAV and were coming in on a 10 mile straight in approach then possibly the Aerocommander pilot may have seen their landing lights. The problem with the RNP onto 18 is that the aircraft is not lined up with the runway until about 3nm. I don't think that it is useful to state that the AC pilot was a cowboy, he was just doing what bank run pilots do. It is also not the JQ pilots fault because there is a lot happening in the cockpit of a jet and missed radio calls are not infrequent even in CTA at FL350. The problem is the system that requires pilots to multitask in a way that the HF people say is not compatible with human physiology. What the accident at Mangalore shows is that under certain unfortunate circumstances the system will fail and one day it will be an RPT jet in a crumpled heap on the ground or wreckage floating in the water. As I stated earlier if the COO of Jetstar has even the slightest concern about this scenario occurring then he should immediately ban all Jetstar flights into CTAFs.

maggot
18th Jun 2020, 02:06
"Changing to mcy ctaf 126.7" not done much?

Lookleft
18th Jun 2020, 02:29
"Changing to mcy ctaf 126.7" not done much?
No, why would you? You only have to make that call if you don't intend to monitor the Center frequency. There is no requirement to only monitor the CTAF frequency.

maggot
18th Jun 2020, 20:31
No, why would you? You only have to make that call if you don't intend to monitor the Center frequency. There is no requirement to only monitor the CTAF frequency.

you're asking why in a thread where listening to centre caused a crew to miss broadcasts that would've prevented this?

Lookleft
18th Jun 2020, 22:55
The solution in a flawed system is to manage the two frequencies not to effectively turn off the frequency that is providing traffic on IFR aircraft. Had the PF focused on the Center frequency and the PM focused on the CTAF then they might have been alerted to the AC taxiing for 36. That is a workaround however. The center frequency was providing useful information its just that a crew experiencing a high workload didn't hear it. What is the first human sense to shutdown in a stressful situation?Hearing.

Chad Gates
18th Jun 2020, 23:46
Just generally, If you are on the CTAF frequency, you don’t need traffic info from centre. You can speak to them directly on the CTAF.

Lookleft
18th Jun 2020, 23:56
The assumption being that they will reply to your calls which in this case did not happen. The AC did not reply to the jet's calls and the jet did not hear centre's calls. The point I am trying to make is that sending RPT jets into CTAFs is a risk the airline bosses seem comfortable with. The evidence from ATSB reports suggests that it shouldn't be.

Chad Gates
19th Jun 2020, 00:08
With respect, jet aircraft operate into and out of CTAF’s hundreds of time a week in WA without incident.

Lookleft
19th Jun 2020, 01:41
It has been a long time since I operated into WA CTAFs but I don't recall there being bankrunners, private GA ops, and training flights operating into the same airspace. Mostly the WA CTAFs that have RPT traffic are to service mining operations so the traffic in the CTAF is more likely to respond to your calls. It's not a coincidence that the density of traffic, the near misses and mid-air collisions are on the South-Eastern side of the country. Possibly east coast pilots just don't come up to the superior standard of west coast pilots but I think it reflects the limitations of see and avoid and self separation with a mix of RPT jets and GA operations.

Chad Gates
19th Jun 2020, 02:03
I can assure you there are plenty. Have a look at the proximity of airfields in the iron triangle. Its not just jets operating to the airfield you're operating into that can be traffic. And to top it all off, you can't talk to them (vhf limitations) until you get into the air. Newman on a Tuesday morning is busier than Cairns. Even the private mine strip's have multiple traffic.
I don't think you can blame the system for this incident.

Lookleft
19th Jun 2020, 03:01
Just for my education is the traffic all FIFO jet ops or are there piston engine aircraft as well? If the system is not at fault who or what is? Was the mid-air at Mangalore just 4 useless pilots or did the system have an input into the outcome?

Chad Gates
19th Jun 2020, 03:09
Just for my education is the traffic all FIFO jet ops or are there piston engine aircraft as well?

of course there is.

Lookleft
19th Jun 2020, 03:21
Thankfully the rest of my education wasn't based on such paltry information.