Jandakot Crash

[Ruffus]

A twin (Titan?) has crashed at Jandakot after what appears to have been an EFATO, airfield emergency declared.

No further details.

[the wizard of auz]

Fugro's C404 looks like it lost an engine and crashed near the NDB. one confirmed dead and five injured. just saw the pictures on the tele, very messy and lucky for the survivors to have gotten out of it.

[flyboy6876]

From The West Australian

One dead after Jandakot plane crash


ONE person was killed and five injured when a light plane crashed as it approached Perth's Jandakot airport, police said.

The Cessna 404 with six people on board brushed trees as it was coming into land at the airport, crashing in scrubland.

Ambulance crews were on the scene with at least two of the injured believed to have serious burns.

[Islander Jock]

Channel 10 news interviewed an eye witness who was in the observation area next to the tower. Apparently aircraft took off and failed to gain any height clipping trees before crashing.

Very sad. Condolances to all

[03ILS]

Very sad news.
Condolances to the families and friends involved.

[Willie Nelson]

One eyewitness over here on GWN stated "the aircraft didn't get very high after take-off and went to come back around, then just a ball of flames" The anchor man stated that the aircraft was on its way to Rotto and that the pilot was the one to have been killed.

Deepest sympathies to all involved.

[olderbutyzer]

Fugro had 3 Titans, I think. Anyone know which one? Not that it makes any difference. A very sad day indeed. Also saw on last night's news where a C172 didn't quite make it to the runway at Singleton in the Hunter Valley. From what was left of the wreckage you wouldn't have thought there were any survivors, but the two occupants got out with only fairly minor injuries.

[Cessna Capt]

I was out there, saw the whole thing.

Aircraft appeared to rotate very late on 24R. It failed to climb. Nose in a high attitude as it came over rwy30/12, gear came up and right prop stopped. It then passed really low over the trees at the end of the rwy and started to turn left. Appeared like it was trying to get back to land. Got to where the NDB is and dissappered behind the tree line, this was followed by a big fireball.

:(

[P.O.M]

Condolances to all the families, especialy of the deceased.

Thoughts & best wishes for a speedy recovery of those in hospital.

I guess these accidents are always going to happen, but it is really sobering when you see it happen on your own turf, even if you don't personaly know those involved.

[SkySista]

Was shocked to hear about what happened.... :(

Have many fond memories of flying out of Jandakot as a student, sad news indeed.

Condolances to the family of the person who didn't make it.

Sincere wishes for a fast recovery to the injured.

SkySista

[03ILS]

It is an old topic I know, but you have to wonder about the media and what they are portraying to the community.

Just saw their "re-enactment" on their computer generated software. Not only have they pictured the aircraft on upwind at about 1000ft, they then proceed to show that, as a result of the right prop stopping, the aircraft then pitched into a steep vertical decent attitude and to quote 'plummeted to the ground'
....... well ........ doesn't that contradict everything that every single witness has said? :confused:

I also hear that the pilot survived, but is still listed as critical. It would be interesting to hear his version of events.

Out of interest, it was the second death in 40 year of JT history. I see the new chopper has been around for a few weeks now... So, as a result of this accident, is their going to be any new Emergency Service activated?
What comes with this chopper? Medically qualified crew? Or just a quick method of transport to a hospital?
It would be fantastic to have some something like this at Jandakot again, but a shame that it's implementation comes at the cost of a life.

[Ruffus]

I am surprised that the million & one local anti jandakot action groups haven't already jumped on this tradegy as another reason to squawk!

This type of media (and I use the term loosely) certainly doesn't help the situation.:*

[Alice Kiwican]

Aircraft was one of Fugro Titan's off on a sortie to drop sonar buoys (I think). RH engine failed just after lift-off on rwy 24 & it appears he was trying to get around onto rwy 30 to land but was unable to maintain height for whatever reason.
6 POB, 1 pax died the other five in hospital as far as I know. Condolences to all invovled.
Let's not speculate on cause, we'll wait for the official report instead!

[compressor stall]

The rescue chopper is new. Based at JT it will offer 15 mins airborne guarantee 24/7 in a 200km arc from Perth. Staffed with paramedics, it is due to be in service this coming weekend. Fortunately it happened to be there with crew on a training run.

Sad news indeed.

[Continental-520]

My condolences to the families and rellies of those on board. Always hits hard when things as tragic as this happen so close to home.

Major upheaval on local radio today about the lack of Fire & Rescue service at JT.

The RACWA seem to think that it would've made a difference in this instance, which I don't agree with from what I understand about the accident, but I still support the idea anyway given that it has lots of potential to save lives in any future events.

"Tombstone technology" - wait for someone to lose their life before implementing any changes and/or improvements to safety.

The state Govt. has no idea...


520.

[compressor stall]

They are trying! :mad:

GWN midnight "news"...

"The danger that 3/4 of a million West Australians face each year...."

with a shot of a QF link 146 and a skywest F50.

" Only people in Perth have the safety of a dedicated fire service"

"As the crash in Jandakot yesterday showed, an aircraft can turn to ashes before fire crews arrive"

"Jandakot is one of the nation's busiest"

"No fire service in Port Headland, Karratha, Kalgoorlie"

etc etc

GWN tried this avenue last week when it carried the "news" item of a QF 737 which turned back to perth (30 mins into the flight) after a passenger reported fuel streaming from the wing.

GWN then interviewed some biddy in Karratha saying that it turned back because Karratha had no fire service. :rolleyes:

QF's reply that they had no repair facility in Karratha was presented in a very condescening way.

Not a very good way to present what is possibly a legitimate issue, and capitalising on the JT tragedy yesterday is nothing short of disgraceful. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[[steve2]]

Seems a reasonably balanced report

The West Australian (13/8) (http://www.thewest.com.au/20030813/news/perth/tw-news-perth-home-sto108560.html)

Condolances to all involved, and best wishes for those in hospital.

Steve

[compressor stall]

With respect...

Twin-engine aircraft can take off, climb and fly on one engine.

(my bolding)

is utter bullsh!t. There is no certification requirement for light twins to do this.

The loss of one engine alone should not have caused the crash.

Oh yes it could - see above.

...but then the right engine stopped. With the left engine not producing full power, the flight was doomed.


Oh yes...how do they know this? They know more than the ATSB?

With neither engine delivering full power the pilot was losing control

Oh no he did not - he was in control of the aircraft in the air - that's why it landed wings level. If he was not in control, the aircraft would have flipped inverted into the ground as the airspeed descended through Vmca, and no-one would have walked away.

More journalistic cr@p :mad: :mad:[

[Zeke]

compressor stall,

I could be wrong, I was of the understanding that the 404 was certified transport catergory hence the requirement to have 300 PIC before conducting RPT in that aircraft type.

Z

[compressor stall]

Zeke,

From: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/C33432D36A9F79A98525673200468D56/$FILE/a25ce.pdf Page 4.

"Certification Basis Model 404:
Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations effective February 1, 1965, as amended by 23-1 through 23-13 except Subpart B as amended through 23-14; and FAR 23.1385(c) as amended through 23-21; and 23.1327 as amended through 23-23. "

FAR 23 is "AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES" (sorry for the bolding I am cutting and pasting ;)

Just because CASA says that we can use it in RPT operations, does not make it a transport category aircraft.

CS

[[steve2]]

compressor stall, sorry to have upset you with my post. I was not indicating the report was ideal, but (in my opinion) it was not sensationalist. For the non-flying public it presents a rational view of what might have happened, and what will probably happen.

Those same members of the general public are unlikely to want to wait until the complete results of a formal investigation are released before they read something in the paper.

On another topic. Not wanting to cast them in a poor light, but I would prefer to have to wait for a dedicated response from firefighting appliances stationed at Jandakot than have to wait for a FESA response.

FESA allocates resources to provide a response that is timely for property fires (i.e. people's houses) The time it takes for a fire to fully involve a dwelling is rather different from the time for a fire to do the same thing in an aircraft.

Whilst the time taken for a FESA response in this case may or may not have made any difference, when it does make a difference, it will *never* be to the benefit of the situation.

(edited to korrect hoples spelin)

[compressor stall]

Steve,

No offence taken. I agree it was not "sensationalist" in a tabloid "NT News" sense, but it was still full of errors and some make-believe. I wholeheartedly agree with you that it was "well balanced". Half fact and half fiction. :ooh:

Mr Thomas has obviously got some detailed facts right - the runway length and, I presume as I don't have one handy, the p-chart figures (although what "normal circumstances" are he does not say and I needn't need to go into that quagmire!)

I hope for my opinion of Mr Thomas's aviation writing abilities that the intervening woven words were indeed those of a sub editor. Mr Thomas is a reader of these fora from time to time and perhaps he might like to defend himself?

[/RANT] :E

And yes your concerns on aviation fire fighting, I could not agree more. As a frequent user of YPJT, I would like the services of a ARFF service at hand. Sadly though, it's a user pays world. :( :{

Cheers

CS :ok:

[Jamair]

A tragic occurance with no upside.

Re the question of on-field fire services - I think anyone would be hard pressed to find an example of where an on-field fire / rescue service has actually made a difference to outcomes in Australia, in the case of an unexpected crash. Certainly in GA, if an aeroplane crashes and burns, it generally
A: occurs outside the immediate airport environs and is beyond immediate response from an on-field service, and
B: when it involves fire, it is 'all over red rover' before anyone gets there.

Re the rescue helicopter comment from 03ILS What comes with this chopper? Medically qualified crew? Or just a quick method of transport to a hospital? - the greatest benefit of rotary wing services in emergency medicine IS getting the patient to hospital in the least time frame.

The questions being asked re FAR certification should be like a red rag to a certain bull - where's Gaunty?

[Captain Sand Dune]

While I agree with Compressor Stalls’ analysis of the article in the West Australian of 13/8 (ie absolute c#$p:yuk: !), they (the West Australian that is) seem to have come up with a semi-intelligent hypothesis in today’s issue – that the aircraft may have been refuelled with JET A1 instead of AVGAS.
Certainly would explain the sluggish take-off performance. And although I have never flown the 404 I don’t think it would be over MTOW with 6 POB and full fuel…..would it?:confused:
Horrible business:(

[Desert Flower]

Think if it had the wrong fuel put in it BOTH engines would have stopped.

DF.

[404 Titan]

Captain Sand Dune

It has been a while since I flew a C404 (beautiful aircraft), but in the two and a half years that I did, I only ever filled it up twice. On both occasions I only had one pax. If memory serves me correctly, six POB, not PAX and bags you were at max TOW with full fuel (936kg usable). I don’t have the figures anymore but if someone current on type would like to critique my words go for it.

:)

[slice]

CS - A Couple of posts back you mention 'transport category aircraft'. Now I don't have all the details but I believe a long time ago the old DCA had a 'transport' category that covered AC with an MTOW >3500 kg engaged in RPT operations. There are not many Light twins over 3500 kg but the C404 is one of them(3810). From memory aircraft in this catergory had to have a 1.9% net (remembering flight manual figures are gross) single engine climb gradient under ambient conditions when engaged in RPT operations. Thus they often had a much reduced TOW with high ambient temps.

A company I have previously worked for at one stage conducted RPT ops (before my time) and had produced a bunch of data cards for the ports that were serviced by 404 RPT. In addition these data cards took into account the recuded runway lengths required to provide a 1.9% clear TO gradient as detailed in the ERSA runway supp. This could often reduce the TOW by several hundred kg to ensure the 1.9% (on paper anyway). Now I know all this kind of thing is predicated on accurate and lighning fast reactions by the pilot, operating engine producing full power etc.
in the event of an EFATO but I think all other things being equal these reduced weights provided a reasonable level of single engine performance given the net fudge factor. Alas I don't think this category applies anymore - is there anyone that knows otherwise or has better info on this 'transport' category. All this from memory so I could well have some details incorrect.:E


ps Full fuel on the 404 was around 1276 litres useable but I can't imagine why they would fill up the tanks to go 15 minutes to RTI

[SOPS]

:( I would have thought such an "award" winning jurno such as GT would have known that a light twin does not have to be certified to climb one one engine. Perhaps instead of writing total C##P he could look at why fire services were withdrawn from airports such as JT. But there would be no value in that sort of story, would there...............:mad:

[geoffrey thomas]

Compressor Stall:
Every time I try and defend myself in this forum I seem to get myself into more strife.
In this case there is no defence other than we did our very best to check and recheck facts from people who were not able to or didn't want to talk. Somewhat difficult to build a picture of what happened in just two hours.
The error relating to single engine performance came from one authority but I followed this up today with a correction part of which was subbed out.
The problem of course is to write an article that can be understood by the lay audience with out making myself look stupid. I was keen to reassure the travelling (RPT) public that aircraft were designed to fly on one engine. I had in mind jets and didn't realise that some light pistons have a window of speed where this is not going to happen.
Certainly I have learnt something.
Aside from that I think that the couple of articles are a reasonable summary of what may have happened. Some may not agree with the tone but they would be interested to know I have left out some allegations and comments that would be offensive.
Best GT

[Islander Jock]

I think we tend to be a bit harsh on journos like GT. At least he, unlike many of his less learned colleagues in his profession takes a keen interest in aviation and tries damn hard to source reliable facts before going to print. I know from experience how he goes to extra lengths to research his info.

As he alluded to in his post. It's hard to work to an editors deadline and make sure every reported fact is 100% technically correct and at the same time keeping the information simple enought for the non aviation savy newsreader to understand.
Especially when those in the know either cannot or will not speak to the media.

Their job is to get the news to the public in a timely manner and unfortunately there are always those self proclaimed experts who will use the opportunity to get their mugs on TV or their name in print. Even if they have little or no knowledge of the situation. Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning had a few of them crawling from under their rocks. :mad:

Slice,

A friend of mine works at the company where the 5 pax were from. The aircraft was destined for work beyond Rottnest involving some scientific equipment testing over the ocean. Not sure where the YRTI destination came from in the media unelss they planned for awk somewhere around the island.

[Titan Driver]

C404 Titan

With full fuel in the C404 and 6POB the Titan is already 100kg over MTOW. This is without bags and allowing for survey equipment which will probably add another 200kg???

[compressor stall]

G'Day IJ :OK: How's things? Must catch up in JT one of these days...

I concur with what you say about editorial pressures etc, and as I mentioned earlier, Mr Thomas has sourced hard facts...fuel qty runway length etc, p-charts etc which is a long way above and beyond most - hence my aviation journalist satire that pops up on various threads from time to time. :D

What I objected to in the article was the presumption that the right engine was not developing full power, the pilot lost control etc. etc.

In my opinion these hypotheses were drawn from thin air and undid the good effort in researching the aircraft and airport facts. But Joe Public does not see it this way, and he is what keeps Mr Thomas in a job! :8

Geoffrey Thomas:

Thanks for your reply...it is all very easy for me to sit back and tell you how your job should be done for the comfort of my loungeroom chair! And thank-you for omitting the thoughts of many who automatically apportion blame onto the pilot in these circumstances.

With reference to single engine performance issues, you could speak to no better person than Guanty. He is the guru on all things of that ilk. When I was an inexpereinced pilot thrown out bush with a 402, thru PPrune, he taught me a lot that is missing from pilot training syllabi these days. :ok:

Cheers

CS

[I Fly]

Compressor Stall and SOPS, you can wave the FARs around as long as you like. They are NOT YET the operating law in Australia. The Australian Law is the 20.7 series of the CAOs. Also check out CAO 82.0 2.2 (a). It does not mention the FARs. Your own life preserving instinct should tell you not to fly the aircraft when it can’t get you out of the ***** that you got yourself into. If you get the sack, you have another chance with another operator. If you die, there are few jobs for dead pilots. Capish.

[The Bullwinkle]

Slightly off topic but does anybody know if Mark Roper still flies out of Jandakot?

[404 Titan]

Titan Driver

Yes you are quite correct. My memory is starting to come back now. Both our Titans could carry 4 POB and bags. Anything more and fuel came off. Mind you unless you are going a long way and/or want to carry return fuel, you wouldn’t fill them up anyway.
;)

PS: By any chance one of your Titans ex Cairns.
:ok: :)

[Islander Jock]

Bullwinkle,

Mark is CFI at Aviation Institute

[The Bullwinkle]

Islander Jock,

Thanks for that!!!

[gaunty]

Yoh Stallie!

I Fly, I'm not sure whether I've got the wrong end of your stick but , the EFATO case has nothing to do with 20.7.4.

That reg only senshrines it in Oz law the simple fact is that ALL aircraft under 5700kg are certified to whatever amendment to FAR23. Period.

And without going into the details because you can find it yourself the ONLY sngle engine cases they are required to demonstrate for certification is then ability to maintain level flight (=+50fpm climb)at 5,000ft ISA with the inoperative engine feathered and the aircraft in the cruise configuration and a positive rate only with and engine failure after take off and the aircraft in the climb config, i.e. gear and flaps up.

ANY climb rate better than that is because the manufacturers wanted to achieve some other goal.

The most you are going to get out of a typical twin is around 200fpm if you hold your mouth right and get it set up properly.

The reality is that whatever height you have when it all goes pear shaped at MGW is what you've got and you are looking for the least worst "alighting" are in front of you using the live one to maybe broaden the choice.

Any attempt to turn without significant altitude has to cancel or make negative any climb rate you may have gained.

If you are nibbling at the edge then the result is inevitable, departure for controlled flight and we all know the consequences of that at low level.

It's called the laws of Physics and absolutely nothing to do with how good or well trained is the pilot or whether he is a nice chap or not.

I spent several days in a Coroners a whle back with about 13 barristers batting on my head getting the message across that it didn't make any difference how many pilots there were on board and even if it did have turbines, it wasn't going anywhere different on one engine than the piston version of the aircraft. That is nowhere much at all.

They eventually got it but as GT says, if smart people like that have a difficulty understanding the concept what chance ma and pa kettle.

It's not in the syllabus until ATPL and then only as interpretation of 20.7.1b, with nothing about why and the certification issues surrounding.

As for the VG, Raisbeck and other GW and field performance mods all they do is move the performance figures around, but they do nothing but make it worse should one quit and remove any buffers that might have been there in the first place.

It's called physics again.

On one of the turbines it moves VYSE, VMCA and VS to within a couple of knots of each other. Some operators use it routinely to get in and out of places it could not without, watch this space if they lose one under those circs. They know not what they do.

It's legal but not very smart.

Stallie is a very competent pilot, but even he would admit to having a difficulty keeping it all together with an EFATO and all of the tidying up, ball and bank angles and flying airspeed within a couple of knots, whilst trying to dodge the big timber.:eek:

[Aerlik]

The Bullwinkle,

how do you know Mr. Roper?

And on the topic of the tragic event, did anyone else read the article in "Tarmac" about Fugro, I think? Alot was made of the company's safety record. Former pilot now flies up the coast, north of G'ton.

[captain69]

Anyone have a name of the pilot

404's eeessshhh
A while back in the dark continent, a Kiwi guy lost an engine, landed wheels up on the strip, as they were in the process of evacuating, woommff, all dead.


chapati and sukuma wiki thanks

[Bill Smith]

It is sad that most of you on this post generally accept that the 404 was over weight e.g carrying max fuel etc.
It would be nice if you gave the pilot the professional respect he deserves and assumed that he was operating the aircraft within it's limitations.
I am sure when all the facts come out over time it will be shown that (a) The aircraft was not overweight (b) The pilot did everything he possibly could to get the aircraft down safely.
Anyone noticed the clear area of sand about 100 mtrs further along the flight path? That he was possibly trying to reach
Anyone wondered that he may have turned left off 24R to avoid the built up area?
Give theses guys and there families a break and try to stick to the facts.

[404 Titan]

Bill Smith

It is sad that most of you on this post generally accept that the 404 was over weight e.g. carrying max fuel etc. It would be nice if you gave the pilot the professional respect he deserves and assumed that he was operating the aircraft within it's limitations.

What a load of crap. No one has made that accusation at all. Titan Driver and myself were discussing how much fuel could be carried with 6 POB after a question from Captain Sand Dune asking if a 404 would be overweight with 6 POB and full fuel. The reality is that it most likely would be. Nowhere in any of the posts written has anyone said that this aircraft had full fuel. How the hell would we know, we didn’t refuel it. We will leave it to the investigators to determine what happened. Maybe you can go back and read the posts again before jumping to any conclusions, something you have accused us of doing.
:* :yuk:

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Should be careful what you wish for with an RFF capability. They may end up providing it .. then doubling landing fees :(

am I too skeptical?

On another note, what does a 404 hire for these days?

PAF

[Islander Jock]

G'day PAF,

Skeptical? Not at all.

Whether or not it (RFF) is truly needed is not a debate I care to partake in. However there are those outside this forum who will lobby quite hard for it to be provided and expect it to be provided for free. Maybe if for no other reason but to have their own egos massaged should it come to fruition. Am I being skeptical?

I wonder if any cost/benefit analysis and a safety case has been completed to objectively wiegh up the advantages/disadvantages of such a service. How does JT compare to BK, PF, AF, MB for example? Do any of them have dedicated fire services on the field. Anyone know how long ago was it since the fire service that was provided was taken away? This would have been back in the days when the annual movement figures would be nowhere near what they are today. Yes we will certainly pay for it in landing fees but just how much is the question

In my 8 years at Jandakot I can recall only one accident prior to this resulting in fire. That was when an R22 caught fire a couple of years back after it impacted heavily with the ground during a training session in the middle of the field. Luckily both occupants were able to escape but the only initial response was an airport employee quickly loading a few extinguishers into his ute and getting to the scene. FESA turned up about 10 minutes later. But their ability to respond even in this time frame normally is going to be dependent upon the crew from the closest station not being on another task at the time. Another serious accident was when a C172 landed on top of an ultralight. No fire resulted and I'm not sure whether or for how long the ultralight pilot/s were trapped before being released.

If it is statistics that may well decide or give weight to what, if any changes are going to be made, I'd suggest that Jandakot like most other GA airfields stack up fairly well. It will also be these statistics which leave us with no qualified RFF capability should an unlikely event such as this occur again.

[Bill Smith]

With full fuel in the C404 and 6POB the Titan is already 100kg over MTOW. This is without bags and allowing for survey equipment which will probably add another 200kg???


Sorry if I offended but seeing the comment above specifically referred to survey equipment, and the aircraft was on a survey mission. I thought you were referring to one and the same

[Titan Driver]

G'day 404 Titan

Yep one of our girls is ex cairns. Currently getting a make over at the moment and should look a treat when she comes out :ok:

Bill Smith

I too was not saying that the aircraft in question was carrying full fuel nor did i mean to imply it was over weight. My intention was simply to point out that with full fuel the aircraft would be well over the limit (ie not an option). More than likely a more realistic fuel figure will be around the 1000 lb mark. :suspect:

[pithblot]

Any one got a link: picture, footage, names (are they out yet?) or a/c registration of this sad accident?

[404 Titan]

Titan Driver

That is a beautiful example of a Titan you have there. I have many hours in her and fond memories. She would have to be one of the lowest time C404’s in the country except for another one that I know of in Cairns. My old company imported her from Germany in 1990’s but that was before I was there. What is she going to be doing? Passenger charter, RPT, survey or freight?
:ok: :)

[Islander Jock]

Part of today's story in the Sunday Times

SUNDAY TIMES 17 AUG 03
By Nick Taylor

As pilot Alec Penberthy lay suffering from shocking burns his first thoughts were for his passengers.

After escaping from his aircraft that crashed and exploded in a ball of flames at Jandakot on Monday, he began looking for his mates.

But as the bush burnt around him he collapsed under a tree and could only wait for help.

"He was not concerned about himself," helicopter paramedic Bevan Grove said. "He was asking how everyone else was. He had walked out of the plane and all he knew was that there were other people somewhere. That was his main concern" "He said, 'Oh, my god, what have I done?' "From what I could see and from what I have been told there was nothing more he could have done. He battled to bring the plane down safely."

Mr Penberthy had just taken off fwith a team from Fremantle-based marine technology company Nautronix for survey work off Rottnest Island.


Lets all pray for a full recovery for the survivors of this tragic event

Also from SUNDAY TIMES.

It is a sad commentary on life, but it happens all to frequently - it takes a disaster to ram home a potentially dangerous situation that has been staring at officialdom in the face for years.

A tragic example occurred this week when a twin-engined Cessna 404 crashed and exploded soon after take-off at Jandakot Airport, killing one man and dcritically injuring five others.

What the crash highlighted was the lack of a dedicated fire service at the airport, although it needs to be said that even if there had been one on this occasion, the result of the crash could have been the same.

That aside, the crash brought into sharp focus the Federal Government's unfortunate decisioon to scrap the airport's fire service in 1992 to reduce costs. Thsi followed a change in safety regulations which allowed the airport to not have a dedicated service because of low passenger numbers.

It was a decision out of touch with reality. While it is true that there are low passenger numbers, Jandakot airport has a high rate of aircraft because it is a flying school base.

Training flights heighten the risks of a crash and on that ground alone the ariport should have its own fire service. In the wake of the crash, airport safety needs to be scrutinised.

If a fire service is based at the airport it would need to have access to major arterial roads, a factor that needs to be examined. WA's Fire and Emergency Services Authority was quick to pint out that it was not responsible for airport fire services. This rested with the airport's owners.

Fair enough if this is the case, but something has to be done quickly to close the firefighting gap which has left Jandakot out on a dangerous limb.

The airport owners and all users of the facilities should contribute to a levy to help pay for a dedicated fire service which would cost $1.5 million a year. If necessary the Federal Government should also meet part of the cost.

Its a small price to pay when lives are at stake

end of article

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So all those advocates of location specific charging, hold your breath and be ready to fork out another 4 bucks or so per landing.

[Continental-520]

I know I would've been happy to pay an extra $10 or so per landing for the on site emergency services. What's $10 when you're spending $150 - $250 per hour for the machine anyway?

520.

[captain_josh18]

yeh well its good in a way... but when you fly say 50 hours per year or maybe more, its at LEAST $500.

its a win/ loose situation.

[Jamair]

Can anyone identify any example of on-field RFF services making a difference to outcomes in GA incidents? Unless they are sitting in the truck 24/7, following every aircraft down the runway on the off-chance of a take-off or landing incident, then their response times will be no better than the local Fire Service which we are already paying for..... and that assumes that the incident occurs ON the field, when in the majority of cases it doesn't.

When incidents DO occur in GA and involve either fire or sufficient occupant space intrusion to cause entrapment, then it is either all over well before the arrival of anyone, or is of sufficient duration that the response time difference (if any) between on and off field services is moot.

Cost = huge; benefit = negligble.

[Continental-520]

Can anyone identify any example of on-field RFF services making a difference to outcomes in GA incidents?

How would one measure any difference made...?
Wouldn't it be better to prevent a situation where this would become measureable by having them there in the first place? At least at ADs where training ops are substantial?


520.

[Jamair]

G'day 520; a difference to outcomes in medical terms, is dependant on the argument. In this case, it is being argued that RFF is a 'life saving' service, so the question of outcomes is whether the patient/s lives or dies.

I would also argue whether there is a demonstrable difference in likelyhood of a serious incident in a training environment - my (brief) research indicates that while training does have a slightly higher incident count, it is of a minor nature and in fact the major incidents (ie death / major injury) which involve training flights are often en-route or training area locations, not on the field.

Those that have occured on-field, like the landing on top of each other thing, were out-of-hours anyway and RFF wouldn't have been on duty.

If an argument were to be made that these services are warranted, then - bearing in mind that the RFF role is puting out fires and cutting up wreckage - there must also be an argument for on-field medical services, and on-field emergency transport services, and........etc, etc. How big is the money bucket, and hands up all those willing to pay to make it big enough, again bearing in mind the fact that When incidents DO occur in GA and involve either fire or sufficient occupant space intrusion to cause entrapment, then it is either all over well before the arrival of anyone, or is of sufficient duration that the response time difference (if any) between on and off field services is moot.

Look also at those places that have RFF - their main role is standing by at on-board medical incidents awaiting the arrival of ambulance crews.

Look at the various GAAPs around the country; I think you'll find the average response time to an incident - on or off field - by the government agencies (Police, ambulance, fire) would be as good or better than that of a dedicated service; and we are already paying for those services.

I am all for making our GA pastime / job / career (tick as applicable) as safe as possible, but this particular case goes back to the 'Ambulance in the Valley' syndrome - better to fix the problem of using old aeroplanes (all we can afford due to a host of reasons) than to argue for a cure for when they break / crash. (Sorry, I've lost the copy of 'The Ambulance in the Valley' poem that someone posted a while ago.)

RFF would not have made any difference in this case and this whole storyline reeks of someone with half a clue trying to fill column inches.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Continental-520 I know I would've been happy to pay an extra $10 or so per landing for the on site emergency services. What's $10 when you're spending $150 - $250 per hour for the machine anyway?


A Healthy attitude indeed. I suppose you can by doing your training out of YPPH.

However, unfortunately I hear many people complaining that they will fly without NOTAMS and WEATHER because they don't wan't to pay for a briefing package.
:{