Qantas/Jetstar no calls at Avalon
Thread Starter
Qantas/Jetstar no calls at Avalon
PPRuNers have no doubt seen the incident number 200702586 on the ATSB website (See Page 19 here), where in April this year a Qantas/Jetstar Airbus A320 departed Avalon with the incorrect CTAF frequency set.
It is pretty obvious that if a professional Airbus crew ended up taking off with an incorrect CTAF frequency set, even when there is a fully operating beep-back unit, we have real problems.
When Rob Lee, the former Director of BASI, looked into the CTAF issue with the Final Report on the Review of Characteristic 29, of the National Airspace System (NAS) Stage 2c dated 11 December 2006, he followed the Qantas recommendation that more mandatory calls should be introduced.
I find it interesting how professional air crews do not support US style UNICOMS (because they claim “They won’t work here,”) however they want even more mandatory calls.
Could I suggest that we introduce a new type of CTAF? Say, a “MMM” (for triple mandatory), or even a quadruple mandatory. That surely will make it safer. Yes, special quadruple mandatory airports are sure to solve the problem!
I’m joking of course, but I know that CASA people read this website – so I ask one of them to come on to tell us a little bit more about this April incident at Avalon. I’m sure they must have investigated it as it is a passenger airline issue, and departing with a radio set on the wrong frequency in a “calling in the blind” environment could sure be risky. From the look of it, the professional crew, with perhaps 160 passengers on board, was operating totally on unalerted see and avoid. I wonder if they were actually looking out – or did they presume (as many pilots appear to do) that no one answering in a mandatory radio environment means no one is there?
Can CASA advise what actually happened? No doubt they have interviewed the crew. Was it simply that the wrong frequency was selected and the beep-back calls were not listened to, or was there some other reason?
I’m sure when we have the explanation we can all learn from it. I find whatever error is made, I always think, “When will I do that?”
Maybe CASA could recommend that we look at installing UNICOMS or controlled airspace at these busy RPT airports.
It is pretty obvious that if a professional Airbus crew ended up taking off with an incorrect CTAF frequency set, even when there is a fully operating beep-back unit, we have real problems.
When Rob Lee, the former Director of BASI, looked into the CTAF issue with the Final Report on the Review of Characteristic 29, of the National Airspace System (NAS) Stage 2c dated 11 December 2006, he followed the Qantas recommendation that more mandatory calls should be introduced.
I find it interesting how professional air crews do not support US style UNICOMS (because they claim “They won’t work here,”) however they want even more mandatory calls.
Could I suggest that we introduce a new type of CTAF? Say, a “MMM” (for triple mandatory), or even a quadruple mandatory. That surely will make it safer. Yes, special quadruple mandatory airports are sure to solve the problem!
I’m joking of course, but I know that CASA people read this website – so I ask one of them to come on to tell us a little bit more about this April incident at Avalon. I’m sure they must have investigated it as it is a passenger airline issue, and departing with a radio set on the wrong frequency in a “calling in the blind” environment could sure be risky. From the look of it, the professional crew, with perhaps 160 passengers on board, was operating totally on unalerted see and avoid. I wonder if they were actually looking out – or did they presume (as many pilots appear to do) that no one answering in a mandatory radio environment means no one is there?
Can CASA advise what actually happened? No doubt they have interviewed the crew. Was it simply that the wrong frequency was selected and the beep-back calls were not listened to, or was there some other reason?
I’m sure when we have the explanation we can all learn from it. I find whatever error is made, I always think, “When will I do that?”
Maybe CASA could recommend that we look at installing UNICOMS or controlled airspace at these busy RPT airports.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: oz
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Dick, but they would not have been blind as you call it. Taxi call made on Radar, 135.7, any traffic, VFR or IFR would have been passed. Doesn't excuse the "finger problem" if it was such, but not quite the beat up you seem to insist.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
How about making it, heaven forbid, a Control Tower!!!
Then there would not be any question of the radio calls being made.
Listen, on another point, you have been making many many posts on this forum. When is something going to be done. A very good thread on cutting costs and non essential CASA requirements - but when are you actually going to do something.
I would prefer you spent less time at PPRUNE and more time "in the office" if you get my drift.
How about making it, heaven forbid, a Control Tower!!!
Then there would not be any question of the radio calls being made.
Listen, on another point, you have been making many many posts on this forum. When is something going to be done. A very good thread on cutting costs and non essential CASA requirements - but when are you actually going to do something.
I would prefer you spent less time at PPRUNE and more time "in the office" if you get my drift.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other issue here is of course a human factors one .. would a low hour C152 private pilot be apprehensive in calling an RPT Captain in an A320 and talking to him/her?
Avalon should be at the least, a Class D aerodrome, IMHO.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... did I mention CASR Part 71 
.
.. so what do you reckon Dick ... should it be D or E
.
.
.
"....hey spock ..... its a trap ....
.
.... logically ..... you are right captain ...
.
... helm .... reverse ... maximum warp
.
.... she canna tek anymore captain ...
.
... dam'd Clingon's .....
.
... quite Captain .. quite
"
.
.
.
..... did I mention CASR Part 71
.
.. so what do you reckon Dick ... should it be D or E
.
.
.
"....hey spock ..... its a trap ....
.
.... logically ..... you are right captain ...
.
... helm .... reverse ... maximum warp
.
.... she canna tek anymore captain ...
.
... dam'd Clingon's .....
.
... quite Captain .. quite
".
.
.
..... did I mention CASR Part 71
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Expat land
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blueloo,
It's Jetstar, a member of the Qantas group, as we are reminded ad nauseum (so I'd agree with Dick on that aspect).
Dick,
What about ADS-B? Would have removed (or seriously mitigated) the risk! Maybe you should re-think your position on that one?
Cheers.
It's Jetstar, a member of the Qantas group, as we are reminded ad nauseum (so I'd agree with Dick on that aspect).
Dick,
What about ADS-B? Would have removed (or seriously mitigated) the risk! Maybe you should re-think your position on that one?
Cheers.
short flights long nights
I like the Control Tower idea....handy things really.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
It is Jetstar, not Qantas Airlines.
Different AOC, different aircraft, different management, different pilots, different experience levels, different training, different standards and the list goes on and on.
The only thing the same is the parent company…. Hardly relevant when it comes to operational issues.
If Melbourne Bitter tastes like crap (which I believe it does) I don’t start a thread saying “Penfolds Grange/Melbourne Bitter” is crap just because the parent company is the same.
It is Jetstar, not Qantas Airlines.
Different AOC, different aircraft, different management, different pilots, different experience levels, different training, different standards and the list goes on and on.
The only thing the same is the parent company…. Hardly relevant when it comes to operational issues.
If Melbourne Bitter tastes like crap (which I believe it does) I don’t start a thread saying “Penfolds Grange/Melbourne Bitter” is crap just because the parent company is the same.
Av Twr
When you live....
Oh dear
Dick is currently on Melbourne radio explaining how the mystery airline (QantasJetstar) refuses to provide staff to man the control tower in order to save 50c a ticket.........
He is also claiming that the tower opens for all International & Qantas movements because Qantas pilots refuse to go there as a CTAF - bullsh*t.
At least Jon Faine is now asking him if he coined the phrase 'affordable safety' - and theres a bit of backpeddling going on.....
He is also claiming that the tower opens for all International & Qantas movements because Qantas pilots refuse to go there as a CTAF - bullsh*t.
At least Jon Faine is now asking him if he coined the phrase 'affordable safety' - and theres a bit of backpeddling going on.....
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick on the radio - birdstrikes - how would having the tower manned reduce birdstrikes?
I agree with him that jet RPT movements should ideally have a manned tower.
Just not sure what frequency the birds are on...
I agree with him that jet RPT movements should ideally have a manned tower.
Just not sure what frequency the birds are on...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DSJ, I think you missed MM's point. If there was a 152 there, the traffic would have been passed by radar, regardless of what the 152 driver was doing. Ergo, the A320 crew would have been aware of it. As for your 152 driver being to timid to speak up anyway, if that's the case, WTF was he/she doing in a CTAF(R) then?
Thread Starter
Morning mungrel, you seem to be supporting this situation where the tower is not manned. I wonder why? You state that a taxiing aircraft would be given traffic by Melbourne Radar on 135.7. Yes, that is the traffic present when the aircraft calls, but it could be up to 5 minutes between the taxi call and actual departure. In that time other aircraft could have appeared from below or outside radar coverage. That is why it is sensible to have at least a local radio operator to look out of the window and give traffic.
Condition lever, I understand that CASA is presently going through the list of the regulations that could be changed to remove unnecessary costs. There will be an answer on this within the next 4 or 5 weeks I understand.
Speeeedy, yes, I agree Jetstar is under a separate AOC but it is owned by Qantas and gives its profits to Qantas. Qantas has just made a billion dollars. Surely a small amount of that could be spent in manning the control tower at Avalon.
UnderneathTheRadar, I stand corrected regarding the tower being manned for Qantas maintenance flights. Imagine a 350 tonne 747 flying around OCTA calling in the blind – probably in cloud!
I did not back-pedal in relation to the question about affordable safety. I simply explained that affordable safety is a fact of life and I communicated that to the public. The amount of money that can be spent on air safety is limited by what the public can afford. Do you deny this? What is your view?
VH-Cheer Up, in relation to bird strikes, I’m told by air traffic controllers that in many cases the tower can advise the safety officer that there are birds at a particular location and the safety officer can get them removed. It sounds pretty logical to me.
Condition lever, I understand that CASA is presently going through the list of the regulations that could be changed to remove unnecessary costs. There will be an answer on this within the next 4 or 5 weeks I understand.
Speeeedy, yes, I agree Jetstar is under a separate AOC but it is owned by Qantas and gives its profits to Qantas. Qantas has just made a billion dollars. Surely a small amount of that could be spent in manning the control tower at Avalon.
UnderneathTheRadar, I stand corrected regarding the tower being manned for Qantas maintenance flights. Imagine a 350 tonne 747 flying around OCTA calling in the blind – probably in cloud!
I did not back-pedal in relation to the question about affordable safety. I simply explained that affordable safety is a fact of life and I communicated that to the public. The amount of money that can be spent on air safety is limited by what the public can afford. Do you deny this? What is your view?
VH-Cheer Up, in relation to bird strikes, I’m told by air traffic controllers that in many cases the tower can advise the safety officer that there are birds at a particular location and the safety officer can get them removed. It sounds pretty logical to me.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: oz
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder away, Dick. Whether the taxiing a/c takes 2 minutes or 5 minutes is irrelevant. 135.7 is available on the ground, and should any further traffic become obvious, then it is given as traffic. Also, the taxiing a/c is often asked "How long before departure?" Radar is simply looking at the big picture, and if there is traffic that MAY conflict in a couple of minutes, passes that traffic. Do I care one way or another if there is a tower, CAGRO or whatever at AV? Not really. How would someone looking out the window, as you put it, help? Can they see the future? Because they'd have to to see that traffic that is 5 minutes away, wouldn't they...
My point was your post implied that the A320 would not have been aware of any traffic, by virtue of them having "finger problems" That isn't the case.
No, I do not work for QF, Jetstar, or any other airline, or Linfox or ATC either, for that matter......
My point was your post implied that the A320 would not have been aware of any traffic, by virtue of them having "finger problems" That isn't the case.
No, I do not work for QF, Jetstar, or any other airline, or Linfox or ATC either, for that matter......
Join Date: May 2000
Location: vic
Age: 23
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAGRO do nothing but clog up the airwaves, regular operators in and out of Broome will agree. Its a tower or nothing as far as I'm concerned. What I find extraordinary about Avalon, is they have full time RFF but no tower!! Surely the risk of a collision would be greater than a fire!
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... a beep back is just as effective in determining correct freq selection!
... an automatic gas gun will do more to reduce/remove any bird hazard
.
... air traffic controllers have told you that too
.
... whats the game here Dick? ... DS Unicom PTY (partly) LTD ... or;
.
... another ANSP? ..... DS ATC PTY (not) LTD
... an automatic gas gun will do more to reduce/remove any bird hazard
.
... air traffic controllers have told you that too
.
... whats the game here Dick? ... DS Unicom PTY (partly) LTD ... or;
.
... another ANSP? ..... DS ATC PTY (not) LTD
When you live....
Dick
350 tonne 747s flying around in the cloud are in the safest place possible - ain't going to hit anyone else there.
Calling 'in the blind' - I assume you mean on wrong frequency - is certainly an issue but beepback should mitigate that - if it didn't in one case then that is an issue for CASA.
As for affordable safety, I work in an industry where, in the UK a definintion of 3million pounds per life was the yardstick used to determine if a risk was to be mitigated against or not - thus allowing ALARP to be theoretically calculated. In the same industry in Australia there is no dollar cost applied and sometimes the engineering solutions are completely over the top for the risks being mitigated. Neither system is perfect but at least having a attempt to quantify when risks become untolerable makes for better decision making. But, and this is a big but, combining a financial word (affordable) with safety instantly grabs the attention of beancounters and puts commercial pressure on engineers and other technical people - and can be blinding to their managers who ultimately make decisions.
I accept that Avalon was still manned when you left CAA but you have to take responsibility for giving that organisation and it's children the link between $ and safety by talking about 'affordable safety'. You also closed other reigonal towers which again put the link between financial bottom lines and safety firmly in the minds of the powers-that-be. With that legacy, it was only a matter of time before Avalon suffered the same fate.
My personal (and uneducated) position is that Avalon is OK as is. Traffic from Melbourne Radar, beepback, TCAS and the rules cover the very short time frame that a RPT jet is in the 'danger area'. If you're so worried about bird strikes - give the safety officer the keys to the tower - although at Avalon, just driving to the base of the tower will give you as good a view as you need. Traffic that 'pops up' after the taxi call - is required to be on the radio and do you realisitically believe that a CA/GRS operator with binoculars will see everyone/everything on an unalerted see & avoid?
What you need to consider - and that idiot from Avalon airport who was on the radio after you confirmed - is you need to get your facts straight before shooting off your mouth. Make your campaigns by all means but when you make silly, incorrect statements that are easily shown to be wrong then your whole house of cards comes crashing down - thats why you get such a hard time on this forum. Because of that guy from Avalon attempting to claim that Melbourne CONTROLS Avalon which was quickly and easily disproved, the Melbourne public now believes that the airports are run by idiots who have are hiding a lot (although that probably helps your case and your consipiracy theory).
UTR
PS Spent last night doing airwork over Avalon - 1 Jetstar departure, 1 VFR chopper, 1 VFR lightie and 2 IFR lighties - no problems.
Calling 'in the blind' - I assume you mean on wrong frequency - is certainly an issue but beepback should mitigate that - if it didn't in one case then that is an issue for CASA.
As for affordable safety, I work in an industry where, in the UK a definintion of 3million pounds per life was the yardstick used to determine if a risk was to be mitigated against or not - thus allowing ALARP to be theoretically calculated. In the same industry in Australia there is no dollar cost applied and sometimes the engineering solutions are completely over the top for the risks being mitigated. Neither system is perfect but at least having a attempt to quantify when risks become untolerable makes for better decision making. But, and this is a big but, combining a financial word (affordable) with safety instantly grabs the attention of beancounters and puts commercial pressure on engineers and other technical people - and can be blinding to their managers who ultimately make decisions.
I accept that Avalon was still manned when you left CAA but you have to take responsibility for giving that organisation and it's children the link between $ and safety by talking about 'affordable safety'. You also closed other reigonal towers which again put the link between financial bottom lines and safety firmly in the minds of the powers-that-be. With that legacy, it was only a matter of time before Avalon suffered the same fate.
My personal (and uneducated) position is that Avalon is OK as is. Traffic from Melbourne Radar, beepback, TCAS and the rules cover the very short time frame that a RPT jet is in the 'danger area'. If you're so worried about bird strikes - give the safety officer the keys to the tower - although at Avalon, just driving to the base of the tower will give you as good a view as you need. Traffic that 'pops up' after the taxi call - is required to be on the radio and do you realisitically believe that a CA/GRS operator with binoculars will see everyone/everything on an unalerted see & avoid?
What you need to consider - and that idiot from Avalon airport who was on the radio after you confirmed - is you need to get your facts straight before shooting off your mouth. Make your campaigns by all means but when you make silly, incorrect statements that are easily shown to be wrong then your whole house of cards comes crashing down - thats why you get such a hard time on this forum. Because of that guy from Avalon attempting to claim that Melbourne CONTROLS Avalon which was quickly and easily disproved, the Melbourne public now believes that the airports are run by idiots who have are hiding a lot (although that probably helps your case and your consipiracy theory).
UTR
PS Spent last night doing airwork over Avalon - 1 Jetstar departure, 1 VFR chopper, 1 VFR lightie and 2 IFR lighties - no problems.
Thread Starter
UnderneathTheRadar, you state in relation to the CAA:
The link always existed – it just wasn’t spoken about. Why do you think that the CAA always had different safety standards for aircraft of different passenger carrying capacity if that wasn’t based on affordable safety? Why do you think in the old days that towers were only provided at airports with a certain number of movements? Once again, it was based on affordable safety – which has always existed.
The difference was that I was open about the facts so we could then move to an objective criteria to allocate our finite resources. I’m very proud of that.
People understand that you get what you pay for when buying a car. Why shouldn’t they understand that it is exactly the same in aviation (and in fact just about everything else in this life)?
I agree that the Mount Macedon radar would be worthwhile if there was a transponder requirement at Avalon – which there is not. Any non-transponder equipped aircraft will be invisible to the radar. If you don’t want to support a tower or a UNICOM operator, then support a mandatory transponder requirement – all will add to safety.
Nothing I have said affects the main point – that is, we have an airport with one million passenger movements without any air traffic control. This does not exist anywhere else in the world. It would cost only 30 cents per head to put in a proper Class D tower with air traffic control. This would assist with the typical pilot errors that occur anywhere.
but you have to take responsibility for giving that organisation and it's children the link between $ and safety by talking about 'affordable safety'.
The difference was that I was open about the facts so we could then move to an objective criteria to allocate our finite resources. I’m very proud of that.
People understand that you get what you pay for when buying a car. Why shouldn’t they understand that it is exactly the same in aviation (and in fact just about everything else in this life)?
I agree that the Mount Macedon radar would be worthwhile if there was a transponder requirement at Avalon – which there is not. Any non-transponder equipped aircraft will be invisible to the radar. If you don’t want to support a tower or a UNICOM operator, then support a mandatory transponder requirement – all will add to safety.
Nothing I have said affects the main point – that is, we have an airport with one million passenger movements without any air traffic control. This does not exist anywhere else in the world. It would cost only 30 cents per head to put in a proper Class D tower with air traffic control. This would assist with the typical pilot errors that occur anywhere.