Jetstar leaves Launceston in the dark?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote "A spokesman for Jetstar says "We have a proactive safety culture ... (and) ... we are providing information to the ATSB."
Just like MEL GoAround
Told by Perth LAME J* parked at gate there the other day without any nose in guidance or GND staff marshaling.
It was also reported but buy GND staff. I'm sure J*crew self reported within 24hrs..
FFRATS
Just like MEL GoAround
Told by Perth LAME J* parked at gate there the other day without any nose in guidance or GND staff marshaling.
It was also reported but buy GND staff. I'm sure J*crew self reported within 24hrs.. FFRATS
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think that J* reporting the incident within 24 hours simply indicates that they were doing the right thing by reporting the incident ASAP. I don't think it implies anything about when the the lights were or were not on. If they were not on at the commencement of the take-off roll then that is a very serious issue. If they went out as the aircraft "took-off" then it was probably the safer option to continue.
Who is going to do a full on rejected take-off at 100kts at a place like Launy when it has suddenly gone dark? The answer is simple. Have the lights switched on manually by the ground staff for all RPT movements outside of ATC hours.
Who is going to do a full on rejected take-off at 100kts at a place like Launy when it has suddenly gone dark? The answer is simple. Have the lights switched on manually by the ground staff for all RPT movements outside of ATC hours.
Nunc est bibendum
I agree permFO. I hope my comments didn't imply criticism of the crew. Continuing at anything above (say) 80 knots would probably be the lesser of two evils IMHO.
I hope these guys don't get screwed around like the QF drivers did!
I hope these guys don't get screwed around like the QF drivers did!
If they were not on at the commencement of the take-off roll then that is a very serious issue.
I know you guys seem to think that all J* pilots are complete morons, but please...
Perhaps one of the locals got a knock-back from Qantas/Jetstar group?
One would have thought that the airport safety officer would have said something if he was airside at the time of departure?
I heard another very interesting story about a foggy morning in YMLT , no tower and a jet departure, bit like the CRJ in the America.
One would have thought that the airport safety officer would have said something if he was airside at the time of departure?
I heard another very interesting story about a foggy morning in YMLT , no tower and a jet departure, bit like the CRJ in the America.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it was right on last light. The Aearodrome Reporting Officer or Safety Officer would not necessarily intervene. The only time I turn lights on manually is if there is particularly low vis during daylight and the PE cell activates the timer. Or if the crew ask me to turn the lights on because of some other problem.
Was the tower shut due to lack of staff?
Last light for Wednesday 11/03/07 was 0906 UTC, still pretty light in the southern latitudes this time of the year and coming up to a full moon.
Last light for Wednesday 11/03/07 was 0906 UTC, still pretty light in the southern latitudes this time of the year and coming up to a full moon.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think ASA management have a lot to answer for...... we all know they have been caught with their pants down in Launie.......and they do not like it at all.
Easier to blame their woes on staff shortages and cover up their ,,,,,,,, nuf said!
J
Easier to blame their woes on staff shortages and cover up their ,,,,,,,, nuf said!
J
aulglarse, fully aware of the 800m vis required for a foggy morning.
But to line up at taxiway B YMLT for a departure to the north is probably a bit brave, with the tower not open fortunately something was said by somebody and the aircraft backtracked and departed from the threshold of 32.
But to line up at taxiway B YMLT for a departure to the north is probably a bit brave, with the tower not open fortunately something was said by somebody and the aircraft backtracked and departed from the threshold of 32.
As pilots we normally learn from the mistakes we have made or the mistakes of others – I do anyway. I’ve said before on this site that whenever a mistake is made by a pilot, no matter how stupid, I always think, “When will I do that?”
The problem is that when the alleged Qantas incident took place (over 6 years ago) we were never able to learn anything of the details because the legal action taken by the DPP has prevented people from being open about what could be a major safety issue. If the Qantas aircraft in 2001 did actually take off without turning on the runway lights at Launceston, many pilots (including myself) would like to know how this happened and what the circumstances were, so we could make sure we did not make the same error.
Rather than the Civil Aviation Safety Authority asking the pilots to write an article for Flight Safety magazine, they decided to put the matter to the DPP and take legal action.
I understand that the original Launceston incident is still being fought out in the Hobart courts, and none of the important safety information has become apparent. I also understand that there has been no incident report filed with the ATSB because the Qantas pilots in question stated that the incident did not happen. Obviously if it didn’t happen we can’t learn anything from this, but if it did happen (as the DPP and CASA insist) there must be a reasonable explanation on why two professional pilots would depart Launceston without the runway lights being on.
It sounds to me as if CASA and the DPP have a lot to answer here. Let’s hope the full story comes out before there is a needless loss of life.
The problem is that when the alleged Qantas incident took place (over 6 years ago) we were never able to learn anything of the details because the legal action taken by the DPP has prevented people from being open about what could be a major safety issue. If the Qantas aircraft in 2001 did actually take off without turning on the runway lights at Launceston, many pilots (including myself) would like to know how this happened and what the circumstances were, so we could make sure we did not make the same error.
Rather than the Civil Aviation Safety Authority asking the pilots to write an article for Flight Safety magazine, they decided to put the matter to the DPP and take legal action.
I understand that the original Launceston incident is still being fought out in the Hobart courts, and none of the important safety information has become apparent. I also understand that there has been no incident report filed with the ATSB because the Qantas pilots in question stated that the incident did not happen. Obviously if it didn’t happen we can’t learn anything from this, but if it did happen (as the DPP and CASA insist) there must be a reasonable explanation on why two professional pilots would depart Launceston without the runway lights being on.
It sounds to me as if CASA and the DPP have a lot to answer here. Let’s hope the full story comes out before there is a needless loss of life.
If it had been one of the GA operators doing night freight into YMLT, CASA would done something alright pulled the AOC and hung the pilot by his short and curlies.
Makes a bit of a joke about your brochure that you produced when you headed up CAA in the 90's Dick, airline travel is safe in the big jets and risk is greater in the small aircraft, but I suppose the old PA-31 pilot can turn them lights on.
Makes a bit of a joke about your brochure that you produced when you headed up CAA in the 90's Dick, airline travel is safe in the big jets and risk is greater in the small aircraft, but I suppose the old PA-31 pilot can turn them lights on.
Bottums Up
I reckon for safety and the information of the greater pilot fraternity, all accidents and incidents, along with interesting and relevant editorial stories, should be collated on a regular basis and published in a book or magazine.
It could be called something like, "The Crash Comic", or, "The Aviation Safety Digest".
We had one of those a long, long, time ago!
Change of Direction
I thought Aussies were supposed to be the epitome of The Fair Go.
It seems more and more the wider PPRUne fraternity wants to bag the **** out of some one who makes a mistake, and argue that they're just incompetent, rather than to wonder "how did it happen"? "What factors contributed to such an error?"
Bloody sad really, there's all together too much bitchiness on these pages, bugger all support, and less and less learning for all of us.
It could be called something like, "The Crash Comic", or, "The Aviation Safety Digest".
We had one of those a long, long, time ago!
Change of Direction
I thought Aussies were supposed to be the epitome of The Fair Go.
It seems more and more the wider PPRUne fraternity wants to bag the **** out of some one who makes a mistake, and argue that they're just incompetent, rather than to wonder "how did it happen"? "What factors contributed to such an error?"
Bloody sad really, there's all together too much bitchiness on these pages, bugger all support, and less and less learning for all of us.
Stationair8, thanks for reminding me of the airline safety brochure. For those who are interested, see here.
Of course what the brochure explained was the different levels of regulated safety which exist under Australian law. The actual regulations have to be enforced right across the board to be effective. If enforcement just takes place against the small operator and not against the large airline, we are surely heading for problems.
It is interesting that the only enforcement action that I know of that has ever been taken against a large airline has now resulted in over six years of delay with the issues never being canvassed fairly in court, in front of a judge or jury. Of course the small operator would not have the hundreds of thousands of dollars required to prevent such a matter going to court.
Of course what the brochure explained was the different levels of regulated safety which exist under Australian law. The actual regulations have to be enforced right across the board to be effective. If enforcement just takes place against the small operator and not against the large airline, we are surely heading for problems.
It is interesting that the only enforcement action that I know of that has ever been taken against a large airline has now resulted in over six years of delay with the issues never being canvassed fairly in court, in front of a judge or jury. Of course the small operator would not have the hundreds of thousands of dollars required to prevent such a matter going to court.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's hard to believe that any pilot never lone ones that are meant to be at the top of the 'tree' would intentionally T/Off without rwy lights but as others have mentioned we do ( 'we' as in humans), to understand an exact answer as to why would be impossible, heavens knows we have zillions of phycho's guru's probing our every thought right from the interview stage & they would know even less as to why! We always learn from our mistakes in aviation so we ought now to be learning from these incidents & making changes for the better. Screwing the flt crews responsible doesn't achieve a thing other than the 'big stick' mentality which harms more than it does good. If you lock up these particular crew then someone else will do it for whatever reason/s another time that's for sure so lets trust that the bofins in charge of that 'big stick' fix the problem for they are the root of the problem in the first place.
CW
CW
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ex Hong Kong
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this incident highlights the subtle but significant degradation of services to the aviation industry - as provided by the Government. Call it Air Services Australia or CASA - both seem somewhat incompetent by global standards.
The provision of safety is best achieved by having layers of operational support wrapped around the operation of an aircraft. That way, any single-party failure shouldn't lead to a 'system wide failure' because of shared responsibility.
In this case, there are no layers. When the pilots made an error, or got distracted, or focused on other matter, or the lighting system malfunctioned, etc., there was no alternative but an error.
In my opinion - 180 seat aircraft (like the A320) should not operate into airports that don't have proper controlled airspace and towers.
Are we running an Airline Transport System, or just GA in big aircraft?
The provision of safety is best achieved by having layers of operational support wrapped around the operation of an aircraft. That way, any single-party failure shouldn't lead to a 'system wide failure' because of shared responsibility.
In this case, there are no layers. When the pilots made an error, or got distracted, or focused on other matter, or the lighting system malfunctioned, etc., there was no alternative but an error.
In my opinion - 180 seat aircraft (like the A320) should not operate into airports that don't have proper controlled airspace and towers.
Are we running an Airline Transport System, or just GA in big aircraft?
As I said before the regulator seems to turn a blind eye to the big guys, but stuff up in GA mate and then they get real nasty.
How many GA operators lose their AOC in the last 10 years and many airlines lose their AOC?
Look at the AD drama last week for a lot of little companies yet Qantas have a little drama in a B747 with electrical power, but we don't see CASA ground all the B747 do we?
How many GA operators lose their AOC in the last 10 years and many airlines lose their AOC?
Look at the AD drama last week for a lot of little companies yet Qantas have a little drama in a B747 with electrical power, but we don't see CASA ground all the B747 do we?
Last edited by Stationair8; 19th Mar 2008 at 10:43.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there really much difference between GA and the airlines? Apart from the good PR system the big airlines have?
GA is part of Australia's air transport system. An essential part.
GA is part of Australia's air transport system. An essential part.