Vincent take over Brindabella
Smells like a broker job to me. Probably AVMIN eyeing off a FIFO. Perhaps the Whitehaven project?
Leighton's are handling the construction of Maules Creek for Whitehaven and Virgin got the gig to do the 300+ bods/week FIFO.
... I'm told the BAe146 is -or was- covering for the lack of ATR airframes VARA have available at the moment.
... I'm told the BAe146 is -or was- covering for the lack of ATR airframes VARA have available at the moment.
It won't just be jets that need PAPI soon.
The MOS 139 revision will mandate it for anything over 20,000Kg
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project AS 14/02
The MOS 139 revision will mandate it for anything over 20,000Kg
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project AS 14/02
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skytrans tried but failed??
Word around the pub is that Scaretrans tried to add Coffs and Tamworth to their AOC to take up some of the Brindy gap, but they were somewhat 'unsuccessful' for numerous reasons. Also rumoured was that one or both of the local Councils wanted to see an improved 'due diligence' on behalf of Scaretrans as well 
GN Correct, was going there but not know, don't think there are any RPT jets into Miles just charter
Travelator
.
You're right about 82.5 ...however MOS 139 already covers JET ops and you need Slope guidance for regular operations.
Section 9.9.1
I would suggest that awk and chtr are not subject to this
You're right about 82.5 ...however MOS 139 already covers JET ops and you need Slope guidance for regular operations.
Section 9.9.1
A visual approach slope indicator system shall be provided to serve the approach to a runway, whether or not the runway is served by electronic
approach slope guidance, where one of the following applies:
(a) The runway is regularly used by jet-propelled aeroplanes engaged in air
transport operations.
(b) CASA directs that visual approach slope guidance be provided,
because it has determined that such a visual aid is required for the safe
operation of aircraft
approach slope guidance, where one of the following applies:
(a) The runway is regularly used by jet-propelled aeroplanes engaged in air
transport operations.
(b) CASA directs that visual approach slope guidance be provided,
because it has determined that such a visual aid is required for the safe
operation of aircraft
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Straya
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin Australia Regional ATR72-600's will be operated on a 'Charter' basis SYD-NAA-SYD on Mon and Thurs evenings from 6 Feb
Mondays VA9101 SYD-NAA 1835/1955 VA9104 NAA-SYD 2025/2145
Thursdays VA9103 SYD-NAA 1730/1850 VA9102 NAA-SYD 1920/2040
Mondays VA9101 SYD-NAA 1835/1955 VA9104 NAA-SYD 2025/2145
Thursdays VA9103 SYD-NAA 1730/1850 VA9102 NAA-SYD 1920/2040
CAO 82.5
5.3 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA and subject to paragraph 5.4, an operator must not permit turbo-jet aeroplanes to use runways that are not equipped with electronic or visual approach slope guidance.
5.4 Paragraph 5.3 does not apply to runways at nominated alternate aerodromes.
5.3 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA and subject to paragraph 5.4, an operator must not permit turbo-jet aeroplanes to use runways that are not equipped with electronic or visual approach slope guidance.
5.4 Paragraph 5.3 does not apply to runways at nominated alternate aerodromes.
While I would be the first to agree that it is always nice to have approach slope guidance, "need" to have is another thing.
The genesis of the rule goes back to the late 1950s and early 1960s and the very early jets (QF 707-138A & B) and the very very slow acceleration times for those early jet engines.
With modern engines and their response times, there is no longer any need to differentiate between "turbine" engined aircraft, and any other form of engine.
But, as always, once a rule is on the books ------ !!! In may other ways, CASA want to treat "turbine" engines as "new and different", despite the fact they have been around since the end of WW II --- just ask the Citation Mustang operators.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Of course, if we had WAAS, just about every IFR operator would be able to have the equivalent of ILS for every approach, everywhere.
Dredging through much CASA dross, I see one version of 'regular operation' is once a week or more.So a crew in current practice, flying say weekly, to a familiar airport is at greater risk of undershooting or overshooting (or whatever slope guidance guarantees to prevent) than a crew who may have never been to a place, and is possibly diverting there under some duress - like mechanical failure, weather or fuel shortage? Or goes there on a one-off charter?
Someone, please explain this logic?
Surely, within reason (such as suitable weather and terrain), operating without slope guidance is either safe, or not safe? We are not talking wide body jets, simply those likely to be using typical country airports with at least 1500 metres of runway.
Or is it really possible to be a little bit pregnant after all?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think its more about the likelihood of having to divert in the first place.
being able to nominate a closer alternate with perhaps less economic penalty than 1 with slope guidance further away.
no slope guidance is just one hole in the cheese thats perhaps not normally acceptable, but ok for alternates that are not likely to be used anyway.
but given casa hands out exemptions like lollies it all means nought anyway
being able to nominate a closer alternate with perhaps less economic penalty than 1 with slope guidance further away.
no slope guidance is just one hole in the cheese thats perhaps not normally acceptable, but ok for alternates that are not likely to be used anyway.
but given casa hands out exemptions like lollies it all means nought anyway
To gain an exemption, an operator is supposed to offer an 'equivalent level of safety'. That could be as simple as imposing conservative weather minima above the circling minima or requiring landings to be day only.
The slope guidance rule and its non-applicability to an alternate seems more like it is based on some idea of odds. The alternate relief from the requirement destroys any safety argument, so what else can it be other than simply playing the odds?
The slope guidance rule and its non-applicability to an alternate seems more like it is based on some idea of odds. The alternate relief from the requirement destroys any safety argument, so what else can it be other than simply playing the odds?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Agent86
It won't just be jets that need PAPI soon.
The MOS 139 revision will mandate it for anything over 20,000Kg
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project AS 14/02
The MOS 139 revision will mandate it for anything over 20,000Kg
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project AS 14/02
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BNE
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
which Brindabella routes are Vincent actually taking over ?
SYD-NAA-SYD ?
Is anyone looking at SYD/OOM ?
Seems like no one is interested in some of old Brindabella routes at all.
Is anyone looking at SYD/OOM ?
Seems like no one is interested in some of old Brindabella routes at all.
