Jetstar and Ballina again
You are, as usual, correct Capn.
But I reckon e.g. “sixty three thousand kilograms landing weight” will have better ‘cut through’ to those listening on CTAF, if appended to “Airbus A320 Victor Golf Papa”. Some in the skies these days may assume an ‘Airbus A320’ is a recently-released sport aviation aircraft.
But I reckon e.g. “sixty three thousand kilograms landing weight” will have better ‘cut through’ to those listening on CTAF, if appended to “Airbus A320 Victor Golf Papa”. Some in the skies these days may assume an ‘Airbus A320’ is a recently-released sport aviation aircraft.
Walk me through why E down to and including circuit level wouldn't be an improvement, at least during the scramble to establish Class D. And indulge me: Imagine that Air Services is capable of taking its thumb out of its mouth and doing something that it doesn't want to do. If the SFIS is doing 'something', it is presumably because 'someone' in Air Services is monitoring 'something'.
Walk me through why E down to and including circuit level wouldn't be an improvement, at least during the scramble to establish Class D. And indulge me: Imagine that Air Services is capable of taking its thumb out of its mouth and doing something that it doesn't want to do. If the SFIS is doing 'something', it is presumably because 'someone' in Air Services is monitoring 'something'.
Backtracking and having them continue approach to see if I can get off in time. I told them I was exiting off Alpha, I was concerned that they could potentially clip me at the rear if I hadn’t cleared the runway completely if we went off B. Needless to say I lodged a report over that one. Nothing came from that, I guess legally nobody did anything wrong, just people pushing boundaries which is a no go in my book, and my training department also.
Not sure how you would run class E into the circuit with aircraft required to be monitoring CTAF as well. This is already one of the confusions with how class E is at present, many VFRs are simply on the wrong frequency and not monitoring class E, they just treat it like class G. Class E would work to coordinate IFR, except at reduced rates, but won't solve the issue in Ballina, and that is random VFRs popping up in front of IFRs and larger aircraft that have less options to turn and avoid.
That little chunk near Avalon: Who'd have thought that the equivalent of a fart let off by a seagull sitting on a rock on a deserted beach could cause such sound and light, signifying ... whatever you want it to signify.
If a VFR was to then ram into your rear end or tail then there's more wrong than just continuing an approach, guaranteed there'd be a good chance if said VFR had an engine failure on downwind (or while discontinuing the approach), he'd be landing on whatever runway remaining between you and the end given no other options.
The existing Class E in Australia is a stupid, pointless waste of time, that is, E base 8500 and above. As usual, the E over D at Avalon has been hijacked with ridiculous Australianisms, hijacked by bedwetters. That's about the only thing Australian aviation does well, bedwetting. (Yes Captain, I've operated IFR there). If Australia could just get off its high horse and allow itself to be educated on this airspace, safety, real safety not the pontificating bullshit that every organisations safety department fabricates would be enhanced. If you don't understand how E base 700 works, get real experts in to educate you.
There have been discussions since the formation of the OAR that it should be within the Dept of Transport as the obvious filtering of ideas and information within CASA do not appear to be contributing to what CASA is allegedly all about – SAFETY.
Tridac is correct but to ensure the record is fully understood: those discussions were imitated in the AERU days 3 or 4 years before the Airspace Act 2007 saw the light of day. Happy to expand on the opinions of the relevant players by PM. You might be surprised. Politics and past prejudices won the day, despite international trips and experienced international input.
You may also be surprised, maybe not for some, at the "direction" given to the recruiting agency when the OAR head position was being selected. This "direction" effectively took most of the people with independent and long term airspace regulatory experience out of the selection process.
Gne
Tridac is correct but to ensure the record is fully understood: those discussions were imitated in the AERU days 3 or 4 years before the Airspace Act 2007 saw the light of day. Happy to expand on the opinions of the relevant players by PM. You might be surprised. Politics and past prejudices won the day, despite international trips and experienced international input.
You may also be surprised, maybe not for some, at the "direction" given to the recruiting agency when the OAR head position was being selected. This "direction" effectively took most of the people with independent and long term airspace regulatory experience out of the selection process.
Gne
Yeah - all those engine failures that aircraft have in the circuit are a real problem - unless you consider the evidence.
No my concern was more the attitude of the said pilot on the day, the threat to my team as we backtracked was the demanding and rushed nature of the RAus pilot, someone continuing approach with clear zero chance of myself getting near Bravo let alone A. My FO said it’s like he was trying to pressure us to get off, and seemed inexperienced around heavy machinery. My FO also raised that should we try to exit at Bravo, a risk the RAus pilot could ‘wing it’ and continue approach assuming we will exit in time, while my tail isn’t clear yet, as we had other risks going on in the backdrop like a Virgin 73 about to push. I advised the pilot we would not make a taxiway in time for his arrival, trying to hint that we can’t move as fast as a 172 who can vacate quick. We are big, slow and heavy, I’m not rushing off the runway then answering to the training department why we then misjudged a exit with a wheel in the grass. Seen enough pilots do that.
Quite simply extend downwind, slow down if you have something of size ahead of you. That’s what they taught me 30 years ago. Then if you have a engine out problem on final you don’t have to worry about me trying to get out of the way, and me worrying about you hitting me. That was something the bodies did answer to me about, the need for local operators to brief around circuit procedures/decision making around extending the circuit etc, if someone slow/heavy etc is ahead. I thought that was taught at PPL level?
Or just build a bloody taxiway the length of the runway. Should be a minimum these days.
Quite simply extend downwind, slow down if you have something of size ahead of you. That’s what they taught me 30 years ago. Then if you have a engine out problem on final you don’t have to worry about me trying to get out of the way, and me worrying about you hitting me. That was something the bodies did answer to me about, the need for local operators to brief around circuit procedures/decision making around extending the circuit etc, if someone slow/heavy etc is ahead. I thought that was taught at PPL level?
Or just build a bloody taxiway the length of the runway. Should be a minimum these days.
Last edited by PoppaJo; 30th Mar 2022 at 11:50.
Gosh PJ, you’re more tolerant than I would be in those circumstances! I’d be on the radio: “Jizzler 700, until the entirety of my aircraft is outside the gable markers for the runway, the runway is occupied. I’ll report ‘clear’ when I’ve vacated, but it’s going to take a while to do so safely here. Perhaps it would be a good idea if you …. because, as you’ll be aware, it’s dangerous and an offence to continue an approach beyond the threshold of an occupied runway. Let's both have a nice day.” And that’s if I were in a good mood.
(I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, 43.)
(I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, 43.)
Or...that's why I've never found myself under the kinds of pressure PJ and his FO found themselves.
I deleted the expletives that I use when someone's putting me and my passengers at risk through some dangerous and unlawful activity.
I deleted the expletives that I use when someone's putting me and my passengers at risk through some dangerous and unlawful activity.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
Gosh PJ, you’re more tolerant than I would be in those circumstances! I’d be on the radio: “Jizzler 700, until the entirety of my aircraft is outside the gable markers for the runway, the runway is occupied. I’ll report ‘clear’ when I’ve vacated, but it’s going to take a while to do so safely here. Perhaps it would be a good idea if you …. because, as you’ll be aware, it’s dangerous and an offence to continue an approach beyond the threshold of an occupied runway. Let's both have a nice day.” And that’s if I were in a good mood.
(I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, 43.)
(I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, 43.)
Is the training and ground theory for Class G and RPL/A Pilots adequate currently? Whilst I sit on the ground at Byron and ultralights not announcing clear of runway, you can see my frustration. That’s what my FO raised, if we have not announced clear, and sit partially over due to another aircraft pushing back, would they continue on or give the approach away.
If we opted for Bravo, the issue was a Virgin 737 in the way, or opt for Alpha like we did and we can get off. The discussion if we took B...
‘Ballina Traffic A320 **** at Bravo not clear of runway awaiting Virgin 737 Push Standby, repeating we are not clear of runway’
Then the potential for the light aircraft still continues whilst commencing a last minute missed approach, I don’t have a lot of confidence either in a well executed missed approach. As I discussed with my training department, we would be taking other options should they continue the approach beyond the rules.
Last edited by PoppaJo; 31st Mar 2022 at 00:48.
You’re the PIC, PJ, so I’m not going to presume to criticise your judgment and decisions in the circumstances, especially if your training department has given you advice on the subject. All I can say is that I don’t sit, remaining mute, as old mate continues an approach to a potential collision with me on a runway I occupy, for fear that me telling him that the runway’s occupied and he’s not allowed to continue his approach might make things worse for me.
Hopefully neither of us will ever have the alternatives scrutinised after old mate spangs into us. We can safely predict what the Monday Morning Quarterbacks would say.
Hopefully neither of us will ever have the alternatives scrutinised after old mate spangs into us. We can safely predict what the Monday Morning Quarterbacks would say.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
All I can say is that I don’t sit, remaining mute, as old mate continues an approach to a potential collision with me on a runway I occupy, for fear that me telling him that the runway’s occupied and he’s not allowed to continue his approach might make things worse for me.
.
.
Advice was essentially, frequency of calls not a problem, just keep them firm and short. You can get your point across very firmly if need be, without using a lot of language. Don’t enter long winded arguments, debates, questions with multiple back and forth going nowhere etc. I have seen enough arguments over the years into Class G between Pilots, not keen on joining that.
Last edited by PoppaJo; 31st Mar 2022 at 01:31.
I hope my comments didn't give the impression that I was suggesting long winded arguments, debates or other waffle. Telling someone on approach that the runway is occupied isn't an argument or debate. Nor is telling them the implications of continuing the approach when it's obvious the runway is unlikely to be vacated in time for them to land.
I reckon your training department is making a very big call by saying, in effect, that what could happen if old mate in Jizzler 700 gets discombobulated on approach is likely to be worse than him carrying out a stable approach, landing and collision with your aircraft. A very big call.
I reckon your training department is making a very big call by saying, in effect, that what could happen if old mate in Jizzler 700 gets discombobulated on approach is likely to be worse than him carrying out a stable approach, landing and collision with your aircraft. A very big call.
There's an incident from not long ago where an RFDS aircraft saw two trainers on final close to each other. He tried to warn them of their proximity only to have the lower one go round and promptly chop the tail off the higher one, which plummeted into the ground inverted. Luckily they both survived the accident. But it goes to show that you have to be very careful how you word things on the radio as the result can go opposite to what you expect. I've also witnessed a situation at Moorabbin where two warriors ended up on top of each other on final at night, the lower aircraft radioed "There's an aircraft above me" the tower calmly called for the higher aircraft to go-round (by callsign), and the lower one to continue. In short I never play controller with other aircraft, just give them my intentions and if they seem confused ask if the can remain clear or something, but never tell them what to do. If in doubt I make way for them to do their thing first.
