I'm not sure of the follow up procedures after trying to activate PAL, but I reckon I hear someone trying to activate PAL on area frequency just about every night shift.

I work the Launey airspace at night regularly and have never had anyone mention anything about a problem with the lights.

Car 8
 

Stationair8



The Safety Officer's number in Launie is 0407305595, call sign Car 8:ok:

Cheers,

PITHBLOT

Thanks for that.

A phone-call to him or a call up on the CTAF frequency prior to departing or arriving at YMLT to verify the lights are on would be cheap insurance and also as a witness if somebody dobs you in to CASA/ATSB

One more thing to add Stationair8, never rely on a single runway destination airport at night or day if poss carry DIVERT fuel.:ok:

Stationair8.....are you trying to earn some extra overtime mate:ok:

I think he is there all night egardless, certainly when I used to lurk @ 02:00. And yes very helpful with the PALC when it used to have a mind of its own.

Zed said
I'm curious as to why you would backtrack half the runway length (from Bravo) in those conditions as opposed to the full length. What am I missing?

ASA cant even keep it open during the day let alone all night. The safety officers are there 24/7, so call them if you need them. They are only to happy to assist you. Also i did about 12 months of night shift at Launnie, never heard / saw anyone have problems with the lights?

Likewise Van Demon, why backtrack on the runway when you have a parallel taxiway.

Is that C### Bruce still a safety officer at Launceston?

Having paxed out of Launnie regularly, (at least once a week) over a period of 3-4 years in the late 90's on dear old AN, I can honestly say that, even on the foggiest of mornings, the aircraft only ever entered the runway at the threshold, never from any of the other taxi ways. Sure we may have sat at the threshold for a while, waiting for the fog to clear, but that's Launnie for you.

The SOP's sure must have changed since those times!!

As for this incident, just where are the safety mechanisms? What were the Firies doing, where was the safety officer when the aircraft was departing? I agree with stationair8, for an airport that processes 1 million pax a year, there should be plenty of revenue left over from the airport's operating costs, given the exhorbitant fees that would be charged to the operators, to put some more focus on operational support for the pax and crews!!

Perhaps the political push for maintaining the current hours of operation for the tower should also be directed to ensuring the safe operation of the airport at all hours!

Cheers
Prado

Pretty expensive manning the tower after 10pm for two freighter movements. Sure it should be manned for RPT jet aircraft, its really a duty of care issue for Airservices to ensure safety for the travelling public. Unfortunately, from all accounts, Airservices management are screwed up, and the they are too busy trying to save dollars rather than providing a service. If Rudd is serious, he should clean Airservices out , make it a government body that charges what it costs to operate, rather than a profit centre. The trouble with the Labor party is that they still have the mentality that people who travel by air are rich, and therefore can afford to pay!

From the Examiner newspaper today.

You know him Stationair8? Yes he is still there, and still the same! All the other blokes are great, dont hassle you unless really do something wrong. But he loves to pick on people all the time.

An issue that won't go away
 

Flying blind: time to look at our air infrastructure
Ben Sandilands writes:
Crikey.com 29/4

Having failed in its long, costly and flawed prosecution of two Qantas pilots for recklessly endangering public safety is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority going to run with the ball over a similar incident involving two Jetstar pilots earlier this year?

On 23 October 2001, multiple witnesses reported a Qantas 737 takeoff from Launceston Airport without runway lights.

CASA launched a criminal prosecution against both pilots which ended in the Supreme Court in Tasmania yesterday when Justice Pierre Slicer granted a permanent stay because, among other things, the investigation had failed to preserve vital evidence.

On 12 March this year a Jetstar A320 was recorded by a security camera as taking off from the same airport without lights, but on this occasion, the independent safety investigator, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau launched its own as yet incomplete inquiry.

That evidence has been preserved.

Both incidents raise the same serious concerns for passenger safety, but have ended in the hands of two different bodies.

The ATSB is not an enforcer of safety laws. If it finds evidence of criminal activity, that is, the pilots disregarded the prohibition on taking off from an unlit runway, it can drop its inquiry and leave it to CASA to pursue.

If it finds however, that something else, such as a systems failure, caused the black takeoff, it will pursue a technical analysis and issue safety recommendations if necessary to the world’s aviation authorities and airlines using A320s.

In the 2001 incident, CASA took action because it saw it as a deliberate breach of the law rather than a safety issue warranting the technical skills of the ATSB which, tellingly, never pursued it.

Two issues are now unresolved. One is the capacity of the authorities to prosecute alleged acts of reckless indifference to safety by pilots, and the other the risk that systemic issues are causing runway lights which are supposed to be remotely activated by pilots to fail.

In recent months the ATSB incident database has recorded a number of claims that runway lighting systems have switched themselves off before departing airliners have started or completed their takeoffs.

Put beside well-documented failures by AirServices Australia to provide full air traffic control on important air corridors at night, the combination of dark skies and dark runways ought to be causing concern in the government over the state of air transport infrastructure and its safety implications.

Glad to see Bruce is still alive, must be a miracle.

Seven years and no conviction, bet you CASA are spewing lots of dollars in legal fees etc.

Might be a little lesson coming out of the Jetstar Launy incident as to the benefits of union membership.

(Awaiting incoming from the chief google economist/proto-fascist in residence paf).

Two Questions

What happened to the carrers of these two QF guys with respect to currently flying or able to return to work?

What has happened with the two J* guys also?

J

yeah 'jab' I was wondering the same thing, like that TV show......."where are they now?"
I was actually in Launy just last night & find it hard to believe that any crew would intentionally T/Off without rwy lighting, damn that's dark when taxing onto the rwy with the lights off (well would be).

'stationair8'..........."CASA spewing lots of dollars?"(that would be an understatement) you mean WE as in the tax payers are spewing lots of dollars!:bored:

Christ lets hope that all concerned has learnt something from this, afterall aviation has been & will always be about learning!

CW

I think if you look at CASA's history, you will find that they (CASA) never seem to do any good in the courts in Tasmania. Whether or not its the system, or the hired in staff, they never seem to win.

Tasmania has some quirky law, that allows a judge to drop the charge if the person is over 60 and hasn't committed a previous crime.

Funny how CASA spend a small fortune to take two pilots too court, but turn a blind eye to Air Services Australia who like to have closed towers when RPT jets arrive at YMLT, YMHB, Avalon etc.

Lets see your press statement on that MR Gibson.