Hi Blackburn - in that case the US use of Class E airspace would have prevented the incident because ATC would have explained why they were not able to provide an IFR clearance from the reciprocal runway. (Note: This does depend on how the Class E is designed and operated. For instance the design of the so-called trial of Class E at Ayers Rock would not have mitigated this incident. That is because Airsvices only wants to provide a "service" where it is costless, but not where it would invlove employing more ATCs. Unless of course the Minister tells them to - which returns me to my point)

Interesting that the Ballina CTAF keeps the JQ COO awake at night and allegedly it has one more chance before the services are pulled. From memory this is the third incident at MCY when it is operating as a CTAF that a JQ aircraft has nearly collided with another aircraft. At what point does Jetstar ban operations into MCY when the tower is closed or does the new runway come with extended Tower operating hours?

Is Class G refresher training offered by your companies?

I gather this company does not as some of those recent Ballina issues are basic CTAF stuff.

You work for Jetstar from memory yes?
What an alternate, misdirected and almost embarrassing interpretation of the facts presented.

No one said they should overfly? But once you establish that you have incorrect conditions on the ground, you sure as hell establish the correct ones. Did the crew know if the tailwind was going to exceed their landing capability? If so, how?

The other bloke made every call necessary (and even a non-required call). Both the Jetstar crew missed every single one of them.

They then proceeded to have a near head on, and chose to then proceed to land on to a now know, non-into wind runway, with no valid or reasonable way of knowing the wind direction or strength.
Or was it a case of “well we got the direction wrong, we’ll be on the ground in 60 seconds, but I’m CERTAIN we got the strength correct”. Surely the safe and cautious thing to do is go around in that situation (or join downwind for 36)..

But I guess it’s a small victory in avoiding a too low gear :)

What is landing performance like in the 320 at MCY?

At MCY, a relatively heavy 737 has very fine margins when it comes to LDR and any downwind component.

I feel this is something the ATSB report probably should have delved into a little more as well....

Lucky there won't be any confusion with the new runway alignment, 13/31, hang on a sec

Does AirServices still have the contract to run some FAA Class D Towers in the US? A couple were in Hawaii from memory. You know the ones, Class D airspace with surrounding E, and D defaulting to E outside Tower hours, work well over there apparently with a mix of 121, 135, and 91 VFR operations. The airspace model that apparently couldn’t work here at places like MCY....

No, and the contract cost ASA quite a few dollars as they reportedly miscalculated employee entitlements.

Wheels: Thank you for the best laugh of my week.

I had kingairs and business jets in the (class G) circuit yesterday. mixing it with GA and RAA. No problems

This.

Why is it that ATC is only provided during 'business hours' and not for high capacity jet arrivals/departures.

It seems ridiculous that ATC comes on watch after the RPT jets have come and gone rather than starting an hour hour or so earlier. Not unique to MCY.

I'm not sure why you're carrying on like a bit of a ********, but ill have a look at your post.

1. How did they establish they had the wrong wind conditions? They had both written down the wind from the AWIS and believed it correct. The fact an AC50 took off the other direction is irrelevant to that fact. Ever bankrun mate? Landing 18 and T/O 36 with tailwind is common practice at every airport I ever flew the AC50, as it was for everyone else who operated it. The terminal is at the southern end of the field. Nobody taxis all the way to north to depart 18 unless they absolutely have to. If I believed the AWIS said 230/6 knots then it is hardly unexpected that the AC50 would do just that. Further, what was the wind? Did the AWIS record it correctly? Given that the recording wasn't available for the investigation, how do you know that the JQ crew both independently made a mistake in transcribing it?

2. They believed the wind to be 6-7 knots. They had run flysmart before arrival for 10kts of tailwind and it came back good, making the direction redundant. Thats how. Did you even read the report?

JQ also made every necessary call. And what do you mean JQ missed "every single one of them". What evidence do you have for that?

06:31.53, UJS made its taxiing call. They heard it. So what, that doesn't affect them, they have right of way as the landing aircraft. They have made 3 inbound calls by this point. They continue.
06:32.24 - BN CEN tells UJS JQ is turning 8 mile final, landing in less than 4 minutes. UJS is on the ground, not lined up, hears a 60 tonne jet is 4 minutes lined up on final opposite direction, and decides to line up and roll anyway. I can totally see how you're putting this on the JQ crew. Given that the Shrike hasn't reported any intention to depart, JQ continues believing he's holding short, as legally required.
06:33.30 - UJS makes a ROLLING call. Not an entering the runway call. He's rolling. With JQ now 2.5 minutes from landing, opposite direction. AT THIS SAME INSTANT BN centre makes repeated attempts to call JQ, thus they didn't hear it. Nor would they have expected to hear an aircraft enter and start a takeoff roll when they are head to head.
06:34:35 - JQ reports 5 mile final, asks where UJS is.. He's airbourne. Now we have a conflict.

The report states UJS believed JQ was on approach from the south, and didn't even visually look to the north as he began his takeoff roll.

So why you've decided to go off laying this entire thing at the feet of the JQ crew is a mystery to me, further as to why you're abusing others for pointing out that culpability here is shared between both aircraft. I personally see a string of holes in the cheese lining up in a way that could have happened to nearly any of us, but I'm not such an arrogant twit that I behave as if it couldn't.

The report addresses this, had you bothered to actually read it.

"The flight crew of VQG discussed conducting a missed approach as a result of the proximity event. However, they assessed it was safer to continue with the approach due to the other aircraft in the area that they had already de-conflicted with, and although there was a tailwind, it was assessed as within tolerance"

As stated in the report, flysmart was conducted to assess landing performance in a 10 kt tailwind. You are talking entirely out of your ass.

Oh how I'd love to know what airline you fly for. There but for grace of etc etc.

So in summary, What an alternate, misdirected and almost embarrassing interpretation of the facts presented.

Sunny seems to be operator specific.

It's called affordable safety. Flight out of ATC hours costs less than a flight when the TWR is open. Simple maths. If ASA changed the opening hours then the airlines would reschedule their arrival times to earlier. Same, same for closing times. Business hours means that either a single ATC could operate the TWR, or maybe 3 ATCs over slightly longer hours. Extend further then you probably need a 4th ATC per day.

I guess I just hold an old fashioned view that Airservices are there to provide a service (not a dig at individual controllers of course, just the system). It seems somewhat pointless operating outside the hours of major passenger movements

Airlines don't build their schedules to avoid ATC more a case of people wanting to be places at a certain time which means early/late flights from regional towns/city. REX run an entire airline on that principle.

Avalon is one. Aircraft run from 6am-12am in two shifts. First out and last in are outside of tower.

Large amount of IFR stuff happens at Avalon each night from Oxford and Ballarat, which can go as late as 1am. Wouldn’t be the first time I go in at 12am with half dozen others playing in the circuit, all with questionable English radio skills.

Solution is extend the tower by an hour.

At what point does Jetstar ban operations into MCY when the tower is closed or does the new runway come with extended Tower operating hours?[/QUOTE]

5 seconds after the smoking hole in the ground appears, like always

Wowee. Bolding galore, capslock-spamming, rose coloured glasses in full effect. Any chance you’re a Jetstar pilot and/or are mates with the crew? Did the fact that almost everyone on here agrees they fudged it in a bit touch a nerve?

Good work you twit, entirely ignore the total disassembly of your ignorant tripe and have a cry at me, as if where I work affects my ability to do something you clearly didnt, ie read the report.

Go back to the spotters forum.

AirAsia managed to get the Avalon Tower hours extended 3hrs longer when they launched operations into Avalon. Jetstar meanwhile was carrying 550 odd pax in the same outside of tower period previously anyway.

They normally open the Tower if freighter is inbound also. I assume if your a certain size and above you get the tower. Not sure how it works.