Sunshine Coast Airport Jetstar Mess
 

No investigation of Fatigue in the report (again). I wonder how much runway they had left.

We are supposed to learn lessons from incidents, that is how the industry develop the excellent safety record we enjoy. Sadly, ATSB reports are substandard and this is another example of an incomplete investigation.

It beggars belief that the report wouldn’t actually provide the correct AWIS!
I’d say it’s pretty crucial to the findings and actions. It briefly mentions the correct wind direction but nothing else. Why not?

It’s completely reasonable to assume that since “both” the JQ crew heard and recorded a completely wrong wind direction, there was absolutely no way they could acceptably then rely upon their recorded wind strength either.

Going into a very short strip for a 320, you really want to know the tail wind strength (which they had assumed was a headwind until late final).

So in recognition that they had recorded an incorrect AWIS, it shocks me that “However, they assessed it was safer to continue with the approach due to the other aircraft ... de-conflicted with, and although there was a tailwind, it was assessed as within tolerance.“

Did they eyeball a max tailwind of 10kts versus say, 13kts? Did they disregard their wind direction, but still rely on their wind strength? (Without now knowing the direction). Seems pretty risky for a strip that definitely doesn’t allow for mucking around.

If I know there’s wind blowing there, and other aircraft are using the reciprocal runway, no way I’d be landing a 60T jet into Maroochy without sourcing the correct wind information. Would not be happy if I were to learn I was on that flight.

Well we don’t know that exactly. The report doesn’t offer any confirmation they both heard the reading. Or if one relayed the heading misheard wrong, to the other, who then just assumed it was right, when it wasn’t. Just more detail apart of a wider range of detail missing from the report.

I wonder if Jetstar conduct their own internal in depth investigation compared to the ATSB reports which are constantly full of holes. I just can’t imagine this would sit well with the Training Department, just accepting what little detail the bureau offers and move on.

When did the crew last sign off, what rest did they have, ATIS?, how many passengers onboard, how heavy, how much runway left, crew interviews.....is what you just expect in a FAA report.

RPT operations into CTAFs.

Im surprised we haven’t had more incidents let alone fatalities.

I find it odd that the Aero Commander acknowledged an inbound jet 8 miles North East, and decided to take off to the North about one minute later.

Without a quick CTAF call to check on position before rolling ?

It reads like a minimum effort report when there are a number of issues that could have seen an accident with an RPT jet. Mid-air, wrong runway direction on a ****ty short runway, RPT into CTAF again, mis heard, mis understood radio calls, assumptions made (we have all been there). The headline result from the ATSB was people should listen to things. What about discussing what defences were absent to stop the multitude of holes lining up particularly when people have a mental model made that’s isn’t correct. How stable was the approach and what was the tailwind and performance figures for the landing?

UJS made all the correct calls so did VQG for that matter. The problem was UJS rolling call was at the same time centre kept calling VQG so they didn't hear it as they would have been talking to centre. It took UJS 90 seconds from taxi call to airborne. In that time VQG was dealing with two other aircraft and talking to centre. My guess would be that VQG crew weren't expecting UJS to get airborne that quick

Possibly confused when ATC said the jet was due “about 36” and also get their compass quadrants ass about?

Mistook this as using runway 36.

It wouldn’t be the first time a pilot has got their heads and tails confused.

The AC500 wouldn't have been a 'gun runner' by any chance? They are observed to not hang around on the ground for very long after engine start!

CC

Another crazy example of how badly stuffed up the Australian airspace and it's arbiter CASA has become!

• Apparently, at MCY, CASA OAR carried out one of their safety assessments based on the fact that either PT traffic movements or pax had passed the arbitrary limits decided by the Minister, Mr MacCormack, in the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01386), and decided MCY should be a controlled airport.
• CASA OAR then designates the aerodrome to be controlled, but ignores it's responsibility under the Airspace Regulations 2007 Paragraph 2d (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019C00278) to set the times the tower should be operating. It hands it over to Airservices, another agency managed by the Minister who no doubt offered to cover all the PT schedules. If, however, JQ says they do not want to have the tower on duty because (in the Australian system) they have to pay for it, the Federal Governemnt (CASA and Airservices) are happy to leave the JQ passengers in the lurch to save Alan Joyce a couple of dollars. It does this REGARDLESS of the safety assessment that was made in the first place!
• OAR also has the option to impose Class E airspace when the Tower is not on duty, as occurs in advanced aviation nations. (you've heard that phrase "world's best practice", no doubt). There is no technical reason why Brisbane Centre should not also have an anomometer read-out from MCY so the correct wind could have been passed
• Now that may not have mitigated this issue because it seems that the Commander was VFR, and could depart witha tail wind if the pilot thought it benficial, however there is also a regulation in Part 139, allowing a UNICOM to operate on the CTAF. This allows anybody with an AROC, including the airport owner or Jetstar, to provide a limited service on the frequency that may or may not have mitigated this incident.

I am appalled that ATSB should just accept that the Government mandated airspace model should be allowed to pass without comment. You should look after your Boss - if there had been a mid-air then it would have been Mr. MacCormack's fault. The buck stops on his desk......

Yeah, we do:

“Prior to commencing the descent, both flight crewmembers of VQG independently listened to the Aerodrome Weather Information Service (AWIS) for Sunshine Coast Airport. Both reported hearing that the wind was from 230° (Magnetic) at 6 or 7 kt”

Reckon it’s a case or “fk, lets just say we both heard it, and the other aircraft must have been wrong”?
Why else would you tell an investigation you both independently listened, and came up with the same, wrong answer?

Its SOP at JQ for both pilots to independently listen to the AWIS to confirm its information. And if you've ever heard the MCY AWIS, it can sometimes not be the clearest when enunciating. Knowing the crew, I find it highly unlikely they just 'made it up' for the investigators, but either made a mistake or the AWIS had failed in some way.

We shouldn't be flying 320's into CTAFs, period.

Won't be the first time the AWIS is nowhere near the actual wind indication. The wind may also have changed just as they were listening to it as well. Probably should have double checked the actual wind when it was not near the forecast though.

An incorrect AWIS that services RPT jets into a short strip is a pretty big threat.
And if they alternatively made a mistake, then how did they have any confidence to continue with no idea of wind conditions on the ground (and having just witnessed an aircraft departing in the opposite direction?)

Why was this not questioned and examined in the investigation and report? Seems like a very simple and obvious question that I’m sure would have been asked...

Mr Approach, the Aero Commander was IFR and that makes no difference as to whether the pilot may make use of a tailwind (Flight manual max 10 kts) for departure or arrival in the same manner as that quoted for the A320.

You would think so wouldn't you. But from another ATSB report into a recent train derailment, the crew were operating at 80kph, though they were supposed to be limited to 60kph due to 'paperwork'. There was no question asked about why the crew were 20kph over the limit, or what they thought the limiting speed was. The ATSB simply said they were 20kph over - presumably because they don't want to rock the boat with ARTC - another federal body...

The double standard has been around for a while now.

Read over some of the Tiger reports from early last decade. Detail was high with charts, speeds etc included. They were essentially taken to the cleaners and rightly so.

A landing aircraft has priority over one taking off.

Its not practicable to overfly and look at a windsock on a jet. So you use the AWIS and your onboard instruments with a wind vector.

If the tailwind exceeds your landing capability you get out of there.

As for the aero commander, taking off into the path of an incoming jet who’s been making appropriate radio calls. Along with the AFRU. Sounds like just another GA pilot in a rush who messed up and passed the buck.

Pretty big call right there...

The Aero Commander took off using the most prudent runway, and indeed the runway other aircraft had been using. From the ATSB report, JQ landed on the least prudent runway for the conditions. It wasn't the GA pilot who screwed up the AWIS reception. It was BOTH Jetstar pilots. It wasn't the GA pilot who landed on a comparatively short runway when it was obvious they had no real idea of the wind direction after recognising they had screwed it up. It was BOTH Jetstar pilots. It wasn't the Aero Commanded who advised BN CTR they were "aware" of the AC500 when asked, it was the Jetstar crew. The AC500 pilot made a taxiing and a rolling call for RWY36, neither of which were responded to indicating a potential conflict by the (two) Jetstar pilots. IT wasn't until they turned onto the 5NM final that they sought to confirm the position of the AC500, showing they had no idea what was going on either.

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.