Collision at YSBK
000 response
Strewth, I dunno what all the fuss is about...
Had cause to call 000 last week while driving along the Oxley Highway from Port Macquarie to Walcha.
Zero mobile coverage (using 000 and 112) and the payphone I tried had a bad mic. 90 minutes later, I finally get to a working payphone and can complete the call.
I shudder to think about what would have happened if it was a *real* emergency, with people requiring immediate assistance...
FWIW, the "emergency" was multiple minor and a couple of major landslides onto the road, a few fallen trees around blind corners a bit of minor flooding all with absolutely no notification of any hazards on the road. And yes, I'd have called the SES if I could have, but neither payphone accepted coins, so 000 was the next best option.
Had cause to call 000 last week while driving along the Oxley Highway from Port Macquarie to Walcha.
Zero mobile coverage (using 000 and 112) and the payphone I tried had a bad mic. 90 minutes later, I finally get to a working payphone and can complete the call.
I shudder to think about what would have happened if it was a *real* emergency, with people requiring immediate assistance...
FWIW, the "emergency" was multiple minor and a couple of major landslides onto the road, a few fallen trees around blind corners a bit of minor flooding all with absolutely no notification of any hazards on the road. And yes, I'd have called the SES if I could have, but neither payphone accepted coins, so 000 was the next best option.
Folks,
The reason for the removal of ARFFS from almost all airports, except capital city primary airports, is quite simple, and well justified.
Prior to the removal, there had not been a survivable accident on an Australian airport, where ARFFS made any difference in terms of death or severity of injuries.
The record since has remained the same, in risk management terms, ARFFS has never been a deciding factor and is totally unjustified, and would add a huge cost to operators at places like YSBK.
As to "promises", all that was "promised" was that airport operators would have a local disaster plan, of which the local fire brigade would be part. Nobody broke any promises on this one, given the record, it would not have mattered if they had!
All the facts and figures are available. The current regulatory requirement is quite silly ( the last "review" of regulations being run by ex-fireys) cost/benefit and the record was ignored in a great leap backwards from rational rulemaking, the resulting cost of ARFFS at Ayers Rock, for example, is a significantly measurable proportion of a potential LCC's ticket costs.
Tootle pip!!
The reason for the removal of ARFFS from almost all airports, except capital city primary airports, is quite simple, and well justified.
Prior to the removal, there had not been a survivable accident on an Australian airport, where ARFFS made any difference in terms of death or severity of injuries.
The record since has remained the same, in risk management terms, ARFFS has never been a deciding factor and is totally unjustified, and would add a huge cost to operators at places like YSBK.
As to "promises", all that was "promised" was that airport operators would have a local disaster plan, of which the local fire brigade would be part. Nobody broke any promises on this one, given the record, it would not have mattered if they had!
All the facts and figures are available. The current regulatory requirement is quite silly ( the last "review" of regulations being run by ex-fireys) cost/benefit and the record was ignored in a great leap backwards from rational rulemaking, the resulting cost of ARFFS at Ayers Rock, for example, is a significantly measurable proportion of a potential LCC's ticket costs.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: crime rate no1
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled
I think you are wrong on this one. What was promised was a metropolitian fire and rescue service based on the airport to serve the community and the airport.
You seem to be focused on accident and fire only, I could sight many many examples in recent history where the ARFF have made a differance or could have if they were there.
Just two are
apr 2005 94 year old lady has a heart attack on a 737 about 30 miles to run HB ARFF saved her life i spoke to her two weeks later and still do shes 100 soon and sharper than you and me put together!!
Jan 2007 man in his 50's had heart problems/stroke after landing in a chieftian at BK abulance took 9 mins to arrive (not a dig at the ambos)
I can tell you of lots more but the point is that to look at it from a bean counters persective only is wrong in my opinion but thats what the world has come too.
cheers
I think you are wrong on this one. What was promised was a metropolitian fire and rescue service based on the airport to serve the community and the airport.
You seem to be focused on accident and fire only, I could sight many many examples in recent history where the ARFF have made a differance or could have if they were there.
Just two are
apr 2005 94 year old lady has a heart attack on a 737 about 30 miles to run HB ARFF saved her life i spoke to her two weeks later and still do shes 100 soon and sharper than you and me put together!!
Jan 2007 man in his 50's had heart problems/stroke after landing in a chieftian at BK abulance took 9 mins to arrive (not a dig at the ambos)
I can tell you of lots more but the point is that to look at it from a bean counters persective only is wrong in my opinion but thats what the world has come too.
cheers
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: On track
Age: 52
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warrior could be a right off, wing cut 2/3 of the way through. JWW has only minor engine cowl damage, and of course the engine strip down after the prop strike.
Happened at night with someone failing to give way.....
Happened at night with someone failing to give way.....
In other breaking news, i seen a flying instructer walk across a taxiway today...there was no flashing light mounted on the instructers head - i think it be a safety issue. Should i make an issue of this matter ?
ATC does. I got a VCA for this once..........Seriously
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East of YRTI
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmhbtower
You reckon that there are no emergency services at BK? There is a fully operational division of the Ambulance Service on the airdrome. Can anybody tell us why they are not included in the emergency/disaster plan for the airport? And no, before you start, I am not an ambo.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kimwestt
From what I learnt trying to track down an ambo to thank them personally, they only do air rescue. Or send out their vehicles when the choppers can't get there.
On another note the mass hysteria on the front page of this week's Bankstown Express is ridiculous.
On another note the mass hysteria on the front page of this week's Bankstown Express is ridiculous.
mmhbtower,
Whatever "promises" somebody might have made, what we were/are talking about are ARFFS services provided (now) by Airservices, or , under current legislation, a CASA approved ARFFS service provider on airport.
The economic case for removal was overwhelming, and if you think about it, the several examples of LoL's having a heart attack actually help make the case.
We do not have inexhaustible resources, and somebody has to pay, would anybody suggest we should have an ambulance permanently based at every road accident black spot, waiting for the next collision?? Why are aircraft potential accidents treated differently to any other transport or industrial accident ??--- because they make great "sensational" stories that are a staple for the "popular" ( as in mindless) media.
Satisfying the "media news cycle" hardly provides a good basis for any kind of service provision, otherwise we would have a "control tower" to ' "control" all the "Cessna's"( including all those "Cessna's" made by Piper, Beech, et al) at every country airport, because, as you will be aware as a member of the "general public", all aircraft have to be "controlled".
As difficult as it may be for some to accept, and unpalatable to others, human life is not "priceless", indeed the Commonwealth publishes the monetary "value of life" for policy,planning and regulatory purposes. The emotional value of life is not a factor ( remember a criticism often leveled at this type of analysis: "---- knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing") and nor should it be
The monetary "value" of lives saved, as mentioned in previous posts, goes nowhere near equaling the cost of the ARFFS service, that is what cost/benefit decision making means.
ARFFS services are the nearest you will get to a cost that meets the definition of "economic waste" as I know, and that is exactly what the (then) BTRE so clearly established.
The BTRE study is a fascinating "expose' " of the costs and benefits (or all to frequently --- disbenefits) of a broad spectrum of transport safety regulation.
Top of the lists for savings were mandatory seatbelts for cars, and crash helmets for motor cycles ----- very low cost of compliance, low cost of enforcement, and really amazingly large savings ( a whole motor accident head and spinal injury ward is a major Sydney teaching hospital was shut down, within two years of the original seat belt rules in NSW--- due to reduction in demand) , both individual and societal.
ARFFS services were off the other end of the scale --- nil return, over many years, for their primary purpose, but large capital and ongoing costs.
At no stage was a quasi-substitute service ever a condition of the removal of (now AA) ARFFS airport services from all but the "international " airports (plus a couple of anomalies)
Tootle pip!!
PS; Whatever BTRE is now called has a free CD collection of all their studies, prior to all the studies available on the web site.
Whatever "promises" somebody might have made, what we were/are talking about are ARFFS services provided (now) by Airservices, or , under current legislation, a CASA approved ARFFS service provider on airport.
The economic case for removal was overwhelming, and if you think about it, the several examples of LoL's having a heart attack actually help make the case.
We do not have inexhaustible resources, and somebody has to pay, would anybody suggest we should have an ambulance permanently based at every road accident black spot, waiting for the next collision?? Why are aircraft potential accidents treated differently to any other transport or industrial accident ??--- because they make great "sensational" stories that are a staple for the "popular" ( as in mindless) media.
Satisfying the "media news cycle" hardly provides a good basis for any kind of service provision, otherwise we would have a "control tower" to ' "control" all the "Cessna's"( including all those "Cessna's" made by Piper, Beech, et al) at every country airport, because, as you will be aware as a member of the "general public", all aircraft have to be "controlled".
As difficult as it may be for some to accept, and unpalatable to others, human life is not "priceless", indeed the Commonwealth publishes the monetary "value of life" for policy,planning and regulatory purposes. The emotional value of life is not a factor ( remember a criticism often leveled at this type of analysis: "---- knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing") and nor should it be
The monetary "value" of lives saved, as mentioned in previous posts, goes nowhere near equaling the cost of the ARFFS service, that is what cost/benefit decision making means.
ARFFS services are the nearest you will get to a cost that meets the definition of "economic waste" as I know, and that is exactly what the (then) BTRE so clearly established.
The BTRE study is a fascinating "expose' " of the costs and benefits (or all to frequently --- disbenefits) of a broad spectrum of transport safety regulation.
Top of the lists for savings were mandatory seatbelts for cars, and crash helmets for motor cycles ----- very low cost of compliance, low cost of enforcement, and really amazingly large savings ( a whole motor accident head and spinal injury ward is a major Sydney teaching hospital was shut down, within two years of the original seat belt rules in NSW--- due to reduction in demand) , both individual and societal.
ARFFS services were off the other end of the scale --- nil return, over many years, for their primary purpose, but large capital and ongoing costs.
At no stage was a quasi-substitute service ever a condition of the removal of (now AA) ARFFS airport services from all but the "international " airports (plus a couple of anomalies)
Tootle pip!!
PS; Whatever BTRE is now called has a free CD collection of all their studies, prior to all the studies available on the web site.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Delhi
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled - "We do not have inexhaustible resources, and somebody has to pay, would anybody suggest we should have an ambulance permanently based at every road accident black spot, waiting for the next collision??"
I don't think that is a suitable comparison. We are talking about a defined area here, not thousands of kilometers of roads.
Even if having ARFFS is not economically viable, the rescue services folks in the airport should be included in the event of an accident, if they are available.
There was a recent accident where the outstation rescue services took 10-15 minutes to reach the injured occupant. Thankfully the injuries were minor, but the delay could have cost a life. Meanwhile, paramedics from the rescue choppers were a few hundred meters away and not involved at all.
The idea should be to maximize the use of the resources that are available, especially in a place like bankstown.
p.s. yes the poor duchies have been suffering as of late.
I don't think that is a suitable comparison. We are talking about a defined area here, not thousands of kilometers of roads.
Even if having ARFFS is not economically viable, the rescue services folks in the airport should be included in the event of an accident, if they are available.
There was a recent accident where the outstation rescue services took 10-15 minutes to reach the injured occupant. Thankfully the injuries were minor, but the delay could have cost a life. Meanwhile, paramedics from the rescue choppers were a few hundred meters away and not involved at all.
The idea should be to maximize the use of the resources that are available, especially in a place like bankstown.
p.s. yes the poor duchies have been suffering as of late.
That study would be interesting reading, Leadslead. What was it called and when was it released? I've been on their website but damned if I can find it amongst the many.