The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Near miss at Toowoomba

Old 3rd Apr 2014, 01:08
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the move...
Age: 54
Posts: 359
Near miss at Toowoomba

From the ATSB website.

The ATSB has commenced an investigation into a runway incursion involving a Cessna 172 and a De Havilland DHC-8, at Toowoomba Airport, Queensland, on 28 March 2014.
When on short final for runway 29, the pilot of the Cessna 172 sighted the De Havilland DHC-8 entering the runway. The pilot landed and stopped short of the taxying DHC-8. The crew of both aircraft reported not hearing radio broadcasts from the other aircraft.
CYHeli is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 02:13
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,882
Someone is headed for a few demerit points, that's for sure
VH-XXX is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 03:29
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 243
Questions from the newbie... Radio work aside. Firstly, should the DHC-8 looked for someone on final before entering the taxiway? Assuming here you get a good view from a dash 8?

Second, should the pilot of the 172 done a go around rather than landing? Once again I might be showing some ignorance here, but guessing the reason for not going around would be insufficient time/distance to climb higher than the dash 8?

Not speculating here, rather just inquiring. I like to think that quizzing all this stuff will help to make me a better pilot when I eventually get there.
Andy_P is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 03:38
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,882
should the pilot of the 172 done a go around rather than landing?
Absolutely yes.

insufficient time/distance to climb higher than the dash 8?
Not likely given that the 172 had time to land and pull up before reaching the -8.


The 172 should not have landed. If the 172 had gone around, there would not have been an ATSB incident report lodged.
VH-XXX is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 03:46
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 954
An engine out with sufficient runway to pull up or nice grass next to the runway to land on would be about the only time I can think off the top of my head to continue an approach onto an occupied runway.

Even if it's somewhere long like Avalon or the Gold Coast where you know you can pull up and get off the runway even in the worst circumstances, go around. For an extra .1 and 10L of fuel you'll avoid the investigation.
mcgrath50 is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 04:18
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 273
For an extra .1 and 10L of fuel you'll avoid the investigation.
In a 172 it should cost no more than 4L of fuel. I cannot understand why someone would not go around under the circumstances unless his wheels were already on the runway before noticing the other aircraft entering the runway.
mikewil is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 04:37
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: australia
Age: 44
Posts: 75
Report states he was on short final, so wheels were not yet on the tarmac
sarge75 is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 04:44
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 243
If the 172 had gone around, there would not have been an ATSB incident report lodged.
That just answered one of my other questions! Twice now I have had aircraft taxi onto the runway when I was on final (same aircraft btw) and I just did a go around. Both time with instructor. Was wondering why that did not require an incident to be logged.
Andy_P is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 04:55
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 774
Aircraft on the runway always has right of way BUT it is polite airmanship to give way to aircraft about to land rather than taxi out in front of them and force a go-around (not suggesting that was what happened). BUT it is not always easy to see small light aircraft - especially without radio 'alert' and from inside a busy cockpit/environmental factors etc - don't assume the other guy is going to see you and wait for you... Beggars belief that the aircraft on short final didn't go around...
Captain Nomad is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 05:03
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14
Captain Nomad; mind confirming your quote with a reference?
Guilders is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 05:04
  #11 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 1,007
Aircraft on the runway always has right of way BUT it is polite airmanship to give way to aircraft about to land rather than taxi out in front of them and force a go-around
If it was a 747 on final would there be a different take on the above quote?

If an aircraft is on final you don't enter the runway.


Before anyone jumps on me and states that a 747 would not be at TWB, it is just an example.
601 is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 05:32
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 84
Sounds like the DHC-8 was lining up at the other end at Rwy 11. Had it been entering Rwy 29, the report would be talking about a near collision or near miss and the first officer should have seen the 172 looming large in his side window.

When I am on short finals I am focussed on the threshold steady in the windscreen and my airspeed. The other end of the runway, 1341m away, would be in my peripheral vision and would not be noticed in detail until focussing on it in the flare and hold-off, if then.

Also remember there is the infamous hump in the middle of the runway at Toowoomba, making aircraft potentially lining up to face each other invisible from each end.

To state the obvious, someone has probably been on the wrong frequency, or had the volume turned down.
Possum1 is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 05:57
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In a house
Posts: 222
A landing aircraft always has priority over one taking off.

However an aircraft can't land if some muppet enters the runway while you're on final!
Blueskymine is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 06:08
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,882
The report clearly says that the 172 sighted the Dash 8 entering the runway. It couldn't be any clearer; therefore the 172 should not have landed. It couldn't be more simple. It will be interesting when we read in several months (years) what actually happened

Captain Nomad says: Aircraft on the runway always has right of way
Guilders says; Captain Nomad; mind confirming your quote with a reference?
Guilders - let me get this straight, you need a reference for this ?

Possum1 says: Sounds like the DHC-8 was lining up at the other end at Rwy 11. Had it been entering Rwy 29, the report would be talking about a near collision or near miss and the first officer should have seen the 172 looming large in his side window.
Not necessarily, but probable. The holding point Alpha-3 for 29 is perhaps 270 metres from the start of the keys and by the time the Dash 8 rolled onto the runway and lined up (presuming they weren't backtracking, it would be well over 300 metres). Unlikely, but stranger things have happened
VH-XXX is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 06:11
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,882
However an aircraft can't land if some muppet enters the runway while you're on final!
You might be right BlueSkyMine... it appears the Muppets may have been in the aircraft.

VH-XXX is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 06:27
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,790
Originally Posted by XXX
Captain Nomad says: Aircraft on the runway always has right of way
Guilders says; Captain Nomad; mind confirming your quote with a reference?
Guilders - let me get this straight, you need a reference for this ?
I suspect that Guilders had his tongue firmly in his cheek, XXX. Obviously waiting for the Captain to finish his squirm manoeuvre!

Listen for the Beepback!! Not that they are really important...the one at Learmonth has been out of service for 12 months now...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 06:52
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 774
I just managed to accidently close my reply window where I had posted a few relevant references. Couldn't be bothered doing it again. Maybe I didn't word my first post very well so if you want to argue technicalities you might want to trot out:

CAR162
(8) An aircraft that is about to take‑off shall not attempt to do so until there is no apparent risk of collision with other aircraft.

But in reverse, if you want to try landing on an occupied runway and claim you had right of way and have done nothing wrong - go ahead "Make my day!"

Initiating 'squirm' manoeuvre...!
Captain Nomad is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 07:11
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,790
CN, check 3 subparas up:

(5) An aircraft in flight, or operating on the ground or water, shall give way to other aircraft landing or on final approach to land.

Continue squirming!
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 07:21
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 774
AIP ENR1.1 ss48.5.6
When on the final leg, confirm that the runway is clear for landing...

And if it is not - go ahead and land anyway 'cos you have right of way...!
Captain Nomad is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 07:33
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
or
ENR 1.4 - 17

h. A landing aircraft will have priority over a departing aircraft if the latter cannot take off with prescribed separation standards.
I. An aircraft landing or taking off will be given priority over taxiing aircraft.
Doesn't mean the goose in the 172 was 'legal' to land though, it just means that if he had plowed into the Dash and killed everyone, the Dash pilots would have copped the blame in the subsequent investigation
Hempy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.