Incident that could have dwarfed lockhart river
Thread Starter
Incident that could have dwarfed lockhart river
Over a week ago, Thorn Bird put on a post with words to the effect, that an incident “could have dwarfed Lockhart River”. No information seemed to have come out about this, can anyone give some details, I believe it’s very important we know what actually went on. Has this been put on the ATSB website or has it been kept a secret?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's easy enough to produce hints of incidents that could have been disasters - but failing to provide details does nothing for the posters credibility.
If the OP really has serious concerns about another pilot whose attitude to safety and adherence to regulations is highly suspect, then the obligation is on them to ensure that they make notes and report their concerns to authorities.
If the OP is referring to ATC failure events that could have ended in major disaster, then the ATSB lists numerous of these events, all of which have no doubt led to improvements and recognition of the failures that led to those events.
The fact the reported ATC failures did not lead to any major disaster indicates that the robust back-ups designed to address ATC failures worked as designed - and to offer up alarmist statements that one of these events could have "dwarfed Lockhart River", is on a par with some of the worst gutter journalism that regularly assaults us.
If the OP really has serious concerns about another pilot whose attitude to safety and adherence to regulations is highly suspect, then the obligation is on them to ensure that they make notes and report their concerns to authorities.
If the OP is referring to ATC failure events that could have ended in major disaster, then the ATSB lists numerous of these events, all of which have no doubt led to improvements and recognition of the failures that led to those events.
The fact the reported ATC failures did not lead to any major disaster indicates that the robust back-ups designed to address ATC failures worked as designed - and to offer up alarmist statements that one of these events could have "dwarfed Lockhart River", is on a par with some of the worst gutter journalism that regularly assaults us.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There was a Rex SAAB that tried to land there visually one night not long back if my prune memory is working. No doubt an ATSB report on that.
What else has happened?
What else has happened?
Dick I actually asked Thorn Bird to back that statement up with a bit more detail and unsurprisingly he went very quiet. Like a lot of what TB posts its usually emotive and lacking any substance. He is probably in his version of aviation Nirvana and setting up an airline in NZ.
Thread Starter
I have done this. I note that many pilots are very concerned about making statements about safety issues .
Many phone me with info but are concerned about having any link to the information.
A bit like the old USSR.
Many phone me with info but are concerned about having any link to the information.
A bit like the old USSR.
So did you get an answer Dick and in your opinion is it something that could have dwarfed Lockhart River? I think the incident that could have dwarfed LR was the 737 effectively autolanding in the fog at MIA, but that is very much in the public domain.
There is a difference between making statements about safety issues and not reporting an incident that has the potential to "dwarf Lockhart River". The original statement made by TB was either hyperbole or BS.
There is a difference between making statements about safety issues and not reporting an incident that has the potential to "dwarf Lockhart River". The original statement made by TB was either hyperbole or BS.
In the old USSR Dick you would have been sent to the gulag for being a capitalist pig and the Australian would not exist. All this intrigue is puerile. I thought that you weren't afraid to state things as they are but I can see you just want to play the same stupid games you accuse others of playing.
Thread Starter
Sunny. Possibly the newspaper report could encourage those in CASA or AsA to address an important safety issue .
As you would know both have resisted using our existing radar to provide class E separation and MSA services when in IMC at non tower airports.
Many have said we will need an accident killing a large number of people before such changes are made.
It would be great for Australia if we could make the changes before too many more deaths like the ones at Benalla and Mount Hotham.
As you would know both have resisted using our existing radar to provide class E separation and MSA services when in IMC at non tower airports.
Many have said we will need an accident killing a large number of people before such changes are made.
It would be great for Australia if we could make the changes before too many more deaths like the ones at Benalla and Mount Hotham.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick
A minor point, but enroute controllers cannot use a MSA unless an aircraft is on a published ATS route.
In CTA, ATC are responsible for terrain clearance.That means that if you are in IMC, and not on a published route, you will Not be getting a descent clearance below the grid LSALT.
A minor point, but enroute controllers cannot use a MSA unless an aircraft is on a published ATS route.
In CTA, ATC are responsible for terrain clearance.That means that if you are in IMC, and not on a published route, you will Not be getting a descent clearance below the grid LSALT.
Thread Starter
Yes. No doubt what happens in Australia. Why not copy the safer North American system where IFR are in controlled airspace.
It's where most safe aircraft come from!
It's where most safe aircraft come from!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
When we can get VHF and surveillance in that E you might get some support. In means inside all of the E for all IFR aircraft.
Hervey Bay, right in the middle of the ministers electorate has not got it. My last RNAV, into YNRM ….I have to cancel IFR between the FAF and MAP because thats where the VHF runs out. Hardly in the GAFA in both of those places. Cant get a departure IFR once on the ground.
Hervey Bay, right in the middle of the ministers electorate has not got it. My last RNAV, into YNRM ….I have to cancel IFR between the FAF and MAP because thats where the VHF runs out. Hardly in the GAFA in both of those places. Cant get a departure IFR once on the ground.