Caravan forced landing on Darwin taxiway
Rutan, just a thought, but, if you wanted to use the full runway in Darwin in a Light Aircraft you wouldn't really cause any major delays except most likely to yourself, they'll just clear you across to the Alpha Taxiway and then get you to go down, you'll be delayed waiting for clearance to cross the runway though.
The following thoughts are all based on Singles. Whilst I wouldn't agree with necessarily using the Full runway in Darwin, a bit of extra backtrack can be requested and often won't cause any delays and will only take an extra 30 seconds, 100m, 200m, that could be the difference, "Ready immediate?", "No thank you sir, we'd rather wait a few minutes and take some backtrack".
Quite a few will disagree with me, you'll point out the obvious that he did infact make it back which, Yes, he did. But if the situation hadn't turned out so well, would we begrudge people taking an extra 5 minutes worth of taxi?
Sure, it's a bit of extra fuel but most Light Aircraft don't burn that much in the taxi anyway and even if you did it 10,000x it would still wouldn't equal the worth of a Hull and would never come close to the value of the lives onboard.
Darwin has very few options after you're airborne, so you either accept the Intersection departure and off you go, happy 99% of the time or take the extra time taxiing and burn a grand total of $10 worth of fuel and be happy 99.9% of the time.
I won't lie, I've operated out of Darwin as well and have taken many (mostly) intersection departures and never had any issues, but after something like this I'd be thinking about such things just a little bit more in future, especially at Aerodromes where your options are limited once airborne. It's a numbers game that we're all playing basically, luckily when the numbers all lined up this time it had a lighter load and was with someone onboard that was able to bring it back safely, next time it might not be so.
Nothing in this post is meant to admonish anyone and the way they do things. It's Aviation, I think we all know it's about weighing the risks vs the benefits, if you don't then you're probably in the wrong business. But I always feel it's worth pointing out that just because everyone does it and just because an aircraft CAN do something, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to be done, it might just mean no one has been caught out YET.
The following thoughts are all based on Singles. Whilst I wouldn't agree with necessarily using the Full runway in Darwin, a bit of extra backtrack can be requested and often won't cause any delays and will only take an extra 30 seconds, 100m, 200m, that could be the difference, "Ready immediate?", "No thank you sir, we'd rather wait a few minutes and take some backtrack".
Quite a few will disagree with me, you'll point out the obvious that he did infact make it back which, Yes, he did. But if the situation hadn't turned out so well, would we begrudge people taking an extra 5 minutes worth of taxi?
Sure, it's a bit of extra fuel but most Light Aircraft don't burn that much in the taxi anyway and even if you did it 10,000x it would still wouldn't equal the worth of a Hull and would never come close to the value of the lives onboard.
Darwin has very few options after you're airborne, so you either accept the Intersection departure and off you go, happy 99% of the time or take the extra time taxiing and burn a grand total of $10 worth of fuel and be happy 99.9% of the time.
I won't lie, I've operated out of Darwin as well and have taken many (mostly) intersection departures and never had any issues, but after something like this I'd be thinking about such things just a little bit more in future, especially at Aerodromes where your options are limited once airborne. It's a numbers game that we're all playing basically, luckily when the numbers all lined up this time it had a lighter load and was with someone onboard that was able to bring it back safely, next time it might not be so.
Nothing in this post is meant to admonish anyone and the way they do things. It's Aviation, I think we all know it's about weighing the risks vs the benefits, if you don't then you're probably in the wrong business. But I always feel it's worth pointing out that just because everyone does it and just because an aircraft CAN do something, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to be done, it might just mean no one has been caught out YET.
In this case I think you have been unjust and exhibited what you have not been before. An armchair critic.
The ATSB report implied the pilot did a good job to get his aircraft back on the ground on one piece. It took fast thinking and clever flying. No argument from me on that point.
Use of the full runway can be a pain in the neck in terms of lost time. On the other hand, a hundred successful departures from an intersection in a single engine aircraft must inevitably lead pilots into a false sense of security. That being so, it is up to the pilot to decide is it worth the small added risk not to use all available length for safety reasons.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was because it was a mechanical component on a fixed wing aircraft (non airliner). Darwin requires you not to follow regulations - they even put that in writing.
