or
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

'Nomady' no one here is disputing that the guy had ROW landing with an A/C on the Rwy that's a given what I think my learned colleges are trying to say here is that a departing A/C must give way to a Ldg A/C whom has the right of way but only whilst the Rwy was clear, once the Dash entered the Rwy all bets where off.
All we have here & what the crux of the conversation is that there was an A/C on the Rwy obviously oblivious to the fact that an A/C was on short final to land & the Ldg A/C should have gone around due the obvious danger not so much the rules, common sense would dictate now is not a good time to land!


Wmk2


Wmk2

Hang on a minute, CN. You said the aircraft on the runway had right of way. That's wrong. A landing aircraft has right of way.

Now, on to this incident, obviously the Dash should have given way to the lighty, and the lighty should not have landed with the Dash on the runway from Hempy's common-sense POV (which obviously I don't disagree with!). Until we know who said what and who saw what, we can't know who was in the right or wrong.

As someone once said to me
]"You only have the right of way if the other person gives it to you!":hmm:

In other words, it would all be somewhat academic if all you had in the end were two wrecked and smoking piles of aluminium!:ugh:

Moral of the story, don't post after night shift when you might 'word' things incorrectly.

Agreed.

Agreed - up to the point where if a landing aircraft knowingly lands on an occupied runway, which then opens a can of worms for prosecution based on rules surrounding recklessness and creating collision risks (or rather, not taking appropriate action to avoid).

Back to bed...

Near miss at Toowoomba
 

Facts:
Dash 8 should not have entered runway as the C172 had right of way (CAR 162).
C172 should not have landed on the now occupied runway.
Unknown:
Correct RT used?
Did either / both crew not see each other?
Comment:
This could've ended a whole lot messier than it did. Let's hope something is learnt from the incident and that we don't have another layer of RT added to ops in the circuit area.

Good read. I am just studying the air law now for BAK. Last part I need to tidy off before I take the written exam. So I trotted off to read up some of the CAR's relating to right of way. I was pretty sure landing aircraft had right of way, but now I am totally sure!!!

FWIW, the 2 times I had to go around because an aircraft taxied onto the runway we climbed out to the right of the runway (deadside) so I was able to maintain visual contact with the aircraft on the ground. I assume that is the standard procedure.

Its interesting reading the stuff about who should have done what and the stubbornness around who was right and who was wrong. Being a motorcyclist and a mariner one thing I have learned over the years is there is no place for arrogance in either. I often see this same debate both in motorcycle and marine arena. At the end of the day, if some breaks the law I don't care, I am only interested in self preservation so I do what I have to do to survive.

There is one exception though, yacht racing... We have rescue boats on standby and there is always crashes :}:eek::E

I just noticed the time of the incident and realized that it's that bit more concerning as it was after last light. Probably be the usual story of someone with the wrong comm selected but I wonder if the C172 had all the lights on. I wouldn't be chancing a night landing on an obviously occupied strip, but would likewise hope that I'd not taxi in the path of a properly lit aircraft on short final. However, as someone has mentioned, if the Dash 8 was lining up on the reciprocal runway, the hump could conceivably have obscured a C172 on very short final. Don't know the Toowoomba strip but the hump effect is a trap at other places (like 04/22 at Parkes), at least for aircraft actually on the ground.

It's like having a green arrow to turn at an intersection while driving your car. Technically you have right of way but there is a pedestrian crossing the road to which you must give way to first. An aircraft on the runway is like that pedestrian crossing the road. While the landing aircraft has the right of way over a departing aircraft they should give way to a runway obstruction under normal circumstances.

There are at least two wrongs here and they don't make a right! The first wrong was the failure of the taxiing aircraft to give way to a landing aircraft. The second wrong was for the landing aircraft to continue the landing after noting an aircraft entering the runway. The question is, who is more in the wrong?!

I doubt we would be reading about this if the C172 had gone around.

I wouldn't be so sure they would cop ALL the blame... Especially as we know that the landing aircraft was aware of the aircraft on the runway before he landed. I would like to see the non-existent regulation that gives a landing aircraft not in distress 'right of way' and permission to land with an aircraft already 'on' a runway...

And don't worry Bloggs, if I know about you I promise I'll give way to you before entering a runway - yours is bigger than mine!

Who was the Dash operator?

Skytrans, formerly Toll if I'm not mistaken...

Don't worry, CN, I recently "gave way" to someone who should've been giving way to me! I decided discretion was the better part of valour... :ok:

Saying of the month! :D

Well, the only reason we know the pilot saw the Dash 8 was because he lived to tell the tale...

and that the ATSB consider 'landing on a closed or occupied runway' as an Immediately Reportable Matter, i.e a ' accident or serious incident'.

So, as mentioned, if the 'pilot' of the 172 did in fact see the Dash, and then considered it 'safe' to continue with a landing despite what (in surely any reasonable terms) basic airmanship and the ATSB would suggest is a situation that is plainly NOT safe, then either

a. he had an engine failure on final, or
b. he is an idiot who doesn't deserve a licence

:-)

edit: doesn't change my opinion by the way, unless the pilot called over the radio 'aircraft on the runway I'm going to land' or something before he became a charred stump, the ATSB would surely find that no idiot would be stupid enough to intentionally land on an occupied runway and therefore the Dash pilots would surely wear it for the regulatory reasons mentioned above.

its seems like one hell of an assumption that the C172 pilot actually saw the dash 8 on the runway. So far no one commenting has said they would consider landing on an occupied runway. any reasonably student would make a go around in the given situation if the saw the hazard.

its interesting to see the first assumption is that the hazard was seen and ignored or deemed safe and not that the hazard went unseen.

There are plenty of examples of low light\night landings where a runway incursion has occurred and the landing pilots couldn't see the aircraft on the runway.

With all due respect BLACK KNIGHT, you need to read the 2 paragraphs of the ATSB report.

From the ATSB report:

Therefore:

The pilot of the 172 saw the Dash 8.
The pilot of the 172 landed on the runway whilst the Dash 8 was still on the runway (we haven't determined at which end).

It couldn't be more simple, which is why we are even reading this.

Hence my initial post:

Radio Calls
 

The other possibility is that the C172 gave a "turning final" call just as the -8 gave an "entering runway" call cancelling each other out. We have had it here a couple of times, fortunately all without major incident. If you stick to the required calls (CAR166C & CAR243 + CAAP166-1(1) sec.6), i.e. C172 only gave a joining circuit call then maintained a listening watch, the -8 gave the entering call then the C172, upon hearing the -8 could give a warning "on short final" call. Too many radio calls is dangerous, make the required calls and listen, then respond where appropriate.

Would not AvData be holding a recording of any transmissions at the time of the incident and would they release it?

The radio calls are not relevant, CTAF procedures are what they are.... even if the radio's were turned off, down or were on another frequency, the 172 pilot saw the Dash 8 and should not have landed. It couldn't be more simple.

Just a thought - last light was at 08.19UTC / 1819 local. This occurred at 20.39. So, what if?

What if the 172 was coming in from cross country and is running on fumes?

Or the engine was making a nasty sound, and pilot wanted to get it on the ground quick smart?

Or does a days work then climbs into the trusty ole Cessna at sunset to get to town so they're ready bright & early tomorrow? Or does a days work & just pops out to do circuits for currency? The prelim report doesn't say if the 172 was doing night circuits or popped up on short final out of nowhere.

Yes the 172 said they saw the Dash 8 and still landed BUT doesn't a Dash 8 have 2 sets of eyes vs 1 set of eyes in the c172 - I am assuming that the pilot was the only pob in the 172.

Doesn't a Dash 8 have all sorts of gear to avoid planes & planets?

Maybe ole mate thought to avoid air services charges (it has been known to happen) & Dash 8 crew, not hearing anything on CTAF, got busy with Brisbane centre......

What if...

(Somewhere in my battered brain cells ...... early 1990s? A Cessna coming in to land went around to make way for a departing Metro? Cessna then ran out of sky and / or fuel and 3? People were seriously injured.. Details are very hazy but think it might have been in WA??).

That's what your fixed reserve is for. You would be having a really bad day if you had used your fixed reserve due to other circumstances & then had an aircraft taxi onto the runway in front of you when on final.

Either way, if he chose to land on an occupied runway, or had no fixed reserve on arrival & had to land on an occupied runway, he has some questions to answer.