The aircraft is owned by an Aero Club...

Do/did toll operate dash 8's?

Gee, what a surprise. NOT.

I believe the Dash operated for Toll by Skytrans out of DRW for a while a few years ago.

Three pages that should be covered by two or three posts
Jeez

Second guessing what might have happened is pointless. Wait for the report. Stuff happens, as in,

Young lass was backtracking for take-off to do some solo consolidation when an aircraft, which had only just taken off for a distant destination, suddenly appeared on finals. Unable to establish comms, and with its apparent intent on landing, she took to the bush.

The reason

http://users.netconnect.com.au/~njah1/king2.jpg
http://users.netconnect.com.au/~njah1/king3.jpg

Pilot was on approach freq rather than the required circuit freq due to having his hands full with a recalcitrant airframe, a desire to maintain comms with an agency that may be in a position to offer aid, and wanting to get on the ground ASAP.

Doesn't always go by the book. Keep the eyes open.

Fair cop if there's an emergency, but for f@@k's sake, the landing aircraft has the right of way - no point trying to make it out to be any different.

Naturally a landing aircraft won't continue the landing, or shouldn't, if some plonker lines up in front of them, but surely it's clear who's in the wrong if that happens?

The ATSB would do well to focus on why the Dash 8 crew missed the presence of the C172 in the first place. Look at SOP. Do they call on CTAF just so they can commence taxying, then go off CTAF frequency to Centre for IFR traffic and to initiate SAR? Maybe their second radio is still tuned to CTAF, but is one pilot exclusively monitoring it to the exclusion of all other duties while the first guy is on Centre? Highly unlikely - too much would be happening with the checklist for that to work in real life.
Not saying this is foolproof, but our operation calls Centre first, then switches to CTAF until airborne. After that initial contact, Centre frequency is then set to a very low volume so it does not interfere with anything that could pop up on CTAF. If Centre want to talk before we are clear of the circuit area they get the old "stand by" reply.
Also does their SOP involve much 'quacking' to the instruments and running long checklists while taxying? The distraction of this can drown out some lone voice making a cryptic transmission like "XYZ final runway..."
Made worse if said transmission does not repeat the place name at least twice.

As for the unfortunate 172 pilot, if CASA get nasty his wallet and licence could cop a flogging. If he was legally operating after last light, that would not be an issue. If he was not, well he's stuffed. But assuming he was legal, much may depend on whether his admission to sighting the Dash 8 was early on final or very late on final. If early, he is probably due some attitude readjustment, courtesy a friendly CASA FOI, who will not be happy until the pilot is not happy.
If he saw the Dash 8 late, he could argue that it was better to land because he had plenty of stopping distance. Whereas, a go around with potential engine malfunction could have risked a collision with the other aircraft. Anyway, that would be my story.....

If this had occurred in the USA it is unlikely to have even raised eyebrows. 'Landing after' is routine. Probably less risky than going around in busy airspace. This, in the land where they really did invent aviation. For us to re-invent.

How very true, MEA. Commercial expediency leading to very high workload radio work.

'BA' tnxs for posting that piccy I remember it well, I wasn't the driver poor old Frank was doing the driving that day near crapped himself he did:E but I went down to collect the machine after they patched it up in WSL. Big fat nasty DEAD bird:-)
No APP freq involved though but we get the idea:ok:

I'd like a buck for every time I was confronted by 'farmer Brown' over the years (when I was in one of the above machines) in his Cessna filling my windscreen at some country strip, just gotta keep ya eye out for the 'simple flyers' out there:)

Wmk2

AUD$ 00.20.
 

Had a mini BRB session last evening; one interesting topic was this thread. Between the four of us we reckoned on average, to have had half a dozen memorable, 'serious and notable' experiences apiece over the (many) years; go a rounds with traffic issues etc. Then there were the unquantifiable WTF stories (ala Wally), which came down to 'head-shakers' of the minor irritant variety. Rough figures, I know but it gives the idea; couple of the tales were of the very scary kind and duly reported. It's always a tough call, knowing what to 'report', what to have a quiet word with a CP/PIC about and what to ignore as being simply part of the job. **** happens - right.

I guess the point is that this type of event is a repetitive 'incident' rather than a once in a blue moon event. Compared to the thousands of 'safe', pilot organised separations in year, the percentage is probably insignificant and well within any cost/benefit risk matrix. Mathematically the probability of a 'face to face' occurring are higher than the reported incidents, but the probability of a 'contact' are much less, i.e. not too many mid air incidents caused by the scenario here.

It makes it hard to justify the expense of Unicom or FSU, rather than CTAF at the busier aerodromes, but in situations such Mach. E and Bloggs define; it's not the known traffic, but the unknown (or missed) traffic creeping into the frame during a 'busy' period that is the high risk element, particularly during taxi, runway entry, backtrack, take off and initial climb. Just saying - my two bob's worth, I consider anything moving on the ground 'blind' until I know, that they know.

ATSB incorrect or Skytrans now a LOCAP operator?
 

I was scrolling through the ATSB site to see if there were any updates on this incursion as yet. I noticed the ATSB has Skytrans listed as a LOCAP operation? Aren't they a HICAP operation? If they are in fact LOCAP, when was their AOC amended and 'downsized'? If though they are a HICAP operator would the ATSB site in fact be incorrect in its details? And dear oh dear, if the ATSB can't even get those simple facts correct how can they possibly determine what the root cause of the incursion was :ugh:
My bold:
Link:
Investigation: AO-2014-061 - Runway incursion involving a Cessna 172, VH-WGL and a De Havilland DHC-8, VH-QQD at Toowoomba Airport, Qld, on 28 March 2014

CJack I think you will find that a Hi Cap AOC is pax No's Abv 38 seats/4.2 Tonnes(that's over 100Kg's each pax, fat bastards us Aussies:-) & seeing as QQD is the baby Dash that I assume is why.

Could be wrong but a quick Google search found the answers

Wmk2

EDIT: Okay lets just say that QQD fits in the Lo Cap:-)

The operator is HiCap, the report is stating that the type of operation (flight) was LowCap;
You're confounded by the difference in operation and operator.

The report doesn't state what taxiway the DHC8 came from, or how much distance was available for the C172 to land on.

But there are some dangers involved in a go-around, like performance with a full flap setting, and a full load (not sure about the C172 though, but I've tried it in an elderly C172 with low HP, damn hard to gain speed and altitude at the same time, you need the altitude to clear obstacles, and the speed to retract the flaps)

Not considering my experience, but if the pilot deemed it safest to land, he was in his right to do so.

But as said earlier, wait for the report.

I'm a little puzzled that a go-around wouldn't have generated a report though? We usually see a go-around due traffic on the runway as an "evasive manouver", and therefore a incidentreport has to be filed.

This made me laugh:

"A report will be released within several months."

In Australia a go-around would only normally be an issue for RPT traffic and in particular in controlled airspace, even moreso if an aircraft was on the runway. It's not an issue for a couple of private aircraft such as a Cessna and something bigger.