What's happening at Ballina?
Hey LeedSleed, you're quiet on this incident. What's your solution?
My dear chap, a major part of the solution would be a little more thought given to operations by those involved. In fact, and based also on personal experience, I would describe this a quite predictable incident of a "cultural" problem.
Part of the "fly by mouth" syndrome, and "do-it-yourself" ATC in G.
Tootle pip!!
Slead, yes yes yes bla bla bla we've heard all that before but what's your solution? Less talking and more lOOking out? Good one.
Better the fireys give you "ATC" then... or quit your/Dick's whingeing and put in a tower.
and "do-it-yourself" ATC in G.
Actually, I think a CAGRO (or AFIS as is at YPPD) would have had a good chance of preventing it. With their aviation knowledge and understanding of keeping aeroplanes apart, the unfolding conflict would quite possibly have been spotted and advised to the crews.
My point was that based on my reading of the limited summary, the three aircraft were all aware of each other by mutual radio contact, so the same situation could have developed i.e.
VH-VQS clarified their plan for maintaining altitude separation with the crew of one of the arriving aircraft.
delayed the departure of VH-VQS and resulted in the second arriving aircraft being closer to VH-VQS than anticipated as it commenced take-off.
But maybe I'm interpreting the summary incorrectly, or more detail about what was actually said and when will come out.
Actually, I think a CAGRO (or AFIS as is at YPPD) would have had a good chance of preventing it. With their aviation knowledge and understanding of keeping aeroplanes apart, the unfolding conflict would quite possibly have been spotted and advised to the crews.
If you want to take the pilots out of it, then put a TWR in and have Air Traffic CONTROL.
The CAGRO's job is to identify the traffic, and pass to each aircraft. Sum total of involvement. After that, how it is dealt with is up to the pilots.
My argument has ifs and buts? Yes, but CASA thinks that a proper, trained and qualified radio service (not necessarily one provided by that over-charging rip-off outfit AsA with it's bonus-driven managers
) is necessary to bridge the gap between Beepback and Tower. Joe Bloggs on the fuel truck running the Unicom doesn't cut the mustard.
Ah yes, but where was CASA (or its predecessors) when our mate got rid of the system that CASA thinks is such a good idea now. Our mate is happy because he thinks he will get what he had before, but for free. He can't seem to grasp that aerodrome operators run a commercial operation now, and somebody has to pay for these professional services.
As someone who has provided AFIS I doubt that the CAGRO would have got any more involved after passing the initial traffic. I often advised several aircraft that they were mutual traffic in the circuit, and sometimes never heard them speak to each other. Didn't mean I continually jumped in prompting them to speak up and sort it out. If they acknowledged the traffic and then didn't speak again, so be it.
Actually I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for more CAGRO's to appear. CASA actually thinks they are dead in the water. A project to amend the MOS to open up the qualifications and training was cancelled by CASA in 2011 because of the almost zero interest and take up of the service by industry.
As someone who has provided AFIS I doubt that the CAGRO would have got any more involved after passing the initial traffic. I often advised several aircraft that they were mutual traffic in the circuit, and sometimes never heard them speak to each other. Didn't mean I continually jumped in prompting them to speak up and sort it out. If they acknowledged the traffic and then didn't speak again, so be it.
Actually I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for more CAGRO's to appear. CASA actually thinks they are dead in the water. A project to amend the MOS to open up the qualifications and training was cancelled by CASA in 2011 because of the almost zero interest and take up of the service by industry.
Thread Starter
Of course there is almost zero interest from industry.. It's because there is going to be an extra cost .
In other countries the Unicom service is provided by existing people at the airport at zero cost.
I have not claimed this incident had anything to do with a lack of a CAGRO.
I support the overseas proven no cost Unicom system for the maximum number of airports possible. What's wrong for copying the best.
In other countries the Unicom service is provided by existing people at the airport at zero cost.
I have not claimed this incident had anything to do with a lack of a CAGRO.
I support the overseas proven no cost Unicom system for the maximum number of airports possible. What's wrong for copying the best.
Dick,
I admit that my flying experience in the USA is limited to only a few hundred hours but it was bumbling around the smaller airports in a little Cessna. I can only recall 1 time that a unicom passed me traffic information. Mostly they gave parking directions after landing or were asking if I needed fuel and occasionally surface winds.
Where I see the biggest issues for Australia is that the existing unicom operators are not able to pass weather information because of CAR 120.
No_one
I admit that my flying experience in the USA is limited to only a few hundred hours but it was bumbling around the smaller airports in a little Cessna. I can only recall 1 time that a unicom passed me traffic information. Mostly they gave parking directions after landing or were asking if I needed fuel and occasionally surface winds.
Where I see the biggest issues for Australia is that the existing unicom operators are not able to pass weather information because of CAR 120.
No_one
Dick, we've been on this merry-go-round before. Of course there is no interest in CAGRO, because it is basically the old FS but localised and provided and paid for by the relevant aerodrome operator, who, it is obvious, does not want to. Also obviously, any costs associated with a CAGRO incurred by an aerodrome operator would have been recovered from its users, who, in the main, don't want to pay for it.
In Australia, the Unicom service can already be provided by someone at the airport, so why isn't it? Surely it's free? Well, of course it's not free, someone is paying those "existing people" to be at the airport, and they obviously don't see any value in having that person provide a service to all and sundry that is not directly related to their business.
In other countries the Unicom service is provided by existing people at the airport at zero cost.
Ballina Shire Council Tender 880
Ballina Council owners of the airport have a tender on their web page for a CA/GRS service provider.
<eTENDERING:: Desktop ViewTender.aspx?tenderId=Q8LbSpRmDGXgFCRF5XLg7g%3d%3d>
Also a Unicom operator can pass weather information if he/she has a CAR120 approval from CASA.
<eTENDERING:: Desktop ViewTender.aspx?tenderId=Q8LbSpRmDGXgFCRF5XLg7g%3d%3d>
Also a Unicom operator can pass weather information if he/she has a CAR120 approval from CASA.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone actually recall the RFFS actually putting out an aircraft fire??
Leadie, am I right in stating that ICAO only mandates RFFS for international airports, not domestic.
Sorry, forgot, we only align with ICAO when it suits us.
Leadie, am I right in stating that ICAO only mandates RFFS for international airports, not domestic.
Sorry, forgot, we only align with ICAO when it suits us.
Thorn Bird,
Re. ICAO, correct on both counts, we only align with ICAO when it suits CASA/ASA and their unions, and then it is a very "Australian" version of compliance.
Just to remind everybody, there has never been a survivable aircraft accident on an Australian airport, international or otherwise, where the presence of on-airport ARFFS made any difference to the outcome for fatalities or injuries.
ARFFS is a classic example of economic waste.
Tootle pip!!
Re. ICAO, correct on both counts, we only align with ICAO when it suits CASA/ASA and their unions, and then it is a very "Australian" version of compliance.
Just to remind everybody, there has never been a survivable aircraft accident on an Australian airport, international or otherwise, where the presence of on-airport ARFFS made any difference to the outcome for fatalities or injuries.
ARFFS is a classic example of economic waste.
Tootle pip!!
there has never been a survivable aircraft accident on an Australian airport, international or otherwise, where the presence of on-airport ARFFS made any difference to the outcome for fatalities or injuries.
ARFFS is a classic example of economic waste.
ARFFS is a classic example of economic waste.
So what is likely to happen to the 737 that goes off the end of the runway at Broome, and what would the RFFS at Broome do about it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358
Sure, was RFFS essential here? Probably not. But I hope you defend the decision to scale back RFFS resources when the first burnt bodies are shown on the news.
Sure, was RFFS essential here? Probably not. But I hope you defend the decision to scale back RFFS resources when the first burnt bodies are shown on the news.
So what is likely to happen to the 737 that goes off the end of the runway at Broome, and what would the RFFS at Broome do about it?
At least 10-15 minutes quicker from experience, by the time volunteers are paged, all attend the fire station and suit up then the tenders proceed to the airport.
McG: you identify the issue, concisely. The decision is made on the basis of politics and perception, not real-world risks and real-world risk mitigation.
I agree.
And I think it's ludicrous that there aren't skin specialists and surgeons in clinics on permanent standby at those airports during the same hours as the RFFS. There can be no objection on the grounds of expense.
If someone with burns is rescued by RFFS at an airport and they die on the way to an off-airport hospital, the government will obviously have been negligent.
And I think it's ludicrous that there aren't skin specialists and surgeons in clinics on permanent standby at those airports during the same hours as the RFFS. There can be no objection on the grounds of expense.
If someone with burns is rescued by RFFS at an airport and they die on the way to an off-airport hospital, the government will obviously have been negligent.
Okay. That's enough Dick Smith.
I used to defend you. I used to take each of your Pprune posts on their merit and try to look at them objectively.
Now, I'm just sick of it.
You're clogging up Pprune with issues which:
1. Have been done to death already
2. Strangely enough always seem to affect the corridor of airspace you fly along or an aircraft you own
3. Don't represent what most professional pilots in Australia would vote are the most important economical or safety issues to the industry at the moment.
It's not a personal attack. I admire you greatly, particularly your ability to stump up cash for conservation.
But enough is enough. Take a deep breath, have a break from Pprune for six months.
That way, you're much more likely to find people wanting to work with you.
If you keep flogging a dead horse (very loudly) over and over, you're doing your own objectives a massive disservice.
I used to defend you. I used to take each of your Pprune posts on their merit and try to look at them objectively.
Now, I'm just sick of it.
You're clogging up Pprune with issues which:
1. Have been done to death already
2. Strangely enough always seem to affect the corridor of airspace you fly along or an aircraft you own
3. Don't represent what most professional pilots in Australia would vote are the most important economical or safety issues to the industry at the moment.
It's not a personal attack. I admire you greatly, particularly your ability to stump up cash for conservation.
But enough is enough. Take a deep breath, have a break from Pprune for six months.
That way, you're much more likely to find people wanting to work with you.
If you keep flogging a dead horse (very loudly) over and over, you're doing your own objectives a massive disservice.