What's happening at Ballina?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm guessing you're a home owner, and every year you spend not a small amount of money insuring your house in the statistically unlikely yet still possible chance that something might destroy your house.
I don't really see a service like ARFF any differently. It's an insurance policy against an unlikely yet possible event. I'd much prefer the firies on the field to respond in minutes then waiting 10-15 minutes for the local brigade to respond.
I don't really see a service like ARFF any differently. It's an insurance policy against an unlikely yet possible event. I'd much prefer the firies on the field to respond in minutes then waiting 10-15 minutes for the local brigade to respond.
I should no longer be astonished at the intuition that is dressed up as objectively driven risk and safety decisions in Australia.
Nobody has yet to explain where the likely "scene" of an accident arising from a "737 running off the end of the runway at Broome" is likely to be, at which "scene" the RFFS is going to be providing useful assistance. I note that I didn't raise that as an example: someone else did. (I have a vision of shiny fire tenders with flashing lights, surrounded by fit firies wringing their hands while watching a 737 floating or bogged in water or sand that's inaccessible by fire tender. As I keep saying, being "in the vicinity" isn't the same as being "at".)
Based on the "insurance" argument, wishiwasupthere, we should have skin specialists and surgeons in clinics on permanent standby at those airports during the same hours as the RFFS, to insure against someone dying of burns or injuries on the way to an off-airport hospital. Why aren't they there?
Sooner or later, someone has to state the objective truth: Because the risk isn't sufficient to justify the cost.
It's why cockpit doors weren't moved rearwards to deal with the risk of rogue aircrew, in the wake of the GermanWings tragedy. The "premium" isn't justified by the risk mitigated.
The truth about RFFS has been posted on various related threads already. At least that's refreshingly frank. It's about perception and politics, rather than objective risk mitigation of objective risks. Please don't be surprised or upset when some of us point this out.
Nobody has yet to explain where the likely "scene" of an accident arising from a "737 running off the end of the runway at Broome" is likely to be, at which "scene" the RFFS is going to be providing useful assistance. I note that I didn't raise that as an example: someone else did. (I have a vision of shiny fire tenders with flashing lights, surrounded by fit firies wringing their hands while watching a 737 floating or bogged in water or sand that's inaccessible by fire tender. As I keep saying, being "in the vicinity" isn't the same as being "at".)
Based on the "insurance" argument, wishiwasupthere, we should have skin specialists and surgeons in clinics on permanent standby at those airports during the same hours as the RFFS, to insure against someone dying of burns or injuries on the way to an off-airport hospital. Why aren't they there?
Sooner or later, someone has to state the objective truth: Because the risk isn't sufficient to justify the cost.
It's why cockpit doors weren't moved rearwards to deal with the risk of rogue aircrew, in the wake of the GermanWings tragedy. The "premium" isn't justified by the risk mitigated.
The truth about RFFS has been posted on various related threads already. At least that's refreshingly frank. It's about perception and politics, rather than objective risk mitigation of objective risks. Please don't be surprised or upset when some of us point this out.
"Every single country in the world" would have an RFFS at an aerodrome like Ballina? And there was me feeling guilty for the occasional resort to hyperbole. 
I suspect that the continuing money spent on the RFFS at Ballina, would be much better spent putting up a very tall mobile phone tower in the vicinity of Lake Eyre.
So that Marree and William Creek would be covered and airmen and motorists in trouble would have mobile coverage.
I reckon that Trevor Wright may also agree with me..
That may pass LB's "..objective risk mitigation of objective risks." test.
So that Marree and William Creek would be covered and airmen and motorists in trouble would have mobile coverage.
I reckon that Trevor Wright may also agree with me..
That may pass LB's "..objective risk mitigation of objective risks." test.
Yair. Must agree. Can't possibly utilise one of the AsA employed Firies to provide a Unicom service like they do all over North America .
We in Australia know so much more. Blogs is correct An expensive tower or ATC operated A/G is the only way to go.
Thanks heavens for Bloggs - maximise cost - one of the reasons RFAC clubs have dropped from over 100 to less than 50. Mum would have been shocked.
We in Australia know so much more. Blogs is correct An expensive tower or ATC operated A/G is the only way to go.
Thanks heavens for Bloggs - maximise cost - one of the reasons RFAC clubs have dropped from over 100 to less than 50. Mum would have been shocked.
"Every single country in the world" would have an RFFS at an aerodrome like Ballina? And there was me feeling guilty for the occasional resort to hyperbole.
I think Dick's point is that if there is going to be such a misallocation of finite safety resources, some of those resources should at least be utilised to trying to mitigate some of the known, more substantial risks in the vicinity of aerodromes in G, rather than merely standing by to respond to accidents after they happen.
As a matter of interest, will the RFFS be monitoring the CTAF to hear and respond to the crew of an inbound jet that is concerned about a potential undercarriage collapse due to system warnings? You know: An accident that could actually happen at the aerodrome.
As a matter of interest, will the RFFS be monitoring the CTAF to hear and respond to the crew of an inbound jet that is concerned about a potential undercarriage collapse due to system warnings? You know: An accident that could actually happen at the aerodrome.
As a matter of interest, will the RFFS be monitoring the CTAF to hear and respond to the crew of an inbound jet that is concerned about a potential undercarriage collapse due to system warnings? You know: An accident that could actually happen at the aerodrome.
They do monitor the frequency of either the CTAF or Tower and SMC at towered airports.
Also the magic number is a CASA requirement not an ASA one.
Also the magic number is a CASA requirement not an ASA one.
[T]he magic number is a CASA requirement not an ASA one.
And how does CASA justify the number? Based on an ICAO standard? The decision whether to implement that standard rather than add another difference to the 80 or so pages of existing filed differences would, of course, be based purely on safety grounds and uninfluenced by political and other sectional interests.
So the firies, when on duty at Ballina, monitor the CTAF so as to be able to know, for example, that a jet is inbound conducting an urgent landing in circumstances that may require RFFS assistance. Would the firies, having heard a call like that, transmit anything back to the inbound jet?
Also the magic number is a CASA requirement not an ASA one.
Many moons ago, I was actually at the Infrastructure meeting in Canberra, when the two CASA members of the same unions as most of the ASA ARFFS employees did the "CASA" presentation about imposing (no nonsense with a safety case, cost/benefit justification or other time wasting) the CASA interpretation of the ICAO requirement.
It was NOT complying with ICAO, because ICAO does not require ARFFS at other than international airports, but "ICAO" was the justification for what was a a "union initiative".
Bit like the CAGRO "rules", where only ex-ATC/FA could qualify, dreamed up to create jobs for retired ATC and FS persons --- and on the inside, there was nothing coy about how it was done, which included opposition to UNICOM because "it's Dick's idea".
Not because UNICOM didn't work.
Such is the way "air safety" is "managed" in Australia.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Those of us with a long enough memory know that the rule change that resulted in weather observers in AU not including pilots automatically as approved observers (unlike most of the rest of the world) was another union "initiative".
All in the interests of air safety, you understand.
So the firies, when on duty at Ballina, monitor the CTAF so as to be able to know, for example, that a jet is inbound conducting an urgent landing in circumstances that may require RFFS assistance. Would the firies, having heard a call like that, transmit anything back to the inbound jet?
I would have thought that if they are monitoring the CTAF at Ballina, and capable of transmitting on the CTAF at Ballina ....
I had a feeling you were headed that way.
There is a difference between monitoring a radio for a situation requiring a turn out versus writing down all the pertinent calls required for traffic. I don't know what other tasks they may be doing in the FCC so perhaps with training sure, no issues. But I am not ARFF so can only speculate based off my observations.
There is a difference between monitoring a radio for a situation requiring a turn out versus writing down all the pertinent calls required for traffic. I don't know what other tasks they may be doing in the FCC so perhaps with training sure, no issues. But I am not ARFF so can only speculate based off my observations.
Nor me. Just thinking aloud.
Originally Posted by Leddie
Bit like the CAGRO "rules", where only ex-ATC/FA could qualify, dreamed up to create jobs for retired ATC and FS persons
The reality was that AYQ needed a bit more than a free-for-all but not a Tower. A CAGRO/AFIS (jeez, look out, they have those in America and Canada too, you know!!) service provided a suitable level of safety.
Those of you who think that, particularly these days, any semblance of a Unicom service could be safely provided by "anybody who is on the airport" are simply dreaming, and in fact quite dangerous if sprouting the concept to the great unwashed.
Ok I've come in half way through a conversation but ill see how I go,
[QUOTE]So the firies, when on duty at Ballina, monitor the CTAF so as to be able to know, for example, that a jet is inbound conducting an urgent landing in circumstances that may require RFFS assistance. Would the firies, having heard a call like that, transmit anything back to the inbound jet?/QUOTE]
Considering its a Level 1 aerodrome, its required to have certain facilities in it one of which is a "watch room" operator that monitors and occurrence records, radio traffic, crash alarms, general phone calls.
[QUOTE]Can anyone actually recall the RFFS actually putting out an aircraft fire??/QUOTE]
Approximately 10% of all calls attended by ASA are "aircraft related"(hot brakes, dodgy panel light etc). There have been some significant incidents internationally where the ARFFA service have been used in anger. Some very recently, BA flight caught fire on the runway, Airbus Caught fire in the runway, Air Asia Pacific 727 just the other day, and the great mayday at Heathrow with the double engine failure years back. The risk is there.
[QUOTE]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?/QUOTE]
Plenty actually
[QUOTE]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./QUOTE]
Ummm you sure? triage.....good, bad, pretty bad, de..? Save the saveable?
CASA have just completed (2 weeks ago i think) an extensive study on the MOS139H and are changing the a lot of the content and requirements. The requirement for an ARFF service is 350k pax movements in a 12 month period OR where an international flight is coming in, e.g. Norfolk Island. CASA are looking at dropping the pax threshold and introducing a more risk assessment approach which is exactly what should happen. Eg, Onslow airport in WA, gets 5-6 full, F100 movements a day and there is not a fire truck in site. In short, the FIFO market has changed the game.
Without going through every post, some people here need to learn to understand how a risk assessment works... what the likelihood of an incident these days? nah it may happen..... but if it does FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK its going to be pretty bad. The decision to install an ARFF station is not political at all and whoever thinks that needs their head read. Its based purely on risk. If people think its all political and ARFF stations are removed for being a waste of money and just relying on an urban pumper from the state fire services to come help you....? it will only happen once.
[QUOTE]So the firies, when on duty at Ballina, monitor the CTAF so as to be able to know, for example, that a jet is inbound conducting an urgent landing in circumstances that may require RFFS assistance. Would the firies, having heard a call like that, transmit anything back to the inbound jet?/QUOTE]
Considering its a Level 1 aerodrome, its required to have certain facilities in it one of which is a "watch room" operator that monitors and occurrence records, radio traffic, crash alarms, general phone calls.
[QUOTE]Can anyone actually recall the RFFS actually putting out an aircraft fire??/QUOTE]
Approximately 10% of all calls attended by ASA are "aircraft related"(hot brakes, dodgy panel light etc). There have been some significant incidents internationally where the ARFFA service have been used in anger. Some very recently, BA flight caught fire on the runway, Airbus Caught fire in the runway, Air Asia Pacific 727 just the other day, and the great mayday at Heathrow with the double engine failure years back. The risk is there.
[QUOTE]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?/QUOTE]
Plenty actually
[QUOTE]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./QUOTE]
Ummm you sure? triage.....good, bad, pretty bad, de..? Save the saveable?
CASA have just completed (2 weeks ago i think) an extensive study on the MOS139H and are changing the a lot of the content and requirements. The requirement for an ARFF service is 350k pax movements in a 12 month period OR where an international flight is coming in, e.g. Norfolk Island. CASA are looking at dropping the pax threshold and introducing a more risk assessment approach which is exactly what should happen. Eg, Onslow airport in WA, gets 5-6 full, F100 movements a day and there is not a fire truck in site. In short, the FIFO market has changed the game.
Without going through every post, some people here need to learn to understand how a risk assessment works... what the likelihood of an incident these days? nah it may happen..... but if it does FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK its going to be pretty bad. The decision to install an ARFF station is not political at all and whoever thinks that needs their head read. Its based purely on risk. If people think its all political and ARFF stations are removed for being a waste of money and just relying on an urban pumper from the state fire services to come help you....? it will only happen once.
Last edited by red_dirt; 28th Feb 2016 at 09:54.
[I]ts required to have certain facilities in it one of which is a "watch room" operator that monitors and occurrence records, radio traffic, crash alarms, general phone calls.
The risk is there.
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?Plenty actually
Ummm you sure? triage.....good, bad, pretty bad, de..? Save the saveable?
CASA have just completed (2 weeks ago i think) an extensive study ...
it may happen..... but if it does FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK its going to be pretty bad.
And if a jet and a lightie collide 5nms away, they're all dead.
The decision to install an ARFF station is not political at all and whoever thinks that needs their head read.
Its based purely on risk.
It's about cost as well. That's why there isn't a fully equipped and staffed burns unit at the all the airports that have an RFFS.
If people think its all political and ARFF stations are removed for being a waste of money and just relying on an urban pumper from the state fire services to come help you....? it will only happen once.
Some of us take the quaint view that the allocation of finite resources to mitigate safety risks should be on the basis of the objective and comparative levels of those risks. There are far greater risks to jets operating into an aerodrome like Ballina than those that will be mitigated by an RFFS, and those greater risks could be mitigated at far less than the cost of an RFFS.
Dick has the crazy idea that maybe a practicable way to mitigate the far greater risks to jets operating into Ballina is to utilise the resources of the RFFS that is there anyway and, apparently, has the expertise to monitor and transmit on a radio, as well as make life and death triage decisions. Some of us consider this to be a perfectly obvious and reasonable option to consider.
And we know why it's "impossible".
Red Dirt,
With the very greatest of respect, what you say is far removed from the real world.
Just re-read my last post, I was there, personally, when the present nonsense was rammed through ---- were you?? Any semblance of risk analysis was very obvious by its total absence.
As has been demonstrated, time and again, CASA is incapable of rational risk analysis, and as Lead Balloon has put it so eloquently, CASA have no idea about distribution of finite resources to produce the best safety outcome for the available $$$.
As for union influenced rule making, it is all too pervasive in CASA. Again, if you want to believe otherwise, like believing in a flat earth, that is your right, but you're wrong.
Bloggs,
Same answer for you, believe what you want, by I was there, on the spot, at the time, were you?? Of course you were not, but never confuse yourself with facts, when your prejudices are made up!!
Tootle pip!!
With the very greatest of respect, what you say is far removed from the real world.
Just re-read my last post, I was there, personally, when the present nonsense was rammed through ---- were you?? Any semblance of risk analysis was very obvious by its total absence.
As has been demonstrated, time and again, CASA is incapable of rational risk analysis, and as Lead Balloon has put it so eloquently, CASA have no idea about distribution of finite resources to produce the best safety outcome for the available $$$.
As for union influenced rule making, it is all too pervasive in CASA. Again, if you want to believe otherwise, like believing in a flat earth, that is your right, but you're wrong.
Yep, CASA dreamt up a plan to provide jobs for retired ATCOs... at Ayers Rock. Good one.
Same answer for you, believe what you want, by I was there, on the spot, at the time, were you?? Of course you were not, but never confuse yourself with facts, when your prejudices are made up!!
Tootle pip!!
Dick has the crazy idea that maybe a practicable way to mitigate the far greater risks to jets operating into Ballina is to utilise the resources of the RFFS that is there anyway and, apparently, has the expertise to monitor and transmit on a radio, as well as make life and death triage decisions. Some of us consider this to be a perfectly obvious and reasonable option to consider.
You lost me at "CASA"
These folks are sounding more expert by the minute
Like what? I'm guessing your response will conveniently assume the aircraft will be located where the fire tenders can be driven and firies can access on foot?
Really. So if there's an accident in which people are burning, it's going to be pretty bad? I'll write that down
All cost benefit decisions are influenced by politics.
We know "the risk" is there. There are lots of other risks to operating in the vicinity of Ballina, which means an RFFS is a misallocation of finite risk mitigation resources.
That is patently untrue. If you believe that, you need your head read.
Thus demonstrating the decision is influenced by politics. QED.
As for union influenced rule making, it is all too pervasive in CASA
CASA is incapable of rational risk analysis
Gentlemen, you need to understand that there is no right or wrong answer in assessing risk because risk assessments are SUBJECTIVE so 4 people conduct a risk assessment will probably achieve 4 different results.
Last edited by red_dirt; 29th Feb 2016 at 02:52.