What's happening at Ballina?
Thread Starter
If he is an ex fire fighter wouldn't he want to ensure maximum resources are allocated to prevent fatalities from fires in planes at airports?
Could this not mis allocate finite safety resources?
Could this not mis allocate finite safety resources?
------ he's a ex-firefighter
I rest my case, so were the ones who rammed through the present "rules".
He or she is no more likely than a pilot to be the person who is capable of the best risk analysis.
Indeed, as we continually see, pilots are often the very worst at assessing operational risk, continually demonstrating ( at a personal and organizational level) that they cannot separate real risk from perceived risk, or straight out prejudice, for that matter.
I have sat in a meeting where the representative of one of the two major pilot unions demanded rules changes to address "perceived" risk, even having admitted that it was perceived risk and could not be demonstrated (even a single case, let alone a systemic risk) as an actual risk.
By and large, CASA simply do NOT carry out credible and competent risk analysis, much less credible and competent cost/benefit justification. Although many do not accept it, the "safety" $$$ is finite, and our continual failure to use proper cost/benefit positive risk analysis ensures a less than "best" air safety outcome, it simply cannot be any other outcome.
Dick has take a lot of stick over the years for "Affordable Safety", but what we see in Australia is more akin to "Unaffordable Safety" , and it shows in the shrinking GA sector, and the lousy comparative air safety outcomes, versus the US.
Tootle pip!!
So red dirt
The person in CASA doing a review of ARFFS is an ARFF? I'm reminded of that saying about problems, hammers and nails.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by some of your responses, so I'll deal with the ones that I'm most confused about, one at a time.
In one of your earlier posts you said:
You then went on to say:
I interpreted your statement that "it will only happen once" to mean that after that one event, presumably involving an aircraft fire and charred bodies, the outcome would be to reinstate (or instal) and ARFFS.
If that's what you are suggesting, that outcome would not be a consequence of a proper risk analysis or allocation of finite resources to mitigating those risks. It would be a knee-jerk reaction fuelled by cognitive bias. In short, an outcome driven by politics.
Do you agree or disagree?
The person in CASA doing a review of ARFFS is an ARFF? I'm reminded of that saying about problems, hammers and nails.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by some of your responses, so I'll deal with the ones that I'm most confused about, one at a time.
In one of your earlier posts you said:
The decision to install an ARFF station is not political at all.
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.
If that's what you are suggesting, that outcome would not be a consequence of a proper risk analysis or allocation of finite resources to mitigating those risks. It would be a knee-jerk reaction fuelled by cognitive bias. In short, an outcome driven by politics.
Do you agree or disagree?
Dick,
Im not in the guys head but based on what I've head and read about him he wants to see a reform on how fire resources are distributed generally so things are going to change. When? well who knows at this stage,the government has never been quick in changing things.
Looking at this from a tactical level i get what you are all saying but from a strategic level what the report highlights is perfectly clear. Just because he an ex firefighter doesn't mean he is going to flood the country with shiny red/green trucks and it also doesn't mean he will close them all down... what it means is that we do not have a crusty old firefighter from back in the day with no concept of modern fire suppression techniques / strategies, we have a person who is up to date with the modern times taking a more objective or strategic look at the current system. My guess is some will go and some new stations will pop up.
Lead Balloon, yeah its a bit ambiguous i admit, my comment
is based on a fact of law. Like it or hate it its the law. I hate the fact that i can't run someone over who i don't like but its the law
Removing a airport fire station would be puelly based on the risk as perceived by the person delegated to determine the risk but under current legislation is based on a fact of law
Leadsled, yes i get that but they are the crusty old firefighters i referred to above. No concepts of the strategic or wholistic view on it and unfortunately those we the people who made the decision at the time.
yeah yeah yeah so you've said and trust me I'm no CASA advocate, but I'm sure there are things that they have implemented over the years which we all scoff at, but has made Australia one of or the safety aviation industry internationally.
I fully understand the affordable or acceptable safety and i agree with the concept and what a lot of people say, but we (the pilots) are a precious buns of people and can't have it both was
Im not in the guys head but based on what I've head and read about him he wants to see a reform on how fire resources are distributed generally so things are going to change. When? well who knows at this stage,the government has never been quick in changing things.
Looking at this from a tactical level i get what you are all saying but from a strategic level what the report highlights is perfectly clear. Just because he an ex firefighter doesn't mean he is going to flood the country with shiny red/green trucks and it also doesn't mean he will close them all down... what it means is that we do not have a crusty old firefighter from back in the day with no concept of modern fire suppression techniques / strategies, we have a person who is up to date with the modern times taking a more objective or strategic look at the current system. My guess is some will go and some new stations will pop up.
Lead Balloon, yeah its a bit ambiguous i admit, my comment
The decision to install an ARFF station is not political at all.
Removing a airport fire station would be puelly based on the risk as perceived by the person delegated to determine the risk but under current legislation is based on a fact of law
Red Dirt,
I rest my case, so were the ones who rammed through the present "rules"
I rest my case, so were the ones who rammed through the present "rules"
By and large, CASA simply do NOT carry out credible and competent risk analysis,
I fully understand the affordable or acceptable safety and i agree with the concept and what a lot of people say, but we (the pilots) are a precious buns of people and can't have it both was
So as a pilot with risk assessment experience, red, what do you reckon to be the more probable (least remote) risk:
1. You and all your pax burning to death in your jet on the runway at a non-towered airport without an ARFFS.
2. You and all your pax dying as a consequence of a mid air in the vicinity of a non-towered airport with an ARFFS.
1. You and all your pax burning to death in your jet on the runway at a non-towered airport without an ARFFS.
2. You and all your pax dying as a consequence of a mid air in the vicinity of a non-towered airport with an ARFFS.
Option 1 Based on historical data, is the more likely to happen out of those unlikely (but possible) scenarios
How many mid air accidents are there in the world each year.......... how many on or near airport fires are there each year
Sorry I edited but under the new proposed system, in my opinion, you'll see more stations getting built than getting closed because these little FIFO airports are pushing the friendship bit.
How many mid air accidents are there in the world each year.......... how many on or near airport fires are there each year
Sorry I edited but under the new proposed system, in my opinion, you'll see more stations getting built than getting closed because these little FIFO airports are pushing the friendship bit.
Last edited by red_dirt; 29th Feb 2016 at 04:36. Reason: Sorry had to make an addition
In that case, we'll have to disagree on that point.
(It would be great if all those ARFFS could be CAGROS too.)
(It would be great if all those ARFFS could be CAGROS too.)
As a matter of interest, how many data points in your historical data were accidents/incidents at aerodromes surrounded by airspace equivalent to Australia's Class G?
When you get to a real computer, it would be great to get some details of the those accidents/incidents. 
Hi Leadie,
Re "And where is that scene likely to be if a 737 went off the end of the runway at Broome?"
Which end do you wish to nominate?
Off the Western end towards Cable Beach, he would be ploughing thru a wire fence, then about 216 meters or so of Broome Savannah, (Lightly wooded trees n' grass), then into / out of the drainage ditches either side across Gubinge Road - if he made it that far - then another 318 meters or so of highly senstitive indigenous cultural land until the sandhills would finally bring the 'heaving beast' to a halt, presumeably in 'many pieces'....
Orf the other end would be 'quicker'...full on into the raised earth noise / jet blast mound at the 'Town End', and if the wreckage climbed that, then across the main road into town, and maybe into the tidal mangroves / swamp. Around 300m, probably coming to rest before getting into the 'Paspaley Plaza' but not guaranteed to do so....
Either way...OUCH!!
What would / could 'ANY' emergency services do?
Probably not a great deal, except for the airport appliances.
Pick up any survivors and not too much else, and put out the fires caused by the spilling fuel....
Ex BME CAGRO....
Re "And where is that scene likely to be if a 737 went off the end of the runway at Broome?"
Which end do you wish to nominate?
Off the Western end towards Cable Beach, he would be ploughing thru a wire fence, then about 216 meters or so of Broome Savannah, (Lightly wooded trees n' grass), then into / out of the drainage ditches either side across Gubinge Road - if he made it that far - then another 318 meters or so of highly senstitive indigenous cultural land until the sandhills would finally bring the 'heaving beast' to a halt, presumeably in 'many pieces'....
Orf the other end would be 'quicker'...full on into the raised earth noise / jet blast mound at the 'Town End', and if the wreckage climbed that, then across the main road into town, and maybe into the tidal mangroves / swamp. Around 300m, probably coming to rest before getting into the 'Paspaley Plaza' but not guaranteed to do so....
Either way...OUCH!!
What would / could 'ANY' emergency services do?
Probably not a great deal, except for the airport appliances.
Pick up any survivors and not too much else, and put out the fires caused by the spilling fuel....
Ex BME CAGRO....
Thanks EFG - It's great to actually engage in the gory details of what may actually happen in fact.
And I left the "what end" question open because the objectively obvious answer is: either. I anticipate that the firies would have a plan for both.
A 737 fuselage minus wings and undercarriage legs will slide a long way. The physicists can do the calcs on the various speeds at which the aircraft could go "off the end".
Depending on the speed it runs off, at the western end the aircraft is likely to end up in a place inaccessible by fire tenders. At the eastern end the aircraft is likely to end up in the Main Street. The firies would probably be able to do much more, once they made it there.
I realise this is not the only scenario to which an ARFF would respond. I am merely pointing out that the "running off the end of the runway at Broome" scenario that was raised by someone is probably not the strongest justification for an ARRF at Broome.
And I left the "what end" question open because the objectively obvious answer is: either. I anticipate that the firies would have a plan for both.
A 737 fuselage minus wings and undercarriage legs will slide a long way. The physicists can do the calcs on the various speeds at which the aircraft could go "off the end".
Depending on the speed it runs off, at the western end the aircraft is likely to end up in a place inaccessible by fire tenders. At the eastern end the aircraft is likely to end up in the Main Street. The firies would probably be able to do much more, once they made it there.
I realise this is not the only scenario to which an ARFF would respond. I am merely pointing out that the "running off the end of the runway at Broome" scenario that was raised by someone is probably not the strongest justification for an ARRF at Broome.
From a crash report....
"Two 16-year-old girls with Chinese passports were found dead outside the aircraft soon after the crash, having been thrown out of the aircraft during the accident.
One was accidentally run over by an airport crash tender after being covered in fire-fighting foam.
On July 19, 2013, the San Mateo County Coroner's office confirmed that the girl was still alive prior to being run over by a rescue vehicle, and was killed due to blunt force trauma.
On January 28, 2014, the San Francisco city attorney's office announced their conclusion that the girl was already dead when she was run over."
"Two 16-year-old girls with Chinese passports were found dead outside the aircraft soon after the crash, having been thrown out of the aircraft during the accident.
One was accidentally run over by an airport crash tender after being covered in fire-fighting foam.
On July 19, 2013, the San Mateo County Coroner's office confirmed that the girl was still alive prior to being run over by a rescue vehicle, and was killed due to blunt force trauma.
On January 28, 2014, the San Francisco city attorney's office announced their conclusion that the girl was already dead when she was run over."
Ah well,
Back to Ballina,
Orf the end of '06' at Ballina....a 'quick' slide across the 120m of smooth grass...right into 'North Creek', and a rapid deceleration in the 'drink'....(Your lifejackets are located under your seat, do not inflate until out of the aircraft exit...) Do they have bull sharks in North Creek? Do ya feel 'lucky'..??
Orf the other end, '24', a 'quick' slide across the grass, thru the fence, and across another grass paddock, (reasonably good so far...), and then into a swamp...OUCH!. (Do they have crocs at Ballina..??) Just Kidding!
It will never happen....
Cheers
p.s. Do the 'Firies' at YBNA have boats of any kind? North Creek is a 'definite' possibility....
Back to Ballina,
Orf the end of '06' at Ballina....a 'quick' slide across the 120m of smooth grass...right into 'North Creek', and a rapid deceleration in the 'drink'....(Your lifejackets are located under your seat, do not inflate until out of the aircraft exit...) Do they have bull sharks in North Creek? Do ya feel 'lucky'..??
Orf the other end, '24', a 'quick' slide across the grass, thru the fence, and across another grass paddock, (reasonably good so far...), and then into a swamp...OUCH!. (Do they have crocs at Ballina..??) Just Kidding!
It will never happen....
Cheers
p.s. Do the 'Firies' at YBNA have boats of any kind? North Creek is a 'definite' possibility....
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 1st Mar 2016 at 03:02.
Jetstar stuffed around this morning at Ballina, had to hold while a departing Jab got out of the way, no transponder and spasmodic radio use. Jetstar should send the Jab a bill
Last edited by megle2; 1st Mar 2016 at 04:19. Reason: Spelling
That's all well and good Megle but a transponder is not required and spasmodic radio use seems to be an affliction most of RAA and some of GA specialise in. Crappy radios too on the odd occasion.
Thankfully (I am guessing) there was a competent crew in the Jetstar ...
Thankfully (I am guessing) there was a competent crew in the Jetstar ...