[Peetwo]

TICK TOCK goes the mystique of aviation safety playschool clock - 

A couple more for the mix...

Via the Oz:

---

Storms, parachuting blamed for mid-air near-miss



Thunderstorms, a parachuting competition and a breakdown in communication between air traffic controllers have been blamed for putting a Qantas and a Virgin Australia aircraft on a collision course west of Brisbane last year.

The final report on the incident by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, said the Qantas flight to Brisbane and Virgin Australia flight to Proserpine were on reciprocal tracks in the Amberley airspace when a loss of separation occurred between the two Boeing 737-800s.

The situation was partly attributed to the fact the Qantas aircraft was being controlled by the Royal Australian Air Force (military) ATC, and the Virgin plane was on a Brisbane (civil) frequency.

The report noted the two operated non-linked air traffic management systems which “did not share a common display”.

“The departing Virgin Australia aircraft from Brisbane entered Amberley airspace without a hand-off from Brisbane ATC and without instructions to the crew to change to the Amberley frequency,” the report said.

“This resulted in the aircraft monitoring an incorrect frequency on entry to Amberley airspace and Amberley ATC initially unable to communicate with the flight crew.”

A change of controller in Brisbane added another 17-seconds to the four-and-a-half minutes it took to resolve the “impending conflict” with the Amberley ATC initially contacting the wrong operator.



When communication was established, the aircraft was diverted away from the Qantas plane which is when the breakdown in horizontal and vertical separation occurred.

Instead of the minimum separation distance of 3 nautical miles horizontally and 1000 feet vertically, the 737s passed each other at 2.1 NM and 650 ft.

The report said the presence of “a rapidly moving weather front likely increased the workload for the Brisbane departures controller” in addition to the World Parachuting Championships which had upped aircraft co-ordination requirements.

ATSB director of transport safety Dr Stuart Godley said the investigation highlighted the importance of “clear communication and co-ordination between air traffic controllers, operating in different, yet immediately adjacent airspace”.

“It also highlights the need for a clear understanding of the responsibility for separation assurance especially when operating without a shared traffic picture,” Dr Godley said.

A number of measures had been introduced by Airservices Australia and the RAAF in response to the incident, including dedicated communication lines between Amberley ATC and Brisbane departures south.

The report also noted that “the relevant parties were working together to implement a solution to ensure separation assurance between Brisbane departing aircraft and Amberley traffic during weather diversions”.

Dr Godley added that the successful recovery of separation illustrated the effectiveness of the conflict resolution training received by air traffic controllers in loss of separation events.

Ref: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2018-070/

---

Hmm...anyone care to mention the OnePie white elephant in the room?? - Nah didn't think so...  


Ref: https://auntypru.com/not-only-captive-cu...loving-it/

Oh well my bets for the 25th running of the embuggerance cup are firming up...

Hint: 

#SBG 3/11/19: An Ode, to an Odious Commode.

 

St Commode strikes a low blow on CASA critics??



Ref: https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...5#pid10855

Plus via the UP:

Glenb - Legal update

---

Good morning folks.

I will get back on during the day or evening, and I must be somewhat careful.

Firms have been met with.
Some people of "note" who have been able to facilitate introductions to firms and personnel that I could not have achieved alone.
A substantive team has been decided.
Two meetings have been conducted.
An ENORMOUS body of well documented files by person and topic have been prepared submitted and reviewed two weeks ago to the legal firm
An initial review has been completed.
At this stage it is worth proceeding.
The firm contacted me yesterday, and generated the first invoice of $9990 was been given to me yesterday.
I attempted to transfer funds for that payment, last night but was limited by a $1000 limit.
The invoice will be paid in full today for Stage One.

For CASAs clarity. At this stage, I am reviewing my options. No legal action has formally commenced, therefore CASA should continue as normal at this stage. This is simply the process funded to see whether or not I have a valid basis for a claim.

Until that action is commenced, CASA are fully aware that my preference is a resolution through well intentioned face to face dialogue. Multiple formal requests have been made, and they have not been accepted by CASA.

If CASA force me to initiate a large law case, it will happen if CASA choose this as their most preferred option.

On receipt of the first transfer,which will be made today, the process will commence.

Regarding the Go Fund Me. This is for legal expenses only. It is not a case of "use some of the money for lawyers".

My living expenses are my responsibility, and as a family we will attend to those matters.

The generous donations made by supporters will be used for legal matters only.

Should I get this to the Courtroom as is my desire, it will clearly be seen, how may times I tried to avoid this path. It will be clearly evident that CASA forced me down this path.

Tragically, if CASA cannot apply the standards of governance and ethics that are expected of them, the irony is not lost on me that i have to actually initiate a large legal action to ensure that CASA does apply those standards that are imposed on them.

I might be the first person to take a safety regulator to court to make sure they actually do their job.

This entire process could have been avoided, had CASA followed their own Regulatory Philosophy and Administrative law.

There can be no doubt that CASA have already invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars into bringing me down.

Funds and peoples time that should have been directed to aviation safety has been redirected to crushing me.

Irrespective of the legal determination, a very public display of the culture of CASA is now clearly on record.

---

Para377 (Gobbledocks twin Kiwi Bro across the ditch -  ):

Is the timing right, finally??

---

Scomo, the Pentecostal speaker of tongues, recently announced his boning of some of the APS head piggies, rolling 18 departments into 14, sadly it would appear that once again CASA escapes the Grim Reapers sickle, an opportunity well missed. What is interesting is that Mike MrDak spent around 20 years as the head Secretary of Infrastructure, which had CASA in its portfolio. Smart bureaucrat, a survivor, but one that had no control over CASA in reality. He went across to Communications as Secretary and has fallen on his sword over the Robodebt disaster, amongst other things. So with the biggest changes to the APS since the 1980’s, maybe Glen’s timing is the gift we’ve all been hoping for?

Glen’s case at this point in time might be fortunate in some respect. This Government is certainly not very embracing of bad publicity or high level incompetence, so perhaps Glen’s actions are enough of a blowtorch application to force the CASA rocks in Canberra to be moved. The organisation needs a complete overhaul in its executive level, a change of direction, a change of department name, and the removal of the last Iron Ring members and their fledglings waiting in the wings.

All good viewing from the armchair....

---

GlenB:


A good question. Why do i continue to engage with CASA

---

I comprehend that there are individuals on these posts that have "industry leading knowledge" of the legal aspects of my case. The weighting of those contributions is acknowledged, appreciated, noted, and accepted. This thread is a very public record, and would be essential reading for anyone involved in my matter with similar levels of expertise. A valuable network has also been established. I also appreciate that such learned persons would look at thiks from a more prcatical and emotional standpoint than i.

The legal argument is only one aspect, and that will be played out i assume in a Court of Law. Recall that this matter commenced 6 months before i went public on PPRuNe, when i became convinced that i had no other option. What you have seen on here, is the mere tip of the iceberg, i can assure you. All will be revealed.

I have never blindsided CASA. I have forewarned them of my next course of action, confidentially on all occasions. They have made decisions, and effectively chosen the path of this journey. Multiple, well intentioned and fair options have been presented. The Board has had every opportunity to determine if ,in their opinion, the principles of good governance have been applied.

But this entire situation by its very nature has a bigger purpose. I will transfer those funds to the lawyer 15 minutes before the bank closes today, but that will officially be the end of any opportunity for well intentioned engagement. I will be seen to do everything i reasonably can to avoid that path, right up until the last minute. That opportunity finishers at Bankers hours today.

It will be disappointing. I have been in courts before and had some pretty big "issues" with Companies such as BDO (multinational), Toyota, Fairwork, and never had to use a lawyer.

The process is simple. You turn up. You turn up well intentioned. You tell the truth. A learned person makes a decision. You shouldn't need a lawyer.

You need a lawyer when you have concerns the other party will turn up, but may not be well intentioned, or may not tell the truth. I recognise I definitely need a lawyer!!!!!!

This argument must be played out in public because it is much bigger than Glen Buckley and affected parties getting fairly compensated.

CASA has chosen to make it a bigger argument, not me.

The truth is ( I hope this doesn't come out the wrong way, gulp)

If I was a Chinese Australian, an Indian Australian, a Philippine Australian, or any other newer Australian. If I was a female. I would have failed, and I still may. Unfortunately for CASA I was born here and from day one every Australian value has flowed through my blood. A small team of bullying men, isn't going to stop me.

Unlike any other Country in the world. I know that if I firmly dig my heals in for what is right, and stand by my ethics, act only in the truth, am well prepared, and steadfastly refuse to be bullied or intimidated by CASA, I will actually prevail, and I know it.

Its just unfortunate for CASA that they picked on me. There is no safety case. There was no accident, no plane slid off a runway or even dinged a wingtip. No rules were breached and still CASA remain unable to make a decision.

If this matter does not effect the required change in CASA the industry really is doomed, and sadly I will agree with Dick Smith on this matter.

It will effect change.

It may be that the law firm comes back and says. Glen. Your right. Those men ( and they are only men) aren't very pleasant, and they certainly pushed the boundaries but they gotcha.

In that case it will be over for me, but a very public record will be left. Eventually change must come. Lets just hope that it comes quick enough that all the well intentioned personnel within CASA can stick it out, and operate in the environment that they would prefer to operate in.

Assuming that i have to go to the bank late today, i suggest that Mr Graeme Crawford the Aviation Group Executive Manager who would be the accountable person i assume, would walk across to Dr Alecks office (Executive Manager of Legal and Regulatory Affairs) and say "Here, have your baby back".

Irrespective PPRuNe provides my one and only forum. I chose it, because it is appropriately discrete, as opposed to other social media options, i can get support via these pages and until you've walked in my shoes you wont appreciate how important that has been, and continues to be.

The legal argument is one argument, my challenge is to continue on here and not compromise that process. If anybody believes that any comment on here may compromise that process, i would appreciate them reaching out, and establishing contact.

Cheers. Glen.

Everyones involvement on these pages is important and appreciated.

Next...

Via the Oz:

---

 Regional runway confusing trainee pilots



A pilot training school has suggested special flashing lights may be needed at a regional NSW airport after the ninth case of “runway misidentification” in five years.

The two most recent incidents occurred on October 14 when student pilots doing solo flights lined up to land on the taxiway at Coffs Harbour instead of the runway as directed.

An Australian Transport Safety Bureau report noted the students had been made aware of the potential to misidentify the runway during a navigation exercise briefing immediately before the flights. “They were thoroughly briefed and provided with methods to confirm the correct runway, particularly when approaching from the north,” the report said.

Despite the detailed briefing, as the aircraft came closer to the airfield air traffic control was forced to intervene as the students aligned their final ­approach with the taxiway.

The ATSB report said a further seven similar incidents had taken place at Coffs Harbour airport in the past five years but no specific safety recommendations were made. All but one incident involved student pilots doing solo flights and on each occasion air traffic control stepped in to avoid a potential disaster.

Head of operations at Professional Pilot Training, Robert Loretan, said it was surprising such incidents could occur at the airfield, given there was a warning in Airservices Australia’s ­departure and approach procedures (DAP) chart.

“Anyone using proper procedures should not get into that situation,” said Mr Loretan, whose students were not among those involved in the misidentification incidents. “The only thing that could be done (to stop it) is approach lighting, or a flashing light to make it clear which is the runway and which is the taxiway, but that would be very ­expensive.”

The airport’s location “right on the coast” meant it was often used by people unfamiliar with Coffs Harbour, Mr Loretan said.

Coffs Harbour Aero Club spokesman Alan Kneale was surprised that “anyone could mistake the taxiway for the runway” because of the vegetation around it. “We’ve seen airlines line up on the taxiway and there is a warning on the documents that it can be mistaken,” he said. “When you get low visibility the problem gets worse.”

The ATSB said it would continue to monitor instances of runway misidentification at Coffs Harbour but the rate of ­occurrences and their “low consequence” had not triggered a transport safety investigation.

In an unrelated incident, the ATSB was investigating a near collision at Albury Airport involving a pilot academy aircraft and a Virgin Australia flight.

On October 19, the Virgin Australia ATR 72 was coming into land at Albury when a Piper PA-28 owned by the Australina Airline Pilot Academy turned into its path at about 1300 feet.

The traffic collision avoidance system activated in the Virgin plane, and the pilot conducted a missed approach to avoid a crash.

ATSB ref: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/occ...-2018-063/

---

As the DA 40 joined the final approach, the pilot advised ATC that they were on a 3 NM final, however the aircraft was unable to be sighted. ATC subsequently observed the DA 40 on final approach to taxiway E5. The controller advised the pilot that the aircraft appeared to be on final for taxiway E5, and that runway 21 location was to their left. The pilot turned left and reported runway 21 in sight. The aircraft landed without further incident.

Hmm...whatever happened to checking runway alignment with compass or DG heading? Oh well at least they weren't lining up on a coal loader - 



Ref: https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story...or-runway/ & https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking...-stuff-up/

TICK..TOCK indeed Mick Mack -

MTF...P2