Can't we do better than this?
It’s a typical example of how quickly a dynamic situation can develop into a potential incident. It also highlights the flaws in the system, where a crew is ‘busy’ with pre departure checks and briefing, negotiating a clearance on a busy frequency; a short taxi out to either block the holding point or runway and multiple aircraft inbound, one of two pilots dealing with RT and little else. Another small, ignored point is the ‘ownership’ of the runway, in terms of priority. The Airbus had ‘sorted’ some rough separation based on estimated times, position and altitude; got moving, then propped on the runway (resolution equation changed). In a dynamic situation, where things are changing any alteration to intentions, as announced, creates potential for conflict. TCAS and CTAF are a great asset and although the delay did cause some inconvenience and colourful language the crews did manage to resolve the situation – on the run.
Where there are more than two aircraft in conflict the risk factor increases exponentially, three is difficult, four is border line high risk, add a little bad weather a couple of missed radio calls and it’s fairly easy to see why provision of positive separation to low level traffic is a desirable service. Unicom is useless in this situation; in potential ‘hot spots’ like the Ballina/ Casio/ Lismore junction I believe ASA should provide a positive separation service to RPT and ‘heavy’ traffic, it would cost little and we pay a good plenty for safe service. As long as the legal onus for separation rests with the flight crew, nothing will change. Passenger safety is a joint effort ASA, ATSB and CASA should be analysing the situation to determine what they can do to provide an increased level of protection; for the public, not their own rice bowls.
More - HERE -
Toot toot.
It’s a typical example of how quickly a dynamic situation can develop into a potential incident. It also highlights the flaws in the system, where a crew is ‘busy’ with pre departure checks and briefing, negotiating a clearance on a busy frequency; a short taxi out to either block the holding point or runway and multiple aircraft inbound, one of two pilots dealing with RT and little else. Another small, ignored point is the ‘ownership’ of the runway, in terms of priority. The Airbus had ‘sorted’ some rough separation based on estimated times, position and altitude; got moving, then propped on the runway (resolution equation changed). In a dynamic situation, where things are changing any alteration to intentions, as announced, creates potential for conflict. TCAS and CTAF are a great asset and although the delay did cause some inconvenience and colourful language the crews did manage to resolve the situation – on the run.
Where there are more than two aircraft in conflict the risk factor increases exponentially, three is difficult, four is border line high risk, add a little bad weather a couple of missed radio calls and it’s fairly easy to see why provision of positive separation to low level traffic is a desirable service. Unicom is useless in this situation; in potential ‘hot spots’ like the Ballina/ Casio/ Lismore junction I believe ASA should provide a positive separation service to RPT and ‘heavy’ traffic, it would cost little and we pay a good plenty for safe service. As long as the legal onus for separation rests with the flight crew, nothing will change. Passenger safety is a joint effort ASA, ATSB and CASA should be analysing the situation to determine what they can do to provide an increased level of protection; for the public, not their own rice bowls.
More - HERE -
Toot toot.