Quote:“K”. “But the crowning glory of the whole gabfest, NX asks have you been knocked back by any safety agency? No purrs An(g)us, never; except to reiterate; they are just the poor servants within the great system, and must not ask questions: dictated to, policy ridden and at the mercy of the other tribes. Innocent screeched the virgin.”
Very crafty P2 – nice one. Nearly gave up - took me a while to nut it out, bit like the Times Cross-Word. Only all clicked when I read the Search for IP thread HERE. We seem to have a recurring problem with SHEED approaches into Melbourne. The USA 74 is a plausible report. I mean why should an internationally experienced crew even dream that in Australia – things are 'done' different; and, it was really all their fault for not reading the ‘fine-print’. This is not the first time an overseas crew has been caught behind by ‘misunderstanding’ what ATC say and mean is different in OZ. No problem, at least not until there is a repeat performance, of which we have several noted; some ‘investigated’ others not.
Then we have An(g)us who has never, not ever, had a knock-back from the agencies he claims dictate the terms of engagement. So we have a recurrent incident, potentially dangerous approach, which ASA know about – FFS Hoody reported one and others have done the same; did CASA say No to the proposed changes ASA suggested – No; did ATSB state that there was a problem – No; did ASA sort it out and gain a nod from the ‘grown-ups’, another resounding NO.
So, in short, we have a potentially dangerous approach, where local rules, terminology and techniques apply; about which no one has done sod all; except whine that it is someone else’s responsibility? "Move the waypoint" scream the masses; "can't" says Angus, "moving the bloody strobes costs a mint and we have to deal with councils and tenants and other such riff-raff: nah, we'll take a punt."
Ye gods – what the hell are we paying for, words, excuses or a safety service?
Pass the parcel for all in our ‘safe’ skies. UFB.