21.03.2013 Views

Safety in the vicinity of non-towered aerodromes - Australian ...

Safety in the vicinity of non-towered aerodromes - Australian ...

Safety in the vicinity of non-towered aerodromes - Australian ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

In February 2002, a Cessna 172 Skyhawk aircraft and a TL St<strong>in</strong>g ultralight converged and<br />

collided at low altitude <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> vic<strong>in</strong>ity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> threshold <strong>of</strong> runway 24 right at Jandakot<br />

Aerodrome, WA. Both aircraft were attempt<strong>in</strong>g to land at <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> accident. The<br />

occupants <strong>of</strong> both aircraft were un<strong>in</strong>jured, but <strong>the</strong> TL St<strong>in</strong>g was substantially damaged and<br />

<strong>the</strong> Cessna susta<strong>in</strong>ed m<strong>in</strong>or damage.<br />

Jandakot Tower was active until a short time before <strong>the</strong> collision, and both aircraft had<br />

conducted <strong>the</strong>ir arrival to <strong>the</strong> aerodrome under General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures<br />

(GAAP). The GAAP control zone was deactivated at <strong>the</strong> scheduled time (1800 local time),<br />

and <strong>the</strong> aircraft were operat<strong>in</strong>g under MBZ procedures for <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al stages <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir flights.<br />

At <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> collision, a CA/GRS operator was provid<strong>in</strong>g operational <strong>in</strong>formation to<br />

pilots. Although <strong>the</strong> CA/GRS used <strong>the</strong> facilities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> control tower to provide this service,<br />

this did not <strong>in</strong>clude any function <strong>of</strong> air traffic control.<br />

The <strong>in</strong>vestigation by <strong>the</strong> ATSB determ<strong>in</strong>ed that <strong>the</strong> pilot <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Cessna had probably sighted<br />

<strong>the</strong> wrong aircraft to follow when provided with sequenc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>structions by <strong>the</strong> aerodrome<br />

controller. The pilot <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Cessna did not see <strong>the</strong> TL St<strong>in</strong>g dur<strong>in</strong>g his base and f<strong>in</strong>al<br />

approach. This task was made more difficult by a number <strong>of</strong> factors, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong><br />

contrast between <strong>the</strong> TL St<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>the</strong> background terra<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong> relative position between <strong>the</strong><br />

two aircraft dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al stages <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> approach, and possibly <strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> sun glare.<br />

This was compounded by <strong>the</strong> pilot's perception that <strong>the</strong> aircraft ahead had already landed. A<br />

short time after <strong>the</strong> collision, <strong>the</strong> aerodrome operator withdrew <strong>the</strong> CA/GRS service. The<br />

tower operator subsequently reviewed <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> air traffic services, and extended<br />

tower hours <strong>of</strong> operation.<br />

Source: ATSB, 2004<br />

- 55 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!