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 ...
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 -