flying dog Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Riddle me this: You are a pilot. You come to Oz for a holiday and get checked out. You are ok. You get or buy the current charts and go flying. You are flying north from Sydney towards Maitland. You have problems and think it is wise to set down. You have JUST passed warnervale but looking on the chart you see Cooranbong. Airport symbol on the chart and you see the runways - just off the nose. PERFECT - if you want to call it that. You broadcast the mayday - you have enough time - and commit to land there. The runway sticks out like.... well you know what. Oh *&^%! It is closed - and there are things across the runway obstructing a clean landing. Who is at fault? I'll leave it there to invite discussion as it is a REAL problem. Old airports ARE still on charts when/after they have been closed. :bad computer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 If they are on the current chart, then they are closed by Notam. If you don't have a current chart and/or haven't checked Notams for all possible alternatives for your planned flight, epic fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Who is at fault? The answer is in the clue you gave at the beginning. You in fact are "THE" pilot and you put the plane where it is, So YOU are at fault. No If's or Buts. In Greece you go straight to Gaol. You would find some notam you should have read or amendment you should have done. IF you had a good lawyer. ( I'm told that is an oxymoron) and you could prove negligence by some authority in not making information available or carrying out unauthorised works. Thereby PROVING yourself innocent you might be alright. This would require resources on your part. Justice is for the ones who can afford it. (sometimes)......Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thx1137 Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Interesting question, though, are you tring to scare us out of the air or what! If it were to go to court the first thing that jumped in my head was a prosicutor saying. "Pilots are expected to plan for emergencies, did you familiarise yourself with the airfields along your flight path? If not, why not?" We all know that there has got to be someone that is clearly to blame and whether it is justified or not I think the pilot is the easiest target. I reckon the pilot would get done with possibly some penalty mitigation based on "contributing factors" as NTSB/ATSB like to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Targets. The Pilot IS an easy target.I an not trying to scare anybody, but we should live in the world of reality as it is and not the way we would hope it to work out. I have had the honour and duty to defend a few of them over the years against CASA or whatever it used to be called, at inquiries. I have also had a few friends who have worked for CASA and have filled me in with a lot of information that is not generally available, on cases of interest. AOPA is involved often and that is one of their functions to try to get justice for pilots.. CASA can and does, employ lawyers at public expense, and You would not stand a chance if you were not legally represented. Some of these cases bankrupt individuals and put some organisations out of business. Some of the cases may be serious and worthy of investigation, but the approach is not uniform. Glaring examples of improper and illegal practices are let go and some minor breaches are proscecuted vigorously. There is great inconsistency. The "charter" under which CASA operates is not the same as USA. There is no function of "aiding" aviation. I could substitute "facilitate".. Herein lies the problem.. The Rules are put out for sure, but who knows how to interpret all of them? An enforcement process is in place but is it fair and the best structure to achieve compliance? Nev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying dog Posted December 21, 2009 Author Share Posted December 21, 2009 Wow, you lot love this one. Let's back up a second. The pilot has not "familiraised himself with the airports en-route" in the PERFECT way. He has never flown there before. He is passing through. He has the valid charts and has drawn all the required lines on said charts. He has done all the fuel calcs. He has crossed every T and dotted every I he can find. While flying the plane develops engine problems - it happens. Looking at the chart he is near an airport clearly shown on there. Beauty. But when he gets to base he notices the runway is been decomissioned. Getting notams for the airport wasn't a priority as he wasn't intending to land there and really doesn't know the name. It is simply marked on the chart. Facthunter... Find me a notam which tells me Coorangong (how ever you spell it) is closed. It is on the Newcastle VTC. Just north west of Warnervale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Well i don't really see any problem here. If it has come to the stage of having to transmitt a Mayday call and you have to put it down then a closed airfield is still a better option than a paddock or the freeway. regardless of whether or not you are famililar with the area or if you have read the notams. just because the strip has a cross on it does not mean that it can't be used if you have a dead set emergency. I notice that even tho Hoxton has the strip ripped up and a cross on it there is still plenty of room beside it to land if you really need to. pilot talking to home owner. 'sorry mate i had to prang on your house cause if i attempted a landing on the closed strip next to your house. i would get thrown in jail'. Go the closed strip. Who is to blame? Probably Meriton developments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Cooranbong. Yeah... I used to do joyflights out of there about 1964. It is not my job to find the notam . You are only confirming the point I am trying to make. It will be mentioned SOMEWHERE for sure. Look, if you have to do a landing because of a malfunction/ weather then do it. IF the weather has gone sour and you cannot turn back you play with the cards you have been dealt, or you have dealt yourself.. You can make a lot of "what-ifs" and the first thing is to survive when it happens and live to fight another day. IF the only thing is a runway like Hoxton Park you decision is to land there or somewhere else. The situation is that you don't have to plan to fly from one suitable forced landing field to another, as you sort of have to do when flying over water. If you can then that is an advantage, but how often does it happen. Earlier with RAAus the general view was don't fly over what you can't land on. I still try to apply that principle and when it is not available I try to reduce the number of minutes that I am over "tiger" country. and fly a bit higher. keep the odds in your favour as much as possible. Nev.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 The vandals have carved regular trenches across both strips Ozzie. Just to make sure people don't foul their pristine development opportunity I presume. There is no Notam for Cooranbong, so if it is still on the current VTC then someone should get a rocket. I found a very interesting history of Cooranbong airfield inside the Heritage Impact Assessment report commissioned for the rezoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thx1137 Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I read a bit more into the question than was asked in that I was thinking there might be aircraft damage and possibly injury. If the aircraft landed without damage at the closed airfield then I wouldn't think there would be much of a problem but if there were injury, especially to a passenger I think it might be a bit different... These days someone has got to pay. How many times do we here of some incident or accident where no one was at fault, it was just bad luck, not often! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirius Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Unlicenced airports seldom have NOTAMS, however old airports are like mountains and dams. they are simply a geological feature on a map. In a legal sense, a prang there would be treated the same as a forced landing in a paddock by the insurance company. It's up to you how the end turns out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Current VTC. What you say is true. It is just a paddock that used to be an airport. Is the Cooranbong airport shown on the current VTC? Nev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Duty of Care. That puts a whole new complexion on it. How do you make the people responsible RESPONSIBLE. When a council does roadworks and doesn't post signage, don't they get sued? Isn't it a straight out duty-of care. It's a SET-UP for disaster. I know that WAC charts are used over a long period and may lack amendment, but VTC's are a different matter. Surely this is one for AOPA. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeK Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Even if it doesn't have NOTAMS because it's an ALA, if it's on the current VTC's then its closure should be noted in the AIC/SUPs - and it's not ..... So - is it closed? And if not, what of the "vandals" who trenched it? And if it is, then what's AsA doing about updating its charts? I seem to recall the minutes of one of CASA's consultative committees noting some time ago that many charts were well out of date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I don't get it??.. The original post said you are declaring a mayday, so its obviously more then a "problem" . As others have said, even a dissused strip is better then a paddock or the f3. I don't know if this helps, but our strip is NOT on the VTC or WAC, and has been used by various operators including the army since the mid 60's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazda Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Of course the pilot is to blame. Pilots are responsible to ensure the safety of the flight, through prefight planning and in flight decision making. If the pilot had consulted the NSW Country Airstrip Guide they would see Cooranbong listed under closed airfields. If the situation you refer to was a precautionary search, surely they would see the strip was not the best place and perhaps divert to somewhere like Warnervale, or determine if it was possible to land there. (Is it possible to land on the taxiway? It is at Hoxton.) If it really was a forced landing, knowing the strip was there could really help if that is the only place to go. Hoxton was removed in the next charting so I don't know why it is inconsistent, that could be an issue. Why not phone Airservices? I do think it is terrible that "closed" strips are torn up so quickly then left to rot with no development. You would think the developers would at least leave them as emergency strips, but of course they don't. A point of interest, at the end of WWII there were ...... airfields in the UK. Anyone want to guess? About how many are left? It's an ongoing battle. Residents constantly complain about traffic from airports, or in relation to low flying aircraft - even if the airport has been there for decades. They get cheap real estate due to noise, then campaign like crazy to close it down. All we can do is to try to engender the spirit of aviation. Take them for a fly. Try to fly neighbourly where possible. It worked at Temora! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossie Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Aint these "what if's" great conversation pieces............. Surely most here would know what "Not certified or registered" means, yeah...... To think AsA has any kind of responsibility over their suitability/status is dreamland stuff. That responsibility lies solely with the PIC. You guys do practice PSL's, yes....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracktop Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 OK not really answering the question BUT knowledge worth knowing if you are flying in the area. On the newest Newcastle VNC the UL symbol has now gone from Cooranbong area ( if that was the airfield indication). I think the blocks have been there a long time (>> 12 months so that's at least 2 map updates isn't it?) To my knowledge, unless changed very recently, it's not ditches across the runways but rows of 1 to 2 tonne concrete blocks about every 50m up the strips Look on Google earth you can clearly see them. Wouldn't want to run into them - talk about a brick wall! Cannot remember seeing closed crosses at each end but they may be there Local gossip says the blocks were put there to stop the local car hoons from drag racing - fear of being sued after the ineveratible accident. Risk assessment - higher risk of car crash death than plane crash death = trash strip Having said that in an emergency I reckon there could be a wide enough flat dirt area beside the blocks to put down without too much damage, certainly would need to be a real emergency and pick the correct side, and pray. Or look for somewhere nearby that may be more suitable for an emergency landing ;) I believe choppers are still landing at the north end on the tar. Training maybe? Shame to see a black multi strip field in such good condition, in the middle of tigerish country close for the sake of development. Maybe missionaries don't need to learn to fly anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I agree with my old skydiving mate Ozzie, It is an emergency, and you as PIC selected it as a suitable spot for a precautionary landing. It's really a case of shoot first, ask questions later. If the outcome is all positive, it'll be hard for anyone to kick you in the arXX for your command decision........but CASA will probabily try........sure beats the freeway IMOP.................................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracktop Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 ......sure beats the freeway IMOP.................................. Knowing whats been done there, I don't know that it would beat the F3, except peak hour maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeK Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 To think AsA has any kind of responsibility over their suitability/status is dreamland stuff. But they (or CASA?) absolutely do have a responsibility to keep VNC's up to date, that's why they routinely publish amendments in the AIC/SUP. Except some things fall between the cracks ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying dog Posted December 21, 2009 Author Share Posted December 21, 2009 Quick side note: Gee Mazda, you have a long drive when you want to go flying. Brisbane to Camden. Wow! Ok, well I am glad that it got people thinking. Yes I did say you broadcast a Mayday. Wouldn't you if you got engine stuttering/problems that continued? Yes, it is correct that you would do a precautionary orbit first then commit to land. So my original scenario was incorrect - but only to the point of getting people to discuss the topic. Not the specifics. Anyway, I'll read the last page and then move on. Bye for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pudestcon Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Quick side note:Gee Mazda, you have a long drive when you want to go flying. Brisbane to Camden. Wow! Ok, well I am glad that it got people thinking. Yes I did say you broadcast a Mayday. Wouldn't you if you got engine stuttering/problems that continued? Yes, it is correct that you would do a precautionary orbit first then commit to land. So my original scenario was incorrect - but only to the point of getting people to discuss the topic. Not the specifics. Anyway, I'll read the last page and then move on. Bye for now. G'day Flying Dog, My understanding (probably wrong:ah_oh:) is that 'Mayday, mayday, mayday' is used when you are in deep sh!!e. I would think if you still have power to do a precautionary search then maybe a 'Pan, pan' call would be the go. Any thoughts on this? Cheers, Pud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Pan Call. I go along with that. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David F Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Cooranbong Airfield Yes you should check the status of all the airfields en route.However the money hungry B******ds that own the strip did not need to put tank traps along both runways and even the taxiways.Its been closed three years now and they have done nothing got caught out by the GFC and falling land values.They could put a housing estate anywhere but no they had to close the airfield (sore point I live 1 k from it) Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now