What happened
On 22 April 2016, at about 1440 Eastern Standard Time (EST), an instructor and student were conducting circuit training in a Robinson R22 helicopter, registered VH-JKH (JKH), at Ballina Byron Gateway Airport, New South Wales. The helicopter was positioned about two thirds of the way down runway 06 (Figure 1) when the crew broadcast on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) that they were rolling for take-off on runway 06.
Very soon after that broadcast, the pilot of another helicopter operating at the aerodrome alerted the crew of JKH that there was an aircraft rolling for take‑off on runway 06 behind them, and suggested that JKH expedite clearing the runway.
A Cessna 182 aeroplane, registered VH-YKM (YKM), had entered the runway at the intersection of taxiway A (Figure 1), and was taking‑off on runway 06, towards the helicopter (which was still on the runway). The instructor in JKH took control of the helicopter from the student, rejected the take-off and vacated the runway to the northern grass, as the aircraft continued its take‑off run.
Although the pilot of YKM was unaware at the time, their broadcasts on the CTAF prior to commencing take‑off had not been successfully transmitted. As the aeroplane climbed through about 400 ft above ground level, the pilot sighted the helicopter (JKH) to their left over the grass.
The pilot of YKM later found that although the aircraft radio was on, and was set to the CTAF, the radio microphone was not fully plugged in. In this condition, none of their broadcasts on the CTAF had been successfully transmitted.[1] The pilot of YKM had not heard any broadcast from JKH and did not see the helicopter on the runway, despite checking to see that the runway was clear before entering.
Figure 1: Ballina Byron Gateway Airport diagram
Source: Airservices Australia – annotations by the ATSB
Operator comment
The operator of JKH commented that after the event, they checked from the position on the taxiway where YKM entered the runway to verify if they could see where the helicopter would have been. They established that they could – but advised that this needs to take into consideration that they knew what they were looking for.
ATSB comment
The pilot of the helicopter who alerted the crew of JKH to the aircraft rolling for take-off on runway 06 is commended for their situational awareness, and speaking up when the potential for a collision became apparent. That pilot may have played an important role in averting a more serious occurrence.
Safety message
Pilots are encouraged to check the performance of radio communications systems as part of their pre-flight procedures. Aerodrome frequency response units at non-towered aerodromes allow pilots to confirm that they have the correct frequency selected, and that their radio communications system is transmitting. Nonetheless, as this incident highlights, an AFRU does not necessarily provide an indication to a pilot that their transmissions are inaudible or otherwise ineffective. Additionally, this incident highlights the importance of a thorough lookout prior to entering a runway. Not hearing any broadcasts on the CTAF does not necessarily mean that other aircraft are not operating in the area.
Most occurrences reported to the ATSB at non-towered aerodromes involve conflicts between aircraft, or between aircraft and ground vehicles. In particular, active runways should be approached with caution. The ATSB publication A pilot’s guide to staying safe in the vicinity of non-towered aerodromes, stated that a large number of the conflicts between aircraft involved:
- ineffective communication between pilots operating in close proximity
- the incorrect assessment of other aircraft’s positions and intentions
- relying on the radio as a substitute for an effective visual lookout
- failure to follow published procedures.
Aviation Short Investigations Bulletin - Issue 51
Purpose of safety investigationsThe objective of a safety investigation is to enhance transport safety. This is done through:
It is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame or provide a means for determining liability. At the same time, an investigation report must include factual material of sufficient weight to support the analysis and findings. At all times the ATSB endeavours to balance the use of material that could imply adverse comment with the need to properly explain what happened, and why, in a fair and unbiased manner. The ATSB does not investigate for the purpose of taking administrative, regulatory or criminal action. TerminologyAn explanation of terminology used in ATSB investigation reports is available here. This includes terms such as occurrence, contributing factor, other factor that increased risk, and safety issue. Publishing informationReleased in accordance with section 25 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 Published by: Australian Transport Safety Bureau © Commonwealth of Australia 2016
Ownership of intellectual property rights in this publication Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this report publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. Creative Commons licence With the exception of the Coat of Arms, ATSB logo, and photos and graphics in which a third party holds copyright, this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided that you attribute the work. The ATSB’s preference is that you attribute this publication (and any material sourced from it) using the following wording: Source: Australian Transport Safety Bureau Copyright in material obtained from other agencies, private individuals or organisations, belongs to those agencies, individuals or organisations. Where you wish to use their material, you will need to contact them directly. |
__________
- An ATSB review of CTAF recording suggested that there was a number of attempted transmissions around six minutes prior to the incident. These transmissions were little more than a momentary carrier wave or microphone ‘click’, and they were followed by a ‘beep-back’ response from the aerodrome frequency response unit (AFRU). The ATSB could not ascertain if those transmissions were attempts by the pilot of YKM to broadcast on the CTAF.