Ozkosh at Narromine

[DWF]

Monitor the appropriate Area frequency unless you are within 10nm of an aerodrome marked on the charts.

 

If you are within 10nm of an aerodrome marked on the charts use the published CTAF for the aerodrome.

 

If there is no other published CTAF for the aerodrome use the Multicom/CTAF frequency 126.7

 

 

[M61A1]

At least you tried, but there's no fix except RAA bringing the radio culture up to standard; it's stressful trying to make a critical turn point call right up to and through the actual turn becaise there are no gaps. At 400 movements for the day there should have been plenty of gaps.

Except that most of those movements are happening inside a short timeframe, not over the whole day.

Personally, I think that the radio culture is over done in RAA. Meaning that it seems that a lot of people are taught to broadcast everything they do, rather than what is necessary for safety. The usual safety type concept of "if a little bit is good, then more must be better".

 

Soon pilots will be broadcasting when they are leaving the house to go to the airfield, along with every turn on the way.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Except that most of those movements are happening inside a short timeframe, not over the whole day.Personally, I think that the radio culture is over done in RAA. Meaning that it seems that a lot of people are taught to broadcast everything they do, rather than what is necessary for safety. The usual safety type concept of "if a little bit is good, then more must be better".

Soon pilots will be broadcasting when they are leaving the house to go to the airfield, along with every turn on the way.

Yes, the culture is very embarrassing when you hear it around major airports; and the culture needs to be brought up to standard before it causes an accident.

We've just had a good example of people saying too much at Narromine.

 

There are standard phrases and locations, forged in blood from the WW2 days, which optimise the communication/clear air mix, and they are the ones that should be learnt.

 

What amuses me is the number of people who have to use YMMZ, YBSO instead of typing the towns (away from flight planning documents), but insist on "What's the traffic like mate?" in the air.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Simple the goose in the twin should have exercised patience and the controller or other aircraft should have all asked him to do so. If it was unsafe for him to join the circuit then it was also unsafe for him to do a straight in unless he had fuel exhaustion imminent in which case he should of stated so.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Except that most of those movements are happening inside a short timeframe, not over the whole day.Personally, I think that the radio culture is over done in RAA. Meaning that it seems that a lot of people are taught to broadcast everything they do, rather than what is necessary for safety. The usual safety type concept of "if a little bit is good, then more must be better".

Soon pilots will be broadcasting when they are leaving the house to go to the airfield, along with every turn on the way.

From my experience, this is not what is taught by RAA instructors. I believe it is what pilots do who rarely use their radio and are unsure of their calls, so they over compensate. The answer? Practice, practice. practice and if in doubt, consult an instructor. Instructors are not bogey men waiting to catch you out and criticise you. They are a valuable reference source and if you treat them like that most will respond very positively.

 

 

[facthunter]

What is needed is about every 2-3 years someone in an appropriate position puts out an authoritive statement of just how do make radio calls so there is no doubt about what is a reasonable way to approach the matter of making radio calls to maximum effect not just to meet some requirement. Nev

 

 

[derekliston]

I was monitoring an air band receiver all weekend and whilst busy, it did not seem to me that there was not room for other aircraft to transmit. What did strike me however was how bad some of the radios were. I have to admire the Unicom operator who seemed to understand no matter how poor the transmission quality. I do agree with Kenny and Hans about the aero-commander twin which did the straight in approach. I feel that was a mistake at a fly-in although it was, I believe perfectly legal and whilst there was a Unicom operator it is not a controlled airfield and the operator could not instruct the pilot to fly a circuit although he probably should have 'recommended' it. All in all I felt the pilots behaved well and politely and I hope it will happen again next year.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I was monitoring an air band receiver all weekend and whilst busy, it did not seem to me that there was not room for other aircraft to transmit. What did strike me however was how bad some of the radios were. I have to admire the Unicom operator who seemed to understand no matter how poor the transmission quality. I do agree with Kenny and Hans about the aero-commander twin which did the straight in approach. I feel that was a mistake at a fly-in although it was, I believe perfectly legal and whilst there was a Unicom operator it is not a controlled airfield and the operator could not instruct the pilot to fly a circuit although he probably should have 'recommended' it. All in all I felt the pilots behaved well and politely and I hope it will happen again next year.

The straight in approach may have been perfectly legal, but only until he failed to give way to the traffic on base.

 

 

[derekliston]

The straight in approach may have been perfectly legal, but only until he failed to give way to the traffic on base.

Can't argue with that!

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I too was there and enjoyed myself thoroughly , a great event , great atmosphere , and great fellow aviators, however I must mention an incident that happened on arrival around Friday lunchtime. I was traveling with a friend ( I am saying this constructively and by no means making a complaint about any of the hard working and generous volunteers that gave their time up to make Naromine the success that it was) Anyway getting back to the incident.On aproach and about six or seven miles north of the field, with about seven or eight planes inbound at that time there was a call to Naromine requesting a straight in aproach for 29 , I had guesed that it was a fast plane from his distance out and his arrival time however I can't remember what the responder said in return as it was not all that clear , anyway we and the plane that had asked for the straight approach were all five minutes from the circuit.

 

On arrival at the circuit and just about to join cross wind the other plane called again asking if he was okay to come straight in and once again I did not understand the call from the field except that it was positive, the pilot then did an inbound call saying he was two miles out , not two mile final

 

Just after turning downwind we ie. my friend in front and me behind were requested to do a wide base, now I must tell you at this time that my friend who came to Australia quite some time ago from Europe who both speaks and understands english very well was struggling to decipher the unclear calls plus as you well know the amount of radio traffic from arrivals was incredible . Whilst looking downwind I could see the approaching twin on long final just as my friend with his eyes now on the freshold turned base , after some more radio chatter he was asked to go round by the chap on the ground which he did , incident over.

 

Now what are your thoughts on this , I belive the volunteers on the ground worked their guts out and were under tremendous pressure on the day however perhaps they might need to be much better briefed and trained before the event to be more authoritive with unwise requests.

 

Do you think as I do that perhaps there should be some rules put in place for these big high traffic events such as not allowing time consuming straight in approaches also we as pilots need to be aware that in these high traffic situations that we might think outside the box and think of the other seven or eight pilots in close proximity who will be as nervous as hell about approaching what could be their first circuit into a big event such as Naromine

There seems to be a bit of confusion about straight-in approaches. It's stated in the Visual Flight Rules Guide that SIAs aren't recommended but they're legal because they're conditionally provided for by CAR166B.

 

The complete VFRG text for correctly making SIAs is pasted below -

 

Straight-in approaches – Straight-in approaches are not a recommended standard procedure; however, CAR 166B allows pilots to make straight-in approaches providing they meet certain conditions:

 

 

• pilots who choose to adopt a straight-in approach should only do so when it does not disrupt or conflict with the flow of circuit traffic
   
   
  
• on a straight-in approach, the pilot must give way to any other aircraft established and flying in the circuit pattern at the aerodrome (pilots on the base leg and before entering the final leg should be vigilant that no traffic is on long final for landing)
   
   
  
• before making a straight-in approach, pilots must determine the wind direction and speed and the runway in use at the aerodrome. There are several ways to do this:
   
   
  automatic weather station (AWS), aerodrome weather information service (AWIS), automatic aerodrome information service (AAIS), CA/ GRS or UNICOM
   
   
  
• radio contact with a ground-based radio communication service, company agent, approved observer [CAR 120], or aircraft currently operating at the aerodrome or
   
   
  
• visual indications if the information cannot be determined by the above means.
   
   
  

 

 

[*]pilots must assure themselves, by other means, of the aerodrome’s serviceability and other hazards which are usually indicated by markings adjacent to the wind indicator

 

[*]on a straight-in approach, the aircraft must be established on final at not less than 3 nm from the landing runway’s threshold. Pilots should include their intention to conduct a straight-in approach with their inbound broadcast. Also make a further broadcast of intentions when not less than 3 nm from the runway threshold.

 

Pilots making a straight-in approach should observe the following:

 

 

• do not commence a straight-in approach to a runway when the reciprocal runway is being used by aircraft already established in the circuit
   
   
  
• only minor corrections to speed and flight path, to maintain a stable approach, should be required within 3 nm on final. The aircraft’s transponder should be squawking Mode C or ALT. The aircraft’s external lights should be illuminated and remain on until the aircraft has landed and is clear of all runways
   
   
  
• an aircraft established on the base or final leg for any runway has priority over an aircraft carrying out a straight-in approach.
   
   
  

 

 

The twin-engined pilot at Narromine did not properly meet the criteria for an SIA because he shouldn't have asked anybody if he could do so, instead he should have broadcast while inbound that he was intending to do so and then determine wind direction, service runway and that there was no other traffic established on BASE or FINAL (see the last line of the quote in red above). Before three miles out he should have then broadcast that he was "established on SIA for runway XY". At that point he would then gain priority over all other traffic in the circuit (given that there wasn't any traffic already on base or final) i.e. any traffic that might be in the circuit would be on the crosswind or downwind legs, and they would have to extend their downwind leg to accommodate the twin.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

What is needed is about every 2-3 years someone in an appropriate position puts out an authoritative statement of just how do make radio calls so there is no doubt about what is a reasonable way to approach the matter of making radio calls to maximum effect not just to meet some requirement. Nev

They do, it's in the Visual Flight Rules Guide ... Radio Telephony Procedures starts on this page.

 

 

[facthunter]

That's not in a form I would think will do the job I would like to see done. Nev

 

 

[DrZoos]

CAAP 166-1(3)

 

6.7 Straight-in approaches

 

6.7.1 Straight-in approaches are not a recommended standard procedure. However, Regulation 166B of CAR does not preclude pilots from conducting straight-in approaches provided certain conditions are met. Pilots who choose to adopt a straight-in approach should only do so when it does not disrupt, or conflict with, the flow of circuit traffic. Paragraph 166 (2) (b) of CAR requires a pilot conducting a straight-in approach to give way to any other aircraft established and flying in the circuit pattern. Nonetheless, pilots conforming to the circuit pattern – particularly on the base leg – should continue to check for traffic entering along the final approach path.

 

6.7.2 Paragraph 166 (2) (b) of CAR requires pilots to determine the wind velocity and the runway in use before conducting a straight-in approach. There are several ways to determine the wind direction, speed and runway in use:  contact with one of the following: º Automatic Weather Station. º Aerodrome Weather Information Service. º Automatic Aerodrome Information Service.  radio contact with an: º Aerodrome Flight Information Service. º ground-based radio communication service (CA/GRS, UNICOM). º company agent. º approved observer (as defined in Regulation 120 of CAR). º aircraft currently operating at the aerodrome.  visual indications, if the information cannot be determined by one of the above means. CAAP 166-1(3): Operations in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes 18 August 2014

 

6.7.3 Pilots must also assure themselves, by other means, of the aerodrome’s serviceability and other hazards which are usually indicated by markings adjacent to the wind indicator.

 

6.7.4 When conducting a straight-in approach, the aircraft must be established on final approach at not less than 3 NM from the landing runway threshold (Paragraph 166B (2) © of CAR).

 

6.7.5 Pilots should announce their intention to conduct a straight-in approach with their inbound broadcast. A further broadcast of intentions should also be made when not less than 3 NM from the runway threshold.

 

6.7.6 In addition, pilots conducting a straight-in approach should observe the following:  Pilots should not commence a straight-in approach to a runway when the reciprocal runway is being used by aircraft already established in the circuit.  Only minor corrections to speed and flight path, to maintain a stable approach, should be required within 3 NM on final. The aircraft’s transponder should be squawking Mode C or ALT3. The aircraft’s external lights (where fitted) should be illuminated and remain on until the aircraft has landed and is clear of all runways.  An aircraft established on the base or final leg for any runway has right of way over an aircraft carrying out a straight-in approach.

 

So the ultimately they MUST give way to circuit traffic

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

CAAP 166-1(3)6.7 Straight-in approaches

 

6.7.1 Straight-in approaches are not a recommended standard procedure. However, Regulation 166B of CAR does not preclude pilots from conducting straight-in approaches provided certain conditions are met. Pilots who choose to adopt a straight-in approach should only do so when it does not disrupt, or conflict with, the flow of circuit traffic. Paragraph 166 (2) (b) of CAR requires a pilot conducting a straight-in approach to give way to any other aircraft established and flying in the circuit pattern. Nonetheless, pilots conforming to the circuit pattern – particularly on the base leg – should continue to check for traffic entering along the final approach path.

 

6.7.2 Paragraph 166 (2) (b) of CAR requires pilots to determine the wind velocity and the runway in use before conducting a straight-in approach. There are several ways to determine the wind direction, speed and runway in use:  contact with one of the following: º Automatic Weather Station. º Aerodrome Weather Information Service. º Automatic Aerodrome Information Service.  radio contact with an: º Aerodrome Flight Information Service. º ground-based radio communication service (CA/GRS, UNICOM). º company agent. º approved observer (as defined in Regulation 120 of CAR). º aircraft currently operating at the aerodrome.  visual indications, if the information cannot be determined by one of the above means. CAAP 166-1(3): Operations in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes 18 August 2014

 

6.7.3 Pilots must also assure themselves, by other means, of the aerodrome’s serviceability and other hazards which are usually indicated by markings adjacent to the wind indicator.

 

6.7.4 When conducting a straight-in approach, the aircraft must be established on final approach at not less than 3 NM from the landing runway threshold (Paragraph 166B (2) © of CAR).

 

6.7.5 Pilots should announce their intention to conduct a straight-in approach with their inbound broadcast. A further broadcast of intentions should also be made when not less than 3 NM from the runway threshold.

 

6.7.6 In addition, pilots conducting a straight-in approach should observe the following:  Pilots should not commence a straight-in approach to a runway when the reciprocal runway is being used by aircraft already established in the circuit.  Only minor corrections to speed and flight path, to maintain a stable approach, should be required within 3 NM on final. The aircraft’s transponder should be squawking Mode C or ALT3. The aircraft’s external lights (where fitted) should be illuminated and remain on until the aircraft has landed and is clear of all runways.  An aircraft established on the base or final leg for any runway has right of way over an aircraft carrying out a straight-in approach.

 

So the ultimately they MUST give way to circuit traffic

I've given your post a 'caution' because your final statement in bold is incorrect and it might mislead others reading it, so they should treat it with caution - please don't take it personally.

 

Nonetheless, statements like your last one do, unfortunately, bring into question the accuracy and depth of training being provided by some of our FTFs. It really is concerning if people are being 'let loose' when they don't know, or aren't absolutely certain, where they have to give way in the circuit, and worse still, when they firmly believe they don't have to give way, when in fact they do. That sort of thing can lead to people thinking others are 'morons' when in fact they might be the 'goose' themselves ...

 

I can quite see why, if you take in isolation the CAAP paragraphs you've posted, that you might consider that the phrase in 6.7.1 which you highlighted and underlined might be the pivotal part of this regulation, but while it is indeed pertinent it doesn't over-ride or contradict the final sentence.

 

The final sentence states 'An aircraft established on the base or final leg for any runway has right of way over an aircraft carrying out a straight-in approach', therefore, by extension, it means that 'An aircraft NOT established on the base or final leg for any runway DOES NOT have right of way over an aircraft carrying out a straight-in approach - and the reason is that once the aircraft carrying out the SIA has established on final he then doesn't have to give way to anyone except someone /thing obstructing the runway or, in emergency, to avoid an impending collision.

 

We have to remember that the procedure for someone 'carrying out an SIA' involves all the time they are inbound and 'on approach' as well as the final approach, so 'carrying out a SIA' does not necessarily mean they have reached the stage where they are in the traffic circuit yet. But once they have correctly established on final they are then at the front (i.e. ahead) of all other traffic that are in the circuit.

 

So what that last sentence is saying is that aircraft on base or final are ahead of someone inbound who is intending to make a SIA, therefore they don't have to give way to him. But once the inbound aircraft completes his SIA manoeuvring and before three miles out establishes on the final leg of the circuit, which he does while there aren't, at that time, any other aircraft already on base or final, he is then at the head of the queue and other aircraft must not turn base too soon, in a way which would cause a conflict with him, instead they should extend their downwind leg so as to turn base and final behind him.

 

Copied from my previous post, 2nd para - (pilots on the base leg and before entering the final leg should be vigilant that no traffic is on long final for landing) the reason that sentence is included, and similarly included at the end of para 6.7.1 in the CAAP you quoted above, is that traffic on base must always give way to traffic on final approach - and that's regardless of where the traffic on final joined the circuit.

 

Think about it this way - you never have to give way to aircraft in the circuit that are behind you, but you must always give way to traffic in the circuit that are ahead of you. So if an aircraft is on Base leg and another is on Final leg, the one on final is ahead in the circuit and therefore has right of way regardless of which leg he joined the circuit. And if he joined on the final leg i.e. a SIA, he had to have done so when no-one else was on Base or Final, regardless that others might have been on upwind, crosswind or downwind.

 

You need to carefully consider the lines you emboldened and underlined because you appear to be suggesting that someone joining circuit on final for SIA when someone else is on downwind, for example, is 'disrupting or conflicting with the flow of traffic in the circuit' but they are not - even it means that others may have to extend their downwind leg to space the traffic properly - because that is the normal means of dealing with aircraft that are faster or slower in the circuit, and it cannot be said that having to extend or shorten your downwind leg is a disruption or conflict with the traffic flow. A few examples -

 

• You are in a slow aircraft on downwind and a faster aircraft is behind you and catching up fast. Do you have to give way? Of course not, you probably cannot see the other aircraft anyway.
   
   
  
• You are the faster aircraft on downwind, and you are catching up to the one in front. Do you have to give way? Yes, you do. How do you give way if you cannot fly as slow as they are? You must widen your circuit and continue on downwind until they turn base, then you must judge when to turn base so that you don't end up catching up with them again on final because if you don't give them sufficient time to clear the runway you will have to go around by moving to the dead side.
   
   
  
• You are on base and before you turn final what is the last check you are required to perform? You must check for aircraft on a longer final approach which you might be about to turn ahead of by mistake. In that situation who must give way? You must, and it's not a pretty place to be because simply following the Rules for Prevention of Collisions i.e. turning right, might not, in a left hand circuit, be sufficient to prevent the collision. Which is why in the exceptional circumstance that someone isn't able to, or doesn't manoeuvre correctly to prevent the collision, the onus to give way then passes to the craft which previously had the right of way - and that is the ONLY time that an aircraft which is already established on final approach might have to give way to another aircraft in the circuit - to prevent an impending collision.
   
   
  

 

 

So as I indicated above, when reading the often complex Aviation Regulations and Advisory Publications, statements about one aspect of circuit procedure - in this case about SIAs - should not be taken in isolation but should be considered in conjunction with all those documents' other statements about circuit procedures, otherwise one paragraph's meaning will frequently appear to conflict with that of another.

 

 

[M61A1]

166B Carrying out a straight‑in approach

 

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft commits an offence if:

 

(a) the pilot carries out a straight‑in approach to land at a non‑controlled aerodrome; and

 

(b) the pilot engages in conduct; and

 

© the conduct results in the contravention of a rule set out in subregulation (2).

 

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

 

(2) The rules are the following:

 

(a) before starting the approach, the pilot must determine:

 

(i) the wind direction at the aerodrome; and

 

(ii) the runways in use at the aerodrome;

 

(b) the pilot must give way to any other aircraft flying in the circuit pattern for the aerodrome;

 

© subject to subregulation (3), the pilot must carry out all manoeuvring, to establish the aircraft on final approach, at least 3 miles from the threshold of the runway that the pilot intends to use for landing.

 

(3) The rule in paragraph (2)© does not apply to the pilot if he or she is carrying out the approach:

 

(a) using an instrument approach procedure; and

 

(b) in IMC.

 

(4) An offence against subregulation (1) in relation to paragraph (2)(a) or (b) is an offence of strict liability.

 

 

[facthunter]

Really quite simple isn't it? The last time a pilot on downwind can adjust the circuit is when commencing turn to base, at which point they must be sure it's safe to do so. Nev

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

166B Carrying out a straight‑in approach(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft commits an offence if:

 

(a) the pilot carries out a straight‑in approach to land at a non‑controlled aerodrome; and

 

(b) the pilot engages in conduct; and

 

© the conduct results in the contravention of a rule set out in subregulation (2).

 

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

 

(2) The rules are the following:

 

(a) before starting the approach, the pilot must determine:

 

(i) the wind direction at the aerodrome; and

 

(ii) the runways in use at the aerodrome;

 

(b) the pilot must give way to any other aircraft flying in the circuit pattern for the aerodrome;

 

© subject to subregulation (3), the pilot must carry out all manoeuvring, to establish the aircraft on final approach, at least 3 miles from the threshold of the runway that the pilot intends to use for landing.

 

(3) The rule in paragraph (2)© does not apply to the pilot if he or she is carrying out the approach:

 

(a) using an instrument approach procedure; and

 

(b) in IMC.

 

(4) An offence against subregulation (1) in relation to paragraph (2)(a) or (b) is an offence of strict liability.

Yes, but I think you're not appreciating the difference between what a 'straight-in approach' is, and what a 'final approach' is. By the time the aircraft is on final approach it has concluded the straight-in approach procedure, and is then simply on a long final approach, just the same as any other aircraft on a final approach, whether it be a long final, 'normal' final or short final - and regardless of whether they joined the circuit on the upwind leg, crosswind, downwind, base or, in this case, the final leg.

 

Once he's on final it doesn't matter how he came to be there, he's on final, he now has right of way, and the straight-in approach aspects of it have been satisfied and are behind him. In other words, once he's on final it can be considered that he's no longer on a straight-in approach, he's just quite simply on final approach.

 

 

[storchy neil]

to my reading of regs once aircraft on STA has made call at 3nm he is on final end off story neil

 

 

[M61A1]

Agreed...once at the 3 NM mark, it's just a final approach. I put the cut and paste up to be clear that it's not just base and final traffic that have right of way up that point, as the regs clearly say an aircraft on a SIA must give way to ALL traffic in the circuit, PRIOR to starting the approach.

 

 

[facthunter]

Till they turn onto base , how do you know where they are going? You can't turn onto base if that will put you in conflict with a plane on final. Nev

 

 

[apm]

My problem is not whether the twin had right of way or not, rather that from Kenny's description the twin pilot communicating with the unicom rather than establishing radio contact with each aircraft in the area prior to declaring a straight in approach. Good airmanship would suggest the twin pilot would want to be very aware of where every other aircraft was and their intentions. Seems to me the unicom was being used as a quasi controller, not very smart.

 

 

[Kenny]

Exactly right apm , With hindsight , Unicom should have been more assertive and told the twin that it was not

 

Their place to give permission for the SIA and for the twin to run it by the others in and around the circuit, as they were the ones to be made aware of possible conflict,

 

My original post was re the proceedures in place and Unicom knowing their responsibilities and that the straight in approach was not good airmanship on the day however I have enjoyed the banter on the forum and learnt a few things

 

Cheers

 

Ken

 

 

[apm]

Here's an idea. For next years Ozkosh, get airservices to put in a temporary tower with friendly controllers for the weekend. Have a couple of instructors in there also for those pilots that turn up a little unsure of the proceedures (descrete freq's for those struggling to communicate) to help them in. Run it as a competition where those that do well recieve a CTA endorsement. Those that dont, no penalty, but maybe a "visit the tower" request for a debrief. Would be a good experience for all.

 

Ken, I encourage you to lodge an airprox incident report. If the twin pilot is commercial, he would have already done so, be good if its not a one sided report.

 

 

[Soleair]

Good idea, apm. With that number of aircraft, of differing speeds & pilot proficiency, a dedicated frequency would be a great safety aid.

 

 

[Yenn]

Look at it as if you were the twin pilot. What would you have considered prudent. I would not attempt a straight in approach with busy traffic. How would I be able to see traffic on downwind and estimate their turning base and final. A bit hard I think.

 

A twin possibly on downwind at 100kts with slow traffic ahead is going to have a hard time fitting in, but would he be any better straight in.

 

The best option would be to talk to those in the circuit already, thay would usually be prepared to adjust to expedite the faster plane, but Unicom cannot legally give any approval.

 

I think I would do a downwind a bit further out than the light stuff, so that I would expect to see them on my left and try to work out the best spot to turn base, than final.

 

Whatever you do the faster plane is going to have a fully aware pilot and also to be ready to change plans quickly.

 

My experience is that slow traffic seldom forces right of way, preferring to just go a little bit further, but what really upsets me is when the traffic is banked up and we have four on downwind and two on base, all slowing down to avoid having to do a missed approach and then someone overtakes you. Happened to me at Bundaberg and the pilot didn't stick around to apologise to me when I landed.