Will CASA suspend JQ for descending below MSA on approach?
From the Aviation Herald:
Quote:
A Jetstar Airbus A320-200, registration VH-VGR performing flight JQ-279 from Auckland to Queenstown (New Zealand), completed the flight for a safe landing in Queenstown.
Australia's TSB reported however identifying the incident aircraft as VH-VQA, that the crew selected an incorrect vertical profile for the approach and thus descended below the minimum safe height. The ATSB have opened an investigation.
A company spokesman said that for a short time when the plane was supposed to be at 7300 feet (2225 metres) it had dropped down to 6300 feet, and had then gone back up to 7300 feet.
Which has the greater safety impact, this incident or the PB departure that is the subject of the current court case?
If NZ CAA are to be consistant, these guys will be in court in the near future. It will be interesting to watch what happens with this one, but I bet it will never happen.
Which has the greater safety impact, this incident or the PB departure that is the subject of the current court case?
If NZ CAA are to be consistant, these guys will be in court in the near future. It will be interesting to watch what happens with this one, but I bet it will never happen.
well, on the surface with bystander info only; what looks like a c0ck up on approach vs intentional non-compliance to take off...
You reckon? I am pretty sure that you will find that national airworthiness authorities can and do have oversight of RPT operations in their own countries regardless of where the aircraft is registered and where the company is domiciled. The example the recent investigation of AirAsia operating into the Gold Coast springs to mind.
Last edited by Roger Greendeck; 18th Aug 2012 at 02:22.
I believe that you may be incorrect as the cross Tasman Aviation Agreement is a unique oversite arrangement between Aussie and NZ and applies to registered airlines of both countries.
Aviation Herald article: No Metars are available for Queenstown, on Jul 16th between 06:00L and 12:00L the local weatherstation however reported clear skies with a visibility between 20 and 50km (11-27nm), easterly winds around 10 knots, humidity between 91 and 97 percent and temperatures at 1 degrees C with the dew point at 0 degrees C.
Am I missing something? Although not reporting cloud cover, the above sounds pretty much CAVOK...however the climb back to 7300' would seem to indicate differently!
Ben Sandilands view of it all is very damning..one thing is for sure it's not going to be so easy to sweep under the carpet..interesting!
In my opinion. The fact that a climb occurred during an approach is "unusual" so the fact the aircraft was 1000 ft below where it should be IS an issue.
I have no experience of operations into NZQN.
However, my concern is how can two pilots allow an airliner to be in a position that it shouldn't. Furthermore, if procedural errors can ocurr like this then what guarantees are there that similar errors don't ocurr elsewhere.
After all. Wasn't one of the reasons for grounding tiger the following events:
1. The aircraft not being where it should have been after a go around in Avalon.
&
2. Another aircraft being BELOW the procedural height it should have been on approach to Tullamarine.
Last edited by Mstr Caution; 18th Aug 2012 at 07:33.
You can't compare this with Tiger. Once again the Tiger grounding wasn't due to the actual procedural events but to the lack of a SAFETY system in place to handle the reports and retraining of the crews involved.
In the Jetstar case the actual event was similar. The big difference is that having been self reported by he crew, the relevant authorities were notified and action taken UNLIKE Tiger!! Is this so hard to understand
As for Sandilands I am starting to think he has got something against the Qantas group, his articles are increasingly full of in factual rantings, which is a shame as I used to quite enjoy them.
that's right MC in much the same way that an airline that has multiple engine failures, fuel tanks being exhausted, auto lands at Cat 1 only airports and too low gear warnings not to mention holding patterns below MSA can also stay in the air because of the way the events are managed by the airline. As OO mentioned the difference between Tiger and other airlines was the back office structure.
That is kind of what I am saying, CASA is only interested in the Safety System in place when it comes to this sort of thing. Is it right.... NO. Do I think someone should be concerned about the list of events you have published.... YES.
What does get my rag, is when people say that Tiger was grounded for this, so then every airline that has a similar incident should be grounded. This just shows a misunderstanding of why CASA grounded Tiger.
