Skywest ATR incident
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Here and there
Age: 36
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skywest ATR incident
Sounds interesting...
From avherald.com
A SkyWest Airlines (Australia) Avion de Transport Regional ATR-72-600 on behalf of Virgin Australia Regional, registration VH-FVR performing flight XR-1661 from Brisbane,QL to Moranbah,QL (Australia), was on approach to Moranbah when the crew initiated a descent to remain clear of cloud however received a number of GPWS alerts. The crew aborted the approach, diverted to Emerald,QL 90nm south of Moranbah, but then decided to return to Brisbane for a safe landing.
Australia's ATSB rated the occurrence a serious incident and opened an investigation.
Are these ATRs capable of RNAV approaches?
From avherald.com
A SkyWest Airlines (Australia) Avion de Transport Regional ATR-72-600 on behalf of Virgin Australia Regional, registration VH-FVR performing flight XR-1661 from Brisbane,QL to Moranbah,QL (Australia), was on approach to Moranbah when the crew initiated a descent to remain clear of cloud however received a number of GPWS alerts. The crew aborted the approach, diverted to Emerald,QL 90nm south of Moranbah, but then decided to return to Brisbane for a safe landing.
Australia's ATSB rated the occurrence a serious incident and opened an investigation.
Are these ATRs capable of RNAV approaches?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Here and there
Age: 36
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure that they would have the gear on board, but whether or not they have to capability to use it during an approach is another issue. If they are capable of using it, it makes me wonder how this happened when there is a GNSS arrival, RNAV approach and even an NDB approach. From the report, it sounds as though they were trying to get beneath a layer of cloud not using any approach (unless it was a DGA that went wrong)
Could be anything.
I had the GPWS data base skew through 90degrees ( that's what it did visually on the EFIS) and give false warnings about six years ago. No idea what happened here but it could be one of many many things.
I had the GPWS data base skew through 90degrees ( that's what it did visually on the EFIS) and give false warnings about six years ago. No idea what happened here but it could be one of many many things.
Aircraft are more than capable. But the company is not approved for RNAV approaches in the ATR's. Ask the esteemed regulator why after 18 months they still cant grant approval to conduct one of the safest approaches going around and instead the crews have to conduct archaic ndb's in rubbish weather in a 68 seat aircraft.........
Try that in a 180 seat Jet A/C, was so 'till of late.
Looks NDB App's & other non precision App's are fine they may not be as accurate & not give as good a fighting chance at getting visual as other Rwy aligned App's but they are still practicable.
Often cost is involved as it always with aviation, cost of training up crews so this can have a big bearing on what's actually done.
Personally I still like the idea of a ground based Nav Aid for lateral guidance but I guess I'm from the old school:-)
As for ground prox warnings? Well there are a few variables there so hard to say what happened but they do happen from time to time for ALL Airlines.
Wmk2
Looks NDB App's & other non precision App's are fine they may not be as accurate & not give as good a fighting chance at getting visual as other Rwy aligned App's but they are still practicable.
Often cost is involved as it always with aviation, cost of training up crews so this can have a big bearing on what's actually done.
Personally I still like the idea of a ground based Nav Aid for lateral guidance but I guess I'm from the old school:-)
As for ground prox warnings? Well there are a few variables there so hard to say what happened but they do happen from time to time for ALL Airlines.
Wmk2
I'm interested to know why the regulator can't approve them for Rnav's
Its a joke at EML and MRB and must be a source of frustration for the crews.
Let alone for the passengers as they yet again return to BN or somewhere else they don't want to go to
Its a joke at EML and MRB and must be a source of frustration for the crews.
Let alone for the passengers as they yet again return to BN or somewhere else they don't want to go to
While I concur with the sentiment re RNP Approaches, Moranbah does not have a published straight-in/runway aligned approach, even though there is an RNAV approach published. All the numbers look Ok for a straight-in for 16, but it is circling only. Alpha Centauri?
The GNSS Arrival doesn't get you to the MDA until virtually over the field, making it more challenging when popping out..." where's the runway again?".
The GNSS Arrival doesn't get you to the MDA until virtually over the field, making it more challenging when popping out..." where's the runway again?".
Bloggs. The MRB 16 Rnav was a runway approach initially but reverted to circling as the field has a survey issue
Edit - Spelling
Edit - Spelling
Last edited by holdingagain; 2nd Jun 2013 at 07:41.
No the NDB was always just an ordinary NDB which conveniently roughly lined up with 16. When the Rnav was published life became much easier Then as quick as it appeared we were back to circling
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Beverly Hills
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway aligned approach for Moranbah
..small point of correction.
To the best of my knowledge, there's never been a runway-aligned approach with S-I landing minima, designed for MOV in its history of operation.
Over recent years, a lot of effort has gone into having one designed and in my humble view, runway-aligned RNAV GNSS approaches would provide the same benefit (landing minimas) as RNP approaches at MOV, but for a number of reasons, delays have continued with the decision about the final design.
It's high time the indecision was put aside for the safety and commercial viability of all operators.
To the best of my knowledge, there's never been a runway-aligned approach with S-I landing minima, designed for MOV in its history of operation.
Over recent years, a lot of effort has gone into having one designed and in my humble view, runway-aligned RNAV GNSS approaches would provide the same benefit (landing minimas) as RNP approaches at MOV, but for a number of reasons, delays have continued with the decision about the final design.
It's high time the indecision was put aside for the safety and commercial viability of all operators.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is some obstacle in the missed driving the MDA up, but damn if I can see what it is...looks pretty flat out there...
Nice terminal!
Nice terminal!
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 3rd Jun 2013 at 18:41.
Jethro, yes there was, the first issue had SI minima's
Would be about 5 /6 years ago
We asked why it had been amended to a circling minima only and were told that the aerodrome did not meet some survey standard
Would be about 5 /6 years ago
We asked why it had been amended to a circling minima only and were told that the aerodrome did not meet some survey standard
Last edited by holdingagain; 3rd Jun 2013 at 22:10.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a pipe in the upstairs water closet
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Flightpath, that's a pretty old photo. The new 'cattle-yard' is MUCH bigger. The problem with the RNAV is that it only goes down to Circling Minima. It's either the summer coastal crap that dumps an enormous amount of rain in the area and subsequent low cloud, or it's the winter fog, all year round you just can't win for an airstrip that only takes you to circling minima (That's not before a kyte headbutts your windscreen 
)
I know QLink has made representation by senior management to the owners of the airstrip (BHP) to initiate the proceedings to get their asses into gear and fork out the $$ to get AsA to re-survey the approach. The company also asked the owners to finally allow ammunition on the premises to allow for bird-scaring charges to be used (currently they don't allow ANY ammunition the airfield so MOV is frequented by many, MANY ornithological fauna - and decide to hitch rides in the intakes of a few Dashes and ATRs). What was the result of the meeting...who knows.
The frightening thing is though, the amount of people the mining company want to be moved in and out on a daily basis doesn't reflect the infrastructure that currently exists to handle the size of aircraft going in there (the Q400 just squeezes in). Yet anything that happens, it's the poor guys and girls up the front the cop the whole blame.
Fuel-Off
)I know QLink has made representation by senior management to the owners of the airstrip (BHP) to initiate the proceedings to get their asses into gear and fork out the $$ to get AsA to re-survey the approach. The company also asked the owners to finally allow ammunition on the premises to allow for bird-scaring charges to be used (currently they don't allow ANY ammunition the airfield so MOV is frequented by many, MANY ornithological fauna - and decide to hitch rides in the intakes of a few Dashes and ATRs). What was the result of the meeting...who knows.
The frightening thing is though, the amount of people the mining company want to be moved in and out on a daily basis doesn't reflect the infrastructure that currently exists to handle the size of aircraft going in there (the Q400 just squeezes in). Yet anything that happens, it's the poor guys and girls up the front the cop the whole blame.
Fuel-Off
