RNZAF 757 Emergency Antarctic Landing report

[Tourist]

Pinnacles in history can only be judged with the benefit of hindsight. I personally believe we will look back with horror at latter years of manned flight.

That said I agree with what you say. If on the previous flight it was noticed that the runway had shifted, there should have been a proceedure in place to update.

The rest of the armchair wisdom from many posters on here is disrespectful to a crew who, from what I read produced a textbook solution to a tricky situation.

[GlobalNav]

The airmanship demonstrated on this flight is quite outstanding. The flight crew's awareness and problem-solving was top-notch in my opinion. They followed procedures as far was they would take them, but adapted to the situation as the "fog of war" (in this case "fog of the Antarctic") required. I'd buy these guys a round any day. Cheers!

The on-board database likely had the coordinates for the desired approach, but the world (possibly the satellites) moved a bit. The crew took note and found a way to adjust. Not what we want for commercial passenger operations, but as many other alluded to, in this environment, CONOPs etc, precisely why we like professional, well-trained military pilots to deal with such contingencies.

[KenV]

Surely this could have been checked by anyone with a £50 handheld GPS, or even an iPhone, rather than a low flyby in an airliner full of passengers?

The above shows a rather large gap in understanding of approach calibration requirements. Clu4U, it cannot be done legally or properly with a "handheld GPS or iPhone". Using such equipment is far worse than not doing it at all.

If on the previous flight it was noticed that the runway had shifted, there should have been a proceedure in place to update.

Having a "procedure in place" and having the required certified equipment in place are two VERY different things. And without the latter, the former cannot be done. And the latter simply does not exist in Antarctica.

[alfred_the_great]

Or would take an aircraft to fly it in......

[ShotOne]

I'm not suggesting, Ken, a DIY recalibration of the RNAV approach, only monitoring whether the ice cap has shifted since the approach was created. This wouldn't require specialist equipment and I'm surprised it isn't done.

Ok465, I agree 50' is not an unreasonable RNPerror; that's why RNAV minima is higher than was used here! ...but ice cap shift would be on top of any RNP error. Its entirely your speculation which was responsible for the error observed by the crew. If we accept your view though, the crucial 50' could have been in a different direction after the crew had cool-headedly factored it in. Which merely emphasises that for all the undoubted skill of the crew, luck played a good part in this successful outcome.

[JammedStab]

Interesting that the weather forecast given to the crew prior to the PNR shows three hundred feet scattered layer yet this weather forecast is above the minimum requirement to continue.

Whoever made the rules about having a scattered layer below minimums as being acceptable made a bad decision. SCT can be 3/8 coverage. A slight bit more and it is a broken ceiling. Surely almost everyone on this forum has seen a low SCT layer become the ceiling.

I have done a missed approach because of a scattered layer below minimums. We did happen to make it in that time but we also had an alternate. I think a serious review is required in this operation in regards to weather.

[Onceapilot]

Jammed mate, some SOP recognise BKN as a cloudbase.

OAP

[Heathrow Harry]

I'm amazed people are still banging on about the weather and the forecast as if this was AMsterdam or SFO - its a single point in the middle of a continent with the worst weather in the world........


There are no rules down there

[JammedStab]

Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry

There are no rules down there

Sure there are. But there are no alternates down there. Meaning.....very strict rules are a good idea so you don't get into a situation where you need to break the rules to survive.

[KenV]

I'm not suggesting, Ken, a DIY recalibration of the RNAV approach only monitoring whether the ice cap has shifted since the approach was created. This wouldn't require specialist equipment and I'm surprised it isn't done.

Surprised? Why? Does "surprise" not reqiure one to assume that it is not done? In fact, scientists routinely measure ice cap movement as part of the research protocols using MUCH better equipment than iPhones and the like. But there is a world of difference between using such equipment for research and using it to update an aviation nav approach. And beyond that, a 50 ft error is within allowables for a non precision approach.

[KenV]

...very strict rules are a good idea so you don't get into a situation where you need to break the rules to survive.

A "good idea" from the comfort of one's chair in front of a computer screen is likely a very lousy idea in the realities of antarctic aircraft operations.

From personal experience, many "good ideas" associated with aircraft operations from long and wide concrete runways are absolutely lousy ideas when used in carrier aviation. And often the other way around.

[ShotOne]

"assume that it's not done..." Not my assumption, Ken. From the published account, whether or not any such measurement was made, it wasn't made available to the crew.

"a 50' error is within allowables.." You're getting your knickers in a twist, Ken; the RNP error you refer to (I agree 50' wouldnt be unreasonable)takes account of atmospheric and system error. But ice cap shift, if indeed there was any, would be IN ADDITION to this.

[ChrisJ800]

I believe the Australian flights from Hobart to Antarctic using a A319 have enough fuel to land and return without refuellling, is this not the case with the NZ flights?

[JammedStab]

Originally Posted by KenV

A "good idea" from the comfort of one's chair in front of a computer screen is likely a very lousy idea in the realities of antarctic aircraft operations.

From personal experience, many "good ideas" associated with aircraft operations from long and wide concrete runways are absolutely lousy ideas when used in carrier aviation. And often the other way around.

Actually, they would have been in comfy chairs in front of computer screens for their briefing. Same with the guys who made the rules. So it would have been a good idea to observe strict weather rules.

If by carrier aviation you mean for airlines, these rules I suggested are actually much more strict....and common sense.

300 feet scattered in the forecast, nearby fog bank. Minimums are 400 feet for the only approach, a non-precision approach on an ice strip with no alternate, likely whiteout if the weather craps out and likely ineffective lights(although dark fuel drums will be very good for daytime ops). Do you need to be in a comfy chair do decide if it is a good idea to depart in a big jet.

Or is this an absolutely lousy idea in your opinion?