I have 2 genuine questions.
1. The ATSB are pretty good at placing different pieces of information in different places of reports (and even draft vs final versions). In this instance there is additional detail in Appendix B which notes that the crew initially responded copied (as opposed to repeating the instruction), followed by "maintaining 1200" followed by "inaudible". This seems to me to paint a picture that the crew didn't understand the instruction. What responsibility does this place on the controller to repeat the instruction?
In this instance, I only think it matters because of the severe criticism the ATSB is placing on the crew for not obeying an instruction for 50 seconds (which measures 47 seconds according to appendix B). To my logic, you either accept that the crew responded promptly to a command they acknowledged or you accept that there is a shared responsibility to clarify an unacknowledged command. What if the inaudible reply from the crew was " did not copy, say again?". To me if the report is going to criticize the crew it should make an attempt to understand if a) the controller did not speak clearly, b) there was other interfering or confusing radio traffic, c) the crew's English was inadequate d) the crew missed the call due to workload or e) the crew was simply belligerent.
Secondly - in part due to the delay in actioning the go around - at the time of the go around the aircraft was established on final, visual with PAPI in sight, above MDA and either on glideslope or close to it (because the ATSB publish time references and not distance measurements, its very hard to tell). My question is - after a 9 hour flight from BKK - which is the safer course: allowing the approach to continue or requiring a go-around?
Its clear that the crew were not on top of the non precision approach, but it seems to me that the greatest deviations occurred in the transition from the DME arc to the VOR approach before they were cleared for visual approach. At the time of the go-around it would seem that the crew was aware of their situation and had acted to correct the approach. Based on the ATSB report, I don't see any evidence that a safe successful landing would not have resulted from that approach. At the time of the go-around they had passed the Melbourne CBD on their right and were about over Flemington with Essendon airport at about 2 o'clock. There would have been heaps of visual reference.