Originally Posted by
Old Akro
I have 2 genuine questions.
Sounds like you are trying to blame everyone else and at the same time misleading information.
On page one you said
"nearly all the altitude reports are done against time, but the glideslope is defined by distance. A diligent report would have used distance so that the report was transparent someone reviewing it could plot it against the chart. The ATSB have denied us this ability."
Checkout the diagram on page 3. It shows what happened and where.
"a point missed by Sunfish and glossed over by the ATSB is that they were cleared for visual approach."
They were initially cleared for a VOR approach and this is when the error(s) happened. Later, after reporting the runway in sight, only then were they cleared for a visual approach.
"correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the command "cleared for visual approach" waives the approach altitude requirements and allows the pilot to descend at his / her discretion to make the landing."
Immediately prior to being cleared for the visual approach, the aircraft was on a VOR approach clearance at 1700 feet on a minimum altitude segment of 1959 feet.
As for the visual approach, the report says "The tower controller then cleared the aircraft for a visual approach,
provided the aircraft was ‘... established on PAPI[5] and inside the circling area[6]’.
As the report states
The captain recalled that, as the aircraft lined up on final approach, the PAPI was indicating ‘four reds’ and that they were ‘really low’
According to the pilots description (confirmed by the ATSB report) he an initiated recovery before the ATC alert.
Take a look at the so-called recovery in the Appendix that you refer to. It is not much of a recovery, it is a continued descent initially then a slow climb which is nowhere near as much of a recovery as a proper go-around.
It is entirely likely at the time of the instruction to go around, the aircraft was back on glideslope.
There is no glideslope on this approach and they had not returned to a 3 degree descent path toward the intended runway.
The MDA inside 6.5 mile is 760 ft, so the aircraft was ABOVE the published minima.
This is incorrect. Look at the diagrams. I think the difficulty is in your comprehending them.
I suspect that this is the only part where the aircraft breached the LSALT. It was above MDA when it was at 984 ft which is where the attention is focused
Check out the diagram on page 17. You are completely incorrect.
As for ATC, it sounds like they did an excellent job....
2018:31 Flight crew advise that they have the airfield in sight, then cleared for visual approach. Aircraft altitude 1,700 minimum altitude 1,950
2018:48 Aircraft’s autopilot disconnected. This is accoding to crew statement when they decided to recover to a higher altitude. Aircraft altitude1,300 Minimum altitude 1,950
2018:56 Flight crew told to ‘check altitude'. Aircraft altitude 1,100 Minimum altitude 1,950
2019:00 Flight crew instructed to go-around and to carry out missed approach runway 34.
Crew responds ‘copied’ Aircraft Altitude 1,000
Minimum altitude 1,950
2019:26 Go-around instruction re-issued to flight crew, who respond that they are maintaining 1,200 ft. Aircraft altitude 1100 minimum altitude 1950
2019:35
Flight crew instructed to carry out a missed approach. The crew’s reply is inaudible
2019:47
The tower controller responds, ‘Negative, missed approach runway 34 climb to 4,000 ft’
Flight crew acknowledges that they are climbing to 4,000 ft
TOGA
I'm sorry you have trouble understanding the report