This little incident will no doubt find its way into many TEM or CRM courses over the next 100 years or so and I can imagine that the debate has only just begun.
Two different airlines, two different operating cultures, flying the same aircraft dealing with the same dire situation with thankfully an outcome resulting in no loss of life or injury.
What
really jumps out of that initial report and some questions I'd like answered are;
The Qantas aircraft sails straight in after at least one aircraft has conducted a missed approach and diverted, conducts one approach with sufficient fuel on board and decides to just 'bust' minima, does so by 'only 150 feet', gets visual, sweet as, lands, refuels and continues on its merry way no worries!
The Virgin aircraft then conducts a missed approach after the Qantas aircraft had landed. I guess they were very lucky the fog cleared enough in those few minutes that they only had to 'bust' the minima by 150 feet because both before and after their landing other aircraft couldn't get in.
How much below the minima did the Qantas crew
really go? Was this a classic case of getinitis and deference?
What was the Qantas crew's plan of action should they not get visual by busting minima off their first approach? This it appears, was not discussed.
Once you start making up your own minima and instrument approach conditions, on the fly, at an unfamiliar airport things start to get very sticky. A plan of action needs to be discussed, as was done by the Virgin crew.
Why wasn't the Qantas crew stood down immediately after such a serious incident?
They are the facts and they are the questions I can guarantee you will be asked by the ATSB and also the regulator during the process of investigating this incident
