why there is so much discussion? So, what are the facts?
Facts as read from ATSB:
after passing waypoint SHEED,4 the final waypoint in the STAR, the autopilot increased the rate of descent from about 700 feet per minute (fpm) to about 1,500 fpm. This was a greater rate than the crew were expecting. They discussed the anomalous descent and, expecting it to stabilise at the anticipated rate, they decided to monitor the aircraft’s rate of descent further.
Noting that the captain was concentrating on the information presented on the aircraft’s instruments, the first officer turned his attention outside of the cockpit to visually monitor the approach to the runway, which he had sighted to the right of the aircraft. The first officer noted that the approach to the runway visually appeared to be too low and alerted the captain, who agreed and attempted to reduce the rate of descent using the vertical speed mode of the automatic flight control system. After realising that this would not be effective, the captain disconnected the autopilot and took manual control of the aircraft. The aircraft was levelled off at about 700 ft above mean sea level (AMSL), or about 500 ft above ground level, and turned to the right to align with the runway.
The aircraft was flown level until the 3° approach glideslope was intercepted using the runway 34 precision approach path indicator (PAPI) and a normal approach and landing carried out.
No big deal someone remarked? Scarping in level flight at 500 ft agl until intercepting a three degree approach angle, isn't exactly a normal standard procedure for a wide-body is it?
thats aussie aviation for ya tho'. an severe obsession with the trivial
500 ft agl - that's trivial??