Qantas Incident????????

[Sunfish]

Is there any truth in this?

Found elsewhere on the internet.

More and more stories in the nres about air traffic control lapses and air tragedies in the news recently gives the impression that a local serious air disaster is just around the corner.

Well, it nearly happened two weeks ago, and nothing was leaked to the press.

A Qantas 737 on the "red eye" from Perth to Canberra arrived at Canberra airport just before 5.00am, and with the airport still closed, went into a routine holding pattern awaiting the opening at 5.00am.

Trouble was, that the wrong co-ordinates were plugged into the computer by the flight crew, and the holding pattern centered on Tuggeranong and Michelargo was extended in a much broader ellipse than intended.

The crew flew the plane in a holding pattern at 5000ft, which was, until last week, standard. Two minutes into the pattern the aircraft's GPWS was activated, and an emergency climb saw the plane avoid a 5300ft peak by 150 feet [Eek!] [Eek!] , the crew and 155 passengers on board were less than two seconds from death.

The GPWS, ground proximity warning system, was all that saved those people from being parked in the trees.

All QANTAS flight crews have since received advice that the new holding pattern in those circumstances is 6000ft!!

Glad I don't fly into Canberra!! [Big Grin] [Big Grin] IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TASAD
Member
Member # 9619

- posted 17-09-2004 09:42 AM Profile for TASAD Email TASAD Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote Where did the info come from IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SnowMoo
Member
Member # 5309

- posted 17-09-2004 09:43 AM Profile for SnowMoo Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote Mt Taylor could have been the new landing spot. IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
solod golf
Member
Member # 8013

- posted 17-09-2004 09:43 AM Profile for solod golf Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote A QANTAS worker. Tech staff.

[Buster Hyman]

Sorry, can't help. I didn't even know they had a "Red eye" from PER-CBR!:confused:

[Bill Smith]

If they were holding at CCK, which would make sense, there is two limitations on the holding pattern.

1. 5000', 1 minute min or D14.0 whichever happens first with a max 170 Kts airspeed

2. 6000', 1 minute Max IAS 210 Kts.

Is there a company policy that states not to apply MBZ procedures if the Tower is closed? Or were they holding due to fog.

Two scenarios here.

A. They either misread the chart and didn't put in the paperwork!! or

B. Bull:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Capt Fathom]

This is intriguing.
The aircraft goes into an ‘emergency climb’ and avoids a hilltop by 150 feet. 155 passengers don’t notice…or if they do, they don't say anything. Sure!
Yet only a month ago, we had the news reporting a near collision at Hamilton Island, as an aircraft that had just become airborne, banked to intercept the outbound route, scaring the life out of some passengers who saw another aircraft in the circuit with them.
This post came from a ski forum. That should indicate how accurate it is (not). :rolleyes:

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

In the interests of reducing speculation..

*Per-Cb red eye..Correct

*New-ish Captain off a non glass type.

*Holding at CCK @ 5000 awaiting the tower to open.

*14 dme limit in hold incorrectly entered into FMS hold page as 14 mile hold leg limit.

*GPWS warning activated and was followed as per SOP.

Draw from that what you will. (I know some of you will)

[Tagneah]

Schweinhund??? Where are you???

[Wizofoz]

Newish Captain, but what was the FO doing?

S:mad: :mad: :mad: happens, and I fell sorry for the guy, but face it, if this had been Jet* the "Usual suspects" would be all over it...

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Yeah you are right Wiz.

Perhaps this forum would more aptly serve the image of industry professionals if those who insist on treating the IPG as a bunch of incompetent wannabe's who got lucky, are collectively lumped in with those who percieve all QF pilots as a bunch of old codgers who sit around an open fire, brandy snifter in hand, telling each other what gifts to aviation we are?

Back to this incident, I am sure there is more to it than this rough outline I was presented with.

But it does serve as a salutary lesson, and any professional would ignore that lesson at his peril.

[Kaptin M]

Reminiscent of an accident (in the Canary Islands from memory), many years ago, when the aircraft (a B727, I think) entered a holding pattern, but on the opposite side to where they should have.
There were no survivors.

More recently, a Garuda Airbus that had a similar CFIT in Medan.

I suspect, in this case, a goodly mix of Circadian Rythm combined with Murphy's Law..."*14 dme limit in hold incorrectly entered into FMS hold page as 14 mile hold leg limit.", might have been major contributory factors.

No-one is immune from making mistakes at times, regardless of rank, airline, or experience.

[Binoculars]

Kaptin M,
You know I'm not a pilot and don't pretend to be. Could you please explain the difference between "14 dme limit in hold" and "14 mile hold leg limit"?

[Uncommon Sense]

Bino

I will have a go (bit rusty):

[Edited to cede to far better interpretations following]

[Kaptin M]

The DME limit may be a limit from a DME not co-located with the aid on which the holding pattern is based, eg. the DME limit could have been from CBR DME which is located at the airport, whereas CCK may not even have a DME, and is located several miles from CBR airport.
Hence a CBR DME limit of 14nm might limit the aircraft to an outbound distance of only 5 or 6 miles from Church Creek (CCK).

A leg limit of 14nm would effectively make the length of the outbound leg 14 miles, from the fix on which the hold is centred (CCK), but would exceed 14 DME from Cantberra - in this example it would extend to 19 or 20 nms from CBR.

To double check the accuracy of the length of the outbound length to confirm that it complies with the restriction, some pilots might enter CBR in the "fix" page, and then enter 14 (miles), which will show a 14 nm radius around (in this example) CBR.

Clear as mud??

[Binoculars]

I think so. Given the tolerances usually laid down to holding patterns, I can't imagine the difference between an aerodrome and that ad's DME not co-sited being enough to cause a major terrain clearance problem, so the other alternative would appear to be entering a 14 mile leg from a non-DME waypoint, (CCK?) a different matter altogether.

Thanks. Just curious, I certainly won't be offering any opinions on the crew's actions. :8

[Bill Smith]

On the money Kap

CCK Locator is D10.9 Canberra

[Capt Fathom]

Hold Limit is the limit the acft can be manouevred to from the DME including the turn.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, a DME limit of 14DME for a holding pattern means you stop the outbound leg at 14DME and commence your turn inbound, it does not mean you maintain your manouevring within 14DME. If that were the case, you could not hold at CCK, (keeping in mind that CCK is 10.9DME), but I suppose you could orbit!

[hoss]

Wow, just had a look at the Canberra H/L Area chart, the 5308' obstacle is about 24nm south of the field:uhoh: . Looks about just right for a CFIT with their(incorrect) right hand hold on CCK. Can't believe no-one picked up on the 2 limits(crosschecked/reasonableness), surely they've seen this place in the day and know how 'hairy' it is to the south.

Close call, hoss:eek:

[Lodown]

What a kickbutt way to get roused out of a 5am towards-the-end-of-flight quiet period! Nothing like a little heart starter at that time of the morning.

[janesays]

The plane would have had EGPWS wouldn't it? I've never flown airline kit but surely it wouldn't have been just GPWS. Can someone confirm that for me? Cheers.

[Buckshot]

The_Cutest_of_Borg,

When you say "newish captain off the classic" - which classic do you mean?
I thought that QF had mixed pools for B733/4/8?
Or was the newish captain in question coming off another classic - 743???

[Bill Smith]

Capt Fathom

I think you are correct.
What I think the KM is getting at is showing the 14DME limit as a visual aid on the MAP mode, so as to know when to start the turn inbound.
Any visual aid that helps in situational awareness is a good thing in my view.

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

Buckshot

Read what I said.

[Romeo Tango Alpha]

Anyone remember a certain incident involving a Qandom Captain, initials JP, who, being dyslexic (covered it up for many years) turned the wrong way at Canberra, and ALMOST claimed the lives of all on board?

Makes one wonder how all of that was brushed under the rug does it not?

Another HIGH ranking TAA / Australian Captain had the nick name of Captain Salt and Pepper. I'll let people ponder that one, but a hint is Port and Starboard...

[Sperm Bank]

Yes it is amazing how the wheel turns hey swinefest. You red tails are just the same as the rest of us pal. We are ALL fallible. Thankfully most of us realise that!

These poor buggers flew all night from Perth and of course mistakes are more likely to be made at that time of the day after a duty as described. The biggest problem is trying to convince the manure for brains management/rostering people of the dangers of back of the clock flight with innadequate rest prior to or post flight. Guess it will take a hull loss before we see any REAL recognition of our inherrent problem.

[Plas Teek]

OK. So the technology worked. Thankfully.
I certainly know that if I was flying for god knows how many hours from Perth to CAN and ariving at prior to 5 am, I'm certainly unlikely to be operating at 100%.
Just another wake-up call. Sorry about the pun.
Must be that red blood in the veins, human I suppose.

No Radar terrain assistance there then ? Curious..?

[itchybum]

Plas Teek,

I know little about the incident but from other posts it sounds like they were holding while waiting for ATC to get out of bed.

I guess the RADAR services weren't on offer yet so it's up to the guys to sort themselves out.

Glad a tragedy didn't ensue.

[Keg]

I don't know anything about the incident at all but I do find something interesting. In trying to ensure a greater level of safety (with having ATC available for their arrival), have the guys found themselves in an less safe situation by having to hold after they've been flying all night in an area of high terrain where minor errors can have big repercussions.

I guess it just goes to show that sometimes, directives that are supposed to make a situation 'safer' may inadvertantly be part of the error chain that leads to an accident or incident. If that was the case in this incident (and again, I know zero about it other than what I've read on this forum) then it is a good example again of the latent effects that each organisation has.

[Bingle]

Why hold at 5000' in the first place.

Don't fly the 737 but in the 767 I would be up at FL250 saving fuel and having a coffee.

Did many SYD - PER - SYD horrors and it was just an incedent waiting to happen. So the last thing I would want to be doing in holding down in the hills.

[Uncommon Sense]

Info: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/aip/dap/SCBII01-100.PDF

BTW: I notice there appears to be no curfew at CB. So, is QF coy policy to NOT land without ATC on duty? Or is it port specific? i.e. they obvioulsy do it at YAYE - why not CB? And if so, why not reduce speed enroute if you get a stronger than forecast jetstream, or delay departure time PH if forecast to be a shorter flight time to avoid the holding all together?

Honest questions.

[Keg]

US, I'm not on the 737 so I don't know the policy re CB. I also don't fly into any aerodromes where ATC opening hours are a problem so I can't help with that one. Where possible though, we're supposed to remain in CTA. Obviously we have Ops all over the place that don't remain in CTA but where we can remain, we do. Whether this is a directive for the 737 guys at CB I don't know! If a greater need exists (fire or something else) then they go on and shoot the approach!.

The guys probably did reduce speed enroute. We all tend to do that. As for 'delaying departure', the 'preference' from what I remember is to go on time and lose time en route. Apparently, passenger feedback indicates that they don't like hanging around! Besides that, that bugger Murphy would suggest that as soon as you delay the departure (which is difficult to do in PH anyway due to the heap of turn arounds at that time of night), you'll cop all sorts of crap trying to get away, less strong winds and subsequently run late! ;)

[Roger Standby]

At this late hour I haven't been able to access the right charts, but I expect that holding at A050 would have been outside CTA. I expect a controller would have had the aircraft on radar and been providing a radar service. The simple facts are that enroute ATC are limited in their knowledge of what aircraft are going to do on approaches to an aerodrome in G airspace. If the captain decides to extend the downwind leg in a hold, who is the controller to question the actions. We are not trained in the details of each type of approach for all the aerodromes in our "G" airspace and whether the pilot intends to do an NDB approach or an OmniDME or whatever, his broadcasts on air would let other pilots know what he was doing, give the controller some idea of what the pilot is intending and puts the intentions on tape for later use if necessary. A bit oversimplified, but G airspace means you do what you want. We are not required to know DAPS and in most cases couldn't tell you where the initial approach fix/point is for a particular type of approach so how would a controller be expected to comment on such things. The aircraft certainly don't get rerouted in the TAAATS system to indicate the ammended tracking for the various approaches(it can be for GPS waypoints, but the system doesn't have them all and the second point is sometimes missing from the system maps(so how accurate is the reroute anyway).
Unfortunately my response reminds me of another tragic issue being discussed at the moment and although I don't have anywhere near all the facts, it is scary that through lack of understanding of certain aspects of what we do, what our training covers, what our obligations are and how the system works, certain parties and probably the media are going to hang someone out to dry.

[Uncommon Sense]

It is worth noting that whilst the comments Roger Standby make are correct, he is referring specifically to the 'Enroute ATC' (Centre), whose airspace responsibility may overlay a myriad of aerodromes with procedures not neccessarily known to him.

The Approach ATC where provided is however required to know all the details of the various IAL including IAF, MSA, MApT, Sector Entries, RLSALT etc., and the approaches are shown on the Radar Maps. Holding patterns and approaches are also radar monitored (See Approach Monitoring Service - wherever it is written these days!)

I only make the disitinctiion here because it does not appear apparent in quite a lot of exchanges between pilots and controllers who can do exactly what.

Keg: Thanks for the reply. I get your point about not delaying the departure - passengers are a funny lot.

[Footnote: The same thing is seen in the winter at YBCG. ATC APP and TWR is provided 0545-2300 local. How much extra would it cost to run from 0530 in the winter months? Probably around $40 all up. Don't ever tell me that safety is paramount in such decisions.]

[Vref+5]

5000' is in CTA, the 4500' step goes out to 20 DME. I think procedures designed at controlled airports are designed to stay within CTA - someone with more qualifications may be able to help here. Obviously not a consideration when airspace is deactivated though.

I have to agree with Bingle, why descend to 5000' and mix it with the weather and terrain? I always briefed we would hold at 6000 minimum if required due to the DME and speed limitations at 5000'. You can still capture the localiser and glideslope comfortably from 6000'.

[Ron & Edna Johns]

Canberra Jepp chart 10-1: Blue boxed note on lower left side of chart reads:

"CTA/CTR Below 8500' within 30nm of Canberra active only during TWR hours. O/T MBZ procedures apply Gnd-5500' within 20nm of Canberra."

[Going Boeing]

Channel 10 have just reported it as "breaking news" even though the event happened a month ago. They have been over melodramatic on a number of news items lately and it appears that management has given them instructions to sensationalise "news" to the max. Makes watching their news shows a bit hard to bear.

[Binoculars]

I have no knowledge whatsoever of Ch 10's handling of this or any other story recently. What I do know is that the Channel 10 news is a national disgrace, not just for its treatment of aviation.

Sandra Sully has had all the requisite surgical bits done to make her look acceptable, and she can now appear in low cut dresses at public exhibitions, but she is still a bimbo reading a news bulletin whose director should be shot. Populist crap of the highest (lowest?) order, and a prime example of why the ABC must survive.

Channel 10 is the Picture magazine of news.

:yuk:

[Belgique]

Does anyone have a link to a Canberra ILS Approach Plate that might show the dimensions of the problem and a few facts?

Obviously a tricky trap that one could repeat just about anywhere that the dimensions (and holding sides) of a holding pattern are terrain critical. You don't have to be fatigued to punch in an error - although it helps.

Might turn out to be a good learning experience.

[Kaptin M]

Okay, so in hindsight NONE of us would ever have done this.

Why don't all of you aces form your own "Failsafe Airlines"!!

I get MORE than just a little bit p!ssed off with hearing about why I wouldn't have fallen for what is obviously one of those "links in the chain"!!!

The INSECURITY some of you display here, in the pretexts of "professionalism", is unbelievable.
You seem to think yourselves more infallable than Jehova, AND J.C AND Mohammad, AND Buddha combined!!

[NAMPS]

Air inquiry over mountain alarm
By Steve Creedy
September 22, 2004

THE Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating an early-morning incident over Canberra in which a Qantas aircraft flew close enough to a mountain to trigger a ground proximity warning.

The ATSB confirmed last night it was investigating an incident believed to have involved a Qantas 737 arriving from Perth about two weeks ago. But it would not elaborate ahead of a preliminary report expected to be released this week.

An ATSB spokesman said a notice on a professional pilots' website claiming the aircraft was forced into an emergency climb after it came within 150ft, or two seconds, of a mountain, "contained inaccuracies".

Other information on the website suggested the pilots involved reacted to the alarm using standard operating procedures.

"Both the airline and pilots involved are co-operating fully with the investigation, but until the ATSB has completed its investigation it's inappropriate to draw any conclusions based on anecdotal comments," the spokesman said.

The head of flight operations at Qantas, Chris Manning, said: "The information on the website is factually incorrect and the ATSB is investigating."

Mr Manning said the airline had promptly reported the incident to the ATSB.

The investigation comes as airspace activist Dick Smith ramped up his campaign to thwart Airservices Australia plans to roll back controversial airspace reforms.

A legal challenge by Mr Smith aimed at stopping the reversal will be heard in the Federal Court on November 1. Mr Smith claims Airservices did not take into account expert reports questioning the methodology used to support the reversal decision or concerns raised by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. He is also claiming the decision to introduce controlled "Class C" airspace without radar is unsafe.

The Australian

Source: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10839567%255E421,00.html (http://)

[DOME]

Front page of today's Canberra Times as well - tho' not on/in the Internet version.

The ubiquitous Dick shoves his oar in at the end of the article. PpRUNe gets a mention as a "pilot's Internet site".

Just dropped the Domette at CBR and heard on local ABC en route a spokesman for ATSB getting all bitter that these cases get a run on anonymous fora before they've had a chance to finalise a report.

[DirectAnywhere]

Yeah, well done everybody. Nice heads up effort to the media.

Judge, jury and executioner before the report comes out...again. Look at the Benalla accident and look at this case.

Woomeri, this sort of idle speculation and rumour mongering in the middle of an investigation does nothing to help anyone - least of all the reputation of this site. I would be interested to see the position PPRuNE would be left in should these types of posts be shown to have any influence on the outcome of an investigation and the procedural fairness of any ensuing criminal trial. The words "contempt of...." spring to mind.

I know this is a rumour network, but "rumours" and speculation relating to incidents or accidents under ungoing investigation are frankly inappropriate and utterly unprofessional.

[Vref+5]

Perhaps my post was misunderstood, I was simply offering my opinion, as a professional pilot, on the procedures I used to prevent this problem, not to be seen to be criticising the crew, or attempting to sway the outcome of an inquiry without the facts.
Somebody asked a valid question regarding a significant occurrence, that I as a member of the travelling public who flies QANTAS occcasionally into CB have a right to know about. If this occurence had been publicised at the time instead of 2 months later via rumours and gossip, perhaps it wouldn't have been on the front page of the Canberra Times with captions like "2 seconds from death" etc.

[Johhny Utah]

Kaptin M

Given the amount of information you spout of with on these forums, about how others should/should not do all manner of things, I find your post labelling others hypocrites to be..... extremely hypocritical

Perhaps you should heed your own advice, and thereby save everyone else from your constant rantings on the world according to Kaptin M

:suspect:

[Uncommon Sense]

Looking back on this thread, apart from a couple of errant opinions, I cannot see where there has been to much armchair analysis by Monday's heroes. Most of what has been written is surely just fact.

If you look at the opening post it was someone seeking confirmation of a rumour actually posted 'elsewhere' on the net anyway.

Blaming PPrune in this case is shooting the messenger - especially when you actually post it!

If Steve Creedy 'quotes' PPrune he would be very nieve indeed. Having said that, PPrune is normally more accurate than the mainstream media.

This would be more of a case of a 'lead' from this site that prompted a call to ATSB for verification I would deduce. Are any of you suggesting that such incidents should be 'hushed up'?

Didn't we seen enough of that when the Air Traffic Controllers took stop work meetings 2 1/2 years ago after Certified Agreement negotiations broke down: How many incidents did you hear about when ASA management took over the airspace during that period? How many were there? What did the QANTAS CP say about flying in that situation again? And where were the inquiring minds of the media THEN Steve Creedy?

ABC News Link 22 Sep 04 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1204390.htm)

[BelgiqueThe Link for the ILS Chart was already posted above]

Footnote: No need for ATSB investigation : Dick Smith apparently has all the answers here. (http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=local&story_id=337728&category=General+News&m=9&y=2004) Somebody help the prick for heavens sake.

[Grumpy Gorilla]

Hi all,

Interesting reading this incident.

Reading Kaptin M's post, and doing a bit of reading it appears that 3.1 nm leg limit should have been entered into the FMC (14.0-10.9) rather than 14.0.... I dont know if that makes his point any clearer or not...

With regards to why they waited till 5am, perhaps its due to YSCB now having PAL rather than permanently on lighting. This would impose a need for an alternate Im pretty sure, unless they hold the few minutes till tower opened.

Finally 5000 would give GS capture at 11.6 DME CB, whilst a 6000 pattern would give capture at 14.8 DME CB. Perhaps 5000 was selected as it was thought they would intercept GS from above if in the 6000 pattern? Just a thought anyway...

At least the 6000 pattern would have allowed them to do the 180kts they were reported as having been doing.

Grumpy

[Transition Layer]

There was yet another mention of pprune in this morning's SMH although I can't find the article anywhere.

It was also referred to as a "pilot's website" and featured the same quote from Chris Manning.

TL

[Capt Fathom]

it appears that 3.1 nm leg limit should have been entered into the FMC (14.0-10.9) rather than 14.0
Just for info, the Time or Leg Dist entered into the FMC is for the 'inbound leg', not the outbound.
So depending on your distance from the DME, typing in 3.1nm may not necessarily give you what you want.

Also, with strong head/tailwinds, the FMC looks at the time you have entered, and adjusts the time outbound to satisfy the inbound requirement.

So regardless of how much automation/gadgets the aircraft has installed, it sometimes make life harder!


NB This is the US system built into the FMCs I have used. Other systems may differ.

[NAMPS]

ATSB report....

FACTUAL INFORMATION

At 0211 Eastern Standard Time (0011 Western Standard Time), on 24 July 2004, a Boeing 737-800, registered VH-VXF departed Perth on a scheduled passenger service to Canberra. Due to an air conditioning system fault, the crew had difficulty controlling the flight deck temperature and experienced uncomfortably hot conditions throughout the flight.

At about 0544, while on descent to Canberra the crew received an alert from the aircraft’s enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS).

As the aircraft approached Canberra, the Melbourne Centre air traffic controller advised the crew that due to staff shortages, Canberra Approach was not `able to be manned’ and `MBZ procedures’ applied. The Canberra Terminal Control Unit service usually commenced at 0530. Therefore, the controller guidance normally afforded by the radar equipped unit could not be provided.

The after-hours airspace classification therefore continued, remaining Class G below 8,500 ft within 30 NM of Canberra and Class E above 8,500 ft. The crew continued under MBZ procedures and requested tracking to the Church Creek Locator (CCK), with the intention of entering the holding pattern and descending to an altitude from which an instrument landing system (ILS) approach to runway 35 could be made.

As the aircraft approached CCK the copilot, under the direction of the pilot in command, entered the CCK holding details into the flight management computer (FMC). An erroneous entry was made, resulting in the FMC computing a holding pattern with an inbound leg length of 14 NM. In order to make good an inbound leg length of 14 NM, the FMC uses current wind data to adjust its outbound distance and rate of turn. An inbound leg length of 14 NM, based on the CCK locator, could allow the aircraft to operate in the order of 20 NM to 30 NM from Canberra.

The published holding pattern requires that aircraft holding at CCK at 5,000 ft observe a maximum indicated airspeed (IAS) of 170 kts and distance measuring equipment (DME) limit of 14 NM from Canberra. The FMC computed holding pattern extended beyond the required limits of the published holding pattern.

The leg length entered caused the aircraft to operate beyond the published holding pattern limit. Based on radar data, during the descent the EGPWS provided the crew with a ‘caution terrain’ alert when the aircraft was passing 5,800 ft and about 22 NM south of Canberra. The crew reported that they responded to the alert by climbing the aircraft to 6,500 ft and maintained that altitude until the runway 35 ILS glide slope was intercepted. This was confirmed from radar data.

The Minimum Sector Altitude between Canberra and 10 NM south of Canberra is 5,100 ft and between 10 and 25 NM south of Canberra is 7,400 ft. The Aeronautical Information Publication defines Minimum Sector Altitude as the lowest altitude which may be used which will provide a minimum clearance of 1,000 ft above all objects located in an area contained within a sector of a circle of 25 NM or 10 NM radius centred on a radio aid to navigation or, where there is no radio navigation aid, the Aerodrome Reference Point.

Data from the EGPWS computer indicated that at the time of the alert the aircraft was positioned approximately 2,500 ft above ground level.

The investigation is continuing and includes the analysis of available recorded data.

Source: http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=659 (http://)

[SkySista]

Channel 10 have just reported it as "breaking news"

Boeing, I saw that news report too.... I just about :yuk: at their story... especially since had read about this a couple days before on here ;) "Breaking news" indeed. That segment was the most blatant piece of scaremongering I've seen for a long time (well, except from 10 I suppose, they seem to be doing it regularly now... )

In fact, once Sandra Sullen.. I mean, Sully, read out the breaking news bit, I let out a "HA!" loud enough to wake up the kids....

And as someone has said earlier, if in fact it was "seconds from death!" (:rolleyes: ) a couple hundred people would have noticed i think!!! If the press and/or ATSB want to go around thinking what people post here is 100% true, they're welcome to leave out a stocking for Santa as well...... :E

Sky

[7sex7]

someone plse explain "RED EYE"?

[Lloyd Braun]

I think red eye = late night departure from Perth (midnight) then arriving in eastern states of Aus at 5 am etc.

[AerocatS2A]

"Red eye" = Flights in the very early morning when the body would much rather be in a deep slumber (red eye from tired eyes).

With regards to why they waited till 5am, perhaps its due to YSCB now having PAL rather than permanently on lighting. This would impose a need for an alternate Im pretty sure, unless they hold the few minutes till tower opened.

No, the requirement is to either have an alternate, OR have fuel to hold till daylight. If you go for the holding option, you don't actually have to hold till light, you just need the ability to do so on the off chance that the PALs won't come on.

[Bevan666]

No, the requirement is to either have an alternate, OR have fuel to hold till daylight. If you go for the holding option, you don't actually have to hold till light, you just need the ability to do so on the off chance that the PALs won't come on.

Or a responsable person on the ground who can switch on the lights manually. I am sure QF can find one of those.

Bevan..

[Wirraway]

AAP

Qantas denies jet flew close to mountain
September 22, 2004 - 2:55PM

Qantas has denied reports one of its aircraft flew at a dangerously low level over a mountain near Canberra.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) yesterday confirmed it was investigating the incident involving an early morning Qantas flight in late July, carrying 135 passengers and crew from Perth to Canberra.

An aviation website has reported the pilots received a warning on the plane's in-flight system that they were flying too low while circling above Canberra airport, claiming that the plane came within 150 feet of the 5300 foot mountain.

But Qantas' head of flight operations, Captain Chris Manning, today denied the claim.

"The information on the website is factually incorrect," he said.

"The aircraft was not operating at 5000 feet at the time of the incident."

A Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) spokesman said the issue of the plane's height will be looked into during the ATSB investigation.

He said Qantas had reported the incident to the ATSB at the time.

"I should say that Qantas have done all the right things here, they reported it to us when it happened and have fully cooperated with our investigation," he said.

"There is no suggestion of a cover-up here."

Qantas declined to comment on what was in its report to the ATSB, saying it was a matter for the investigation.

- AAP

=========================================

[WhatWasThat]

Just heard that cretinous little twerp RHS daring to make comment about this incident on ABC radio - once again spouting off his ignorant mouth without posession of the facts.

I am going to call the ABC and advise them of my opinion as an aviation professional that giving oxygen to this foolish discredited broken down little man compromises the ABCs standards of journalistic integrity.

I would like to invite all likeminded PPRUNErs to do the same. Perhaps if they are deluged with unhappy pilots and controllers they will see the error of their ways and send the biscuit clown back to A Current Affair where he belongs!

[Ultralights]

i just heard the news report! a near miss between a Qantas aircraft and an unidentified aircraft from canberra! WOW!

i wonder if that mountain was on a VFR flight? or even had a transponder!.

this was on triple M radio.

[NAMPS]

Perhaps the mountain wasn't listening in on an 'appropriate' frequency??

[Wirraway]

Wed "The Australian" late news

Qantas plane flying 1600ft too low
By Peter Jean
September 22, 2004

A QANTAS plane was flying 1,600 feet lower than it should have been near Canberra when an onboard ground proximity alarm was activated, a safety watchdog said today.

An interim Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report found the co-pilot of the early morning Boeing 737 flight from Perth to Canberra had earlier entered incorrect flight data into the plane's flight management computer (FMC).

The ATSB said about 5.45am an onboard terrain alert was activated, based on radar data, when the plane was flying at 5,800 feet, about 22 nautical miles south of Canberra.

The minimum altitude permitted in the area was 7,400 feet. The highest mountain in the region is Tinderry Peak at 5,311 feet.

"The crew reported that they responded to the alert by climbing the aircraft to 6,500 feet," the ATSB report said.

The report said the crew on board the flight had earlier been advised that due to staff shortages, air traffic controllers were not monitoring radar equipment at Canberra.

The co-pilot had entered details into the flight management computer (FMC) for a holding pattern to be computed.

"An erroneous entry was made," the report said.

"The FMC computed holding pattern extended beyond the required limits of the published holding pattern."

Qantas chief pilot Chris Manning said the two pilots from the flight had now returned to work after being stood down while a company inquiry into the incident had been carried out.

"While an error appears to have been made by the pilots on the flight, the aircraft's warning system worked and corrective action was taken immediately," Captain Manning said in a statement.

Captain Manning said the ATSB report had shown that speculation the plane had been flying at 5,000 feet and had come close to hitting a mountain peak was incorrect.

The ATSB report found an air-conditioning fault meant the crew had experienced uncomfortably hot conditions throughout the flight.

The ATSB said it would not be commenting on the interim report but a final report would be released by March next year.

==========================================

[Buster Hyman]

This is the picture from the Age!:rolleyes: And to think, someone got paid to do this!:suspect:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/09/22/q_6_narrowweb__200x388.jpg

[Sunfish]

Definition of Schadenfreud from a distant aquaintance;- Noel, Lord Annan: "The feeling a poor man who has no car experiences when he sees two brand new Mercedes crash in front of him". Also known as guilty pleasure.

Sunfish has a double dose tonight. Only hope is that his exploits never get plastered over the screen, while he is alive tohave to talk about it.

[Grumpy Gorilla]

someone plse explain "RED EYE"?

a) They had conjunctivitis...
b) They were possessed by a demon...
c) They were taking flash photographs....
d) They had the munchies....

All jokes by the way...

[Ibex]

From ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1204842.htm)

Former CASA chairman Dick Smith says the flight should not have been taken off central radar control, which detects any approaching danger.

"An alarm would go off and tell the air traffic controller to tell the captain of the plane to climb immediately," he said.

"Then if the air traffic controller fails to give the message the automatic equipment in the plane goes off.

"That's what happened by the look of it, that's the only thing that saved these people from being killed."

WTF has dick got to do with anything? Why do you need to make comments on this dick?

Last week it was the Benalla crash, now this.

[Uncommon Sense]

I think ****su-Tonka said it best Dick: STFU

Your grasp of ATC and how it works is tenuous at best - why the media actively seek you out for uninformed comment makes me despair - mainly at the competence and initiative of the media itself. No doubt a result of the McEducation system we have been delivered, and the sensationalist pop-idol stature of our media outlets. Even the ABC is falling in to the trap.

You might like to qualify your comment on 'central radar control' and exactly how accurate the ATC Minimum Safe Altitiude Warning would initiate Dick. EGPWS will be doing a better job than the terrain model built in to the TAAATS system.

Of course, I am sure you already know that with your self-declared expert status.

[Roger Standby]

"Dick Smith says the flight should not have been taken off central radar control"

What the ???? What the hell does that mean?

He gets pi$$ed at not being allowed into CTA and then expects an aircraft to be kept in CTA against its wishes???

"ABC, clearance to leave on descent not available, remain in CTA".

Spare me.

RS

[gaunty]

Smith on ABC talk back has, barely 10 minutes ago, told Perth travellers that they should NOT travel on any QF flight to Canberra at night, until the Airservices issues are addressed.

And there was the usual discursive polemic about how "I am being prevented from saving the world, by everyone else."

[Duff Man]

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1204732.htm
Wednesday, 22 September , 2004 12:50:00
Reporter: Alison Caldwell
DAVID HARDAKER: The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating an incident involving a Qantas jet over Canberra in July, where it's believed the crew incorrectly programmed the jet's holding pattern.

Newspaper reports this morning claimed the passenger jet was just seconds from disaster, when its ground proximity warning system was activated.

The incident happened just before 5am, when the Qantas jet from Perth was ordered into a holding pattern over Canberra.

As Alison Caldwell reports, a professional pilots' website first detailed the incident late last week, and claimed that the jet's warning system saved the lives of everyone on board.

ALISON CALDWELL: Qantas flight 720 left Perth soon after midnight on July the 24th, with 155 passengers on board.

On it's approach to Canberra just before 5am, the Boeing 737 was placed in a holding pattern near a mountain range some 40 kilometres south of the national capital.

The World Today understands that the pilots on board incorrectly programmed the plane's coordinates and soon after, its warning system was activated.

Today's newspaper reports claim the jet came within 80 metres of hitting a mountain peak.

The incident was reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. A preliminary report will be released later today.

Peter Gibson is a spokesman for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

PETER GIBSON: There was some problems with the programming of the holding pattern by the flight crew at the time, and that has been reported as an incident by Qantas, quite properly to us and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, and that's being investigated right now.

ALISON CALDWELL: Details of the incident are contained on a professional pilots website.

It claims the crew and passengers were just seconds from disaster when the plane's warning system was activated.

Alan Stray is with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, he says the website has grossly exaggerated the incident.

ALAN STRAY: It's quite inappropriate and in many ways irresponsible for people to be putting out anecdotal information on rumour networks, and until we've had a chance to analyse the facts and come up with some concrete evidence and some findings, it is inappropriate to make such comments, and so we've been working on this for some weeks gathering sufficient information to be able to put something meaningful out to the public, and we hope to be in a position to do that in the next 24 to 48 hours.

ALISON CALDWELL: Neither the ATSB or CASA will provide any further information about the incident.

CASA's Peter Gibson says the website doesn't tell the whole story.

PETER GIBSON: The website is known as the pilots rumour network, and some of the information there is spot on and some of the information is just that, rumours.

Now, some of the information on this particular incident I think is probably reasonably close to the mark. Some of the other information is suggesting that the aircraft was only metres away from the mountaintops at the Tinderry Ranges I think is a bit exaggerated.

ALISON CALDWELL: The Qantas jet was one of airline's new 737 800's. With it's fully computerised cockpit, it allows the crew to manually change the aircraft's coordinates.

Richard Woodward is with the Australian International Pilots Association. He says the aircraft's terrain warning system gave the pilots enough time to take action.

RICHARD WOODWARD: The ground proximity warning system in the modern aircraft has a multiple layer of protection and the terrain warning indicates a closure rate with terrain that's not yet critical, you know for instance if the ground's climbing under the aeroplane and it's flying level it would give a terrain warning in the form of terrain terrain, whereas if the aircraft was ascending in very close proximity to the ground, that would be followed by a pull up call to the crew to take action.

The crew, I gather the crew reported the situation through the normal process and there was normal internal investigation in the company and appropriate actions in the company's eyes were taken and this just is a subsequent follow up by the ATSB.

ALISON CALDWELL: The Professional pilots website says that the jet's last line of defence against hitting the ground was its, you know being its ground proximity warning system, or GPWS was the only thing which saved the lives of the 155 passengers on board.

RICHARD WOODWARD: Um, well I think that's a long bow to draw on this case, because as I said I don't believe in this instance and I can't really speculate too much, but I don't think the actual closure rate with this terrain in this situation was that critical.

DAVID HARDAKER: Richard Woodward of the Australian International Pilots Association with Alison Caldwell.

[Capt Claret]

Doesn't a public advice to not fly QF to CBR leave the proponent open to litigation by QF? I'd think they have deeper pockets than him too!

[SkySista]

Funny how they keep losing/gaining 20 or so passengers..... :rolleyes:

Hell, if I was QF, I'd have my lawyer at Dick's doorstep right now... perhaps someone should get on the news and tell it like it really is, re; DS.... oh, wait, I forgot, he might sue..... :yuk:

Sky

[Grog Frog]

Dick Said

What we have got here is the most serious near-accident we've had in nearly 30 years," Mr Smith said.

I thought the most serious near accident we've had in nearly 30 years was at Launy on Xmas eve, when Dick-space nearly welded the VB B737 and TB10.

Dick your a xxxx disgrace.

[Kaptin M]

The most recent near CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) that I can recall, was in the very early 1990's, when 1 (and possibly 2) Ansett A320, crewed by a non-Australian, was making a DME arrival into Cairns from the south.

It was only an alert ATC'er who observed on radar (that the AFAP had been pushing for, for years prior) that the Airbus had descended WELL below the lowest altitude permitted, and advised the crew to climb.

You were wrong with the facts yet again, Dick!

[Uncommon Sense]

More of the world (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Content.php?ContentID=313) through Dick Coloured Glasses.

The conspiracy theories keep growing in Dicks mind.

It just never occurs to him that maybe everybody else is right about this and he is the one that just might be wrong.

Just what does complete self belief become at the abandonment of all else?

Delusion?

The Avweb Article on Dicks day in court (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/293-full.html#188194)

Perhaps when Airservices Australia, CASA, ATSB, Qantas, Virgin all eventually are called to defend their position to the various courts at Dicks behest they could continue the theatrics, and conduct their press conference 'door stop' with a 'blindfolded Dick Smith?' - Oh, thats right. We've already got one of those.

There must be enough out on the table now for QANTAS to take Smith to court with his accusations against them, and pleading with the public not to fly into Canberra with QANTAS because it is not safe. Smith might be wealthy enough to enjoy the benefits of a rich mans legal system (I won't call it a justice system!), but QANTAS has a deeper war chest. (As seen here (http://www.crikey.com.au/business/2004/09/23-0001.html) - this would be a better reason not to plan a QF trip over Xmas surely?)

[Uncommon Sense]

So, Airservices will now at last take Dick to court - what about QANTAS?

[Destination controlr]

To shed a little more light on the subject, here's some facts.
Red eye to CBR spot on. Company policy apparently states that if ATC services available, crew should hold until active (1935z in CBR). On the FMC hold page, a leg distance can be input. This alters the holding pattern in order to fly the distance specified as the inbound leg. The crew entered 14nm as a leg distance, possible misinterpreting this as a 14 DME limit. The holding pattern is at CCK as someone rightly mentioned before, and, unless my geography is poor, 14nm from CCK would put you pretty close to Kosiosko.
Hope this clarifies some misconceptions for you all

[Capn Bloggs]

Kaptin M,
CNS 33 now has a nice shiny LLZ, but the bureaucrat dickwits didn't bother putting a DME on the threshold on probably the most difficult approach for heavies in Oz! No wonder crews not conversant with non-precision wiffodills have trouble with it, having to apply a minus 800ft profile correction to have any idea about what they're doing.
Dick should be ranting about that and therefore make a positive contribution to air safety here.

[elektra]

I just wonder how much Dick does know about aviation. Well actually I think I know the answer.

I routinely tell my (Asian) F/Os that I am old and grey and fallible and that if they wish to be my best friend they will scream like a stuck pig when I do something stupid. As do most expats I know. And the F/Os, perhaps being a little sick of arrogance etc, listen.

Pride, arrogance, infallibility, myopia, introspection, etc etc are killers in aviation. We are all the product of the accidents or near accidents that some other poor bugg@rs had at some time in the past.

Preaching about how "I have a dream" worked for Martin Luther King...he at least invested his life's work in that dream. Not as an interested bystander. To hear Dick's "I have an airspace dream" is to discourage me from ever going to sleep again.

Why do we listen to him?

[balance]

What I can't understand is why they didn't hold higher. I haven't had a look at the charts but apart from terrain clearance it would likely have two additional benefits. That is controlled airspace, and reduced fuel burn.

So why did they do this? Was it late notification that CBR would not be active perhaps?

[Capt Fathom]

14nm from CCK would put you pretty close to Kosiosko Kosciusko is 85 nm SSW of CB!

[Sperm Bank]

Balance, the difference in fuel burn @ 5000 feet and 20,000 feet is negligible. @ 60T @ 5000 approx 2160 kh/hr. @ 60T @ 20,000 approx 2040 kg/hr. Just over 100 kg/hr diff. At that time of the morning you just want to get in and land. The guys made an error in the FMC and did an excellent job recovering from the resulting GPWS...end of story. All the training paid off in spades in this particular case. I would hazard a guess this particular crew will never make the same mistake again, and in the process have provided the rest of us with a friendly reminder that it can and will go wrong from time to time.

[balance]

What you suggest is quite probably true, spermy. I'd hope not though. "Get-home-itis" is known to have caused many an accident.

I don't know what happened, and I don't profess to. But I would like to know why they didn't hold higher. FF might only be a small consideration, but the others are considerable.

There but for the grace of God go I......

[Hempy]

Dicks latest press conference



http://www.users.on.net/~drew.dickson/Minister.jpg

[Destination controlr]

One logical and probable reason for holding low would be that the tower may have been just about to open hence there may only have been a requirement of 1 pattern, not 100% sure.
Still, holding was carried out at 5000' which means a maximum of 170KIAS, requiring Flap 5 to be extended. At 6000', no speed restrictions imposed (including ICAO speeds) mean holding with flap extended. The basic fact of the matter remains, as mentioned in a previous post, for whatever reason the event occured, it dod occur and the crew were sufficiently trained to react to the warning and did so correctly, averting a more sinister outcome.