PDA

View Full Version : Aircraft too low in SEQ??


reallyoldfart
11th May 2010, 02:09
Any substance to this or is it another example of accurate aviation reporting by the media>>

Passenger planes dropped too low over Gold Coast: ATSB (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/travel/passenger-planes-dropped-too-low-over-gold-coast-atsb-20100511-upwo.html)

Flight Detent
11th May 2010, 02:31
Just a case of descending below radar lowest safe altitude!!

...in IMC!!

Transition Layer
11th May 2010, 03:26
But their airfares are really, really cheap! :suspect:

stubby jumbo
11th May 2010, 04:58
mmmmm........maybe they were trying to save fuel and left the glide /engine on idle for too long.

OR..........the cabin crew stopped peddling for some reason:hmm:

Icarus2001
11th May 2010, 05:12
Or were they following an instrument approach procedure, either correctly or otherwise.

Think about it. ALL instrument approach procedures take you below the RVA by definition!

The ATSB website gives no information so we will have to wait and see.

Or do you guys who are already bagging them have more info?

Dick N. Cider
11th May 2010, 06:49
In the truest spirit of the forum they should be bagged unmercifully without a shred of evidence but...

I thought that the decision made at decision height was the responsibility of the pilot in command. If it's a VIS or cloud base issue then again that can only be made from the cockpit. It's why ATC no longer have the right to close an aerodrome for approaches. It's a different matter if it involved busting a cleared level.

How about we break with tradition and wait for the evidence...







...before bagging the crew?

Sunstar320
11th May 2010, 08:05
D7 again hey....Clearly inexperience plays a major part here, half these D7 guys have next to no time on the A333 and it amazes me that there has not been many more accidents like this. I thought their big boss might have learnt a lesson or two after all the lack of experience and training that AirAsia crews had, which led to a few writeoffs, too many tailstrikes, crinkled frames and landings which were beyond ridiculous.

Hmm...Perhaps these guys will just get a warning rather than the previous lot who stuffed up and got fired :{

Metro man
11th May 2010, 08:06
Two days in a row, obviously then different crew involved on each occasion. Opens up the possibility of incorrect documentation or a FMS database error, wrong altitude constraint given at a way point prehaps ?

Neptunus Rex
11th May 2010, 08:39
I can only find reference to one accident involving Air Asia, and that was a minor one in 2004, when one of their B737s ran off the runway at Kota Kinabalu and there were two minor injuries.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is 'D7?'

paulg
11th May 2010, 09:30
How was this an accident? Injuries? Airframe damage?

Metro man
11th May 2010, 09:51
Air Asia have had a number of heavy landings, not sure exactly how many. Heard the last one registered 6G. This has resulted in extended periods in the hangar while the damage was sorted out.

When you pay as poorly as they do, and even sell right hand seat time, you must expect these little incidents to happen from time to time. :hmm:

Icarus2001
11th May 2010, 10:17
D7 again hey....Clearly inexperience plays a major part here

Possibly.:hmm:

AirAsia crews had, which led to a few writeoffs, too many tailstrikes, crinkled frames and landings which were beyond ridiculous.


Could you please provide references to the incident reports, or at least some links to news articles?

Air Asia have had a number of heavy landings, not sure exactly how many. Heard the last one registered 6G.

Okay. Once again can you provide references?

Enough of this xenophobic rubbish. Below RVA in VMC on ONE of the two occasions.

Sunstar320
11th May 2010, 10:25
I can only find reference to one accident involving Air Asia, and that was a minor one in 2004, when one of their B737s ran off the runway at Kota Kinabalu and there were two minor injuries.A major one a few years ago 9M-AFX was crunched onto the runway at KUL, was told the crew both only had a few hundred hours on type. The gear had to be replaced and god knows what else did.

There has been many numerous other tailstrikes/hard landings of which most are only heard around the pilot body, not everything makes the news in Malaysia as what is reported down here about Qantas.

Hey, if you dont believe me, PM me your email and I will show you...

reallyoldfart
12th May 2010, 07:57
Until the real facts come out, we are wrong to start laying blame - personally I don't believe descending below LSA in IMC is all that smart, if that is what actually happened.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, AN AIRPORT WITH THE NUMBER OF LARGE AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS THAT THE GOLD COAST HAS, NOT BEING EQUIPPED WITH A PRECISION APPROACH WOULD BE LAUGHABLE ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. (Make that the civilized world)

7378FE
12th May 2010, 08:53
An A330 crashed killing all on board while on approach to Tripoli, Libya a few hours ago.

Not sure what caused this one, but maybe a Airbus software problem related to the Air Asia incidents. :confused:

It's not easy to to prang an airplane at TIP in fine weather. :hmm:

Maybe the A330 screwed up.

HotDog
12th May 2010, 11:52
737sFE, I suggest you read about this accident in Rumours and News before you hypothesise on the cause.:rolleyes:

bekolblockage
12th May 2010, 15:55
As I said on the R&N forum, the prelim report is poorly written.

Quote:
During an approach in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), the aircraft went below the radar lowest safe altitude.


So what? Isn't that the point of an instrument approach?

Or do they mean the aircraft busted it's assigned altitude while under radar vectors?

Cam32
13th May 2010, 03:18
Does not matter the type or software. Monitoring and situational awareness is the priority on approach (and at all stages).

Computers do a nice job if you tell them the right things.

Waiting for the report.

Capn Bloggs
13th May 2010, 03:58
Computers do a nice job if you tell them the right things.
And databases can lead an unsuspecting crew up the garden path...

I've been bitten at GREAV before.

peuce
13th May 2010, 04:07
Well, I can provide a first hand account of Air Asia operations.

I very recently, did 6 sectors with them within Asia. My observations:

Cabin Crew ... mostly spot on. More observant and more thorough than a lot of QF flights I've been on.

Piloting ... just observations, without comment ...


on no sector was reverse thrust ( that I could see or detect) used on landing ....
based on engine noise and experience elsewhere, reduced thrust used on all takeoffs
One "hard landing" ... for which the Captain apologised

Cam32
13th May 2010, 04:21
Based on my airline.

Unfortunatly, above idle reverse not encouraged unless tailwind or wet runway.

Reduced thrust takeoff, (FLEX) Every time if we can.

Whats the problem?

Hard landings also not recommended :}

Jabawocky
13th May 2010, 04:39
no problem.....

Unfortunatly, above idle reverse not encouraged unless tailwind or wet runway.

Especially if you like golf :E

peuce
13th May 2010, 04:45
It's just so different to what one experiences in Australia. There's reduced thrust and there's reduced thrust. The fact that I noticed it says something.

As SLF, I'd like that little added extra bit of contigency that full thrust and reverse thrust provides. However, I understand the reality of a commercial world as well.

And ... I continue to buy their tickets if they go where I want at a good price.

I'm placing a good deal of faith in the "oversighters".. be they company or regulatory. Hope they won't let me down.

P.S. ... like they are at Broome ( had to get that in)

bekolblockage
13th May 2010, 06:50
Based on the report, I still don't see what the incident was. :confused:
Anyone from care to elaborate?

SGT Schulz
13th May 2010, 11:38
I've been told below 1500 feet on 9nm final Runway 32 VOR Approach!:eek:

Metro man
13th May 2010, 13:08
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/pending/dap/BCGNB02-123.pdf

If flying a constant descent angle 3 degree approach, at 9 miles he should have been at 2800ft and not below 2200ft.

Centaurus
13th May 2010, 13:29
Wasn't it a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 that tried the same caper while "attempting" a Melbourne 16 Twin Locator? ILS was out of service at the time.

Something like 500 ft above terrain approaching Rockdale NDB (4.2 miles) then got a GPWS. I think they climbed back to profile and spotted the runway and resumed the landing approach. Turned out the crew hadn't a clue how to do an NDB and had hoped the automatics would do the flying safely for them...

Metro man
13th May 2010, 13:54
On the Airbus a non precision approach can be flown by the autopilot in managed mode. ie the aircraft will fly the pattern and descend in accordance with the profile.

However this requires approval by the authority and extra expense to validate each approach. Without approval, basically it is has to be hand flown through the autopilot. ie tracks dialed in, descent rates set up and adjustments made accordingly. The pilot flies the approach rather than monitoring the aircraft while it does it by itself.

Capn Bloggs
13th May 2010, 14:19
Metro,
However this requires approval by the authority and extra expense to validate each approach.
That is amazing. Surely the aircraft systems would be approved for overlay approaches as part of the entry into service of the type/tail number. As for the validation of each approach, if the FMS database is from an approved supplier, why is there a need for validation?

Transition Layer
13th May 2010, 14:34
Centaurus

Wasn't it a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 that tried the same caper while "attempting" a Melbourne 16 Twin Locator? ILS was out of service at the time.

Something like 500 ft above terrain approaching Rockdale NDB (4.2 miles) then got a GPWS. I think they climbed back to profile and spotted the runway and resumed the landing approach. Turned out the crew hadn't a clue how to do an NDB and had hoped the automatics would do the flying safely for them...

I'm pretty sure it was actually Thai Airways, could have been very nasty. Something to do with flying a non-precision approach using FLCH - can't imagine why that didn't work! :eek:

Capn Bloggs
13th May 2010, 14:53
The Thais actually did a pretty good job of trying to get it right. They even put the approach into the box because it was missing from the DB. They came unstuck when ATC used non-standard RT which confused the crew and they delayed descending (which they were going to do in VNAV), hence the use of FLCH.

They hadn't done a "manual" NDB in 18 months. Who's fault was that? The regulator, the operator? Does your company require you to do a raw data approach as part of your 35/90 day currency requirements? And into the bargain, the Lido chart they were using was pretty poxy IMO.

Yet another crew that were set up to stuffup.

bekolblockage
13th May 2010, 15:27
Something like 500 ft above terrain approaching Rockdale NDB (4.2 miles) then got a GPWS.

I vaguely recall the incident but didn't see the outcome of the investigation.

I hope you're not implying they should have been 1000 ft above the terrain, were you? Not too many a/c would get visual if that was the case.

I presume the 16 LOC is designed to PANS-OPS criteria. From recollection, PANS-OPS criteria provides 300m (984ft) obstacle clearance in the Initial segment, 150m (492 ft) in the Intermediate segment and just 75m (246ft) in the Final segment.

Haven't got the chart, but I guess just north of ROC is in the intermediate, so 500ft AGL sounds good!

I just wonder sometimes if some of these incident reports are due to controllers seeing a/c descend straight to the OCA, which they're entitiled to do, but look way below the 3 deg gp that most times they are used to seeing and it scares the hell out of them.

In the OOL case however, if the numbers quoted are right at 9 NM final and 1500, then he's definitely busted the OCA.

Metro man
13th May 2010, 23:52
Bloggs

I can't speak for Air Asia, but the company I work for don't have approval for managed non precision approaches even though the aircraft will quite happily fly them.

I was told this was due to the expense involved. It would appear they want us to use our skills rather than pay extra for the aircraft to do it for us.:E

As low cost airlines generally do not like spending money, I would be surprised if Air Asia X had gone to this expense. Most airports big enough for wide body aircraft are usually well serviced with ILS approaches and management may not have though it necessary.

Even on the A320 which does smaller airports, a non precision approach is not that common for us. Perhaps once every couple of months.

Capn Bloggs
14th May 2010, 00:13
Metro, thanks for that. Low cost indeed... You would have thought in this day and age even the most cheap-skate outfit would pay for overlay approach capability. :cool:

Going Nowhere
14th May 2010, 00:58
WebTrak: Gold Coast Airport (http://www331.webtrak-lochard.com/webtrak/ool3)

Set the date and time and you can watch their track.

beaver_rotate
14th May 2010, 03:48
WOW thanks Going Nowhere.

It shows they got to 450M (1500'?) down between Kingscliff and Terranoora.

Scary $hit!! Ouch. And after 1 (that I could see?) missed approached. The previous approach was a good 300M higher. Woops.

Artificial Horizon
14th May 2010, 05:03
Oh come on, the fact that Full Reverse isn't used does not equate to a poor safety standard. Working for one of the majors in Europe, the use of full reverse was completely frowned upon unless totally necessary. I would say that the blanket use of full reverse on every landing is actually poor airmanship due to the lack of consideration for noise, wear and tear etc... Just because a couple of 'skygods' stuffed an approach and ended up on a golf course is no excuse really to now enforce full reverse on 'safety' grounds. Also in many years of flying I could almost count on one hand the number of times I have had to complete a TOGA departure due perf or environmental reasons. Just because the aussies do it one way doesn't make all other ways unsafe. No doubt it looks like the crew 'coc*ed' up here but probably more down to the fact they are totally unfamiliar with flying NPA's when at most of thier other airports they probably go from ILS to ILS...... of course it could be something as simple as an incorrect QNH... only time will tell.

Centaurus
14th May 2010, 15:29
Yet another crew that were set up to stuffup.

I don't buy that. These are supposed to be highly trained competent experienced men with demonstrated ability to deal with every QRH emergency in the book. They are supposed to be competent at LOFT exercises where their CRM and situational awareness is tested by government regulators who observe airline check captains doing their job.

And so they go to pieces when an Australian ATC uses an alleged non-standard phrase and then cock-up a straight forward non-threatening straight in NDB approach. Although it is fashionable for the do-gooders to blame everyone but the flight deck crew, the truth is pilots do actually make mistakes sometimes and have only themselves to blame.

KABOY
14th May 2010, 16:24
I can't speak for Air Asia, but the company I work for don't have approval for managed non precision approaches even though the aircraft will quite happily fly them.

I am a little perplexed, how can an approach be surveyed and the aircraft not permitted to fly this approach managed. Airbus promulgate approaches that are not to be flown managed via OEB, the rest are recommended to be flown managed!

captaintunedog777
14th May 2010, 23:21
It shows they got to 450M (1500'?) down between Kingscliff and Terranoora.

Why don't you read an approach chart. I got the 32 GPS chart out though it is a little out of date. Ok they were not on profile. Why? I have no idea. But min altitude at 10.3nm out is 1500 feet aka 500m. Looks like they were 3000 feet until finals where they descended to 1500 feet. Hence min altitude over Kinscliffe looks around 1500 feet or 500m. Unbelievable. I thought this forum was for professionals.

In summary they were flying the approach in selected. They maintained 3000 feet until BCGSI then descended down to 1500 until BCGSF where they further descended.

Gulity until proven innocent. Once again Australians mouthing off. Nothing ever changes. Must come from our early colonial convict days.

Capn Bloggs
14th May 2010, 23:49
Centaurus, you need a dose of reality. :=

Dunedog, I hardly think they'd be doing a GPS NPA and not be in VNAV.

captaintunedog777
15th May 2010, 04:10
Capn Bloggs

Don't you mean nav. One does not have to fly a fully managed approach. You can fly nav plus selected vertically which is what i think happened here. They've missed out on the first app then decided to get down to 1500 to try and get visual. Possibly.

You have a better idea. We don't call it it VNAV on the bus.

Metro man
15th May 2010, 09:52
Could also have been track/ flight path angle. Establish inbound on the radial in track mode, the aircraft should then maintain this course (in practice a couple of tiny adjustments are necessary).

Select a FPA of -3deg unless it's obvious a different angle is needed. MONITOR the whole way down and adjust as necessary. Plenty of clues available, DME vs ALT on the chart, PROG on runway threshold and check 3 to 1. Above all DO NOT descend below the steps.

If you know how to use the equipment it's far easier than doing it in a light twin. You have a TV screen on which you can extend the runway center line and monitor that. The wings stay level by themselves, you have much greater stability in gusts or turbulence and the auto thrust looks after speed control.

Capn Bloggs
15th May 2010, 11:46
Don't you mean nav.
No I don't mean NAV. I mean VNAV (or whatever you call it). Anyway, looking at webtrack, they don't appear to have done a GPSNPA.

Whatever happened (they were on their second approach at the time) they did another missed approach and didn't come back for some time. I'm sure that, after missing out the first time, they'd be using LNAV and VNAV, if they had it. Obviously not... :cool:

captaintunedog777
15th May 2010, 13:13
They haven't done a GPS. How did you work that out and what have they done?

Metro man
15th May 2010, 14:30
4 descent modes available on A320, assuming same for A330.

DES - Managed descent, aircraft complies with constraints given in the STAR ie above, below, or at the required altitude at way points.

OPEN DESC - Aircraft drops without regard to constraints.

VS - Vertical speed, selected number of feet per minute.

FPA - Flight Path Angle, number of degrees down. Normally used only on manually flown approaches.

Capn Bloggs
15th May 2010, 22:11
They haven't done a GPS.
I know. That's what I said.

How did you work that out and what have they done?
Webtrak; link in earlier post.

So DES is VNAV. By the look of it, they certainly weren't in it. Should have been on their second go, unless they were either gluttons for punishment or it wasn't available....:cool:

Mstr Caution
16th May 2010, 11:44
From Webtrack link posted earlier. The following data is observed on 4th May 2010.

07:04am - Domestic arrival lands runway 32.

07:28am - Said aircraft (first) Go Round from runway 32 approach. At my best guess about 1000ft high on profile.

07:30am - Domestic arrival lands runway 32.

07:40am - Said aircraft (second) Go Round from runway 32 approach. At my best guess 1200ft low on profile becomming 150ft high on profile at later stage of the approach.

07:56am - Said aircraft (third) Go Round from Runway 14 approach. At my best guess approach on profile.

08:01am - Domestic arrival lands runway 14.

08:20am - Domestic arrival lands runway 14.

MC

Jabawocky
16th May 2010, 11:57
Must have had plenty of fuel......one hopes! :uhoh:

And landed BNE at around 8.23am. A long ride for the punters! If any down the back had any idea what was going on there, they would be more than anxious:uhoh:.

I wonder did the crew greet the pax as they walked off.

Tee Emm
16th May 2010, 12:44
I wonder did the crew greet the pax as they walked off.

Of course. They were expecting to be given a nice round of applause for a safe and pleasant journey and a few more miles than they had paid for. Nice touch!

Mstr Caution
16th May 2010, 13:21
Here's the full METAR for 07:00 & 08:00am

METAR YBCG 032100Z AUTO 34005KT 3100NDV // SCT011 BKN015 OVC026 20/18 Q1021

METAR YBCG 032200Z AUTO 10012KT 3200NDV // SCT008 BKN016 OVC039 20/18 Q1021

Mstr Caution
2nd Jun 2010, 12:27
Looks like another "similar occurance" reported to the ATSB on 29th May 2010.

Jabawocky
2nd Jun 2010, 13:27
hmmmm

29th of May was a ****ty morning wx wise, but not that bad.....the Retard Vehicle would have been fine into YBCG............so what is going on here? There are places around that have far worse wx on a regular basis than SEQ:confused:

Sunstar320
26th Jun 2010, 04:19
Same pilot mabye? Never ceases to amaze me. And yes, this guy was stood down (new to A333 also) after ramming into the terminal.

Photos: Airbus A330-343E Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/AirAsia-X/Airbus-A330-343E/1724121/L/&sid=b1bf9a43bf9b3a4b18014dd9a7d8759b)

sms777
27th Jun 2010, 08:30
So... the conclusion is pilot error, hah?
What was the FO doing during all this? The usual "too afraid to speak up sitting next to a highly experienced captain" scenario? I thought that was in the past even in asian airlines.

neville_nobody
28th Jun 2010, 05:34
There are places around that have far worse wx on a regular basis than SEQ

There are, but they have appropriate navigation facilities in place...unlike the Gold Coast.

Jabawocky
28th Jun 2010, 06:01
And your point is??? There are published approaches for YBCG follow them get viual and land or conduct the Missed Approach. That's not exactly what we saw several times. :=

neville_nobody
28th Jun 2010, 06:44
My point is that the Gold Coast minima is way to high and leaves you in a very grey area as you often break free of the cloud at 1000' but are then left to manoeuvre to align with the runway in and out of rain showers.

What makes it worse is that rain is very unpredictable. We have gotten in comfortably in showers at the Gold Coast only to have everyone behind us go round because the rain suddenly increased in intensity. A worse scenario is that you get visual start manoeuvring then lose sight of the runway and have to go around from 300'.

That weather you describe as being 'not to bad' on the day in question is actually below the minima for the approach at both ends.

If YBCG had an ILS this discussion would not be taking place.

Jabawocky
28th Jun 2010, 08:22
Neville

Sorry to have confused you but the comment I made about the 29th of May and the wx not being as bad is possibly being mixed in your mind with the original incident which was some rather "strange" flying in the 3 approaches made on the 4th of May.

The MDA's seem to be around 700-800 feet, and several others made it in first go either side of their 3 approaches. Not saying its not possible with bad luck, but when you consider the radar tracks.......I am glad I wwas not on board :eek:.

Something is very fishy about these incidents.

hope that cleasr things up a bit.
J

neville_nobody
28th Jun 2010, 12:34
What I mean is that the minima is to high to land safely in a heavy rain shower. You clear the cloud but are still not visual and cannot land.

Nothing can be done about the minima other than build a new airport in an appropriate location. For an international airport not to have an ILS with a minima at 200 odd feet isn't an ideal situation for somewhere as busy as the Gold Coast.

AVIATOR1982
29th Jun 2010, 01:05
Are you joking ? YBCG has about 2 days a year where the cloud base is below 1500ft, how on earth could you ever justify the cost of installing and maintaining an ILS ?