Will CASA suspend JQ for descending below MSA on approach?

[Ovation]

From the Aviation Herald:

A Jetstar Airbus A320-200, registration VH-VGR performing flight JQ-279 from Auckland to Queenstown (New Zealand), completed the flight for a safe landing in Queenstown.

Australia's TSB reported however identifying the incident aircraft as VH-VQA, that the crew selected an incorrect vertical profile for the approach and thus descended below the minimum safe height. The ATSB have opened an investigation.



Full article here: JQ descends below MSA (http://avherald.com/h?article=4545b23a&opt=0)

[limitedrisk]

How can you make a successful approach and landing without going below MDA in ZQN?

Don't you mean they started a RNP approach and descended below an approach restriction?

Were they IMC or VMC?

If VMC, then the flight was safe at all times.

If a company requirement is to maintain the approach restriction in IMC or VMC then that will need to be addressed.

As for CASA suspending JQ for descending below MDA on approach?

You clearly Know nothing about conducting an instrument approach no matter what airline we are discussing.

Go back to flight sim.

[Capt_SNAFU]

Perhaps they broke visual at an altitude below the minima due to an incorrect setting. Not ideal but wait for the report.

[Roller Merlin]

Kiwi media report
Jetstar Flight Under Investigation After Low Descent... | Stuff.co.nz (http://i.stuff.co.nz/travel/australia/7498369/Jetstar-flight-under-investigation)

[Capn Bloggs]

First ad noticed to the right of that story...a Qantas booking panel!

[HF3000]

A company spokesman said that for a short time when the plane was supposed to be at 7300 feet (2225 metres) it had dropped down to 6300 feet, and had then gone back up to 7300 feet.

Oh, only 1000' low. No probs.

[Oakape]

Which has the greater safety impact, this incident or the PB departure that is the subject of the current court case?

If NZ CAA are to be consistant, these guys will be in court in the near future. It will be interesting to watch what happens with this one, but I bet it will never happen.

[maggot]

Which has the greater safety impact, this incident or the PB departure that is the subject of the current court case?

If NZ CAA are to be consistant, these guys will be in court in the near future. It will be interesting to watch what happens with this one, but I bet it will never happen.

well, on the surface with bystander info only; what looks like a c0ck up on approach vs intentional non-compliance to take off...

[Mstr Caution]

If the aircraft was 1000 ft low & there was no issues.

One has to wonder why the crew would climb back up the 1000 ft to 7300.

Wait for the report I suppose.

[Ollie Onion]

NZCAA has nothing to do with it, they have no oversight on Jetstar New Zealand at all.

[Roger Greendeck]

You reckon? I am pretty sure that you will find that national airworthiness authorities can and do have oversight of RPT operations in their own countries regardless of where the aircraft is registered and where the company is domiciled. The example the recent investigation of AirAsia operating into the Gold Coast springs to mind.

[myshoutcaptain]

I rarely pass judgement on things of this nature prior to the report however ;

If the aircraft was 1000 ft low & there was no issues.

One has to wonder why the crew would climb back up the 1000 ft to 7300.

Wait for the report I suppose.

Corrective action? Can't imagine figuring out that they may have made an error and then saying " oh well we're here now so lets just continue.."

Ditto for the report.

ps - not having a crack at you.:ok:

[Capt Claret]

Gee, I wonder if HF3000 was mumbling, with his tongue stuck in his cheek, and all that?

Oh, only 1000' low. No probs.

[c100driver]

Rodger

I believe that you may be incorrect as the cross Tasman Aviation Agreement is a unique oversite arrangement between Aussie and NZ and applies to registered airlines of both countries.

[Sarcs]

Aviation Herald article: No Metars are available for Queenstown, on Jul 16th between 06:00L and 12:00L the local weatherstation however reported clear skies with a visibility between 20 and 50km (11-27nm), easterly winds around 10 knots, humidity between 91 and 97 percent and temperatures at 1 degrees C with the dew point at 0 degrees C.


Am I missing something? Although not reporting cloud cover, the above sounds pretty much CAVOK...however the climb back to 7300' would seem to indicate differently!

Ben Sandilands view of it all is very damning..one thing is for sure it's not going to be so easy to sweep under the carpet..interesting!:E

Jetstar says breaking MSA into Queenstown not dangerous ! | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/08/18/jetstar-says-breaking-msa-into-queenstown-not-dangerous/)

[Mstr Caution]

I should have worded my previous post better!

In my opinion. The fact that a climb occurred during an approach is "unusual" so the fact the aircraft was 1000 ft below where it should be IS an issue.

I have no experience of operations into NZQN.

However, my concern is how can two pilots allow an airliner to be in a position that it shouldn't. Furthermore, if procedural errors can ocurr like this then what guarantees are there that similar errors don't ocurr elsewhere.

After all. Wasn't one of the reasons for grounding tiger the following events:

1. The aircraft not being where it should have been after a go around in Avalon.

&

2. Another aircraft being BELOW the procedural height it should have been on approach to Tullamarine.

[Ollie Onion]

You can't compare this with Tiger. Once again the Tiger grounding wasn't due to the actual procedural events but to the lack of a SAFETY system in place to handle the reports and retraining of the crews involved.

In the Jetstar case the actual event was similar. The big difference is that having been self reported by he crew, the relevant authorities were notified and action taken UNLIKE Tiger!! Is this so hard to understand :ugh:

As for Sandilands I am starting to think he has got something against the Qantas group, his articles are increasingly full of in factual rantings, which is a shame as I used to quite enjoy them.

[Mstr Caution]

"is this so hard to understand"

I think I get your drift.

So you are saying that although there have been repeated incidents within one organization with reference to:

Fatigue
Aircraft Configuration
Flight Deck Discipline
Procedural Compliance

There is no reason for concern, as the events are reported and the organization may treat each event as a learning outcome.

Is the difference one airline can $#>k up, not report & be grounded whereas another airline can $#>k up, report the incident and they are protected?

[Lookleft]

that's right MC in much the same way that an airline that has multiple engine failures, fuel tanks being exhausted, auto lands at Cat 1 only airports and too low gear warnings not to mention holding patterns below MSA can also stay in the air because of the way the events are managed by the airline. As OO mentioned the difference between Tiger and other airlines was the back office structure.

[Ollie Onion]

Mstr Caution,

That is kind of what I am saying, CASA is only interested in the Safety System in place when it comes to this sort of thing. Is it right.... NO. Do I think someone should be concerned about the list of events you have published.... YES.

What does get my rag, is when people say that Tiger was grounded for this, so then every airline that has a similar incident should be grounded. This just shows a misunderstanding of why CASA grounded Tiger.

[Mstr Caution]

I take your point around the tiger grounding.

Agreed on the regulatory oversight tho.

Having a back office SMS doesn't help at the time an excursion from flight path or procedure ocurrs.

Bit like saying our systems are safe cause we can learn from coronial inquiries.

[wheels_down]

Tiger was grounded because they broke the record for the highest amount of defects on a commercial fleet, with zero support behind the scenes. They didn't even have a safety dept.

I dont think its quite possible to get to the suspension level that Tiger did. Trust me! :oh:

[Keg]

n much the same way that an airline that has multiple engine failures,

Personally I think CASA was weak on this one. Given the systemic nature of the engine failures and the fact that QF couldn't fix it, I would have thought CASA would have been much more proactive. Had they done so, perhaps all the stupid decisions of Dixon, Joyce et al would have been put under the spot light.

fuel tanks being exhausted

Not sure on this one?

auto lands at Cat 1 only airports

When the weather drops below minima when an alternate wasn't forecast to be required and the aircraft didn't have a diversion port?

not to mention holding patterns below MSA

No excuses but mitigating factors. Broken air con and flight deck temp temp in excess of 38 degrees C for a 3 1/2 hour red eye flight.

and too low gear warnings

So in effect that you're claiming that these disparate events over a bunch of years (more than 5?) is the same as multiple stuff ups of go arounds (common thread of insufficient training, inexperienced crew, poor procedures, etc) and descending below published minimums?

[DirectAnywhere]

Fuel tank issue was a 737 PER-SYD.

Qantas flight low on fuel, reserves switched off [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-337097.html)

[Bankstown]

Nothing wrong with an auto land at a Cat 1 airport! Conducting one with the weather below the landing minima on the other hand......

[Lookleft]

The point of my post was that the mob mentality of grounding Jetstar each time they are in the papers because Tiger was grounded is based more on emotion than rational thinking. Any list of events that confirm why Jetstar should be grounded can be countered by events that have occurred to brand x that ,given a bias by the media, could be construed as reasonable grounds to "Tiger" it. BS has an agenda to push that goes back to the 27 ILS incident where he was proved wrong in his statement that the aircraft got to 39' with the gear up. I think that CASA should be paying more attention to Jetstar and the HC AOC end of aviation. Their focus on SMS audits is too narrow and I think that CASA employees should not be allowed to join an airline at least 2 years after leaving CASA.

[amos2]

So tell me, which runways in OZ are categorized Autoland?

[flying-spike]

"I think that CASA employees should not be allowed to join an airline at least 2 years after leaving CASA."
Mmmmmm, would the extra 2 years count towards long service?

If the two numpties I'm thinking of are the two numpties you're talking about CASA should have show-caused the airline for employing them.

[The Green Goblin]

So tell me, which runways in OZ are categorized Autoland?

Autolands are approved at every major capital city in Australia on certain runways with an ILS in Cat 1 or better conditions.

Jetstar have also recently received Cat 3 approval.

[amos2]

So, could you list them for me please GG?

[The Green Goblin]

Not my place to list them mate.

Having said that, any runway with an ILS is pretty much approved provided it has been tested and a successful autoland carried out prior.

Autolands are also required at certain intervals to keep the aircrafts operational approval.

If you work for an airline you will have a list in your operations manual with approved autoland ports.

If not, stop kicking the tyres and leave it there.

[Ollie Onion]

Got to go with GG here, there are at least a dozen runways in Oz authorised for Autolands. If you are talking about actual autoland runways along with Cat II or II authorisation then just YMML in Australia. I assume you know that Autoland authorisation can be independent of CAT III authorisation.

[amos2]

Well, if you can't answer that question GG, can you list the OZ runways that Jetstar have Cat 3 Autoland approvals for?

Perhaps someone else may have to help you out?

OO perhaps?

[big buddah]

Amos,
Cat3 and autoland are two different things!
You can do autoland without Cat2 or Cat3 & even do Cat2 without autoland not sure about Cat3????

They are completely independent of each other.
the only approved Cat2/3 at the moment is YMML.

[amos2]

So, now we're getting a little closer to the right answer!

Are you there, Keg?

Want to help them out?...I know you can!

But, why should you? ;);)

[The Green Goblin]

Amos I think you are clearly confused between a Cat 3b approach where an autoland is required and a regular autoland.

On a side note Jetstar have recent approval for Cat 3 approaches and all crew that take the low visibility simulator training have been trained to Cat 3b standards for some time.

Modern airliners with Cat 3 dual redundancy will autoland if you do not disconnect the autopilot on any ILS. All ILS approaches are configured Cat 3 dual regardless of approach category that you are operating too.

Melbourne at this stage is the only port at this stage that you can shoot a Cat 3 approach and autoland in anger.

However there is a large list of ports were you can shoot a cat 1 approach to the minima and autoland if you so desire.

[DirectAnywhere]

All very interesting, but what it has to do with the RNP approach in Queenstown is well and truly beyond me...:confused:

[Tidbinbilla]

Let's get back on topic: A Jetstar occurrence in N.Z.

If you want to chat about the differences between autoland and Cat 2/3 landings, please start another topic. However, it seems that has been clarified at least twice already on this thread. :) But someone has difficulty comprehending same :)

[Cactusjack]

NZCAA has nothing to do with it, they have no oversight on Jetstar New Zealand at all.
That is correct. Much the same way that TOLL has it's NZ registered 737's flying around Australia and CASA has no oversight rights whatsoever. A complete joke. If CASA wanted to look closer at the 737's they would have to at a minimum go and negotiate with their CAA counterparts in NZ. So you will find that the CAA doesn't get a very in-depth look at the NZ JQ operation.


If the two numpties I'm thinking of are the two numpties you're talking about
CASA should have show-caused the airline for employing them.
Very funny Flying Spike Milligan, and very true. However, a LCC operation sometimes attracts LCC quality staff which occurred in this case.Time to change the colour scheme from orange and silver to baby cack yellow or brown?

Wonder what Xenophon is thinking around about now? And I wonder how long the ATSB has been sitting on some of the investigations, or should I say how long the Minister has been sitting on the results, perhaps long enough for BB to enact 'operation exit' and bolt overseas to his new make-up venture?

[5coffee]

Ah media fluff around Queenstown again I think.

7300ft is back near the start of the RNP approach. So they were below profile on the approach. The pilots noticed it and fixed it. Quite possibly end of story. We will see.

QNH error maybe?

I certainly wouldn't be grounding aircraft just yet. Some people are a little over excited. :-)

[scrubba]

Cactusjack,

I must have missed the repeal of subsection 7(a) of the Civil Aviation Act. :uhoh:

Can you point out the sections of the TransTasman Mutual Recognition Act that create the special "hands-off" arrangement for aviation oversight, so we can get the Civil Aviation Act amended to correctly reflect these special arrangements? :ugh: :ugh:

[flying-spike]

9 CASA’s functions
(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;

Visa-Versa for NZ registered aircraft operating here and by the way,
7 (a)=
"Application of the Criminal Code" or if you mean this:
"7 Extra‑territorial application
This Act extends to matters relating to:
(a) foreign registered aircraft flying into or out of Australian territory or operating in Australian territory; "(not ANZA aircraft)

[Cactusjack]

(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;
Spike beat me to it. My point exactly :ok:
Scrubba:ugh::ugh:

[maggotdriver]

Having had a mate sitting in the back of a Westwind as it ploughed into the McDonnell Ranges, I can't believe people are saying this is not a big deal. It is a huge deal, it is one of the most fundamental parts of aviation "don't run out of fuel, don't hit the f...ing hills". Only luck had it that they were 1000' low at the "right" time, so to speak. The Westwind on approach to Alice Springs was the wrong time, it hit the highest boulder sitting on the range, for the sake of twenty feet left, right or up they would be here.

This is a BIG deal!:ugh:

[waren9]

NZCAA has no say on Jetstar operations?

Who was it that forgot to read the 500hr rule that apparently still applies to Jetstar as a foreign AOC holder?

[Mstr Caution]

Maggot driver.

I'm with you on this one.

We'll have to wait for the report.

However, I'm concerned as to how a two pilot airliner could be 1000ft lower than it suppose to be. If there's no issues as to why it was 1000ft low. Then could the same errors lead to another aircraft being 2000ft low?

On face value an error has allegedly occurred.

I'm more concerned with the operational environment that has allowed errors to occur on a repitive basis.

[Ollie Onion]

Ah yes Waren, there are certain exclusions under the ANZA treaty and that is one of them.

[Lookleft]

If it was an RNP approach then they may have been descending in a mode other than managed and they possibly thought that the aircraft would take care of the constraints. It would explain why they could be 1000' below an altitude before they picked up the error. A two pilot cockpit is full of errors hence the need for TEM.

[amos2]

You are kidding aren't you LL?

[Angle of Attack]

Lots of opinions but looks like a stuff up, and it's pretty obvious it was, enough said, the report will bring out the details.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Lookleft:

The "aircraft will take care of the constraints"?! Fvck me, who is flying who here? That mentality represents all that is bad about automated aircraft.

[Sarcs]

possibly thought that the aircraft would take care of the constraints.
Mate LL gotta agree with Gfr (gotta love that name!) here: Fvck me, who is flying who here?...excuse me but you still got to monitor that the bloody computer is doing what your told it to do...FFS do you think your gettin paid to just sit and scratch your balls/b*#!:ugh:

[gordonfvckingramsay]

My point exactly Sarcs. Seen it before, people happy to sit there while the aircraft flies them from A to B. you MUST monitor. :)

[Lookleft]

I was offering a possible explanation not excusing what happened. If you don,t think it's possible look beyond D&G and check out the YouTube video on children of the magenta. Rnp is meant to be done on managed and does even more to turn the pilots into systems monitors than just the autopilot. The ATSB started looking at the implications of RNP in incidents years ago so this will give them the opportunity to provide some safety lessons (hopefully).

[DirectAnywhere]

I'd go further.

You must put the aeroplane where YOU want it, not where it wants to put you. That takes more than just monitoring. It takes active management.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

DirectAnywhere, even better.

[Lookleft]

Couldn't agree with you more and that's why there is a whole debate on other forums about the role of the pilot and manufacturer's concerns about manual flying skills. In the words of Molly Meldrum "do yourself a favour" and look at children of the magenta on the CRM forum. The subjugation of the pilot to the machine has been happening for a while.

[ejectx3]

Unbelievable that people calling themselves professional pilots can have the mindset that "the aircraft was responsible for the approach profile"

Stop the world I want to get off.

[Jack Ranga]

No-one is indispensable (not even you Al). In the end you are just an insurance claim. The odds have been calculated. 1 in ? Chance. The hull will be lost, the claims will be paid........

All in all you're just a.......nother......brick in the wall ;)

[Bula]

Fark me, any of you bolding non coms actually fly RNP approaches?

..... What are you going to monitor with other than the FMGC profile and your altimeter, the coriolis effect? :E

[maggot]

Fark me, any of you bolding nomb combs actually fly RNP approaches?

..... What are you going to monitor with other than the FMGC profile and your altimeter, the coreolus effect?

... maybe, for starters, make sure it ain't 1000' low....

[balance]

Fark me, any of you bolding nomb combs actually fly RNP approaches?

..... What are you going to monitor with other than the FMGC profile and your altimeter, the coreolus effect?

We could monitor spelling. Coriolis maybe? If you are going to sling off, you really need to get it right, otherwise you make yourself look, well, stupid. :}

[Lookleft]

Bula you also need to edit non coms. Nomb Combs aren't actually words or even abbreviations.:E

[Bula]

Fair call. Anyone know how to turn off Apple's autocorrect feature?

But in all seriousness everyone is bleeping on about:

You must put the aeroplane where you want it

Seen it before, people happy to sit there while the aircraft flies them from A to B. you MUST monitor.

..........

I agree, whole heartedly agree with these comments, though RNP is the exception to the rule. Rather than automation over-reliance, it is automation reliance full stop. You are completely reliant on the aircrafts NAV system to put you in the right place at the right time.... Hopefully.

Even more so the ZQN RNP charts are not easy charts to read off the cuff. Under pressure it takes a physical conscious effort to desphyer, especially with the 2 points concerned being so close together.

Overloaded, out of time, mistakes were made.

[Lookleft]

Agree Bula-RNP is where aviation is headed and the only way to fly it is in managed mode or VNAV LNAV, thats the way they were designed. My understanding is that QANTAS are required to fly RNP approaches whenever possible even in preference to an ILS. This crew were not paying attention and made it worse for themselves by not flying the approach in a managed mode.

[waren9]

Not saying its a factor in this incident, but I and a few others have noticed a marked preference for selected modes amongst those at Jetstar who haven't flown the aircraft anywhere else.

Managed modes are not used as a matter of course by quite a few.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

So Bula,

Do you set it up in the box, pop out for a cup of tea and hope for the best when doing an RNP do you? LNAV and VNAV still doesn't remove you from the role of monitoring/managing the approach. It is just like any other FMS driven data base approach.

[Livs Hairdresser]

There is no exception to the rule. Full stop.

[ejectx3]

Jesus h Christ you monitor the profile from the chart , ie at this waypoint , what height am I meant to be.

...and other bothersome things like deviation ....

If you are, then it doesn't get 1000 feet low without you noticing and doing something about it.

Lord give me strength

[Angle of Attack]

Well apart from FMGC profile and your altimeter, seeing as others haven't mentioned it..... Airspeed? Profile and height are all good but not if it puts you over the threshold at 250 knots. And I have seen it happen all good in LNAV VNAV then wondering why we are still 250 knots at 16 miles at 5000ft, hmm seems a bit hot and sure enough suddenly reverts to speed mode and drifts above path because of an unable next altitude message suddenly appearing. These approaches are good overall, especially to ports with limited aids but still a trap for the unwary.

[Normasars]

One would assume that the "unwary" have been TRAINED and CHECKED in these procedures and signed off as proficient. If this is the case, then there is a disconnect happening somewhere. These guys were negligent in their duties and responsibilities. Period!

Ejectx, gotta agree with you. These two "passengers" at the sharp end, and the fare paying pax can thank their lucky stars they are still here with their loved ones.

Tick! Tock! Indeed.

[Capn Bloggs]

Can somebody post a link to the chart in question?

[ejectx3]

http://www.aip.net.nz/NavWalk.aspx?section=CHARTS&tree=Queenstown

[Capn Bloggs]

Jesus h Christ you monitor the profile from the chart , ie at this waypoint , what height am I meant to be.

...and other bothersome things like deviation ....

If you are, then it doesn't get 1000 feet low without you noticing and doing something about it.

Lord give me strength
Until on final, I can't see many charted altitude limits or profile; the RNAV Zs got none apart from the holding pattern limits. Of course, the VNAV deviation thingee (I don't fly bussses) would probably give a clue.

"Use the force, Luke, but just in case, make sure your targeting computer is engaged in VNAV!"

[ejectx3]

Aren't we talking about Rnp approach?

[Ollie Onion]

Those charts don't look anything like the airline specific charts which I can assure you have a number of approach altitudes on them.

This incident was quite simple really, when cleared for the approach the crew would normally set the vertical intercept point (VIP) altitude which for RWY05 is 6300'. You would then normally engage managed NAV so that the aircraft flies the managed vertical profile in accordance with the chart. At this point it is up to the crew to basically 'monitor' the approach and make sure the constraints are met. It would seem in this case for some reason once 6300' was set that the crew selected Open Descent which means the aircraft will just descend to that altitude regardless of constraints. Although not recommended to use 'selected modes' on RNP approaches it is allowed, just means you need to be extra vigilant about the monitoring of the constraints, I suspect in this case the crew did not intend to be in selected mode. The failing here is it would appear that they then didn't monitor the profile (really the only thing you should be doing!!).

Although on this occasion this error didn't endanger the aircraft, as we all know the act of descending below an instrument approach path can kill you and is a serious incident.

[Yousef Breckenheimer]

Sorry if I missed it already but where abouts on the chart profile was the aircraft 1000' low on profile?

[Sarcs]

Reading the general discourse between various parties it appears that: (a) the answer to the thread is "No", CASA won't suspend the JQ AOC, probably due to 'Regulatory Capture' more than anything else.
(b) the incident was probably due to those dreaded RNP approaches, well dreaded if you stuff them up anyway!

Imagine for a moment if you had to do a similar approach without all these extra defences, whizbang technology, excellent training etc and without a fully competent crewmember beside you...hmm sound familiar!

Its about now that everyone should grab a caffeine fix or a bex and take the time to read this 2006 ATSB report on RNP approaches:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/32628/20050342_rnav_12.06.pdf

I hesitate a guess that some of you contributed to the 2005 ATSB survey??

Now take a look at this incident that came perilously close to disaster: The GPWS Perils of a Lone Psoitioning Source (http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/RiskManagement/toolow-terrain.html)

Cumulus Granatis is very unforgiving, careful out there these RNP approaches can be a killer!:=

[waren9]

I see your point Sarcs, but the relevance of those 2 links to current RNP procedures is somewhat outdated.

The equipment has protections by design from the dangers of lone source information as well.

My guess is the simple explanation is that the fellas were too busy gazing out the window, while in severe CAVOK. And in that part of the world, who could blame them!

Find it hard to believe it happened IMC.

[Sarcs]

My guess is the simple explanation is that the fellas were too busy gazing out the window, while in severe CAVOK. And in that part of the world, who could blame them!

Find it hard to believe it happened IMC.

I don't disagree with you Wazza, it sounded like a classic case of 'star gazing' mixed perhaps with a degree of computer complacency.:ok:

However the issues highlighted from the 2005 ATSB survey on the GNSS approaches are still current as the machinery (Airbus and Boeing) hasn't had any giant technological leaps forward since then and the same can be said for the approach design principles...be interesting to have a similar survey conducted now and see what the results would be...but back to the thread, sorry for the drift Mods!:E

[Ollie Onion]

Um, at my airline you can't fly an RNP approach with the AP off, you can select it off to regain track or profile should you deviate, but then AP must be selected back ON.

RNP approaches are automation reliance at its essence. Taking ZQN out of the hand flying envelope is not a bad thing, I can hand fly at every other destination. In this case it was actually the fact that the crew didn't utilize all the available automation that got them into trouble.