MERGED: Air India almost arrives at Essendon ... [Archive]

vee1-rotate

17th Jan 2014, 03:56

Staggers me that the ATSB aren't pursuing this further. Good to see the keen eye of ML TWR/APP !

Looks as though they got to overhead the Maribyrnong River at 1000ft before changing track.

Air-India 787 warned off wrong Melbourne Airport landing | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/01/17/air-india-787-warned-off-wrong-melbourne-airport-landing/)
Missed Approach: Air India AI301 | carry-on (http://www.carry-on.com.au/blog/missed-approach/)
Air India (AI) #301 ? 14-Jan-2014 ? YSSY / SYD - YMML / MEL ? FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AIC301/history/20140113/2115Z/YSSY/YMML)
An Air-India Dreamliner 787 was at low altitude on Tuesday morning and about to touchdown at the wrong Melbourne Airport, Essendon rather than nearby Melbourne International, when it was warned off by AirServices Australia.

A full and well illustrated account of the sub-standard flight safety standards displayed by the Air-India crew has been published here on the Carry On site.

It nearly made Melbourne the setting for a fourth high profile wrong airport landing in recent times, as outlined on Carry On.

Or even a fifh if the Ethiopian landing of a 767 at the wrong airport near Mt Kilimanjaro in December is included in what looks like an epidemic of in-flight clumsiness to the general media, yet is statistically insignificant given the overall volume of safe world wide air traffic movements.

The ATSB has confirmed that it has been notified of the Air-India incident but has decided that it will not launch on inquiry.

Based on the further information we received from the operator, air traffic control and from the crew we decided that there was nothing systemic that warranted an investigation. Basically, the system operated as it was designed to do.

Two pilots ask to evaluate the known details of the incident were divided over the ATSB’s decision. The pilot who supported the decision said that inter alia there was no probability that anything the ATSB might say or do would have the slightest effect on Air-India, and that it would amount to a costly and pointless exercise in hand holding.

The other pilot saw merit in an inquiry because he believed there was too high an incidence of flight path deviation incidents near Melbourne’s main airport, in part the result of ‘sub-optimally designed’ approach paths and that the Air-India incident was an opportunity to examine a bigger picture.

Both pilots believed that the Air-India 787 could have been pulled up with ease on the Essendon runway, which before Melbourne’s nearby International airport was built was used by jets as large as Boeing 727-200s in regular domestic service. They were also aware of anecdotal accounts of a DC-10 lining up to land on the Essendon runway sometime in the 70s, and being warned off at the last minute.

falconx

17th Jan 2014, 07:22

Won't be the first won't be the last

blueloo

17th Jan 2014, 10:22

Anyone know if there is any truth to this....Air India cleared for the ILS 34L in SYD.... apparently nicely established on 34R.

drpixie

17th Jan 2014, 11:12

Shouldn't complain too much - a least they were (mostly) managing to do a visual approach.

neville_nobody

17th Jan 2014, 11:12

Well they're operating domestic sectors in Australia why shouldn't they be investigated? Given the amount BS the locals have to indure if they can't get simple thngs right like finding a runway why should it be tolerated? If QF did it CASA would be all over them.

Cactusjack

17th Jan 2014, 11:20

If QF did it CASA would be all over them.
Somehow I doubt that

woollcott

17th Jan 2014, 11:50

Stand by for the usual "Close Essendon Airport now!" chorus...................

1stspotter

17th Jan 2014, 15:58

An Air-India Dreamliner 787 was at low altitude on Tuesday morning and about to touchdown at the wrong Melbourne Airport, Essendon rather than nearby Melbourne International, when it was warned off by AirServices Australia.

A full and well illustrated account of the sub-standard flight safety standards displayed by the Air-India crew has been published here on the Carry On site (http://www.carry-on.com.au/blog/missed-approach/).

It nearly made Melbourne the setting for a fourth high profile wrong airport landing in recent times, as outlined on Carry On.
Operating AI301 from Sydney to Melbourne VT-ANM approached and crossed Melbourne from the east following usual tracking paths for aircraft inbound from the north-east to YMML’s active Runway 34.

The flight crew initiated a right turn to lining up for Essendon’s Runway 35 mistaking it for YMML’s Runway 34. Essendon Airport is located 4.5nm to southeast of Melbourne International Airport, and has a similar cross-runway layout to Melbourne with the runway headings only offset 1 degree

Detailed info including flight track here
Missed Approach: Air India AI301 | carry-on (http://www.carry-on.com.au/blog/missed-approach/)

also here news
Air-India 787 warned off wrong Melbourne Airport landing | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/01/17/air-india-787-warned-off-wrong-melbourne-airport-landing/)

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

17th Jan 2014, 16:02

Don't they have ILS at Melbourne?

TopBunk

17th Jan 2014, 16:08

HD

not on that runway! Furthermore, in some circumstances, approaching MEL from the east lines you up with runway 27 at Essendon, which has the same runway configuration as MEL - a trap waiting for the unwary, for sure.

I suspect that the reason that an ILS has not been installed is that when the wind is out of the north it is normally very clear.

Ozzie rules :rolleyes:

bucks_raj

17th Jan 2014, 18:36

I second the investigation.... But investigate what . the situation did not deteriorate to a level at which some thing wrong happened.The radar did its job the crew did its job the aircraft showed reliability so in all for a change The system worked! :D:D

Break Right

17th Jan 2014, 19:42

Doesn't the STAR have a height requirement of Above 2500' at sheed? Not sure how you could land at essedon with that restriction in the box. 👍

vee1-rotate

17th Jan 2014, 19:59

I had a listen on liveatc last night quickly and it seems they initially requested vectors for the VOR approach on 34, but in the end were cleared for a visual right base after vectors, so weren't on the STAR.

Capn Bloggs

17th Jan 2014, 21:06

(TID EDIT. Original offensive post removed.)
Doesn't the STAR have a height requirement of Above 2500' at sheed? Not sure how you could land at essedon with that restriction in the box.
I don't fly to MEL but a cursory glance at the STARs indicate they were probably doing a DYTES or somesuch via BOLTY? Nowhere near SHEED.

Wally Mk2

17th Jan 2014, 22:48

Interesting that in this day & age with all the sophisticated gear on board the most basic thing about when flying a plane gets lost, situational awareness, something getting more & more 'lost' in it's own right!
You know how it is we have a high level of awareness whilst in IMC on the dials & doing what we are trained the most to do, fly way up there but when it comes to breaking out of cloud for Eg we seem to say/go phew glad that's over we are now visual...easy peezy we can relax...........well not so in this case & quite often to:-)
ATC often spoon feed these guys as they simply don't trust them especially CTA steps by way of height restrictions, & tracking IE vectors, the most basic of navigation. Sounds like they where being vectored & to report rwy 34 in sight. Looking around out the window it could easily be mistaken EN drome as Tulla as the rwy complex is similar (not identical though).

Sure ultimately the drivers are to blame Capt in particular but as a side subject here have we set ourselves up with a tool that leads us down the garden path? That tool being highly developed automation. (yes I now there are numerous threads on this subject but worth a mention here anyway)

We can make a 100 airframes all perfectly identical but can we make a 100 pilots the same? Now there lies a perplexing question & not even the most hideous phyco testing crap can guarantee anything these days as well trained, well checked & well respected pilots have simply flown into a mountain in a fully serviceable machine mostly 'cause they where suckered into it.
I've landed on the wrong Rwy at MB 100 yrs ago due circumstances that changed at the last minute, we are all human:-)

Wmk2

Ken Borough

17th Jan 2014, 23:22

I wonder how good is the AI Route Brief? Does it detail the proximity to each other and the similarities of Essendon and Tullamarine?

Break Right

17th Jan 2014, 23:44

Bloggs if they were coming in from SYD the visual procedure for rwy34 it is still via the star with the height requirement at sheed. However if they were off the star on vectors dif story for sure.

vee1-rotate

17th Jan 2014, 23:48

Any folks that fly into MEL regularly, do ATC still drop the "report runway 34 lead in strobe lights in sight" ?

itsnotthatbloodyhard

18th Jan 2014, 01:55

Bloggs if they were coming in from SYD the visual procedure for rwy34 it is still via the star with the height requirement at sheed. However if they were off the star on vectors dif story for sure.

The point is, they weren't doing the visual star, so SHEED doesn't come into it at all.

From the flight track it looks like they were tracking round the arc from BOLTY, saw a runway out the window, and had a go at landing on it.

(Which would be kind of ironic, when you think how many visual approach cockups happen when we get tangled up with the FMC and autopilot modes, instead of just looking out the window and flying the thing.)

George Glass

18th Jan 2014, 02:11

You can still make a visual approach while TRACKING via the star.The approach over Essendon is a dog. Get rid of it.

nitpicker330

18th Jan 2014, 04:34

Idiots probably had VOR centre on both ND's and didn't have a look a the picture on the lovely big LCD's Boeing fitted to the 787.

Wouldn't the EGPWS have made a few calls associated with Terrain clearance floor or Runway clearance floor when they weren't lined up on the correct Runway 34 at ML or would EN RWY 35 be in the 787 data base??

Either way.....:D

nitpicker330

18th Jan 2014, 04:47

Just looked up the A330 Terrain clearance floor warning function of the EPGWS and inside 12 nm from the intended runway the floor is 400' AGL. So unless AI descended below about 730' AMSL ( RWY 34 elev is 330' ) around 12 nm ML RWY 34 threshold then they wouldn't have got a warning. ( unless there is an obstacle close by as well )

Oh well so much for that theory!!

emergency000

18th Jan 2014, 07:53

Looking around out the window it could easily be mistaken EN drome as Tulla as the rwy complex is similar (not identical though).

And the complete lack of any real terminal or apron to speak of, not to mention a severe dearth of other international aircraft wouldn't have set some alarm bells off? I'm not a pilot but even I know the terminals are included in the Jepps.

falconx

18th Jan 2014, 07:54

Capt, that runway doesn't look like 4000 metres...

waren9

18th Jan 2014, 08:37

those that have and those who will

let he who is without sin cast the first stone

there but for the grace of…….

and so it goes

for those of us who operate to mel environs often, hard to fathom. for those of us who operate further afield, often rarely or for the first time... not so much

Capt Claret

18th Jan 2014, 08:41

And the complete lack of any real terminal or apron to speak of, not to mention a severe dearth of other international aircraft wouldn't have set some alarm bells off? I'm not a pilot but even I know the terminals are included in the Jepps.

I've never heard of anyone, on approach to land, reference the terminal chart and check for location of terminal buildings, nor other parked aircraft.

cynical321

18th Jan 2014, 09:03

Air-India 787 warned off wrong Melbourne Airport landing | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/01/17/air-india-787-warned-off-wrong-melbourne-airport-landing/)

An Air-India Dreamliner 787 was at low altitude on Tuesday morning and about to touchdown at the wrong Melbourne Airport, Essendon rather than nearby Melbourne International, when it was warned off by AirServices Australia.

Angle of Attack

18th Jan 2014, 09:10

For about the third time this has nothing to do with the SHEED visual arrival, pretty hard to line up with Essendon from overhead...:ugh: they were well south of Essendon and being radar vectored visually onto RWY 34 by the sounds of it.

Ollie Onion

18th Jan 2014, 09:40

I can see why this wasn't investigated. Sounds to me like they were being vectored to the VOR (as often happens) and then for one reason or another took a visual approach. This has happened to me on numerous occasions when ATC offer up the visual approach during vectors to expedite the approach or decent. Obviously they then lined up on the Northerly RWY at ESS. Now at some point on that approach either the crew or ATC or both realised the mistake and a missed approach was undertaken. Sounds as though everything actually worked well, someone was on the ball and prevented a c*ckup.

Capn Bloggs

18th Jan 2014, 10:05

I'm not a pilot but even I know the terminals are included in the Jepps.
Get a few hundred hours in the operation and then you'll be qualified to criticise a crew. :=

This is PPrune...

Centaurus

18th Jan 2014, 11:34

someone was on the ball

Certainly not the Air India pilots that's for sure. Par for the course:=

compressor stall

18th Jan 2014, 11:42

I've never heard of anyone, on approach to land, reference the terminal chart and check for location of terminal buildings, nor other parked aircraft.

Have done it at more than one fairly large Indian airport. Jepp charts (current!) have only a small terminal at the far end. No other taxiways or infrastructure. Halfway down runway on other side is a terminal an order of magnitude larger. Glistening white and silver and shiny and a multitude of parking pays and taxiways.

What was on the chart reflected nothing in reality.

ReverseFlight

18th Jan 2014, 11:48

I don't think it was Bolty because the 11dme arc is over the southern shore of the city whereas the aircraft started turning final over the Bayside and straightened out for a YMEN 35 by the time it was over Brighton.

If it had been from Waren, then it should have tracked 319 to Michm first before turning left to track 264 to Bolty.

It definitely wasn't the infamous Sheed, as that would have at least required tracking over Monty first and tracking 257 towards Sheed. I dare say a drop from Sheed at 2500 and sharp right would have ended in soiled pants.

I agree that the PF probably accepted a visual clearance and was too proud to refuse it - classic mistake.

TurboOtter

18th Jan 2014, 23:35

Second busiest airport in Aus and doesn't have an ILS on both ends of the longest runway.
We should be embarrassed that our facilities don't match those of most of the world.

Troo believer

18th Jan 2014, 23:49

ILS is very good but really not required for 34 YMML. The 787 is Gnss Rnp capable and can virtually get over the end of the runway on centreline on a 3* path by itself if the pilots know what they are doing without any nav aids. Lnav and Vnav are enormously capable in this aircraft and yet the crew didn't use it correctly. Also when is ATC going to modernise there thinking and stop stuffing around with VOR radials. Bloody stuck in the 70s. GBAS approach could also be an alternative.

Roller Merlin

19th Jan 2014, 00:59

At an ATC info night we were informed that foreign carriers were not issued the Sheed arrival because they stuffed it up in the past. "Only for the locals...." I saw a Korean heavy wobble out of the sky onto RWY34 MEL some years ago giving the Sheed a try.

Gotta love the selective way of doing ATC in this country...along with the stupidly steep airspace control steps that stuff up jet arrivals.

spelling_nazi

19th Jan 2014, 03:27

Alice springs is a prime example when landing 30 for insanely high control steps inbound from sydney

vee1-rotate

19th Jan 2014, 03:59

At an ATC info night we were informed that foreign carriers were not issued the Sheed arrival because they stuffed it up in the past. "Only for the locals...." I saw a Korean heavy wobble out of the sky onto RWY34 MEL some years ago giving the Sheed a try.

This definitely isn't a blanket "foreign carrier" rule as United perform it basically every day when 34 is in use. Saw the 74 come around the corner like a fighter jet on Friday just gone :ok:

Lasiorhinus

19th Jan 2014, 06:04

I've never heard of anyone, on approach to land, reference the terminal chart and check for location of terminal buildings, nor other parked aircraft.

Did it myself half a dozen years ago when I almost did the reverse. Coming in to Essendon in the middle of the night, over Mt Dandenong and saw a runway. Lined up on it on about a 30 mile final and flew on. I was about ten miles out when I realised I was looking at an airport where the terminal buildings were on the south side of the runway... but Essendon has the buildings on the north side.

Servo

19th Jan 2014, 06:37

Aaaah Australia, first world country, with third world aviation infrastructure :hmm:

Al E. Vator

19th Jan 2014, 06:39

Went to a major southern Indian airport recently - very impressive runways and facilities.

Flew into Melbourne recently and had to do a twin NDB on 16 as the ILS was U/S. A twin NDB in an international jet airliner - seriously??? Then had to wait 40 minutes because the few parking bays available at the Tullamarine Shopping Centre (otherwise know as a terminal) were occupied. And the lines for Immigration were backed-up past the Y junction in the arrivals area.

Which country is third world? As an Aussie, I'm embarrassed.

And why doesn't 34 have an ILS? Why is the 34 VOR offset? It can't be the gradient because the 34 RNAV arrival is lined-up perfectly?

Privatisation was clearly a mistake for this airport.

Hempy

19th Jan 2014, 07:19

You can find it on webtrak, 09:40 Tues. Would have been interesting at Highpoint with him passing overhead at 600" agl!

Not the first time its happened, probably wont be the last either (well, until we give away with visuals completely anyway..)

p.s there is no 34 ILS because it's not needed. The northerly at ML is pre-frontal, whenever the crap sets it its always from the south.

Captain Dart

19th Jan 2014, 07:22

Not so long ago there was no RNAV approach to MEL 16, at least not in our Jepps. There I was in a wide body doing a twin NDB when the ILS was out, the Canadian F/O had never seen anything like it.

Also, Melbourne Ground was an absolute shambles the other day, constant over-transmissions and an understandably cranky ground controller. This idiocy at Australian airports where the tugs are controlled on the same frequency has to stop. This doesn't even happen in India.

I share my cockpit with many different nationalities, and Melbourne Airport is becoming embarrassing.

waren9

19th Jan 2014, 08:10

there is no 34 ILS because it's not needed

maybe not from a wx point of view.

long established that anything with a managed vertical profile is many times safer than the old npa's. rnav's mitigate that nowadays but they are relatively recent things from that point of view.

and that depends on capability as paid for by the operator too.

is it true that tiger 320's still cannot fly a vor approach fully managed? word was they hadn't paid for the necessary database. what about the air india 787's?

just because a type can do something dont necessarily assume the operator has installed the necessary options or trained the crew to utilise same

Australopithecus

19th Jan 2014, 08:49

There is an additional salient point regarding familiarisation and terminal areas:

Two actually...

1. Ipad based Jepp subscriptions do not have terminal area charts per se, just a scalable enroute chart. The latter lacks many terminal area features.

2. The database of useable airports in the aircraft does not include Essendon, or airports like it, so they do not show up as airport symbols on the nav displays.

As such, a crew can be forgiven for mistaking a runway in the correct orientation and approximately correct position for their intended destination.

Hell I did the same thing once: I was aiming for New York but instead landed in someplace called NYaaaawk.

ReverseFlight

19th Jan 2014, 11:55

Why is the 34 VOR offset? Yes, you've noticed that the track for Rwy 34 should be 340 (per the RNAV 34 plates) but the VOR 34 letdown is offset at 346.

Logically the DVOR is placed on centreline at either end of the runway but as both 16/34 and 09/27 share the same navaid (114.1), it ended up being placed near the intersection of both runways on the north-east quadrant.

When the PF flies the VOR 34 approach, the aircraft tracks a line (346) which intersects 340 at an angle. As it descends, it will inevitably reach a point when it is directly on the 34 centreline. The altitude/height at this point is exactly 760'/430' which is the mandated MDA/MDH.

It was designed such that if you still cannot see the runway at this point, you must not descend further and you will have to go around. If you can see the runway, you are exactly on centreline and so you continue visually to land with minimal manoeuvring for a stabilised approach.

hoss

19th Jan 2014, 19:22

.........and if we put the VOR down near 34 on the centerline who's to say the Emirate guys won't try knocking it off!

Anyway, absolutely appalling that this crew stuffed it up in my opinion. Full investigation required, keeping a close watch on this operator.

nitpicker330

19th Jan 2014, 22:49

Reverse flight-----kind of stating the obvious there aren't you??? That's the intent of all approach minima, required visual reference then LAND not visual GO AROUND...!!

Oh and not that many Airfields have the VOR lined up at the end of the runway, in fact quite a few aren't even on the field!!

kookaburra

20th Jan 2014, 02:16

Someone asked the question.
Haven't heard the request to report strobes in sight for about 10 years.

nitpicker330

20th Jan 2014, 03:05

I've managed a handful of RWY 34 Vis app in 4 years ( left circuit off the RNAV ) Each time they ask "confirm RWY 34 approach strobes in sight..."

kookaburra

20th Jan 2014, 04:34

Might be ATC ask if you're not a local operator?

nitpicker330

20th Jan 2014, 05:04

Maybe?

I was told persoanlly by an App controller that they don't normally give Vis app to foreign operators. Maybe the Aussie accent and local lingo I used help!!

Saying "visual with RWY 34 and we can accept vectors inside the star..." Seems to do the trick..

Well maybe not now after AI:{

Hempy

20th Jan 2014, 06:57

It seems that we need to install Cat111c on all runways at all aerodromes 'for safety'. Visual approaches are too dangerous in a modern airliner in 2014!!!

Galdom

20th Jan 2014, 08:35

Did this almost incident just point out that MEL actually already has a parallel north south runway? :E Extend both of them and hey presto, two parallel runways.

Just sayin...

Molokai

20th Jan 2014, 19:18

Hell I did the same thing once: I was aiming for New York but instead landed in someplace called NYaaaawk.

Gee, to misaim EWR for JFK ( or LGA ) is really something. One is an ewe, the other is a jack! Do something about your ovine obsession!

Seriously, unless you know the place like the back of your hand, do not accept a visual too early in the arrival/ approach phases. Stay on vectors or instruments until you are 100% sure of your destination runways!

All the bravados of yore whereby you manually do split arse turns, dive and aim for a super duper visual approach are best left to the local shuttle jockeys who do it almost everyday. Some of those feats were for anther past time period where air traffic was sparse, there wasn't any FOQA / AIMS spyware, pilots were valued in a forgiving management structure, etc. Sigh....:ugh::{:{

Australopithecus

20th Jan 2014, 20:54

That was a joke, Son. I am quite able to discern Idlewild from LGA or that other abortion on the Jersey shore. I just can't understand their attempts at speech.

clark y

20th Jan 2014, 21:24

Galdom,

That's gold. We could just add a couple of taxiways up the middle of the freeway. Probably more likely to get the go ahead than a railway line to Tulla.

benjam

20th Jan 2014, 23:10

Austral-pith-taketh,

Don't worry, I got it

Galdom

20th Jan 2014, 23:26

Clark,

A quick look at Google Earth shows extending 35 to to the north would put the 17 threshold almost at the western ring route.

Shame about that little neighborhood not to mention the 3 sets of power pylons. Still, it would allow for simultaneous ILS approaches from the north with plenty of offset.

That maintenance taxiway to the south east of MEL almost heads in the right direction though I am not sure what that neighborhood to the west of the freeway would think about a couple of taxiways through there...

Extending 08/26 looks to be more problematic :E

If that set up was in a couple of other countries I can think of it would have been done already with a lovely big terminal on top of the freeway :8

point76

22nd Jan 2014, 23:57

Someone with ATC background could confirm this but I believe the reason the Rwy34 VOR @ ML is offset and why ATC prefer its use is that it follows the course of the Maribynong River and so passes between built up areas and not over them which makes for a kind of pseudo noise abatement approach. The good residents of Keilor and others near the approach to Rwy34 have made a lot of noise about noise in the past apparently !

nitpicker330

23rd Jan 2014, 01:29

Rubbish.

It's offset because the VOR isn't beautifully aligned with the RWY 34 centerline and the approach of 346 degrees inbound to the VOR places you on the centerline at the minima. The VOR is in fact 350m ENE of the RWY intersection.

If what you say is true ( and it's not ) then the RNAV 34 wouldn't be runway aligned with a nice 3 deg glide slope would it......:D

Oh and ATC don't prefer it's use, most Aircraft now do the RNAV 34 or RNP 34.
I haven't done the VOR for 5 years!!

Jack Ranga

23rd Jan 2014, 03:37

I can confirm that ATC couldn't give a rats arse what approach you fly :cool:

Wally Mk2

23rd Jan 2014, 06:40

That's true JR you guys usually ask at Star time what Arrival you want which leads into the actual Inst App.
Love the one about the river App..........where do guys dream this stuff up?:)

Alingement wise always wondered why Oz doesn't use the BC feature of most AP's. Can you shed some light on that one JR please?:-)

Wmk2

Stationair8

23rd Jan 2014, 08:02

It is the geo-magnetic polarising pull of the Essendon DFO, obviously Boeing software engineers will be issuing V5.5 upgrade app asap.

Jack Ranga

23rd Jan 2014, 08:23

Dunno Wal-star.

Wally Mk2

23rd Jan 2014, 09:02

Sheeez 'JR' I hope I don't have to ask you am I gunna clear the terrain up ahead at my present Alt whilst I am in IMC with a statement like that from an ATC'er:E:E

Heard a funny the other day going into Syd 16R

I think a Joke* driver asked what was the cloud base like on final?................answer came back from Mr ATC dunno depends where you are or words to that effect, cracked us up !:E

Wmk2

Jack Ranga

23rd Jan 2014, 09:48

Steady on Wal-ster, I'm on leave at the moment :cool: Wild Turkey premium 101 6.5%, it's gone to my head a little bit :=

Hempy

23rd Jan 2014, 10:58

Nicely lined up tho!

http://s87.photobucket.com/user/h3mpy/media/aic_zpsc416456f.jpghttp://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/h3mpy/aic_zpsc416456f.jpg (http://s87.photobucket.com/user/h3mpy/media/aic_zpsc416456f.jpg.html)
http://s87.photobucket.com/user/h3mpy/media/aic_zpsc416456f.jpg

bucks_raj

23rd Jan 2014, 16:02

The ASA radar track together with the Live atc recording made a great listen.They were initially being given vectord for 34 VOR by Centr but approach went ahead and cleard them Viz. and the poor bloke accepted it citing the rwy in sight.I do think, as far as the recording goes there was minimal intervention of APP in the discontinued app.When they turn left is when they are asked if they see the strobes at 2o clock. If we were to compare their vectors to JST just ahead of them JST came over essenden where as AI was vectored well south, a trap which they got them selfs into

But again surely had their OBS Course knob said 340 with YMML on the vor They would have know.

:D:D

Wally Mk2

24th Jan 2014, 09:02

'Bucks' they may not have had anything useful set up on their VOR or in fact had the rose display on their ND leaving them with just the head of a VOR needle moving about at the top of the arc display. With a 340 course set which isn't aligned anyway with Rwy 34 anyway wouldn't provide much assistance to them unless they where watching that closely & considering that they 'thought' they had ML in sight any level of dial watching would have gone out the window as the brain once it gets what it 'thinks' is reliable info that's it it's locked on & disregards all other info. You see what you 'want' to see in this case.
The single biggest 'who is minding the shop' issue here is the pictorial view of the selected Rwy on the ND, their current track (towards EN Rwy35) would have had ML's Rwy 34 way off to the left still oriented correctly (well close) in ref to Nth but not aligned with where they where heading, that's their biggest missed cue.

Wmk2