View Full Version : Confidential Aviation Incident reporting.

18th Feb 2003, 01:12
ATS radar services and visual approaches
I have just read an article in Flight Safety Australia jan-feb 2003 issue page54 which was a topic here on pprune a while back.

It makes interesting reading.

The writer of the CAIR was a little harsh, especially considering he didn't understand the correct procedure himself!

18th Feb 2003, 02:16
Its all a matter of interpretation..... From my undertstanding I would say the writer of the CAIR "Appears" correct. Maybe the bloke who responded in the article should have clarified visual approaches....but alas he didnt take the opportunity.......

one may say:

Maybe the wording of visual approaches needs to be changed.

Maybe visual approaches need to be removed. After all, in many cases it means the ATC can go back to sitting on their bum and watch the pilot stuff it up...I thought ATC was meant to provide the planes with service.....Oh my mistake...the planes are there for ATC's jobs......

Maybe the pilots should stop accepting visual approaches when they are clearly not satisfying the requirements of a visual approach.

Maybe pilots need to learn how a visual approach can safely and legally be done.

Maybe ATC in Darwin needs to improve their act...... I have to say the times i have been in their at night with only 1 or 2 planes about, they are possibly at times (Not all times I qualify) the lasiest ATC around.

I think their is a lot of confusion because of its wording and real life application. I personally have trouble understanding it, let alone applying it to various airports keeping in mind the particular airports characteristics re CTA steps, poorly designed stars, etc etc...


18th Feb 2003, 03:06
I have to disagree. I see no evidence that the writer of the CAIR was correct.

While not wanting to start an argument I do think it is a valuable topic, especially seeing there is so much confusion.
Which part of the CAIR report do you have evidence in favour of the writer??

I also supprot the use of a visual approach. Remember they only issue a visual approach when the pilot calls visual. If you don't want to participate in a visual approach simply don't say the word "visual".

The ATC's are their to ensure we don't bump into each other not sit their and hand out instructions to keep pilots happy.

18th Feb 2003, 03:35
I remember both the discussion and still have a couple of the Private Messages that ensued.

Whilst the crew may have been incorrect (if indeed this is the EXACT same incident occurred), what concerns me more is the 'Confidential' side of things. This is by definition a 'de-identified' report. I would have hoped that QF crews (if this was the airline involved in the story) would have had the decency to attach their name to a situation like this and not have it 'de-identified'. I've got no problems with being told 'you're wrong' (if I'm wrong) and am just dissappointed that with a safety department and all the other reporting means available within QF (again, if this was the airline) that the writer would resort to a CAIR.

To me, a CAIR report is for a bloke who has no other alternative and/or will be villified/ harassed/ sacked for reporting certain events. It shouldn't be used by professionals who have a multitude of different ways of bringing issues of safety to the fore.

Interesting that you brought this up today RENURRP. I had just read the same thing about an hour earlier (and already sent an email to No Further Requirements expressing similar sentiments to what I said here.)

PS: Lets not turn this into a pilot/ controller slanging match either folks. PPRUNE is much more informative when we play nice.

Capt Claret
18th Feb 2003, 06:45
Whilst I haven't read the article RENURPP refers to, I have to agree with him/her to the extent that the call "visual" is made by the pilot of an IFR flight to ATS to indicate the desire for a visual approach rather than an instrument approach.

Additionally, my guess is that mostly, visual approaches are desired, so don't think one can fairly suggest that ATC are lazy for offering same. My guess it that they're crystal balling us as much as we crystal ball them.

SM4 Pirate
18th Feb 2003, 09:32
The same people that state ATCs are lazy for enabling VSAs to occur are the same ones that b!tch and moan when delays occur. We are trained to use them when possible; its not lazy its doing a better job for the industry overall; geez!

VSAs enable us to shift more traffic, plain and simple. The more we shift, the less delays; (ipso facto less costs, doing what we can you know) if you don't want a visual, don't accept it, and the not mentioning it part is a very effective way of not saying you don't want one. If we try and coerce you and you don't want it say you don't want it; we will then space out following tfc to follow you... the earlier the notice the less effect on others it will have.

Bottle of Rum

18th Feb 2003, 09:43
Please no us v them stuff.

I think it is an interesting topic that is widely missunderstood. This CAIR seems to prove that.

Claret, you know full well I am a him not a her or don't you???

18th Feb 2003, 11:23

As far as I am aware FSA is the only place they are published. See the CAIR Page (http://www.atsb.gov.au/atsb/facts/cair_program.cfm) for a bit more info. FSA can be downloaded from here (http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/fsa/).

Capt Claret
19th Feb 2003, 07:55
I was trying to create the illusion that I didn't know who you are, so as not not risk 'outing' you! :O :}