Qantas Incident????????
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
[BelgiqueThe Link for the ILS Chart was already posted above]
Footnote: No need for ATSB investigation : Dick Smith apparently has all the answers here. Somebody help the prick for heavens sake.
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
[BelgiqueThe Link for the ILS Chart was already posted above]
Footnote: No need for ATSB investigation : Dick Smith apparently has all the answers here. Somebody help the prick for heavens sake.
Last edited by Uncommon Sense; 23rd Sep 2004 at 11:39.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canberra
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
It was also referred to as a "pilot's website" and featured the same quote from Chris Manning.
TL
it appears that 3.1 nm leg limit should have been entered into the FMC (14.0-10.9) rather than 14.0
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.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: East of Runway 21
Posts: 1,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Channel 10 have just reported it as "breaking news"
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!" (
) 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...... 
Sky
"Red eye" = Flights in the very early morning when the body would much rather be in a deep slumber (red eye from tired eyes).
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.
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.
Bevan..
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
=========================================
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
=========================================
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
i wonder if that mountain was on a VFR flight? or even had a transponder!.
this was on triple M radio.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
==========================================
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.
==========================================
Thread Starter
Schadenfreud.
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.
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.
Last edited by Sunfish; 22nd Sep 2004 at 11:40.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canberra
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
someone plse explain "RED EYE"?
b) They were possessed by a demon...
c) They were taking flash photographs....
d) They had the munchies....
All jokes by the way...