CASA response to the ATSB report on Lockhart River
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its time for my 2c worth.
1.
Gorn Round, you are showing yourself up. You are going off at someone who has not only flown 'real aeroplanes' but could teach some of us more about IF flying in one duty period than some may have garnered in entire flying careers thus far.
He is not bagging RNAV/GNSS/GPS NPA. He is talking two levels above your understanding. I'll give you a hint - Compare the naming of waypoints in sequence for this instrument approach...
LHRWG
LHRWI
LHRWF
LHRWH
... with this
Station passage, start timer
Time, turn inbound
Established
Limiting DME step
MDA
MAPt
(standard VOR or NDB non precision)
.... or
RAINY
SUNNY
CF (centre fix)
FF (final fix)
(Cairns VOR-A or NDB-A)
... or
Itot
Itaw
Apud
Etat
(tweety one STAR)
Read page 161 of the ATSB report. Naming Conventions on aussie RNAV approaches.
2.
It has taken me four days to read through the 500 page ATSB report. I have just finished. I am interested, a mate of mine was in that aeroplane. And here we have a full 5 pages of Ppruners spouting sh!te. It is this, it is that, they say.
You guys call yourselves professional? Yeah you take the money, but you ain't professional. Read it first.
3.
The Pilot In Command is dead. He won't be killing another 14 people.
Yet the "Metro culture" is still out there.
Transair is wound up. Yet the "transair culture" is still out there.
I'll bet that somewhere out there tomorrow, there will be another 9,000hr metro skipper sitting next to a 600hr effoh, thinking -- I'll show this kid something.
Things I heard sitting in Metros as an FO....
"Vmo is 246. FO's descend at 240. Nothing less, unless your wearing a dress."
"Pull that one for me mate. Its on your side. Its making a noise." (Reference to pulling the C/B for the overspeed warning while the 'captain' descends at a speed above Vmo/Mmo).
"There's no yellow arc on MY airspeed indicator"
"Synch off, speeds high? First sign of panic!"
"The record is 246 knots to 3 miles to touchdown."
"XYZ operate these Cat C."
That thinking is still out there. GA boys that got the 1980's hotrod without the multicrew discipline.
Thats who the ATSB wants CASA to catch.
1.
Gorn Round, you are showing yourself up. You are going off at someone who has not only flown 'real aeroplanes' but could teach some of us more about IF flying in one duty period than some may have garnered in entire flying careers thus far.
He is not bagging RNAV/GNSS/GPS NPA. He is talking two levels above your understanding. I'll give you a hint - Compare the naming of waypoints in sequence for this instrument approach...
LHRWG
LHRWI
LHRWF
LHRWH
... with this
Station passage, start timer
Time, turn inbound
Established
Limiting DME step
MDA
MAPt
(standard VOR or NDB non precision)
.... or
RAINY
SUNNY
CF (centre fix)
FF (final fix)
(Cairns VOR-A or NDB-A)
... or
Itot
Itaw
Apud
Etat
(tweety one STAR)
Read page 161 of the ATSB report. Naming Conventions on aussie RNAV approaches.
2.
It has taken me four days to read through the 500 page ATSB report. I have just finished. I am interested, a mate of mine was in that aeroplane. And here we have a full 5 pages of Ppruners spouting sh!te. It is this, it is that, they say.
You guys call yourselves professional? Yeah you take the money, but you ain't professional. Read it first.
3.
The Pilot In Command is dead. He won't be killing another 14 people.
Yet the "Metro culture" is still out there.
Transair is wound up. Yet the "transair culture" is still out there.
I'll bet that somewhere out there tomorrow, there will be another 9,000hr metro skipper sitting next to a 600hr effoh, thinking -- I'll show this kid something.
Things I heard sitting in Metros as an FO....
"Vmo is 246. FO's descend at 240. Nothing less, unless your wearing a dress."
"Pull that one for me mate. Its on your side. Its making a noise." (Reference to pulling the C/B for the overspeed warning while the 'captain' descends at a speed above Vmo/Mmo).
"There's no yellow arc on MY airspeed indicator"
"Synch off, speeds high? First sign of panic!"
"The record is 246 knots to 3 miles to touchdown."
"XYZ operate these Cat C."
That thinking is still out there. GA boys that got the 1980's hotrod without the multicrew discipline.
Thats who the ATSB wants CASA to catch.
Last edited by ITCZ; 9th Apr 2007 at 13:34.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gorn - "Who cares what happens half way down the approach?
Descent planning is about the start point and the end point."
There's the Garbage.
I have sat and watched 10,000hr+ captains lose situational awareness on RNAV approaches.
This occurs when the flying pilot has to read the "NM to NEXT WPT" versus the "ALTITUDE" Table.
Not only might there be, for example two distance/altidues at 3.0nm, he or she might have to read the sequence from right to left or vice versa.
I think the presentation is illogical in the extreme. We must change it or have another CFIT accident.
Have another read of Capt Bloggs post - you might learn something.
Descent planning is about the start point and the end point."
There's the Garbage.
I have sat and watched 10,000hr+ captains lose situational awareness on RNAV approaches.
This occurs when the flying pilot has to read the "NM to NEXT WPT" versus the "ALTITUDE" Table.
Not only might there be, for example two distance/altidues at 3.0nm, he or she might have to read the sequence from right to left or vice versa.
I think the presentation is illogical in the extreme. We must change it or have another CFIT accident.
Have another read of Capt Bloggs post - you might learn something.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wrong minimum altitude?
There are similarities between the Lockhart River crash, and the Westwind crash that happened about 15 years ago at Alice Springs.
The westwind crash occurred because the FO called an incorrect minimum altitude during the approach, and the captain cescended to it,and cfit occurred.
The captain had obviously lost situational awareness, as he had previously briefed approach details, and mentioned a minimum altitude which was higher than what he descended to.
He was probably distracted by his attempt to remain on track as the approach was depicted as a straight line on the chart, but was in fact bent. The navaids did not line up, and it was almost unflyable within tolerance. The chart was not simple.
There was some suggestion that a steep command gradient existed.
There were other factors.
It appears that at both of these the two crew system was not really working properly.
I believe that GA is not taken seriously enough by too many people, and it is only considered as a training operation where the stakes are not very high, and it is only temporary..
Too many people are transient.
ITCZ.
Did you do anything to rectify the things you heard in the Metro?
The westwind crash occurred because the FO called an incorrect minimum altitude during the approach, and the captain cescended to it,and cfit occurred.
The captain had obviously lost situational awareness, as he had previously briefed approach details, and mentioned a minimum altitude which was higher than what he descended to.
He was probably distracted by his attempt to remain on track as the approach was depicted as a straight line on the chart, but was in fact bent. The navaids did not line up, and it was almost unflyable within tolerance. The chart was not simple.
There was some suggestion that a steep command gradient existed.
There were other factors.
It appears that at both of these the two crew system was not really working properly.
I believe that GA is not taken seriously enough by too many people, and it is only considered as a training operation where the stakes are not very high, and it is only temporary..
Too many people are transient.
ITCZ.
Did you do anything to rectify the things you heard in the Metro?
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy, I remember reading about the westwind prang many moons ago..........I seem to recall it had something to do with the captain having his own approach procedure, and wasn't following the published procedure.
Could be I recall wrong, as it was a long time ago. I'll re read it again I guess, then I will know.
Could be I recall wrong, as it was a long time ago. I'll re read it again I guess, then I will know.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A contributing factors in the Alice Springs Westwind accident was the flight crew using different charts - ie; The PIC using Jepessen and the FO using AirServices charts.
I didn't see a reference to this in the VH-TFU accident report - but I am aware that this company did not enforce the policy of Jepessen charts.
I vividly recall having this discussion with the flight crew concerned.
Perhaps another 'contributing factor' ?
I didn't see a reference to this in the VH-TFU accident report - but I am aware that this company did not enforce the policy of Jepessen charts.
I vividly recall having this discussion with the flight crew concerned.
Perhaps another 'contributing factor' ?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ITCZ.
Did you do anything to rectify the things you heard in the Metro?
Did you do anything to rectify the things you heard in the Metro?
(sensing incipient thread drift). Seeing as you asked; Yes, I did.
May we go back to the thread now?
Last edited by ITCZ; 9th Apr 2007 at 13:30.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I am aware that this company did not enforce the policy of Jepessen charts
Pilots employed by Transair were expected to use charts produced by Jeppesen and both pilots of VH-TFU held current subscriptions to the Jeppesen chart amendment service. Although those charts were produced by Jeppesen, they were developed from data published by Airservices Australia. Due to the impact damage and postimpact fire, the investigation was unable to conclusively determine whether both pilots were carrying and using the appropriate charts for the flight.
From page 70 of the report.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiz of Auz
You are probably confusing the Alice Springs crash with the Citation crash near Mareeba Qld.
In the Alice crash the the crew had descended to the incorrect minimum descent altitude before reaching the appropriate sector of the approach. Very much like the LHR one.
You are probably confusing the Alice Springs crash with the Citation crash near Mareeba Qld.
In the Alice crash the the crew had descended to the incorrect minimum descent altitude before reaching the appropriate sector of the approach. Very much like the LHR one.
GORN ROUND, you state when criticising Capn Bloggs:
If Capn Bloggs should surrender his instrument rating, I should too. I agree totally with his views on this issue.
Surely it is obvious from the terrible history of GPS approaches that there are problems. How many more lives will be lost before some really good “human factor” work is done on the approach to make it simpler?
I believe this is a classic example of the technical boffins designing a system which is technically brilliant but over complicated.
Now that the charts have step-down approaches as well as 3 degree approach figures, and now that some instructors/examiners require the pilot to use the step down procedures while others require the 3 degree approach procedure, it is only going to get worse. Remember the old “KISS” principle - “Keep it simple, stupid”? It certainly applies here.
It is now obvious that you should surrender your Instrument Rating....if indeed you have a real one, because it is quite obvious that you do not self brief before carrying out an RNAV approach and most likely every other type of approach.
Surely it is obvious from the terrible history of GPS approaches that there are problems. How many more lives will be lost before some really good “human factor” work is done on the approach to make it simpler?
I believe this is a classic example of the technical boffins designing a system which is technically brilliant but over complicated.
Now that the charts have step-down approaches as well as 3 degree approach figures, and now that some instructors/examiners require the pilot to use the step down procedures while others require the 3 degree approach procedure, it is only going to get worse. Remember the old “KISS” principle - “Keep it simple, stupid”? It certainly applies here.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dick,
Being such a busy bloke, you really shouldn't waste your time with Gorn. He already knows all the answers and that's that!
"I believe this is a classic example of the technical boffins designing a system which is technically brilliant but over complicated."
I agree - perhaps the system should just have been looked at occasionally and adjusted in accordance with technological changes to be only as complicated as is really necessary at any point in time?
Di
Being such a busy bloke, you really shouldn't waste your time with Gorn. He already knows all the answers and that's that!
"I believe this is a classic example of the technical boffins designing a system which is technically brilliant but over complicated."
I agree - perhaps the system should just have been looked at occasionally and adjusted in accordance with technological changes to be only as complicated as is really necessary at any point in time?
Di
Registered User **
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 68
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DICK says: "If Capn Bloggs should surrender his instrument rating, I should too. I agree totally with his views on this issue."
Then both of you should do it and the atmosphere will be a safer place for those of us who know how to read the instructions and carry them out, enabling us to conduct safe non-precision instrument approaches, time after time after time.
and then Dick distorts reality with: "Surely it is obvious from the terrible history of GPS approaches that there are problems. How many more lives will be lost before some really good “human factor” work is done on the approach to make it simpler?"
What terrible history Dick?
Both the Benalla and Lockhart crashes were the result of a pilot not complying with the internationally recognised, world's best practice, authorised procedure. And in the Lockhart crash, the co-pilot was not rated, had no training on reading the RNAV approach chart and therefore could not give his Captain the assistance he required to conduct a safe non-precision instrument approach.
You believe in internationally recognised, world's best practice don't you Dick?
Is that because you can't come up with anything sensible or workable on your own?
You also support AUSSIE OWNED don't you Dick?
Did you import all that electronic crap from the Chinese Army so many years ago instead of buying Australian made electronic wizardry from hard working local Aussie businesses?
Then both of you should do it and the atmosphere will be a safer place for those of us who know how to read the instructions and carry them out, enabling us to conduct safe non-precision instrument approaches, time after time after time.
and then Dick distorts reality with: "Surely it is obvious from the terrible history of GPS approaches that there are problems. How many more lives will be lost before some really good “human factor” work is done on the approach to make it simpler?"
What terrible history Dick?
Both the Benalla and Lockhart crashes were the result of a pilot not complying with the internationally recognised, world's best practice, authorised procedure. And in the Lockhart crash, the co-pilot was not rated, had no training on reading the RNAV approach chart and therefore could not give his Captain the assistance he required to conduct a safe non-precision instrument approach.
You believe in internationally recognised, world's best practice don't you Dick?
Is that because you can't come up with anything sensible or workable on your own?
You also support AUSSIE OWNED don't you Dick?
Did you import all that electronic crap from the Chinese Army so many years ago instead of buying Australian made electronic wizardry from hard working local Aussie businesses?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gorn NUTS
Play nice mate.......when i was a youngster I worked for DSE and back then we did sell Aussie made stuff where possible, I am sure Dick will remember better than me, however I do not recall many IC or other component manufacturers in Australia then or now. Certainly other things, but back then they were a big component business too! DSE today (not Dicks business now) is quite different I think.
Back to the topic hey! And cut the confrontational personal attacks or I reckon the mods might sponsor you a holiday in cyber space somewhere
J
Play nice mate.......when i was a youngster I worked for DSE and back then we did sell Aussie made stuff where possible, I am sure Dick will remember better than me, however I do not recall many IC or other component manufacturers in Australia then or now. Certainly other things, but back then they were a big component business too! DSE today (not Dicks business now) is quite different I think.
Back to the topic hey! And cut the confrontational personal attacks or I reckon the mods might sponsor you a holiday in cyber space somewhere
J
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You also support AUSSIE OWNED don't you Dick?
Did you import all that electronic crap from the Chinese Army so many years ago instead of buying Australian made electronic wizardry from hard working local Aussie businesses?
Did you import all that electronic crap from the Chinese Army so many years ago instead of buying Australian made electronic wizardry from hard working local Aussie businesses?
Moderator
GORN AROUND. I avoid interferring in professional debate as professionals conduct themselves in a manner which should not require my intervention.
You have been a registered user for seven days only, thus I give you the benefit of doubt that you adequately read and understood the terms and conditions when you registered.
What Mr Smith or any other PPRuNe user does in their private or business life is not of interest to PPRuNe.
Personal attacks on other PPRuNe users will not be tollerated.
You have been a registered user for seven days only, thus I give you the benefit of doubt that you adequately read and understood the terms and conditions when you registered.
What Mr Smith or any other PPRuNe user does in their private or business life is not of interest to PPRuNe.
Personal attacks on other PPRuNe users will not be tollerated.
Dick
"Surely it is obvious from the terrible history of GPS approaches that there are problems. How many more lives will be lost before some really good “human factor” work is done on the approach to make it simpler?"
I don't want to start this thread going round and round in circles, but there is clearly a lot more to both the Benalla and the Lockhart River tragedies than just the GPS RNAV Appr and(or) the way they are set out on the charts.
I am not suggesting that the approaches could not be made more user friendly but the reality is that if flown by the rules, as they are every day, the outcome will be successful - and safe.
"the terrible history of GPS approaches" is taking the role of the the approach out of context, in both cases.
As someone who regularly flies GPSRNAV approaches, including LHR, I find the Benalla crash particularly disturbing because I cannot explain to my satisfaction how the aircraft could have ended up where it did. My only response is to have at least 2 GPSs operating at all times, including a moving map display, and to try to cross reference my position with another aid or ATC radar before descending below MSA.
As I have related previously on this thread, I flew the LHR appr in IMC over the top of the rescue chopper that was hovering over the crash site. However, having now read the ATSB report, the LHR crash is a nil issue with my own flying because I fly to a different set of rules to those apparently in use in that particular cockpit.
Dr
"Surely it is obvious from the terrible history of GPS approaches that there are problems. How many more lives will be lost before some really good “human factor” work is done on the approach to make it simpler?"
I don't want to start this thread going round and round in circles, but there is clearly a lot more to both the Benalla and the Lockhart River tragedies than just the GPS RNAV Appr and(or) the way they are set out on the charts.
I am not suggesting that the approaches could not be made more user friendly but the reality is that if flown by the rules, as they are every day, the outcome will be successful - and safe.
"the terrible history of GPS approaches" is taking the role of the the approach out of context, in both cases.
As someone who regularly flies GPSRNAV approaches, including LHR, I find the Benalla crash particularly disturbing because I cannot explain to my satisfaction how the aircraft could have ended up where it did. My only response is to have at least 2 GPSs operating at all times, including a moving map display, and to try to cross reference my position with another aid or ATC radar before descending below MSA.
As I have related previously on this thread, I flew the LHR appr in IMC over the top of the rescue chopper that was hovering over the crash site. However, having now read the ATSB report, the LHR crash is a nil issue with my own flying because I fly to a different set of rules to those apparently in use in that particular cockpit.
Dr
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drag Chute
A well composed post (obviously) with lots of Q's
You mentioned (quite a lot) about the checking side of things with ref to the PIC of the Lockard River accident, was he doing the correct speeds etc whilst being checked. Contemplate this. We as pilots are essentially no different than car drivers on the road when it comes to behavour & habbits. For Eg. When we see a cop with a radar gun we simply slow down & proceed as by the book, (this equates to being checked by an ATO for Eg., we demonstrate/do the right thing) we do the right thing to the letter of the law on the road & once clear of them the radar gun that is (same as in once we are flying on our own again ) we return to our natural ways. speeding, relaxing the rd rules etc, we all do it. There wouldn't be one pilot/car driver out there that hasn't at some time gone outside the prescribed rules, it's human to do so (where not machines remember) if only to say there I can do it & get away with it, but there's obviosuly millions of reasons as to why we go outside the law.
GPS app's are inherently complexe/dangerous as is flying to some degree, we got them 'cause of progress & that's something we can never change. There will always be accidents for a variety of reasons, lets hope that we all can learn something from this above accident. Remember am quite sure that no one wanted this to happen but it did & will sadly continue to do so, RIP to all those that left us wondering!
None of the above is meant to be taken as offensive to anyone, just a belief/observation by myself.
Capt Wally
A well composed post (obviously) with lots of Q's
You mentioned (quite a lot) about the checking side of things with ref to the PIC of the Lockard River accident, was he doing the correct speeds etc whilst being checked. Contemplate this. We as pilots are essentially no different than car drivers on the road when it comes to behavour & habbits. For Eg. When we see a cop with a radar gun we simply slow down & proceed as by the book, (this equates to being checked by an ATO for Eg., we demonstrate/do the right thing) we do the right thing to the letter of the law on the road & once clear of them the radar gun that is (same as in once we are flying on our own again ) we return to our natural ways. speeding, relaxing the rd rules etc, we all do it. There wouldn't be one pilot/car driver out there that hasn't at some time gone outside the prescribed rules, it's human to do so (where not machines remember) if only to say there I can do it & get away with it, but there's obviosuly millions of reasons as to why we go outside the law.
GPS app's are inherently complexe/dangerous as is flying to some degree, we got them 'cause of progress & that's something we can never change. There will always be accidents for a variety of reasons, lets hope that we all can learn something from this above accident. Remember am quite sure that no one wanted this to happen but it did & will sadly continue to do so, RIP to all those that left us wondering!
None of the above is meant to be taken as offensive to anyone, just a belief/observation by myself.
Capt Wally
Registered User **
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 68
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CASA response is CFIT.
Simple as that.
No need for further discussion.
CASA have told you that it is CFIT.
Stop arguing.
ATSB says it is CFIT with a few buts.
Read the report and learn from the PIC's errors.
1. Do not fly an RNAV approach unless you are rated.
2. Do not fly any approach above the max IAS for your CAT.
3. Do not allow an unqualified FO to sit beside you.
4. Get real and follow the instructions.
5. At least try to do a pre-approach brief.
6. The first time you bust the rules probably won't kill you, but it will lead to the death of your pax one day.
YEEHAA, off we go into the wild blue yonder, flying high into the sky.
I wonder how I have survived so long in this industry without hitting a hill in a cloud?
I know, UNDERSTANDING THE PROCEDURES AND STICKING TO THEM.
Simple as that.
No need for further discussion.
CASA have told you that it is CFIT.
Stop arguing.
ATSB says it is CFIT with a few buts.
Read the report and learn from the PIC's errors.
1. Do not fly an RNAV approach unless you are rated.
2. Do not fly any approach above the max IAS for your CAT.
3. Do not allow an unqualified FO to sit beside you.
4. Get real and follow the instructions.
5. At least try to do a pre-approach brief.
6. The first time you bust the rules probably won't kill you, but it will lead to the death of your pax one day.
YEEHAA, off we go into the wild blue yonder, flying high into the sky.
I wonder how I have survived so long in this industry without hitting a hill in a cloud?
I know, UNDERSTANDING THE PROCEDURES AND STICKING TO THEM.
