Near Miss at Tulla
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: far east
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Near Miss at Tulla
Anybody hear any details about this preliminary report ?
"A Jetstar Airbus came within 20 feet of a fogbound Melbourne Airport tarmac before aborting its second attempt to land"
"A Jetstar Airbus came within 20 feet of a fogbound Melbourne Airport tarmac before aborting its second attempt to land"
Last edited by preset; 11th Sep 2007 at 04:37.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This from Crikey.com.au today:
"5.*CASA & Vaile let Jetstar probe Jetstar near miss
Ben Sandilands writes:
Only today will a full dossier on the latest Jetstar incident be delivered to the independent accident and incident investigator, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
It will contain everything Jetstar has discovered as part of its own internal review about how one of its jets came to within 20 feet of the ground at Melbourne Airport in fog during an aborted landing.
The dossier lands at the ATSB in a near dead heat with*a statement from*Transport Minister, Mark Vaile, who said through a spokesperson that he "has been advised that both the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the ATSB are seeking further information from Jetstar."
This sees the responsible minister, and the separate aviation investigation and regulatory arms,*both focused on the same alarming incident on the same day nearly two months after it happened.
By world standards this makes the governance of air safety regulation in Australia a joke.
Jetstar did the right thing by Australian rules. It reported the original incident the day it occurred and said it would conduct an investigation.
After a second look at the incident, it found out things about last minute decisions taken too close to the ground, and set about retraining the captain concerned as well as alerting its flight crews on the standard procedure for dealing with minimal landing conditions.
But airlines in Europe or North America don’t even expect to be allowed to keep serious matters involving flight standards in-house. Jetstar would have been swarmed over by Federal Aviation Authority inspectors on experiencing and reporting such an incident at, say, San Francisco.
And US carriers have come to expect and pro-actively work with the FAA, because it names and shames for things that go wrong or depart from the rules.
Mr Vaile seems happy for CASA to have a close relationship with the carriers that keeps the public out of the loop when it comes to safety deficiencies, and appears to work more on trust than oversight.
This was strikingly illustrated by the Lockhart River crash, where CASA couldn’t even effectively regulate the safety of*the tiny carrier Transair, and failed to communicate what it did know about its dangerous operations to the public in a timely manner.
Why wasn’t the Jetstar incident promptly investigated by the ATSB, and is CASA properly funded and equipped to fulfil its safety regulation obligations."
"5.*CASA & Vaile let Jetstar probe Jetstar near miss
Ben Sandilands writes:
Only today will a full dossier on the latest Jetstar incident be delivered to the independent accident and incident investigator, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
It will contain everything Jetstar has discovered as part of its own internal review about how one of its jets came to within 20 feet of the ground at Melbourne Airport in fog during an aborted landing.
The dossier lands at the ATSB in a near dead heat with*a statement from*Transport Minister, Mark Vaile, who said through a spokesperson that he "has been advised that both the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the ATSB are seeking further information from Jetstar."
This sees the responsible minister, and the separate aviation investigation and regulatory arms,*both focused on the same alarming incident on the same day nearly two months after it happened.
By world standards this makes the governance of air safety regulation in Australia a joke.
Jetstar did the right thing by Australian rules. It reported the original incident the day it occurred and said it would conduct an investigation.
After a second look at the incident, it found out things about last minute decisions taken too close to the ground, and set about retraining the captain concerned as well as alerting its flight crews on the standard procedure for dealing with minimal landing conditions.
But airlines in Europe or North America don’t even expect to be allowed to keep serious matters involving flight standards in-house. Jetstar would have been swarmed over by Federal Aviation Authority inspectors on experiencing and reporting such an incident at, say, San Francisco.
And US carriers have come to expect and pro-actively work with the FAA, because it names and shames for things that go wrong or depart from the rules.
Mr Vaile seems happy for CASA to have a close relationship with the carriers that keeps the public out of the loop when it comes to safety deficiencies, and appears to work more on trust than oversight.
This was strikingly illustrated by the Lockhart River crash, where CASA couldn’t even effectively regulate the safety of*the tiny carrier Transair, and failed to communicate what it did know about its dangerous operations to the public in a timely manner.
Why wasn’t the Jetstar incident promptly investigated by the ATSB, and is CASA properly funded and equipped to fulfil its safety regulation obligations."
Nunc est bibendum
telephone, have you cut and paste various parts of Ben's article because it reads like crap. It jumps from one point to another and then back to the original. Please tell me that's not a true representation of the entire article.
Beyond that, has anybody got a link to the ATSB report? I'd prefer to read it from the horses mouth.
Beyond that, has anybody got a link to the ATSB report? I'd prefer to read it from the horses mouth.
Bottums Up
I wonder if this (sounds more like CFIT than a near miss) incident is the same one referred to in A320 Go around thread of a few weeks ago?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
It may well be a late missed approach from loss of visibility after Cat I and 20 feet is not unusual. I know we don't have Cat II in Australia, but a touch on the runway is possible on a "normal" loss of visibility missed approach from that, unusual but have done it.
The usual "experts of doom and gloom" need a reality fix here, I am no defender of any idiot and if the rules were broken, hang them high, but get the facts, 'cause it might be you in front of the gaffer one day
The usual "experts of doom and gloom" need a reality fix here, I am no defender of any idiot and if the rules were broken, hang them high, but get the facts, 'cause it might be you in front of the gaffer one day
Big deal, I did a go-around in PER a couple of years ago when I flew into a wall of water while in the flare. It was at night with a strong north westerly and passing showers.
One second the runway lights were there the next second it was all black and wet. Time to get outa there. If I was any more than ten feet off the runway I'd be surprised. Flew a standard missed approach and went a did it right the second time.
Regards,
BH.
One second the runway lights were there the next second it was all black and wet. Time to get outa there. If I was any more than ten feet off the runway I'd be surprised. Flew a standard missed approach and went a did it right the second time.
Regards,
BH.
Last edited by Bullethead; 11th Sep 2007 at 09:37.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Now I am no Airbus expert, but I expect Mrs Airbus would not have squaked 'twenty' if the gear was up, she would have been busy with many other calls that take precedence!
Bottums Up
Unintentional Buster, unintentional.
If the story is true, it was meant to indicate empathy for the poor bugga who got into that position, because no one would do it knowingly.
If the story is true, it was meant to indicate empathy for the poor bugga who got into that position, because no one would do it knowingly.
Nunc est bibendum
Howard, obviously I've never been there in real life but I know that in the sim we've still had rad alt altitude call outs whilst in the middle of a GPWS windshear and then pull up message. I think it depends where it all is in the sequence.
Yet another example of how the most benign of days turn to crap. I hope the J* boys and/or girls are back flying the line again. No one wishes for this kind of crap to happen to another.
Yet another example of how the most benign of days turn to crap. I hope the J* boys and/or girls are back flying the line again. No one wishes for this kind of crap to happen to another.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Whatever the merits of this, once again we see the spin that Jetstar management attempts to impart. Qantas group to the rescue again!
P.S. Westaway... there is no automatic go around system on the A320!
NEWS
12 September 2007
Herald-Sun
Copyright 2007 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved AVIATION safety authorities will reinvestigate a recent incident where a Jetstar aircraft was diverted to Avalon after two failed attempts to land at Melbourne airport.
Jetstar filed a report after the July 21 incident, but two federal government safety agencies have requested further information.
The budget airline also confirmed the captain of the Airbus A320 had undergone retraining.
The jet, flying from Christchurch in New Zealand, made two attempts to land at Melbourne during heavy fog and then flew on to Avalon.
Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said the captain was experienced and the aircraft operated safely at all times.
Mr Westaway said Jetstar was investigating why the automatic missed-approach system failed.
He said speculation on some aviation websites that the landing gear hadn't been lowered was wrong.
Mr Westaway said the captain had received further training in line with the Qantas group's safety procedures.
Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman Julian Walsh said Jetstar's original report on the incident did not raise significant concerns, but the bureau would look at the matter again given the airing of more information.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is also seeking further information.
12 September 2007
Herald-Sun
Copyright 2007 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved AVIATION safety authorities will reinvestigate a recent incident where a Jetstar aircraft was diverted to Avalon after two failed attempts to land at Melbourne airport.
Jetstar filed a report after the July 21 incident, but two federal government safety agencies have requested further information.
The budget airline also confirmed the captain of the Airbus A320 had undergone retraining.
The jet, flying from Christchurch in New Zealand, made two attempts to land at Melbourne during heavy fog and then flew on to Avalon.
Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said the captain was experienced and the aircraft operated safely at all times.
Mr Westaway said Jetstar was investigating why the automatic missed-approach system failed.
He said speculation on some aviation websites that the landing gear hadn't been lowered was wrong.
Mr Westaway said the captain had received further training in line with the Qantas group's safety procedures.
Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman Julian Walsh said Jetstar's original report on the incident did not raise significant concerns, but the bureau would look at the matter again given the airing of more information.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is also seeking further information.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt. you beat me to the draw...
"Qantas group's safety procedures" always drag out the link to claim credibility...
Nonetheless just ask the guys that did the audit at J* how closely aligned to Qantas their flight operations are.......Didn't the little irish turd refuse to allow Qantas to audit "his" flight operations? Hmm
For the record: It is not a criticism of the hard working and underpaid employees, it is a criticism of the lack of consistency across the so called "group"
"Qantas group's safety procedures" always drag out the link to claim credibility...
Nonetheless just ask the guys that did the audit at J* how closely aligned to Qantas their flight operations are.......Didn't the little irish turd refuse to allow Qantas to audit "his" flight operations? Hmm
For the record: It is not a criticism of the hard working and underpaid employees, it is a criticism of the lack of consistency across the so called "group"
speculation on some aviation websites that the landing gear hadn't been lowered was wrong.
Bottums Up
He said speculation on some aviation websites that the landing gear hadn't been lowered was wrong.
Evertonian
There's also the little known issue about using the Thronomeister in foggy conditions at lower altitude...and...on a Wednesday!