Merged: Tiger Tales
1/ Plan the approach using LOC FPA
2/ Take Gear and Flap in the normal way
3/ By 1000' at the latest if you cannot land straight in due to wind then
A/ ALT Hold
B/ HDG Pull
C/ SPD Pull and set for Config 2 Man, accelerate in level Flt ( won't take long!! )
D/ Retract flaps to Config 2 on schedule
E/ Retract Gear
F/ Fly circuit at 1000' feet
LAND.
If you were PLANNING to circle from the beginning then you wouldn't take more than Flap 2 in the first place. This is what I was taught for FUK 34.
2/ Take Gear and Flap in the normal way
3/ By 1000' at the latest if you cannot land straight in due to wind then
A/ ALT Hold
B/ HDG Pull
C/ SPD Pull and set for Config 2 Man, accelerate in level Flt ( won't take long!! )
D/ Retract flaps to Config 2 on schedule
E/ Retract Gear
F/ Fly circuit at 1000' feet
LAND.
If you were PLANNING to circle from the beginning then you wouldn't take more than Flap 2 in the first place. This is what I was taught for FUK 34.
Nitpicker, I agree there's nothing stopping you for breaking left for a right circuit.
However, once the missed approach has been commenced I can't see any way you can manoeuvre south of the field at the MSA to comply with the night visual approach requirements straight in to 36 unless you comply with the dme/gps arrival for that sector or the VOR 36.
Unless you try and orbit down within the circling area? Which I reckon is asking for trouble.
To me the only safe options at night once you are south of the runway are:
* the missed approach to the MSA, manoeuvre at the MSA to intercept the sector C dme/gps arrival, or
* climb to 3000', sector entry and VOR 36.
All of which needs serious pre briefing, fmc loading and crew co-ordination as it's going to be a very busy 10 mins or so.
Either way, being 9 nm south of the field allegedly at 1600', is not kosher.
However, once the missed approach has been commenced I can't see any way you can manoeuvre south of the field at the MSA to comply with the night visual approach requirements straight in to 36 unless you comply with the dme/gps arrival for that sector or the VOR 36.
Unless you try and orbit down within the circling area? Which I reckon is asking for trouble.
To me the only safe options at night once you are south of the runway are:
* the missed approach to the MSA, manoeuvre at the MSA to intercept the sector C dme/gps arrival, or
* climb to 3000', sector entry and VOR 36.
All of which needs serious pre briefing, fmc loading and crew co-ordination as it's going to be a very busy 10 mins or so.
Either way, being 9 nm south of the field allegedly at 1600', is not kosher.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some disturbing thoughts here??
CASA are concerned about a number of serious issues including the Tiger management and operational position holders are not appropriately qualified.
Who the hell in CASA is "Qualified"???? Self appointed "experts" more likely
Given how corrupt CASA appears to be, Tiger is owned by a "Foreign" shareholder.
Is anyone from CASA taking a backhander to give them a hard time??
My main concern is, there are obviously many well qualified, highly experienced industry "Experts" posting their opion here...did Tiger commit an offence of strict liability???...yes ??No??...Maybe???. Does it occur to anyone that there are some serious issues if industry experts cant agree what the "regulations" actually mean!! Something is seriously wrong if pilots cannot interpret what they are or are not supposed to do.
CASA are concerned about a number of serious issues including the Tiger management and operational position holders are not appropriately qualified.
Who the hell in CASA is "Qualified"???? Self appointed "experts" more likely
Given how corrupt CASA appears to be, Tiger is owned by a "Foreign" shareholder.
Is anyone from CASA taking a backhander to give them a hard time??
My main concern is, there are obviously many well qualified, highly experienced industry "Experts" posting their opion here...did Tiger commit an offence of strict liability???...yes ??No??...Maybe???. Does it occur to anyone that there are some serious issues if industry experts cant agree what the "regulations" actually mean!! Something is seriously wrong if pilots cannot interpret what they are or are not supposed to do.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg: CAAS have their own issues with Tiger and their pilots. They disqualified a lot of their Indonesian pilots who failed the CAAS exams, which led to half their flights being cancelled last year for many days, during the SIN school holidays.
This is not an issue of tit-for-tat.
This is not an issue of tit-for-tat.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by thorn bird
Something is seriously wrong if pilots cannot interpret what they are or are not supposed to do.
Doing the "hero" sh!t requires all sorts of mental & legal contortions, which I don't do very well & has a high degree of risk attached to it. As others have posted, K.I.S.S works very well, and is what we are trained for.
The incident at Avalon is just the icing on the cake. The list against Tiger is as long as your arm and goes back well before the show cause notice. It's not the pilots that are to blame. Its the lack of investment in engineering, proper management and decent training.
You can expect CASA to be sure they have enough legal clout before grounding an entire airline. Likewise expect the courts to grant a further grounding after the 5 days. Tiger has no friggin idea - they are still selling tickets on line to the poor bogans for Christmas flights
You can expect CASA to be sure they have enough legal clout before grounding an entire airline. Likewise expect the courts to grant a further grounding after the 5 days. Tiger has no friggin idea - they are still selling tickets on line to the poor bogans for Christmas flights
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can expect CASA to be sure they have enough legal clout before grounding an entire airline
Who gives a crap about the damn bogans? Let em stew in their own juices.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding circling areas. No one as mentioned it yet, but they are based on the threshold of the runway. As the DME is near the northern threshold there is another 3000m ie 1.5nm on top of the DME distance. Not sure how far they actually got from the threshold though.
I can't see why you can't circle visually as long as you are above the circling minima and keep the landing area in sight and given it was VMC can't see why that was not possible.
I can't see why you can't circle visually as long as you are above the circling minima and keep the landing area in sight and given it was VMC can't see why that was not possible.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh! C'mon!!...CASA is not the solution....CASA is the problem!
PG is a fool who should have been turfed out years ago!
How old is he?...75?
Let's get some new blood into this decrepit organisation!
PG is a fool who should have been turfed out years ago!
How old is he?...75?
Let's get some new blood into this decrepit organisation!
Originally Posted by Civil Aviation Order 82.5 (High Capacity RPT)
7 Obligations in relation to flight category and aeroplane requirements
7.1 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA, each operator must conduct operations in multi-engined aeroplanes equipped for flight under the instrument flight rules (I.F.R.).
7.2 Subject to paragraphs 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5, unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA, each operator must conduct flights under the I.F.R.
7.3 An operator may conduct flights under the V.F.R. in Class E airspace, if:
(a) the flight is conducted in V.M.C.; and
(b) the pilot in command has, while in Class G airspace, requested air traffic control to follow I.F.R. pick-up procedures; and
(c) the pilot in command is awaiting an air traffic control clearance to operate under the I.F.R. in Class E airspace.
7.4 An operator and a pilot in command who conduct a flight under the V.F.R. in accordance with paragraph 7.3 must, if the aircraft is not climbing, ensure that it maintains an altitude appropriate to a flight under the V.F.R.
7.5 In all other respects, a flight to which paragraph 7.3 applies must be conducted as if it were a flight under the I.F.R.
7.1 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA, each operator must conduct operations in multi-engined aeroplanes equipped for flight under the instrument flight rules (I.F.R.).
7.2 Subject to paragraphs 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5, unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA, each operator must conduct flights under the I.F.R.
7.3 An operator may conduct flights under the V.F.R. in Class E airspace, if:
(a) the flight is conducted in V.M.C.; and
(b) the pilot in command has, while in Class G airspace, requested air traffic control to follow I.F.R. pick-up procedures; and
(c) the pilot in command is awaiting an air traffic control clearance to operate under the I.F.R. in Class E airspace.
7.4 An operator and a pilot in command who conduct a flight under the V.F.R. in accordance with paragraph 7.3 must, if the aircraft is not climbing, ensure that it maintains an altitude appropriate to a flight under the V.F.R.
7.5 In all other respects, a flight to which paragraph 7.3 applies must be conducted as if it were a flight under the I.F.R.
IFR, you can discontinue an instrument approach to circle. The requirements for circling at night mean that you cannot descend below the MDA for circling until making your final descent to the runway - which means you can't go around from below the MDA to climb up to the MDA and circle at night.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TGW/TT show cause notice and now AOC suspension?
Can anyone shed light on the original CASA “show cause” in March 2011? How did TGW/TT respond? Why has that response and their subsequent operations not satisfied CASA? Did CASA during this period change the goal posts? Have there been any changes in personnel or the head count in TGW/TT CEO, Flight Ops, Maintenance, Training, Safety Management, Quality Assurance, and Compliance Depts. etc.?
How can TGW senior management have allowed the situation to deteriorate to such a level as an AOC suspension? One would have thought that a “show cause” would have been more than a sufficient warning, rap on the knuckles, an alarm bell, a necessary wake up call, gentle coercion or arm twisting for TGW management indeed to respond in an appropriate and timely manner? The suspension last night could hardly be seen by accountable and responsible TGW managers as “out of the blue”, an ambush, or a surprise? Given CASA’s close oversight, inspection and regulation, why could they not convince TGW to behave earlier? Can someone please give some insight into the real safety and compliance culture at TGW?
Were TGW managers asleep on the job, complacent, blasé, incompetent, dysfunctional, not fit for purpose, negligent, inexperienced, arrogant, or distracted? How did TGW’s financial situation / loss making play out? Was TGW/TT sufficiently resourced? How could the Tiger Board supposedly exercising due diligence and corporate governance allow a not insignificant Australian airline’s ( 10 + A320s ) brand, reliability and safety reputation ( and maybe that of the Singapore TR as well ) to be diminished or even destroyed by an AOC suspension?
Given the strong links and association with TR in Singapore who continue to fly into Australia begs the question, are they any better? With a different AOC and regulator, just how do TR in Singapore do things differently to TT in Australia? Why would SIA/SQ as 30 odd per cent shareholders want or need to be associated with this lot?
Looks like the TGW/TT (and maybe including TR) LCC business model needs some major surgery as opposed to some cosmetic changes and minor tweaking around the edges.
Safety is no accident, and if you can’t be safe, then be bloody careful!
How can TGW senior management have allowed the situation to deteriorate to such a level as an AOC suspension? One would have thought that a “show cause” would have been more than a sufficient warning, rap on the knuckles, an alarm bell, a necessary wake up call, gentle coercion or arm twisting for TGW management indeed to respond in an appropriate and timely manner? The suspension last night could hardly be seen by accountable and responsible TGW managers as “out of the blue”, an ambush, or a surprise? Given CASA’s close oversight, inspection and regulation, why could they not convince TGW to behave earlier? Can someone please give some insight into the real safety and compliance culture at TGW?
Were TGW managers asleep on the job, complacent, blasé, incompetent, dysfunctional, not fit for purpose, negligent, inexperienced, arrogant, or distracted? How did TGW’s financial situation / loss making play out? Was TGW/TT sufficiently resourced? How could the Tiger Board supposedly exercising due diligence and corporate governance allow a not insignificant Australian airline’s ( 10 + A320s ) brand, reliability and safety reputation ( and maybe that of the Singapore TR as well ) to be diminished or even destroyed by an AOC suspension?
Given the strong links and association with TR in Singapore who continue to fly into Australia begs the question, are they any better? With a different AOC and regulator, just how do TR in Singapore do things differently to TT in Australia? Why would SIA/SQ as 30 odd per cent shareholders want or need to be associated with this lot?
Looks like the TGW/TT (and maybe including TR) LCC business model needs some major surgery as opposed to some cosmetic changes and minor tweaking around the edges.
Safety is no accident, and if you can’t be safe, then be bloody careful!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is how the grounding story is reported in SIN
Australia grounds Tiger over safety fears
According to this newspaper, The Straits Times it's no big problem. If it was Jetstar it would be front page news. Living in denial is par for the course for the island state. No wonder A J likes doing business with them. 
TIGER Airways Australia's wings have been clipped.
In a surprise announcement on Saturday, Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Casa), citing safety concerns, suspended the budget airline's domestic flights for five working days with immediate effect - the first time an entire airline has been grounded.
Tiger, which has rejected the aviation safety watchdog's charges, said its international flights between Singapore and Perth are not affected.
In a surprise announcement on Saturday, Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Casa), citing safety concerns, suspended the budget airline's domestic flights for five working days with immediate effect - the first time an entire airline has been grounded.
Tiger, which has rejected the aviation safety watchdog's charges, said its international flights between Singapore and Perth are not affected.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIMA9X
THe free online version of the straits times has very abridged articles. If you want the full version you have to pay for it, and nobody in Singapore typically has anything flattering to say about Tiger, not even the straits times. That said, SIA bashing is a national sport in Singapore, as is QF bashing in Australia.
CAAS has partially grounded Tiger's fleet before due to maintenance issues and pilot qualifications.
THe free online version of the straits times has very abridged articles. If you want the full version you have to pay for it, and nobody in Singapore typically has anything flattering to say about Tiger, not even the straits times. That said, SIA bashing is a national sport in Singapore, as is QF bashing in Australia.
CAAS has partially grounded Tiger's fleet before due to maintenance issues and pilot qualifications.
Roger G
The circling area is based of the distance from the RWY threshold, not the DME location. Pilots must work out the DME distance limit for a given RWY, this is ONLY applicable to circling approaches.
If anyone has any other interperations I will stand corrected.
The circling area is based of the distance from the RWY threshold, not the DME location. Pilots must work out the DME distance limit for a given RWY, this is ONLY applicable to circling approaches.
If anyone has any other interperations I will stand corrected.