Merged: Tiger Tales
Ok, I'm a bit of an amateur but they were flying into Avalon at approximately 2300, at which time Avalon tower is closed and correct me if I'm wrong but "Outside Tower hours the Avalon Class D CTR and Class E CTA will be reclassified as Class G airspace." Has this changed? They were cleared to perform the "Tear-drop," and flying visual, whats the problem?
http://www.tristaraviation.com.au/documents/acecsb.pdf
http://www.tristaraviation.com.au/documents/acecsb.pdf
Because at 3000' they weren't in Avalon's airspace, but Melbourne's - and thus subject to clearance.
And at night, there are strict rules about when you may descend - even if visual. High Capacity RPT aircraft may not fly under Night VFR rules.
And at night, there are strict rules about when you may descend - even if visual. High Capacity RPT aircraft may not fly under Night VFR rules.
Originally Posted by Bravo Papa
Ok, I'm a bit of an amateur but they were flying into Avalon at approximately 2300, at which time Avalon tower is closed and correct me if I'm wrong but "Outside Tower hours the Avalon Class D CTR and Class E CTA will be reclassified as Class G airspace." Has this changed?
As for your linked reference: "This Safety Bulletin should be read in conjunction with AIP SUP (30/10), which will be cancelled at 1011171600 UTC." It's therefore now out of date.
ejectx3, the CTA steps outside tower hours are not on the area chart for YMAV which leads to this confusion. They are seemingly only in ERSA.
Icarus2001, yeah I totally agree "RPT route training and local knowledge" should have given them the appropriate knowledge especially as it was their home base.
It seems like there may have been some confusion as to this point on the flight deck (and from others on this forum) and I guess this is the sort of issue that CASA are looking into. As in, had Tiger made this clear to it's crews?
Icarus2001, yeah I totally agree "RPT route training and local knowledge" should have given them the appropriate knowledge especially as it was their home base.
It seems like there may have been some confusion as to this point on the flight deck (and from others on this forum) and I guess this is the sort of issue that CASA are looking into. As in, had Tiger made this clear to it's crews?
Too much overseas flying?
I can see the problem this Captain and perhaps the F/O faced. Australia is the only country in the world that has such stringent 'visual descent at night' rules. In any other country in the world this would not have alarm bells ringing. When he had mentally planned for a visual approach and then heard the words 'approved' his confirmation bias and overseas experience took control and he took it as approval for an unrestricted descent. Pity that the F/O asked to talk to the pax and then the Capt unilaterally decided he was visual, informed ATC, sought approval for and executed a fairly non-standard sort of pattern in a jet aircraft at night to reposition. Had the F/O been involved in the decision making he might have had time to remind him of the visual circling at night rules. As it happened when the F/O rejoined the discussion he was then out of the loop and all the decision making had been made.
A good example of overseas experience causing problems for Australian aviators returning to Oz was in a sim session where a DME arrival was required with an overfly of the airport to land. Said Capt hadn't ever done one of these for real except decades ago in a light piston twin. He overflew the airport clean and configured on downwind and landed. Safe? Yes. In accordance with regulations? No-he should have been configured five miles at the final approach fix. Only in Australia.
Perhaps this captain was unfamiliar or vaguely aware of the visual circling at night rules.
A good example of overseas experience causing problems for Australian aviators returning to Oz was in a sim session where a DME arrival was required with an overfly of the airport to land. Said Capt hadn't ever done one of these for real except decades ago in a light piston twin. He overflew the airport clean and configured on downwind and landed. Safe? Yes. In accordance with regulations? No-he should have been configured five miles at the final approach fix. Only in Australia.
Perhaps this captain was unfamiliar or vaguely aware of the visual circling at night rules.
Now there is a fair argument that there are grounds for understanding that exchange (the last few sentences) to be understood as having been cleared for a visual approach. "Go Cat 6207, that's approved." , and that he was only requested to report leaving 3000' - which they did.
I read that as...
No no, we are visual, we are happy just to make a left hand teardrop to turn back into a right hand pattern.
Go Cat 6207, that's approved.
Go Cat 6207, report turning inbound for descent.
Go Cat 6207, that's approved.
Go Cat 6207, report turning inbound for descent.
Would like to hear an ATCOs opinion on the words.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U K
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that there are some fairly verbose and unnecessary transmissions here, had the phrases e.g. 'request visual approach', 'cleared for a visual approach runway xxx, report downwind/finals' or cleared for the vor approach runway xxx report estabilished inbound' been used there would be no confusion.
As a frequent visitor to Australia some of the 'local' ATC procedures and radio do leave me feeling a little uncomfortable and other foreign carriers seem to get a bollocking not infrequently for not complying with some fairly trivial local procedures.
The point remains that in most other countries none of this would have been reported and as far as I can see at no time was the safety of these flights ever in doubt.
I notice CASA said there are some 'complex issues' involved - beraucrat speak for 'clueless'?
Cleve.
ICAO: APPROACH AND LANDING
Pilot-interpreted Approaches (eg ILS) Phraseology
The phrase ‘cleared ILS approach runway xx’ has, in the past, introduced some ambiguity whereby pilots have taken this to mean they are cleared to thealtitude/height depicted on the approach chart immediately prior to the finalapproach fix. This should not be assumed; normally clearances to descend atthis point will be given distinctly.
Other phrases that are commonly in use include:
‘Report established localiser (or ILS, GBAS/SBAS/MLS approach course).’
‘Maintain (altitude) until intercepting glide-path.’
‘Report established on glide-path.’
Pilot-interpreted Approaches (eg ILS) Phraseology
The phrase ‘cleared ILS approach runway xx’ has, in the past, introduced some ambiguity whereby pilots have taken this to mean they are cleared to thealtitude/height depicted on the approach chart immediately prior to the finalapproach fix. This should not be assumed; normally clearances to descend atthis point will be given distinctly.
Other phrases that are commonly in use include:
‘Report established localiser (or ILS, GBAS/SBAS/MLS approach course).’
‘Maintain (altitude) until intercepting glide-path.’
‘Report established on glide-path.’
The point remains that in most other countries none of this would have been reported and as far as I can see at no time was the safety of these flights ever in doubt.
I notice CASA said there are some 'complex issues' involved - beraucrat speak for 'clueless'?
Cleve.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too have been following the facts with great interest because I don't want to fall foul of the rules next time I fly into Avalon on the same approach. Agreed there was a lot of confusion about the terminology that the pilots and approach had used, but I've a feeling had the pilots briefed the missed and the reciprocal approach beforehand, I dare say we won't be talking here today.
I appreciate the arguments for and against both sides but one thing which hasn't been picked up was at 23:03:39, the pilots reported "No no, we are visual, ..." just after leaving point D towards point E (see diagram in ATSB report). I presume by "visual" here the pilots meant visual with the runway, but how could this have been if they were on the outbound of the teardrop ? Note this was in response to approach's question "so come back visual or by the VOR?" to which the answer should have been "will return visual, not VOR" or words to that effect to indicate they prefer a visual approach. By claiming to be visual on the outbound, they suckered themselves into believing it was a circling approach for the reciprocal runway. This could be a further indication that they were not fully mentally prepared for the 36 landing.
I appreciate the arguments for and against both sides but one thing which hasn't been picked up was at 23:03:39, the pilots reported "No no, we are visual, ..." just after leaving point D towards point E (see diagram in ATSB report). I presume by "visual" here the pilots meant visual with the runway, but how could this have been if they were on the outbound of the teardrop ? Note this was in response to approach's question "so come back visual or by the VOR?" to which the answer should have been "will return visual, not VOR" or words to that effect to indicate they prefer a visual approach. By claiming to be visual on the outbound, they suckered themselves into believing it was a circling approach for the reciprocal runway. This could be a further indication that they were not fully mentally prepared for the 36 landing.
There are plenty of places overseas where a night visual is not allowed often for noise reasons. From a common sense point of view what bothers me is trying a tailwind approach leading to a noisy go-around and then descending to just over a thousand feet agl over people's houses at 23.00 local time and dragging it in. It really does not look like a well thought out plan, particularly at your homebase. Doing it when you are personally under investigation and your company has been forced to sim check all pilots is more than a little odd.
There but for the grace of god..............
We carry AVV as an Altn for MEL most of the time and I was under the false impression that when the tower was closed it was OCTA.
I wasn't aware that it is Class E 700' up and IFR require a clearance in Class E.
Also as said above, we overseas operators that haven't flown Domestic IFR in Oz for 20 years may have forgotten all the night Vis App requirements in the Oz AIP. I know I recalled some of the requirements but not all.
Thank goodness it's happened to Tiger because it's given me a wake up call if I ever divert to AVV when the towers closed.
Poor buggers, I hope they aren't hung out to dry?
We carry AVV as an Altn for MEL most of the time and I was under the false impression that when the tower was closed it was OCTA.
I wasn't aware that it is Class E 700' up and IFR require a clearance in Class E.
Also as said above, we overseas operators that haven't flown Domestic IFR in Oz for 20 years may have forgotten all the night Vis App requirements in the Oz AIP. I know I recalled some of the requirements but not all.
Thank goodness it's happened to Tiger because it's given me a wake up call if I ever divert to AVV when the towers closed.
Poor buggers, I hope they aren't hung out to dry?
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: oz
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia is the only country in the world that has such stringent 'visual descent at night' rules
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
Sorry I cannot agree with your statement above. My bolding BTW.
ever heard of TIBA ??
you might be interested to learn that lots of countries operate RPT jets OCTA without tower/radar.
Here in Saudi Arabia we operate daily/nightly with A320/E70/MD90 and occasionally B777/B747 acft, into a multitude of small country airports.
There are at least a dozen that have neither tower or radar, and only a Fire Rescue Service to liaise with for traffic. Happy landings !
Here in Saudi Arabia we operate daily/nightly with A320/E70/MD90 and occasionally B777/B747 acft, into a multitude of small country airports.
There are at least a dozen that have neither tower or radar, and only a Fire Rescue Service to liaise with for traffic. Happy landings !
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point that all the above posts seem to be missing is this:
Australia does have strict rules about visual approaches at night, and it is clear that this crew was intentionally conducting a night visual approach (not visual circling).
Other Australian jet airlines such as QF and DJ who regularly conduct night visual approaches in jets have training departments who ensure that all their pilots are very familiar with these rules and will certainly fail a check sim or check flight if they do not demonstrate their full knowledge and application of these rules.
Whilst this is an isolated incident, there apparently have been others. It appears that CASA feels that Tiger's training department may be lacking in this respect, and if it is lacking is such a basic fundamental (especially for pilots who are based at an airport into which they regularly conduct such approaches), then where else are they lacking?
I am not pointing the finger at the crew... They are obviously experienced enough, but obviously Tiger's training department is inadequate in it's training of crew who may possess many jet hours but are not familiar with the Australian requirements. It appears CASA shares that view, pending the outcome of their investigations.
If I moved to a job in a new country, even if I had 30,000 hours, I would assume that full knowledge of local regs and requirements would be a joint responsibility of myself and the training department of my airline. I would be required to read and understand the local regs, but I would also hope that my training department would ensure I understood the important ones before they let me loose in the LHS of a jet in unfamiliar territory.
Missing something as basic as Night Visual Approach requirements should be cause for concern as to the thoroughness of Tiger's training department.
P.S. You do not have to have the runway in sight to call "visual" to ATC. AIP refers.
Australia does have strict rules about visual approaches at night, and it is clear that this crew was intentionally conducting a night visual approach (not visual circling).
Other Australian jet airlines such as QF and DJ who regularly conduct night visual approaches in jets have training departments who ensure that all their pilots are very familiar with these rules and will certainly fail a check sim or check flight if they do not demonstrate their full knowledge and application of these rules.
Whilst this is an isolated incident, there apparently have been others. It appears that CASA feels that Tiger's training department may be lacking in this respect, and if it is lacking is such a basic fundamental (especially for pilots who are based at an airport into which they regularly conduct such approaches), then where else are they lacking?
I am not pointing the finger at the crew... They are obviously experienced enough, but obviously Tiger's training department is inadequate in it's training of crew who may possess many jet hours but are not familiar with the Australian requirements. It appears CASA shares that view, pending the outcome of their investigations.
If I moved to a job in a new country, even if I had 30,000 hours, I would assume that full knowledge of local regs and requirements would be a joint responsibility of myself and the training department of my airline. I would be required to read and understand the local regs, but I would also hope that my training department would ensure I understood the important ones before they let me loose in the LHS of a jet in unfamiliar territory.
Missing something as basic as Night Visual Approach requirements should be cause for concern as to the thoroughness of Tiger's training department.
P.S. You do not have to have the runway in sight to call "visual" to ATC. AIP refers.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiger Thailand Deal Blocked
To add to Tigers problems,
New blow for Tiger as Thailand blocks budget airline
Another blow for TD.
New blow for Tiger as Thailand blocks budget airline
TIGER AIRWAYS, still smarting from the grounding of its entire fleet in Australia, has been dealt another blow after the Thai government blocked its plans for a budget airline in Thailand.
A week after the Thai opposition party was voted into power, Thailand's Transport Ministry has said it will not approve Tiger's plans to form a new airline with Thai Airways, called Thai Tiger, because details of the operation were unclear.
The decision to block the deal is a further blow to Tiger's chief executive, Tony Davis, who has been sent to Australia to resolve safety concerns, which led to the airline's forced grounding here two weeks ago.
A week after the Thai opposition party was voted into power, Thailand's Transport Ministry has said it will not approve Tiger's plans to form a new airline with Thai Airways, called Thai Tiger, because details of the operation were unclear.
The decision to block the deal is a further blow to Tiger's chief executive, Tony Davis, who has been sent to Australia to resolve safety concerns, which led to the airline's forced grounding here two weeks ago.
...and only a Fire Rescue Service to liaise with for traffic.