Merged: Tiger Tales
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont see Strategic has the correctly configured planes for the job OR the financial backing to sustain a couple of years losses to get established
Ansett
, Ansett Mark II, Compass, Compass II, Oz-jet etc. There are alot of lessons to be learned in the Australian Airlines industry.....etc ect..
Ansett
, Ansett Mark II, Compass, Compass II, Oz-jet etc. There are alot of lessons to be learned in the Australian Airlines industry.....etc ect..
A big risk, but their back is to the wall and they probably have few options. It must be an aweful temptation.
Last edited by Anthill; 3rd Jul 2011 at 04:28.
OK, now you show me any AIP reference that says an IFR aircraft can execute a missed approach from a published approach and transition into a circling approach from below the circling MDA.
Your interpretation of what the AIP 'Doesn't Say' is not good enough. Actual reference required.
Your interpretation of what the AIP 'Doesn't Say' is not good enough. Actual reference required.
Because you never commenced a missed approach?
You are aware thats what 'unless' means right? A missed approach must be conducted unless.. etc.
If I satisfy the requirements stated in para d, then the reg explicitly states that I am not bound to execute the missed approach. I simply must be able to circle at the circling MDA. Clearly I will be operating in a terrain protected area during the entire maneuver.
So in this scenario, I'm not conducting a published missed approach, im simply climbing to my circling MDA.
I ask you again, what is the purpose of para .d? Show me where it would apply to any situation, any scenario, ever? Are you seriously suggesting that they just put in there for laughs?
Show me a single scenario where, if you were never allowed to climb up from < circling MDA to then circle, where para D would ever be applied to anything.
Thus, you:
a) don't intend to effect a landing straight in on the runway (one example might be crosswind, thus "cannot")
b) you arrive at the circling MDA, do not have the visual reference, visibility, and enter the missed approach.
Ergo Para (d) in it's correct intent. No climbing back from lower etc...
Now, as with these things, there IS room for interpretation, and while I don't agree with yours, I can see where it comes from.
So perhaps it is better to simply say - and in my time, I've heard this from many older and (more importantly) wiser heads - "where there's any doubt, there's no doubt". Circling is dangerous enough as approaches go, and demands respect. Particularly in a heavy jet...
That's just my opinion.
CR.
Um, any time you fly a runway approach, which has a circling MDA, and you intend all the while to break off and circle?
absolutely no effect on what you're talking about. You could do all that you described, without para d having ever been written.
Hence I disagree with you.
For the record im not saying its a good idea, in most cases I wouldn't be doing this in my aircraft (cat C) because its often asking for trouble.
But by strict letter of the law (and I've spoken to Casa on more than 1 occasion about this exact issue), its legal to do what I've described.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So that just leaves me to ask you, Which part of MINIMUM DESCENT ALTITUDE don't you understand?
In your scenario you are below MINIMUM DESCENT ALTITUDE and climbing prior to (not having yet satisfied the minimum requirements) commencing a circling approach.
Whilst in a "gentle climb to circling altitude", you are just waffling around IFR below MSA.
Yes it is legal but that climg to circling MDA is (Night) VFR, which we cannot avail ourselves of in airline ops.
As you know Airline RPT ops must be operated under the IFR!
In your scenario you are below MINIMUM DESCENT ALTITUDE and climbing prior to (not having yet satisfied the minimum requirements) commencing a circling approach.
1.7.1 A circling approach is a visual flight manoeuvre.
1.7.3 During visual circling or during a NPA, descent below the MDA
may only occur when the pilot:
a. maintains the aircraft within the circling area; and
b. maintains a visibility, along the intended flight path, not less than the minimum specified on the chart for the procedure; and
c. maintains visual contact with the landing runway environment (ie, the runway threshold or approach lighting or other markings identifiable with the runway);
and either
d. by night or day, while complying with a., b. and c. (at an altitude not less than the MDA),
may only occur when the pilot:
a. maintains the aircraft within the circling area; and
b. maintains a visibility, along the intended flight path, not less than the minimum specified on the chart for the procedure; and
c. maintains visual contact with the landing runway environment (ie, the runway threshold or approach lighting or other markings identifiable with the runway);
and either
d. by night or day, while complying with a., b. and c. (at an altitude not less than the MDA),
But by strict letter of the law (and I've spoken to Casa on more than 1 occasion about this exact issue), its legal to do what I've described.
As you know Airline RPT ops must be operated under the IFR!
Last edited by Trent 972; 3rd Jul 2011 at 04:52. Reason: add comment for ultimate soldier
Trent you've failed to provide me with an example or reason for para d' 4 times in a row now.
In answer to your latest irrelevancy, the MDA you are adhering to is the S-I MDA during the climbout (which you are always above).
So long as you track along the final approach course during the ascent, you are in that protected area. Technically, as explained to me by CASA, you don't commence the visual circling segment with its associated circling MDA (to which your posted reg applies) until you actually reach the circling altitude and then enter the circling area by turning off the final approach path for the S-I/ILS approach you were flying.
As an example, though counter intuitive, should I fly a VOR S-1, there is nothing 'illegal' about suddenly climbing from 100ft above mda, to 500 ft above mda, aslong as I maintain the correct 5 deg tolerance as required beyond the FAF. This is not 'a missed approach'. The entire time I do this, I am still bound by the S-I MDA. So as an extention to this obvious fact, I could climb up to the circling MDA in this way. Once there, well now I can circle provided the weather is good enough. At no time did I conduct a missed approach. At no time did I descend below the relevant MDA for my stage of flight.
Now, I don't really care that much mate, you operate your plane how you want. I've been clear, ill let the thread get back on topic.
happy flying.
In answer to your latest irrelevancy, the MDA you are adhering to is the S-I MDA during the climbout (which you are always above).
So long as you track along the final approach course during the ascent, you are in that protected area. Technically, as explained to me by CASA, you don't commence the visual circling segment with its associated circling MDA (to which your posted reg applies) until you actually reach the circling altitude and then enter the circling area by turning off the final approach path for the S-I/ILS approach you were flying.
As an example, though counter intuitive, should I fly a VOR S-1, there is nothing 'illegal' about suddenly climbing from 100ft above mda, to 500 ft above mda, aslong as I maintain the correct 5 deg tolerance as required beyond the FAF. This is not 'a missed approach'. The entire time I do this, I am still bound by the S-I MDA. So as an extention to this obvious fact, I could climb up to the circling MDA in this way. Once there, well now I can circle provided the weather is good enough. At no time did I conduct a missed approach. At no time did I descend below the relevant MDA for my stage of flight.
Now, I don't really care that much mate, you operate your plane how you want. I've been clear, ill let the thread get back on topic.
happy flying.
Last edited by das Uber Soldat; 3rd Jul 2011 at 13:20.
Trent
I'm long out of Oz, but guided by what you have pasted, I would have no problem climbing back to circling altitude from a high on vasis or poorly aligned approach, if visual within the circling area.
I'd go as far to say it is the safer option having witnessed crews doing a full IMC GA, another approach and circle. They generally cock-up or persist with a destabilized circling approach next time around. Real world you would hope they just divert.
I would not climb from a runway approach below at the MDA to a circling minima for another RWY. Doesn't seem right and makes the hairs on the back of the neck stand.
Gee I don't miss the bush lawyers and AIP's of Oz.
I'm long out of Oz, but guided by what you have pasted, I would have no problem climbing back to circling altitude from a high on vasis or poorly aligned approach, if visual within the circling area.
I'd go as far to say it is the safer option having witnessed crews doing a full IMC GA, another approach and circle. They generally cock-up or persist with a destabilized circling approach next time around. Real world you would hope they just divert.
I would not climb from a runway approach below at the MDA to a circling minima for another RWY. Doesn't seem right and makes the hairs on the back of the neck stand.
Gee I don't miss the bush lawyers and AIP's of Oz.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty much agree with you there Gnads. Just trying to make the point that the circling area also has a 'vertical' component as well which needs to be entered from above, in an IFR only operation, though I agree it can be entered from below using NVFR, but Airlines are not allowed that option.
I am going to make this real simple.
During that approach and at about 15 kilometres from Avalon the jet was tracked as descending suddenly to as low as about 1600 feet at a point where the minimum safe altitude is 2500 feet.
After this it landed on the Avalon runway without getting clearance from air traffic control which was left uncertain as to the flight’s intention despite having been in radio contact with the crew.
During that approach and at about 15 kilometres from Avalon the jet was tracked as descending suddenly to as low as about 1600 feet at a point where the minimum safe altitude is 2500 feet.
After this it landed on the Avalon runway without getting clearance from air traffic control which was left uncertain as to the flight’s intention despite having been in radio contact with the crew.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(1) Has Qantas or any of it's earlier iterations i.e. TAA or Australian Airlines busted minimas? Did Ansett ever bust minimas?
(2) Did the DCA/CAA/CASA shut them down for a week?
I think the answers will be (1) YES more than once or twice and (2) NO
(2) Did the DCA/CAA/CASA shut them down for a week?
I think the answers will be (1) YES more than once or twice and (2) NO
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have alook at the Canberra ILS Runway 35 chart.
It would be a very foolish & brave soul who would attempt a go round or gentle climb from the straight in minima of 2070ft DH to a circling altitude (whilst remaining visual) of 3620ft. To then circle and land in the Runway 17 direction. (published missed approach altitude is 5100ft)
There are obstacles & terrain in the circling area which are some 1000ft above you whilst your at the 2070ft DH.
Go round configuration from minima on the published missed approach track to published missed approach altitude will afford you terrain clearance.
Point being, one wouldn't modify the procedure in CBR, so why modify it in AVV.
It would be a very foolish & brave soul who would attempt a go round or gentle climb from the straight in minima of 2070ft DH to a circling altitude (whilst remaining visual) of 3620ft. To then circle and land in the Runway 17 direction. (published missed approach altitude is 5100ft)
There are obstacles & terrain in the circling area which are some 1000ft above you whilst your at the 2070ft DH.
Go round configuration from minima on the published missed approach track to published missed approach altitude will afford you terrain clearance.
Point being, one wouldn't modify the procedure in CBR, so why modify it in AVV.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As alluded to by previous posts, a lot of this comes down to what was briefed amongst the crew. If they did not brief circling, they shouldn't circle, as a contingency or otherwise.
Additionally if ATC weren't given a heads up on the possibility of circling, it would be difficult for them to plan actions in the even of a missed approach. If the crew announced "...going around" with no further requests/requirements ATC could not assume the pilots would climb to circling altitdue. they would have to assume (unless told otherwise) that the aircraft would carry out published missed approach. Published missed approach altitude may not have been acceptable to ATC reference other traffic, airspace etc.
Besides, CASA suspended so that they can investigate which should clarify all of this...
Additionally if ATC weren't given a heads up on the possibility of circling, it would be difficult for them to plan actions in the even of a missed approach. If the crew announced "...going around" with no further requests/requirements ATC could not assume the pilots would climb to circling altitdue. they would have to assume (unless told otherwise) that the aircraft would carry out published missed approach. Published missed approach altitude may not have been acceptable to ATC reference other traffic, airspace etc.
Besides, CASA suspended so that they can investigate which should clarify all of this...
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: oz
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well this seems to have got the juices flowing. For those who haven't stopped to have a think about CAR178 - now is the time.
This is one of the few regs that puts the onus on you to specifically comply with the AIP. Remember that the AIP is not regulation but CAR178 takes the fun out of the bush laywer stuff we all apparently love!!!
BOTTOM LINE (regardless of the colourful interpretations).... If you mess about near the ground and have an incident you better hope you can show where in the AIP the exact instructions are for the maneuver you were doing. "The AIP didn't say I couldn't do it" or "this is the way I interpret it" is not going to be a great defense to CAR178 in my opinion. I'd say this reg exists to remove interpretation and force you to follow specific instructions. Also note it is a 'strict liability' offence so be very careful you know exactly what you are doing.
For the sake of 15 minutes and a bit of embarrasment, completing the first procedure and commencing another is a good way to go for so many reasons. A company with good 'Just Culture' policies will support you all the way. Is that a good topic to return to a discussion about Tiger? (I don't know anything about them so don't expect any further comment about it from me)
(b) during arrival or departure, if the aircraft is being flown:
(i) at a safe height above the terrain; and
(ii) in accordance with any instructions published in AIP;
(i) at a safe height above the terrain; and
(ii) in accordance with any instructions published in AIP;
BOTTOM LINE (regardless of the colourful interpretations).... If you mess about near the ground and have an incident you better hope you can show where in the AIP the exact instructions are for the maneuver you were doing. "The AIP didn't say I couldn't do it" or "this is the way I interpret it" is not going to be a great defense to CAR178 in my opinion. I'd say this reg exists to remove interpretation and force you to follow specific instructions. Also note it is a 'strict liability' offence so be very careful you know exactly what you are doing.
For the sake of 15 minutes and a bit of embarrasment, completing the first procedure and commencing another is a good way to go for so many reasons. A company with good 'Just Culture' policies will support you all the way. Is that a good topic to return to a discussion about Tiger? (I don't know anything about them so don't expect any further comment about it from me)
Last edited by facts overrated; 3rd Jul 2011 at 08:09. Reason: added comment about strict liability
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clear up what specifically happens to arrivals to AVV in CTAF procedures at night. At approximately 30 NM AVV, aircraft are given winds at the aerodrome and asked intentions. Clearance to 3000' is given at the appropriate distance to AVV. Most times crews are given instruction to climb to 3000', instead of 2500', in case of missed approach. At 12 NM, last control zone step, crews are cleared to leave controlled air space via ILS, Localizer, VOR or visual approach (as per stated intentions). No landing clearance is given as such except reminder of SAR watch cancellation when clear of runway. If aircraft climb to 3000', recontact with Avalon Approach should occur to state further intentions. It would be best to confine comments to these procedures instead of comments at other destinations. Conjecture on what happened last week is only conjecture until the true facts are published.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would they have started a tailwind approach if fuel/time/cost wasn't a constant issue. This is not only the case at LCC's.
Would they have taken a tailwind if they were making as much money as the airport car park?
Joining the dots yet?
The way this industry is running is all wrong.
Would they have taken a tailwind if they were making as much money as the airport car park?
Joining the dots yet?
The way this industry is running is all wrong.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to second that. The philosophy should be "whatever we have to do to make it safe, plus 25% or so". And it should be legislated to ensure that airlines weren't constantly trying to cut everything to the bone.
Fuel decisions should rest with the captain alone, in consultation with others if necessary, and there should never be any comeback if a bit more than usual is carried.
And if that results in ticket prices rising, well perhaps we will finally be paying the real cost of (safe) air travel.
Fuel decisions should rest with the captain alone, in consultation with others if necessary, and there should never be any comeback if a bit more than usual is carried.
And if that results in ticket prices rising, well perhaps we will finally be paying the real cost of (safe) air travel.
Just trying to make the point that the circling area also has a 'vertical' component as well which needs to be entered from above, in an IFR only operation, though I agree it can be entered from below using NVFR, but Airlines are not allowed that option.
With your statement above. An IFR HC RPT jet takes off at night and needs an immediate return to land for some reason, say fire in the cabin, whatever. My intention would be to climb to the circling minima for my category and return. So haven't I entered from below? You say I cannot do this, so what should I do?
Surely this is similar to a night departure at somewhere surrounded by terrain where performance requires a climb to MSA within the circling area prior to departing on track.