Thai 777 NDB into MEL
Thread Starter
Thai 777 NDB into MEL
Thai 777 seriously stuffs up approach into MELATSB REPORT-
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...eports/2007/AAIR/pdf/AO2007055.pdf
"The aircraft was approximately 6.25 DME (7 km) and descending through 1,544 ft, which was 556 ft below the 2,100 ft segment minimum safe altitude. The lowest altitude recorded during the manoeuvre was 1,247 ft, which was 513 ft above ground level (AGL)"
"Neither the PIC nor copilot had conducted an NDB approach in the aircraft or simulator in the last 18 months. The crew did not conduct a ‘go-around’ as was required by the operator’s procedures when the aircraft was 1,000ft above terrain with a high rate of descent."
I will try not to comment too harshly. Let me just say - nothing beats good training. This had the potential to be a VERY serious accident. At 1,000 ft above ground level, the aircraft was still in cloud with a descent rate in excess of 1,000 feet per minute, which did not comply with the stabilised approach criteria. In that situation, the flight crew were required to carry out a missed approach and position the aircraft for another approach and landing
The fact that the crew failed to initiate an immediate go around and let the a/c continue below the correct descent profile I find alarming. If a crew hears two EPGWS aural terrain alert ‘TOO LOW TERRAIN' warnings and still dont go around I have to seriously question the safety or the airline and/or operating crew
Evertonian
Hmmm, runway 16 is not in our area, but we'd have been called as support to that if it went pear shaped.
Cup day too! Can't see Flemington from that height!
Cup day too! Can't see Flemington from that height!
Is this the same one where they were trying to do a VNAV approach using FLCH? I think the ILS on 16 was out for maintenance at the time, about 18 months ago.
It was kept very quiet in the media wasn't it...could have easily ended up in tears.
It was kept very quiet in the media wasn't it...could have easily ended up in tears.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why was the ILS not available? Australia supposed to be a developed country yet it couldn't provide a precision approach when needed. You would expect this sort of thing from a banana republic.
If it was out for maintenance why was it not carried out at a more favourable time and wx? If it isn't broke, why fix it?
Asking a new generation crew to perform an NDB approach is asking for trouble, as most of them don't get the practise and that is a fact. If you have seen what i have in a simulator, you would agree.
Haven't read the report as I am unable to down load it.
If it was out for maintenance why was it not carried out at a more favourable time and wx? If it isn't broke, why fix it?
Asking a new generation crew to perform an NDB approach is asking for trouble, as most of them don't get the practise and that is a fact. If you have seen what i have in a simulator, you would agree.
Haven't read the report as I am unable to down load it.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why was the ILS not available? Australia supposed to be a developed country yet it couldn't provide a precision approach when needed. You would expect this sort of thing from a banana republic.
Couldn't agree more.
Having said that, it doesn't excuse the crew from not being able to fly what they are supposedly endorsed to be able to do.
No modern jets, in fact I don't think anyone should have to rely on a 1930's navigation aid. Absolutely ridiculous. I should imagine this must boost insurance premiums too.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the report:
Unavailability of the runway 16ILS
In September 2007, work commenced on the Melbourne runway 16 ILS to permit the installation of new equipment. That work was part of a navigation aid replacement program that Airservices Australia had announced to the aviation industry in October 2005. A Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) was issued by the Australian NOTAM Office on 4 October 2007 to inform appropriate personnel of the planned unavailability of the runway 16 ILS. The NOTAM advised that the ILS would be unavailable from 0900 local time on 8 October to 1700 on 22 November 2007.
Unavailability of the runway 16ILS
In September 2007, work commenced on the Melbourne runway 16 ILS to permit the installation of new equipment. That work was part of a navigation aid replacement program that Airservices Australia had announced to the aviation industry in October 2005. A Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) was issued by the Australian NOTAM Office on 4 October 2007 to inform appropriate personnel of the planned unavailability of the runway 16 ILS. The NOTAM advised that the ILS would be unavailable from 0900 local time on 8 October to 1700 on 22 November 2007.
No modern jets, in fact I don't think anyone should have to rely on a 1930's navigation aid. Absolutely ridiculous.
Not that hard. IF it's in the fms data base.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted by doubleu-anker
I see you are from DBX. One reason recently why the YMML 16 ILS was not available was because an A/C from your region took the installation out!!!!! 
Why was the ILS not available? Australia supposed to be a developed country yet it couldn't provide a precision approach when needed. You would expect this sort of thing from a banana republic.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: HK MTR
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it hard to believe that at Australia's second busiest airport there are only the following approaches available:
ILS 16, 27
VOR 09, 27, 34
NDB 16
RNAV 09, 34
That fact there is only an ILS available to 16 and not to 34 is crazy. As happened recently with the Emirates incident, when ILS 16 is not available and wind is not a factor but cloud is the only option you have is to land on 27 (7500' rwy). This is not a great option for heavy aircraft.
You could even take this argument further and ask why there is not at least one CATII/III approach into Mel (or for that fact any airport in Aust).
ILS 16, 27
VOR 09, 27, 34
NDB 16
RNAV 09, 34
That fact there is only an ILS available to 16 and not to 34 is crazy. As happened recently with the Emirates incident, when ILS 16 is not available and wind is not a factor but cloud is the only option you have is to land on 27 (7500' rwy). This is not a great option for heavy aircraft.
You could even take this argument further and ask why there is not at least one CATII/III approach into Mel (or for that fact any airport in Aust).
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha!
Took you a while to pick that up. No it wasn't me that took the ILS out at MEL, BTW.
New generation crew I would describe as a crew that have come straight out of flying school, and straight into the airlines. Not such a bad thing I guess and is unavoidable in some regions. They have possibly never seen the "light of day" outside an airline environment and have probably never carried out a non precision approach in real IMC. This is where over all experience in differing environments can be beneficial and safer.
I know as well as you all do, the crew are expected to be competent in all approaches they are expected to use. However, in the real world this is not the case. You won't be able to change this state of affairs and neither will I.
Also worth remembering, certain regions of the world, candidates are not selected on merit. need I say more?
So taking the above into consideration would it not be wise to have the approaches (precision) in place to include the "lowest denominator"? I would have thought safety would dictate this.
Took you a while to pick that up. No it wasn't me that took the ILS out at MEL, BTW.
New generation crew I would describe as a crew that have come straight out of flying school, and straight into the airlines. Not such a bad thing I guess and is unavoidable in some regions. They have possibly never seen the "light of day" outside an airline environment and have probably never carried out a non precision approach in real IMC. This is where over all experience in differing environments can be beneficial and safer.
I know as well as you all do, the crew are expected to be competent in all approaches they are expected to use. However, in the real world this is not the case. You won't be able to change this state of affairs and neither will I.
Also worth remembering, certain regions of the world, candidates are not selected on merit. need I say more?
So taking the above into consideration would it not be wise to have the approaches (precision) in place to include the "lowest denominator"? I would have thought safety would dictate this.
The question really is how come a Captain with 23000 hours and some 9000 on type couldn't either load up the approach in the FMC or build one in it?
The 16 NDB is not exactly difficult.
The 16 NDB is not exactly difficult.
Norty Neville
or build one in it?
Sound Asleep,
The ATSB report was only released today..... so it's NEW, unless you knew all the facts somehow before
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...-approach.html
I find it very odd that the ATSB made no comment at all on the missing 7DME and 6DME steps on the Lido profile table. Granted the 6DME profile altitude is shown on the profile diagram, but it would have been much easier for the PNF to just look in the same spot for the whole approach, ala AIP, especially when they were so high initially and diving down onto the desired slope.
That's pretty shabby too; my old databases are kept until the next one is loaded, so even if the ATSB didn't "grab" the aircraft on the day, it should still have been able to confirm if the approach was actually in the FMS database within a reasonable time after the event. If I had had an incident like that, I would have been screaming from the rooftops that the approach wasn't in the database.
They did, but weren't able to use the VNAV because they started off too high.
I wish the ATSB would publish their PDFs with links and Bookmarks.
The investigation was unable to determine whether the NDB runway 16 approach was loaded into the aircraft’s FMC.
or build one in it?
I wish the ATSB would publish their PDFs with links and Bookmarks.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's in the data base, punch it into the fms and watch it happen.
Not that hard. IF it's in the fms data base.
Not that hard. IF it's in the fms data base.
....but if you can code it in the database - why not get it appropriately approved and call it a GPS approach - or better yet get an RNP approach - dispense with the NDB and VOR. (get GLS and we can get rid of the ILS too)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mince et al,
It may very well be in the data base but the latest 744's we (not Thai) have got come from Seattle without ADF's fitted. With my company there is a requirement to monitor the performance of the FMS on a non precision approach so no ADF = no NDB approach.
As to the gent who suggested Australia was supposed to be a developed country, I put to you that every other country I fly into does not have all their major gateways (note plural) restricted to CAT 1 minimas only.
It may very well be in the data base but the latest 744's we (not Thai) have got come from Seattle without ADF's fitted. With my company there is a requirement to monitor the performance of the FMS on a non precision approach so no ADF = no NDB approach.
As to the gent who suggested Australia was supposed to be a developed country, I put to you that every other country I fly into does not have all their major gateways (note plural) restricted to CAT 1 minimas only.