Aircraft too low in SEQ??
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Middle East
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on my airline.
Unfortunatly, above idle reverse not encouraged unless tailwind or wet runway.
Reduced thrust takeoff, (FLEX) Every time if we can.
Whats the problem?
Hard landings also not recommended
Unfortunatly, above idle reverse not encouraged unless tailwind or wet runway.
Reduced thrust takeoff, (FLEX) Every time if we can.
Whats the problem?
Hard landings also not recommended
It's just so different to what one experiences in Australia. There's reduced thrust and there's reduced thrust. The fact that I noticed it says something.
As SLF, I'd like that little added extra bit of contigency that full thrust and reverse thrust provides. However, I understand the reality of a commercial world as well.
And ... I continue to buy their tickets if they go where I want at a good price.
I'm placing a good deal of faith in the "oversighters".. be they company or regulatory. Hope they won't let me down.
P.S. ... like they are at Broome ( had to get that in)
As SLF, I'd like that little added extra bit of contigency that full thrust and reverse thrust provides. However, I understand the reality of a commercial world as well.
And ... I continue to buy their tickets if they go where I want at a good price.
I'm placing a good deal of faith in the "oversighters".. be they company or regulatory. Hope they won't let me down.
P.S. ... like they are at Broome ( had to get that in)
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...CGNB02-123.pdf
If flying a constant descent angle 3 degree approach, at 9 miles he should have been at 2800ft and not below 2200ft.
If flying a constant descent angle 3 degree approach, at 9 miles he should have been at 2800ft and not below 2200ft.
Wasn't it a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 that tried the same caper while "attempting" a Melbourne 16 Twin Locator? ILS was out of service at the time.
Something like 500 ft above terrain approaching Rockdale NDB (4.2 miles) then got a GPWS. I think they climbed back to profile and spotted the runway and resumed the landing approach. Turned out the crew hadn't a clue how to do an NDB and had hoped the automatics would do the flying safely for them...
Something like 500 ft above terrain approaching Rockdale NDB (4.2 miles) then got a GPWS. I think they climbed back to profile and spotted the runway and resumed the landing approach. Turned out the crew hadn't a clue how to do an NDB and had hoped the automatics would do the flying safely for them...
On the Airbus a non precision approach can be flown by the autopilot in managed mode. ie the aircraft will fly the pattern and descend in accordance with the profile.
However this requires approval by the authority and extra expense to validate each approach. Without approval, basically it is has to be hand flown through the autopilot. ie tracks dialed in, descent rates set up and adjustments made accordingly. The pilot flies the approach rather than monitoring the aircraft while it does it by itself.
However this requires approval by the authority and extra expense to validate each approach. Without approval, basically it is has to be hand flown through the autopilot. ie tracks dialed in, descent rates set up and adjustments made accordingly. The pilot flies the approach rather than monitoring the aircraft while it does it by itself.
Metro,
That is amazing. Surely the aircraft systems would be approved for overlay approaches as part of the entry into service of the type/tail number. As for the validation of each approach, if the FMS database is from an approved supplier, why is there a need for validation?
However this requires approval by the authority and extra expense to validate each approach.
Centaurus
I'm pretty sure it was actually Thai Airways, could have been very nasty. Something to do with flying a non-precision approach using FLCH - can't imagine why that didn't work! 
Wasn't it a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 that tried the same caper while "attempting" a Melbourne 16 Twin Locator? ILS was out of service at the time.
Something like 500 ft above terrain approaching Rockdale NDB (4.2 miles) then got a GPWS. I think they climbed back to profile and spotted the runway and resumed the landing approach. Turned out the crew hadn't a clue how to do an NDB and had hoped the automatics would do the flying safely for them...
Something like 500 ft above terrain approaching Rockdale NDB (4.2 miles) then got a GPWS. I think they climbed back to profile and spotted the runway and resumed the landing approach. Turned out the crew hadn't a clue how to do an NDB and had hoped the automatics would do the flying safely for them...
The Thais actually did a pretty good job of trying to get it right. They even put the approach into the box because it was missing from the DB. They came unstuck when ATC used non-standard RT which confused the crew and they delayed descending (which they were going to do in VNAV), hence the use of FLCH.
They hadn't done a "manual" NDB in 18 months. Who's fault was that? The regulator, the operator? Does your company require you to do a raw data approach as part of your 35/90 day currency requirements? And into the bargain, the Lido chart they were using was pretty poxy IMO.
Yet another crew that were set up to stuffup.
They hadn't done a "manual" NDB in 18 months. Who's fault was that? The regulator, the operator? Does your company require you to do a raw data approach as part of your 35/90 day currency requirements? And into the bargain, the Lido chart they were using was pretty poxy IMO.
Yet another crew that were set up to stuffup.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something like 500 ft above terrain approaching Rockdale NDB (4.2 miles) then got a GPWS.
I hope you're not implying they should have been 1000 ft above the terrain, were you? Not too many a/c would get visual if that was the case.
I presume the 16 LOC is designed to PANS-OPS criteria. From recollection, PANS-OPS criteria provides 300m (984ft) obstacle clearance in the Initial segment, 150m (492 ft) in the Intermediate segment and just 75m (246ft) in the Final segment.
Haven't got the chart, but I guess just north of ROC is in the intermediate, so 500ft AGL sounds good!
I just wonder sometimes if some of these incident reports are due to controllers seeing a/c descend straight to the OCA, which they're entitiled to do, but look way below the 3 deg gp that most times they are used to seeing and it scares the hell out of them.
In the OOL case however, if the numbers quoted are right at 9 NM final and 1500, then he's definitely busted the OCA.
Bloggs
I can't speak for Air Asia, but the company I work for don't have approval for managed non precision approaches even though the aircraft will quite happily fly them.
I was told this was due to the expense involved. It would appear they want us to use our skills rather than pay extra for the aircraft to do it for us.
As low cost airlines generally do not like spending money, I would be surprised if Air Asia X had gone to this expense. Most airports big enough for wide body aircraft are usually well serviced with ILS approaches and management may not have though it necessary.
Even on the A320 which does smaller airports, a non precision approach is not that common for us. Perhaps once every couple of months.
I can't speak for Air Asia, but the company I work for don't have approval for managed non precision approaches even though the aircraft will quite happily fly them.
I was told this was due to the expense involved. It would appear they want us to use our skills rather than pay extra for the aircraft to do it for us.
As low cost airlines generally do not like spending money, I would be surprised if Air Asia X had gone to this expense. Most airports big enough for wide body aircraft are usually well serviced with ILS approaches and management may not have though it necessary.
Even on the A320 which does smaller airports, a non precision approach is not that common for us. Perhaps once every couple of months.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh come on, the fact that Full Reverse isn't used does not equate to a poor safety standard. Working for one of the majors in Europe, the use of full reverse was completely frowned upon unless totally necessary. I would say that the blanket use of full reverse on every landing is actually poor airmanship due to the lack of consideration for noise, wear and tear etc... Just because a couple of 'skygods' stuffed an approach and ended up on a golf course is no excuse really to now enforce full reverse on 'safety' grounds. Also in many years of flying I could almost count on one hand the number of times I have had to complete a TOGA departure due perf or environmental reasons. Just because the aussies do it one way doesn't make all other ways unsafe. No doubt it looks like the crew 'coc*ed' up here but probably more down to the fact they are totally unfamiliar with flying NPA's when at most of thier other airports they probably go from ILS to ILS...... of course it could be something as simple as an incorrect QNH... only time will tell.
Yet another crew that were set up to stuffup.
And so they go to pieces when an Australian ATC uses an alleged non-standard phrase and then cock-up a straight forward non-threatening straight in NDB approach. Although it is fashionable for the do-gooders to blame everyone but the flight deck crew, the truth is pilots do actually make mistakes sometimes and have only themselves to blame.
I can't speak for Air Asia, but the company I work for don't have approval for managed non precision approaches even though the aircraft will quite happily fly them.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It shows they got to 450M (1500'?) down between Kingscliff and Terranoora.
Why don't you read an approach chart. I got the 32 GPS chart out though it is a little out of date. Ok they were not on profile. Why? I have no idea. But min altitude at 10.3nm out is 1500 feet aka 500m. Looks like they were 3000 feet until finals where they descended to 1500 feet. Hence min altitude over Kinscliffe looks around 1500 feet or 500m. Unbelievable. I thought this forum was for professionals.
In summary they were flying the approach in selected. They maintained 3000 feet until BCGSI then descended down to 1500 until BCGSF where they further descended.
Gulity until proven innocent. Once again Australians mouthing off. Nothing ever changes. Must come from our early colonial convict days.
Why don't you read an approach chart. I got the 32 GPS chart out though it is a little out of date. Ok they were not on profile. Why? I have no idea. But min altitude at 10.3nm out is 1500 feet aka 500m. Looks like they were 3000 feet until finals where they descended to 1500 feet. Hence min altitude over Kinscliffe looks around 1500 feet or 500m. Unbelievable. I thought this forum was for professionals.
In summary they were flying the approach in selected. They maintained 3000 feet until BCGSI then descended down to 1500 until BCGSF where they further descended.
Gulity until proven innocent. Once again Australians mouthing off. Nothing ever changes. Must come from our early colonial convict days.