ATSB Report on AirAsia X Gold Coast Approaches
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSB Report on AirAsia X Gold Coast Approaches
Concerning that a 20 000 hour captain couldn't fly a straight forward VOR approach remaining above the steps. Damn lucky they didn't hit anything. No GPWS with the gear hanging out either.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandy.
Age: 55
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the chart, it appears to me to be poorly drawn. The 10 DME point appears to be on the 3 degree profile at 2500 feet.
Anyone else see the potential for starting descent at 10 miles instead of 8?
Anyone else see the potential for starting descent at 10 miles instead of 8?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: mexico
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The aircraft operator’s flight crews were probably not adequately equipped to manage the vertical profile of non-precision approaches in other than autopilot managed mode"
Standard stuff for most Asian carriers.
Standard stuff for most Asian carriers.
Bottums Up
Looking at the chart, it appears to me to be poorly drawn. The 10 DME point appears to be on the 3 degree profile at 2500 feet.
Anyone else see the potential for starting descent at 10 miles instead of 8?
Anyone else see the potential for starting descent at 10 miles instead of 8?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandy.
Age: 55
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at my Jepp plate for CG, the shaded step is significantly below the 3 degree path line at this point.
Sorry I can't paste it here to show you.
Also looks like the scale is wrong - look at the 4000 line versus the 3000 shading in the profile!
Sorry I can't paste it here to show you.
Also looks like the scale is wrong - look at the 4000 line versus the 3000 shading in the profile!
Bottums Up
Looking at the chart, it appears to me to be poorly drawn. The 10 DME point appears to be on the 3 degree profile at 2500 feet.
Anyone else see the potential for starting descent at 10 miles instead of 8?
Anyone else see the potential for starting descent at 10 miles instead of 8?
At 10 DME the DME steps allow for a minimum altitude of 2500' AMSL, which provides terrain/obstacle clearance. However, to be on the 3 degree constant descent approach slope, one would be just a touch over 3000' (Descent from 3000' commencing at 9.6 DME according to Jeppesen Plate 13-2 eff 26Aug10).
The chart at Appendix D doesn't appear to be a Jeppesen chart. Whilst it doesn't give crossing altitudes for all DME, it does give enough for the approach, in my view. I'm not sure what would trigger "starting descent at 10 miles instead of 8".
Agree MW. It does appear to be a poorly depicted chart which looks like it could contribute to a crew initially interpreting descent point from 2500 at 10 dme. The Jepps chart for this approach that I have seems to depict the 3 degree constant descent profile much more clearly. The Jepps chart also has a dme vs alt table for the constant descent profile which helps with profile and support calls.
In any incident there are obviously a number of contributing factors but the chart depicted in the ATSB report is somewhat lacking in my opinion. Possibly a case of 3 degrees flight path angle selected at 10 dme, an error which went unnoticed for a while? There is mention of a new chart issued after these events, I wonder what the changes were?
In any incident there are obviously a number of contributing factors but the chart depicted in the ATSB report is somewhat lacking in my opinion. Possibly a case of 3 degrees flight path angle selected at 10 dme, an error which went unnoticed for a while? There is mention of a new chart issued after these events, I wonder what the changes were?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Spot X
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an international airport- where is the ILS?
Why did the altitude breaches not alert radar control? On one of these incidents the aircraft was below the steps for up to 6 miles after being vectored for the approach. The only query came from the aerodrome controller if I read this correctly.
Why did the altitude breaches not alert radar control? On one of these incidents the aircraft was below the steps for up to 6 miles after being vectored for the approach. The only query came from the aerodrome controller if I read this correctly.
This is a real worry seeing as this App is very basic stuff for an NPA.
10nm (9.6 close enuf)starting at 3000', 3 deg's slope it's about the same as any std ILS to a seal lvl drome.
If these guys where at 2500' then as long as they where within tracking tolerances laterally you start down 3 deg's FPA just coming up to 8 miles & tick the boxes as you pass each dist/alt step, much like multiple outer marker check heights on an ILS. sheeeeez it doesn't get much simpler than that!
Too much automation has numbed the mind as these guys can't think outside the box !
Wmk2
10nm (9.6 close enuf)starting at 3000', 3 deg's slope it's about the same as any std ILS to a seal lvl drome.
If these guys where at 2500' then as long as they where within tracking tolerances laterally you start down 3 deg's FPA just coming up to 8 miles & tick the boxes as you pass each dist/alt step, much like multiple outer marker check heights on an ILS. sheeeeez it doesn't get much simpler than that!
Too much automation has numbed the mind as these guys can't think outside the box !
Wmk2
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandy.
Age: 55
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wally,
Not trying to defend anyone - just pointing out possible contributing factors not mentioned by the ATSB.
Malaysian crews fly all over the world including many airports not at sea level, and/or with DME's not at the threshold, sometimes not even at the airport! Have you ever done an NPA with the DME behind you on final approach? Not easy, especially after an all nighter. Not having a DME/ALT table is a major oversight on this chart.
I know how to read a chart but am pointing out why I feel this error was made.
Poor chart design seems to me to be a major factor.
Not trying to defend anyone - just pointing out possible contributing factors not mentioned by the ATSB.
Malaysian crews fly all over the world including many airports not at sea level, and/or with DME's not at the threshold, sometimes not even at the airport! Have you ever done an NPA with the DME behind you on final approach? Not easy, especially after an all nighter. Not having a DME/ALT table is a major oversight on this chart.
I know how to read a chart but am pointing out why I feel this error was made.
Poor chart design seems to me to be a major factor.
Not sure if it was reported this day, but I was at Bilinga visiting rellies and they did a missed approach in bad weather and managed to fly over the high rises / beach a loooong way away from where the threshold was! There's international airports all over the world that don't necessarily have an ILS. If you're not competent at flying a VOR, why should it be on your licence? Hope anyone who doesn't like VORs aren't sent to JFK!
Last edited by maggotdriver; 11th Feb 2012 at 22:23. Reason: Grammar
Whilst this wasn't a well flown approach and there should be no excuses, before people make these sort of comments
Maybe they need to consider some of the recent incidents of the likes of Tiger and Jetstar in Australia, even QF have had some major screw ups.
antheads Air Asia : Now Everyone Can Fly (Into the Ground)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not having a DME/ALT table is a major oversight on this chart.
My answer for the 32 VOR is to dive and drive to 3000', start slowing and configuring from 20 miles DTG to be in landing configuration by 12 miles DTG. Start dialing in a VS of 5 x GS at 9.8 DME. Keep a casual eye on the not-below heights because I know nothing is critical (100-200+ feet clearance over each step). I expect to get visual with the runway slightly to the right with about a 10 degree right turn needed to line-up for landing. I'm looking for a T-VASIS, but with a TCH of 39', I want to be one dot high (in an A330). Simple.
As my flying instructor in the early days once said. a lack of prior planning leads to piss poor performance.
Anyone else see the potential for starting descent at 10 miles instead of 8?