Will CASA suspend JQ for descending below MSA on approach?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Oversight Rules?
Cactusjack,
I must have missed the repeal of subsection 7(a) of the Civil Aviation Act.
Can you point out the sections of the TransTasman Mutual Recognition Act that create the special "hands-off" arrangement for aviation oversight, so we can get the Civil Aviation Act amended to correctly reflect these special arrangements?
I must have missed the repeal of subsection 7(a) of the Civil Aviation Act.
Can you point out the sections of the TransTasman Mutual Recognition Act that create the special "hands-off" arrangement for aviation oversight, so we can get the Civil Aviation Act amended to correctly reflect these special arrangements?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't miss a repeal, just didn't read
9 CASA’s functions
(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;
Visa-Versa for NZ registered aircraft operating here and by the way,
7 (a)=
"Application of the Criminal Code" or if you mean this:
"7 Extra‑territorial application
This Act extends to matters relating to:
(a) foreign registered aircraft flying into or out of Australian territory or operating in Australian territory; "(not ANZA aircraft)
(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:
(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
(b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;
Visa-Versa for NZ registered aircraft operating here and by the way,
7 (a)=
"Application of the Criminal Code" or if you mean this:
"7 Extra‑territorial application
This Act extends to matters relating to:
(a) foreign registered aircraft flying into or out of Australian territory or operating in Australian territory; "(not ANZA aircraft)
Last edited by flying-spike; 19th Aug 2012 at 21:23. Reason: Dropped to the ground and changed magazines
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folly
(ba) ANZA activities in New Zealand authorised by Australian AOCs with ANZA privileges;
Spike beat me to it. My point exactly
Scrubba
Last edited by Cactusjack; 19th Aug 2012 at 21:29. Reason: Had to go and scrubba the toilet
Having had a mate sitting in the back of a Westwind as it ploughed into the McDonnell Ranges, I can't believe people are saying this is not a big deal. It is a huge deal, it is one of the most fundamental parts of aviation "don't run out of fuel, don't hit the f...ing hills". Only luck had it that they were 1000' low at the "right" time, so to speak. The Westwind on approach to Alice Springs was the wrong time, it hit the highest boulder sitting on the range, for the sake of twenty feet left, right or up they would be here.
This is a BIG deal!
This is a BIG deal!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maggot driver.
I'm with you on this one.
We'll have to wait for the report.
However, I'm concerned as to how a two pilot airliner could be 1000ft lower than it suppose to be. If there's no issues as to why it was 1000ft low. Then could the same errors lead to another aircraft being 2000ft low?
On face value an error has allegedly occurred.
I'm more concerned with the operational environment that has allowed errors to occur on a repitive basis.
I'm with you on this one.
We'll have to wait for the report.
However, I'm concerned as to how a two pilot airliner could be 1000ft lower than it suppose to be. If there's no issues as to why it was 1000ft low. Then could the same errors lead to another aircraft being 2000ft low?
On face value an error has allegedly occurred.
I'm more concerned with the operational environment that has allowed errors to occur on a repitive basis.
If it was an RNP approach then they may have been descending in a mode other than managed and they possibly thought that the aircraft would take care of the constraints. It would explain why they could be 1000' below an altitude before they picked up the error. A two pilot cockpit is full of errors hence the need for TEM.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 49
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
Lots of opinions but looks like a stuff up, and it's pretty obvious it was, enough said, the report will bring out the details.
Lookleft:
The "aircraft will take care of the constraints"?! Fvck me, who is flying who here? That mentality represents all that is bad about automated aircraft.
The "aircraft will take care of the constraints"?! Fvck me, who is flying who here? That mentality represents all that is bad about automated aircraft.
possibly thought that the aircraft would take care of the constraints.
Fvck me, who is flying who here?
My point exactly Sarcs. Seen it before, people happy to sit there while the aircraft flies them from A to B. you MUST monitor.
I was offering a possible explanation not excusing what happened. If you don,t think it's possible look beyond D&G and check out the YouTube video on children of the magenta. Rnp is meant to be done on managed and does even more to turn the pilots into systems monitors than just the autopilot. The ATSB started looking at the implications of RNP in incidents years ago so this will give them the opportunity to provide some safety lessons (hopefully).
I'd go further.
You must put the aeroplane where YOU want it, not where it wants to put you. That takes more than just monitoring. It takes active management.
You must put the aeroplane where YOU want it, not where it wants to put you. That takes more than just monitoring. It takes active management.
DirectAnywhere, even better.
Couldn't agree with you more and that's why there is a whole debate on other forums about the role of the pilot and manufacturer's concerns about manual flying skills. In the words of Molly Meldrum "do yourself a favour" and look at children of the magenta on the CRM forum. The subjugation of the pilot to the machine has been happening for a while.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sunny QLD
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unbelievable that people calling themselves professional pilots can have the mindset that "the aircraft was responsible for the approach profile"
Stop the world I want to get off.
Stop the world I want to get off.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No-one is indispensable (not even you Al). In the end you are just an insurance claim. The odds have been calculated. 1 in ? Chance. The hull will be lost, the claims will be paid........
All in all you're just a.......nother......brick in the wall
All in all you're just a.......nother......brick in the wall
Fark me, any of you bolding non coms actually fly RNP approaches?
..... What are you going to monitor with other than the FMGC profile and your altimeter, the coriolis effect?
..... What are you going to monitor with other than the FMGC profile and your altimeter, the coriolis effect?
Last edited by Bula; 22nd Aug 2012 at 08:00.