ATSB report on very low flying Thai Airways B777 at Melbourne.

[beaver_rotate]

The 970' might well be an irrelevant lower altitude in the FO's mind to simply prevent ALT CAPTURE when cleared the visual approach. That said I wouldn't be doing that when cleared a visual approach at night in mist... And certainly not outside the circling area. I must feel for these long haul guys when given their STAR... To think a RWY such as RWY34 has no ILS and the amount it's actually used is VERY third world.

[Derfred]

but a point missed by Sunfish and glossed over by the ATSB is that they were cleared for visual approach. The controllers comments of confirming that the aircraft was low by visual identification confirms that the conditions were visual. Others will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the command "cleared for visual approach" waives the approach altitude requirements and allows the pilot to descend at his / her discretion to make the landing.

Actually, no. They were cleared for a VOR approach, and subsequently a visual approach once established on the PAPI and inside the circling area (5.28NM final).

At night you cannot commence a visual approach until this point which the controller spelled out to them.

They were on an instrument approach and clearly breached the instrument approach requirements. Using FLCH on an instrument approach at night in rain without the relevant minimum altitude set in the MCP according to the approach plate would be a hanging offence in my airline. The only acceptable modes are V/S or VNAV.

[le Pingouin]

Akro, very few fly on rego now - it's all flight number callsigns, except for lighties and the odd biz jet. The RTF would have been something like "Thai four seventy six".

[Old Akro]

Good point about flight number that I should have realized

[Mud Skipper]

Thanks Buckshot, I should have looked further.

[Twin Beech]

In rain, at night especially, there can be a diffraction error in the visible picture. Certainly not of enough magnitude to explain this degree of vertical deviation, but it can be a contributory factor to being a couple of hundred feet low that far out.

[Twin Beech]

Night visual approach requirements

The requirement to be inside the circling area at night may be unique to Australia. I cannot recall it being in force in any other country in which I am licensed. Here is a fair use copy from the ICAO regs in the Jepp WWT:

Visual Approach 6.5.3.1 Subject to the conditions in 6.5.3.3, clearance for an IFR flight to execute a visual approach may be requested by a flight crew or initiated by the controller. In the latter case, the concurrence of the flight crew shall be required. 6.5.3.3 An IFR flight may be cleared to execute a visual approach provided that the pilot can maintain visual reference to the terrain and;

a. the reported ceiling is at or above the level of the beginning of the initial approach segment for the aircraft so cleared; or

b. the pilot reports at the level of the beginning of the initial approach segment or at any time during the instrument approach procedure that the meteorological conditions are such that with reasonable assurance a visual approach and landing can be completed.

6.5.3.4 Separation shall be provided between an aircraft cleared to execute a visual approach and other arriving and departing aircraft. 6.5.3.5 For successive visual approaches, separation shall be maintained by the controller until the pilot of a succeeding aircraft reports having the preceding aircraft in sight. The aircraft shall then be instructed to follow and maintain own separation from the preceding aircraft. Etc...

[Old Akro]

Twin Beech, thanks, but once again I'm going to repeat that you'd expect that out of 30 pages the ATSB might devote 1 sentences to whether the Australian procedure differed from ICAO and might have been a factor. The ATSB reports repeatedly fail to identify and deal with all potentially relevant factors.

Going back to an earlier point of mine, the ATSB does not identify whether the captain acknowledged any or all of the ATC instructions. The report beats up the pilot for not responding to a go-around request but is mute on whether the pilot acknowledged or read back the instruction. If he did, then he's got no-where to hide. If he did not, then the controller needs to be asked why he waited a further 35 seconds before trying again.

[Angle of Attack]

At the end of the day (or night) once you pass 6.5DME I guess you could dive straight to the MDA, it would be technically legal but not SOP for an airliner. I agree with Akro. Give the transcripts and a graph with the profile of the approach, it would be readily available and much more useful, than the lawyer version of this so called ATSB investigation.

[framer]

Australia certainly seems unusual to me in that they don't have co located DME's on all their ILS's and in some cases don't even have an ILS. That is not 'worlds best practice' or whatever they like to say.
Also, I have often flown with Englishmen and Americans who have trouble understanding the Australian accent when it is spoken quickly as it often is over the radio.
That said, I think that quality training probably is the biggest issue in this incident.

[DirectAnywhere]

DME x 300 works really well for a 3 degree approach on to this runway because of the combination of elevation and DME distance from the threshold.

It's published on the plate anyway.

In short, there's no excuse for a competent crew not to be able to fly a VOR approach.

However, there's also really no excuse in this day and age for a major international airport not to have ILS approaches to all runways.

There is blame to be shared in a number of directions here.

[neville_nobody]

Is it just me or does this event mirror Air Asia X's effort up at the Gold Coast?

Two Asian Airlines who separately turn inbound and dive down to the minima.

So the question to ask are NPA approaches in Asia written differently?

What on earth would make these guys think they can just intercept final and dive down to 4-500 feet AGL?

If it keeps happening like this someone is going to plough into a hill or building.

Why didn't either of them descend in VNAV or VS?

Why on earth does Australia have such lack of infrastructure at International airports?

[Mr.Buzzy]

There's nothing wrong with infrastructure at Australian shopping centres, it's just too bad you have to go through security these days.

Bbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbb

[haughtney1]

To me it's quite telling where the captain stated he didn't expect the AFDS to climb the aircraft to meet the path when VNAV PTH was announciated on the FMA.
I fly this approach into YMML fairly regularly but normally ask for the RNAV due to better minima being available.
Having flown with an ex Thai guy into YMML, he tried to do exactly the same thing on the VOR, i.e dive and drive, inspite of our company SOP of a constant 3 degree descent on a non-precision approach, so I'm wondering if its as much a company culture thing or perhaps the way were initially trained?
In any case there is really no excuse, the FMC if you check it against the approach plate allows for a beautiful arrival with no level segments, it works great on the 777.
The visual call to the tower says to me he might have used that as a get out of jail call....

[Angle of Attack]

VNAV Path is nice but during approaches a nightmare . Enough said, just aviate and it will be fine..

[framer]

Dive and drive at MSA on non precision approaches and on arcs is still common in the parts of SE Asia I have flown in.

[Capt Fathom]

A lot of huffing and puffing about their lack of ability to fly a VOR approach. I doubt that is the case. So many experts!

However, as the report points out, it was more to do with automation.

Automation confusion lead to a lack of situational awareness.

If they planned that approach using Vertical Speed and a Lateral Nav Mode from the start, there would have been no problem.

They were caught out by the unexpected behaviour of VNAV PATH, and from that point were unable to recover from the automation surprise!

And that is a big problem these days.

[Twin Beech]

Voice recorder?

If the ATSB did not have access to the Thai CVR, how are they able to state that the ATC transmissions were not blocked by other radio traffic as heard in the Thai flight deck? I can't count how many times I have heard some **** call ready in turn (when he's number ten) block a late landing clearance for someone else on short final for example.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Indeed haughtney the captain clearly didn't/doesn't understand 'on approach mode' in the 777 which will indeed climb to get back onto the path if you have been dive&driving in FLCH and then select VNAV.

I too have flown that approach many times in a 777 and if you simply put the approach & transition in and leave the aircraft in LNAV/VNAV it's a doddle.

The approach has a 3 degree path coded in and from 8dme you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a VOR APP and an ILS except for the higher minima and the FMAs would say /LNAV/VNAV PATH instead of /LOC/GS.

This incident is purely an example of a crew not understanding their aircraft - a training and standards issue. I'd be interested to hear what the captain was flying before the 777 and his time on type.

Why is anyone surprised the ATSB report is seriously deficient?

[Centaurus]

The big question - which has already been raised - is why we don't have ILS on all runways.

No doubt the appropriate Australian civil aviation authorities will have long ago examined the feasability of putting an ILS on Runway 34. Part of that study included looking at the number of times in a year the weather from the north was so bad that an ILS was needed. Northerlies in Melbourne rarely bring low vis unless a thunderstorm is passing through and in that case the aircraft have no business trying to land during a thunderstorm.
The tax payer eventually foots the bill for an ILS installation and on-going maintenance and I for one would object my hard earned money as a delivery van driver being spent on some foreign airliner crewed by two incompetents simply because they are out of their depth on basic instrument flying skills.

Some months ago I was talking to a former foreign student of mine who flew into Melbourne acting in command under supervision in an A330 from overseas. Never mind the name. I recall that day. Strong northerlies and ATC gave duty runway as 34. The captain of the A330 declined even though the runway was two miles long and a 25 knot HW component. He asked for 27 as it had an ILS and it was a fine day except for gusty northerlies.
The aircraft landed heavily as the ICUS pilot left autopilot disconnect very late and heavy braking was needed.

The ICUS pilot told me the reason why the captain did not want to use runway 34 was he was unsure of the VOR/DME arc needed for 34 and didn't like using PAPI - preferring to accept the the strong cross wind on the relatively shorter 27 runway as the aircraft could be auto-coupled right down to the flare. Make no mistake about it, there are overseas airlines operating to Melbourne every day crewed occasionally by incompetent pilots, who rely blindly on the automatic coupled ILS approach as the preferred method of landing. Melbourne does not need an ILS on runway 34 since the present VOR approach is perfectly safe and easy to fly and already has a low MDA plus PAPI on all runways.