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

[Jack Ranga]

We are the best ATC in the world brutha just like you are the best pilots in the world

[Jack Ranga]

I've been doing a bit of research lately, on a project you see. If you think Australian ATC are restrictive, you are fiddling with your twinkies. Best to loosen your grip a little and have a look at the wider picture

Have the weather conditions @ Melbourne ever required an ILS approach as opposed to a VOR or GNSS for R34 or do you just want the option of autolanding with a Cat 3 because you haven't got the skills to visual onto 34?

Slag away as much as you want bruthas' but I thought we were in this game together? I have made the occasional mistake that has been picked up by pilots, the same as I've caught a couple of **** ups on the other side.

Perspective, perception. If the systems at fault here, change it. If the pilot cocked up, have a round table. Or report politically correct so that you never offend anyone, yeah, that'll work

[DirectAnywhere]

Jack,

NPAs are a threat. They increase pilot workload significantly. I can fly them but I'd rather fly an ILS - much easier.

400 odd people down the back want my life as easy as possible so I can focus my attention as widely as possible - not just the approach.

SYD 16R G/P was out over the weekend. Frankly, it was a s$&tfight. No-one's fault, just greater seperation, a few missed approaches in crappy, windy weather and a NPA. Busy, threat rich environment. Ripe for errors and an incident along the lines of the one that we're discussing now.

[Jack Ranga]

Direct, I appreciate that. I fly GNSS as well as ATC. I fly a GNSS better than I fly an ILS (). Point I'm making is: Pilots & ATC's slagging each other achieves NOTHING..........Our enemy's here are politically correct investigative bodies, shopping mall & car park operators masquerading as airport operators & politicians.

Next time you get on the PA & blame ATC for delays, have a think about what is really causing your delay. Question? Do you fellas have the balls to put over the PA:

'Ladies & Gentlemen, we strive to get you to your destination on time every time, unfortunately a traffic cap imposed by politicians, noise sharing & noise abatement legislation also imposed by politicians as well as airport operators who spend more money on retail development & car parks as opposed to runways has caused us to be late. Whilst we are sitting on the Tarmac for the next 15 minutes, waiting for a gate, feel free to turn on your mobiles & iPads, email your local (gutless) member of parliament & ask why?'

For the first dood that does this I will donate 5ung to your favourite charity & post the receipt on this forum

Whilst I'm mouthing off about delays the same can be said for the infrastructure you want

[Wally Mk2]

Jack I often say due ATC restrictions at XXXX we shall be delayed Ldg now at xxxx, unfortunately this is beyond our control.
Obviously the gen public have no idea we have Draconian rules & regs with useless Pollies & greenies indirectly running our aviation infrastructure (what there is of it!)
No offense to the guys behind the Mic, they must be as frustrated as us airborne.



Wmk2

[sheppey]

OZ is a uniquely challenging environment for foreign crews, the sad part is that it isn't due to weather, terrain or any other environmental issues, it is down to the crap rules, procedures and lack of proper infrastructure.

Disagree on that blanket statement. The Australian rules when it comes to conducting instrument approaches are quite straight forward and in most cases accord with ICAO procedures with perhaps minor modifications to increase safety. if a foreign crew is unable to complete a normal instrument approach without all the drama associated with (for example), the Thai incidents, it is not the fault of those who design the procedures. The fault lies in the regulator of the country of origin for not ensuring their aircraft crews are competent in normal instrument approach procedures.

Cowboy flying (meaning careless, lazy and potentially dangerous) happens in airlines as well in other flying jobs. There have been many similar published incidents over the years by foreign operators into Australian airports. Ask any ATC controllers at the major international airports and I am sure the stories will flow although these never hit the media.

[Jack Ranga]

Wal.........THEY ARE NOT ATC RESTRICTIONS They are restrictions imposed by the above considerations as well as weather. Let ATC go flat knacker & see what happens to your movement rates

You blokes pushing that easy bullish!t PA let's the above wankas off the hook, punters blaming ATC! C'mon Wal, $500 bills, will you do it? If not, why not? It's an internal PA, not subject to any communications law......

[Old Akro]

Jack

I don't think anyone is having a go at ATC. A number (including me) are having a fair crack at the system that you work within, but certainly have not meant to criticise the controller.

I had dinner with an overseas based 747 captain on Saturday night. He says the only time he flies a NPA is in the SIM or when he comes to Australia. While the points about pilots should have the skill is correct, the plain fact is that many foreign pilots coming here are simply not fluent in them. He also says that the FCS of glass cockpit 747's don't deal as well the transition to NPA as the 747 classic (for reasons I don't understand). Whether or not this translates to the 777, I don't know. But its an interesting question. His comments make me wonder if modern digital FCS are optimised for NPA approaches.

My suspicion is that the problems with the approach started in the LH turn from the 11 DME arc to the VOR 346 radial, then developed.

The second point is that while the DME Arc entry VOR approach may be a good valid procedure, why should we not move with technology and strive to have systems that benchmark with other international airports in the region? Australia used to lead the world in aviation technology. Now countries that we label as third world have better, more modern infrastructure.

My beef is that the ATSB report has been used to criticise the airline flag carrier of one of our major trading partners (#7 from memory). Yet this report would fail as an undergraduate report. I count 9 discrepancies between the schedule of events in appendix B and the body copy. When I try and derive a groundspeed to fill in missing DME blanks, I get numbers that vary from 120 kts to 600 kts. There is something not quite right about the published event chronology. The crew was criticised for not reacting to the go-around instruction, but when you compile a full list of radio calls (must add the body copy reported calls to Appendix B) then it really looks like they did not hear / did not understand the first call. The report does not give this impression, but I think there was a combined total of 10 radio transmissions regarding the go-around. An initial instruction with either the response "Copied" or "Climbing"(depending on which part of the report you read), then a 35 sec break, then a further 4 transmissions & responses between 2012:26 & 2019:47. One of my only real questions of the controller, is why in the face of no positive reply of a go-around let alone the correct phraseology, did he wait 35 sec to re-issue the instruction? If we are going to criticise the crew for not affirming a command, isn't there some shared responsibility? Just asking.

If the crew was under the expectation of ICAO rules (whether rightly or wrongly), then they were operating legitimately (albeit with sloppy airmanship) from the point at which they were cleared for visual approach. At the point of actual go-around they were inside the circling area and were therefore OK according to both Australian & ICAO standards. This difference to ICAO is not mentioned in the ATSB report at all. I read the Jepp manual looking for the Australian requirement to be within the circling area and I don't think its at all clear in the Jepp document. I don't think you can blame them for not being clear.

The point at which it is unequivocal that they had breached the LSALT was during the LH turn from the DME arc to the VOR radial. This was up to 30 sec before they were cleared for visual approach and a full minute before the first go-around instruction.

This report does not mention any history of altitude infringements to RWY 34, but the active report AO 2012-120 into a US registered B747 cites that there have been 5 altitude infringements to RWY 34 in 2011/12. So, it looks like there might be a bit of an issue.

Tiger airways report (AO 2011-070) of June 2011 (vs Thai in July 2011) was another altitude infringement issue (RWY 27). It pointed to a discrepancy in operational data between the published charts and that in the flight management system. This was not considered in the recent Thai investigation. 2 incidents, a month apart, same airport, both with involvement of the FCS. It would seem to me that it should have been on the list to consider.

There is no denying that this was a pretty bad approach, but using the crew as whipping boys doesn't help explore how to improve the situation.

We should debate whether all runways should have ILS
We should debate if we should bring the cleared visual approach requirements into line with ICAO
We should debate whether a redesign of the VOR approach would make it easier for foreign crews
We should debate whether the RWY 27 ILS might be an option for longhaul foreign crews with light crosswind (about 10 kts on the night).

The ATSB report does not mention if this flight had relief crew. The BKK - MEL flight runs about eight and a half hours to nine and a quarter hours, which I understand is borderline for a relief crewmember. I understand some airlines do, some don't. It would seem to me that fatigue should probably have been discussed in the ATSB report as well. I have no idea how to weigh up the risks of landing from a non stabilised approach vs a go-around at night at the end of a 9 hour flight, but it would be an interesting discussion.

[clark y]

Well said.

A couple of other things missing from the report- the crews total and recent experience. We don't know their nationalities. A copy of the chart actually used (not the AIP)and the FMS coding would have been nice (the fleet I fly has had about 3 different versions for the 34 VOR).

joker89, thanks, I asked about the pitch up at 3300' because this is where the captain state he thought he had a problem with the VNAV. This is where the use of LVLCH started.
Jack r, I have gone around off the 34VOR due low cloud. Never even saw the ground. Though it was very quick forming and bit lower than thought.

Clark y

[Derfred]

Jack, I have done two go arounds in succession on VOR34, not visual due visibility in rain. Got in on the third approach declaring min fuel. The forecast for the day was 9999 SCT035 -SHRA.

[Jack Ranga]

Looks like an ILS is needed on R34?

[Lookleft]

An ILS on 34 would be great as would CATIIIB approaches at all capital cities. The obvious question is who would pay for it. The airlines won't as they don't think the small number of days it would be used is worth the expense. The gummint won't as they would consider that its not a vital piece of national infrastructure. Airservices won't as they would consider that the airlines should pay. Who's left? Would pilots put their hands in their pockets and pay for it?

So it comes back to playing with the cards you are dealt. If you fly in Oz, for better or for worse, you have to know how to deal with an NPA.

The worst way to deal with an NPA is to set the minima and push FLCH or OPEN DESC depending on your chariots manufacturer. This is fundamental stuff and not nice to know when you do your training. Thai Airways and any other airline who have pilots who don't understand the functions of these "buttons" need to look at their syllabus of training.

[Centaurus]

NPAs are a threat. They increase pilot workload significantly

It is all relative. Thousands of pilots flew NPA's usually by hand in the years leading to the introduction of glass cockpit instrumentation and ever increasing sophistication of automatics. The wartime GCA (radar equivalent to ILS) took good flying skills because they were flown manually raw data. The term "work-load" had not been invented then. Pilots were airmen - with all that implies. With the ever increasing sophistication and reliability of today's automatics, work load has been steadily reduced to often a state of boredom.

Suddenly people bleat about the 'work-load" of flying a bog standard NPA. They are forced to elevate their cockpit activity and either press a few more automatic buttons or God forbid, actually grip the joy-stick or control wheel and fly by hand (following a compliant flight director and autothrottles of course). The pulse rate goes up caused by the increase in "work-load"

They even complain about increase in "workload" even though the automatic pilot system is doing all the work!!

[Old Akro]

Centaurus.

I agree. But I still think real aeroplanes have tailwheels.

[Jack Ranga]

So an ILS on R34 is not needed?

[Keg]

Handy? Yes. Needed? Too many more incidents like this then perhaps yes. Really needed? No. Within 3-5 years everyone will be doing straight in RNAV approaches to altitudes that will be close to ILS minima so it won't be an issue.

[PEI_3721]

Some similarities with some of the incidents in Celebrating TAWS ‘Saves’: But lessons still to be learnt.

Perhaps there is a need to revise the chart so that altitude is above distance in the ‘altitude/distance’ table, i.e altitude is the most important variable. At least pilots should think that way irrespective of the chart.

[Twin Beech]

Twin Beeches have tailwheels. Castering tailwheels.

Fellas: there is no doubt that hairy-chested airmen can fly the pants off anything, conventional gear or not. An NDB is pure luxury, accustomed as we all are to audible range let-downs. I think that the "A" quadrant is germane here, as the "N" is reserved for the adjacent North Melbourne community.

That foolishness aside, a non-ILS approach to a major destination runway is unforgivable. To speculate that a foreign crew might be fatigued after an intercontinental flight is to parse the obvious. Why try to justify an obviously, clearly inadequate approach? An easy, vectored ILS is what long haul heavy crew ( and passengers, too, if they had a clue) expect. To provide, and require otherwise, is to compromise safety in its most basic form.

All readers of this post not current widebody captains who have seen more dawns than they care to remember need not respond with tales of daring-do. We were all young once, but now we have real jobs. Flying to real, fair-dinkum airports chock full of ILS approaches to every runway. While tired. And no holding, either, Jack.

Twin Beech. C-17 compass, tailwheel, carb heat, bfo, dit-dah, dah-dit. A cone of silence without Maxwell Smart, or the Chief. But with Agent 99 for sure.

[Jack Ranga]

So an ILS is required on R34?

[Old Akro]

Jack

The real answer to this question would lie in a review of the incidents of altitude infringements on RWY 34. The search function on the ATSB website is completely inadequate for anyone external to do this research. With the current state of the ATSB, I doubt you'll ever get the full information required for a proper decision. However, with only an hour or so's work I turned up with 6 instances in the last year or so.

Considering the Thai flight, they could have easily landed with a mild cross wind on RWY 27 with ILS. I presume (note: presume because the ATSB did not consider this) that the aircraft was directed to RWY 34 for ATC operational reasons and not aircraft or weather requirements. Some degree of understanding about this would help inform the assessment.

I fly twins not jets. This approach would be pretty easy in the twin. However, my 747 captain mate says it is not as simple in a widebody jet and even less simple in a glass cockpit wide body jet. Something to do with the flight control system that I don't understand. It seems to me that the most critical group of flights on this approach are therefore foreign long haul, glass cockpit widebody jets (none of whom are participating in this discussion). How welcoming do we want to be to overseas guests?

My understanding (which is imperfect) is that GPS has not made nearly the inroads to airlines that it has to GA. I understand that where it is used in airlines it typically feeds into the INS system to update it, rather than being used as a standalone system. I think it will be many years before we see airliners using GPS RNAV approaches. And unless Australia gets WAAS it may be never.

The truth is that we have under funded aviation infrastructure for years. In Australia we get by because we have better weather than most of the world, lower traffic densities, possibly better pilots and better controllers . There comes a time when we just have to do whats right. Surely at least Sydney & Melbourne should be at a similar standard to Singapore, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Heathrow, Los Angeles, Frankfurt, etc.

The maritime industry gets new lighthouses, marine GPS WAAS, channel dredging, port upgrades and other infrastructure without industry funding. The trucking industry gets free use of roads, B-double assembly areas, emergency repose (police, ambulance, etc) without any significant industry contribution. Its only aviation where we get hung about about user pays. And before someone mentions Dick Smith - it started in the seventies with Frank Crean.

The rest of the world is investing in WAAS, ADSB-in traffic, radio weather, autoland and we're trying figure out if we should fully adopt ILS.