AirAsia issue SYD today?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Off track, again
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SODPROPS (Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations) is the most efficient and "noise friendly" configuration. The landings turn off close to the terminals either side, the departure threshold of 16L is handy enough to the terminals (except for the departing heavies that require 34L), and most of the noise is over the bay for both landings and departures. This extremely rare "Xanadu" event is no reason to discontinue this optimum operation!
Why all the discussion about SODPROPS? This had nothing to do with SODPROPS. SODPROPS is 16L for departures and 34L for arrivals.
This incident occurred during a 'normal' runway configuration, with both 16 runways in use for arrivals and departures, given on the ATIS as 'parallel runway operations in progress, independent departures in progress.'
This incident occurred during a 'normal' runway configuration, with both 16 runways in use for arrivals and departures, given on the ATIS as 'parallel runway operations in progress, independent departures in progress.'
Originally Posted by Directanywhere
This had nothing to do with SODPROPS. SODPROPS is 16L for departures and 34L for arrivals.
Whether that concern is justified is another matter.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 12th Mar 2015 at 11:44. Reason: Speling!
Oh, ok. Makes sense. I thought some posters were under the impression this had occurred during a SODPROPS configuration.
I withdraw all comments. :-)
I withdraw all comments. :-)
I think the concern was the unexpected turn after takeoff; had that happened to the right during SODPROPS
SODPROPS in Sydney uses 3000ft cloud base which is above the 2500ft specified in AIP.
The only occurrence that I am aware of involving anything like what has been suggested (turning right from RWY 16L) involved an Ansett A320 which tracked 155 rather than L125. As I understand the aircraft was flown by very senior pilots who only flew the minimum number of sectors to remain valid.
http://http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1997/aair/aair199700052.aspx
Departing aircraft are given a directed frequency transfer so this means that any identified non-compliance (not turning, drifting towards the RWY 34L approach) can be rectified prior to the transfer to Departures.
I encourage the use of the KEVIN or ABBEY SID during SODPROPS rather than use the SYDNEY SIX as I think this reduces the chance of someone dialling in 155 or even 170.
Where is the press???
I can't believe this has not been seriously reported by mainstream and tabloid media ,where is Today Tonight?
As a regular operator in and out of Sydney, this event is truly unbelievable and sends shivers up my spine.
FFS what were they thinking and how were they even allowed to depart Melbourne after showing such utter incompetence and lack of airmanship.
How is it safe to operate limited panel at FL310 to Melbourne if they could not even look out the window after rotate in Sydney and maintain runway track.
The slogan EVERYONE CAN FLY should not extend to the cockpit!
I hope there is a lot more to this story than so far reported as on the surface this terrifying lack of airmanship should have them banned from our airspace.
As a regular operator in and out of Sydney, this event is truly unbelievable and sends shivers up my spine.
FFS what were they thinking and how were they even allowed to depart Melbourne after showing such utter incompetence and lack of airmanship.
How is it safe to operate limited panel at FL310 to Melbourne if they could not even look out the window after rotate in Sydney and maintain runway track.
The slogan EVERYONE CAN FLY should not extend to the cockpit!
I hope there is a lot more to this story than so far reported as on the surface this terrifying lack of airmanship should have them banned from our airspace.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: some dive
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly Mud Skipper.
It all comes about by a gutless and pissweak "Regulator" (for want of a better word) approving such operators into the country. No doubt they head down to the little man of the local flying school or charter company and bend them over the table and threaten a shutdown. But hey, don't touch the dangerous and undesirables in the airline game. It may appear to be "racist".
Tick tock, tick tock.
It all comes about by a gutless and pissweak "Regulator" (for want of a better word) approving such operators into the country. No doubt they head down to the little man of the local flying school or charter company and bend them over the table and threaten a shutdown. But hey, don't touch the dangerous and undesirables in the airline game. It may appear to be "racist".
Tick tock, tick tock.
Didn't CASA just tell the Senate Estimates that the Indonesian arm of Air Asia, which is supposedly subject to an EU ban, does not have approval to fly into Australia? Maybe the Senators should also have asked if they are likely to get approval in the future.
How is it safe to operate limited panel at FL310 to Melbourne if they could not even look out the window after rotate in Sydney and maintain runway track.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indonesia Air Asia has been operating Bali - Perth for a number of years now. It's the A330 operation, Indonesia Air Asia X that's been waiting for the approval .. and have just received their approval. They start operating on March 18.
As I understand it, Malaysia and Indonesia Air Asia X are two completely different operations having their own separate AOC and check and training departments (similar to how VAA and VANZ are run I assume?)
As I understand it, Malaysia and Indonesia Air Asia X are two completely different operations having their own separate AOC and check and training departments (similar to how VAA and VANZ are run I assume?)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an utter disgrace.
How many ATSB Investigations will it take to get them banned? Or do we have to wait until lives are lost because it's heading that way...alarm bells having been ringing for a while now....
Why does our regulator have no balls in this area? Don't want to upset the Malaysian Government?
How many ATSB Investigations will it take to get them banned? Or do we have to wait until lives are lost because it's heading that way...alarm bells having been ringing for a while now....
Why does our regulator have no balls in this area? Don't want to upset the Malaysian Government?
22.5k hours and couldn't pick up the most basic of errors with an almost endless number of cues and checks before take off.
22.5k hours is probably the only reason the thing stayed upright and nobody died.
Amen Framer, its a big 'effen dice roll!
22.5k hours is probably the only reason the thing stayed upright and nobody died.
Amen Framer, its a big 'effen dice roll!
CASA's response to this one will indeed be very interesting.
Notwithstanding circuit breakers, there are few irreversible switches/selectors in the flight deck of any aircraft, ADIRU rotary switches are definitely among the 'do not touch' while airborne unless specifically directed to in accordance with FCOM. The captain saying 'yep' to this action whether confirmed or not is telling.
I can appreciate that there are different AOC's involved with this 'incident' and the 8501 crash but CASA will also have to address public safety concerns and these two pilots who displayed a complete lack of rudimentary airmanship may well be beyond re training. On the day in question they certainly had no place up the front of an passenger aeroplane, let alone a wide body RPT jet over metropolitan Sydney.
Notwithstanding circuit breakers, there are few irreversible switches/selectors in the flight deck of any aircraft, ADIRU rotary switches are definitely among the 'do not touch' while airborne unless specifically directed to in accordance with FCOM. The captain saying 'yep' to this action whether confirmed or not is telling.
I can appreciate that there are different AOC's involved with this 'incident' and the 8501 crash but CASA will also have to address public safety concerns and these two pilots who displayed a complete lack of rudimentary airmanship may well be beyond re training. On the day in question they certainly had no place up the front of an passenger aeroplane, let alone a wide body RPT jet over metropolitan Sydney.
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How one simple mistake turned an AirAsia X flight into a nightmare
An investigation into an AirAsia X flight that turned the wrong way after taking off from Sydney has revealed a litany of failures by the airline and crew.
Flight 223 to Kuala Lumpur on March 10, 2015 had to be guided to Melbourne to land after the captain inadvertently entered the wrong data in the flight computer.
An Australian Transport Safety Bureau report found the captain got the longitudinal position of the aircraft incorrect by 11,000 kilometres, sending the A330's on-board navigation system into a spin.
"Despite a number of opportunities to identify and correct the error, it was not noticed until after the aircraft became airborne and started tracking in the wrong direction." said the ATSB report.
"The ATSB also found that the aircraft was not fitted with an upgraded flight management system that would have prevented the data entry error via either automated initialisation or automatic correction of manual errors."
Air Traffic Control was forced to hold up an aircraft on another runway when the AirAsia X plane turned in its path.
The report noted that the flight crew attempted to "troubleshoot and rectify the situation while under heavy workload" but that only made the problem worse.
"Combined with limited guidance from the available checklists, this resulted in further errors by the flight crew in the diagnosis and actioning of flight deck switches," the report said.
The pilot requested to return to Sydney to land but deteriorating weather conditions meant it had to be diverted to Melbourne with the assistance of ATC for a visual landing.
The ATSB praised the performance of Air Traffic Control for "reducing the risk to the aircraft and other aircraft in the area". "This occurrence highlights that even experienced flight crew are not immune from data entry errors," the report said.
"However, carrying out procedures and incorporating equipment upgrades recommended by aircraft manufacturers will assist in preventing or detecting such errors."
In response to the incident AirAsia X made a number of changes, including the development of a new training bulletin and package for flight crews.
The airline also shared the lessons from its internal investigation with all pilots, and reviewed the recovery procedures required in the event of a similar occurrence.
AirAsia X began direct flights to Australia in 2007, and currently flies between Kuala Lumpur and the Gold Coast, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.
An investigation into an AirAsia X flight that turned the wrong way after taking off from Sydney has revealed a litany of failures by the airline and crew.
Flight 223 to Kuala Lumpur on March 10, 2015 had to be guided to Melbourne to land after the captain inadvertently entered the wrong data in the flight computer.
An Australian Transport Safety Bureau report found the captain got the longitudinal position of the aircraft incorrect by 11,000 kilometres, sending the A330's on-board navigation system into a spin.
"Despite a number of opportunities to identify and correct the error, it was not noticed until after the aircraft became airborne and started tracking in the wrong direction." said the ATSB report.
"The ATSB also found that the aircraft was not fitted with an upgraded flight management system that would have prevented the data entry error via either automated initialisation or automatic correction of manual errors."
Air Traffic Control was forced to hold up an aircraft on another runway when the AirAsia X plane turned in its path.
The report noted that the flight crew attempted to "troubleshoot and rectify the situation while under heavy workload" but that only made the problem worse.
"Combined with limited guidance from the available checklists, this resulted in further errors by the flight crew in the diagnosis and actioning of flight deck switches," the report said.
The pilot requested to return to Sydney to land but deteriorating weather conditions meant it had to be diverted to Melbourne with the assistance of ATC for a visual landing.
The ATSB praised the performance of Air Traffic Control for "reducing the risk to the aircraft and other aircraft in the area". "This occurrence highlights that even experienced flight crew are not immune from data entry errors," the report said.
"However, carrying out procedures and incorporating equipment upgrades recommended by aircraft manufacturers will assist in preventing or detecting such errors."
In response to the incident AirAsia X made a number of changes, including the development of a new training bulletin and package for flight crews.
The airline also shared the lessons from its internal investigation with all pilots, and reviewed the recovery procedures required in the event of a similar occurrence.
AirAsia X began direct flights to Australia in 2007, and currently flies between Kuala Lumpur and the Gold Coast, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.