Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Tiger Airways A320 incident Cairns

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Tiger Airways A320 incident Cairns

Old 7th Feb 2017, 08:40
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 830
Tiger Airways A320 incident Cairns

Investigation: AO-2017-008 - Pre-flight preparation event involving Airbus A320, VH-VNC, Cairns Airport, Qld, on 21 January 2017
A Tiger Airways Australia Airbus A320-200, registration VH-VNC performing flight TT-491 from Cairns,QL to Brisbane,QL (Australia), was taxiing for departure from runway 33 and lined up the runway via taxiway B4. Tower observing the aircraft lining up via the wrong taxiway cancelled the takeoff clearance. The aircraft turned around on the runway, vacated the runway via taxiway B4, lined up runway 33 via taxiway B5, departed and continued to Brisbane for a safe landing without further incident.

Australia's TSB reported: "The flight crew lined the aircraft up for take-off from an incorrect taxiway intersection on the runway. Air traffic ontrol alerted the flight crew who then backtracked the aircraft to the orrect intersection prior to commencing take-off. As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the flight crew, review air traffic control communications and gather additional information." The occurrence was rated an incident and is being investigated, a report is estimated by May 2017.

Distance between taxiways B4 and B5 is about 410 meters/1345 feet, takeoff distance available runway 33 from B5 is about 2580 meters/8460 feet.
Incident: Tiger A320 at Cairns on Jan 21st 2017, takeoff clearance cancelled due to wrong line up
wheels_down is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 22:30
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: queensland australia
Posts: 137
To be all honest probably just another overworked and tired crew. ATC did their job of querying the crew who then proceeded to the correct intersection for departure. All in all how the system should work and looks like it did.
We as crew and ATCers must look out for ourselves as we are the ones at the coalface.
nig&nog is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 01:51
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 698
Whilst I've never seen a Jet use B4 for departure, the length isn't a massive issue, certainly doable. Or do Cairns not permit it?
PoppaJo is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 01:56
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 316
it could probably do it however the takeoff data would have been calculated with a B5 departure not a B4. Incorrect v speeds and thrust settings would make things difficult especially with an engine failure
TurningFinalRWY36 is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 03:01
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,034
Better than going off 15 with wrong data
maggot is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 03:51
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,909
it could probably do it
would make things difficult especially with an engine failure
Okay, firstly. Probably do it? You mean safely get airborne? Without a doubt it would "do it".

Secondly, surely only the OEI case is an issue, TEO is redundant.

B4 and B5 are 403 metres apart according to RDS data in ERSA. happy to be corrected.

If it makes more than 3 knots difference to V1 I will be very surprised.

Easy mistake to make when BOTH are tired.
Icarus2001 is online now  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 03:52
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,034
Originally Posted by Icarus2001 View Post
Okay, firstly. Probably do it? You mean safely get airborne? Without a doubt it would "do it".

Secondly, surely only the OEI case is an issue, TEO is redundant.

B4 and B5 are 403 metres apart according to RDS data in ERSA. happy to be corrected.

If it makes more than 3 knots difference to V1 I will be very surprised.

Easy mistake to make when BOTH are tired.
Maybe 3 knots but i bet a few degrees of flex!
maggot is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 03:54
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,909
Maybe someone who is CURRENTLY flying the type would care to run the numbers for us so we can be informed as to the REAL difference is V speeds and flex?

Maybe 3 knots but i bet a few degrees of flex!
Possibly. However, my understanding is that in the event of an engine failure under flex conditions, no additional thrust is required, the calculations are good for flex OEI. In reality pretty much all operators will add power to the live engine by either pressing TOGA, pushing TL forward of a detent or in some cases doing nothing as the aircraft adds power without pilot input.

So now does that mitigate 400 metres of missing runway as far as obstacles upwind are concerned?
Icarus2001 is online now  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 05:03
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Icarus2001 View Post
However, my understanding is that in the event of an engine failure under flex conditions, no additional thrust is required, the calculations are good for flex OEI.
You don't understand how FLEX works by the sound of it.

You are correct, you can climb out OEI without the need to add thrust. IF you inserted the correct FLEX temp in the FMGC in the first place.

There's a big difference in power over a 10 degree FLEX range.

morno
morno is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 05:11
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by Icarus2001 View Post
Maybe someone who is CURRENTLY flying the type would care to run the numbers for us so we can be informed as to the REAL difference is V speeds and flex?



Possibly. However, my understanding is that in the event of an engine failure under flex conditions, no additional thrust is required, the calculations are good for flex OEI. In reality pretty much all operators will add power to the live engine by either pressing TOGA, pushing TL forward of a detent or in some cases doing nothing as the aircraft adds power without pilot input.

So now does that mitigate 400 metres of missing runway as far as obstacles upwind are concerned?
Not really. The Airbus EFB (I'm assuming here that the 320 is similar to the bigger Busses) will try to give you a flex temp that results in balanced field length, often with a margin of less than 100m. If you've got 400m less runway than you thought you had, then an engine failure at V1 will give you a negative margin for either stopping or continuing. If you've continued and select TOGA, that will obviously help, but by how much? If it was only a small derate to start with, then TOGA won't make a big difference.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 06:08
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,909
You don't understand how FLEX works by the sound of it.

You are correct,
I am pretty happy that I do, thanks. Can you explain the contradiction in your post?

will try to give you a flex temp that results in balanced field length, often with a margin of less than 100m
I tend to be more interested in the margin in tonnes above ATOW but I take your point. Would it be an issue with 2200 metres, what is max flex allowed on that frame with those engines?

will try to give you
How often do you find V1 = Vr?
Icarus2001 is online now  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 07:07
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: aus
Posts: 8
Great to see a thread where most of the responses are for the crew not against them ...We are all starting to recognise no mater which airline you work for in aus we are all working harder. Enjoy the blue skies.
joblogs1 is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 07:12
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 406
Would it be an issue with 2200 metres, what is max flex allowed on that frame with those engines?
Sorry, the question has no meaning. Max flex at what weight, what OAT, what QNH, what wind, wet or dry runway?


How often do you find V1 = Vr?
I don't fly the little bus, but FWIW, V1 on the bigger ones is often the same as Vr, or within a knot or two.


The point remains that if you're using a flex temp with a small margin, you're in strife if you lose an engine at or near V1 and the runway turns out to be 400m shorter than you thought it was.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 07:33
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,909
There is usually a maximum allowable flex overall, expressed either as an N1 or % or temp value. This is regardless of environmental factors or weight.

Well as you would no doubt know the effect of runway length on the V1 Vr relationship then you would see which is limiting.

I fail to see how comments like
Incorrect v speeds and thrust settings would make things difficult especially with an engine failure
can go left un challenged, as without an engine failure what is going to be "difficult"?
Icarus2001 is online now  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 08:24
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Not sure....better check the GPS
Posts: 16
How often do you find V1 = Vr?
If runway length and second stage obstacles aren't a factor, then generally for config 1 TO, the V1=VR. For shorter runways where config 2 or config 3 is required, then V1 can be quite low compared to VR.

There is usually a maximum allowable flex overall, expressed either as an N1 or % or temp value. This is regardless of environmental factors or weight.
That particular aircraft can derate by 40% (flex temp of ISA+72).

In the given scenario, without knowing the environmental conditions and the TOW, given the length of the rwy available from B4, I'd guess the speeds would be more or less the same, yet as stated, quite a bit more juice would be required.
juzanuthapilot is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 09:49
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,688
Icarus,
As someone else said, pretty good chance that the V speeds would be pretty similar, but when it comes to Flex, there would be a big difference in Flex temperatures.

So, if you took off from an intersection 400M up the runway than what you calculated figures for, and you lost a donk at V1, then no, Flex power will not be adequate.

Flex is just the Airbus way of saying Derate. There's not just one setting.
morno is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 09:53
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,909
and you lost a donk at V1, then no, Flex power will not be adequate.
I am aware of that. The open question is "by how much"

That is why I said above if you push power to max, toga or the EMC/FMS does it autonomously then you would surely have adequate climb power as the flex is taken out of the equation and a "normal" OEI climb at V2 should be possible.

I would like to hear from an A320 pilot, be great to see actual figures. If we wait for the ATSB we will all be retired.

Flex is just the Airbus way of saying Derate.
I believe flex/ assumed temperature and derate are two different things. Although it does get confusing once the US citizens get involved with the language.

De-rate is more about selecting a power setting such as TO1 TO2 TO3 which can itself be flexed, two different beasts as far as I consider power ratings.

However...http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/R...Thrust_Takeoff

https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/when-less-is-more/
Icarus2001 is online now  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 09:55
  #18 (permalink)  
BPA
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 618
Isn't Flex the European(and Brazil) term for Assumed temp. As you can Flex or you can Flex and Derate (on the bigger buses).
BPA is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 10:03
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,034
Originally Posted by BPA View Post
Isn't Flex the European(and Brazil) term for Assumed temp. As you can Flex or you can Flex and Derate (on the bigger buses).
Yes.
De rate is a power rating. Sometimes 'soft' selectable sometimes maint only
maggot is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 10:14
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,034
Originally Posted by Icarus2001 View Post
I am aware of that. The open question is "by how much"

That is why I said above if you push power to max, toga or the EMC/FMS does it autonomously then you would surely have adequate climb power as the flex is taken out of the equation and a "normal" OEI climb at V2 should be possible.

I would like to hear from an A320 pilot, be great to see actual figures. If we wait for the ATSB we will all be retired.
I think your proffered scenario is too specific to be of any real use.

Yes it may be do able (taking the wrong int and selecting TOGA after a v1 failure) but perhaps not... obv worth a shot if it happened.
maggot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.