The perils of airline pilots flying heads down in fine weather!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The perils of airline pilots flying heads down in fine weather!
Report summary:
Cleared to conduct a visual approach to Melbourne Airport, the aircraft descended below the normal approach profile and entered the 500 ft vertical buffer at the base of the control area step, below the minimum safe altitude, though it remained in controlled airspace. This reduced separation with terrain and any aircraft operating outside controlled airspace.
During the descent, both flight crew had become pre-occupied with other tasks inside the flight deck, which had the effect of increasing their workload and distracting them from monitoring the aircraft’s flight path and altitude. About two minutes after commencing descent on the visual approach, the flight crew levelled the aircraft after realising that it appeared to be low on profile. A safety alert issued by air traffic control soon followed and, in response, the aircraft was climbed to intercept the recommended visual approach descent profile. The remainder of the flight was uneventful and the aircraft landed on runway 16 at Melbourne Airport.
This incident highlights the importance of monitoring an aircraft’s flight profile and altitude, especially during the high workload phases of flight.
Final Report: Flight path management and descent toward the lower limit of controlled airspace involving Airbus A320, VH-VND, on approach to Melbourne Airport, Victoria, on 11 February 2015
ATSB are improving. Only three years to produce an incident report saying an Australian A320 crew stuffed up a visual approach to Melbourne in fine weather
Cleared to conduct a visual approach to Melbourne Airport, the aircraft descended below the normal approach profile and entered the 500 ft vertical buffer at the base of the control area step, below the minimum safe altitude, though it remained in controlled airspace. This reduced separation with terrain and any aircraft operating outside controlled airspace.
During the descent, both flight crew had become pre-occupied with other tasks inside the flight deck, which had the effect of increasing their workload and distracting them from monitoring the aircraft’s flight path and altitude. About two minutes after commencing descent on the visual approach, the flight crew levelled the aircraft after realising that it appeared to be low on profile. A safety alert issued by air traffic control soon followed and, in response, the aircraft was climbed to intercept the recommended visual approach descent profile. The remainder of the flight was uneventful and the aircraft landed on runway 16 at Melbourne Airport.
This incident highlights the importance of monitoring an aircraft’s flight profile and altitude, especially during the high workload phases of flight.
Final Report: Flight path management and descent toward the lower limit of controlled airspace involving Airbus A320, VH-VND, on approach to Melbourne Airport, Victoria, on 11 February 2015
ATSB are improving. Only three years to produce an incident report saying an Australian A320 crew stuffed up a visual approach to Melbourne in fine weather
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Children of the Magenta Line.
With the advent of increased training to cope with the demand for flight crew; greater reliance upon automatic computerised flight; introduction of `Quotas' to fulfill flight crew numbers creating a need for greater influence by the Physiologists to cater for this, coupled with less exposure to manual flight or previous experinece; an increase in this type of incident can be expected.
With the advent of increased training to cope with the demand for flight crew; greater reliance upon automatic computerised flight; introduction of `Quotas' to fulfill flight crew numbers creating a need for greater influence by the Physiologists to cater for this, coupled with less exposure to manual flight or previous experinece; an increase in this type of incident can be expected.
Well "Stallie", if you have a job purely as a direct result of fitting into a quota as opposed to having the skill and experience then just about anything will fit into a "high workload" environment.
Many years ago I heard a wise Army Driving Instructor make the observation, "If you can't handle it, park it".
Methinks that may just apply to quotas and other Children of the Magenta.
CC
Many years ago I heard a wise Army Driving Instructor make the observation, "If you can't handle it, park it".
Methinks that may just apply to quotas and other Children of the Magenta.
CC
The primary tool for a visual approach is the window.
And the ATSB spends 28 pages of analyses of STARS, LOC, intercept, profile, charts for intercept angle to not overshoot loc by more than 1.5deg... I could go on.
They’re just as complicit.
The company ops man says visual, AP OFF, FD off, bird ON.
Maybe it needs to add “Look outside and pretend you’re back in a Cessna. “
I feel sympathy for this skipper. If he’s getting told off for showing something on the FMGC that’s - apparently- solely the realm of a training captain, he probably wasn’t permitted to talk the FO through the visual app. Damned if he did, damned if he didn’t.
And I bet there was no “VS minus 1400set” from the PF. That should have got skip’s attention.
FMA FMA FMA
And SOP GA Alt visual is the instrument GA alt? Where’d that come from ? Not in my AIP
And the ATSB spends 28 pages of analyses of STARS, LOC, intercept, profile, charts for intercept angle to not overshoot loc by more than 1.5deg... I could go on.
They’re just as complicit.
The company ops man says visual, AP OFF, FD off, bird ON.
Maybe it needs to add “Look outside and pretend you’re back in a Cessna. “
I feel sympathy for this skipper. If he’s getting told off for showing something on the FMGC that’s - apparently- solely the realm of a training captain, he probably wasn’t permitted to talk the FO through the visual app. Damned if he did, damned if he didn’t.
And I bet there was no “VS minus 1400set” from the PF. That should have got skip’s attention.
FMA FMA FMA
And SOP GA Alt visual is the instrument GA alt? Where’d that come from ? Not in my AIP
Enough is enough, how many more before there is a CFIT north of YMML. Once an aircraft is assigned a visual approach then ALL ATC system monitoring for terrain is inhibited, that is, there is no alert generated.
When it comes to Melbourne is think the highest workloads come when they issue you a visual approach in the first place. And don’t think your “requirement” to conduct an instrument means anything to them either, unless you want endless vectoring, huffing and puffing, questions about your mental state and 30 minutes in the sun bin. Visual approaches are used WAY too liberally in Melbourne in conditions that are extremely marginal. It’ll only take an accident to have anything change though.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like if you had a DME tuned to a station on the airfield and you were looking at the distance and thinking about whether you were at a reasonable altitude for the distance, you wouldn't find yourself fully configured and less than 1200 ft above the airport elevation while still 9NM from the threshold. Is that not a thing anymore?
Now for all those experts who say it's no different to flying a Cessna, lets compare the difference:
Let's look at Cessna making a visual approach (operating in its usual environment -OCTA/ Class D zone (old GAAP zone):
- CTA steps are not a problem if you are coming from OCTA/remaining OCTA (you can just descend to circuit altitude as far out as you want, and descend shallow/fly level until ready for final approach)
- if descending within CTA (class c), then CTA steps are less likely a problem (because of slower speed)
- slower speeds/easier to slow down
- you can still descend normal profile and slow down easily
- gear is fixed (less things to worry about)
- only 1 flap speed, and usually no difficulty to slow down, even whilst descending
- there might only be 2 or 3 flap settings
- no formal checklist to complete (apart from maybe BUMPFISCH in your head, on downwind)
- very easy to slow down if a bit fast/high, just reduce further power (unlike a jet where the thrust might be idle and the speed brake not very effective)
- no need to correctly program the FMS (for correct waypoint sequencing, to give accurate track miles/VDEV info/FPLAN track for go around)
- no company speed limits or rate of descent limits (which makes it more challenging to descend sometimes/more things to think about)
- no ATC approach speed limits (230/185/160 etc)
- most important, no stable approach criteria:
- you don't have to be stablished on path by 1,000' with all the other criteria
- you don't have to fly and be established on 3 degree slope/on the PAPI
(to be on slope on the PAPI at 1,000, is to be within +/- 80' (narrow tolerance +/- 8%) at 3 miles from the threshold, good luck to anyone who can just eyeball that without ever looking down)
- you don't have to land within the zone (you can land short or long)
- you can approach as steep or as flat as you want
- you have more flexibility on your approach speed, the speed you fly, and how soon/late you are stabilized
- if you completely mess it up, you can even continue the approach with the engine at idle (there is no minimum thrust setting for approach)
- there is no FOQA to report you if you did something wrong (which means usually you still continue)
- OCTA, there is no one (ATC) watching you fly and to report your mistakes
- less workload, you don't need to set any bugs (or ask someone to do it for you) (heading/speed/VS/altitudes/FD)
If only a jet was this easy. (ready for incoming
)
Btw...if this flight was a Cessna operating OCTA/entering a Class D zone from OCTA, then there would no incident/report to start with.
Let's look at Cessna making a visual approach (operating in its usual environment -OCTA/ Class D zone (old GAAP zone):
- CTA steps are not a problem if you are coming from OCTA/remaining OCTA (you can just descend to circuit altitude as far out as you want, and descend shallow/fly level until ready for final approach)
- if descending within CTA (class c), then CTA steps are less likely a problem (because of slower speed)
- slower speeds/easier to slow down
- you can still descend normal profile and slow down easily
- gear is fixed (less things to worry about)
- only 1 flap speed, and usually no difficulty to slow down, even whilst descending
- there might only be 2 or 3 flap settings
- no formal checklist to complete (apart from maybe BUMPFISCH in your head, on downwind)
- very easy to slow down if a bit fast/high, just reduce further power (unlike a jet where the thrust might be idle and the speed brake not very effective)
- no need to correctly program the FMS (for correct waypoint sequencing, to give accurate track miles/VDEV info/FPLAN track for go around)
- no company speed limits or rate of descent limits (which makes it more challenging to descend sometimes/more things to think about)
- no ATC approach speed limits (230/185/160 etc)
- most important, no stable approach criteria:
- you don't have to be stablished on path by 1,000' with all the other criteria
- you don't have to fly and be established on 3 degree slope/on the PAPI
(to be on slope on the PAPI at 1,000, is to be within +/- 80' (narrow tolerance +/- 8%) at 3 miles from the threshold, good luck to anyone who can just eyeball that without ever looking down)
- you don't have to land within the zone (you can land short or long)
- you can approach as steep or as flat as you want
- you have more flexibility on your approach speed, the speed you fly, and how soon/late you are stabilized
- if you completely mess it up, you can even continue the approach with the engine at idle (there is no minimum thrust setting for approach)
- there is no FOQA to report you if you did something wrong (which means usually you still continue)
- OCTA, there is no one (ATC) watching you fly and to report your mistakes
- less workload, you don't need to set any bugs (or ask someone to do it for you) (heading/speed/VS/altitudes/FD)
If only a jet was this easy. (ready for incoming
)Btw...if this flight was a Cessna operating OCTA/entering a Class D zone from OCTA, then there would no incident/report to start with.
Last edited by John Citizen; 24th Feb 2018 at 04:49.
Ahh the well designed Aus CTA steps
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now for all those experts who say it's no different to flying a Cessna, lets compare the difference:
Let's look at Cessna making a visual approach (operating in its usual environment -OCTA/ Class D zone (old GAAP zone):
- CTA steps are not a problem if you are coming from OCTA/remaining OCTA (you can just descend to circuit altitude as far out as you want, and descend shallow/fly level until ready for final approach)
- if descending within CTA (class c), then CTA steps are less likely a problem (because of slower speed)
- slower speeds/easier to slow down
- you can still descend normal profile and slow down easily
- gear is fixed (less things to worry about)
- only 1 flap speed, and usually no difficulty to slow down, even whilst descending
- there might only be 2 or 3 flap settings
- no formal checklist to complete (apart from maybe BUMPFISCH in your head, on downwind)
- very easy to slow down if a bit fast/high, just reduce further power (unlike a jet where the thrust might be idle and the speed brake not very effective)
- no need to correctly program the FMS (for correct waypoint sequencing, to give accurate track miles/VDEV info/FPLAN track for go around)
- no company speed limits or rate of descent limits (which makes it more challenging to descend sometimes/more things to think about)
- no ATC approach speed limits (230/185/160 etc)
- most important, no stable approach criteria:
- you don't have to be stablished on path by 1,000' with all the other criteria
- you don't have to fly and be established on 3 degree slope/on the PAPI
(to be on slope on the PAPI at 1,000, is to be within +/- 80' (narrow tolerance +/- 8%) at 3 miles from the threshold, good luck to anyone who can just eyeball that without ever looking down)
- you don't have to land within the zone (you can land short or long)
- you can approach as steep or as flat as you want
- you have more flexibility on your approach speed, the speed you fly, and how soon/late you are stabilized
- if you completely mess it up, you can even continue the approach with the engine at idle (there is no minimum thrust setting for approach)
- there is no FOQA to report you if you did something wrong (which means usually you still continue)
- OCTA, there is no one (ATC) watching you fly and to report your mistakes
- less workload, you don't need to set any bugs (or ask someone to do it for you) (heading/speed/VS/altitudes/FD)
If only a jet was this easy. (ready for incoming)
Btw...if this flight was a Cessna operating OCTA/entering a Class D zone from OCTA, then there would no incident/report to start with.
Let's look at Cessna making a visual approach (operating in its usual environment -OCTA/ Class D zone (old GAAP zone):
- CTA steps are not a problem if you are coming from OCTA/remaining OCTA (you can just descend to circuit altitude as far out as you want, and descend shallow/fly level until ready for final approach)
- if descending within CTA (class c), then CTA steps are less likely a problem (because of slower speed)
- slower speeds/easier to slow down
- you can still descend normal profile and slow down easily
- gear is fixed (less things to worry about)
- only 1 flap speed, and usually no difficulty to slow down, even whilst descending
- there might only be 2 or 3 flap settings
- no formal checklist to complete (apart from maybe BUMPFISCH in your head, on downwind)
- very easy to slow down if a bit fast/high, just reduce further power (unlike a jet where the thrust might be idle and the speed brake not very effective)
- no need to correctly program the FMS (for correct waypoint sequencing, to give accurate track miles/VDEV info/FPLAN track for go around)
- no company speed limits or rate of descent limits (which makes it more challenging to descend sometimes/more things to think about)
- no ATC approach speed limits (230/185/160 etc)
- most important, no stable approach criteria:
- you don't have to be stablished on path by 1,000' with all the other criteria
- you don't have to fly and be established on 3 degree slope/on the PAPI
(to be on slope on the PAPI at 1,000, is to be within +/- 80' (narrow tolerance +/- 8%) at 3 miles from the threshold, good luck to anyone who can just eyeball that without ever looking down)
- you don't have to land within the zone (you can land short or long)
- you can approach as steep or as flat as you want
- you have more flexibility on your approach speed, the speed you fly, and how soon/late you are stabilized
- if you completely mess it up, you can even continue the approach with the engine at idle (there is no minimum thrust setting for approach)
- there is no FOQA to report you if you did something wrong (which means usually you still continue)
- OCTA, there is no one (ATC) watching you fly and to report your mistakes
- less workload, you don't need to set any bugs (or ask someone to do it for you) (heading/speed/VS/altitudes/FD)
If only a jet was this easy. (ready for incoming
)Btw...if this flight was a Cessna operating OCTA/entering a Class D zone from OCTA, then there would no incident/report to start with.
Oh, and for the record, the guy who made reference to Cessnas happens to fly an A319, so presuming to pontificate on the difference between flying Cessnas and Airbuses is...well ... presumptuous.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe that's why the ATSB didn't even mention it.
Last edited by John Citizen; 24th Feb 2018 at 06:05.
Are there any people in the ATSB who have flown anything bigger than a Cessna, or is a degree all that matters? Seen many serious reports go through to the keeper before, most of which would have the hackles of an airline pilot up.
Have a look at expressway visual RWY31.
Everyone from the little corporate jet upto a 737max/a321 looks out the window and flies it just like a little Cessna. Over the tanks, down the highway, around the ball park, over the hotel at 300 ish feet still in the turn onto short final. Into one of the busiest airports in the US for the amount of runways available.
Originally Posted by Havick from the USA
Have you ever flown into KLGA?
Originally Posted by A Squared
Seems like if you had a DME tuned to a station on the airfield and you were looking at the distance and thinking about whether you were at a reasonable altitude for the distance, you wouldn't find yourself fully configured and less than 1200 ft above the airport elevation while still 9NM from the threshold. Is that not a thing anymore?