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

34R SYD Review ATSB

Old 17th Jan 2020, 02:45
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by neville_nobody View Post
Except that is not what the chart says. By your logic if you were told to go-around at 1000' you would fly all the way to the runway end then start the right turn. By that time you would be level at 2000'.

By the looks of the ground track the crew flew the Missed Approach correctly as they started the go-around just above the minima. So they had to climb to 600' first before commencing the turn which took away some of their separation from the 330. They were a little late in the turn but as mentioned above the 737 is a handful in a unexpected go-around.



The turn is at 600' not at the MAP. If they started at turn at 220' then they would have turned straight into the cranes at the port. So they flew the MAP correctly as they were pretty close to the minima
The AIP is quite clear - you climb to the missed approach point and then follow the missed approach instructions. If I were issued a go around at 1000’, I would be continuing to the MAP (roughly .5nm from departure end threshold) before turning, and if that means I’m at 2000’ before starting the turn, then so be it.
hawk_eye is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 03:22
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,411
The AIP is quite clear - you climb to the missed approach point and then follow the missed approach instructions. If I were issued a go around at 1000’, I would be continuing to the MAP (roughly .5nm from departure end threshold) before turning, and if that means I’m at 2000’ before starting the turn, then so be it.
Except on a precision approach the missed approach point is the DA/DH, it is not a fixed point on the ground like on a NDB/VOR/RNAV. So you are not going to continue descending to that They want you to turn right away not fly 335 for 3 miles then turn. Same on 16L.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 05:06
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sunny Oz
Posts: 28
If anything is clear... there is confusion amongst the industry about how these things are meant to be flown. Usually it never matters. But in this instance, it has brought to the surface a potential confusing issue. Which is what the ATSB are checking
BlackPanther is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 05:39
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 30
11 ON THE SENSATIONALISM SCALE

So The New Daily has reported on the loss of separation incident thus:

Qantas planes in near miss above Sydney under guidance of trainee air traffic controller
Emma Ellsworthy
9:49am, Jan 17, 2020 Updated: 9:51am, Jan 17

Australia’s transport safety authority is probing whether a trainee air traffic controller is to blame after two Qantas planes came within 152 metres of each other over Sydney.

The incident – which occurred last August – was so serious, one of the aircraft’s emergency collision avoidance systems was activated.

Details of the near-miss are contained in a preliminary report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), which was released on Thursday and categorised the incident as “serious”.

It happened after an Airbus A330 was cleared to take off from Sydney Airport at the same time a Boeing 737 was about to land.

The A330 travelled just 152 metres below the 737 aircraft in a tense few seconds described as “very close” by the plane’s captain, who radioed the control tower straight away.

The ATSB’s report found the “loss of separation” between the planes occurred when both aircraft turned to the right.

Only the A330 was supposed to do so.

The aircraft’s airborne collision avoidance system – a last-resort safety mechanism – was activated as a result.

Both planes ascended after the close shave, with the A330 climbing 1500 metres and continuing to Melbourne, while the 737 went about 900 metres higher before landing safely.

The trainee was working supervised in the tower, the report found.

He had worked as an air controller at other airports and was training to take up the position at Sydney Airport.

The report also found the aircraft maintained a 796m lateral distance.

In a statement, Qantas said: “Even if both aircraft stayed on the same flight paths, they were not in danger of colliding”.

“We’re continuing to work with the ATSB on their ongoing investigation.”

Dr Stuart Godley, the ATSB’s Director of Transport Safety, said the investigation would now probe the planes’ instruments as well as air traffic control procedures, controller training and flight data.
My bolding.


MickG0105 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 05:54
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,013
Originally Posted by Paddleboat View Post
Indeed! Certainly a possibility.

It was put to me that the reason a breakdown in separation was inevitable regardless of the 737's lateral track was due to the A330's lack of climb performance, at least relative to the 737. Your reasoning I believe supports my position. If the 737 had turned at the correct time and followed the path in my quick and dirty diagram, then there would have been more than sufficient time, given the A330 is back at 180kts until established on the radial, and the 737 is accelerating, for their to be vertical separation as provided by the respective procedures by the time their tracks intersected, if they would at all.
Really? 330 at domestic weights.... 2500' before you roll out of the turn. It's common to accelerate from V2+10 at 2500' on that one due to the speed restriction.
Bear in mind the 737 single click toga gives 1000-2000fpm...

So the bus would outperform massively in this circumstance.
maggot is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 06:46
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by neville_nobody View Post
Except on a precision approach the missed approach point is the DA/DH, it is not a fixed point on the ground like on a NDB/VOR/RNAV. So you are not going to continue descending to that They want you to turn right away not fly 335 for 3 miles then turn. Same on 16L.
The MAPT in a procedure may be:
a. the point of intersection of an electronic glide path with the applicable DA/RA Height; (ie the corresponding point on the GS with 220’)
b. anavigationalfacility;or
c. afix;or
d. a specified distance from the FAF, or
e. a waypoint.

A published missed approach procedure must not be flown unless commenced at the MAPT. If a missed approach climb is initiated before the MAPT, the aircraft must track to the MAPT before commencing the missed approach procedure.

Of course you won’t continue descending. They very much do want you tracking to straight ahead to that point before the turn, and not turning early. There shouldn’t be any debate about this......
Colonel_Klink is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 06:48
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 917
Whatever you pilot fellows read, don't fall for the 'trainee ATC' bullshit. The trainee has a rated ATC sitting/standing beside them, watching every move.

There's only so much an ATC can do, can't fly the plane for you. That's been recognised, operationally, procedures changed to reflect this some time ago.

This, to me, looks like an airspace design issue. Everyone let down, pilot, pax. ATC.

What a shit show.
The name is Porter is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 07:15
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,926
Originally Posted by Mick/ABC
Only the A330 was supposed to do so.
I sent the ABC an email about that and that has now been removed.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 07:39
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 382
I tend to agree with Porter. Crappy design.
A few rough estimates;
At 400 ft they’d be about 1200m from the MAPT as the crow flies.
They’d be doing maybe 82m/sec.
Time how long it takes you to say
ATC : “Qantas 123 this isn’t going to work, carry out the standard missed approach procedure”
QF: “ Ahhh understood standard missed approach procedure, Qantas 123 going round”
PF “ Righto, we’re gunna go round”
PM “ Yip”
PF “ Going round Flap fifteen”
three second pause for the actions
PM” positive rate”
PF “ gear up”

It takes me between 17 and 20 seconds if I do it at a pace I think is realistic/likely.
So now you’re 400m past the MAPT climbing back through 400ft and doing exactly as the procedure calls for, tracking 335 waiting for 600ft where you’ll begin your turn onto 070. How long does that take? 200ft at 1000fpm is another 12 seconds and 980m. So now, after flying the machine nicely, you’re 1.4km past the MAPT.
So my thoughts are that if everything goes really well, you’re going to be over the runway when you turn but very likely is that you’re going to be well down the runway as things rarely go exactly to plan. All it would take is one drawn out communication and you are turning where this aircraft turned having done the job very nicely.
73qanda is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 08:02
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,926
"Go Around, follow the 330, he's doing 140" would have worked.

"Too close, I'm switching to guns!"
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 08:40
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,680
Originally Posted by The name is Porter View Post
Whatever you pilot fellows read, don't fall for the 'trainee ATC' bullshit. The trainee has a rated ATC sitting/standing beside them, watching every move.

There's only so much an ATC can do, can't fly the plane for you. That's been recognised, operationally, procedures changed to reflect this some time ago.

This, to me, looks like an airspace design issue. Everyone let down, pilot, pax. ATC.

What a shit show.
The rule set is simple; at the end of the day separation gets hand balled to the pilots either VMC or IMC...
Rated De is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 08:46
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,013
Was the spacing that tight? Looks like the 330 may have been getting airborne about when the maggot went round
maggot is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 08:57
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 30
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
I sent the ABC an email about that and that has now been removed.
Outstanding.
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 09:22
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Interesting discussion on the event.
I do this approach often and when PM I usually ask my sidekick if in the event of a GA where they intend to turn on to 070.
I get about as many variations as given above.
It is a Sh!t design that allows the varying interpretations. Only 1 is correct and I'm not sure it's the one coded into the FMC.

However 2 lines in the report Table Summary of key events stand out.
Time 1831:04 The ADC-E instructed the A330 flight crew to line up runway 34R. The 737 was on final approach at about 2.8 NM.

Gutsiest move I ever saw Mav.
Back Seat Driver is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 09:29
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by 73qanda View Post
So now you’re 400m past the MAPT climbing back through 400ft and doing exactly as the procedure calls for, tracking 335 waiting for 600ft where you’ll begin your turn onto 070.
Yes but the preliminary says,

Flight data showed the 737 flight crew commenced the right turn when climbing through about 1,300 ft AGL (above ground level). At that time the aircraft was approximately 1,500 m north of the runway threshold.
Isn't that at least part of the problem, that the 737 appears to have been 600-700 feet late executing the right turn?
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 09:41
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 391
Originally Posted by Back Seat Driver View Post

However 2 lines in the report Table Summary of key events stand out.
Time 1831:04 The ADC-E instructed the A330 flight crew to line up runway 34R. The 737 was on final approach at about 2.8 NM.

Gutsiest move I ever saw Mav.
2.8 nm = ~ 900’, with a Dash 8 still to vacate. Very gutsy indeed.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 09:42
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,411
There shouldn’t be any debate about this......
They want you to turn at the altitude. I've done it numerous times and even had ATC get up us for not turning soon enough. They do not want you to fly toward the runway. That is why there is a mandatory turn in the MAP. Just do what it says.

Given the confusion out there and this incident some clarification is obviously required.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 09:55
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Neville,
Get the AIP changed.

The obvious intent of the procedure design is not in line with the AIP rules re tracking to a MAPT before turning.
Back Seat Driver is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 09:59
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 44
Nev,

I don’t mean to be contrary but for the sake of clarity the AIP is clear re the expectation of tracking:



if you go around from 2000’, the expectation is that you will track to the Mapt then turn. Not turn straight away.

Brutus is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2020, 10:09
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,013
Track to the mapt. It's clear.
I've always been given a heading for the many GAs I've had in Sydney.
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.