Qantas Incident????????
 

Is there any truth in this?

Found elsewhere on the internet.

More and more stories in the nres about air traffic control lapses and air tragedies in the news recently gives the impression that a local serious air disaster is just around the corner.

Well, it nearly happened two weeks ago, and nothing was leaked to the press.

A Qantas 737 on the "red eye" from Perth to Canberra arrived at Canberra airport just before 5.00am, and with the airport still closed, went into a routine holding pattern awaiting the opening at 5.00am.

Trouble was, that the wrong co-ordinates were plugged into the computer by the flight crew, and the holding pattern centered on Tuggeranong and Michelargo was extended in a much broader ellipse than intended.

The crew flew the plane in a holding pattern at 5000ft, which was, until last week, standard. Two minutes into the pattern the aircraft's GPWS was activated, and an emergency climb saw the plane avoid a 5300ft peak by 150 feet [Eek!] [Eek!] , the crew and 155 passengers on board were less than two seconds from death.

The GPWS, ground proximity warning system, was all that saved those people from being parked in the trees.

All QANTAS flight crews have since received advice that the new holding pattern in those circumstances is 6000ft!!

Glad I don't fly into Canberra!! [Big Grin] [Big Grin] IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TASAD
Member
Member # 9619

- posted 17-09-2004 09:42 AM Profile for TASAD Email TASAD Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote Where did the info come from IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SnowMoo
Member
Member # 5309

- posted 17-09-2004 09:43 AM Profile for SnowMoo Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote Mt Taylor could have been the new landing spot. IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
solod golf
Member
Member # 8013

- posted 17-09-2004 09:43 AM Profile for solod golf Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote A QANTAS worker. Tech staff.

Sorry, can't help. I didn't even know they had a "Red eye" from PER-CBR!:confused:

If they were holding at CCK, which would make sense, there is two limitations on the holding pattern.

1. 5000', 1 minute min or D14.0 whichever happens first with a max 170 Kts airspeed

2. 6000', 1 minute Max IAS 210 Kts.

Is there a company policy that states not to apply MBZ procedures if the Tower is closed? Or were they holding due to fog.

Two scenarios here.

A. They either misread the chart and didn't put in the paperwork!! or

B. Bull:mad: :mad: :mad:

This is intriguing.
The aircraft goes into an ‘emergency climb’ and avoids a hilltop by 150 feet. 155 passengers don’t notice…or if they do, they don't say anything. Sure!
Yet only a month ago, we had the news reporting a near collision at Hamilton Island, as an aircraft that had just become airborne, banked to intercept the outbound route, scaring the life out of some passengers who saw another aircraft in the circuit with them.
This post came from a ski forum. That should indicate how accurate it is (not). :rolleyes:

In the interests of reducing speculation..

*Per-Cb red eye..Correct

*New-ish Captain off a non glass type.

*Holding at CCK @ 5000 awaiting the tower to open.

*14 dme limit in hold incorrectly entered into FMS hold page as 14 mile hold leg limit.

*GPWS warning activated and was followed as per SOP.

Draw from that what you will. (I know some of you will)

Schweinhund??? Where are you???

Newish Captain, but what was the FO doing?

S:mad: :mad: :mad: happens, and I fell sorry for the guy, but face it, if this had been Jet* the "Usual suspects" would be all over it...

Yeah you are right Wiz.

Perhaps this forum would more aptly serve the image of industry professionals if those who insist on treating the IPG as a bunch of incompetent wannabe's who got lucky, are collectively lumped in with those who percieve all QF pilots as a bunch of old codgers who sit around an open fire, brandy snifter in hand, telling each other what gifts to aviation we are?

Back to this incident, I am sure there is more to it than this rough outline I was presented with.

But it does serve as a salutary lesson, and any professional would ignore that lesson at his peril.

Reminiscent of an accident (in the Canary Islands from memory), many years ago, when the aircraft (a B727, I think) entered a holding pattern, but on the opposite side to where they should have.
There were no survivors.

More recently, a Garuda Airbus that had a similar CFIT in Medan.

I suspect, in this case, a goodly mix of Circadian Rythm combined with Murphy's Law..."*14 dme limit in hold incorrectly entered into FMS hold page as 14 mile hold leg limit.", might have been major contributory factors.

No-one is immune from making mistakes at times, regardless of rank, airline, or experience.

Kaptin M,
You know I'm not a pilot and don't pretend to be. Could you please explain the difference between "14 dme limit in hold" and "14 mile hold leg limit"?

Bino

I will have a go (bit rusty):

[Edited to cede to far better interpretations following]

The DME limit may be a limit from a DME not co-located with the aid on which the holding pattern is based, eg. the DME limit could have been from CBR DME which is located at the airport, whereas CCK may not even have a DME, and is located several miles from CBR airport.
Hence a CBR DME limit of 14nm might limit the aircraft to an outbound distance of only 5 or 6 miles from Church Creek (CCK).

A leg limit of 14nm would effectively make the length of the outbound leg 14 miles, from the fix on which the hold is centred (CCK), but would exceed 14 DME from Cantberra - in this example it would extend to 19 or 20 nms from CBR.

To double check the accuracy of the length of the outbound length to confirm that it complies with the restriction, some pilots might enter CBR in the "fix" page, and then enter 14 (miles), which will show a 14 nm radius around (in this example) CBR.

Clear as mud??

I think so. Given the tolerances usually laid down to holding patterns, I can't imagine the difference between an aerodrome and that ad's DME not co-sited being enough to cause a major terrain clearance problem, so the other alternative would appear to be entering a 14 mile leg from a non-DME waypoint, (CCK?) a different matter altogether.

Thanks. Just curious, I certainly won't be offering any opinions on the crew's actions. :8

On the money Kap

CCK Locator is D10.9 Canberra

Correct me if I'm wrong here, a DME limit of 14DME for a holding pattern means you stop the outbound leg at 14DME and commence your turn inbound, it does not mean you maintain your manouevring within 14DME. If that were the case, you could not hold at CCK, (keeping in mind that CCK is 10.9DME), but I suppose you could orbit!

Wow, just had a look at the Canberra H/L Area chart, the 5308' obstacle is about 24nm south of the field:uhoh: . Looks about just right for a CFIT with their(incorrect) right hand hold on CCK. Can't believe no-one picked up on the 2 limits(crosschecked/reasonableness), surely they've seen this place in the day and know how 'hairy' it is to the south.

Close call, hoss:eek:

What a kickbutt way to get roused out of a 5am towards-the-end-of-flight quiet period! Nothing like a little heart starter at that time of the morning.

The plane would have had EGPWS wouldn't it? I've never flown airline kit but surely it wouldn't have been just GPWS. Can someone confirm that for me? Cheers.

The_Cutest_of_Borg,

When you say "newish captain off the classic" - which classic do you mean?
I thought that QF had mixed pools for B733/4/8?
Or was the newish captain in question coming off another classic - 743???

Capt Fathom

I think you are correct.
What I think the KM is getting at is showing the 14DME limit as a visual aid on the MAP mode, so as to know when to start the turn inbound.
Any visual aid that helps in situational awareness is a good thing in my view.