Totally agree...I wouldn't be surprised if they try, tho. Strategic are in a position now were they are on the bones of their backside and must be looking for a way to get some semblence of stability.

A big risk, but their back is to the wall and they probably have few options. It must be an aweful temptation.

Um, any time you fly a runway approach, which has a circling MDA, and you intend all the while to break off and circle?

Thus, you:

a) don't intend to effect a landing straight in on the runway (one example might be crosswind, thus "cannot")
b) you arrive at the circling MDA, do not have the visual reference, visibility, and enter the missed approach.

Ergo Para (d) in it's correct intent. No climbing back from lower etc...

Now, as with these things, there IS room for interpretation, and while I don't agree with yours, I can see where it comes from.

So perhaps it is better to simply say - and in my time, I've heard this from many older and (more importantly) wiser heads - "where there's any doubt, there's no doubt". Circling is dangerous enough as approaches go, and demands respect. Particularly in a heavy jet...

That's just my opinion.

CR.

In the scenario you described, the deletion of Para .d from the AIP would have
absolutely no effect on what you're talking about. You could do all that you described, without para d having ever been written.

Hence I disagree with you.

For the record im not saying its a good idea, in most cases I wouldn't be doing this in my aircraft (cat C) because its often asking for trouble.

But by strict letter of the law (and I've spoken to Casa on more than 1 occasion about this exact issue), its legal to do what I've described.

So that just leaves me to ask you, Which part of MINIMUM DESCENT ALTITUDE don't you understand?
In your scenario you are below MINIMUM DESCENT ALTITUDE and climbing prior to (not having yet satisfied the minimum requirements) commencing a circling approach.
Whilst in a "gentle climb to circling altitude", you are just waffling around IFR below MSA.

Yes it is legal but that climg to circling MDA is (Night) VFR, which we cannot avail ourselves of in airline ops.
As you know Airline RPT ops must be operated under the IFR!

Trent you've failed to provide me with an example or reason for para d' 4 times in a row now.

In answer to your latest irrelevancy, the MDA you are adhering to is the S-I MDA during the climbout (which you are always above).

So long as you track along the final approach course during the ascent, you are in that protected area. Technically, as explained to me by CASA, you don't commence the visual circling segment with its associated circling MDA (to which your posted reg applies) until you actually reach the circling altitude and then enter the circling area by turning off the final approach path for the S-I/ILS approach you were flying.

As an example, though counter intuitive, should I fly a VOR S-1, there is nothing 'illegal' about suddenly climbing from 100ft above mda, to 500 ft above mda, aslong as I maintain the correct 5 deg tolerance as required beyond the FAF. This is not 'a missed approach'. The entire time I do this, I am still bound by the S-I MDA. So as an extention to this obvious fact, I could climb up to the circling MDA in this way. Once there, well now I can circle provided the weather is good enough. At no time did I conduct a missed approach. At no time did I descend below the relevant MDA for my stage of flight.

Now, I don't really care that much mate, you operate your plane how you want. I've been clear, ill let the thread get back on topic.

happy flying.

Trent

I'm long out of Oz, but guided by what you have pasted, I would have no problem climbing back to circling altitude from a high on vasis or poorly aligned approach, if visual within the circling area.

I'd go as far to say it is the safer option having witnessed crews doing a full IMC GA, another approach and circle. They generally cock-up or persist with a destabilized circling approach next time around. Real world you would hope they just divert.

I would not climb from a runway approach below at the MDA to a circling minima for another RWY. Doesn't seem right and makes the hairs on the back of the neck stand.

Gee I don't miss the bush lawyers and AIP's of Oz. ;)

Pretty much agree with you there Gnads. Just trying to make the point that the circling area also has a 'vertical' component as well which needs to be entered from above, in an IFR only operation, though I agree it can be entered from below using NVFR, but Airlines are not allowed that option.

I am going to make this real simple.

During that approach and at about 15 kilometres from Avalon the jet was tracked as descending suddenly to as low as about 1600 feet at a point where the minimum safe altitude is 2500 feet.

After this it landed on the Avalon runway without getting clearance from air traffic control which was left uncertain as to the flight’s intention despite having been in radio contact with the crew.

Yes, simply, that's pretty bad.

(1) Has Qantas or any of it's earlier iterations i.e. TAA or Australian Airlines busted minimas? Did Ansett ever bust minimas?

(2) Did the DCA/CAA/CASA shut them down for a week?

I think the answers will be (1) YES more than once or twice and (2) NO

In TAA a few did, but got the sack. No augument.

Have alook at the Canberra ILS Runway 35 chart.

It would be a very foolish & brave soul who would attempt a go round or gentle climb from the straight in minima of 2070ft DH to a circling altitude (whilst remaining visual) of 3620ft. To then circle and land in the Runway 17 direction. (published missed approach altitude is 5100ft)

There are obstacles & terrain in the circling area which are some 1000ft above you whilst your at the 2070ft DH.

Go round configuration from minima on the published missed approach track to published missed approach altitude will afford you terrain clearance.

Point being, one wouldn't modify the procedure in CBR, so why modify it in AVV.

Nobody ever said it was a smart thing to do.

Its legal under the IFR however.

As alluded to by previous posts, a lot of this comes down to what was briefed amongst the crew. If they did not brief circling, they shouldn't circle, as a contingency or otherwise.

Additionally if ATC weren't given a heads up on the possibility of circling, it would be difficult for them to plan actions in the even of a missed approach. If the crew announced "...going around" with no further requests/requirements ATC could not assume the pilots would climb to circling altitdue. they would have to assume (unless told otherwise) that the aircraft would carry out published missed approach. Published missed approach altitude may not have been acceptable to ATC reference other traffic, airspace etc.

Besides, CASA suspended so that they can investigate which should clarify all of this...

Well this seems to have got the juices flowing. For those who haven't stopped to have a think about CAR178 - now is the time.

This is one of the few regs that puts the onus on you to specifically comply with the AIP. Remember that the AIP is not regulation but CAR178 takes the fun out of the bush laywer stuff we all apparently love!!!

BOTTOM LINE (regardless of the colourful interpretations).... If you mess about near the ground and have an incident you better hope you can show where in the AIP the exact instructions are for the maneuver you were doing. "The AIP didn't say I couldn't do it" or "this is the way I interpret it" is not going to be a great defense to CAR178 in my opinion. I'd say this reg exists to remove interpretation and force you to follow specific instructions. Also note it is a 'strict liability' offence so be very careful you know exactly what you are doing.

For the sake of 15 minutes and a bit of embarrasment, completing the first procedure and commencing another is a good way to go for so many reasons. A company with good 'Just Culture' policies will support you all the way. Is that a good topic to return to a discussion about Tiger? (I don't know anything about them so don't expect any further comment about it from me)

Just to clear up what specifically happens to arrivals to AVV in CTAF procedures at night. At approximately 30 NM AVV, aircraft are given winds at the aerodrome and asked intentions. Clearance to 3000' is given at the appropriate distance to AVV. Most times crews are given instruction to climb to 3000', instead of 2500', in case of missed approach. At 12 NM, last control zone step, crews are cleared to leave controlled air space via ILS, Localizer, VOR or visual approach (as per stated intentions). No landing clearance is given as such except reminder of SAR watch cancellation when clear of runway. If aircraft climb to 3000', recontact with Avalon Approach should occur to state further intentions. It would be best to confine comments to these procedures instead of comments at other destinations. Conjecture on what happened last week is only conjecture until the true facts are published.

Would they have started a tailwind approach if fuel/time/cost wasn't a constant issue. This is not only the case at LCC's.

Would they have taken a tailwind if they were making as much money as the airport car park?

Joining the dots yet?

The way this industry is running is all wrong.

Have to second that. The philosophy should be "whatever we have to do to make it safe, plus 25% or so". And it should be legislated to ensure that airlines weren't constantly trying to cut everything to the bone.

Fuel decisions should rest with the captain alone, in consultation with others if necessary, and there should never be any comeback if a bit more than usual is carried.

And if that results in ticket prices rising, well perhaps we will finally be paying the real cost of (safe) air travel.

I agree with the thrust of what you are saying Trent. There are some scary opinions being expressed on here.

With your statement above. An IFR HC RPT jet takes off at night and needs an immediate return to land for some reason, say fire in the cabin, whatever. My intention would be to climb to the circling minima for my category and return. So haven't I entered from below? You say I cannot do this, so what should I do?

Surely this is similar to a night departure at somewhere surrounded by terrain where performance requires a climb to MSA within the circling area prior to departing on track.

Accepting a slight tail wind in order to land straight in at night off of an ILS in preference to other approaches was probably made with no thought of saving either time or fuel. Unfortunately plan A appears to have become unstuck and plan B was not in place.

No that shouldn't be done either! All HC RPT departures require performance analysis for obstacles and the operator must publish obstacle clearance procedures.

Look at 1.6% net climb engine out (for a twin). Will you make obstacle clearance altitude or circling altitude on runway track before leaving the circling area?. No, youll get to 400' at 4.1 miles and things are getting awfully tight for a turn at 15 degree AOB. Chances are the circling altitude is not going to be reached for another 4.1 miles and by now you are on downwind.

Turning into the circling area after departure is a plan for hackers who really have not thought things through. It should be forbidden in an operators SOPS. Go straight ahead in the splay. Then hope your performance engineers have calculated your takeoff performance to get over whatever comes next or they have told you to turn onto a track that avoids terrain.

Loosen the Grip
 

Ok. All you rule quoting Knobs out there.

Where you there?


Have you flown a A320 into Avalon in the last month?

Have you flown into AV ever?

Weather CAVOK.

Jetstar did that night and not long before Tiger and we almost got suckered into the straight in 18 ILS being the SAFEST approach into AV and with a 7 knot tail wind.

But with a tail wind it might not be the most time efficient if you miss D taxiway (3km taxi to the bay). Or do a MAP due tail wind. So time and fuel savings go out the window.

Option 1. GPS or VOR App on to 36, OUR option that night.

Option 2. Fly ILS18 to 1500 ft break Left and Fly a visual right circuit onto 36. ATC option for us that night. But we declined.

Option 3. Fly the ILS and conduct MAP if tailwind to greater then knots on PFD. Then enter hold for GPS at 10 nm and conduct same.

Option 4. MAP to MSA, track to AID and circle to 1500ft in circling area and carry out a vis circuit. (NOT the best option in a A320)Cat C4.2 Cat D5.2 give or take.

So what did Tiger do???Do any of you know???

If they did do a visual approach from MSA(2500ft straight in 36) I believe they could not have left 2500ft until 5nm from threshold on the VASI. 800ft above profile by my guess. I havent tried it but it could be posible in a A320 FULLY CONFIGURED AND STABLE AT 500FT. My biggest problem then would be descent rate not busting MSA.

No. Not there. Thanks for not putting...

option 5. ILS 18 down to check out the wind, MAP to Circling altitude then a visual circuit onto RWY36.

It was brought up earlier in this thread and I was so taken aback I joined PPRUNE after 10 years of using it as light entertainment. But as you didn't put the offending option on your list this Knob can go to bed now.

Kelly Slater. You sum it up in 2 lines. Sad that it was a very experienced crew. Never do an approach that you have not priorly prepared mentally and briefed!!!!!!!!!

Option 2. Should be adjusted to include not only 1500' but break off at circling minima. Although as you rightly put, at night, ca ok just keep it standard cct height k.I.s.s. ....

Nice post, go back and reread the circling minima thread and watch that continue for a million pages of misinformation. Hc aircraft with 180 pax onboard why risk stupidity... Or give it a chance to go wrong. :D

QNH 1034 at Avalon. Suppose 1013 was left in by mistake. That would put the aircraft low? Radio altimeter if monitored would have raised an eyebrow, though.

A37575, that would suggest a training problem then which, I believe, was one of the concerns to CASA, especially in the light of a similar error less than a month ago.

Hi Dr P
Agree totally with the above, and both countries national carriers appear to be in a race to the bottom by what appears to be "fusing the full service and LCC models together."

Unlike Qantas, SIA have been much better at looking after the flagship brand by adopting the correct fleet renewal program over the past few years amongst other things. AJ has taken his eye off the ball with his continual fascination in J* (his baby) funded by Qantas in the first place.

It is my view, the grounding of Tiger Australia this week sounds alarm bells to the business community that AJ and LCs well advanced strategy is flawed by clipping Q internationals wings in exchange for J* wings. Attacking the pilots and engineers labour costs is not the reason why Q international is losing money, it's the confusing creative accounting within the Q group and mixed messages coming from AJ & Co which is doing the damage. They have continually fused the full service and LCC models making Q a much more uninviting product for punters to consider. Traditional Q long haul customers probably don't like the ad on culture that is creeping in.

I doubt SIA will allow Tigers problems damage mothers image or will the new LCC SIA backed unnamed long haul airline divert too much attention away from mothers arms similar to what AJ allowed to happen at Q?

yes nice one A37. thats implying that the crew didnt complete a checklist as well. be careful

The carrier was already under CASA's spotlight at that stage because of concerns about maintenance control as well as systemic problems relating to pilot training and proficiency.

The maintenance issues were related to the carrier's oversights from Singapore, rather than the standard of maintenance itself, and Tiger has since moved to address them by employing key personnel locally. It is believed these issues were not a factor in Friday's decision to ground the airline.

Concerns about pilot proficiency lingered, however, and CASA resolved the show-cause by putting a number of conditions on the airline's air operator's certificate. These include a requirement that the airline's check and training captains requalify, and subsequent additional simulator training for line pilots, as well as changes to fatigue management.

It was Tiger's response to the requirements and an incident last Thursday at Victoria's Avalon airport, near Geelong, that pushed the CASA concerns past the brink.

Endangered Tiger Airways goes to ground | The Australian

New MD for Tiger Airways Australia?
 

I think it’s time that aviation professionals and the travelling public in Australia recognised the real problems that have now resulted in the grounding of Tiger Airways Australia. You can read the recent press on the matter, which is now starting to publish assessment pieces on what’s transpired within Tiger, but I wonder if these articles are going to get to the real issues.

How many times are we going to stand by without action before it’s recognised and understood that the problems to which CASA has taken aim, stem directly from the aggressive approach to business that’s being pursued all airline managements. When the task becomes tough, the “revolving door” approach to airline managements takes over and they move on, which is what we’re now seeing in the Australian aviation business and within other aviation market areas.

Since commencing operations in November 2007 under the helm of Tony Davis CEO, Tiger Aviation (Singapore) has installed its third Managing Director in less than four years into its Australian operation. Each one has opened with the same style of brief, an aggressive approach to business, “Fly Cheaper” (company slogan) and embarked with a “new” broom, before moving on in a fairly quick fashion to something else.

Ø Nov 2007, Chris Ward,
Initial MD for start-up, departed Jun 2008, to set-up Incheon Tiger Airways, Korea

Ø Jun 2008, Shelley Roberts
In from Macquarie Airports, (SACL. EasyJet, KPMG), departed Mar 2010 for a “rest”.

Ø Mar 2010, Crawford Rix,
In from BMI Baby UK, incumbent

In the case of Tiger Airways Australia, you only have to look at the length of time and the extent of the issues within the PPRUNE “Tiger Tales” thread to realise that all is not as it should be within this operation. It’s become apparent that the company’s approach to business can’t afford the level of safe operation that’s required by the regulator, CASA.

With the arrival of Tony Davis CEO in Australia, he “publicly rejected CASA's reasoning for the grounding during an ABC radio interview on Saturday and denied there were immediate risks to air safety” (The Trouble with Tiger, "Endangered Tiger Airways goes to Ground" – The Australian).

“The Trouble with Tiger” is its management and their view of safety within their business.

Dragonfly

Shelley tried to fix things, but Tony just wouldn't buy it. She resigned as a result of this.

Good summary from the Business Times in Singapore...

If it's not Tiger pushing the limits it'll be "Panda". Tiger isn't the problem, the culture that has developed in the industry is the problem.

Next door neighbor drives a truck. He reckons he couldn't do the hours we do. Says the training is very thorough and paid for by the company. The Truck won't leave the depot with a defect. Even he commented "when the taxi to the airport costs more than the airfare something is not right".

The only leadership we get from the political parties is what pleases the masses in order to get reelected. The minister for Mascot prooved it again this morning is Sydney. What a fantastic show that was. I pitied the controllers and the customers.

The other day I saw a pie chart on total company costs. The taxes/charges/nav fees portion was massive. It's not sustainable.

Mr Hat, that's a very interested line of reasoning.

Perhaps, perhaps what is actually happening is this. Other industries are now utilizing the aviation template - the tombstone imperative / safety first / learning culture that had previously existed. However, aviation is now actually regressing, while other industries are taking this template & improving on our lessons, learned in blood.

In other words, the bar has been raised beyond the industry, and the general public will no longer tolerate a poor safety culture in their workplace or in aviation.

Perhaps the regulator is actually sniffing the winds of political change...

The neighbour can't believe the hours we do. I'm not game enough to ask him what his take home salary is.

News flash! Tiger now offers door to door service for customers in the Epping and Bellarine Peninsula areas.

Sorry, dad's joke not mine.

Word is they are still selling tickets.

Nice touch.

No... Stopped selling tickets yesterday

Xcel. You are wrong. Tiger are selling all sectors from Sat 9 July which may be designed to put pressure on CASA to lift the suspension. Mr Gerard Brody of the Consumer Action Law Centre has described the Tiger action as most unusual and warned some travel insurers may not cover tickets issued during the period of uncertainty.