I'm not judging or finding anyone guilty just yet, but others have pointed out, thats not what the chart says and there is nothing yet to refute they descended below a cleared level. 2 fairly fundamental errors if they become substantiated, especially as according to the report the aircraft stopped decending at 2500' and then the PF set 2000' in the FCU of his own accord

Just because something is in the database, is not a defence. Thats why we check it, no? I agree, it is a major "gotcha" and in this case it worked. I'm sure there are extenuating circumstances and we should all look forward to learning from them.

Which is my whole point. If the crew spent as much time thinking about where they were going to put the aeroplane as they probably spent talking about it, perhaps it might not have happened.

The irony just occurred to me.

Qantas has a broken A380 in Singapore.

Singapore Inc has a broken airline in Australia.

anyone know the whereabouts of the fleet around the country?

7 in Melbourne (two on the bays, rest parked at JH)
2 over at Adelaide
1 at Avalon

MEL I understand

Sounds like a typical teenagers response. Accept the good decisions proudly, become defensive when presented with the bad.

Now that is interesting! Provided of course, that it turns out to be correct.

Oakape, you said:

The normal briefing techniques & FMC or MCDU cross-checking are glossed over or completely ignored to save time.

You're joking!! :ugh: I'm not blaming you, but if this is the type of sim training you are getting, then its is no wonder this incident occurred at Tiger. I have not flown this particular approach, but looking at the charts there is absolutely no doubt that the min level is 2500ft. If the FMGC says differently, it is wrong, and should therefore be disregarded. Their nav department should be advised accordingly.

It would appear that there are some serious failings in Tigers' training and CASA is quite right to step in and deal with this. Its about time regulators took such matters seriously and acted upon them. :ok:

Everyone can stuff up, BUT not cross checking data in FMCG against the published approach chart is one of those cardinal rules of any briefing, you know, the sh!t that gets you killed if it's wrong:confused:

The Puzzler, sorry to disappoint, but no, not joking.

With multiple approaches in the sim, this is the normal technique to save time. A particular approach is briefed once & then all subsequent exercises with the same approach are not briefed. Also, aside from LOFT sessions, STARs generally don't get briefed, just the approach.

The downside is that the second pilot doesn't do a brief & the check captain/examiner doesn't get to then observe his/her briefing & critique any shortcomings. It also doesn't allow for repetitious reinforcement.

It has been my experience that most check captains/examiners don't pay that much attention to the briefings anyway, instead concentrating on the actual exercise. Perhaps this is a shortcoming that needs to be addressed.

In the airlines where I have worked, the points that need to be mentioned in a briefing are usually listed in one of the manuals, but there is no defined structure. I know there are pros & cons for a defined structure, but because everyone does it in a slightly different way, you really have to pay attention to know if everything that is required has been addressed. Perhaps it is better that way to make people concentrate. However, it has been my experience that most people don't concentrate & would have no idea if a particular required briefing point has been missed.

It comes back to an earlier point I made. If you are not professional enough to endevour to complete each & every flight to the highest possible standard, then there isn't much that can be done to combat that on a day to day basis. Also, if you are unable to differentiate between sim exercises & line flying, then there isn't much hope, is there!

In the past, I had the dubious pleasure to be paired with the same captain for 3 straight recurrent sim sessions. Over the same period I also got to fly with him on a semi regular basis. He performed all the SOPs flawlessly in each sim session, but on the line he flew totally non-standard, obviously thinking he knew best. I dreaded the thought of a serious non-normal, because I knew it would be a complete balls-up.

I don't know what the complete answer is & perhaps there isn't a total fix. But I have to say that most of the accidents around the world in recent years have left me shaking my head & wondering just what is going in in some of these pilot's heads!

Melbourne is Tiger's base so the Captain must have flown this star prior to the incident flight so you would assume he would have some knowledge of the Altitude limits on the STAR and the ILS approach and what Altitudes ATC assign when flying it. EPP is 8.8 miles so to be at 2000' (1500' AGL) would make you lower than profile.
Not only does the STAR say 2500' the 27 ILS chart also has a note (2) saying 2500' on the Arbey and Wendy STARS. So there are 2 charts with 2500', basic profile would have you at or above 2500, ATC clearance to 2500' yet they went to 2000' because that's what the box said.

Where did that info come from? Can't find it on any of Ben's blogs and it's not mentioned on the ATSB website as far as I can see.

The ATSB has released its preliminary investigation report into the operational non-compliance of the Tiger Airways, Airbus A320, approaching Melbourne Airport, 7 June 2011.

The aircraft was cleared by air traffic control to descend to 2,500 ft. Shortly after, the aircraft descended to 2,000 ft. Air traffic control notified the flight crew, who then climbed the aircraft to 2,500 ft. The Aircrew continued the approach and landed the aircraft safely.

Preliminary Report: Investigation: AO-2011-070 - Operational non-compliance - Airbus A320, VH-VNG, 17 km ENE Melbourne Airport, Victoria, 7 June 2011

1a, the report makes no mention of the database/"chart" issue that Ben mentioned. My question is, where did that info come from?

On page 2 of the report (you need to download http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2491491...070_prelim.pdf)

:8

i agree with slice...

also i had to rebook tickets today with virgin flying melbourne to brisbane in august for $220, as opposed to the $100 return i initially paid with Tiger. i really want tiger to stay. i paid over $200 flying virgin years ago to brisbane. its time prices came down, its time for competition between the airlines. i have not heard stories in regards to tiger and the safety of their planes. ..unlike Qantas. i also dont paticularly want to pay $400 one way with Qantas from melbourne to brisbane, which i have also done.

The cost of living has exploded, and with bills coming in left right and centre. whats wrong with a cheap no frills airline? People who use this airline are not all bogans. We're struggling with day to day living and we want a reasonably priced holiday with the family. i feel we deserve it. As long as Tiger is not falling out of the sky, i would continue to fly with them

i feel the pilots who work for tiger need to sort themselves out, follow the correct procedures. seriously pilots are being paid what, over $100,000 a year. They should be doing their jobs correctly and if they are not fire them. this is not just in regards to tiger, but to other airline pilots.

Quote:

---

"The flight crew did not notice that the documented arrival procedure had a lowestdescent altitude of 2,500 ft, while the data from the FGMS’s navigational database that was displayed on the MCDU had a lowest descent altitude of 2,000 ft. Once the briefing was complete, the PF resumed control of the aircraft."

---

Also this passage from the report

elrehab - what planet are you on? You admit cost of living has gone up yet you still want $49 fares. Take the bus or book ahead on another airline.

elrehab

Would you be happy to be on the first Tiger flight that does fall out of the sky?:}:}:}

I have previously flown for this operator and the database always showed 2000 and not 2500. SOP dictates that the MCDU be properly checked. SOP not followed in this case. Generally not a problem though because ATC either clear you for a visual approach or ILS from 2500ft. But the crew on that day fell in the trap. I've almost never seen the other guy amend the MCDU to reflect the proper altitude constraint but at the end of his brief I'll add the suggestion of changing constraint to 2500. Either follow SOP or apply good airmanship. Failing that at least have good situational awareness :p

OK, thanks guys. Found it. Pity the report didn't say what the "data from the FGMS’s (sic) navigational database that was displayed on the MCDU had a lowest descent altitude of 2,000 ft" actually was. Was it a waypoint AT/ABOVE and if so, which waypoint?

Or do the leg work and get the database fixed to fix one hole in the cheese.
Maybe accepting this error for so long is one of the things that got Tiger in trouble.....

With all due respect... if this has been known to be an issue for a while, why has it not been fixed? Was there no process in place at all whereby the error in the database could be reported and subsequently rectified?

If that is in fact the case, then Tiger have real issues with internal reporting processes and safety management.

Maybe it's not an issue 99% of the time because However, on this particular approach, for whatever reason, the holes in the cheese lined up and they did descend lower than cleared and allowed.


EDIT: What ozbiggles said above..... that's what happens when you go to make a cup of coffee half way through a post... someone else beats you to your point!

The Federal Court has listed Friday 22 July for a directions hearing on the grounding of Tiger by CASA. I would not be surprised to see the grounding continue into August if the latest rumour is true. This being; that CASA are reviewing the original AOC issue and benchmarking that against the current review.

The Tiger management are not winning any friends in the media by refusing to hold a press conference. This is interpreted by the media as though they (Tiger) have something to hide.

It wasn't a single pilot operation on both counts was it?

So two FO's (or maybe the same fo) also allowed both incidents to ocurr & were saying what?

The incorrect value on the database is not an issue because ATC clear you only to 2500 for an ILS or perhaps lower for a visual approach etc otherwise for sure the integrity of the database would have been reported. The point I was trying to highlight is the complacency with regard to the database and also the lack of discipline demonstrated during approach setup. ATSB says they were cleared to 2500 to commence the approach but the guys descended below that....if 2500 was set in the FCU and DES mode engaged then there would be no problem. Incorrect database was not the cause rather pilot error and if indeed it was the same captain involved in the AVV incident then Id be focusing investigation attention towards recruitment and training

Elrehab , if your paying 100 return Mel -BNE , your flying in a plane that is operated by an airline that is going broke. Were are they cutting costs ie maintenance , pilot traing , safety or just catering . As you sit on your $49 seat you will have time to think about it. As you say everything has increased in cost and that includes the cost it takes to keep you safe.

Toruk Macto

of course you make a good point. i guess i live in a world where i want to expect a cheap yet safe airline. but in all honestly, is Tiger going to recover after this month.?????? they say they are, and im hoping they will. but then im motivated in trying to believe they'll bounce back because i was expecting to work with them as cabin crew, with my training now on hold.

the majority of people are saying they are gone, but might they be wrong??

Reinforcing Defeat
 

George Bush,

Your statement:

is what is commonly known as reinforcing defeat! Having two attempts at demonstrating an unacceptable safety culture, whether it merely be yours or whoever you actually work for (if indeed you are a pilot), is testimony that you just don't get it! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Please take up an occupation appropriate to your skills, knowledge and attitude/behaviour.

elehrab..when you go to the airport in a taxi that cost about $40000, and the fare in the taxi costs more than a seat on an aircraft that costs around 40 million dollars....please take a seat have a think...it cannot go on...please think about it.....

.
Tony Davis lateline last night. A little more humble than this time last week. He was pushed hard for some answers, for me, TD was very defensive and sparing with his words. :rolleyes:

oh gawd like how many times did he say "committed to the long term future of this airline" and "a safe, viable and long-term operation".

Anyway what else could he say? I screwed up big time and was demoted? or HA HA I made $30 mil and am accountable to no one? :P

When JY Pillay become Chairman of SIA in 1972 a post he held till 1996, he sacked the entire British and Australian senior management team who were responsible for blowing $1 million on fireworks over central London to celebrate the launch of Malaysia-Singapore Airlines to London. Remember back then QF and BOAC held stakes in MSA and subsequently SIA in the initial years, and the CEO position of SIA was alternated between a QF guy and a BOAC guy.

The rest is history of course.

Now why is JY Pillay, who was appointed Chairman of Tiger yesterday, tolerating Tony Davis?

As Chairman of SIA, he was known to go down to the hangars and get the engineers to get the manuals out to explain to him what exactly the problems were. Nobody could bull**** him.

ASIANOW - Asiaweek

Hopefully he'll be as hands on with Tiger.

Minor details but did anyone else notice the Lateline presenter refer to Tony as "Terry Davis" at the start of the segment? Refer to TIMA9X's video post...

or the other minor detail around the 5:00 mark where TD says that "we decided to suspend services until the end of July" and that this is "an investment in the long term future of the business"??? :=

GB
You didn't work at Tiger in Safety Management did you?

He's as bad, if not worse than Alan Joyce

elrehad
dont listen to the bulls:mad:t in the media or the 2% truth on this RUMOR site..
Its amazing how other airlines have there turn in the media.... and l stick up for them (to the general public who know very little about aviation) - Yet they forget all that very quickly and throw wild assumtions about others.. Think about the workforce stress levels at the moment. And always remember there is no airline or industry that is secure for life.
LCC comments about cutting cost somewhere Training ect. The level of experience in tiger if you have any idea is very high..Tiger employees lots of ex 89ers who have travelled the world waiting to get back into Aus. Why and how if they all go broke are South West and air Asia x making millions (just to choose 2 out of many) and legacy carriers are struggling. The way of the world.If you have a job lined up just be positive. Thats all you have.....

Oakape said,

"The downside is that the second pilot doesn't do a brief & the check captain/examiner doesn't get to then observe his/her briefing & critique any shortcomings. It also doesn't allow for repetitious reinforcement.

It has been my experience that most check captains/examiners don't pay that much attention to the briefings anyway, instead concentrating on the actual exercise. Perhaps this is a shortcoming that needs to be addressed."



it may come as somewhat of a surprise to many that the "Checkie" is actually a hell of alot busier than you think back there. Configuring the Sim for the LOFT/ Proficiency Exercises is quite tedious. I won't go into the semantics and pedantics here but setting up the sim is very involved and to be brutally honest, the "checkie" is probably not listening intently to the SID/SDP briefing in the first place because he/she has enough to do. In my operation, the Cyclic Lesson Plan is quite detailed and Airways Clearances and sequences are provided to crews in the SIM briefing material supplied as part of their preparation, all to help with the time management. Sitting at the bridge asking for Airways Clearances and the like eats into valuable alloted sim time.

I have even seen guys brief the SIDS and OEI procedure in the briefing room prior to even getting in the box, all to save time.

From a "Checkie's" perspective, the most critical issue we face is the time management. Actually trying to cover all the matrix items required in the time given is very challenging. And this does not account for repeats if/when required. By this very nature then, brifings can be given thoroughly initially(even though the checkie is very busy and only listening with one ear) and any subsequent briefing of the exercise can be "considered already briefed" or "consider that done".

It is not a perfect world people, and IF you are not in the back seat, it is VERY easy to speculate on "what ifs."

My 2 cents worth.

The bottom line
 

After watching TD on lateline last night, I believe this piece from Ben S opens more cans of worms. Coupling this with today's grounding of some J* A320s "after staff discovered that they had missed inspections." says to me there appears to be a race internally to cover for paperwork deficiencies for maintenance at J*, (to their credit at J* staff saw the problem and acted) whilst Tiger never seemed to have a good enough internal backup system leading to the situation they face today.

Tiger Airways may become safe, but faces deady fare wars | Plane Talking
Says pretty much what I was left thinking after the interview.
It appears that Singapore inc and Q group have been is a race for "tit for tat" business practices leading to the situation we have today. In a sense, the grounding of Tiger has slowed the race to the bottom regarding costs.
I doubt Tiger will be able to rely on it's old model for dirt cheap pricing, if it indeed gets off the ground again. Airfares will rise whether Tiger Australia flies or not.

If you are struggling with the job as a sim instructor, Normasars, as I think you might be considering your post, I would suggest you step down!

Running the operation from the "back seat" is pretty simple really and if you need to impress us with the stress you are under, and tell us how hard it is, then I suggest you are out of your depth!

An experienced airline pilot / sim instructor should have no trouble at all running a sim session, completing all exercises in the allotted time and complying with company SOP's. :ok: