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