Seems the Thai 777 crew really stuffed up the ML 34 VOR approach with a vengeance.



Incident: Thai B773 at Melbourne on Jul 24th 2011, descended below minimum safe altitude

not good..not good at all :uhoh:

You all mention that the facts AFTER the investigation will be interesting yet the investigation for tiger is still on going but the aircraft are on the ground. Bit like pulled over by the cops suspected of drink driving,no breath test carried out but go to jail until we investigate. interesting?????
Tiger 1600 agl THai 1000 ft agl still not as low as :mad: 38ft with the wheels up..Interesting

my 2 cents for the day.

I wonder if they set the minima and then selected LVL CHG in a similar manner to the 16 NDB incident a couple of years ago? Maybe this airline doesn't give enough attention to NPA in their training.

As for the stupid comment regarding the 38' with the wheels up have another look at the report on the incident. The wheels were down. Noticed that there hasn't been more incidents involving go-arounds? Thats because the pilots were all given further training on the manouvre. The issue with Tiger appears to be the whole training setup, thats why CASA have taken a different approach to Tiger.

Here's their other incident into MEL where they couldn't figure out how to fly the NDB and William Boeing saved the day


Investigation: AO-2007-055 - Procedures related event - Melbourne Airport, VIC, 4 November 2007, HS-TJW, Boeing Company 777-2D7

I was doing the RNAV from Arbey to 34 the other day. We were cleared by ATC to descend to 3000 feet, whilst still on a part of the approach with a minimum height of 4500T.....

After what 5/6 incidents can the ATSB step in and stand down CASA? Seems to be a industry wide systematic problem - which says regulator - or Airservices Instrument Approach design needs a rework.

Mr Deux, I've been cleared as low as 2000' in a sector Lsalt of 4500.

Radar terrain separation - I can't be bothered finding the reference but it's in the aip regarding descent below Lsalt and while under radar with terrain seperation service is one of the conditions under which you may descend below Lsalt, on a star or whenever.

Having a VOR approach to a 3600 metre runway at Australia's second largest airport is pretty third world by the way. The visual approach from the other direction to 34 via EN 26 LLZ also needs a serious look at.

Fortunately, most overseas carriers never see it as they don't come in from that direction otherwise there would be a serious number of screwups.

Boeing saved the day? How? "The Boeing" would quite happily have flown into the ground had it not been for the EGPWS, which as far as I am aware was not designed by Boeing.

..........................and???????

I just don't get that. Who cares what atc clear you to when you're appraching the ground? If you're not following the correct 3 degree profile for that approach then sort it out. One problem is that in the parts of asia I've lived and flown in the local airlines still "dive and drive'. ie they get down to the lowest safe as quick as they can then run around level until the next step. It seems crazy I know but I've seen it a hundred times (within the last few years) when following other carriers in on an approach. So the lessons we learnt re CFIT 15-20yrs ago still haven't been learnt in some parts of the world.
I've flown with very experienced airline captains from certain countries who literally can't calculate a 3x profile in their head.
Whats the answer?
Train them.