... maybe, for starters, make sure it ain't 1000' low....

We could monitor spelling. Coriolis maybe? If you are going to sling off, you really need to get it right, otherwise you make yourself look, well, stupid. :}

Bula you also need to edit non coms. Nomb Combs aren't actually words or even abbreviations.:E

Fair call. Anyone know how to turn off Apple's autocorrect feature?

But in all seriousness everyone is bleeping on about:

..........

I agree, whole heartedly agree with these comments, though RNP is the exception to the rule. Rather than automation over-reliance, it is automation reliance full stop. You are completely reliant on the aircrafts NAV system to put you in the right place at the right time.... Hopefully.

Even more so the ZQN RNP charts are not easy charts to read off the cuff. Under pressure it takes a physical conscious effort to desphyer, especially with the 2 points concerned being so close together.

Overloaded, out of time, mistakes were made.

Agree Bula-RNP is where aviation is headed and the only way to fly it is in managed mode or VNAV LNAV, thats the way they were designed. My understanding is that QANTAS are required to fly RNP approaches whenever possible even in preference to an ILS. This crew were not paying attention and made it worse for themselves by not flying the approach in a managed mode.

Not saying its a factor in this incident, but I and a few others have noticed a marked preference for selected modes amongst those at Jetstar who haven't flown the aircraft anywhere else.

Managed modes are not used as a matter of course by quite a few.

So Bula,

Do you set it up in the box, pop out for a cup of tea and hope for the best when doing an RNP do you? LNAV and VNAV still doesn't remove you from the role of monitoring/managing the approach. It is just like any other FMS driven data base approach.

There is no exception to the rule. Full stop.

Jesus h Christ you monitor the profile from the chart , ie at this waypoint , what height am I meant to be.

...and other bothersome things like deviation ....

If you are, then it doesn't get 1000 feet low without you noticing and doing something about it.

Lord give me strength

Well apart from FMGC profile and your altimeter, seeing as others haven't mentioned it..... Airspeed? Profile and height are all good but not if it puts you over the threshold at 250 knots. And I have seen it happen all good in LNAV VNAV then wondering why we are still 250 knots at 16 miles at 5000ft, hmm seems a bit hot and sure enough suddenly reverts to speed mode and drifts above path because of an unable next altitude message suddenly appearing. These approaches are good overall, especially to ports with limited aids but still a trap for the unwary.

One would assume that the "unwary" have been TRAINED and CHECKED in these procedures and signed off as proficient. If this is the case, then there is a disconnect happening somewhere. These guys were negligent in their duties and responsibilities. Period!

Ejectx, gotta agree with you. These two "passengers" at the sharp end, and the fare paying pax can thank their lucky stars they are still here with their loved ones.

Tick! Tock! Indeed.

Can somebody post a link to the chart in question?

http://www.aip.net.nz/NavWalk.aspx?section=CHARTS&tree=Queenstown

Until on final, I can't see many charted altitude limits or profile; the RNAV Zs got none apart from the holding pattern limits. Of course, the VNAV deviation thingee (I don't fly bussses) would probably give a clue.

"Use the force, Luke, but just in case, make sure your targeting computer is engaged in VNAV!"

Aren't we talking about Rnp approach?

Those charts don't look anything like the airline specific charts which I can assure you have a number of approach altitudes on them.

This incident was quite simple really, when cleared for the approach the crew would normally set the vertical intercept point (VIP) altitude which for RWY05 is 6300'. You would then normally engage managed NAV so that the aircraft flies the managed vertical profile in accordance with the chart. At this point it is up to the crew to basically 'monitor' the approach and make sure the constraints are met. It would seem in this case for some reason once 6300' was set that the crew selected Open Descent which means the aircraft will just descend to that altitude regardless of constraints. Although not recommended to use 'selected modes' on RNP approaches it is allowed, just means you need to be extra vigilant about the monitoring of the constraints, I suspect in this case the crew did not intend to be in selected mode. The failing here is it would appear that they then didn't monitor the profile (really the only thing you should be doing!!).

Although on this occasion this error didn't endanger the aircraft, as we all know the act of descending below an instrument approach path can kill you and is a serious incident.

Sorry if I missed it already but where abouts on the chart profile was the aircraft 1000' low on profile?

Reading the general discourse between various parties it appears that: (a) the answer to the thread is "No", CASA won't suspend the JQ AOC, probably due to 'Regulatory Capture' more than anything else.
(b) the incident was probably due to those dreaded RNP approaches, well dreaded if you stuff them up anyway!

Imagine for a moment if you had to do a similar approach without all these extra defences, whizbang technology, excellent training etc and without a fully competent crewmember beside you...hmm sound familiar!

Its about now that everyone should grab a caffeine fix or a bex and take the time to read this 2006 ATSB report on RNP approaches:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/32628/2...rnav_12.06.pdf

I hesitate a guess that some of you contributed to the 2005 ATSB survey??

Now take a look at this incident that came perilously close to disaster: The GPWS Perils of a Lone Psoitioning Source

Cumulus Granatis is very unforgiving, careful out there these RNP approaches can be a killer!:=

I see your point Sarcs, but the relevance of those 2 links to current RNP procedures is somewhat outdated.

The equipment has protections by design from the dangers of lone source information as well.

My guess is the simple explanation is that the fellas were too busy gazing out the window, while in severe CAVOK. And in that part of the world, who could blame them!

Find it hard to believe it happened IMC.

I don't disagree with you Wazza, it sounded like a classic case of 'star gazing' mixed perhaps with a degree of computer complacency.:ok:

However the issues highlighted from the 2005 ATSB survey on the GNSS approaches are still current as the machinery (Airbus and Boeing) hasn't had any giant technological leaps forward since then and the same can be said for the approach design principles...be interesting to have a similar survey conducted now and see what the results would be...but back to the thread, sorry for the drift Mods!:E