Will CASA suspend JQ for descending below MSA on approach?
 

From the Aviation Herald:


Full article here: JQ descends below MSA

How can you make a successful approach and landing without going below MDA in ZQN?

Don't you mean they started a RNP approach and descended below an approach restriction?

Were they IMC or VMC?

If VMC, then the flight was safe at all times.

If a company requirement is to maintain the approach restriction in IMC or VMC then that will need to be addressed.

As for CASA suspending JQ for descending below MDA on approach?

You clearly Know nothing about conducting an instrument approach no matter what airline we are discussing.

Go back to flight sim.

Perhaps they broke visual at an altitude below the minima due to an incorrect setting. Not ideal but wait for the report.

Kiwi media report
Jetstar Flight Under Investigation After Low Descent... | Stuff.co.nz

First ad noticed to the right of that story...a Qantas booking panel!

Oh, only 1000' low. No probs.

Which has the greater safety impact, this incident or the PB departure that is the subject of the current court case?

If NZ CAA are to be consistant, these guys will be in court in the near future. It will be interesting to watch what happens with this one, but I bet it will never happen.

well, on the surface with bystander info only; what looks like a c0ck up on approach vs intentional non-compliance to take off...

If the aircraft was 1000 ft low & there was no issues.

One has to wonder why the crew would climb back up the 1000 ft to 7300.

Wait for the report I suppose.

NZCAA has nothing to do with it, they have no oversight on Jetstar New Zealand at all.

You reckon? I am pretty sure that you will find that national airworthiness authorities can and do have oversight of RPT operations in their own countries regardless of where the aircraft is registered and where the company is domiciled. The example the recent investigation of AirAsia operating into the Gold Coast springs to mind.

I rarely pass judgement on things of this nature prior to the report however ;

Corrective action? Can't imagine figuring out that they may have made an error and then saying " oh well we're here now so lets just continue.."

Ditto for the report.

ps - not having a crack at you.:ok:

Gee, I wonder if HF3000 was mumbling, with his tongue stuck in his cheek, and all that?

Rodger

I believe that you may be incorrect as the cross Tasman Aviation Agreement is a unique oversite arrangement between Aussie and NZ and applies to registered airlines of both countries.

Am I missing something? Although not reporting cloud cover, the above sounds pretty much CAVOK...however the climb back to 7300' would seem to indicate differently!

Ben Sandilands view of it all is very damning..one thing is for sure it's not going to be so easy to sweep under the carpet..interesting!:E

Jetstar says breaking MSA into Queenstown not dangerous ! | Plane Talking

I should have worded my previous post better!

In my opinion. The fact that a climb occurred during an approach is "unusual" so the fact the aircraft was 1000 ft below where it should be IS an issue.

I have no experience of operations into NZQN.

However, my concern is how can two pilots allow an airliner to be in a position that it shouldn't. Furthermore, if procedural errors can ocurr like this then what guarantees are there that similar errors don't ocurr elsewhere.

After all. Wasn't one of the reasons for grounding tiger the following events:

1. The aircraft not being where it should have been after a go around in Avalon.

&

2. Another aircraft being BELOW the procedural height it should have been on approach to Tullamarine.

You can't compare this with Tiger. Once again the Tiger grounding wasn't due to the actual procedural events but to the lack of a SAFETY system in place to handle the reports and retraining of the crews involved.

In the Jetstar case the actual event was similar. The big difference is that having been self reported by he crew, the relevant authorities were notified and action taken UNLIKE Tiger!! Is this so hard to understand :ugh:

As for Sandilands I am starting to think he has got something against the Qantas group, his articles are increasingly full of in factual rantings, which is a shame as I used to quite enjoy them.

"is this so hard to understand"

I think I get your drift.

So you are saying that although there have been repeated incidents within one organization with reference to:

Fatigue
Aircraft Configuration
Flight Deck Discipline
Procedural Compliance

There is no reason for concern, as the events are reported and the organization may treat each event as a learning outcome.

Is the difference one airline can $#>k up, not report & be grounded whereas another airline can $#>k up, report the incident and they are protected?

that's right MC in much the same way that an airline that has multiple engine failures, fuel tanks being exhausted, auto lands at Cat 1 only airports and too low gear warnings not to mention holding patterns below MSA can also stay in the air because of the way the events are managed by the airline. As OO mentioned the difference between Tiger and other airlines was the back office structure.

Mstr Caution,

That is kind of what I am saying, CASA is only interested in the Safety System in place when it comes to this sort of thing. Is it right.... NO. Do I think someone should be concerned about the list of events you have published.... YES.

What does get my rag, is when people say that Tiger was grounded for this, so then every airline that has a similar incident should be grounded. This just shows a misunderstanding of why CASA grounded Tiger.