PPRuNe Forums - MERGED: Air India almost arrives at Essendon ...

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)

- - MERGED: Air India almost arrives at Essendon ... (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/532106-merged-air-india-almost-arrives-essendon.html)

MERGED: Air India almost arrives at Essendon ...

Staggers me that the ATSB aren't pursuing this further. Good to see the keen eye of ML TWR/APP !

Looks as though they got to overhead the Maribyrnong River at 1000ft before changing track.

Air-India 787 warned off wrong Melbourne Airport landing | Plane Talking
Missed Approach: Air India AI301 | carry-on
Air India (AI) #301 ? 14-Jan-2014 ? YSSY / SYD - YMML / MEL ? FlightAware

Quote:

An Air-India Dreamliner 787 was at low altitude on Tuesday morning and about to touchdown at the wrong Melbourne Airport, Essendon rather than nearby Melbourne International, when it was warned off by AirServices Australia.

A full and well illustrated account of the sub-standard flight safety standards displayed by the Air-India crew has been published here on the Carry On site.

It nearly made Melbourne the setting for a fourth high profile wrong airport landing in recent times, as outlined on Carry On.

Or even a fifh if the Ethiopian landing of a 767 at the wrong airport near Mt Kilimanjaro in December is included in what looks like an epidemic of in-flight clumsiness to the general media, yet is statistically insignificant given the overall volume of safe world wide air traffic movements.

The ATSB has confirmed that it has been notified of the Air-India incident but has decided that it will not launch on inquiry.

Based on the further information we received from the operator, air traffic control and from the crew we decided that there was nothing systemic that warranted an investigation. Basically, the system operated as it was designed to do.

Two pilots ask to evaluate the known details of the incident were divided over the ATSB’s decision. The pilot who supported the decision said that inter alia there was no probability that anything the ATSB might say or do would have the slightest effect on Air-India, and that it would amount to a costly and pointless exercise in hand holding.

The other pilot saw merit in an inquiry because he believed there was too high an incidence of flight path deviation incidents near Melbourne’s main airport, in part the result of ‘sub-optimally designed’ approach paths and that the Air-India incident was an opportunity to examine a bigger picture.

Both pilots believed that the Air-India 787 could have been pulled up with ease on the Essendon runway, which before Melbourne’s nearby International airport was built was used by jets as large as Boeing 727-200s in regular domestic service. They were also aware of anecdotal accounts of a DC-10 lining up to land on the Essendon runway sometime in the 70s, and being warned off at the last minute.

Won't be the first won't be the last

Anyone know if there is any truth to this....Air India cleared for the ILS 34L in SYD.... apparently nicely established on 34R.

Shouldn't complain too much - a least they were (mostly) managing to do a visual approach.

Well they're operating domestic sectors in Australia why shouldn't they be investigated? Given the amount BS the locals have to indure if they can't get simple thngs right like finding a runway why should it be tolerated? If QF did it CASA would be all over them.

Quote:

If QF did it CASA would be all over them.

Somehow I doubt that

Stand by for the usual "Close Essendon Airport now!" chorus...................

Air India B787 almost lands at wrong Melbourne airport

Don't they have ILS at Melbourne?

HD

not on that runway! Furthermore, in some circumstances, approaching MEL from the east lines you up with runway 27 at Essendon, which has the same runway configuration as MEL - a trap waiting for the unwary, for sure.

I suspect that the reason that an ILS has not been installed is that when the wind is out of the north it is normally very clear.

Ozzie rules :rolleyes:

I second the investigation.... But investigate what . the situation did not deteriorate to a level at which some thing wrong happened.The radar did its job the crew did its job the aircraft showed reliability so in all for a change The system worked! :D:D

Doesn't the STAR have a height requirement of Above 2500' at sheed? Not sure how you could land at essedon with that restriction in the box. 👍

I had a listen on liveatc last night quickly and it seems they initially requested vectors for the VOR approach on 34, but in the end were cleared for a visual right base after vectors, so weren't on the STAR.

(TID EDIT. Original offensive post removed.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Break Right

Doesn't the STAR have a height requirement of Above 2500' at sheed? Not sure how you could land at essedon with that restriction in the box.

I don't fly to MEL but a cursory glance at the STARs indicate they were probably doing a DYTES or somesuch via BOLTY? Nowhere near SHEED.

Interesting that in this day & age with all the sophisticated gear on board the most basic thing about when flying a plane gets lost, situational awareness, something getting more & more 'lost' in it's own right!
You know how it is we have a high level of awareness whilst in IMC on the dials & doing what we are trained the most to do, fly way up there but when it comes to breaking out of cloud for Eg we seem to say/go phew glad that's over we are now visual...easy peezy we can relax...........well not so in this case & quite often to:-)
ATC often spoon feed these guys as they simply don't trust them especially CTA steps by way of height restrictions, & tracking IE vectors, the most basic of navigation. Sounds like they where being vectored & to report rwy 34 in sight. Looking around out the window it could easily be mistaken EN drome as Tulla as the rwy complex is similar (not identical though).

Sure ultimately the drivers are to blame Capt in particular but as a side subject here have we set ourselves up with a tool that leads us down the garden path? That tool being highly developed automation. (yes I now there are numerous threads on this subject but worth a mention here anyway)

We can make a 100 airframes all perfectly identical but can we make a 100 pilots the same? Now there lies a perplexing question & not even the most hideous phyco testing crap can guarantee anything these days as well trained, well checked & well respected pilots have simply flown into a mountain in a fully serviceable machine mostly 'cause they where suckered into it.
I've landed on the wrong Rwy at MB 100 yrs ago due circumstances that changed at the last minute, we are all human:-)

Wmk2

I wonder how good is the AI Route Brief? Does it detail the proximity to each other and the similarities of Essendon and Tullamarine?

Bloggs if they were coming in from SYD the visual procedure for rwy34 it is still via the star with the height requirement at sheed. However if they were off the star on vectors dif story for sure.

Any folks that fly into MEL regularly, do ATC still drop the "report runway 34 lead in strobe lights in sight" ?

Quote:

Bloggs if they were coming in from SYD the visual procedure for rwy34 it is still via the star with the height requirement at sheed. However if they were off the star on vectors dif story for sure.

The point is, they weren't doing the visual star, so SHEED doesn't come into it at all.

From the flight track it looks like they were tracking round the arc from BOLTY, saw a runway out the window, and had a go at landing on it.

(Which would be kind of ironic, when you think how many visual approach cockups happen when we get tangled up with the FMC and autopilot modes, instead of just looking out the window and flying the thing.)

You can still make a visual approach while TRACKING via the star.The approach over Essendon is a dog. Get rid of it.