Slow news day - poor Ansett
Thread Starter
Slow news day - poor Ansett
Must be a slow news day. The Ninemsn site this morning has latest news as the ATSB report into the AN 737 that mistook Anzac Highway for Adelaide Rwy 05.
The ATSB report was releaed 28/5/01.
The ATSB report was releaed 28/5/01.
It amazes me that in this day and age that this can occur. There is a Rwy05 GPS/NPA
available for Adelaide which will give a better minima than the VOR/DME and align the aircraft with the centreline. The missed approach point being the 05 threshold, but we have this stupid situation where the jet descends to 320ft quite close to 169ft tower just to the right of the ANZAC highway. Don't tell me ...I know, the pilot and/or aircraft weren't capable of conducting the GPS/NPA. There probably still not!!!
Is this the same airline that was once the envy of others for their technical knowhow?
This is really crazy stuff and cries of "it has happened before elsewhere" are ABSOLUTE nonsense.
More at
http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimat...&f=12&t=005768
available for Adelaide which will give a better minima than the VOR/DME and align the aircraft with the centreline. The missed approach point being the 05 threshold, but we have this stupid situation where the jet descends to 320ft quite close to 169ft tower just to the right of the ANZAC highway. Don't tell me ...I know, the pilot and/or aircraft weren't capable of conducting the GPS/NPA. There probably still not!!!
Is this the same airline that was once the envy of others for their technical knowhow?
This is really crazy stuff and cries of "it has happened before elsewhere" are ABSOLUTE nonsense.
More at
http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimat...&f=12&t=005768
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Victoria
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it's "let's knock Ansett everytime we can" time, but I was flying into Adelaide about 2 months ago and a Qantas 737 had to do a go around in hazey conditions because he couldn't see the runway after a visual approach. It happens to everyone. 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 73
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fom what I remember, there were even incidents like this at Adelaide going back to the early seventies. Maybe it is about time that some lead in strobes were installed on 05, similar to the ones at MEL on 34. Better still an ILS!
Canexpectholding....going around from minima on a VOR approach is a little different than going around from a visual approach in hazy conditions. I'm not knocking either crews, at least they went round!
[ 31 August 2001: Message edited by: Offchocks ]
Canexpectholding....going around from minima on a VOR approach is a little different than going around from a visual approach in hazy conditions. I'm not knocking either crews, at least they went round!
[ 31 August 2001: Message edited by: Offchocks ]
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some might remember a few years back in Melbourne. An asian carrier 747-400, didn't correctly understand the approach plate, they mistook Essendon for Melbourne, well not being on the right frequency really threw the cat amounst the pigeons at Essendon. It was an IMC day I'd say they got a shock when they broke visual only to see a 1900m runway in front of them, amazing though that they didn't realise that they hadn't had any radio contact with the tower. 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Sandpit
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not forget the QF 737 lined up on the highway at Mackay. I was told that was pretty close. Point is, nothing happened .I wouldnt think twice about flying with either carrier. Just shows what solid training can do.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those (dare I call you 'Monday morning quarterbacks'?) expressing disbelief that the pilots involved in the recent incident in Adelaide could make such an apparently stupid mistake, cut them a little slack, heroes or not.
Like all the others involved in similar incidents in the past, they fell victim to the strongest cue our brains are attuned to react to – the visual cue. Whatever other information your brain might be processing, the visual cue is far stronger than any other and will in most cases override all others. You see what you 'know' is the runway, you go for it. Particularly in a non precision or visual approach, the brightest light can be very, very persuasive unless you're familiar with the particular runway and have briefed thoroughly to be on the lookout for the false indication.
As a stark indication of just how persuasive and overriding this visual cue can be, the (very near) Asian carrier Surmount refers to in his post above tried to land on a runway almost 90 degrees different to the one he was making the approach to. (Cleared for approach to 34 Tulla via the 26 Essendon localiser, tried to land 26 at Essendon when he broke visual and saw the runway ahead.)
The fact that the same thing has happened before at Adelaide should be reason enough for pilot groups to insist 'rabbits' be installed without delay. Dare I say it, in the 'olden days', the AFAP technical committee would probably have been very effective in insisting they be installed after the first few incidents. There should be no reason why the current Ansett and Qandom pilots' unions (or whatever they call them these days) shouldn't do something similar.
Like all the others involved in similar incidents in the past, they fell victim to the strongest cue our brains are attuned to react to – the visual cue. Whatever other information your brain might be processing, the visual cue is far stronger than any other and will in most cases override all others. You see what you 'know' is the runway, you go for it. Particularly in a non precision or visual approach, the brightest light can be very, very persuasive unless you're familiar with the particular runway and have briefed thoroughly to be on the lookout for the false indication.
As a stark indication of just how persuasive and overriding this visual cue can be, the (very near) Asian carrier Surmount refers to in his post above tried to land on a runway almost 90 degrees different to the one he was making the approach to. (Cleared for approach to 34 Tulla via the 26 Essendon localiser, tried to land 26 at Essendon when he broke visual and saw the runway ahead.)
The fact that the same thing has happened before at Adelaide should be reason enough for pilot groups to insist 'rabbits' be installed without delay. Dare I say it, in the 'olden days', the AFAP technical committee would probably have been very effective in insisting they be installed after the first few incidents. There should be no reason why the current Ansett and Qandom pilots' unions (or whatever they call them these days) shouldn't do something similar.
poor ANSETT, before it goes under, the name should be changed to Air New Zealand/Australia, and the Name should be revered for the Great Man, Airline that WAS
poor Sir Reginal, poor Ansett Airlines
As a proud former employee, my heart goes out to you
poor Sir Reginal, poor Ansett Airlines
As a proud former employee, my heart goes out to you
