Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?

Old 17th Nov 2017, 00:25
  #1021 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 95
You know that the 3º annotated on the VOR profile is a nominal figure, and that there isn't any slope guidance, right??
Yes CB I do get it but do you think that this was the first and only time that a crew has arrived at Norfolk with low cloud and no fuel to divert? The 3degree annotation is there to give pilots some idea of the gradient of the slope to the runway. Of course its not a precision approach but if you set up a RoD that equates to 3degrees and you monitor your height v DME scale then you give yourself a reasonable chance of getting to the runway. Having a radio altimeter mitigates that risk to reasonable extent as the crew should have known that the cloud base was at 200' HAA if they were in contact with the Unicom. Would it have been risky, yes, would it have been desperate, very much so. Would it have been impossible, I don't think so and if I was a regular user of NF I would have been practicing this when the weather was good. My impression of what happened during this incident was that the crew arrived at NF with no fuel to go anywhere and no idea on what to do next. As I have been consistent in stating, blasting on in and conducting approaches to a minima that is not going to get you below a known cloud base then going around and doing the same thing again is not a plan.

Many would say (mostly those with non-commercial aviation experience), that if you weren't there on the night then you can't talk about what the crew should have done. Those with experience in GA know that when you operate into airports that have limited options when the weather turns bad, then you would have already worked out your worst case scenario and how you would deal with it.

OA and LB, good to see your bromance is alive and well. If you didn't understand the more technical aspects of what I just wrote thats ok, it was for the benefit of professional pilots.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2017, 01:24
  #1022 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,538
but if you set up a RoD that equates to 3degrees and you monitor your height v DME scale then you give yourself a reasonable chance of getting to the runway
"equates to 3º" ... "monitor height" ... AND ALL THIS ON AN APPROACH A HALF A MILE OR MORE off to the side of the runway OVER UNSUREVEYED TERRAIN. That's not a "reasonable chance of getting to the runway" - that's a reasonable chance of getting to a visual position 50' above a 100' tree half a mile away from the runway.

If you don't understand that - you don't understand the difference between a precision appraoch and a VOR approach.

This is a recipe for a "tin can" aircraft slamming into a tree or house off to the side of a runway.

The ACTUAL, TESTED, decision resulted in all passengers surviving.
Checkboard is online now  
Old 17th Nov 2017, 01:30
  #1023 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 63
Posts: 163
and if I was a regular user of NF
Were they?
zanzibar is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2017, 01:43
  #1024 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 95
You are ignoring the RadALT CB. If you don't think it would have made any difference in getting under the cloud base then nothing I say will convince you.


The ACTUAL, TESTED, decision resulted in all passengers surviving.
The rescue attempt was to the SE of the island. It was only a stroke of luck that:

The firefighter who had used the different route to Kingston Jetty reported stopping on the cliffs to the west of the airport to visually search for the aircraft.
that they survived the ditching. No calls to alert anyone where they were going to ditch.

The survivors reported that most of the life jacket lights had stopped working by the time they were recovered by the rescue vessel.
The survivors were very fortunate.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2017, 03:29
  #1025 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,769
And he just kept on diggin’. You go, girl.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2017, 04:07
  #1026 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 95
And still you can make no contribution to the technical aspects of the incident. You even thought that the F/O was able to avoid talking to the ATSB despite the provisions of the TSIAct. No wonder CASA is in such a mess if they had someone like you as a lawyer. Anyway descend into your trite insults, it says more about you than it does about me.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2017, 08:47
  #1027 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 945
This debate has gone on and on. What I see from the earlier CASA report is that (i) there was insufficient fuel to allow for 1EO & Depress, (ii) LTO F/C may not have been updated prior PNR. I also recall reading that this pilot had an almost identical scenario - no fuel, crap weather - approx 6 months prior to this flight but got away with it.

LTO F/C came up every 30 min on the SP VOLMET on the hour and half hour as I recall so it was available. So then, why was he airborne with less than mandatory min fuel? Why did he not have a valid F/C for LTO so he could/would divert if NF came up bad prior ToD? I know that it's easy to be wise after the event but we professional pilots are paid to foresee stuff and apply rules to stay safe.

I look forward to the revised report answering these and many other questions.

Last edited by mustafagander; 17th Nov 2017 at 09:37.
mustafagander is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2017, 09:14
  #1028 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,538
The radalt only helps if you are flying over flat terrain at the same elevation as the runway. That's not the case at Norfolk.
Checkboard is online now  
Old 17th Nov 2017, 11:37
  #1029 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,776
It strikes me as strange that with this incident and the two B737 at Mildura in the fog that there hasn't been a move to introduce LPV GNSS approaches.The cost of providing the necessary equipment has got to be a fraction of that to provide an ILS to all the runways currently served with non-precision approaches.
PLovett is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2017, 01:13
  #1030 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,658
The cost of providing the necessary equipment has got to be a fraction of that to provide an ILS
Australia has less ILS equipped runways than Malaysia. Its a disgrace that we don't have more.

Some time ago I tried to get a handle on the cost of installing ILS and my recollection is that in the US they install them for somewhere between 1/5 and 1/10 of what it costs here. I also believe that the main costs here are AsA costs.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2017, 18:50
  #1031 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,208
Originally Posted by Old Akro View Post
Australia has less ILS equipped runways than Malaysia. Its a disgrace that we don't have more.

Some time ago I tried to get a handle on the cost of installing ILS and my recollection is that in the US they install them for somewhere between 1/5 and 1/10 of what it costs here. I also believe that the main costs here are AsA costs.
I don't know the costs of an ILS in the US nor anywhere else for that matter but I do know they are resource intensive to maintain compared to other nav aids. One reason the US dived down the WAAS (SBAS) path with such gusto was to reduce the number if ILS's thus reducing cost.

What is a disgrace is Australasia has been so slow to adopt SBAS, but that's not part of this discussion.
27/09 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2017, 20:55
  #1032 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,776
Originally Posted by 27/09 View Post
I don't know the costs of an ILS in the US nor anywhere else for that matter but I do know they are resource intensive to maintain compared to other nav aids. One reason the US dived down the WAAS (SBAS) path with such gusto was to reduce the number if ILS's thus reducing cost.

What is a disgrace is Australasia has been so slow to adopt SBAS, but that's not part of this discussion.
Actually I think it is. The whole point of an accident report is to learn the lessons from them to ensure it doesn't happen again. I believe the faffing around with non-precision approaches we continue to indulge in Australia is a disgrace when something like WAAS could so easily provide an answer.

I am not holding my breath that there will be any such recommendation in this long-awaited report.
PLovett is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2017, 00:42
  #1033 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,208
Meanwhile instead of just embracing the standard SBAS system Australia and New Zealand seem intent on having their own unique SBAS setup. Seems destined for failure to me. Perhaps that's what some want to happen.
27/09 is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2017, 01:07
  #1034 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,932
---- disgrace is Australasia has been so slow to adopt SBAS,----
Folks,
At the risk of thread drift, Australia has NOT been slow the adopt, Australia, some years ago, specifically rejected the opportunity to adopt WAAS, and the satellite already carrying the then equipment was moved to a new Geosynchronous parking spot further east.
At the time, it was unofficially said to be largely because Airservices couldn't find a way to charge for WAAS, the official DoTRS reason was, in short, that it was not justified by Australian conditions.
Tootle Pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2017, 02:15
  #1035 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 356
The much awaited report of the re-opened investigation will be released tomorrow. It has been a very long time coming.
slats11 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2017, 02:24
  #1036 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Outback Australia
Posts: 329
Oh, Slats, you are such a tease....
outnabout is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2017, 06:41
  #1037 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by slats11 View Post
The much awaited report of the re-opened investigation will be released tomorrow. It has been a very long time coming.
During a recent heated discussion about this incident, someone who may or may not be a DIP, who may or may not have perused the "new" report, opined that some senior pilots contributing to PPRuNe will be vindicated in their thoughts, and some that Big Mac referred to as vexatious bloggers will be embarrassed.
I await with baited breath.
I must add, that the person refused to discuss any part of the report and told us to wait.
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2017, 08:08
  #1038 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 63
Posts: 163
Originally Posted by Eddie Dean View Post
During a recent heated discussion about this incident, someone who may or may not be a DIP, who may or may not have perused the "new" report, opined that some senior pilots contributing to PPRuNe will be vindicated in their thoughts, and some that Big Mac referred to as vexatious bloggers will be embarrassed.
I await with baited breath.
I must add, that the person refused to discuss any part of the report and told us to wait.
What's your breath been baited with? Hope it doesn't smell too bad when you're in close company.
zanzibar is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2017, 08:09
  #1039 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 396
27/09 and Leadsled,

Where do you guys come up with this cr&p? You both have over active imaginations....

27/09 this may be hard to believe but SBAS technology has moved on, it has been around for quite sometime. The SBAS service being offered to Australia is the most up to date version of the technology. The problem is that aviation avionics are still using the SBAS legacy technology. Its the new technology that GeoscienceAus and other industry sectors want, the aviation sector are trying mount a strong case to ensure that what ever SBAS is chosen, that it will support legacy aviation avionics....but yeah its a conspiracy. Make no mistake that if your aviation colleagues are unsuccessful in convincing the department to consider legacy SBAS......then it will be largely useless for aviation until next gen avionics catch up....thats a loooooong way off. Also consider that aviation is the only industry sector that requires the legacy signal.....all other sectors are happy with SBAS II.

Leadsled, your first paragraph is correct. But you do need to clarify that it was the Australian Gov't that specifically rejected it because the Dept is anti SBAS....not AsA. Aviation will be a minor user of SBAS.
Your second paragraph is bollocks. Spreading unsubstantiated rumour does not help the cause.
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2017, 20:48
  #1040 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,379
The Department was anti - SBAS most likely because someones career was heavily invested in GBAS. CASA probably couldn't have cared less. The drivers for aviation regulation in Australia are plainly the career prospects of the regulators.

Here is a prediction: Avmed has jumped on the sleep apnoea bandwagon which is making millions for doctors. The AMA (american) has just redefined "high blood pressure" ten points lower then the current definition. Watch CASA Avmed grab that new definition with both hands and ram it down our throats at more expense.
Sunfish is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.