Launceston 17 th June 2016 737 incident
Thread Starter
Launceston 17 th June 2016 737 incident
I hear that the ATSB has information on a missed approach airline incident at Launceston.
When will AsA use the multilateration radar system there to help prevent a CFIT?
After many die?
When will AsA use the multilateration radar system there to help prevent a CFIT?
After many die?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear that the ATSB has information on a missed approach airline incident at Launceston.
When will AsA use the multilateration radar system there to help prevent a CFIT?
After many die?
When will AsA use the multilateration radar system there to help prevent a CFIT?
After many die?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no risk of CFIT in any of the missed approach paths at YMLT
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No sh!t Sherlock. However the incident appears to involve an aeroplane flying a path other than that published for the missed approach. Even the densest person will realise the likelihood of CFIT goes up in this case.
Now that you have provided a reference to the incident I concede that straying from the missed approach path can heighten the possibility of CFIT but unless the aircraft went astray from the DA there is bloody little it can hit until you go some distance from YMLT.
So let's spend a few mill so that ATC can tell us when we're heading for the dirt. Remove all the EGPWSs, will ya? We wont need them now... 
The pax would have been pretty unhappy, I reckon!
The pax would have been pretty unhappy, I reckon!
Thread Starter
When the two professions pilots on board the crash plane at Benalla allowed an aircraft to stray 7 miles of course and crash into terrain most other professional pilots claimed that a competent pilot would never make such a basic error.
That's why ATSB made no recommendations to upgrade the airspace to E so the advantage of the existing radar coverage could be maximised .
Normally when an approach radar type system is installed as per Launceston it is actually used by controllers to control aircraft. But not in Australia.
Our pilots just don't need such safety features - being superior to those in other countries and not make normal human errors.
That's why ATSB made no recommendations to upgrade the airspace to E so the advantage of the existing radar coverage could be maximised .
Normally when an approach radar type system is installed as per Launceston it is actually used by controllers to control aircraft. But not in Australia.
Our pilots just don't need such safety features - being superior to those in other countries and not make normal human errors.
In carrying out the missed approach off the 32 ILS the crew diverted off the published heading..........
Oooohhhh big news Dick, the 737 was probably climbing at 3,000 to 4,000 fpm anyway, what the hell could they hit at YMLT for the 40 seconds they were below MSA?? They'd be nearly over the field anyway..
Besides, even if Radar was fitted the controller wouldn't not have had sufficient time to notice, then call the Aircraft before they reached a safe Alt anyway....
Yes the crew need to be checked/trained in missed approach procedures but don't think that Radar would have made this safer....
Oooohhhh big news Dick, the 737 was probably climbing at 3,000 to 4,000 fpm anyway, what the hell could they hit at YMLT for the 40 seconds they were below MSA?? They'd be nearly over the field anyway..
Besides, even if Radar was fitted the controller wouldn't not have had sufficient time to notice, then call the Aircraft before they reached a safe Alt anyway....
Yes the crew need to be checked/trained in missed approach procedures but don't think that Radar would have made this safer....
Last edited by ACMS; 19th Jun 2016 at 03:22.
Folks,
The bottom line really is: Millions have been expended in installing a MLat set of equipment, and it is not being used ---- given the circumstances under which it was installed, it should be used to its capability.
Meantime, in the last week or so, we have seen a widespread demonstration in the western US of the gross shortcomings of planning to rely on GNSS to the degree Australia intends --- but the US does not.
Tootle pip!!
The bottom line really is: Millions have been expended in installing a MLat set of equipment, and it is not being used ---- given the circumstances under which it was installed, it should be used to its capability.
Meantime, in the last week or so, we have seen a widespread demonstration in the western US of the gross shortcomings of planning to rely on GNSS to the degree Australia intends --- but the US does not.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Are you telling me that a properly operated terminal radar service does not reduce the chance of CFIT?
Why does the NTSB say the opposite.
Are you saying that Australian professional pilots are so skilled and faultless that they don't need a terminal radar service ?
Why then have we wasted the money at places like Cairns? Wasn't that the place that the radar operator prevented a CFIT when an airline started too descend to early?
Why does the NTSB say the opposite.
Are you saying that Australian professional pilots are so skilled and faultless that they don't need a terminal radar service ?
Why then have we wasted the money at places like Cairns? Wasn't that the place that the radar operator prevented a CFIT when an airline started too descend to early?
Thread Starter
Block. Why then does AsA tell the media that the multilateration system is not designed to give a service below 6000' and that procedural control is as safe!
Why also on my last flight into Hobart was handled using a 1950s procedural type system and not a modern radar type system?
Why was $6 million spent on the multilateration system if it can't provide a service to the ground as the supplier said it was designed to do? Why the obvious cover up?
Why also on my last flight into Hobart was handled using a 1950s procedural type system and not a modern radar type system?
Why was $6 million spent on the multilateration system if it can't provide a service to the ground as the supplier said it was designed to do? Why the obvious cover up?
Thread Starter
A survailance based system shares the risk more as the ATC is instructing the pilot when to descend depending on where the aircraft actually is- not where the pilot thinks the plane is.
Also any surveillance based system worth its salt has minimum safe altitude alarms or similar.
That's why the NTSB makes the safety claims about controlled airspace and survaillance.
Also any surveillance based system worth its salt has minimum safe altitude alarms or similar.
That's why the NTSB makes the safety claims about controlled airspace and survaillance.
Had a look at Flightaware, Dick it shows two B737 freighters into YMLT.
Looking at the tracks, the ILS missed approach seems to have been followed as per Jepps by both aircraft. There is a non standard holding pattern, in one case to the north west of the aerodrome, could that be the trigger?
Should the tower be open at night, for the freighters?
Looking at the tracks, the ILS missed approach seems to have been followed as per Jepps by both aircraft. There is a non standard holding pattern, in one case to the north west of the aerodrome, could that be the trigger?
Should the tower be open at night, for the freighters?
Should the tower be open at night, for the freighters?
Don't know who will provide this enhanced terminal service. ATC didn't have the staff to provide APP around YBBN the other morning.