A380 low at Melbourne
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm thinking these were the weather reports around the time of the incident:
SA 14/07/2016 09:30->
METAR YMML 140930Z 33009KT 9999 -SHRA SCT030 BKN043 10/04 Q1029 NOSIG=
SA 14/07/2016 10:00->
METAR YMML 141000Z 35009KT 9999 VCSH FEW034 BKN050 10/04 Q1029 NOSIG=
METAR YMML 140930Z 33009KT 9999 -SHRA SCT030 BKN043 10/04 Q1029 NOSIG=
SA 14/07/2016 10:00->
METAR YMML 141000Z 35009KT 9999 VCSH FEW034 BKN050 10/04 Q1029 NOSIG=
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the webtrak over the procedure. They image shows the ac at the low altitude of 2500 feet @ 5km from SUDOS...at SUDOS, the ac had climbed to 2550 feet momentarily. (SUDOS is about at the intersection of FP and Francis St) There is no ILS on RW34.
Thanx terpster, your post shows the Jepp chart is crapp to read. While the Jepp chart misses the bust, the real chart sneaks in the bust in the LAVER approach, that is due to a political disconnect, not a procedure design one.
Thanx terpster, your post shows the Jepp chart is crapp to read. While the Jepp chart misses the bust, the real chart sneaks in the bust in the LAVER approach, that is due to a political disconnect, not a procedure design one.
Last edited by underfire; 9th Aug 2016 at 02:55.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs:
Don't hold your breath. Political disconnect? Say what? The Jepp chart is irrelevant other than it shows the correct procedure. Emirates uses LIDO, which I posted earlier.
...What do you mean Underfire?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As always, terpster, virtually no clue what you are talking about.
The lower plate is directly from ASA AIP.
Look at the LAVER approach. Notice on the turn to MEXUN, it is 2.4nm and 2.4nm and does not connect to MEXUN as the GOOLA approach does. What is between the end of the turn and MEXUN? The original design had the RF leg end at MEXUN, tan to the TF leg...why doesnt it?
On the Jepp plate, the turn is 2.3 and 2.5, but if you put in the actual waypoints and turns, the turn is not tangent to the TF leg. They have massaged it, but it is a disco.
The lower plate is directly from ASA AIP.
Look at the LAVER approach. Notice on the turn to MEXUN, it is 2.4nm and 2.4nm and does not connect to MEXUN as the GOOLA approach does. What is between the end of the turn and MEXUN? The original design had the RF leg end at MEXUN, tan to the TF leg...why doesnt it?
On the Jepp plate, the turn is 2.3 and 2.5, but if you put in the actual waypoints and turns, the turn is not tangent to the TF leg. They have massaged it, but it is a disco.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
underfire:
If that makes you feel good, have at it.
I have previously posted the AIP, the Jepp and the Lido charts. What is relevant is: Emirates uses Lido charts.
what is particularly pertinent: they had an altitude excursion, not a track deviation so far as we know from the short report.
As always, terpster, virtually no clue what you are talking about.
I have previously posted the AIP, the Jepp and the Lido charts. What is relevant is: Emirates uses Lido charts.
what is particularly pertinent: they had an altitude excursion, not a track deviation so far as we know from the short report.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your comments on post 67 created the dialog. Why did you post the Jepp AR charts, they were not on that procedure. Neither the Jepp nor LIDO chart that you provided shows the profile from SUDOS.
Yes, and that is what is shown in my post, in overlaying the webtrack with the straight in from SUDOS including the profile. The profile is important to show from SUDOS as it shows the surface.
My comments on the Jepp chart that you provided is that it does not work.The LIDO chart is busted as well, and in that one you can see visually that the turn does not connect with MEXON. Again none of your posts shown the profile.
what is particularly pertinent: they had an altitude excursion, not a track deviation so far as we know from the short report.
My comments on the Jepp chart that you provided is that it does not work.The LIDO chart is busted as well, and in that one you can see visually that the turn does not connect with MEXON. Again none of your posts shown the profile.
Underfire, the tracking/turn design is irrelevant. Why don't you accept this? The aeroplane doesn't follow the paper, it follows what's in the database. Unless the nav display shows the radii on the RF legs of the approach, who cares what they are?
There is a profile on the Jepp chart; it is precisely the same as the AIP chart. Don't you realise that Aterpster's image shows only the top of it? In any case, it was posted in full earlier on.
As clearly shown on all the charts posted, Lido, Jepp and AIP, the min is 3000ft at SUDOS.
So, back to my question to you:
There is a profile on the Jepp chart; it is precisely the same as the AIP chart. Don't you realise that Aterpster's image shows only the top of it? In any case, it was posted in full earlier on.
As clearly shown on all the charts posted, Lido, Jepp and AIP, the min is 3000ft at SUDOS.
So, back to my question to you:
Originally Posted by Underfire
While the Jepp chart misses the bust
The Jepp chart shows min 3000ft at LAVER, SUDOS and GOOLA and BOLTY. What do you mean, Underfire?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have explained where the bust was in several posts, it is on the turn..can you not see that? As explained, the comment about the bust was an add to the post, it was not about the ac being low, but about the Jepp procedure on the turn being incorrect.
The turn design is relevant if it does not work. Why cant you accept this? If you have coding that does not connect, the system will disco. If you have RF legs that are not tangent to TF legs, the systems will disco.
The image shown by the terp was of the AR procedure, which was irrelevant to the thread, and did not show the profile. While that chart may have, the image provided did not. As what the terp provided was not relevant, I made comments on what twerp provided.
I provided the profile from ASA that includes the MSA of the procedure. The ac in question was at 2500. What is the MSA of that segment on the charts?
Time to evolve.
The turn design is relevant if it does not work. Why cant you accept this? If you have coding that does not connect, the system will disco. If you have RF legs that are not tangent to TF legs, the systems will disco.
The image shown by the terp was of the AR procedure, which was irrelevant to the thread, and did not show the profile. While that chart may have, the image provided did not. As what the terp provided was not relevant, I made comments on what twerp provided.
I provided the profile from ASA that includes the MSA of the procedure. The ac in question was at 2500. What is the MSA of that segment on the charts?
Time to evolve.
In other words, all the turn stuff is irrelevant. May I suggest you take it up with the designers/chartists. And surely any discos in the database would have been obvious during flight test. Besides, it looks like they came through SUDOS, so any turn glitches would have been irrelevant.
The full chart/s, all of them, were posted earlier, as I have already said above. The aircraft was doing the 34 RNP. How can that chart posted by Aterpster be irrelevant?
I'll say it again, all the charts, ASA, Lido and Jepp clearly show it as 3000ft. As noted in the OP, the aeroplane got to 2500ft. What's your point?
Originally Posted by Underfire
The image shown by the terp was of the AR procedure, which was irrelevant to the thread, and did not show the profile. While that chart may have, the image provided did not.
What is the MSA of that segment on the charts?
The original post was....
What the hell do all these turns and diagrams have to do with it?
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating an incident where an Emirates Airline Airbus A380 descended below minimum assigned altitude while on approach to land at Melbourne Tullamarine International airport.
The RNP is immaterial here as they hadn't even commenced it but were still flying straight in on the PORTS STAR (via PORTS and PIERS) until SUDOS. They'd busted their assigned level and busted the level on the STAR. The RNP also clearly says 3000ft at SUDOS.
