Questions? - without Notice.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The basic concept of these approaches is flawed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dichotomy dilemma.
Spent a very interesting day with some fellah's and the YLHR documents, half expected to be bored rigid; and, it is 'dry' until you start to see what's going on. Join the dots and see the hidden pictures.
I'll say this, not for a million dollars, a pension, a bag of sweeties, a night with you're sister and a free holiday in Europe would I have been Coroner Barnes. What a superb effort he put in; he could see smell and almost touch the hidden problems. Top marks, I guess these folk ain't doing the job because they're any where near dopey.
He just couldn't beat the dichotomy created the two warring bodies, both trying so hard to 'cover' the more sensitive parts of their piers anatomies. (Wood from trees).
I reckon that a honest, independent inquiry could uncover 2 essential truths.
The most probable and ranking causes of the accident.
The reasons for the extraordinary lengths gone to by the protagonists to avoid, conceal and obfuscate these vital details and witnesses.
Kudos to Mr. Barnes ? Absolutely.
The approach design whilst interestin' is not where the story lays. The`ATSB survey and the CASA response was a much better read, but a sidebar to the headlines.
Steam off.
I'll say this, not for a million dollars, a pension, a bag of sweeties, a night with you're sister and a free holiday in Europe would I have been Coroner Barnes. What a superb effort he put in; he could see smell and almost touch the hidden problems. Top marks, I guess these folk ain't doing the job because they're any where near dopey.
He just couldn't beat the dichotomy created the two warring bodies, both trying so hard to 'cover' the more sensitive parts of their piers anatomies. (Wood from trees).
I reckon that a honest, independent inquiry could uncover 2 essential truths.
The most probable and ranking causes of the accident.
The reasons for the extraordinary lengths gone to by the protagonists to avoid, conceal and obfuscate these vital details and witnesses.
Kudos to Mr. Barnes ? Absolutely.
The approach design whilst interestin' is not where the story lays. The`ATSB survey and the CASA response was a much better read, but a sidebar to the headlines.
Steam off.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the discussion regarding GPS approach construction and the ground prox' functionality is most valid. To the 7th fleet conspiracy theorists I will say this.
Occam's razor
the maxim that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity.
(Why manufacture a complicated answer when the simple one is sufficient)
The unfortunate circumstances surrounding this accident are clear and available for all to read and learn from. I certainly have.
From the ATSB report
3.2.1 Contributing factors relating to occurrence events and individual actions
• The crew commenced the Lockhart River Runway 12 RNAV (GNSS)
approach, even though the crew were aware that the copilot did not have
the appropriate endorsement and had limited experience to conduct this
type of instrument approach.
• The descent speeds, approach speeds and rate of descent were greater than those specified for the aircraft in the Transair Operations Manual. The
speeds and rate of descent also exceeded those appropriate for establishing
a stabilised approach.
• During the approach, the aircraft descended below the segment minimum safe altitude for the aircraft’s position on the approach.
• The aircraft’s high rate of descent, and the descent below the segment
minimum safe altitude, were not detected and/or corrected by the crew
before the aircraft collided with terrain.
• The accident was almost certainly the result of controlled flight into
terrain.
To perpetuate this alternate "theory" is harmful and embarrassing.
Now, back to my Rogaine vending van.
Occam's razor
the maxim that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity.
(Why manufacture a complicated answer when the simple one is sufficient)
The unfortunate circumstances surrounding this accident are clear and available for all to read and learn from. I certainly have.
From the ATSB report
3.2.1 Contributing factors relating to occurrence events and individual actions
• The crew commenced the Lockhart River Runway 12 RNAV (GNSS)
approach, even though the crew were aware that the copilot did not have
the appropriate endorsement and had limited experience to conduct this
type of instrument approach.
• The descent speeds, approach speeds and rate of descent were greater than those specified for the aircraft in the Transair Operations Manual. The
speeds and rate of descent also exceeded those appropriate for establishing
a stabilised approach.
• During the approach, the aircraft descended below the segment minimum safe altitude for the aircraft’s position on the approach.
• The aircraft’s high rate of descent, and the descent below the segment
minimum safe altitude, were not detected and/or corrected by the crew
before the aircraft collided with terrain.
• The accident was almost certainly the result of controlled flight into
terrain.
To perpetuate this alternate "theory" is harmful and embarrassing.
Now, back to my Rogaine vending van.
Last edited by Iron Bar; 14th Apr 2012 at 08:12.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PP - The worst part is I work for a company that has a lot of the very same safety culture issues that Transair displayed. What does CASA do about it.
It's a tried and tested approach, why change a system that works – just fine. Just ignore the bodies folks nothing to see here, your jovial, robust authority will now check your WAC chart date.
Aye - “If the Lord the power would give us, to see ourselves as others see us.
No mention of the ICAO or FAA words were there, are we on?. Merde - Click.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point rmcdonal, maybe that was the problem with South Pap as it wasn't depicted as a spot height on the original LHR plate. It only had a contour of 1500', which I always thought meant it was not properly surveyed (alphacentauri can correct me if I'm wrong).
So in terms of the database for the GPWS South Pap wouldn't have been depicted, hence the occasional hard warning from the RADALT, ah the penny drops!
So in terms of the database for the GPWS South Pap wouldn't have been depicted, hence the occasional hard warning from the RADALT, ah the penny drops!
Jeppesen advise that not all spot heights are necessarily depicted on approach plates.
Wazza I was aware of that, maybe it had something to do with the fact that the approach was overlayed over the South Pap spot height.
However having checked the other LHR plates (amendment 15 JUN 07) prior to the RW 12 RNAV GNSS changing, at the end of 2009, the contour of 1500' was depicted for South Pap but not the spot height on all the LHR plates.
Once the new plates came out, all of a sudden, South Pap was depicted as a spot height of 1330' (from memory), hence I reasoned that maybe it had been properly surveyed in the interim!
Anyway Waza just food for thought, now back to the blokes with the blinkers on......Mick old mate, if back in your day when you were fanging around the corner on the ol' checkerboard in your Tristar....would CP have accepted that you just had a CFIT accident while turning onto final at Kai Tak?
No Swires (or whoever owned it back then) would want to know how a Rogue Cowboy Captain was allowed to escape all their fuzzy little systems. Do you think your HOFO would have said to the big bosses... " Old Mate Mick always thought he'd come to grief one day"....sheesh
However having checked the other LHR plates (amendment 15 JUN 07) prior to the RW 12 RNAV GNSS changing, at the end of 2009, the contour of 1500' was depicted for South Pap but not the spot height on all the LHR plates.
Once the new plates came out, all of a sudden, South Pap was depicted as a spot height of 1330' (from memory), hence I reasoned that maybe it had been properly surveyed in the interim!
Anyway Waza just food for thought, now back to the blokes with the blinkers on......Mick old mate, if back in your day when you were fanging around the corner on the ol' checkerboard in your Tristar....would CP have accepted that you just had a CFIT accident while turning onto final at Kai Tak?
No Swires (or whoever owned it back then) would want to know how a Rogue Cowboy Captain was allowed to escape all their fuzzy little systems. Do you think your HOFO would have said to the big bosses... " Old Mate Mick always thought he'd come to grief one day"....sheesh
