Jetstar A320 at Christchurch on Aug 6th 2019, descent below minimum safe height on approach
Last Update: May 2, 2019 / 15:29:42 GMT/Zulu time
Incident Facts
Date of incident
Aug 6, 2019
Classification
Report
Airline
Jetstar Airways
Flight number
JQ-291
Departure
Wellington, New Zealand
Destination
Christchurch, New Zealand
Aircraft Registration
VH-VGY
Aircraft Type
Airbus A320
ICAO Type Designator
A320
New Zealand's TAIC released their final report concluding the probable causes of the incident were:
- The aeroplane descended below a published minimum safe altitude for a segment of the arrival procedure, because the flight crew did not maintain adequate situational awareness of their aeroplane’s location in relation to the standard arrival route.
- The flight crew elected to use an ‘open descent’ procedure rather than the available, fully automated ‘managed descent’ mode, which required a higher level of human intervention to keep the aeroplane within permissible limits on the arrival route.
- The operator’s procedures did not encourage the appropriate use of the aeroplane’s automated navigation systems; this increased operational risk by placing more reliance on human performance.
- The air traffic controller observed the aeroplane’s descent below the minimum safe altitude, but did not follow the required procedures and alert the flight crew until the aeroplane had landed.
The TAIC analysed:
Minimum clearance and safe altitudes are set for a good reason: to provide a safety margin between aircraft and terrain or obstacles. When an aircraft breaches these limits, it is operating one step closer to a serious incident or accident. When an air traffic services safety system does not detect or respond to this type of breach, there is a risk of such events becoming normalised and undermining the safety of the system.
...
The captain had not flown domestically within New Zealand for several years, and was therefore less familiar with flying between Wellington and Christchurch than the first officer.
The first officer was more familiar with the route. It had also become common practice for the first officer to delay commencing the descent into Christchurch and to set the aeroplane’s navigation systems to open-descent mode before commencing the instrument approach. Using open-descent mode was not inconsistent with the operator’s standard operating procedures.
In open-descent mode the aeroplane was programmed to descend directly to the altitude set in the FCU (2,000 feet), ignoring the intermediate altitude restrictions contained in the standard arrival route. The first officer had used this descent profile previously at Christchurch and was confident of being able to maintain a steady descent to the commencement altitude for the instrument approach.
However, on this occasion the aeroplane descended below the intended profile and consequently below the 3,000-foot minimum altitude limit between GUKAM and GOMPI, and also below the 2,500-foot minimum safe altitude limit until past GOMPI. The 3,000-foot limit was a procedure limit, while the 2,500-foot minimum safe altitude limit provided separation from terrain along the GUKAM-to-GOMPI track.
With respect to ATC the TAIC analysed:
In this incident the controller observed an aeroplane that had descended below the next waypoint altitude limit of 3,000 feet and the route minimum safe altitude limit of 2,500 feet. There were no complicating circumstances in terms of traffic flow or density.
The Manual of Air Traffic Services sets out the procedures for responding to air traffic situations. The preface to the manual states that it is not practicable for the document to cater for all combinations of air traffic situations, and that controllers are to use their judgement. However, in a straightforward situation with no complicating circumstances, the controller has no reason to deviate from the standard procedure.
In this case the standard procedure was to inform the crew immediately and direct a climb, or at least to alert the aeroplane crew to the exceedance. The controller took neither of these actions. The controller and planner said they had observed the aeroplane level at 2,000 feet and, seeing that it was not descending further, the controller decided not to alert the crew for concern it might distract them at a critical phase of the flight.
Aircraft Registration Data
Incident Facts
Date of incident
Aug 6, 2019
Classification
Report
Airline
Jetstar Airways
Flight number
JQ-291
Departure
Wellington, New Zealand
Destination
Christchurch, New Zealand
Aircraft Registration
VH-VGY
Aircraft Type
Airbus A320
ICAO Type Designator
A320
This article is published under license from Avherald.com. © of text by Avherald.com.
Article source
You can read 2 more free articles without a subscription.
Subscribe now and continue reading without any limits!
Read unlimited articles and receive our daily update briefing. Gain better insights into what is happening in commercial aviation safety.
Send tip
Support AeroInside by sending a small tip amount.
Related articles
Fleet type match
Jetstar A320 over Tasman Sea on Oct 28th 2017, spitting engine
A Jetstar Airbus A320-200, registration VH-VGY performing flight JQ-202 from Auckland (New Zealand) to Sydney,NS (Australia), was enroute at FL340…
Fleet type match
Jetstar B788 at ;Melbourne and Coolangatta on May 7th 2022, lightning strikes
A Jetstar Boeing 787-8, registration VH-VKL performing flight JQ-444 from Melbourne,VI to Coolangatta,QL (Australia), departed Melbourne's runway 34,…
Fleet type match
Jetstar A320 at Ballina on Nov 28th 2020, near collision with private aircraft
A Jetstar Airbus A320-200, registration VH-VGP performing flight JQ-464 from Melbourne,VI to Ballina,NS (Australia) with 163 passengers and 7 crew,…
Fleet type match
Jetstar A320 at Sydney on Aug 1st 2019, landing gear trouble after departure
A Jetstar Airbus A320-200, registration VH-VFN performing flight JQ-420 from Sydney,NS to Coolangatta,QL (Australia), departed Sydney's runway 34L…
Fleet type match
Jetstar A320 at Brisbane on Oct 23rd 2020, rejected takeoff due to engine failure
A Jetstar Airbus A320-200, registration VH-VFF performing flight JQ-930 from Brisbane,QL to Cairns,QL (Australia), was accelerating for takeoff from…
Fleet type match
Jetstar A320 at Proserpine on Mar 5th 2020, damage to hydraulic line and landing gear
A Jetstar Airbus A320-200, registration VH-VFL performing flight JQ-840 from Sydney,NS to Proserpine,QL (Australia), departed from Sydney's runway…
Newest articles
Fleet type match
Allegiant A320 at Moline on Mar 17th 2023, bird strike
An Allegiant Air Airbus A320-200, registration N276NV performing flight G4-883 from Moline,IL to Punta Gorda,FL (USA) with 182 people on board, was…
Fleet type match
China Eastern B738 near Guangzhou on Mar 21st 2022, lost altitude and impacted terrain
A China Eastern Boeing 737-800, registration B-1791 performing flight MU-5735 from Kunming to Guangzhou (China) with 123 passengers and 9 crew on…
Subscribe today
Are you researching aviation incidents? Get access to AeroInside Insights, unlimited read access and receive the daily newsletter.
Pick your plan and subscribePartner
A new way to document and demonstrate airworthiness compliance and aircraft value. Find out more.
ELITE Simulation Solutions is a leading global provider of Flight Simulation Training Devices, IFR training software as well as flight controls and related services. Find out more.
AeroInside Blog
Popular aircraft
Airbus A320Boeing 737-800
Boeing 737-800 MAX
Popular airlines
American AirlinesUnited
Delta
Air Canada
Lufthansa
British Airways