Close sidebar

AirAsia X flight radar vectored to Melbourne after Sydney data entry error

written by australianaviation.com.au | September 7, 2016
The expected and actual flight path of AirAsia X Airbus A330-300 9M-XXM, as well as the standard instrument departure chart caution against turning left. (ATSB)
The expected and actual flight path of AirAsia X Airbus A330-300 9M-XXM, as well as the standard instrument departure chart caution against turning left. (ATSB)

Pilots of an AirAsia X Airbus A330-300 bound for Kuala Lumpur lost almost all navigational information shortly after takeoff from Sydney due to an incorrect entry into the aircraft’s flight management and guidance system, an Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigation has found.

The ATSB report on the March 10 2015 incident, published on Wednesday, said the captain of the AirAsia X flight wrongly entered the longitudinal position of the aircraft into the A330’s flight management and guidance system (FMGS), resulting in errors in the alignment and initialisation of the aircraft’s air data and inertial reference system.

That mistake led to the Airbus, 9M-XXM, turning left after takeoff from Sydney’s Runway 16R instead of right. As a result, the aircraft, carrying 212 passengers and 10 crew, crossed the departure flightpath of the adjacent parallel Runway 16L.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The ATSB report said the error was not spotted by the first officer when cross checking the flight management and guidance system entries. The report said the first officer had seen a “flag or indication flash up on the captain’s navigation display (ND), but that it was too quick to interpret” and he had not mentioned it to the captain because there was no “associated electronic centralised aircraft monitoring (ECAM) or STATUS message.

“It is likely that data integrity checks detailed in the pre-flight and taxi checklists were either omitted or conducted with the navigation display selected to an inappropriate mode and/or range that concealed the aircraft’s positional error,” the ATSB report said.

“The instrument panels cockpit check was not carried out in accordance with the flightcrew operations manual and resulted in the crew not detecting the offset error in the displayed heading.”

The pilots also ignored a “single chime” or alert shortly after pushback from the gate that was usually an indication that the aircraft systems had detected a fault.

PROMOTED CONTENT

“Both flightcrew stated that they did not look towards the overhead panel or MCDU and, as there was no associated ECAM or STATUS message, they continued with normal procedures,” the ATSB said.

There were two more chimes while waiting to takeoff. However, the ATSB said the pilots decided to continue with the line-up to takeoff after checking the STATUS page and ECAM and finding “no other abnormal indications”.

Further, the aircraft was not fitted with an upgraded flight management system that would have corrected such kinds of data entry errors.

Indications something was not right continued after takeoff, when the aircraft’s enhanced ground proximity system (EGPWS) activated with the aural alert “terrain, terrain”.

As it was a day flight and the pilots could visually determine no terrain conflict existed, the captain instructed the first officer, who was the pilot flying, to ignore the warning and continue with the normal takeoff.

“Flight data of the occurrence flight identified that the autopilot was engaged at an altitude of 410ft and that the aircraft then commenced a gradual left turn over 14 seconds onto a magnetic heading of 132 degrees, although 170 degrees was being incorrectly displayed on the aircraft’s main heading indicators,” the ATSB said.

The ATSB said air traffic control was forced to hold an aircraft in the line-up position for departure on Runway 16L.

“Effective monitoring and assistance provided by air traffic control reduced the risk to both the occurrence aircraft and other aircraft in the area,” the ATSB said.

Shortly afterwards, the captain told air traffic control they had lost their primary instruments, with all of the expected navigation waypoints and tracking information not showing.

During unsuccessful attempts to restore the aircraft’s flight guidance and navigation systems, two of the three air data and inertial reference unit (ADIRU) rotary switches on the overhead panel were switched from NAV to OFF, which in response saw “several flight guidance and navigation systems degraded and the autopilot disengaged”.

After considering their degraded flight systems, the flightcrew requested a return to Sydney with a visual approach. However, bad weather meant that was not possible. Instead, the aircraft diverted to Melbourne Tullamarine with the flightcrew receiving “continuous radar vectors from the aircraft’s current position to touchdown in Melbourne”.

The captain manually flew the aircraft to Tullamarine, with the autopilot and autothrust systems becoming unavailable during the earlier attempts to restore the system, and with the aircraft’s flight control system reverting to ‘alternate law’ from ‘normal law’.

The flightcrew was then forced to conduct a go-around after coming in too high and too fast for the first attempt to land at Tullamarine’s Runway 16.

AIRBUS A330 300 AIR ASIA X MEL NOV12 RF IMG_8043
File image of an AirAsia X A330 on approach to land at Melbourne. (Rob Finlayson)

The aircraft spent about three hours on the ground at Tullamarine, where its systems underwent “extensive troubleshooting” by ground engineering services.

“This included swapping around of the ADIRUs and powering down the entire FMGS to try and replicate the situation encountered by the flightcrew.” the report said.

“No faults were found.”

With the same pilots and cabin crew, the aircraft then departed safely for Kuala Lumpur.

“This occurrence highlights that even experienced flightcrew are not immune from data entry errors. However, carrying out procedures and incorporating equipment upgrades recommended by aircraft manufacturers will assist in preventing or detecting such errors,” the ATSB said.

“Additionally, the airborne management of this occurrence illustrates the importance of effective communication when dealing with an abnormal situation under high workload conditions. This is especially the case when there is limited guidance available to resolve the issue.”

The ATSB said Malaysia-based AirAsia X conducted an internal investigation following the incident and reviewed “the recovery procedures to be undertaken in the form of a flight safety notice”.

The low-cost carrier also developed a training bulletin and package for its flightcrews that “emphasised the correct operation and alignment of the air data and inertial reference system”.

AirAsia X said in a statement on Wednesday it had taken corrective actions immediately following the incident, including equipping all aircraft with the upgraded flight management systems.

Further, the low-cost carrier said it had passed the International Air Transport Association Operational Safety Audit and the safety of its passengers are crew was its “utmost priority at all times”.

“AirAsia X would like to stress that we have in place robust management systems to monitor and prevent similar incidents from reoccurring,” the airline said.

“We remain committed to ensuring our compliance to all safety and security regulations.”

It is not the first time AirAsia X has come under the scrutiny of the ATSB. The agency is also investigating a July incident where an AirAsia X A330 and Jetstar A320 flew too close to each other near Gold Coast Airport, while in February an A320 operated by affiliate Indonesia Air Asia flew too low on approach to landing at Perth Airport.

Steer your own in-flight experience – available on print and digital Whether our classic glossy magazine in your letterbox, daily news updates in your inbox, peeling back a few layers in the podcast or our monthly current affair reports, you can count on us to keep you up to date. Sign up today for just $99.95 for more exclusive offers here. Subscribe now at australianaviation.com.au.

11 Comments

  • Red Barron

    says:

    Mmmm AIR ASIA X again hey. I bet ATSB are keeping a keen eye on these guys at the moment.

  • Sam

    says:

    The regulator needs to grow some teeth and ban this mob from flying in Australian airspace

  • John

    says:

    How many times do they have to be reported its not just this time but 21 July 2016 loss of separation at Gold Coast. Then we should not leave out Scoot and the effort of flying below glide slope into Perth and heaven help Tiger with 2 minimum safe altitude breaches in 1 month.
    I guess all will be ok until we have one hit terrain hopefully not in a populated area but at some point it’s going to happen. The public will then want blood and I bet it will not be the cheap airlines that the pressure is put on but the ATSB.

  • Steve

    says:

    Why on earth was Tiger grounded for the same or far less serious incidents and yet Air Asia has not even had a slap on the wrist.

    Agreed the regulator needs to grow some balls

  • Paul

    says:

    Agree 100% Steve!

    The airmanship on display at Sydney, rivals that of the Asiana 777 Pilots? at SFO, for its total incompetence!

    But interestingly do not recall the US regulator limit or ban Asiana operations either?

    More a case of both Governments not wanting to upset Malaysia and S Korea me thinks!

  • Amit Singh

    says:

    AirAsia unfortunately has a poor corporate culture where Safety is just a requirement to be fulfilled for the Civil Aviation Authority. Total disregard of Safety and Safety Management Systems. They had 3 tails strikes on A-320 in 6 months. As per ICAO and DCA Malaysia, its a serious incident since there is substantial damage to aircraft. AirAsia carries out internal investigation and closes it, no need to involve DCA Malaysia which is supposed to Investigate.
    Tail strike on A-320 is rare, the last incident had a double tail strike on the same landing. How bizarre!!
    The maverick style percolates down to the employees.

  • Elliot

    says:

    Not just Asia X.

    Emirates writes off an aircraft in Dubai.

    And in 2009 they nearly lost another aircraft departing Melbourne, as it destroyed ground equipment during take-off.

    Or a similar incident at Johannesburg in 2004.

    And in 2012 an A380 engine explodes over Sydney.

    But then we mustn’t criticize a major ally of Qantas, must we?

  • walter

    says:

    Sadly humans only learn after the fact.
    The gate is always closed after the horse has bolted!
    We shall never learn, what price do we put on safety?

    Our regulator is in turmoil itself no one is steering the ship anymore!!

  • Chris

    says:

    You get what you pay for.

  • Grant

    says:

    That’s why my family and I only fly QANTAS, safety is always first!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • John Harrison

    says:

    The more I read and hear about Air Asia (and Air Asia X) the more I know I would never never fly on them.
    As other people have said, why isn’t the various Aviation Dept’s clamped down on these guys. Better to double check them now, rather than after they have serious accident. It just leave me wondering.

Leave a Comment to Chris Cancel

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

AirAsia X flight radar vectored to Melbourne after Sydney data entry error

written by australianaviation.com.au | September 7, 2016
The expected and actual flight path of AirAsia X Airbus A330-300 9M-XXM, as well as the standard instrument departure chart caution against turning left. (ATSB)
The expected and actual flight path of AirAsia X Airbus A330-300 9M-XXM, as well as the standard instrument departure chart caution against turning left. (ATSB)

Pilots of an AirAsia X Airbus A330-300 bound for Kuala Lumpur lost almost all navigational information shortly after takeoff from Sydney due to an incorrect entry into the aircraft’s flight management and guidance system, an Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigation has found.

The ATSB report on the March 10 2015 incident, published on Wednesday, said the captain of the AirAsia X flight wrongly entered the longitudinal position of the aircraft into the A330’s flight management and guidance system (FMGS), resulting in errors in the alignment and initialisation of the aircraft’s air data and inertial reference system.

That mistake led to the Airbus, 9M-XXM, turning left after takeoff from Sydney’s Runway 16R instead of right. As a result, the aircraft, carrying 212 passengers and 10 crew, crossed the departure flightpath of the adjacent parallel Runway 16L.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The ATSB report said the error was not spotted by the first officer when cross checking the flight management and guidance system entries. The report said the first officer had seen a “flag or indication flash up on the captain’s navigation display (ND), but that it was too quick to interpret” and he had not mentioned it to the captain because there was no “associated electronic centralised aircraft monitoring (ECAM) or STATUS message.

“It is likely that data integrity checks detailed in the pre-flight and taxi checklists were either omitted or conducted with the navigation display selected to an inappropriate mode and/or range that concealed the aircraft’s positional error,” the ATSB report said.

“The instrument panels cockpit check was not carried out in accordance with the flightcrew operations manual and resulted in the crew not detecting the offset error in the displayed heading.”

The pilots also ignored a “single chime” or alert shortly after pushback from the gate that was usually an indication that the aircraft systems had detected a fault.

PROMOTED CONTENT

“Both flightcrew stated that they did not look towards the overhead panel or MCDU and, as there was no associated ECAM or STATUS message, they continued with normal procedures,” the ATSB said.

There were two more chimes while waiting to takeoff. However, the ATSB said the pilots decided to continue with the line-up to takeoff after checking the STATUS page and ECAM and finding “no other abnormal indications”.

Further, the aircraft was not fitted with an upgraded flight management system that would have corrected such kinds of data entry errors.

Indications something was not right continued after takeoff, when the aircraft’s enhanced ground proximity system (EGPWS) activated with the aural alert “terrain, terrain”.

As it was a day flight and the pilots could visually determine no terrain conflict existed, the captain instructed the first officer, who was the pilot flying, to ignore the warning and continue with the normal takeoff.

“Flight data of the occurrence flight identified that the autopilot was engaged at an altitude of 410ft and that the aircraft then commenced a gradual left turn over 14 seconds onto a magnetic heading of 132 degrees, although 170 degrees was being incorrectly displayed on the aircraft’s main heading indicators,” the ATSB said.

The ATSB said air traffic control was forced to hold an aircraft in the line-up position for departure on Runway 16L.

“Effective monitoring and assistance provided by air traffic control reduced the risk to both the occurrence aircraft and other aircraft in the area,” the ATSB said.

Shortly afterwards, the captain told air traffic control they had lost their primary instruments, with all of the expected navigation waypoints and tracking information not showing.

During unsuccessful attempts to restore the aircraft’s flight guidance and navigation systems, two of the three air data and inertial reference unit (ADIRU) rotary switches on the overhead panel were switched from NAV to OFF, which in response saw “several flight guidance and navigation systems degraded and the autopilot disengaged”.

After considering their degraded flight systems, the flightcrew requested a return to Sydney with a visual approach. However, bad weather meant that was not possible. Instead, the aircraft diverted to Melbourne Tullamarine with the flightcrew receiving “continuous radar vectors from the aircraft’s current position to touchdown in Melbourne”.

The captain manually flew the aircraft to Tullamarine, with the autopilot and autothrust systems becoming unavailable during the earlier attempts to restore the system, and with the aircraft’s flight control system reverting to ‘alternate law’ from ‘normal law’.

The flightcrew was then forced to conduct a go-around after coming in too high and too fast for the first attempt to land at Tullamarine’s Runway 16.

AIRBUS A330 300 AIR ASIA X MEL NOV12 RF IMG_8043
File image of an AirAsia X A330 on approach to land at Melbourne. (Rob Finlayson)

The aircraft spent about three hours on the ground at Tullamarine, where its systems underwent “extensive troubleshooting” by ground engineering services.

“This included swapping around of the ADIRUs and powering down the entire FMGS to try and replicate the situation encountered by the flightcrew.” the report said.

“No faults were found.”

With the same pilots and cabin crew, the aircraft then departed safely for Kuala Lumpur.

“This occurrence highlights that even experienced flightcrew are not immune from data entry errors. However, carrying out procedures and incorporating equipment upgrades recommended by aircraft manufacturers will assist in preventing or detecting such errors,” the ATSB said.

“Additionally, the airborne management of this occurrence illustrates the importance of effective communication when dealing with an abnormal situation under high workload conditions. This is especially the case when there is limited guidance available to resolve the issue.”

The ATSB said Malaysia-based AirAsia X conducted an internal investigation following the incident and reviewed “the recovery procedures to be undertaken in the form of a flight safety notice”.

The low-cost carrier also developed a training bulletin and package for its flightcrews that “emphasised the correct operation and alignment of the air data and inertial reference system”.

AirAsia X said in a statement on Wednesday it had taken corrective actions immediately following the incident, including equipping all aircraft with the upgraded flight management systems.

Further, the low-cost carrier said it had passed the International Air Transport Association Operational Safety Audit and the safety of its passengers are crew was its “utmost priority at all times”.

“AirAsia X would like to stress that we have in place robust management systems to monitor and prevent similar incidents from reoccurring,” the airline said.

“We remain committed to ensuring our compliance to all safety and security regulations.”

It is not the first time AirAsia X has come under the scrutiny of the ATSB. The agency is also investigating a July incident where an AirAsia X A330 and Jetstar A320 flew too close to each other near Gold Coast Airport, while in February an A320 operated by affiliate Indonesia Air Asia flew too low on approach to landing at Perth Airport.

Steer your own in-flight experience – available on print and digital Whether our classic glossy magazine in your letterbox, daily news updates in your inbox, peeling back a few layers in the podcast or our monthly current affair reports, you can count on us to keep you up to date. Sign up today for just $99.95 for more exclusive offers here. Subscribe now at australianaviation.com.au.

11 Comments

  • Red Barron

    says:

    Mmmm AIR ASIA X again hey. I bet ATSB are keeping a keen eye on these guys at the moment.

  • Sam

    says:

    The regulator needs to grow some teeth and ban this mob from flying in Australian airspace

  • John

    says:

    How many times do they have to be reported its not just this time but 21 July 2016 loss of separation at Gold Coast. Then we should not leave out Scoot and the effort of flying below glide slope into Perth and heaven help Tiger with 2 minimum safe altitude breaches in 1 month.
    I guess all will be ok until we have one hit terrain hopefully not in a populated area but at some point it’s going to happen. The public will then want blood and I bet it will not be the cheap airlines that the pressure is put on but the ATSB.

  • Steve

    says:

    Why on earth was Tiger grounded for the same or far less serious incidents and yet Air Asia has not even had a slap on the wrist.

    Agreed the regulator needs to grow some balls

  • Paul

    says:

    Agree 100% Steve!

    The airmanship on display at Sydney, rivals that of the Asiana 777 Pilots? at SFO, for its total incompetence!

    But interestingly do not recall the US regulator limit or ban Asiana operations either?

    More a case of both Governments not wanting to upset Malaysia and S Korea me thinks!

  • Amit Singh

    says:

    AirAsia unfortunately has a poor corporate culture where Safety is just a requirement to be fulfilled for the Civil Aviation Authority. Total disregard of Safety and Safety Management Systems. They had 3 tails strikes on A-320 in 6 months. As per ICAO and DCA Malaysia, its a serious incident since there is substantial damage to aircraft. AirAsia carries out internal investigation and closes it, no need to involve DCA Malaysia which is supposed to Investigate.
    Tail strike on A-320 is rare, the last incident had a double tail strike on the same landing. How bizarre!!
    The maverick style percolates down to the employees.

  • Elliot

    says:

    Not just Asia X.

    Emirates writes off an aircraft in Dubai.

    And in 2009 they nearly lost another aircraft departing Melbourne, as it destroyed ground equipment during take-off.

    Or a similar incident at Johannesburg in 2004.

    And in 2012 an A380 engine explodes over Sydney.

    But then we mustn’t criticize a major ally of Qantas, must we?

  • walter

    says:

    Sadly humans only learn after the fact.
    The gate is always closed after the horse has bolted!
    We shall never learn, what price do we put on safety?

    Our regulator is in turmoil itself no one is steering the ship anymore!!

  • Chris

    says:

    You get what you pay for.

  • Grant

    says:

    That’s why my family and I only fly QANTAS, safety is always first!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • John Harrison

    says:

    The more I read and hear about Air Asia (and Air Asia X) the more I know I would never never fly on them.
    As other people have said, why isn’t the various Aviation Dept’s clamped down on these guys. Better to double check them now, rather than after they have serious accident. It just leave me wondering.

Leave a Comment to Chris Cancel

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

AirAsia X flight radar vectored to Melbourne after Sydney data entry error

written by australianaviation.com.au | September 7, 2016
The expected and actual flight path of AirAsia X Airbus A330-300 9M-XXM, as well as the standard instrument departure chart caution against turning left. (ATSB)
The expected and actual flight path of AirAsia X Airbus A330-300 9M-XXM, as well as the standard instrument departure chart caution against turning left. (ATSB)

Pilots of an AirAsia X Airbus A330-300 bound for Kuala Lumpur lost almost all navigational information shortly after takeoff from Sydney due to an incorrect entry into the aircraft’s flight management and guidance system, an Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigation has found.

The ATSB report on the March 10 2015 incident, published on Wednesday, said the captain of the AirAsia X flight wrongly entered the longitudinal position of the aircraft into the A330’s flight management and guidance system (FMGS), resulting in errors in the alignment and initialisation of the aircraft’s air data and inertial reference system.

That mistake led to the Airbus, 9M-XXM, turning left after takeoff from Sydney’s Runway 16R instead of right. As a result, the aircraft, carrying 212 passengers and 10 crew, crossed the departure flightpath of the adjacent parallel Runway 16L.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The ATSB report said the error was not spotted by the first officer when cross checking the flight management and guidance system entries. The report said the first officer had seen a “flag or indication flash up on the captain’s navigation display (ND), but that it was too quick to interpret” and he had not mentioned it to the captain because there was no “associated electronic centralised aircraft monitoring (ECAM) or STATUS message.

“It is likely that data integrity checks detailed in the pre-flight and taxi checklists were either omitted or conducted with the navigation display selected to an inappropriate mode and/or range that concealed the aircraft’s positional error,” the ATSB report said.

“The instrument panels cockpit check was not carried out in accordance with the flightcrew operations manual and resulted in the crew not detecting the offset error in the displayed heading.”

The pilots also ignored a “single chime” or alert shortly after pushback from the gate that was usually an indication that the aircraft systems had detected a fault.

PROMOTED CONTENT

“Both flightcrew stated that they did not look towards the overhead panel or MCDU and, as there was no associated ECAM or STATUS message, they continued with normal procedures,” the ATSB said.

There were two more chimes while waiting to takeoff. However, the ATSB said the pilots decided to continue with the line-up to takeoff after checking the STATUS page and ECAM and finding “no other abnormal indications”.

Further, the aircraft was not fitted with an upgraded flight management system that would have corrected such kinds of data entry errors.

Indications something was not right continued after takeoff, when the aircraft’s enhanced ground proximity system (EGPWS) activated with the aural alert “terrain, terrain”.

As it was a day flight and the pilots could visually determine no terrain conflict existed, the captain instructed the first officer, who was the pilot flying, to ignore the warning and continue with the normal takeoff.

“Flight data of the occurrence flight identified that the autopilot was engaged at an altitude of 410ft and that the aircraft then commenced a gradual left turn over 14 seconds onto a magnetic heading of 132 degrees, although 170 degrees was being incorrectly displayed on the aircraft’s main heading indicators,” the ATSB said.

The ATSB said air traffic control was forced to hold an aircraft in the line-up position for departure on Runway 16L.

“Effective monitoring and assistance provided by air traffic control reduced the risk to both the occurrence aircraft and other aircraft in the area,” the ATSB said.

Shortly afterwards, the captain told air traffic control they had lost their primary instruments, with all of the expected navigation waypoints and tracking information not showing.

During unsuccessful attempts to restore the aircraft’s flight guidance and navigation systems, two of the three air data and inertial reference unit (ADIRU) rotary switches on the overhead panel were switched from NAV to OFF, which in response saw “several flight guidance and navigation systems degraded and the autopilot disengaged”.

After considering their degraded flight systems, the flightcrew requested a return to Sydney with a visual approach. However, bad weather meant that was not possible. Instead, the aircraft diverted to Melbourne Tullamarine with the flightcrew receiving “continuous radar vectors from the aircraft’s current position to touchdown in Melbourne”.

The captain manually flew the aircraft to Tullamarine, with the autopilot and autothrust systems becoming unavailable during the earlier attempts to restore the system, and with the aircraft’s flight control system reverting to ‘alternate law’ from ‘normal law’.

The flightcrew was then forced to conduct a go-around after coming in too high and too fast for the first attempt to land at Tullamarine’s Runway 16.

AIRBUS A330 300 AIR ASIA X MEL NOV12 RF IMG_8043
File image of an AirAsia X A330 on approach to land at Melbourne. (Rob Finlayson)

The aircraft spent about three hours on the ground at Tullamarine, where its systems underwent “extensive troubleshooting” by ground engineering services.

“This included swapping around of the ADIRUs and powering down the entire FMGS to try and replicate the situation encountered by the flightcrew.” the report said.

“No faults were found.”

With the same pilots and cabin crew, the aircraft then departed safely for Kuala Lumpur.

“This occurrence highlights that even experienced flightcrew are not immune from data entry errors. However, carrying out procedures and incorporating equipment upgrades recommended by aircraft manufacturers will assist in preventing or detecting such errors,” the ATSB said.

“Additionally, the airborne management of this occurrence illustrates the importance of effective communication when dealing with an abnormal situation under high workload conditions. This is especially the case when there is limited guidance available to resolve the issue.”

The ATSB said Malaysia-based AirAsia X conducted an internal investigation following the incident and reviewed “the recovery procedures to be undertaken in the form of a flight safety notice”.

The low-cost carrier also developed a training bulletin and package for its flightcrews that “emphasised the correct operation and alignment of the air data and inertial reference system”.

AirAsia X said in a statement on Wednesday it had taken corrective actions immediately following the incident, including equipping all aircraft with the upgraded flight management systems.

Further, the low-cost carrier said it had passed the International Air Transport Association Operational Safety Audit and the safety of its passengers are crew was its “utmost priority at all times”.

“AirAsia X would like to stress that we have in place robust management systems to monitor and prevent similar incidents from reoccurring,” the airline said.

“We remain committed to ensuring our compliance to all safety and security regulations.”

It is not the first time AirAsia X has come under the scrutiny of the ATSB. The agency is also investigating a July incident where an AirAsia X A330 and Jetstar A320 flew too close to each other near Gold Coast Airport, while in February an A320 operated by affiliate Indonesia Air Asia flew too low on approach to landing at Perth Airport.

Steer your own in-flight experience – available on print and digital Whether our classic glossy magazine in your letterbox, daily news updates in your inbox, peeling back a few layers in the podcast or our monthly current affair reports, you can count on us to keep you up to date. Sign up today for just $99.95 for more exclusive offers here. Subscribe now at australianaviation.com.au.

11 Comments

  • Red Barron

    says:

    Mmmm AIR ASIA X again hey. I bet ATSB are keeping a keen eye on these guys at the moment.

  • Sam

    says:

    The regulator needs to grow some teeth and ban this mob from flying in Australian airspace

  • John

    says:

    How many times do they have to be reported its not just this time but 21 July 2016 loss of separation at Gold Coast. Then we should not leave out Scoot and the effort of flying below glide slope into Perth and heaven help Tiger with 2 minimum safe altitude breaches in 1 month.
    I guess all will be ok until we have one hit terrain hopefully not in a populated area but at some point it’s going to happen. The public will then want blood and I bet it will not be the cheap airlines that the pressure is put on but the ATSB.

  • Steve

    says:

    Why on earth was Tiger grounded for the same or far less serious incidents and yet Air Asia has not even had a slap on the wrist.

    Agreed the regulator needs to grow some balls

  • Paul

    says:

    Agree 100% Steve!

    The airmanship on display at Sydney, rivals that of the Asiana 777 Pilots? at SFO, for its total incompetence!

    But interestingly do not recall the US regulator limit or ban Asiana operations either?

    More a case of both Governments not wanting to upset Malaysia and S Korea me thinks!

  • Amit Singh

    says:

    AirAsia unfortunately has a poor corporate culture where Safety is just a requirement to be fulfilled for the Civil Aviation Authority. Total disregard of Safety and Safety Management Systems. They had 3 tails strikes on A-320 in 6 months. As per ICAO and DCA Malaysia, its a serious incident since there is substantial damage to aircraft. AirAsia carries out internal investigation and closes it, no need to involve DCA Malaysia which is supposed to Investigate.
    Tail strike on A-320 is rare, the last incident had a double tail strike on the same landing. How bizarre!!
    The maverick style percolates down to the employees.

  • Elliot

    says:

    Not just Asia X.

    Emirates writes off an aircraft in Dubai.

    And in 2009 they nearly lost another aircraft departing Melbourne, as it destroyed ground equipment during take-off.

    Or a similar incident at Johannesburg in 2004.

    And in 2012 an A380 engine explodes over Sydney.

    But then we mustn’t criticize a major ally of Qantas, must we?

  • walter

    says:

    Sadly humans only learn after the fact.
    The gate is always closed after the horse has bolted!
    We shall never learn, what price do we put on safety?

    Our regulator is in turmoil itself no one is steering the ship anymore!!

  • Chris

    says:

    You get what you pay for.

  • Grant

    says:

    That’s why my family and I only fly QANTAS, safety is always first!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • John Harrison

    says:

    The more I read and hear about Air Asia (and Air Asia X) the more I know I would never never fly on them.
    As other people have said, why isn’t the various Aviation Dept’s clamped down on these guys. Better to double check them now, rather than after they have serious accident. It just leave me wondering.

Leave a Comment to Chris Cancel

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Each day, our subscribers are more informed with the right information.

SIGN UP to the Australian Aviation magazine for high-quality news and features for just $99.95 per year