Jetstar A320 flew below minimum safe altitude

Steve Creedy

By Steve Creedy Fri May 3, 2019

Jetstar has been chided for not encouraging its flight crews to use automated functions on the Airbus A320 after one of its planes descended below the 2500ft minimum safe altitude on approach to Christchurch. The aircraft was on a return leg from Wellington with 128 passengers and six crew on board in August, 2017, when it descended below the published minimum safe altitude for part of the arrival. The plane was required to stay above 3000ft until it reached a waypoint called by GOMPI but dipped low as 2000ft and breached the minimum safe altitude of 2500 ft. READ: Jetstar to start the first direct low-cost link between Australia and Korea The 3000ft limit was a procedural limit while the 2500ft restriction was designed to maintain separation from the terrain. New Zealand’s Transport Accident Investigation Commission found that the infringement happened because the flight crew did not maintain adequate situational awareness of the aircraft’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,’’ it said. “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 report also noted an air traffic controller noticed the plane had breached the minimum safe altitude but the pilots, who were unaware of the breach, were not told until after they landed. Jetstar issued a Flight Standing order that included a revised procedure for flight path monitoring and discussed topics such as pilot duties, monitoring and communication. “A key lesson arising from the inquiry is that properly used automated flight navigation systems will reduce the crew workload and result in safer flight operations,’’  TAIC said. “If crew choose not to use them, they must maintain a heightened level of alertness and work harder to achieve an equivalent level of situational awareness.”

Have questions or want to share your thoughts?

Comments

No comments yet, be the first to write one.

Latest news and reviews

View more
NTSB Final Report: causes of the midair collision at Reagan National Airport
Airline News

NTSB Final Report: causes of the midair collision at Reagan National Airport

Feb 19, 2026

Josh Wood
This Canadian airline flies 49-year-old aircraft: we tell you why
Airline News

This Canadian airline flies 49-year-old aircraft: we tell you why

Feb 19, 2026

Josh Wood
LATAM 777’s high-stakes rejected takeoff in São Paulo prompts an investigation
Airline News

LATAM 777’s high-stakes rejected takeoff in São Paulo prompts an investigation

Feb 18, 2026

Josh Wood
Why Emirates built its airline around two aircraft - and why that’s changing
Airline News

Why Emirates built its airline around two aircraft - and why that’s changing

Feb 13, 2026

Nicholas Ling

Featured articles

View more
NTSB Final Report: causes of the midair collision at Reagan National Airport
Airline News

NTSB Final Report: causes of the midair collision at Reagan National Airport

Feb 19, 2026

Josh Wood
This review proves that low cost carriers aren't always cheaper: AirAsia X vs Malaysia Airlines long haul
Airline News

This review proves that low cost carriers aren't always cheaper: AirAsia X vs Malaysia Airlines long haul

Feb 12, 2026

Airline Ratings
This Canadian airline flies 49-year-old aircraft: we tell you why
Airline News

This Canadian airline flies 49-year-old aircraft: we tell you why

Feb 19, 2026

Josh Wood
LATAM 777’s high-stakes rejected takeoff in São Paulo prompts an investigation
Airline News

LATAM 777’s high-stakes rejected takeoff in São Paulo prompts an investigation

Feb 18, 2026

Josh Wood