Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Niugini plane misses runway, lands in sea off Micronesia island

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by flashcrash View Post
    Assuming they were flying a monitored approach, then from my understanding, no it isn't. Heads down pilot should be monitoring instruments.

    https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Monitored_Approach
    There should not be a 100% heads down pilot after passing through minimums.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      I see that you are making the interpolation here between that fact and the fact that they grossly deviated from the glide slope to make it that the PF did "not monitor the instruments AT ALL". That extrapolation might be true or might not.
      I just don't see how a pilot watching the instruments could pull this one off. I think they lost visual with the runway and the PIC (PF) decided to fly it down thinking he was going to re-establish contact momentarily—excuse me, I should say bet that he would—and thus didn't want to take his eyes off the windscreen. He DID NOT ignore the EGWPS. He responded to it by willingly gambling against it (as the CVR shows).

      Another thing that I wondered, from a different angle, is what happened with the altitude call outs. I feel pretty confident that the "two hundred, one hundred, fifty, forty thirty..." would have been a huge wake up call.
      Inhibited by the higher-priority EGWPS warnings.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by orangehuggy View Post
        cool, so when the pm says "you're half a dot low" on finals he means you are high and need to descend faster? weird
        What I can tell from having watch several cockpit videos, if a pilot says "we are half dot low" the mean that the plane is below the glide slope. Pilot jargon and investigators jargon my differ, though.

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          Inhibited by the higher-priority EGWPS warnings.
          Then I am wondering if they should be higher priority. A one-time / one-second "one hundred" call can be a lot of help to improve the pilots SA and would not prevent a "glide slope" or "sink rate" call to be done immediately afterwards if the situation persists after the altitude call. On the other hand, if you missed the "one hundred" call due to a few "glide slope" calls. you are not going to defer the 100 call and issue it when you are at 60 ft. So it is a call that will never be done.

          Compare:
          Glide slope, glide slope, sink rate, glide slope, sink rate, sink rate, glide slope, glide slope, glide slope, glide slope
          Glide slope, Two Hundred, sink rate, glide slope, One Hundred, sink rate, glide slope, Fifty, glide slope, Forty, glide slope.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            Compare:
            Glide slope, glide slope, sink rate, glide slope, sink rate, sink rate, glide slope, glide slope, glide slope, glide slope
            Glide slope, Two Hundred, sink rate, glide slope, One Hundred, sink rate, glide slope, Fifty, glide slope, Forty, glide slope.
            In this case, you are right. Since the pilot was well aware that his sink rate was too high and that he was below glide slope, the warnings served no purpose, while he didn't seem to recognize how low he was (which is bewildering since the 100 annunciation did occur).

            Although there is no mention of it in the final report, perhaps the lack of (inhibited) height annunciations led him to believe he was not that low (despite the 100 annunciation and the sink rate.........) : p

            In most cases I would say the warnings should have priority over the standard annunciations. Who, other than a complete moron, would ignore those warnings? The EGWPS is telling you you are unstable at a height when being unstable means you ABSOLUTELY go around. But when you have a gambling man in charge of the cockpit, a pilot who will take risks because he is so confident in his superhuman airmanship (sound familiar), there is little sense in trying to overcome that: the passengers are technically dead already, so if they survive it is a stroke of luck. This problem has to be overcome before he ever gets off the ground.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by orangehuggy View Post
              Can someone comment if this is right? The report says they had a ...rapid glideslope deviation from half-dot low to 2-dots high... shouldn't that be from half-dot high to 2-dots low? Thanks!
              I also don't understand this:

              The PIC did not execute the missed approach at the MAP despite: PAPI showing 3 whites just before entering IMC

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                I also don't understand this:

                The PIC did not execute the missed approach at the MAP despite: PAPI showing 3 whites just before entering IMC
                The indication means slightly high, and the PFD deviation was indeed a half dot below center at that point, thus he increased his sink rate in an attempt to salvage the approach, and the deviation scale quickly rose beyond two dots above center.

                What don't you understand?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  What don't you understand?
                  The PIC did not execute the missed approach at the MAP despite the PAPI showing 3 whites just before entering IMC

                  I don't see the relationship between the 3 whites and whether the the missed approach was initiated or not.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    The PIC did not execute the missed approach at the MAP despite the PAPI showing 3 whites just before entering IMC

                    I don't see the relationship between the 3 whites and whether the the missed approach was initiated or not.
                    a) The approach was not stablized on the glideslope at the MAP.
                    b) impending IMC (loss of visual contact with the runway).

                    Why would you not execute the missed approach at that point? I don't understand what you don't understand....

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      a) The approach was not stablized on the glideslope at the MAP.
                      b) impending IMC (loss of visual contact with the runway).

                      Why would you not execute the missed approach at that point? I don't understand what you don't understand....
                      I see a lot of reasons to execute a missed approach at that point and any point thereafter. I just don't see 3 whites being one of them. 3 whites means that you are a little bit high, equivalent to more or less half dot in the glide slope, and is not a criteria to cal the approach not-stabilized. Also, think that the PAPI is not an analogical indication, it is digital. There is nothing between 2 whites (on slope) and 3 whites (a bit high). When flying 2 whites - 2 red, you don't know how close you are from 3 whites or 3 reds until you see them, so the minor correction (allowed and expected in the stabilized approach criteria) is expected to begin only AFTER seeing the 2 whites.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        I see a lot of reasons to execute a missed approach at that point and any point thereafter. I just don't see 3 whites being one of them. 3 whites means that you are a little bit high, equivalent to more or less half dot in the glide slope, and is not a criteria to cal the approach not-stabilized. Also, think that the PAPI is not an analogical indication, it is digital. There is nothing between 2 whites (on slope) and 3 whites (a bit high). When flying 2 whites - 2 red, you don't know how close you are from 3 whites or 3 reds until you see them, so the minor correction (allowed and expected in the stabilized approach criteria) is expected to begin only AFTER seeing the 2 whites.
                        So the report considers anything but two whites and two reds at the MAP to be a go-around but you don't. I don't know what the stabilized criteria is with regard to PAPI, but I like the idea of being STABILIZED at that point.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          So the report considers anything but two whites and two reds at the MAP to be a go-around but you don't. I don't know what the stabilized criteria is with regard to PAPI, but I like the idea of being STABILIZED at that point.
                          I am telling you what it is and what it is not. You don't need to believe me though. You used to be good at googling stuff.

                          Here you have 1 example:

                          An approach is stabilised when all of the following criteria are met:
                          1. The aircraft is on the correct flight path
                          2. Only small changes in heading/pitch are necessary to maintain the correct flight path
                          3. The airspeed is not more than VREF + 20kts indicated speed and not less than VREF
                          4. The aircraft is in the correct landing configuration
                          5. Sink rate is no greater than 1000 feet/minute; if an approach requires a sink rate greater than 1000 feet/minute a special briefing should be conducted
                          6. Power setting is appropriate for the aircraft configuration and is not below the minimum power for the approach as defined by the operating manual
                          7. All briefings and checklists have been conducted
                          8. Specific types of approach are stabilized if they also fulfil the following:
                            1. ILS approaches must be flown within one dot of the glide-slope and localizer
                            2. a Category II or III approach must be flown within the expanded localizer band
                            3. during a circling approach wings should be level on final when the aircraft reaches 300 feet above airport elevation; and,
                            4. Unique approach conditions or abnormal conditions requiring a deviation from the above elements of a stabilized approach require a special briefing.

                          An approach that becomes unstabilised below 1000 feet above airport elevation in IMC or 500 feet above airport elevation in VMC requires an immediate go-around.
                          https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Stabilised_Approach

                          If 3 red or 3 white at any point below 1000 or 500 ft was a criteria to call an approach not-stabilized, then about every approach would be required to be called not-stabilized, a go-around would need to be initiated, and the landing would only occur when the pilot declares fuel emergency and uses his PIC prerogative power to deviate from any regulation if he deems doing so is needed for safety reasons.

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            I am telling you what it is and what it is not. You don't need to believe me though. You used to be good at googling stuff.
                            Used to be...?

                            I think the thing to understand here is that the first P in PAPI is a bit fatuous. "Precision" is not exactly what you are getting here. I don't know precisely how much deviation you are getting from three whites, but If you ask BoeingBobby, he might tell you three whites on the 74 is on glideslope and two reds and two whites is a bit low and three reds is seriously low. What those lights are telling you is actually a type-specific thing. But it's a moot issue here because the crash is the result of the instability of the approach from that point onward, and the loss of visual contact. I'm not arguing with you on the definition of 'stable' and of course I understand the thing is not on rails and some minor deviation must be tolerated. But I think it is reasonable for the report to point out that, high on the PAPI and looking at potential IMC ahead in the windscreen, there is little excuse for continuing.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              2 red - 2 white means you are at most within 15' (=0.25 degrees) of the nominal glide slope. If you see at least 1 of each color you are at most within 35' (=0.58 degrees) of the glide slope.
                              Note that anything else than 15' gives you 3 lights of 1 color, meaning that you can see 3 white if you are barely more than 1/4 of a degree above the nominal glide slope.

                              HENCE the word precision.

                              BUT, more important than that, there is no pink light and no 2.5 whites. You go from 2 and 2 to 3 and 1. 3 and 1 is the FIRST indication that you get that you are not PERFECTLY on-slope.

                              Again, I agree that a go-around should have been initiated for more than one reason, reasons that range from common sense to classic airmanship to mandatory procedures and requirements.

                              My question since the beginning was just why having 3 whites is listed among the reasons. It is not. I do agree with the other reasons listed and then some.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                                ***My question since the beginning was just why having 3 whites is listed among the reasons.***
                                -It is linked to a cool, insider acronym.
                                -It is linked to a specific, black and white (excuse me, red and white) procedure (as opposed to the broad fundamental concept that your altitude management has gone to hell (below minimums) with 10+ indications that would work in numbers from 150 to 1011 and most points in-between.)

                                Concur that there's a few other things that should have caught folks attention first and that some sort of improper DUAL fixation on a visual illusion seems like a good guess as to the root cause.
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X