Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 99

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

  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orangehuggy View Post
    Things happen quick after ap disconnect
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCKMFjvAV0o

    Esp. if you're looking for the inop PAPI

  2. #22
    Member orangehuggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    406

    Default

    they saw 3 whites before entering clouds didn't they?
    moving quickly in air

  3. #23
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vaztr View Post
    Esp. if you're looking for the inop PAPI
    The PAPI was operational. The PIC calls out "one red... three whites". During the investigation they both insisted it had been three reds, one white.

    This one is still a real head-scratcher. For one thing, they had precision guidance, which was clearly showing a rapid drop drop below glideslope. For another the EGWPS is calling out SINK RATE repeatedly. The final report lists 'loss of situational awareness' and states that the crew did not respond to EGWPS warnings, but I don't see that. The PIC (pilot flying, 20K hours), DOES respond to the EGWPS warnings, saying "I just want to get on profile" [???] and "That's alright, I'll just go a little more." It seems to me that the PIC flew it intentionally down low. My guess is low-visibility with full attention directed out the windows and an intent to dive and drive, with a disregard for monitoring instruments (the PIC instructs the FO to monitor the airspeed for him, and the FO says "got it", but never warns him after that).

    The cause of this crash was the failure to go around when the approach was unstable at minimums. Everything after that is academic. But is it acceptable for the pilot-flying to hand off primary instrument-monitoring entirely to the pilot monitoring?

  4. #24
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by orangehuggy View Post
    they saw 3 whites before entering clouds didn't they?
    At that point they were 1/2 dot above the glide slope so 1 red 3 whites is a reasonable picture.

    Of course, with 1500 fpm down, that 1/2 dot didn't last much.

    This looks like continued VFR into IMC. More or less as Evan said, but with a caveat:

    There is a known visual illusion when the visibility is poor. The visible horizon is much closer than the real horizon and hence it looks like that the nose is pointing higher than it is and that you are higher tan you are. So not necessarily an intentional dive and drive as Evan suggested.

    --- 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 ---

  5. #25
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    There is a known visual illusion when the visibility is poor. The visible horizon is much closer than the real horizon and hence it looks like that the nose is pointing higher than it is and that you are higher tan you are.
    Hence the instruments. I see your point that it might not have been intentional dive and drive, but I just can't imagine being an airline pilot and simply placing all your faith out the window at that point (or not going around for that matter, so I guess the point is moot).

    But can you answer my question: is it ever acceptable for a pilot flying in IMC to not monitor the instruments AT ALL, i.e. to hand that off to the pilot monitoring? This is the first CVR I've ever heard where the PF tells the PNF to watch the speed.

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    But is it acceptable for the pilot-flying to hand off primary instrument-monitoring entirely to the pilot monitoring?
    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

  7. #27
    Member orangehuggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    406

    Default

    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!
    moving quickly in air

  8. #28
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote 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!
    The guidance diamonds show the location of the glideslope and localizer relative to your current trajectory, so when you are below glideslope the diamond will be displayed 'high' on the scale.

  9. #29
    Member orangehuggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    406

    Default

    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
    moving quickly in air

  10. #30
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    But can you answer my question: is it ever acceptable for a pilot flying in IMC to not monitor the instruments AT ALL, i.e. to hand that off to the pilot monitoring? This is the first CVR I've ever heard where the PF tells the PNF to watch the speed.
    It is never acceptable for the PIC not to monitor the instruments at all, no matter if VMC or IMC. The Primary Flight Display is called Primary Flight for a reason, the pilot FLYING should use the PRIMARY FLIGHT display. And you know what that little dot is.

    That said... the pilot MONITORING should MONITOR the instruments. The PF asked the PM to monitor the airspeed. 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.

    However, say that the PF was 100% looking out of the window and did not look at the instruments at all.... there would still be dark zones in the tale. Was he visual with the runway? Why didn't he follow the PAPI then? Wasn't he visual with the runway? Why didn't he go around then? (losing visual contact with the runway environment when below the MDA or DH is a big call to go around).Why did they (both) ignore the many GPWS warnings of glide slope and sink rate? (the video shows even a "pull up" one but I could not hear it in the sound).

    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.

    --- 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 ---

  11. #31
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote 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 ---

  12. #32
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote 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.

  13. #33
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote 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 ---

  14. #34
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote 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 ---

  15. #35
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote 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.

  16. #36
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote 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 ---

  17. #37
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote 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?

  18. #38
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote 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 ---

  19. #39
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote 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....

  20. #40
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote 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 ---

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •