Originally posted by flashcrash
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Air Niugini plane misses runway, lands in sea off Micronesia island
Collapse
X
-
--- 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 ---
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostI 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by orangehuggy View Postcool, so when the pm says "you're half a dot low" on finals he means you are high and need to descend faster? weird
--- 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
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostInhibited by the higher-priority EGWPS warnings.
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
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostCompare:
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.
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
-
Originally posted by orangehuggy View PostCan 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 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
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostI 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
What don't you understand?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostWhat don't you understand?
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
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostThe 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Evan View Posta) 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....
--- 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
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostI 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostSo 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.
Here you have 1 example:
An approach is stabilised when all of the following criteria are met:
- The aircraft is on the correct flight path
- Only small changes in heading/pitch are necessary to maintain the correct flight path
- The airspeed is not more than VREF + 20kts indicated speed and not less than VREF
- The aircraft is in the correct landing configuration
- 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
- Power setting is appropriate for the aircraft configuration and is not below the minimum power for the approach as defined by the operating manual
- All briefings and checklists have been conducted
- Specific types of approach are stabilized if they also fulfil the following:
- ILS approaches must be flown within one dot of the glide-slope and localizer
- a Category II or III approach must be flown within the expanded localizer band
- during a circling approach wings should be level on final when the aircraft reaches 300 feet above airport elevation; and,
- 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.An approach is considered to be stabilised if a set of criteria is met which includes appropriate position, speed and configuration.
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
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostI 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.
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
-
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
-
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 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
Comment