UPS cargo crash near Birmingham AL

[Ian W]

Retired F4

Quote:
I'm not critizing the crews at all, I'm critizing the "system" for not giving the crews the correct tools to do the job safely. I think we are on the same page, I'm just not expressing myself clearly.

Retired F4
"Now wait a second, are you now saying, that NPA approaches are unsafe?"

I don't think that is what was meant.

NPA approaches are 'safe' but an RNAV RNP AR approach to RNP 0.1 is safer that is why when flying them you have lower limits.

This is going to be a repeated argument. There were comments that the crash at SFO would not have happened if there had been a serviceable ILS or the crew had carried out an RNAV RNP APV and that perhaps visual approaches were less safe. These comments were immediately followed by the: "whaddya mean unsafe?!! - we do visual approaches from slam dunks all the time to that runway" comments.

So the question is a simple one. Why, with aircraft that are capable of flying RNP LPV approaches to RNP 0.1, are pilots and operators still using NPA that are less safe? Not only less safe by calculation but also, unfortunately, demonstrably less safe by accidents.

The argument that "I can do it so those {think of an epithet} other pilots should be able to as well or they should not be flying" does not impress the relatives of the dead SLF or people on the ground. Especially, when safer approach procedures are available.

NPAs, fully visual approaches, asymmetric and flapless landings etc etc., should all be practiced but perhaps they should be seen as what they are - less safe alternates to the approaches that the aircraft systems are capable of and only used in exception.

This highlights a change in operations from ground aid supported to GNSS and internal aid supported. It is no longer necessary to have an expensive FAA (or *AA) certified landing system for each runway, just approved RNAV RNP AR procedures. So small regional airports could have the same Cat III capability as hubs. This raises all the questions on deskilling pilots and therefore is seen as a threat and a safety risk in its own right.

Non-Precision Approaches are accepted as safe enough for normal operations, Nevertheless, it is unarguable that Non Precision Approaches are less safe than Precision Approaches with vertical guidance. The aircraft are capable of RNAV RNP LPV all that is needed is approved procedures.

This is not a technical question any more. Stand in front of an audience of family members of dead flight crew and SLF, and tell them why a less safe procedure was 'good enough'.

This is not an easy debate, but it should not be avoided.