None of the RNAV Visual, RNP AR or RNAV Overlay of the Canarsie approach (called RNAV X at EK) require any swapping of the secondary flight plan. They all have lateral guidance until the threshold. Maybe it was like that in the past, but I remember that the secondary flight plan swap was used on the original Canarsie approach because there was no lateral guidance to the threshold and therefore no vertical deviation indication.
But this shows again that EK is creating confusion about the approaches for 13L/R and that their procedures are based on full automation and use of FMS, instead of looking outside and flying the plane.
(If you want vertical deviation indication, just insert a waypoint on final and connect it with the threshold. But for some reason, EK wanted their pilots to be heads down and swap secondary flight plans at 800'.)
But I agree, too complicated for something that shouldn't be complicated. Just like many other procedures.
Best post so far, and better yet it gives a hint as to the real reasons the erosion of skills continues unabated.
The canasty isn’t a particularly difficult approach, even on a southerly day with a bit of blowing snow and murk about. It is an approach however that if you don’t fly it regularly, you require a bit of thought and reflection so that you’ve got a plan.
EK in their haste to try and create a plan or should I say “procedure” have attempted to remove the aviating bit out the process and replace it with a keystroke and a set of steps that were thought up in the sterile and utterly unrealistic environs of a simulator.
Assuming for a moment this crew managed to get themselves so far out of the slot that they binned it after some kind of EGPWS warning, I would be asking serious questions based purely on the initial incident.
No one is perfect, we all however have a responsibility to be prepared, in this case if the outcome is accurate, it would represent a significant loss of SA and worse in my view, an utter lack of any semblance of gross error check e.g. dist to fly v height etc.
The post I’ve copied above notes that part of the rationale along the way was to provide lateral and vertical guidance to the Rwy 13R/L, which is in my mind the real problem here, people are too scared to manoeuvre the aircraft appropriately when required...so would rather rely on the “safer” or easier option of letting the automation take care of it, which as time goes by continues the erosion of manual handling. It’s the company at fault here, but it’s also the crews who are at fault as well...at some point the buck does stop upfront, for me personally I’d rather do what was necessary and argue the point later..who cares what Fleet say, I place more faith in my experience and expertise than a partime pilot or an HR graduate with no flying experience.
I feel immense sympathy for the crew and what they will be facing, but I ask everyone from EK reading this, if you were PM or augmenting..at what point would you have said something? hint: I’d have first mentioned it when I was asked during the brief prior to the approach.