@Algol

If I understood your post correctly, the approach was initiated too early anyway, but sometimes the ATC asks you to do exactly that? Won't say 10nm, but perhaps at 7 or 8 nm ?

BOAC, Do you work in Asia? With a name like that I doubt it. In which case, you probably aren't familiar with the Asian attitude to 'advice' or even 'concerns' expressed by foreign devils. And even if they took heed of such concerns, the chances of them pursuing them with Naha, or even altering their own SOPs because of you - minimal to zero.
Much easier to hang blame on flight crews.

I don't understand your post.
The plate says 1'000ft at 8DME - MANDATORY.
What part of MANDATORY is not understood by you two?

No, thank the Lord.

If no-one will 'listen' then I suggest you just fly those extra 5 in landing config and then there will be no blame to hang, will there? Simples.

Now you get it.
And we are back to the original point - that this is not 'simples' or 'normal', and those who are rushing to judge that crew are ignoring the inherent traps in this stupidly designed procedure. It is plainly dumb and dangerous.

Oh, and by the way, Naha also has a requirement for departing aircraft to LEVEL OFF at 1'000ft on departure!
Can you imagine? A Heavy jet going from take-off thrust to level flight in about, what, 20 seconds? Altitude busts and flap over speeds are commonplace.
Loads of low level military traffic around too. Fast jets and choppers.
Watch out at this place.

Clowns,
 

It's not that I didn't believe Algol, but I didn't think any airport could ever have such ridiculous constraints. But it does! Only the ILS 36 makes sense. Having such a stupid (dangerous) set of low level altitude constraints means that this place has set a trap for crews operating into and out if this airfield. A miss-set altimeter would quickly generate brown underpants. I also reckon unstable approaches and altitude busts are a daily occurrence. In my opinion, at airports like this SOPs do not apply because they can only be applied at standard airports.

Well, just to set the record straight as I was the aircraft right behind him that day, we were both flying PAR approaches to RWY 18 - that's what he managed to screw up. And as far as the low altitude level off when you depart RWY 36, it's not a big deal, you simply use a low thrust setting (assumed, derate, etc.) and hand fly the aircraft if you aren't too trusting of the automatics.

@HornetDrvr

Thanks for correcting the record. So the PAR approach provides glidescope and coarse guidance -- basically an ILS, only with the controller giving you guidance instead of the NAV?

Do you receive on glidepath/above/below calls and instructions to descend at a specific VSI or provided step down fixes?

unworry :Well, it is a bit more complicated than that .
Radar Vectors and vertical guidance are given by the controller until DH ( or DA) then it is advisory info only below that,
But above DH the procedure says : So It would be interesting to hear the R/T on that one. Not on you tube yet ?

The phrase "intended flight path" isn't what you think it means. A better phrase might be, "a deviation from the commanded flight path".

In this case the captain "intended" to descend... (just from the wrong place). He commanded a 900 fpm descent by programming the AP and pulling the VS knob. The aircraft descended perfectly as commanded. There was never a deviation from the flight path the pilot set, so there was never a loss of control.

Had the aircraft impacted the terrain, we would have classified this as CFIT, not LOC-I.

Lots of holes in the swiss cheese on this incident, including the PF not verbalizing what he was doing, the PM being distracted by the continuous PAR instructions, and a trainee controller being complacent.

Final report link
 

Official report issued July 28 2016

http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/eng-air_report/JA802P.pdf

I've flown in here a few times , yes it's a gotcha if you aren't careful but a lot better with the RNAV on 18, 1000ft on restriction doesn't always apply but if it does, automation as early as possible and any gpws warnings are briefed.

What I didn't like was holding at 1000ft, very alarming for the passengers and cabin crew

Sitting "deaf , dumb and blind " to any dangers in the back, it was AWESOME flying into Naha in that Japan Asia Airways DC10-40 some years back. So long and so low to the water, you could almost reach out and shake hands with people in the boats. It was a highlight of my trip to Okinawa.


Question: Why not have the civilian flights stay high then drop down just in time while keeping the military jets low ? Would that be more dangerous for both?

Not a question of " more dangerous" but common sense , mil jets are faster on APP and drop altitude very fast , so keeping them above just make sense and easier to handle ATC wise.