Airblue down near Islamabad

[RingwaySam]

BBC News reporting a passenger aircraft down in Pakistan, 150 people believed to be onboard.

[ajamieson]

Seems to be Air Blue, according to AP.

This earlier take
0633 28JUL10
ISLAMABAD (AP) Police say a passenger plane has crashed into the hills in Pakistan's capital.

It was unclear how many people were on board.

Officials at first thought it was a small plane. But police official Mohammed Saeed said later Wednesday morning that "it seems that it is a bigger tragedy" and that the aircraft was a passenger plan and may be larger than previously thought.

The accident occurred in the Margalla Hills in Islamabad on a rainy morning. Rescue workers were heading to the scene, but the roads were difficult.

[TiiberiusKirk]

From BBC

"Reports are coming in that a plane has crashed in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad.
Initial information suggests it was flying from Turkey to Islamabad via Karachi with an estimated 150 people on board.
Pakistani television is showing images of smoke arising from a hillside in poor weather conditions.
A huge rescue effort has been launched. Details are still emerging."

Edit: Now reported as a Domestic Flight, crashed in a difficult to access area.

[deSitter]

It's apparently Karachi to Islamabad.

-drl

[RingwaySam]

Looking at the arrivals it looks like it is the Karachi flight despite reports saying the flight was inbound from Turkey.

ABQ-202 (http://www.islamabadairport.com.pk/FSArrivalDomesticFormatted.asp) KHI-ISB Karachi Wednesday 09:30 Wednesday 09:30 Call 114

[dick badcock]

According to airblue's flight status page (http://www.airblue.com/Sched/view-status.asp) Flight 202 left Karachi and is still showing 'On time' for arrival in ISB.

[SOPS]

BBC showing vision of fire in heavily wooded area. Reporting 152 on board.

[skyken]

oprn 280600z 05016kt 4000 Ra Few01st0 Sct030 Ovc100 Few030tcu 25/24 Q1006.8
oprn 280500z 09018kt 3500 Ra Sct010 Sct030 Ovc100 Few030 25/24 Q1006.9
oprn 280400z 05016kt 3500 Sct010 Sct030 Bkn100 Few030tcu 29/24 1006.7

[deSitter]

Yes, the weather is cloudy and rainy but not particularly low visibility - looks like he may have failed to clear a ridge line. The burn pattern is consistent with that.

[green granite]

link.
BBC News - Passenger plane crashes in hills near Pakistan capital (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10785019)

[Load Toad]

The burn pattern is consistent with that.

Oh - can you explain that - I'm not au fait with burn patterns.

[deSitter]

The crash site is apparently along one of the ridges to the NW of the airport. There is a typical-looking uphill fan of burned woods such as one finds in a CFIT into hilly terrain. Of course I am just thinking out loud, but given that it is monsoon season, CFIT is not an unreasonable speculation.

[Mike_Kilo_Sierra]

Reports on TV suggests there are survivors. 40 or so as of now.

MKS

[Lemain]

The crash site is apparently along one of the ridges to the NW of the airport. There is a typical-looking uphill fan of burned woods such as one finds in a CFIT into hilly terrain. Of course I am just thinking out loud, but given that it is monsoon season, CFIT is not an unreasonable speculation.

It wouldn't be the first thing that comes to my mind. For a start, we don't seem to yet have any official report on communications from the a/c. Bound to be pilot error, tho', I suppose. Always is :sad:

[Noxegon]

Apparently an A321.

[deSitter]

CNN reports 10 found alive. The site is indeed in the Margalla Hills Park N of the city. The TV from Pakistan says 5.

-drl

[Iron Eagle]

Hope there are some survivors, but it seems none, reports start saying the rescue services start recovering dead bodies.

story said the pilot being instructed by the tower to go around and to divert to Lahore which it should be pilot decision and instead of following standard missed approach procedure RWY30 "LEFT turn away from hills" the pilot executed RIGHT turn as if he is following SID to the south east.

[DaveReidUK]

Looking at the arrivals it looks like it is the Karachi flight despite reports saying the flight was inbound from Turkey.

AirBlue fly Manchester-Islamabad with a fuel stop in Trabzon (allegedly the world's longest A321 route), maybe that's where the confusion has crept in.

How that fits in with a KHI-ISB flight I don't know, although I see that the downed Airbus is now being reported as one of their A321s.

[PBY]

Looks like there were some witnesses.
List of passengers in plane crash in Islamabad released (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-07/28/c_13419110.htm)

[deSitter]

Ugh that would be ugly, if they pranged it into a hill while reconfiguring after a go-around. I can't imagine a domestic pilot in Pakistan not knowing about these formidable parallel ridges near the airport. The hills look to be about 10-12 miles from the AP.

-drl

[Madbob]

Ought not an enhanced GPWS prevent such accidents? Surely the crew must have had warning of the terrain ahead and not unaware of the rising ground ahead.

[heavenbound]

Was it a Pakistani pilot?
Maintenance of the aircraft history?
Any accident history?
Why has Pak defence ministry been told to look into the accident?

[SV_741_India_Bravo]

Captain was ex-PIA 747 skipper - just retired recently - so experienced no doubt about it. F/O was likely ex-airforce (dont quote me on that)

Airblue has been facing financial difficulties in the past - the status of their order of 14 new A320s is 'unknown'. Brand new A320 been parked at Tolouse for over a year, not delivered yet. And they have (or had) a total of 3 A321s, AP-BJA, BJB, BRJ plus 2 A319s. Down to 4 aircraft now sadly...........


edit - the ill fated aircraft was AP-BJB; ex D-ARFA, D-ALAN

[etrang]

Eye witness accounts from the link above;
Two zoo keepers nearby the crash site sold Xinhua that they saw the plane taking very low flight brushing the trees on the ground and the pilots were trying desperately to take the nose up but failed.

The presence of survivors also suggests a lower energy crash.

[doubleu-anker]

Unfortunately, human error will never be eliminated, regardless of the level of experience.

The more experience we arrive at, the greater the awareness that this is so.

[BUSHJEPPY]

it seems that the flight originated from Manchester with fuel stop in Trabzon, via Karachi, then Islamabad with two missed approaches and then diversion to Lahore. Crew fatigue might played a role?

[FBW390]

I suppose fatigue played a major role in that crash. The same crew was coming from MAN with a stop in Trabzon; so arriving in ISB they were exhausted; not a good start for an IMC approach, with terrain around: so:
- fatigue
- IMC / rain showers
- high ground

all well known causal / circumstantial factors for a CFIT.

FBW390

[bsieker]

edit - the ill fated aircraft was AP-BJB; ex D-ARFA, D-ALAN

Airbus has the details on their "crisis page" (http://www.airbus.com/crisis/index.html):

Registration AP-BJB, msn 1218, IAE V2533.

Originally delivered in 2000, leased to airblue in 2006, 34,000 hours, 13,500 flights.

That's all so far.


Bernd

[johannschmith]

I imagine that the same crew didn't operate all the way from Manchester? I doubt that this would be possible - even in Pakistan or any part of Asia. Or could it be?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Further to speculation by earlier posters, it is unlikely that this flight originated in Manchester.

Last night's ABQ221 is reported to have left MAN at 22:28, operated by AP-BJA. If this information is confirmed, then AP-BJB was NOT operating the Manchester - Trabzon - Islamabad scheduled service.

[fromSIN]

Wikipedia site: Airblue Flight 202 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airblue_Flight_202)

[denlopviper]

on the Manchester - Trabzon - Islamabad route, airblue does a fuel stop plus a crew change at Trabzon. they have no shortage of crew infact the fleet is overcrewed.

the flights was ED202 from KHI to ISB. those hills are about 7NM north of the field

there are suggestions that he was doing a circle to land for 12 and by the looks of it they lost the field while breaking off to th right from the ILS. the impact point and height is in line with this. impact height is around 3000 feet (field elevation 1668) and crash site is 35 to 40 degree off runway 30. the hills are appx 7nm from the field

did my training out there, its not challenging as some might suggest.

sad day for aviation in Pakistan :(

[FBW390]

Circle to land? OK. Then if you loose visual contact with the ground: go-around is mandatory!!
As well: I suppose this A321 was equipped with GPWS: then before reaching the hills the crew has a "" terrain-terrain pull up " warning: go-around is mandatory!!
Has a GA been initiated? too late? Not agressive enough?

FBW 390

[FBW390]

On GPWS warning it is a memory item and not a GA :
AP off Side stick full aft TOGA pwr simultaneously
Spd brakes check retracted Wings:level

Generally the GPWS warning will be early enough to clear the obstacles /hills with this procedure which is a memory item, and of course mandatory.

FBW 390

[denlopviper]

@ FBW390
thats what im wondering as well.

also the terrain elevation is increasing as you go north of the field so they should have gotten the warning just over half way to the hills.

[deSitter]

I don't understand how, rain or no, an experienced pilot can take a plane into a restricted flight area, and then directly into terrain, during broad daylight! Is this another FMC TOGA issue? And why cannot this plane clear a short, if undoubtedly steep ridge line?? Hard times for Airbus.

[superspotter]

If you dont understand Desitter, then maybe you should wait until the facts come out rather than castigating Airbus :ugh:

[FBW390]

deSitter: it has nothing to do with Airbus!!! IF the pilots don' t respond to a GPWS worning then it flies in the mountain; would it be A or B or else!
IF the GPWS is inop then be even more cautious to high ground! A or B ...
And FMC ( called FMGC in Airbus ) has nothing to do with TOGA pwr. If you put the throttles full fwd they are in the TOGA detent and TOGA pwr is applied. It works.

FBW390

[FBW390]

deSitter:
experienced pilots aren' t obviously excellent. Most are good or excellent,
I' ve seen some very bad. FO or Capt. As well some young FOs are excellent and will detect the aircraft, would it be Airbus or Boeing, should not be flying there in daylight IMC. And yes, the A321 is a powerful aircraft which will clear a hill. If the pilot orders it.
Experience alone is not everything. Initial training and recurrent training is very important. Could be very good, inexistant or a joke. Depends where you fly or have flown. But does not depend on A or B!

FBW390

[Boldsoul]

Media reports suggests that Pilot was asked to go around and He was in process of going around. Two flights landed before in front of him and the Run was Busy and that was the reason for go around. According to DG CAA {Civil Aviation Authority}

According to BBC reports one of the witness who saw this plane earlier wondered why this plane is flying Low and why Here ? He according to BBC, was not aware that this was the route Passenger Plane usually take when they come to ISB. So there are some questions that Investigators should look. Unconfirmed reports : One of the Black Box has been recovered.

[wileydog3]

where can one find the approach charts for Islamabad?

[aa73]

not an Airbus driver but, during a circle to land fully configured for landing, wouldn't the GPWS be inhibited in most functions?

[Boldsoul]

Its not the answer you are looking for but it may help to understand some of the technicalities !

ISLAMABAD (http://www.eais.com.pk/airport%20data%20files/OPRN.htm)

[PPRNkof]

Enhanced GPWS incorporates TCF which means it's active in landing configuration.

[SV_741_India_Bravo]

2 flights did not land infront of him. they were both diverted to LHE.

[Bobman84]

First fatal A321 hull loss but 2nd in total.

[Meekal]

I have lived in Islamabad for 25 years. This circling to land on 12 was always very dicey in my view. The procedure is you fly the ILS to 30 then break-off and turn right and then fly the arc downwind to land on 12.

Obviously he drifted beyond the arc. As a previous 747 skipper he should know Islamabad very well.

You are probably wondering why not break off to the left, away from the Margalla hills. Well to the left is a military airbase (Dhamial) and the Headquarters of the Army (GHQ) and that is all restricted airspace.

Pakistan has never published an air accident report in 62 years. I don't think that is going to change in this case. Pity. No lessons will be learnt from the facts of this tragedy and the public will be fed on rumors and speculation until this accident fades from the front pages and is forgotten.

I wonder whether someone here more resourceful than I can get the approach plates for OPRN. I had them but lost them. The plates will have the procedure.

[SV_741_India_Bravo]

Latest reports show 1 blackbox has been found.

ATC tapes being described as telling the pilots that they had gone out of the circling radius, pilots replied back with rwy in sight.

[Ireland105]

heard on the news here that the captain retired from PIA 7 years ago - they were deducing from that that he would therefore be 67 (retire from PIA at 60). They even mentioned that he therefore "may" have been tired - purely based on his age. This was a Pakistani journalist. Just reporting what I heard here.

[newjourno]

A google search finds this, from 2003

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/bluemax-1/Plates/OPRN-9.jpg

[aterpster]

http://tinyurl.com/3aj8som

[Neptunus Rex]

The circle to land on RW 12 puzzles me. If the winds quoted in a previous post are correct, the tailwind component on RW 30 should have been no more than 6 knots. With over 10,000 feet of runway, that is well within normal limits for an A 321.

[aterpster]

The topography in Jeppview is a bit coarse, but nonetheless useful to a limited extent.

If someone were doing a left circuit circle to Runway 12 off one of the 30 IAPs, the terrain threat appears to be about 7 n.m. west, northwest of the airport.

[cyclops16]

Bushjeppy,

I don't think the flight originated at MAN. My SBS history shows that the last flight from MAN for this aircraft was.

ABQ221 on the 23/7/10 at 22.05L



Regards,

Mark

[LowFareFinder]

Well they weren't following the procedure in that plate, since they crashed a few miles to the north west of the lake detailed on the top of the plate west of the high ground at 2090' and north of the high ground 2208'

The map on the bbc site:

BBC News - No survivors as Pakistan plane crash kills 152 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-10784971)

[FBW390]

In a circle to land you are only protected up to 4,2 NM; 7 NM would be much too far...No protection there...

[BOAC]

As FBW says, one heck of a 'circle to land' - 7 miles away at 1300' ATE - surely something else going on?.

Is there no R12 approach other than circling? VOR appears to be lined up, and 090/18 would certainly be O.O.Limits for R30.

[auh_to_auh]

I think "denlopviper and Meekal" have got it right.

Have personally witnessed another major Pakistani carrier do the said circling approach after breaking off the ILS 30. Not a problem if done correctly and within the rules. I don't have the minima handy but from memory around 1000' and 5km vis required for the circling approach. In the case I witnessed vis was reported below minima yet the a/c was allowed to continue on the circling approach. I watched the a/c disappear into the sandstorm only to appear some 5 or so minutes later on final approach. The crew that day definitely did not maintain visual contact with the threshold or it's surrounds as required.

If this is proven to be the case the crew will be crucified, I hope the procedures and ATC there are looked at closely as this is an ongoing illegal procedure which is done with the blessing of the controllers.

AUH

[FBW390]

aa73: on downwind in a circle to land on A32F you are Gear Down and Flaps 3 so not flaps Full; not fully configured for landing. So GPWS is still active ( mode 4 ) and you would have an audio " too low flaps " or " too low terrain " ( depending on IAS and height ) + GPWS light.

Or better: you will have directly GPWS mode 2: excessive terrain closure rate.
'' Terrain Terrain Pull up "

In both cases in IMC: " Pull up - TOGA " Escape!!! Immediately!

And if equipped with EGPWS the caution then warning would have probably come even before.

FBW390

[wileydog3]

The ILS for 30 shows the MDA to circle at 2410' and 2510' if 180kts or higher. Also, the chart has a note to contact Cherat Approach if comm failure occurs. Is comm failure such an oft-repeated event on 124.9 that it warrants a note on the chart?

[aterpster]

If the BBC map is correct, according to Goggle Earth it is exactly 7 n.m. from the AER (approach end runway) of Runway 12 to the crash site.

[denlopviper]

2510 feet circle to land altitude and 3600m visibilty for a Cat D ...for Cat C is 2410 feet and 2400m vis.

think they were inside the minima's

ATC is very professional in islamabad

[deSitter]

I don't think the BBC map is accurate - the site is within a few yards of the first ridge line in the mountain park. Add a couple of miles.

-drl

[auh_to_auh]

Denlopviper,

Thanks obviously minima was not the problem here, however the situation I described earlier did happen and minima were broken in that case.

AUH

[deSitter]

My question as an outsider - how in the world did this airplane not climb over this relatively small ridge? He must have been light on fuel so a rapid climb is within the capability of the airplane - the weather was cloudy and rainy but by no means was the ridge completely obscured - the local visibility was excellent shortly after the crash, and we can assume that no fog banks were suddenly erased between the time of the news coverage and the incident. Is there some aspect of the FMC that inhibits rapid climb? One witness inside the park said the plane was "unbalanced", by which one may possibly infer that the plane was near stalling while attempting to climb over the ridge (he ALMOST made it :( )

-drl

[wileydog3]

desitter said One witness inside the park said the plane was "unbalanced", by which one may possibly infer that the plane was near stalling while attempting to climb over the ridge

A response to a GPWS in the 'bus is full aft stick and thrust levers to the wall. The 'bus does not stall but with full aft stick it goes to max AoA. This would not be a go-around but an escape maneuver.

[ironbutt57]

Been to OPRN many times, but not recently, is there now an approach to rwy-12??

[Tom355uk]

Is there some aspect of the FMC that inhibits rapid climb?


Absolutely not, if you push the thrust levers to the TOGA detent as required.

In fact, an A320 series aircraft will climb faster & safer than an equivalent 737 in such a situation. The Alpha Protection mode will ensure that the maximum climb rate can be achieved without stalling or overloading the airframe.

This is how Airbus manages such impressive aerial displays and demonstration climb rates at airshows.

[FBW390]

However the aircraft shouldn' t have been that far from the runway.
Nothing prevents an aircraft to climb in this situation, either AP ON or OFF.
At this stage, end of downwind, you must be AP OFF. And if you see the rwy that doesn' t mean the hills aren' t covered by clouds , ie invisible, hidden. Even if the weather is clear 10 mns later...

[flyawaybird]

All 146 pax and 6 crew members on board ED 202 dead. Imtiaz Elahi, the Chairman of the Capital Development Authority which deals with emergencies and reports to the Interior Ministry was quoted saying, "It is a tragedy and I confirm it with pain, there are no survivors".:sad:

[Meekal]

If he was flying the ILS to 30, he was way off-course. Islamabad has SSR and they do a very good job vectoring you. ATC would have warned him. Maybe he ignored them. That's what you are inclined to do if you have 30,000 hours.

Spatial disorientation, loss of situational awareness, complacency, over-confidence? Take your pick. The first two have become chillingly commonplace recently.

I would also imagine that if he was flying the DME arc to 12 that he was flying manually and we have heard a lot about loss of flying skills because of the over-reliance on automation. Maybe he stalled her.

Too bad we have no tradition of disclosure of air accidents. The ATC tapes, the DFDR and CVR will be quickly sealed and the public fed BS and left to speculate. We will never know. No lessons learnt so we are doomed to repeat them.

'A doctor buries his mistake. A pilot is buried with his.'

[Meekal]

Sorry, I forgot. You cannot stall the Bus, right? Alpha Floor protection and all that stuff.

Did the captain retire from PIA 7 years ago? The retirement age was 60 but was recently pushed up to 62 by the CAA of Pakistan. I imagine he was rather long in the tooth.

[GarageYears]

deSitter:
My question as an outsider - how in the world did this airplane not climb over this relatively small ridge? He must have been light on fuel so a rapid climb is within the capability of the airplane..... Is there some aspect of the FMC that inhibits rapid climb?

OK, so this is about the third post where you have tried to infer some aspect of the 'FMC' (sic) is to blame related to this crash. I assume you have never, ever been near any FBW Airbus right? At least nowhere near the pointed end, except perhaps to get on/off. Stop making unfounded accusations. There is nothing whatsoever that implies any aspect of the aircraft's intrinsic performance were to blame here. I'm all for considered opinion and even the odd educated WAG here and there, but this is simply unfounded.

To answer your first question: "how in the world did this airplane not climb over this relatively small ridge" - if you point the plane at it, it will go there....

'nuff said

- GY :bored:

[BOAC]

Meekal - you have me confused - have you read the thread? What is this about 'not following the ILS route to R30' and where does DME12 arc come from?

[Ptimat31]

Well you may stall if some systems are not functionning.

[SV_741_India_Bravo]

Also being reported that F/O (confirmed ex airforce) had just joined Airblue. Just completed training and been released on line - this was his second flight. Any affect the crew pairing of a highly experienced Capt with a new F/O might have had?

[FBW390]

Yes, the FO wouldn' t challenge the experienced Captain; as well he would be a bit " young " in commercial flights to fully assess the danger of the situation.

FBW390

[siduk]

Under odd conditions or variation in flight, the chances are very much in which poor situational awareness may develop and reaction time may be limited to come out safely.

[newjourno]

A local media station in Islamabad reportedly has a transcript/recording of a conversation between ATC and the flight deck. I haven't seen it, but it's been told to me as "turn left - you're flying towards the Margalla" -- "I can see them".

I'm not vouching for its accuracy, just passing it on.

[aterpster]

CAT D PANS-OPS Circle-to-Land area:

http://tinyurl.com/2d564b9

[Machaca]

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/202-01.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/202-04.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/202-03.jpg


http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n385/motidog/202-02.jpg

[Lemain]

Yes, the FO wouldn' t challenge the experienced Captain; as well he would be a bit " young " in commercial flights to fully assess the danger of the situation.

That's a bit of an assumption. Depends on the FO, how precocious and his relationship with the Captain -- and his training, of course. 'tis FO's training to 'challenge'.

I really think that there might be more to this than meets the eye. This is a modern a/c flown by seemingly experienced crew.

We know that the a/c has an excellent safety record
We have no (obvious) reason to doubt the ability of Captain and FO
We know (at the time of my writing) little about the instructions from ATC
While this forum is all about speculation and so on, I can't see how anyone at this stage can do more than share local knowledge, a/c knowledge and maybe aircrew knowledge.

But accidents do happen -- to the best of us.

[Meekal]

Are you sure you are quoting me, Sir?

I did not know the DME arc is 12 miles but you may be right. I still don't know if he was approaching 30 or circling for 12. The charts we have here are all for 30. I was hoping someone could find the circling approach to 12. I know there is the back-course (back-beam?) to 12.

I am sure he got a terrain warning -- maybe right after ATC warned him. He apparently said he had the field in sight. He should have been looking at the Margall hills on his right! But we know what happens. Your first reaction to the EGPWS is disbelief (so it must be a false warning); then you wait another five second almost frozen; then you execute an insufficiently aggressive GA and don't clear the ridge-line.

[Meekal]

Sorry. I did not say. My post was addressed to BOAC.

[Lemain]

I am sure he got a terrain warning

Sure? Certain? Would you stake your life on that statement? Equipment failure does happen -- or might be swamped by a whole raft of other information and detail.

Could be that the Captain had a stroke or a heart attack -- Think Staines. Far too early to be sure, yet.

[GlueBall]

"We have no (obvious) reason to doubt the ability of Captain and FO"

But yes we do! . . . because the aeroplane would not steer itself off course and into the side of a hill. :ooh:

[wileydog3]

Mekal wrote Maybe he ignored them. That's what you are inclined to do if you have 30,000 hours

Really? I think we disagree. Most of the high time guys I know are not inclined to ignore things.

I am sure he got a terrain warning -- maybe right after ATC warned him. He apparently said he had the field in sight. He should have been looking at the Margall hills on his right! But we know what happens. Your first reaction to the EGPWS is disbelief (so it must be a false warning); then you wait another five second almost frozen; then you execute an insufficiently aggressive GA and don't clear the ridge-line.

You sure KNOW a lot. Are you in Islamabad?

[BOAC]

Are you sure you are quoting me, Sir?- yes, if your username is MeekalIf he was flying the ILS to 30, he was way off-course.
................................

I would also imagine that if he was flying the DME arc to 12

[Meekal]

Wileydog,

I lived in Islamabad for 27 years and know that field and the procedures like the back of my hand and know the geography too. Flew in and out about three hundred times in all kinds of weather, encountered a couple of GA's, aquaplaning, heavy turbulence, bad visibility. wind-shear...the works. I know the Margalla hills too. Nice trekking up there and later some nice restaurants as well. So, no, I am not there right now but I keep checking the local Pakistani English newspapers -- like some others are doing. There is such a lot of ill-informed non-sense being spoken and written and tomorrow every idiot and clown including bureaucrats from the CAA of Pakistan will be on the TV -- including actual pilots from PIA and AB, speculating and pontificating. One of them just chipped in and announced grandly that it was "fatigue". Well, it may have been fatigue Sir but why did a 30,000 pilot fly it into the hill? I have already submitted an article which will be published on Friday in the Express Tribune/International Herald Tribune.

[PopeSweetJesus]

The eyewitness reports so far include the usual gamut of opinions about aircraft attitude and altitude. What stands out to me is that no one seems to have said anything about how much noise the plane was making which you often hear in eyewitness reports. Hard to believe the engines were anywhere near TOGA without eyewitnesses noticing what would certainly be an extremely loud noise even for those used to low flying planes overhead. Does anyone know if Airblue's aircraft are equipped with EGPWS? If so, is there any reason other than MEL (current database issue?) for it to be turned off going into Islamabad? It seems like they may have had little or no warning from inside the a/c and from what we know of the ATC stuff so far it doesn't sound like there were any EGPWS Cautions or Warnings audible during the crews transmissions granting of course that we don't know if those transmissions were 60s or less from impact. Also there is the question of did they notice their rad alts and/or get any automated callouts based off of them?

[FBW390]

I confirm: for the FO: if you are at your second flight after your line check on an A320/321 you are not experienced on the type, mostly for a circle to land with rain/ clouds and high ground around. Mostly if it is your first position in scheduled, IFR flights. And the A32F are nice aircraft but complex and unless you have 500 hrs you will be a bit behind.
And as said before, crashing the plane is maybe not 100% the crew' s fault but it' s not a very good proof of flying skills. We are normally paid to bring the aircraft safely on ground, even with multiple failures...

fbw390

[auh_to_auh]

As more info is released CFIT looks to be the most probable cause.

As for ignoring or not reacting to a GPWS warning lets look at FlyingTiger Line 66

AUH

[Meekal]

BOAC,

Sir, if he was flying the ILS to 30, as the chart posted here shows he is nowhere near the hills. Coming in from the direction over-head Lahore (that is the standard J-route from Karachi), he would be vectored to the ILS long before the hills in front of him. He would turn sharply LEFT to capture the LOC and away from the high ground which would then be on his right. So how did he hit them?

If he was doing a back-course to 12, he would be nowhere near the hills either. They would be well to his left.

So, since he did hit the hills, he must have been executing the circle-to-land DME arc for 12. I have done that at least 20 times from the front and the back of the bus.

It is not unsafe per-se but you need to stay alert because you need to approach on 30 and then break away and fly parallel downwind to the Margalla hills and swing around for a back-course landing on 12. No margin for error though.

I hope I am a little more lucid this time. But there is always room for improvement!

[worldpilot]

30,000 hours of flight time. That is really a lot of flight time. But then, the question, does the number of hours make someone a better pilot, wehn it comes to situational awareness? I doubt it though. If yes, then, what is the statistical error behind that?

It actually takes only common sense to realize that the weather isn't favourable to land an aircraft? So, why are we still trying to land in such unfavourable circumstances?

WP

[Meekal]

Green Guard, I did not mean any disrespect to anyone here.

Please accept my situation. I am 7,200 miles from the site of the accident. I get up at 5 am as I usually do and get on the inter-net to read the morning papers and I am stunned and filled with fear. Any friend, colleague, classmate, relative, acquaintance of mine?

So if I am being a little cynical about pundits or hyper-ventilating I hope you will forgive me.

[wileydog3]

Greenguard, I just found it a bit odd in summarizing how 30,000 pilots ignore instruction and then fail to execute procedures properly. My error.

[newjourno]

An eyewitness who was apparently a commercial pilot told a colleague the engines sounded as though they plane was heading in to land, and the landing gear was deployed. That was when the aircraft was overhead Islamabad.

[aterpster]

Meekal:
So, since he did hit the hills, he must have been executing the circle-to-land DME arc for 12. I have done that at least 20 times from the front and the back of the bus.

My source for Jeppesen charts doesn't show any approaches or circle-to-land track procedure to Runway 12. Perhaps the official country source has Runway 12 procedures but perhaps in that case Jeppesen doesn't chart them because of source issues.

[BOAC]

OK, Meekal -,that's a little clearer, but if you read the thread from #1 you will see that the suggestion is that the a/c broke right OFF the R30 ILS to circle for 12. No-one except for you has mentioned any 'procedure' for R12 - I have asked. It might help if you post any chart you have? But even so I cannot see how you can have a 'circle-to-land' based on a DME arc since it is a visual manoeuvre?

[Meekal]

Aterpster,

I know for sure the procedure existed. I have flown it myself and experienced it from the back with some trepidation because I was never quite comfortable with it. I asked a couple of pilot-friends/former classmates of mine now working for RAM, Qatar, Emirates and so on and they (obviously) recall the procedure too although some said they never had the opportunity to use it.

If there is no published procedure, then the mystery deepens. What was he doing pointing towards the Margalla hills?

The ILS 30 approach is pretty straightforward as all of you pilots can see from the chart. There is high ground around but no big deal. The back-course to 12 is straightforward too.

I know I had the charts somewhere. I should be more careful with memorabilia of days long past except I yielded to my wife nagging me to "clean up this awful mess". Don't we all?

[aterpster]

A 12 DME ARC predicated on the VOR would be beyond the apparent crash site.

[auh_to_auh]

BOAC,
I agree, a circle to land is as you say the visual segment after breaking off a instrument approach. You will never find a circle to land chart, the minima will be posted on the bottom of the approach you are flying unless circle to land is not allowed off that approach then no circling minima will be published..

What Meekal may be referring to is possibly a vor or ndb approach which starts off by flying the arc to the FAF.

[aterpster]

Meekal:

So, since he did hit the hills, he must have been executing the circle-to-land DME arc for 12. I have done that at least 20 times from the front and the back of the bus.

Back course approaches have a way of getting cancelled as localizer performance degrades over time (absent aggressive maintenance/replacements). As to the 12 DME ARC that would seem to arc west of the crash site.

[RoyHudd]

If the crew lost visual contact with the runway, they should have initiated an immediate climb to a level above MSA. Why this was not done is a mystery. But many variables may have contributed, which means speculation without information is a waste of time.

And there appears to be confusion between R/W 12 and a 12DME Arc procedure in this thread. That is in itself evidence of a lack of expert knowledge.

[aterpster]

RoyHudd:
And there appears to be confusion between R/W 12 and a 12DME Arc procedure in this thread. That is in itself evidence of a lack of expert knowledge.

I don't see where anyone in this thread has exercised, or tried to exercise, expert knowledge, other than perhaps my drawing up the present PANS-OPS circle-to-land criteria. That is factual.

As to whether a DME ARC or BC 12 procedure (or both) existed in the past could be a correct or incorrect recollection. I don't see how that is an assertion of expert knowledge.

[STC-8]

Judging by the photos it looks like they nearly managed to clear the ridge line. Sad!

[Meekal]

Folks (which includes any women here)

Let us not get carried away with this 30,000 hour and I-can-do-no-wrong because of all my hours thing.

I knew this pilot, Capt Siraj, very senior in PIA with probably around the same amount of air-time, flew with him many times, no non-pertinent chatter at any time, leave alone below 10,000, and he was considered to be rock-solid. He flew the same ILS to 30 we are talking about into Islamabad (or are we?) in a 747-200 in and out of early morning Islamabad mist (so ATC could not see him) and made one of his trade-mark feather-light touch-downs -- (yes, I know it is preferable to fly it on with a sink of about -300fpm rather than go into an extended flare and try for the greaser which takes up a lot of real estate) except that he forgot to put his gear down.

Slid down the runway, kept it on the center-line and everyone was fine.

Passengers said it was a "normal landing".

Boeing put jacks under her and fixed her and she flew on for many years until she was scrapped.

I still remember the last letter on her tail. "Whiskey".

That intrigued many non-alcoholic drinking Pakistani's (mind you, there are many others who are NOT non-alcoholic, especially in PIA!), who were convinced that the registration was jinxed.

As someone said, if you have 30,000 hours (which I am guessing since Capt. Pervez Choudhry in command of the Airblue A321 had retired from PIA some years ago and must have had a life-time of flying in PIA), it does not mean you are a good or a great pilot but only that you "survived". A pretty sobering thought (if you will forgive the pun).

Indeed, looking at the recent spate of air accidents are you folks not struck by the high-time the captain has? I was reading the ditching of the Tunisian ATR-72 recently. He had 5,000 hours in command on-type and he ran out of fuel!

The ex-pat at Maglore had, I think, around 10,000 hours. The captain on the Afriquah A330 was pretty high-time too.

Many years ago, on the inaugural PIA flight to Cairo, the senior-most PIA pilot of the time, No. 1, Capt. A. A. Khan under-shot the runway and killed all the dignitaries except for five passengers.

So what does this all mean for flight safety?

I would welcome your views.

When you see your captain with deep facial lines (even if botox is the new option), gray/white hair and maybe walking with a limp (like John Wayne in "Fate is the Hunter"), should you feel you are in safe hands as opposed to some jock with a jaunty walk and arrogance and a crocked smile about him?

[BOAC]

I sussed the confusion a while back - Meekal means DME arc for R12, not 12D. From the sound of it it could be a 'home-brew' procedure.

auh - agreed - I was not asking for a 'circle-to-land' chart, but ANY charts for R12. I just cannot understand why there appears to be no VOR procedure on R12 with the beacon apparently perfectly positioned.

[auh_to_auh]

Ok gentleman lets put this one to rest. For all that are thinking some sort of instrument approach on Rwy 12, not possible as there are none published for runway 12.

What was he doing pointing towards the Margalla hills?
only one answer is possible. Circling approach for RWY 12 coming off the ILS or VOR or NDB for Rwy 30

As has been said before when visual contact with the runway is lost, Missed Approach, no questions asked.

And yes Meekal evan 30000 hour pilots make mistakes.

[A4]

So can anyone with recency at Islamabad confirm whether or not there is an official circle to land procedure for R/W 12? Any charts available and are these drawn to PANS-OPS or TERPPS? Is there a circling with prescribed tracks? DME arc procedures are normally well coded into the FMGC's..... again, anyone here operate the Bus into Islamabad who can confirm/deny this?

Is 12 the preferential runway? If not why impose circling in marginal wx when a tailwind landing on 30 is perfectly safe?

How can you possibly end up 7 miles from the field if you follow the standard Airbus circle-to-land procedure? The break from the ILS to downwind should put you about 1.7nm abeam.....

A4

[auh_to_auh]

A4
It has been said before no charts for circle to land. It is a visual procedure and yes have been to ISB no approach on Rwy 12.

As you ask, why were they 7nm on a circle to land. We may never know.

AUH

[BrooksPA-28]

From Machaca's (thanks!) photos and an article in The Express Tribune link here (http://tribune.com.pk/story/32223/resolute-locals-rush-to-the-crash-site/) I believe the crash site to be located almost 12km nearly due North of the end of rwy30. mapped with Google Maps at 33.746039, 73.045006‎, +33° 44' 45.74", +73° 2' 42.02".
See Google Maps here (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33.746039,73.045006&num=1&sll=48.768595,-122.485772&sspn=0.18497,0.193609&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=33.684354,73.093414&spn=0.190263,0.240326&z=12&iwloc=near)
This is west of the first big switchback on the Pir Sohawa Rd. I believe this is the road seen in Machaca's photos.

[saeedkhan]

i have been reading with lot of interest about the various peculation,regarding the crash what we r forgetting is that the three subsequent ac diverted to lhe. due weather.The mere landing gear down on the bus was a planned circlin30/40 secomds for wind then downwind and in for the app. if u had planned the app. and[ the co pilot was just new] of set for the circling app. on 12 is 45 deg off to the right on the down wind

[Meekal]

Thank you folks that have supported me and those that have not. This is not about our 'ego'; it is about air safety.

I will scan the Pakistani papers tomorrow but will probably see obfuscation and denial. Because we are so secretive about these things having not published an air accident report in 62 years.

I don't expect much to change.

Now I will end a day of anguish and sadness, have my dinner, and go to sleep.

Take care guys and for those flying out there, keep the blue side up.

[p51guy]

As previously stated why would an aircraft stray more than 2 NM from the airport on a circle to land approach? They obviously were not looking out the window and maintaing visual with the runway as required. We will see when the data comes out but bet they were using automation, not basic flying skills again.

[PBY]

When you do the circling in the Airbus, you are most likely not able to see the runway during the 45 degree brake away from the centreline. Once you turn downwind, that is the time when you have to see the runway.
Airbus recommends to disconnect the autopilot latest on the downwind. It is normally flown at flaps3 gear down. You can choose flaps full landing and put the full flaps somewhere on the base. The turn has to be finished at 400 feet at full config. In case of windy conditions, you might decide to land flaps 3, in which case you would be configured for a landing quite early and your work load would be less on base. But nevertheless, the circling should be done within 1.7 or 2 miles of the runway. That is why you time only 30 seconds when you are braking away at 45 degrees from the final track. You start timing when wings are level. If the aircraft is covering 3 miles a minute, than in 30 seconds it should position you to the right distance (strong winds would influence it a little bit). But to be 12 miles away, you would have to fly for 4 minutes. That is a lot of time.
I am not sure, if they were not trying to do some circling/visual hybrid approach. But who knows.

[p51guy]

We had to circle to land at San Jose, Costa Rica a lot and the upsloap into rising terrain on the downwind with lowering cloud height was always a problem. We were flying into rising terrain so timing and not seeing the runway was not an option. Also the maneuver to enter downwind was when conditions were right, not over the airport but prior to the airport with ample opportunity to make a normal visual pattern. A circling approach requires VMC conditions so timing that 45 degree turn to the downwind should not be necessary. It can easily be done visually.

[evyjet]

I remember some years back I flew into ISB. We were cleared for 30 ILS, then about 5000 feet a "sudden" tailwind of 25 knots was at the field! hmm. We were told to circle to land 12. It was a very quick readjustment and briefing. The weather was clear skies on a pitch black night.

I remember turning base, I decided to leave the A/P engaged for the initial descent until I was on base and fully aware of where I was. We were supposed to disconnect the A/P 50 feet below minima. However, turning base is a "black hole" on this runway and would be very easy to initiate a steep descent whilst trying to keep an eye out for the runway. Therefore I elected to do "non SOP" and keep the A/P on for this particular day for a few seconds more (reason - safety).

I'm not sure if this is where the crash site is, but I can fully understand if this was the case. We were in clear conditions, so in rain and weather, this would be much harder. We also had minimas for circling of 2700 feet on this runway.

We were in a 777, so I am not familiar with Airbus specifics regarding this crash.

[Captain-Crunch]

Let's talk for a minute about Moving Map. And please feel free to raise the bullshat flag if you disagree with any of this based on your Airbus flying experience. On the predecessor airplane: the A310/A300 series (which was the first successful glass airliner), it was known that events happened in the third world to get as much as an 18 mile Map shift after the procedure turn, which of course is not acceptable for safe commercial navigation and could be fatal at some airports.

I never liked the early Airbus glass philosophy that the IRU positions were updated automatically, by just checking with the honeywell database for "blackballed" nav stations, and then skewing the map solution like crazy based on a station that may not have all it's marbles together that day, for whatever reason.

In the old days, when pilots had yokes, and airliners did not "just fly themselves", it was a standing procedure to personally identify and continuously moniter the morse code of any station you intended to bet your life on. But the airbus birds violated this time-tested rule and didn't constantly verify that the stations morse code was on the air. Finding out that in the systems manual was a challenge: Discovering that Airbus didn't want you to disable this DME updates feature down low was a very sobering day for me. There was no off switch!

After a lot of research and experimentation I discovered the only way to disable updates on the A310/A300 (which could kill you down low if you believed the map's story of where the airport was) in the terminal area was to put both pilot's VNI switches to off and then manually disable updates on each FMC. And it didn't always do it either. You had to sit there after disabling it and stare for a few minutes at the FMC update page to see if the commie box was going to latch onto a station and start moving the map around. Can you easily disable VOR/DME updates on the A320's? Does it mix in GPS?

Shocking design, but pilots and airlines who didn't appreciated that hazard happily had religious faith that the airport location was always correct as displayed by the ND (Navigational Display's Moving Map). Could this have happened in this accident?

When two check airmen broke out at minimums staring into tall mountains where the airport was supposed to be according to the map, and then did a desperate close-call TOGA that made the certifying "Navigator" quit, we knew we had a serious problem.

But the in-house solution was just fly on raw data and then to blackball certain VOR's that were suspected along the route to have screwed up the Maps believed position. (It's true, there was a time when Airbus reps advocated not having any raw data, like in rose mode, displayed. Both guys were chastised to remain in Map and "Get the Airbus Religion" as they counseled me in no uncertain terms.) But what if the VOR I'm depending on flakes out on approach? It happened in Juno, Alaska and killed everybody on that Western Airlines flight. That's when many airlines started having one guy (usually the Second Officer) listen to the morse code all the way to the ground. If it flaked out, he was supposed to tell the crew to go around.

But Airbus won't tell you that because they replaced the S/O with ECAM, and now you're just supposed to have faith that the station DME will not skew you if a local fiddles with it, or the roof of the VOR shack starts leaking.

Hey, it can happen.

And depending on EGPWS to save you is folly. I've seen that system screaming "Terrain" when on high approach to new runways in Kula Lumpur that the database was incorrect on. On a tight circle to land in marginal weather you and I both know it can get iffy. And the Airbus temptation is to just look at the airport center on the map and hope you reacquire the threshold (being blissfully unaware that the damn thing is still updating map center to any DME it can acquire.)

Such a deadly set of temptations that FAA has placed no-circling restrictions on many airline's type ratings on the biggest iron.

Thoughts?

Crunch - out

[PEI_3721]

Re #120. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
We are all children of the magenta line.
Unless EGPWS has a precision nav input (and appropriate ground stations) or preferably its own embedded GPS then the system's operation can be severely limited.
The basic GPWS may still provide some alerting, but this in only using rad alt, may not give a sufficiently early warning in steeply rising terrain.
Rather than the regulators adjusting training and ratings, there would be much more value in mandating a relatively cheap GPS 'card' in EGPWS.

[p51guy]

I always turned the egpws off once visual in the valley at TGU Honduras. It always started going off on base leg next to the hills so was a distraction. It is much easier to turn it off at 3,000 ft rather than 400 ft on base leg. TGU made the second most dangerous airport airport in the world last week on that 2 hr history channel program last week. Once you see the terrain you don't need it any more. I wonder why they flew into terrain. It couldn't happen at TGU because everybody was looking out the window, not fiddling with automation.

[iceman50]

C-C

What you have written is inflammatory rubbish for the new generation of Airbus.

Of course Boeings never get map shift! Well they did when I flew the 757/767!

[Captain-Crunch]

Iceman50 raised a bullshat flag. Good. Since I have never flown a Glass Boeing I wasn't aware that 757/767 had 18 mile map shifts on the procedure turn.

But I stlll need the questioned answered: on Glass Boeings can you disable automatic nav updates after you I.D. the primary navaid and commence approach? Of course in the developed world, maybe the navaid maintenance is good enough that you don't need to do this.

I have already explained that the first airbuses were not really designed for disabling auto updates; and initially, with many carriers, this precaution was not taken.

Although map shifts are increasingly rare in the Western world, they are not unknown in the developing world. I keep citing the first Airbus because that is where Toulouse cut it's teeth on Glass. IIRC, the honeywell FMC box would take a polling of all three IRU's and then average their position for the new center IRU position. Then it would skew the map with updates based on a complex algorithm. If one IRU update position was skewed 50 miles the wrong way because it decided to update itself off a VOR in a war torn country which was overheating, the whole moving map central position might get moved 5 to 10 miles the wrong way (depending on geometry and other logic).

Right?

Yes, you're supposed to keep the runway in sight. but if your moving map says you are close, it is a prelude for overconfidence. It was well documented in July, and August 1995, I believe, AW&ST that Airbuses where designed to reduce crew workload but instead, vastly increased it.

Last minute runway changes are the devil for a green First Officer to deal with. A new F/O will be damn lucky to get all his crap done before base turn. His head is now down pushing buttons and nobody is watching if his Airworthiness is even still alive over there. With that cursed sidestick he's already slumped down on the armrest like a patient donating blood at the Red Cross. How would the pre-occupied F/O even know if he was having a stroke? Who's watching him?

Only ATC is watching him, and one poster said they tried to save him.

Who's listening to the morse code?

Nobody.

Who's looking at the raw DME to see if it jives with the Moving Map?

Nobody.

Who's looking out the front windscreen while the old boy is looking over his shoulder behind him trying to reacquire the threshold?

Nobody

Crunch

Note: All my posts are just my opinion only.

[PJ2]

Crash site location thanks to Machaca, aterpster, BrooksPA-28. Brooks, your lat and long are probably the more accurate - this is a small amount further West, now that I look at it. The lat/long in the image below is in decimal degrees. Machaca's posted photo below, to compare.

The chart from aterpster showing the protected circling area indicated is helpful if only to see how far outside the circling area the crash site is. Wally Roberts' discussion of FAR and ICAO PAN-OPS Circling Procedures is well worth reading and may be found here (http://www.terps.com/ifrr/jan96.pdf), (1996) and here (http://www.terps.com/ifrr/nov97.pdf), (1997).

Cap'n Crunch, well said.

PJ2


http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk76/batcave777/2010-07-28_213526jpgGoogleEarth_CirclingArea2.jpg



http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk76/batcave777/2010-07-28_213526jpgGoogleEarth_CirclingArea1.jpg


http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk76/batcave777/202-04.jpg



http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk76/batcave777/CrashSiteGoogleEarth2010-07-28_214751.jpg

[Bergerie1]

PJ2
Thanks for bringing some good factual information to this thread. There has been far too much (yet again) idle speculation from too many of the contributers.

Captain Crunch
Please leave out the Airbus/Boeing red herrings! Map shifts can occur on any aircraft and are irrelevant to this debate. The whole point of a circling approach is to remain visual with the airfield and NOT to follow any magenta lines. Once the approach path has broken off from the ILS (or other electronic guidance) The pilots MUST remain visual.

[Dessert Aviator]

AT GF we just don't do circling approaches.... and with good reason !!!

[aterpster]

PEI 3721:
Rather than the regulators adjusting training and ratings, there would be much more value in mandating a relatively cheap GPS 'card' in EGPWS.

When the Honeywell EGPWS was being certified, the senior Honeywell engineer on that project tried in vein to make a GPS sensor for the unit mandatory for otherwise non-GPS aircraft. The FAA was more strongly lobbied by a major, cheap airline to not require the optional $1,500 GPS add-on for non-GPS aircraft.

[FullWings]

The whole point of a circling approach is to remain visual with the airfield and NOT to follow any magenta lines. Once the approach path has broken off from the ILS (or other electronic guidance) The pilots MUST remain visual.
Absolutely correct.

Problem is, IMHO, that many airlines (mine included) train for such procedures in simulators where you lose sight of the runway going downwind and only pick it up again when you're halfway round the turn onto finals. The display of ground/terrain is rather half-hearted as well. The end result is that you fly it partly on the map/DME, etc. because there's little else to refer to, so it becomes a hybrid instrument/visual manoeuvre rather than a purely visual one. Not good procedure.

If you do plenty of this kind of approach in real life, no problem, but if you were not current and forced into circling at short notice in bad weather, you might try and make it easier by using the FMC/map "as a backup for SA", maybe even drawing a little circuit on the screen. Easy to press '7' when you meant '4' as they're next to each other...

[hetfield]

@CPT-Crunch

Very well said!
That's why in our airline during NP App one pilot has to use the raw data (rose) display.

Anyhow, I'm not sure that MAP shift was the problem with this accident. Didn't they say "rwy in sight", not to mention what to do during a circling app if you lose contact.....

[Green Guard]

AT GF we just don't do circling approaches.... and with good reason !!!

Sooo why do you call yourself "Dessert Aviator" ?

More suitable name would be "Dessert Autopilot" !:D

PS.

If for whatever reason, one day,
you stay without instruments while "aviating",
what shall you do.....?

Land with any tailwind (can be 60 kts or more) or stay in the air forever ?

[Captain-Crunch]

Thanks PJ2,

Good to see you again. Nice Graphics w/Machaca.

Thanks guys for entertaining my unpopular anti-automation position. Bergerie1 makes a valid point that I shouldn't contrast too strenuously Airbus verses Boeing; but I maintain that they are in fact different. My indictment is really against over-reliance on glass and automation when manual flying skills are called for. But distractions can always happen when ATC issues a wind/runway change close in. At some outfits, the tyranny of company standardization will require the non-handling pilot to break out the laptop and recompute the landing distance, redo the ref, rebuild a centerline on the FMS, set up the missed approach while simultaneously talking to ATC, and participating in config changes, etc, etc, etc....

Of course, on a tight circle-to-land a new guy won't get half that stuff done right. If the crew didn't pre-brief the circle 100 miles earlier, it may be impossible to do. Even if he's good, with a patten that tight, he might not "rejoin" you until short final. I guarantee "Bergerie1" he won't know which way the aircraft is pointed when his head comes up. He also won't know if the handling pilot has lost the runway unless the handling pilot orally states that. Only the guy on the left side of the airplane is going to be able to stay visual with the Threshold if it's a left hand circuit.

This accident so far reminds me of the Wamea, Indonesian BAe-146 accident not long ago. That crash was not an FBW Airbus, so that should make the stickjockeys forgive me a little bit for my scorn of the joystick. :E

CC

[BOAC]

But nevertheless, the circling should be done within 1.7 or 2 miles of the runway. - as far as I can tell, unless 'Airblue' have their own TERPS charts, the circling radius is PansOps.

While c-c has made very valid points regarding 'uncontrollable' and 'unmonitored' automation, as I have said before there is something quite odd about this crash in its inexplicable distance from the field, just like the Yemeni at Moroni a while back. There we appear to have had another strange 'excursion' outside the normal area.

Have we seen that report yet?

The terrain visualisation for this crash (allowing for its limitations) does give me some puzzles in respect of the hills and valleys en-route to the site and I find myself wondering how they impacted where they did - it is almost like some 'hill and valley flying' that went wrong - aka 'letterboxing' - but why? Do we know if the ILS DME was working?

[A4]

will require the non-handling pilot to break out the laptop and recompute the landing distance, redo the ref, rebuild a centerline on the FMS, set up the missed approach while simultaneously talking to ATC, and participating in config changes, etc, etc, etc....

Yes...... so you tell ATC you need 5 mins, hold somewhere safe and re-brief your imminent challenging wx affected circle to land. You don't just plough on with the PNF working like a one armed paper hanger!!

It's called non-technical skills. Workload management, cooperation, situational awareness. These are essential elements. A lot of discussion so far has talked of technical aspects (did this aircraft have GPS?) and possible mapshift. The only reason I can see that they ended up 7 miles north was a breakdown in the non- technical side of things which would of course be exacerbated by having a brand new FO in the other seat.

A4

[Khaosai]

Hi,

you can get some pretty interesting tailwinds when on the ILS to runway 30.

Here is some data from ISB airfield.

Elevation approx 1700ft.

Approx bearing of 320 degrees and 12nm from the airfield is a peak of approx 3900ft.

Landing dist on Rwy 12 is 3017m. Landing dist on Rwy 30 is 2743m. PAPI on both runways. Very basic approach lights avail on Rwy 12 (H-S).

Second half of runway 30 is downhill.

For a Cat c aircraft the circle to land is 850ft agl and with a vis requirement of 2.4km (not sure if aircraft is cat C or D).

Dont fly over the city to the south or through prohibited area 254 which is south also.

We have a note in our manual regarding possible GPS outage due jamming in ISB.

Heavy rain can cause mud on the runways and the obvious dangers of rubber deposits.

Its seems the wind favoured the circle to land in marginal conditions.

Rgds.

[FullWings]

I just had a look at the plates, not having operated to ISB for a few years, and the place cries out for some sort of instrument approach for RW12. You probably could engineer a VOR/DME but it looks ideal for an RNAV: just come in from the W or SW and intercept the centreline about 6nm out, normal 3deg should suffice...

[BOAC]

C-C and A4 - you are risking 'frightening the horses' here with your tales of what dreadful tasks PNF would have to do to circle onto 12.

1) If you can land on a wet 30 with a tailwind you will be ok on a wet 12 with a headwind - therefore no re-computations

2) You do NOT need anything re-programming - a simple fix on the field and 2 mile circle if you must will more than do for a VISUAL manoeuvre - plus the 737 at least has a 'built-in' dotted white runway c/line in BOTH directions
3) G/A + missed does NOT change!!!! Do not confuse the great unwashed please:ugh:.

If the P2 was ex mil and knew Islamabad, is it possible the mil had some sort of 'in house' proc for 12?

[denlopviper]

the FO was a ex mirage pilot which is now confirmed. and also that he had been in Airblue for 2 year and therefore not a new FO

[pilotsaab]

i was looking onto the circle to land procedure for the A320 series,which stated that when you come abeam the threshold u start timing 20 sec for 500 feet and then make a turn for the base and then finals.what does 20seconds for 500 feet mean relative to this incident that has occured.Please shed some light on this matter since the previous post tell me that he flew 7nm out.

[Meekal]

Nothing significant or new in the Pakistani papers.
ATC apparently warned pilot of getting too close to high ground to which the captain said "we see that". If he had the hills in sight why would he fly into them?

I don't think these are the actual words spoken. Probably a paraphrase.

[Meekal]

An ILS on 12 would be good of course but they won't do that even now since they are building a new airport out west near a city called Fatehjang. No high ground around in that area.

[Thunderbug]

pilotsaab

The procedure is 20 secs per 500' AGL, corrected for wind. If 10kts tailwind component on the downwind, remove 10 secs from your timing. Flying downwind at the circling minima (860' AGL), when you get abeam the threshold start your stopwatch, fly for 25secs and turn base. Your config should be Gear down & Flap 3.

7 miles is way too far downwind. If this is a accident whilst circling it bears so much similarity with the Air China B767 crash at Pusan, Korea (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20020415-0)

[Captain-Crunch]

Ah, BOAC,

You'd make a great Chief Pilot because your logic is good. :ok: Unfortunately, they'd probably fire you for speaking such legal department heresy as not computing the landing distance like a good little line soldier (on some properties.)

I like your idea, and that's what I'm angling at: reduce meaningless cockpit chores, paperwork and standardization babble. At some places, the number of required briefings is absolutely ridiculous now. A4 has the politically correct training answer: Go into holding and start over. But I prefer briefing the circle to land and dispensing with as much distracting garbage as possible before let down. If you don't work for an airline where the Captain has authority to dispense with some of this happy horsechit down low, then you risk being turned in by your F/O for being non-standard.

BTW, when I flew the old bus, even though the MA is the same on Circle to 12, you still had to manually reset heading (by re-centering the blue heading reference AFTER rolling on to final), and THEN turning the heading bug to the right to 240 degrees (preset), or believe it or not, that old airbus would remember a left turn to MA heading where you originally set it and turn flight directors the wrong way! Boeing knew to take the shortest path to the heading preset. Airbus did not. One more friggin distraction!

You also had to check and see that the MA was still in the FMS, IIRC. Sometimes it just didn't stay in there with the runway change. So all this automation actually loaded up the crew where everything was "azzholes and elbows" on a tight circle to land. We finally outlawed them.

I know what I'm saying sounds silly, but early glass Airbuses were very, very different from steam-gage boeings. Having flown both, I can assure you that the FCP autoflight had more bugs than a bait store. Every time a new operator went into a Bob Hoover tail slide, I was not surprised at all.

Don't get me wrong. I loved hand-flying the airplane. I just couldn't trust it's automation, it's nav display or it's flight guidance, that's all. :}

Now another poster says the F/O was a two-year veteran, so if that's true, please disregard my rookie F/O theory.

Crunch - out

[Jetjock330]

Map shift has nothing to do with this accident if a circling approach is involved.

For circling into ISB, is done as a procedure (as all circling approaches are done), commences from a point on an ILS (VOR), thereafter the landing runway must be in sight and visual, thereafter, it is a timed visual procedure, flown with a constant speed and configuration. The landing runway remains visual and further descent from circling altitude may only commence on base provided sufficient cues remain available.

If the MCDU's fail, or the FM's fail, (no map available/map shift, you name it) this circling procedure can still be flown in the exact same way as it has always been flown, or will be flown.

Having circled into ISB with A332 myself, it is no problem, and I have flown with former Air Blue pilots in my current airline. That being said, if you forget to turn downwind from the initial offset of 45 degrees from runway track, you might land up into those hills, which means the circling procedure and visual sighting of the runway never happened and the procedure was never adhered too. This was a very sad day for all of us mere mortals.

[Zeffy]

While recognizing that Circling to Land is a visual maneuver, could this crash share aspects that are reminiscent of Addis Abeba (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/G-MEDA%20Final%20Report%20.pdf) -- i.e., EGPWS sans GPS?

[aterpster]

Thunderbug:
7 miles is way too far downwind. If this is a accident whilst circling it bears so much similarity with the Air China B767 crash at Pusan, Korea (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20020415-0)

There are similarities, yet great differences. In the current accident the protected airspace was a generous PANS-OPS radius of 5.2 nm. At Pusan, the captain thought it was PANS-OPS, but it was tiny/little, politically motivated U.S. TERPs. The Chinese captain at Pusan got had in my view.

[Captain-Crunch]

JetJock330,

You might be right; you think he forgot go parallel to the runway? :confused: We need a flight track leaked to wikileaks... Anybody?

And one point: A map shift is not likely a failure of the airplane. It's caused primarily by a failure of one of the ground stations sometimes even hours before letdown. The update system is doing what it was designed to do. But the shift might be insidious when you've got your hands full.

Q: How do you disable all auto updates in the A330?

I bet if you try it sometime you will be surprised how hard it is to do (since A/B doesn't want you to ever do that, if my hunch is correct.)

CC

[A4]

Greetings Crunch

I can see why you think my answer is "politically correct". We live in a litigious society and those of us in the LHS must always remember that. We are responsible and answerable for our decisions and actions. If we choose to rapidly rebrief "on the hoof" for an unexpected circling approach in cr@p wx and something goes wrong, if you survive you better have a good explanation. I agree that there is no need to recompute landing distance on a 2700m runway but on the 'bus you do need to ensure the Secondary flight plan is set up correctly (for groundspeedmini computation). This doesn't take long but could be a distracter if PF is monitoring an inexperienced FO to ensure he's doing it right ....... and who knows, suddenly your 7 miles on your ILS break-off heading......

I mentioned non-technical skills previously. We need to recognise when it is and is not appropriate to press on or "take 5" and ensure you're ready. I've seen it in the sim numerous times - getting the balance between prioritisation and maintaining standards a bit skewed.

It doesn't sound encouraging regarding the release of factual information on this one which is a pity because it looks like there could be some fundamental lessons we could learn.

A4

[PEI_3721]

Aterpster, re #127. Yes, Honeywell have promoted the use of an internal GPS card, but Airbus chose a different route.

The preferred Airbus option was for an external GPS/Nav sensor (MMR), which improved navigational accuracy and EGPWS performance (Operators Information Telex 5 Feb 04). Furthermore, at that time, they would not certificate “a solution based on a GPS card”.
Whilst this policy appears sensible in that it provides an accurate navigation (and terrain) map and thus should aid pilots to avoid situations where EGPWS may activate, the more complex (and expensive?) installation might result in fewer aircraft updates.
These aspects together with the apparent difficulty in isolating unsuitable navigation sensors might show as a difference between aircraft types.

Safety estimates circa 2000 comparing high vs low nav accuracy input to EGPWS, showed factor of two in favour of the high nav solution.
I have seen similar data for unmodified Airbus aircraft (2006) where the difference was also estimated to be two. I doubt that many aircraft would have been upgraded subsequently in the modern commercial climate. In addition, safety estimates considered the distribution of suitable ground based nav aids, the lack of which (at that time), further increased the risk of CFIT (associated with ‘map shift’) in less well equipped geographic regions.

Thus the lack of a high accuracy navigation input to EGPWS, the difficulty in isolating systems, and the very compelling features of map displays (our addiction to modern technology) significantly increases the risk of CFIT.

Several operators appear to have recognised these hazards and introduced procedures and training to mitigate the threats; noting that procedures and training are soft barriers.
Unfortunately humans forget (complacency), aircraft are sold on, but not necessarily with specific operational procedures and training, and humans remain vulnerable to the attraction of ‘salient’ displays, especially in stressful situations, and may overlook the most basic of safety behaviours when circling – staying visual.

EGPWS is one of the best (if not ‘the’ best) safety system, but it, like any other computer (and humans), depends on the accuracy of the inputs.

Whether these aspects have any relevance to this accident or not, it would be worth checking how current aircraft are equipped (first line of defence) and thus how they should be operated (last line of defence).

[aterpster]

PEI 3721:

Aterpster, re #127. Yes, Honeywell have promoted the use of an internal GPS card, but Airbus chose a different route.

That is a better solution. Honeywell was simply trying to prevent "Brand U" airline from using DME/DME on their pre-GPS airplanes instead of GPS. The minimal GPS sensor is far, far better than DME/DME.

[Superpilot]

Things that should've helped avoid the tragedy:

EGPWS - And associated memory items/actions. Did they switch it off? ignore it? was it not working?

ATC - Asking crew to turn immediately, ignored because crew thought or lied (hey, some pilots do) that they were visual.

Early days but evidence so far points towards this accident being caused by very experienced (and over-confident) pilots who let the rules slip because they were content with their situation. This has always been and will be the death of many! :ugh:

[BOAC]

but on the 'bus you do need to ensure the Secondary flight plan is set up correctly (for groundspeedmini computation). This doesn't take long but could be a distracter if PF is monitoring an inexperienced FO to ensure he's doing it right ....... and who knows, suddenly your 7 miles on your ILS break-off heading......:eek:

I try to avoid too much 'AB bashing', but fer xxxx's sake- is it THAT bad? Can't you just fly it like an aeroplane? 'Ground speed mini'??? Don't you have an ASI? Does that mean that with an FMC failure you are doomed to crash somewhere?

I think I need stronger tablets - NURSE!

[Neptunus Rex]

The Secondary would/should have been set and briefed prior to descent.

[p.pilot]

It seems to have air data problem.
As rain was reported ,some times Water in pitot tubes do not drain properly which can lead to un-reiable ASI or ADR failure

[p.pilot]

it seems they encountred sudden down drafts while crossing the ridge.
and we also can consider the altimetre settings was correct or not

[BOAC]

You might be right; you think he forgot go parallel to the runway? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif - now, I am prepared to risk being accused of prejudging this accident, but I do think that judging by where the runway is and where they crashed - yes.

This is all becoming rather odd - now the chaps had water in their tubes and/or were unfortunate to encounter a down-draft over high ground below MSA outside the circling area? This thread is sadly going the way of all PPRune threads.:ugh: What about being shot down by the Taliban? We haven't tried that one yet.:{

[Lonewolf_50]

- now, I am prepared to risk being accused of prejudging this accident, but I do think that judging by where the runway is and where they crashed - yes.
Beautifully understated. :cool:
This is all becoming rather odd - now the chaps had water in their tubes and/or were unfortunate to encounter a down-draft over high ground below MSA outside the circling area?
p.pilot will doubtless support his analysis anon ... :hmm:
For p.pilot: It seems to have air data problem. s rain was reported ,some times Water in pitot tubes do not drain properly which can lead to un-reiable ASI or ADR failure
Oddly enough, most aircraft fly in rain with no hint of trouble in re the pitot tubes providing input to the systems requiring data from them. From where do you derive the assumed failure of redundant systems? :confused:
it seems they encountred sudden down drafts while crossing the ridge. and we also can consider the altimetre settings was correct or not
I will now ask how you relate this assumption of an anomaly to a pilot flying a visual procedure: circle to land from an instrument approach, which was already pointed out in this discussion more than once.

Did you read the entire thread before offering your analysis?
This thread is sadly going the way of all PPRune threads.:ugh: What about being shot down by the Taliban? We haven't tried that one yet.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif
OK, maybe the Taliban shot it down using a bacon powered death ray. :E

Now that we have that out of the way, we can return to the discussion about weather, flying, circling approach, and the recently (and prematurely) departed folk on the Airblue flight. :{

[Meekal]

BOAC,

To the Taliban story you can add what is coming out in the local papers that the captain had just been released from hospital for various ailments and was too old to fly a 'glass' fly-by-wire jet.

[Mr.Bloggs]

I have little doubt that the CVR and FDR will provide the necessary information to explain this accident.

Pressure must be brought to bear on the Pakistan CAA to release a full report. To do otherwise, as has been suggested in earlier comments, would be negligent in the extreme. (I assume the Pakistan CAA is part of ICAO.)

[mm43]

I assume the Pakistan CAA is part of ICAO.Yes, along with another 182 sovereign states.

This might be a case of "who pays the piper, calls the tune", and one country comes to mind!

mm43

[Meekal]

As has just been confirmed, yes, Pakistan is a member of ICAO. However, in 62 years, there has been no published, or publically-assessible air accident report. PIA pilot's are given an internal summary memo of the salient facts and/or safety recommendations, but that is strictly confidential.

PIA's no.1 pilot in seniority Capt. A.A Khan flew his 720B into the ground on approach on the inaugural flight to Cairo. No one knows why.

My class-mate Capt. K.Wyne was departing Jeddah one night in a 707-320 and it is rumored he had an in-flight cabin fire. He turned around but did not make it. Crashed in Taif.

Capt. I. Janjua flew his A300B4 one step ahead of the step-down Sierra One approach into Khatmandu, Nepal. He hit a ridge. A classic CFIT from which valuable lessons could have been learnt.

I mentioned that very senior commander Capt. Siraj in the 747-200 who forgot to put his gear down landing at Islamabad. Why? All I know is that Capt. Siraj retired.

Finally, an F.27 Fokker Friendship departed Multan on a very hot day when climb performance is degraded and got an engine-fire just after lift-off. He crashed in a field. It was rumored that the aircraft was over-loaded. Since some big shots from the judiciary got killed, the government grounded the entire Fokker fleet. We now have the ATR42.

Not to mention the most dramatic crash of all, the VVIP C-130 of General Zia with the US Ambassador and others on board. It took off after they had witnessed a tank display in central Pakistan and after experiencing several phugoid ossilations [forgive my spelling if wrong] plunged 90 degree nose-down into the ground. Lockheed came to assist; since the US Ambassador was killed the FBI came to assist too. To this day his son asks where is the report!

I will apply pressure, speak to others in and out of government but the struggle could be in vain. I suppose the ICAO cannot force government to publish. What a pity. They should expel (or suspend) Pakistan from membership of the organization for lack of transparency and actions prejudicial to air safety.

[PEI_3721]

Superpilot re “EGPWS - And associated memory items/actions. Did they switch it off? ignore it? was it not working?” (#151)

You may have overlooked the issues about ‘map-slip’ as the cause of the apparent lack of EGPWS; the degraded navigation system accuracy (FMS) would have affected the EGPWS as well.
Essentially the aircraft’s actual position would not correlate with the terrain database, thus the only warnings available were from the old style GPWS using Rad Alt.
(This line of speculation assumes that the aircraft did not have GPS nav, which based on its previous history, appears most likely).

“Asking crew to turn immediately, … ”
As above, if the map indicated erroneously that their indicated position was safe then there was a conflict of advice; the crew (human nature) chose ‘their’ solution – there ‘knew’ where they were based on ‘the map’. Unfortunately this weakness in ‘knowledge’ has been a common factor in CFIT accidents; similarly and unfortunately, a late pull up and not quite clearing a hill top.

Yes complacency, perhaps the final link in a chain of contributing factors; - not the best standard of equipment, weak systems knowledge, procedures, training, situation/weather judgement, and the ‘illusion of normality’ based on technology – ‘the magenta line on the map’.

[PopeSweetJesus]

old airbus would remember a left turn to MA heading where you originally set it and turn flight directors the wrong way! Boeing knew to take the shortest path to the heading preset. Airbus did not. One more friggin distraction!

It's a distraction because you learned it one way first and there is very little standardization between manufacturers. As pilots whatever we've seen first we tend to view as 'right' and 'smart' and anything else is just awful. What you say is correct about the A300 heading bug, but it's also true of many other aircraft including the 737 from what I remember(been awhile). The shortest path thing has gotten people into trouble as well with the aircraft turning an unwanted direction. I know on the 727 you have to be careful with big turns on the A/P because it starts the turn so slowly that if you don't move the heading bug incrementally, she'll reverse course on you. As someone who flew planes that wouldn't do this before flying the 727, I could call it a distraction but really I just view it as how that particular airplane does business. Relatively speaking (before the experts jump me), I think the only thing that is sort of standard between manufacturers are the FMS because they tend to come from a very small group of vendors.

You also had to check and see that the MA was still in the FMS, IIRC. Sometimes it just didn't stay in there with the runway change.

Are you talking about a runway change in the box or are you talking about talking about it disappearing as you circle to land on the opposite end of the runway in the box? In the latter case, it's not all that surprising to me because the circle in most cases will overfly the the MA procedure in the opposite direction which will confuse many FMS' causing them to drop those points out. That can happen on a lot of FMS'. I seem to remember some drawing tons and tons of white/magenta circles on the map as it tried to figure out what you were doing on a circle. Some could figure it out and 'straighten' the circles out when you engaged TOGA (although it was a leap of faith looking at it!) others couldn't and you knew to use Heading Select and raw data.

All part of the fun. It is what it is, and as always you just have to know your plane and think ahead of it modern or not. Some like to make this a young vs. old thing, but I've seen both have problems with it. From what I've seen most older guys seem to understand the basic systems (elec, hyd, air, etc) better and more in-depth than younger guys, probably because that's how they were trained initially and that's where most of the problems with older a/c are. When it comes to those systems, which often have as many quirks and things that need massaging as modern ac fmc/autopilots, those pilots tend to think of those issues like a fine wine and hammer those who do not understand the quirks well or complain about how they should be fixed. However that doesn't extend to the A/P FMC on modern a/c where the same pilots will often spend half the flight telling you how the thing should be redesigned and is a crime against humanity. The younger guys tend to accept the FMC/AP for what it is, sometimes turning their brains off in the process, but have little interest or knowledge in how the other a/c systems work. They're comfortable with the automation and they know the 'routine' very, very well. Where a lot screw up to me is that they don't apply that sometimes natural comfort with the automation with the older guys zeal for understanding how the system really works and what could go wrong. Worst is that many don't seem to care. While I'm still big nag on keeping your handflying skills up in an FMC/AP world, overtime I'm beginning to think that lack of true understanding of what the system is doing beyond following the profile is almost as big of a factor in many incidents/accidents. Most of the main systems on modern a/c are pretty reliable making the old school overanalyzing them not as fruitful imo, but the same cannot be said for the automation which is more complex than it often seems on the surface and becoming increasingly so. Most of the time the answer to 'what's it doing now?' is that we didn't really understand what it was doing in the first place. Very broad brush strokes for sure on young v. old before I get jumped on the above.

[40&80]

Oh my aching arse.......ATC...Told him to "Turn immediately"....What sort of quality and confusing advice to a pilot under pressure was that?

Was this a professional controller or the bloody tea boy?

For Christ sake ATC in future give the poor disoriented pilot bugger a break and a clue!

This was not a simulator check ride real peoples lives were involved.

I think it would have been nice to have told him a direction to a heading in proper ATC radio speak....this pilot you had clearly observed was starting to get this approach badly wrong.

To think it used to be called an Air traffic control SERVICE!

This accident reminds me of the film Aeroplane when ATC pulled the plug to turn off the runway lights to "help" the pilot see the runway and land.

[denlopviper]

theres only one turn avialible on the circle to land. you turn left, the controllers had already advised them that they had overshot to which the crew responded runway insight...the second call was turn left immdiately you are going into margalla

besides, to the 1st warning the crew responded runway insight and to the second one, they said we see it or on that lines. not much more a controller can do can he?

for the guys who dont operate to/from OPRN. you realistically have 1 turn avialible after rbeaking off for the circle to land.if you make a right hand turn to abort, you not only overfly the presidency, parliment etc, but you also overfly some very sensitive area after which you will be greated by the ISI at the stand. not to mention a right hand turn mean a minimum of alteast 110 degree turn just to get parallel to the hills. fastest way is to turn left where its less than a 80 degree turn to get parallel to the hills

[p51guy]

BOAC, I think you summed it up. Circling as they did to the crash site was not a circling approach authorized in any country. The FDR and CVR will tell the story of how they managed to accomplish it. Bet if they were in an all manual 727 not fiddling with stuff they would have been fine just looking out the window.

[aterpster]

I play around with the Garmin G-1000 trainer for the Cessna Mustang a lot these days. The trainer is a genuine nav trainer with the actual terrain modeling for TAWS, and it has a worldwide, albeit out of date, nav database. But, not that far out of date for OPRN; i.e., the datebase is late 2008 and the last Jeppesen revisions for OPRN are dated in 2006.

Also, the G-1000 in this version has synthetic vision.

This is not a desktop toy, but an accurate representation of an airframe certified system.

All coupled up I arrived from the south and flew the ILS DME Rwy 30 procedure down the G/S to 2510, msl, then at the appropriate place I departed the electronic guidance to the right on heading and altitude at 2510 to do a circle-to-land.

I also entered "direct-to" to a waypoint I had constructed to represent the approach end of Runway 12.

I flew 40 degrees to the right of the LOC until I felt I was in a position to turn left to a runway parallel heading. This was at about 2.5 miles on my Runway 12 waypoint. I then charged onward. Everything was fine at 5 miles, but of course I should have been turning left in time to remain within 5.2 miles. Since I didn't I was headed towards the nasty terrain on a heading of 296. The TAWS woke up quite loudly at about 5.5 miles. The terrain became more detailed on the synthetic vision, and at 6 miles yellow became red. The crash was at 7.2 miles.

Chilling, but very informative.

[p51guy]

In the US we have category C and D circling minimums that restrict your altitude and visibility depending on approach speed. It never lets you exceed 2 miles from the airport. How did they meander 7 miles away into the hills? I don't think EGPWS and automation on Airbus planes can prevent accidents like this if pilots do not adhere to standard procedures. Map shifts probably are a thing of the past. Seven years ago I did my last flight retiring into a dangerous mountain airport in Honduras and all of our aircraft had GPS so map shift ever happened. We made all turns visually using visual check points and it worked very well. Programming a computer to do the same thing is very time consuming and better spent looking outside.

[sol767]

Ha Ha small world we both work for John Hale .
I was at the Peshawar Flying Club , and the PIA training centre ,

[411A]

In the US we have category C and D circling minimums that restrict your altitude and visibility depending on approach speed. It never lets you exceed 2 miles from the airport.
Yes, two miles, the max for a category D airplane, such as I fly.
Having flown to ISB a few times, have to say the ATC is 'OK' generally, however, the circle to land for runway 12 (at night) is one of the blackest holes I have seen in quite a long time...and we circle regularly at other airports.

I don't think EGPWS and automation on Airbus planes can prevent accidents like this if pilots do not adhere to standard procedures.

Nope, and likely never will.

We made all turns visually using visual check points and it worked very well. Programming a computer to do the same thing is very time consuming and better spent looking outside.

Yup, and...after all, a circling approach maneuver is a visual exercise, not lending itself readily to 'automation'.
Basic flying skills, no more, no less.

[gottofly]

Is any official preliminary report out yet and anything on the ATC and last words transcript between the pilots?
has the blackbox been recovered?

[GroundProxGuy]

Yep, close to the top of the hill indeed, but the vast majority of CFIT accidents occur on the highest 500 feet of local terrain. We don't miss by much.

I would have to assume this Airblue aircraft was equipped with EGPWS, as the date of manufacture is 2000 and EGPWS was standard on Airbus by then.

There should be no reason to shut off EGPWS going into Islamabad based on database, OPRN has been in the database since first EGPWS in mid-1990s.

As mentioned above, Airbus EGPWS solution did not include GPS input for many years, just FMS, and map shift does happen as B-Med at Addis Ababa vividly demonstrated. When EGPWS and nav data are both using garbage, watch out - Report: British Mediterranean A320 at Addis Abeba on Mar 31st 2003, wet VOR nearly causes two CFITs (http://avherald.com/h?article=42cba6a2&opt=1024) and http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/G-MEDA%20Final%20Report%20.pdf

Get that GPS into your EGPWS and keep that terrain/airport database up to date.

[huskerdu]

these guys probably got lost. Just checked taf/metars:
- OPRN 300900Z 23008KT 5000 HZ SCT030 31/25 Q1003.0- OPRN 300330Z 3006/3112 09010G20KT 3000 HZ FEW030TCU SCT040 BKN100 TEMPO 3008/3015 2000 TSRA FEW030CB SCT040 BKN100 TEMPO 3016/3020 10010G20KT 3000 HZ FEW030TCU SCT040 BKN100 TEMPO 3022/3103 2000 TSRA FEW030TCU SCT040 BKN100 TEMPO 3104/3112 10010G20KT 4000 HZ FEW030TCU SCT040 BKN100
=> crappy vis and TAFs so-so.
- All FMS get lost (I flew 737s, 310, 747, A320), but GPS is the prefered input in 320s and reliability is there now.
- Circling IS tricky, specially with bad weather. you need to stick tight to your pattern and brief for hazards: ground (EGPWS, PULL UP proc.), weather (time your pattern, what to do if you lose ground sight), and check your position with radio aids and map if you have one (careful), and imply all cockpit.

[Fawad]

Oh my aching arse.......ATC...Told him to "Turn immediately"....What sort of quality and confusing advice to a pilot under pressure was that?

Was this a professional controller or the bloody tea boy?

For Christ sake ATC in future give the poor disoriented pilot bugger a break and a clue!

This was not a simulator check ride real peoples lives were involved.

I think it would have been nice to have told him a direction to a heading in proper ATC radio speak....this pilot you had clearly observed was starting to get this approach badly wrong.

To think it used to be called an Air traffic control SERVICE!

This accident reminds me of the film Aeroplane when ATC pulled the plug to turn off the runway lights to "help" the pilot see the runway and land.

Please excuse this newbie to interrupt the discussion, but I wouldn't put that much faith in this supposedly 'leaked ' ATC communication (given that no official one has been released).

Secondly, even if you are to believe this, the phrase uttered by the ATC was "Immediately turn left, Margalla (hills) are ahead". And the source of this supposed communication is Express News...well known for their exaggeration and "being first to break the news" (even if it is false).

What sounds more ridiculous, however, is that the black boxes have not been found so far even though this happened just a couple of kilometers from the Capital city not some freakin middle of the ocean.

[aterpster]

p51guy:

In the US we have category C and D circling minimums that restrict your altitude and visibility depending on approach speed. It never lets you exceed 2 miles from the airport.

Check the FAA's AIM. That is not quite correct.

[aterpster]

411A:
Yes, two miles, the max for a category D airplane, such as I fly.


2.3 nautical miles, which isn't adequate in many circumstances.

[GarageYears]

Oh my aching arse.......ATC...Told him to "Turn immediately"....What sort of quality and confusing advice to a pilot under pressure was that?

Was this a professional controller or the bloody tea boy?

For Christ sake ATC in future give the poor disoriented pilot bugger a break and a clue!

So now this is the ATC controllers fault.... :ugh:

Are you frekin' kiddin? :eek:

Who is in control of the plane. Come on, please remind me?

- GY

[BOAC]

Folks - even if 411A doesn't know his own circling area :eek:, it matters not for this crash. Whether they were using a TERPS area or a PansOps circling area is TOTALLY irrelevant as they were way outside both.

[Meekal]

Do any of you remember how long it took to find the black box in the Manglore accident? I think it was some days and everyone was getting antsy.

Nothing yet from this accident and conspiracy theories are starting to grow -- including that the army has confiscated it.

[fireflybob]

Circle to land procedures are quite safe so long as crews are trained and practiced to do same and know the limitations etc.

However, I think that maybe the question we should be asking is, given the area navigation capabilities of most modern aircraft. why is it ever necessary to carry out a circle to land procedure (ok yes there may be certain locations where a straight in isn't feasable due terrain etc)?

A much more concerted effort should be made to approve and regulate approaches which would avoid having to do a circle to land.

[denlopviper]

actaully the FDR was foundon the 1st day. considering theh crash site is barely 2NM from the Air HQ and Naval HQ, they had people on site pretty quick.

no it has not been confiscated by the military. i can see this romour would come from, the CAA is comes under the MoD in pakistan. plus everything is blamed on the army anyway .

Meekal. the C-130 with Zia ul Haq went down due to full Boast Package Failure. in other words they lost total hydraullics including the 2 redundant systems. it take 2 fully grown men to move the yoke without hydraullics on the herk. anyone here flying the herks can verify that. it happens extremely rarely but yes it does happen. ps recurrent training after the BoI showed only 1 crew could actaully bring it back and that too resulted in a crash landing. all the info is there.

[johannschmith]

While modern glass cockpit a/c (with GPS for accuracy) can greatly enhance the situational awareness of a crew and probably make flying a circling approach safer than in older first generation jets, it is still a procedure that is in my opinion
a. not really designed for large transport category a/c
b. much more suited to light a/c
c. a last resort

Of course we can practice it in the sim but the average line pilot gets in the box four times a year if he's lucky and will rarely do a circling approach. I seem to remember it is required in JAA rules if an operator routinely uses them in its network.

If GF has banned circling in their company I say good for them. It's up to the airport authoorities to spend a little and put proper (flyable) instrument approaches on all runways used by transport category a/c. If we can bomb the Taliban with drones piloted by remote from the Nevada desert via GPS etc we can surely manage that.

I know it will upset some people but I believe it's time IFALPA decided to recommend that pilots refuse to fly circling approaches in large a/c. Like the "Black Spot" airfields issue - that might get some action.

[aterpster]

BOAC:
Folks - even if 411A doesn't know his own circling area http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif, it matters not for this crash. Whether they were using a TERPS area or a PansOps circling area is TOTALLY irrelevant as they were way outside both.

I rather strongly disagree. Part of assessing an accident is to learn all that is relevant to preventing a repeat. In this case a close look at the vast differences in protected airspace between FAA TERPs and ICAO PANS-OPS is relevant. Some people did learn from the China Air crash how significantly less safe TERPs is than PANS-OPS when it comes to CTL.

I believe a competent, proficient crew that has good local knowledge of OPRN can safely circle to land, but perhaps at 1,000 feet, afe, rather than the authorized 842 feet.

[BOAC]

aterpster - your logic escapes me! Is not the way "to learn all that is relevant to preventing a repeat" to ensure that WHATEVER the cleared area, pilots remain in it?

What is wrong with 842' (or 850)? Looks OK on the chart to me.

[Meekal]

Denlopeviper (hope I have your 'name' spelled correct.

I would not want to get into a discussion here about the army! I have some rather strong views about them especially their spy agency the ISI.

It surprises me that you have a clear view about the C-130 crash. If you ask people who might know in Pakistan they will roll their eyes and mutter something. I even met an American woman here in DC who was part of the investigation team. She said no probable cause was ever determined! There is a report to be sure hidden somewhere (the US would have insisted and they probably have their own) but it does not come up with a definitive cause. Lockheed was also involved in the investigation.

[411A]

Folks - even if 411A doesn't know his own circling area :eek:
Ahhh, but 411A does, because...we use the TERPS criteria in our ops specs, which if you recall, are more restrictive than PANSOPS.
TERPS is...two statute miles, for a category D aircraft, such as we operate, at 600aal, or charted, whichever is higher.

In any case, it is simply...'can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen' as Harry Truman used to say.
Can't circle, or...not properly trained to do so in your highly automated aircraft, better find a nice comfy ILS (or, if you are approved, VNAV/WAAS approach) to your desired landing runway.
Leave the circling to the pros that know how to do it properly.;)

[BOAC]

Ahhh, but 411A does, because...we use the TERPS criteria in our ops specs, which if you recall, are more restrictive than PANSOPS.
TERPS is...two statute miles, for a category D aircraft, - methinks your Ops need better glasses!

[411A]

methinks your Ops need better glasses!
Glasses fine, thank you.
The chart criteria is two miles for our category D airplane.
IF, on a type check in the airplane, you stray outside this two mile area, the FAA inspector will hand you a pink slip and say...'come back when you've had more training.'

[BOAC]

The chart criteria is two (statute) miles for our category D airplane. - so you are saying Jeppesen is wrong?

[Farrell]

PANS-OPS uses a much larger radius than TERPS.

The radius for Category D aircraft is 5.28nm for PANS-OPS procedures compared to 2.30 nm for TERPS.

To add: When procedures are based on TERPS, this should be clearly highlighted on the approach plate.

[411A]

...2.30 nm for TERPS.

2 miles, as printed on the approach chart...even more restrictive.;)

To add: When procedures are based on TERPS, this should be clearly highlighted on the approach plate.
They normally are, at least on the Jeppesen charts that we use.

In any case, traverse outside the circling area charted on the respective procedure, expect possible grief.

[rgbrock1]

SLF/Non-pilot here, so please excuse the ignorant question.

Can someone explain to me, in layman's terms preferably, what a "circling approach" is? I think I have an idea but that may not be based in fact or reality.

Thanks.

[GarageYears]

rgbrock1: try this > Circling Approaches (http://www.altairva-fs.com/training/ava_training_ifr_circle.htm)

I think it does a reasonable job of explaining what all this is about.

- GY :ok:

[BOAC]

rg - this (http://academy.ivao.aero/node/84) would be a simple intro guide for you but be aware that the figures quoted for the circling area are the PansOps ones. This one (http://www.terps.com/ifrr/nov97.pdf) gives you the TERPS figures.

Farrell - I'm beginning to think 411A has a huge gulf of understanding of charts and circling despite all the bluff and bravado. The clue is in "2 (statute) miles, as printed on the approach chart...even more restrictive" - see what I mean? I'd love to know where he thinks the circling area is 'printed on the chart':)

[aterpster]

boac:
aterpster - your logic escapes me! Is not the way "to learn all that is relevant to preventing a repeat" to ensure that WHATEVER the cleared area, pilots remain in it?

It simply is not possible for a Cat D airplane at max landing weight, and with adverse winds to remain within TERPs CTL protected airspace. This is why Change 21 of TERPs has better CTL criteria (not as good as PANS-OPS though) but thus far political forces in the U.S. have prevented implementation.

What is wrong with 842' (or 850)? Looks OK on the chart to me.

The visual geometry becomes difficult in a jet at low heights unless there is a lot of practice and a whole lot of proficiency. That is my considered opinion; others can certainly disagree.

[411A]

I'd love to know where he thinks the circling area is 'printed on the chart'

'Tis quite simple, BOAC.
In the minima section of the Jeppesen approach chart, you will find the lowest minima to which circling is allowed, in our particular case, for our category D airplane, 600aal/2 miles is the lowest you will find.
Therefore, if our happless pilot decideds to go beyond the 2 mile limit during his/her circling maneuver, especially not in visual contact with the intended landing runway, possible grief awaits.

Hmmm, no wonder pilots have a problem with circling...they don't understand the consequesnces of it being done, incorrectly.

It simply is not possible for a Cat D airplane at max landing weight, and with adverse winds to remain within TERPs CTL protected airspace.

Yes, often times correct...this requires forethought prior to the intended circling maneuver.

unless there is a lot of practice and a whole lot of proficiency. That is my considered opinion; others can certainly disagree.

Agree, proficiency is the key to success.

[rgbrock1]

GarageYears:

Thanks for that. Very clear now. My initial thoughts on what a circling approach was proved somewhat correct. But nowhere near as detailed as that provided in the link.
I'm impressed by such a maneuver.

The only circling approaches I was ever familiar with, and took part in, were similar to these:

http://ootp.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/elite-iraqi-commandos-complete-training-stand-ready-to-serve_090715.png?w=363&h=500

Which really aren't the same as those by a civilian aircraft!!!

[BOAC]

for our category D airplane, 600aal/2 miles is the lowest you will find. - anyone else want to tell him what the "-2" is............? It certainly ain't your circling area, sunshine! Are you for real?

..and I believe the minimum aal is 550' for Cat D, not 600.

[411A]

- anyone else want to tell him what the "-2" is............?
It is the lowest allowed weather minima, and...if you pay attention, flying outside the two mile radius, you are no longer in any sort of protected area, at the charted minimum circling altitude.

..and I believe the minimum aal is 550' for Cat D, not 600.
Ours is 600, in the ops specs.

Really, BOAC, if you were to fly for an FAA operator, I can see you might have severe difficulty passing the checkride.:rolleyes:

[BOAC]

Well done - you are right about the weather minima but "if you pay attention, flying outside the two mile radius" is total garbage (or trash as I think you call it). The 'radius' is 2.3 nautics based on the end of each runway. Just ask one of your 'co-pilots' - they will put you straight:) It is covered by TERPS which you could look up on the internet if you wish.

Others have noticed, 411A - your cover is blown.

[aterpster]

411A:

2 miles, as printed on the approach chart...even more restrictive.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

I think you might be confusing the standard CAT D circling visibility minimum of 2 s.m. with the TERPs containment area, which is 2.3 n.m.

If your Ops Specs states you must remain within 2 n.m. while doing CAT D CTL, that would not change the TERPs criteria by which your IAPs are constructed; that is, unless they are non-public (special) IAPs. Even with specials, the FAA would not reduce the circling protected airspace.

[411A]

The 'radius' is 2.3 nautics based on the end of each runway
The slight problem then remains, if the reported visibility is 2 miles, and you fly more than 2 miles from the intended landing runway, you may well lose sight of the runway, and thereby not be able to complete the circling approach, because, a circling approach is a visual maneuver, and the runway must be kept in sight at all times, under FAA rules.
No exceptions.
Further, we then can see just why some aircraft have crashed doing these circling approaches...simply because the pilot(s) simply did not follow the laid down procedure/applicable regulations.
During a check ride with an FAA inspector, once outside that two mile radius (equivelent to the minimum prevailing visibility)...you have failed that portion of said check, and are sent back for more training.

A simple concept to grasp...except for a small minority of folks.:rolleyes:

Nothing especially wrong with Terps, it is the folks that do not understand the critiera, and how these critiera, are administered by FAA inspectors...and, should be followed by line pilots, during normal line operations, that are part of the problem.

PansOps?
A different kettle of fish, altogether.

[dvv]

So, 411A, what if the visibility is 3sm? Do we still have to circle within 2sm from the runway? Even if TERPS says we have about ½ nm more of leeway?

[BOAC]

You still haven't got this, have you? It is unbelievable (or actually not). In spite of all those 'years' aceing 'tight circuits', 'wowing' the F/Os and rubbishing everyone else you have NO idea what the '2 Statute miles' means, do you? Look it up - or ask a pilot.

Now, any 'FAA inspector' who failed ME for flying more than 2 STATUTE miles away from datum but inside 2.3 NAUTICAL MILES AND with the 'environment' in sight and an IFV of at least 2 SM would, I assure you, him or herself be 'failed' for talking out of their arse.

Here is another help for you regarding keeping the 'runway in sight':

FAR 91.175(e)(2) requires you to keep an identifiable part of the airport
in distinct view, except when banking temporarily blocks the view.

[411A]

Even with specials, the FAA would not reduce the circling protected airspace.
They would not, however, the FAA could very well (and do, routinely) issue Ops Specs that are more restrictive for certain operators, operating under 14CFR121.
Examples would be...no circling allowed, or not allowed to certain runways, even though circling is indicated on the Jeppesen approach chart...and not all operators use tailored charts but general issue, restriced by said Ops Specs.

FAR 91.175(e)(2)
These regulations do not apply specifically (in many respects) to 14CFR121 operators, and the operation of heavy jet aircraft.
Try again, BOAC.:rolleyes:

Now, any 'FAA inspector' who failed ME for flying more than 2 STATUTE miles away from datum but inside 2.3 NAUTICAL MILES AND with the 'environment' in sight and an IFV of at least 2 SM would, I assure you, him or herself be 'failed' for talking out of their arse.


You would still not be issued the type rating.:rolleyes:

So, 411A, what if the visibility is 3sm? Do we still have to circle within 2sm from the runway?
Negative, you circle to the indicated distance, because, with a heavy jet airplane, the minimum circling altitude is normally increased to allow circling at that increased distance....or, the altitude indicated within your airlines approved Ops Specs.

[flyawaybird]

This is regard to ICAO having power to enforce report of accidents from member airliners.

I once worked with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in early 80s. The following is contained in one of their documents.

The Establishment of ICAO after Second World included a commitment of signatories to abide by common mesures to ensure safety in International Air Transportation (IAT). The organization, however, has limited powers of enforcement. The International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) Program was initiated by the US to ensure that countries with services involving US meet ICAO Safety Oversight Standards.

This paper makes use of the IASA assessment procedure to examine factors that influence whether contries are conforming to ICAO Safety Standards.
This brings us back to PIA whether or not PIA conforms to these standards and if not what penalty would PIA given for not submitting accidents reports in 62 years of their air operation.

If so can IASA intervene, so that PIA can be forced to be transparent?

One can find out more in ICAO Standards Procedures in air safety.:(

[RetiredF4]

Forgive me to interrupt with my old brain,

my last circling approach happened some 15 years ago, everything mentioned feels familiar, except two things wich i remember different.

We only had to keep an identifiable part of the airport in sight during circling, not the runway itself. And i think TERPs is still the same.

The reported visibility to allow the beginning of a circling approach and to get a clearance for it was measured RVR. To fly the approach we used inflight visibility and airport environment in sight.

So i dont understand the discussion, that the measured RVR restricts the published circling area. By the way, when was the last time that RVR coresponded with inflight vis?


franzl

[BOAC]

dvv - make of that what you will. It appears (if I read that confusing reply correctly) that poor old 411A is not allowed to use the whole TERPS manouvering area whilst lesser mortals can go out to the full 2.3nm? Are the FAA afraid he will get lost that far out?:)

[dvv]

411A, what "indicated distance" are you talking about? Let's say, the field is at 192', the chart says "800-2" and the visibility is 3sm with the cloud deck at, say, 900' AGL. What do we do?

[aguadalte]

www.kwauk.com/Files/Circling_Approach.ppt (http://www.pprune.org/www.kwauk.com/Files/Circling_Approach.ppt)

[mm43]

aguadalte;

Looks like the link is incorrect. The following should work -

Circling Approach (http://www.kwauk.com/Files/Circling_Approach.ppt)

mm43

[411A]

Quote:
Let's say, the field is at 192', the chart says "800-2" and the visibility is 3sm with the cloud deck at, say, 900' AGL. What do we do?

What do your individual ops specs say?
You have these, yes or no?

If your ops specs say to use charted minimums, you would be expected to...
circle no lower than 992msl and to not diviate more than two miles from the intended landing runway.
Note: if however, the ceiling was a good deal higher than the charted minimum, extending beyond two miles from the airport, is allowed....but not greater than three, whilst maintaining visual terrain clearance, and the landing runway clearly in sight.
If, upon reaching circling minimums, you lost sight of the intended landing runway at any time, you would be expected to fly a missed approach procedure, with the first turn toward the airport, then follow the charted missed approach procedure..

Some air carriers, unable to accept this, will therefore be issued Ops Specs that mandate higher than charted minimums, thereby allowing a greater level of safety.

The USFAA is very distinct about this, contrary to what others (without any FAA training), might suspect.
IE: the devil is in the details.
Terps is highly restrictive whilst circling, with good reason.

[PJ2]

For those wishing the ICAO Document 8168 - Aircraft Operations, (PANS-OPS), the link is here (http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Doc%208168%20-%20Aircraft%20Operations/).

PJ2

[dvv]

411A, I'm a bit lost in all these words. So let's try one more time. Here's the piece of the chart I'm talking about:

http://busybee.dvv.org:8000/circ.png

For the sake of this discussion, the ops says to use charted minimums. The ceiling, like I said, is at 900' AGL, the visibility is 3SM. So exactly what numbers should we stick to for our category D aircraft? A FAR/AIM reference in support of your reasoning will be greatly appreciated.

[protectthehornet]

ok, for once I'm not going to just blame the airbus.

circling to land in real ''weather'' can be dangerous. as most people know, in the USA we (at major airlines) have all but given them up...although we do allow circling in basic vfr conditions (1000' and 3 statue miles).

to go back to basics, all runways served by jet airliners should have ILS or equivilent to all runways so no circling would be required.

I am very sorry to hear about this crash. a great tragedy.

could water ingestion in the engines have caused a problem which took the crew's attention away from navigating/flying the circle????

[p51guy]

Having circled to land my last 6 years of flying because of the airport we flew in to I can't imagine being distracted by anything to fly so far out of the protected area for a circle to land approach. The CVR and FDR will explain what they were doing during that long period of not following proper procedures. Even an engine failure would be secondary to terrain avoidance. They were 7 miles from the airport when they crashed circling?

[411A]

So exactly what numbers should we stick to for our category D aircraft?

800-2, no lower than 800aal, until in a position to begin a normal descent for landing, and...no more than two miles from the runway (threshold) of intending landing, during the circling maneuver.
This is precisely what the FAA inspector expects to see during a type check in the category D airplane, or simulator.

It's all in the FAA Inspectors Handbook.
Call in at an FAA Flight Standards District Office if you would like to see for yourself.

[fireflybob]

Can't comment on the FAA rules but in the UK there was always a requirement for an IN FLIGHT VISIBILITY for circling AND also a minimum reported vis/RVR for the runway on which one intended to land.

For Cat C the IFV requirment was 3700 metres and (typically) 600 metres RVR (or greater if no approach lights etc) minimum rvr for the landing runway.

So for the FAA minimum is the 2 statute miles the minimum IFV for the circle but the 2.3 miles the protected area for circling?

In the company I fly for we circle on a regular basis but have structured procedures for doing so and are well trained for all the options and how to carry out a missed approach if visual reference is lost. Circling is perfectly safe so long as you obey the rules.

[Gulfcapt]

Prayers to the family members of the deceased. No amount of fact or rumor will lessen their grief.

Correct me if I'm wrong (as if I really need to write that...:)) but the 2.3nm TERPS number being bantered about is an obstacle clearance zone, not an approach vis. The minimums Dvv posted in #215 show 2sm for Cat D mins. Circling at 2sm obviously is within the obstacle clearance protection provided for by TERPS. A circle conducted at 3sm from the runway would be outside this protection and it would fall upon the crew to see and avoid obstacles.

Here in the USA, circling approaches are checked in the sim at airports the FAA has determined meet the requirement of maintaining visual contact with the airport; KJFK, KMEM and KPDX seem to be the normal ones. It is made clear during training that we may not begin the circle until we are within the TERPS obstacle clearance zone, even if we have the airport in sight sooner.

7 miles - statue or nautical - seems awful far from the airport for a circling approach...:uhoh:

[411A]

It is made clear during training that we may not begin the circle until we are within the TERPS obstacle clearance zone, even if we have the airport in sight sooner.
Absolutely correct, and consistant with FAA procedures.

[dvv]

Gulfcapt, no question about 2sm being within the TERPS boundaries and 3sm being without ones. The question is - is circling at, say, 2nm from that 16L in #215 legit when the visibility is 3sm?

[Gulfcapt]

Dvv, I think I understand your point. So long as you are within the TERPS obstacle protection zone, meet the flight vis required for the approach and maintain visual contact with the runway, you would be "legit" to circle...:ok:

[Captain-Crunch]

First of all, while a good post with good points, the heading "Pope" guy is wrong afaik. 737, 747, 727, BAe146, Bizjets, (Collins, Sperry, King etc) and dozens of GA aircraft with HSI's, took the shortest distance to the preset heading bug and turned towards it when heading select was engaged. Airbus is the only one I ever flew that would do a 270 degree turn the wrong direction since it remembered which way you initially turned the knob on the last approach. Crazy.

My memory, back when we did circles, was that it was up to the PIC to remain within the terps or pan-ops obstacle protection "cloud" and maintain visual with the threshold. Since say, the vis is reported in Statue miles, and there's no Statue Mile Display in the aircraft, the obvious question becomes, how do you measure it?

Even if you had an ILS DME readout on the landing runway 12 that you cranked in just to get the raw number to the threshold, just to make the calc easy, that readout is in Nautical Miles. So:

2sm = ~1.7nm . Right?

So by 411A's description, you couldn't see 1.8 clicks on the meter on the downwind to base or it was a bust; is that right?

Now part 91 and supplemental, as another poster mentioned, maybe for a time had a loophole out of this tight circuit, whereby the crew could go to 2.2 nm (terps) or 5.x nm (just shy of pan-ops protection) if the pilot's vis was better than reported, however, the flight crew took responsibility for visual separation with terrain, IIRC.

So here's my bitch: Why are op specs and some visability still reported in statue miles? Are we in a car here?

Why the hell are we still using a primitive 1970's Green Screen FMS with awkward command-line interface instead of GUI (graphical user interface) which every kid with a mobile phone has?

Just so Honeywell can have a monopoly and keep employing FMS programers whome no two program the Byzantine crap software the same at any two airports in the world?

Talk about no standardization! There is no standardization between FMS waypoint programers. None!

For a while, the crap would work O.K. and you'd start getting used to it's idiosyncrasies. Then you'd fly up to NRT and on the SID, even though the primary flt plan showed it going to the VOR first, and then turning onto course, the :mad: Airbus would cut the freaking corner early sending ATC into orbit.

No one could fix it for years, so you just had to be ready to:

disconnect: reconnect
disconnect: reconnect
disconnect: reconnect
disconnect: reconnect
disconnect: reconnect, all night long.

Turb on apprch? Thrust Latch, here comes another acrobatic tail slide!

ding ding ding ding ding ding......

Who the hell designed this freaking mad computer in place of an airplane? :} The only way not to get killed was to hand fly it all the time. But then the Glass-Generation F/O's would cry: that damn "hand job" Capt is overloading me!!!!!!! I can't talk on the mike and turn the heading knob at the same time!!!!

If you ask me, the arguments I've read on this thread, that the Captain was an experienced 747 Capt mean absolutely nothing. On the airbus you are no longer really a pilot (if you always fly at the highest level of automation as they wanted you to); you are now an FSS: Flight System Supervisor.

Why do Circle to Lands a poster asked? So you don't run off the runway with a twenty knot tailwind, that's why. If you'll turn off and just quit phucking with all that electric jet chit, and all that performance chit, and just use raw data, and have two guy's heads looking out the window, this sort of silly accident might not happen. (That is, if it is indeed, a CFIT accident, as it appears to be.)

That's what I think anyway.

CC

[411A]

So by 411A's description, you couldn't see 1.8 clicks on the meter on the downwind to base or it was a bust; is that right?

Yes, with the vast majority of FAA inspectors.
However, a few might allow you to go to 2.0 DME (thus insuring remaining within the 2.3 mile radius), if they were in a good mood and the other maneuvers were up to snuff, accuracy-wise, however, the runway must never be out of sight.
The circling maneuver is supposed to be completed (for a type check) in an all engines operating configuration (3 or 4 engine airplane), however, some inspectors would fail an engine during (or just prior) to the circling maneuver, just to make you work a littler harder.

I have no idea what the twin engine guys do, as I don't fly a twin.

Why are op specs and some visability still reported in statue miles?
Because, that is the way it is done in the USA. However, as I fly outside the USA most of the time, I prefer meters (metres:rolleyes:)

[ironbutt57]

It may be that there was some weather avoidance going on at the time

[dvv]

Well, I've searched in the FAA document with a very telling name of

AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
AND AIRCRAFT TYPE RATING
Practical Test Standards
for
AIRPLANE

It's the document that the Inspectors Handbook (which is a part of FAA Order 8900.1 Flight Standards Information Management System now) refers to. There's nothing there that requires that circling approaches should be performed at the circling visibility minimum values, only that it should be determined that the applicant "In simulated or actual instrument conditions to MDA, accomplishes the circling approach selected by the examiner", and, of course, the examiner might choose to "simulate" the conditions all the way down to the minimums. Otherwise, apart from the obvious requirements to stay in visual contact with the runway and not to bust the TERPS limits, the objective is to determine that the applicant (amongst other things irrelevant to this discussion):

[…]
8. Performs the procedure without excessive maneuvering and
without exceeding the normal operating limits of the airplane
(the angle of bank should not exceed 30°).
9. Maintains the desired altitude within −0, +100 feet, heading/
track within ±5°, the airspeed/V-speed within ±5 knots, but
not less than the airspeed as specified in the POH or the
AFM.
[…]

BTW, 30° bank at 150kts gives you the radius of about ⅔nm, which technically allows for flying downwind as close as 1⅓nm from the runway centerline (adjust for deviations from the standard conditions and wind).

[411A]

accomplishes the circling approach selected by the examiner", and, of course, the examiner might choose to "simulate" the conditions all the way down to the minimums.
You can expect this, in a jet transport airplane.

[dvv]

Which doesn't mean that every real life circling approach happens with the weather at the minimums.

[PopeSweetJesus]

First of all, while a good post with good points,

Thanks 'Crunch Guy':)

the heading "Pope" guy is wrong afaik. 737, 747, 727, BAe146, Bizjets, (Collins, Sperry, King etc) and dozens of GA aircraft with HSI's, took the shortest distance to the preset heading bug and turned towards it when heading select was engaged. Airbus is the only one I ever flew that would do a 270 degree turn the wrong direction since it remembered which way you initially turned the knob on the last approach. Crazy.

I guess we could play what a/c have you flown back and forth, as I flown some of the same ones you've mentioned, but I think my overall point remains the same-you have to understand what your current plane will do in a given situation whether or not it's what you're used to or whether you agree with the philosophy or not. I've flown some airplanes that will do what the 727 does, but I've flown more that will do what the Bus does and not all were Airbus. Both setups have presented me with 'gotchas' from time to time in a certain situations, which is why I feel you just have to know what your plane's gonna do, think ahead and deal with it. There are no standards for such things, and likely never will be so it is what it is.

The only way not to get killed was to hand fly it all the time. But then the Glass-Generation F/O's would cry: that damn "hand job" Capt is overloading me!!!!!!! I can't talk on the mike and turn the heading knob at the same time!!!!

Quite accurate as I've been there as well, but I've also seen quite a few older gen Capt's who act the same way when you hand fly glass airplanes. Also it's not just glass airplanes. You could make the same type of comments about some older planes like the 727's with the old SP-50 autopilots. There are a lot of situations where using them is far more work than just flying the airplane yourself, but most airlines training programs encourage using the 'automation' anyway and you'll find guys who'll freak out when you don't. It's more than just the glass generation F/O's, it's the training styles that have affected all in one way or another over the last 20+ years or so.

[Centaurus]

but most airlines training programs encourage using the 'automation' anyway and you'll find guys who'll freak out when you don't.

Dead right about that. To take it to a ridiculous degree, at least one Australian regional airline flying turbo-props employs cadet pilots as second in command with a total of 250 hours and "strongly recommends" (for that read do as you are told) they use the autopilot as much as possible even to flying CAVOK circuits on autopilot as long as they disconnect the autopilot by 100 feet. These are the airline captains of the future brought up on a diet of fear of hand flying.

[411A]

Which doesn't mean that every real life circling approach happens with the weather at the minimums.

Seems entirely reasonable to me.

...they use the autopilot as much as possible even to flying CAVOK circuits on autopilot as long as they disconnect the autopilot by 100 feet. These are the airline captains of the future brought up on a diet of fear of hand flying.

Definitely a step in the wrong direction, from my perspective.:sad:

[fromSIN]

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Crashed Air Blue flight's black box found: report (http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/03-crashed-air-blue-flights-black-box-found-report-ss-04)

[Meekal]

According to a credible person (one of our highly decorated fighter pilot's -- now retired) the Airblue aircraft was in GA mode when it disappeared into mist and cloud.

[aterpster]

RetiredF4:
The reported visibility to allow the beginning of a circling approach and to get a clearance for it was measured RVR. To fly the approach we used inflight visibility and airport environment in sight.

RVR controls only for a runway, it does not a substitute for prevailing visibility. So, under U.S. rules, commercial ops cannot begin a CTL unless the prevailing visibility is not less than the visibility minimum shown on the chart for your category of CTL. Typically, that would be 2 s.m. for Appch Cat D. Now, if the prevailing visibility is indeed 2 s.m. (or greater) but RVR is being reported for the runway to which you intend to circle, you have a problem. (RVR is not reported in the U.S. greater than 6,000.)

BTW, RVR in the U.S. is not visibility, it represents the "sighting conditions" (FAA's term, not mine) you can expect to have upon touchdown in the TDZ.

[BOAC]

the Airblue aircraft was in GA mode when it disappeared into mist and cloud. - I think we would probably have assumed that without any black boxes!

Aterpster - under PansOps you could finish up with an IFV of, say 6k, but an RVR of 1000m in shallow fog and still be 'legal' to circle. PansOps min RVR for a visual approach being typically 800m

[aterpster]

dvv:

For the sake of this discussion, the ops says to use charted minimums. The ceiling, like I said, is at 900' AGL, the visibility is 3SM. So exactly what numbers should we stick to for our category D aircraft? A FAR/AIM reference in support of your reasoning will be greatly appreciated.

Reported ceiling has no legality as whether you can circle. But, 900-3 would mean the surface area (I presume you are operating in surface airspace at the time) means the surface area is not VFR. So, you cannot request a visual, thus you must remain within 2.3 nautical miles of any portion of any runway, which is available and legal for CTL and landing.

(contact approaches don't apply to this discussion :) )

[Gulfcapt]

Capt. Crunch, concur on your rant (and I mean rant in a good way:ok:). A future of cockpits filled with FSS is more than a little concerning. :sad:

Circling maneuvers are always checked in the sim at minimums, no if-ands-or-buts. On occasion, when I've been lucky enough to draw an evil checkairman, I've circled on one engine. Not a big deal in a Gulfstream cause its overpowered at most landing weights.

Automation SOP's that encourage use of the highest level of automation are shallow at best. I like Continental's as it emphasizes that their pilots must be proficient in all levels of automation. It really pisses me off when I go to the schoolhouse and hear the phrase "Captain Honeywell." Sparky is always relegated to the first officer position when I'm aboard.

Automation can make a weak pilot look average and a strong pilot look ordinary.

Also concur with Pope...the SP-50 autopilot wasn't exactly a labor-saving device. We had them in the Gulfstream II; lotsa fun having the autopilot and the FD doing two different things!

[aterpster]

411A:

Absolutely correct (not departing the electronic guidance until within the circling maneuvering area), and consistant with FAA procedures.

I don't know what FAA procedures you're speaking of, but in the U.S. remaining within the circling maneuvering area is a matter of regulation. That applies anywhere around the runways of the airport.

[aterpster]

ironbutt57:
It may be that there was some weather avoidance going on at the time.

Circle to land and weather avoidance mix like oil and water. But, indeed, that may have been the case with this accident.

[aterpster]

411A:

Because, that is the way it is done in the USA. However, as I fly outside the USA most of the time, I prefer meters (metres:rolleyes:)

Outside the U.S. I find 5+ n.m. for circling protection to be far preferable to the FAA's 2.3 n.m. Since your Part 121 operations are outside the U.S. most of the time, do your agust FAA inspectors and handlers test you on knowing when an airport is 2.3 for cicling and when it's 5+ ("+" is because PANS-OPS, unlike TERPs, wisely increase the limit with airport elevation).

If the feds (and the airline trainers) don't train and check to those significant international differences, then they are not doing their job.

And, what if the Jepp chart for ABC Airport in Country Z doesn't proclaim either TERPS or PANS-OPS on the lower left margin of the chart?

[aguadalte]

Looks like the link is incorrect. The following should work -

Circling Approach (http://www.kwauk.com/Files/Circling_Approach.ppt)

mm43

Thanks mm43.:8

[Meekal]

BOAC,

I am amused you say that. When I said the same thing on a Pakistani paper this morning I got jumped on and was asked in a very indignant tone "HOW do you know that? Have YOU heard the CVR?! Please stop speculating!"

[vanHorck]

sorry, just a SLF / PPL MEP here and slightly off thread, so mods feel free to delete if applicable

I think it's time pilots stood up against the discouraging of hand flying by airlines (I understand Easyjet discourages this, perhaps others do too?)

[denlopviper]

@ Meekal
everyone is entitled to their opinions

political reasons on both sides were the cause fo the incident report not being made public. a high profile incident on the best medium tactical airlifter lockheed had to offer would have pretty much closed down the C-130 production line.

the Fokker in multal was also crew error. by crew i mean the ground crew who overloaded the airplane and that extra cargo not beign entered in the W&B calculations. and the flight crew using an overboost feature above the temp limits which blew the engine. the airplane was still going in for a safe landing, but they ran into a powerline which basically flipped it on its back and you know the rest. and the Fokker was grounded because the crowd refused to fly on the airplane, not because of some dark conspiricy!

and yes i am you average civilian, no i am not in PIA (i am not even in the country) and yes i have read both incident reports.

back to topic. as far as i know the FDR was recovered on the 1st day. the crash site and looks like a low energy impact which kind of puts a shadow on the engine being at TOGA power or accelerating.

but hey i still fly stuff with fans at the pointy end so who am i to know :}

[RatherBeFlying]

The only valid excuse for being outside the protected area is a miss. But if it was a miss, you first need to turn back to the airport. I think I'd like to get back to the approach end of the ILS runway before turning to the MA course in conformance with any circling restrictions.

Doing a miss at minimum altitude from the opposite end of the approach straight through the boundary of the OCA ain't likely to work:uhoh:

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I think it's time pilots stood up against the discouraging of hand flying by airlines (I understand Easyjet discourages this, perhaps others do too?)

That is not true. easyJet, like most airlines takes a pragmatic approach to automation, recognises that over-use can cause erosion of hand flying skills and therefore encourages the practice of manual flying Where and When appropriate.

Back on topic I struggle to understand how you end up 7 miles away from the runway on a circle to land without things being pretty drastically wrong on the flightdeck. Its way outside the margins. Hopefully a formal report will provide the answer and I'm amazed that any country can get away with not publishing accident investigation reports.


WWW

[BOAC]

the crash site... looks like a low energy impact - what exactly do you think a high-energy site would look like?

which kind of puts a shadow on the engine being at TOGA power or accelerating. - why?

[Farrell]

Hopefully a formal report will provide the answer and I'm amazed that any country can get away with not publishing accident investigation reports.

Don't hold your breath.
Apparently, they've never released a report before.

Farrell

[Superpilot]

Quote from another forum:

"The fatal mistake by the pilot in continuing towards Margallas, instead of turning left while circling for Runway 12, was not the first. The aircraft had during its descent into Islamabad airport strayed into Kahuta area but was corrected by the control tower"

Not verified but gives more weight to the 'map shift' theory

[411A]

Since your Part 121 operations are outside the U.S. most of the time, do your agust FAA inspectors and handlers test you on knowing when an airport is 2.3 for cicling and when it's 5+ ("+" is because PANS-OPS, unlike TERPs, wisely increase the limit with airport elevation).


We don't operate to 14CFR121 regulations, as our aircraft are not US registered.
However, many of our pilots are FAA rated, and certainly know the difference between Terps and PansOps. If they did not, they wouldn't be here...:rolleyes:
Personally, we find no special difficulty with circling using Terps procedures, because...that is how we conduct our training....IE: we do not now allow our pilots to maneuver outside the 2 mile visibility area during circling, unless the weather is VMC.

[411A]

Quote:
It is made clear during training that we may not begin the circle until we are within the TERPS obstacle clearance zone, even if we have the airport in sight sooner.

Absolutely correct, and consistant with FAA procedures.

That was my direct quote, aterpster...not what you 'quoted'.....:rolleyes:

And, what if the Jepp chart for ABC Airport in Country Z doesn't proclaim either TERPS or PANS-OPS on the lower left margin of the chart?

Do you not know what procedures are normally used at the airport of intended landing?
If not, why not?:ooh: