Operational non-compliance involving a Boeing 777, VH-VPH, near Melbourne Airport

[Minimbah]

Investigation: AO-2013-130 - Operational non-compliance involving a Boeing 777, VH-VPH, near Melbourne Airport, Victoria on 15 August 2013 (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-130.aspx)
Have not seen any discussion on this. It this just another "what are the computers doing now" incident or something else? Just curious.

[Sarcs]

Ben Sandilands ran an article on this incident...

Virgin Australia 777 in sudden brief dive near Melbourne Airport (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/08/20/virgin-australia-777-in-sudden-brief-dive-near-melbourne-airport/)

....although most of the commentary focussed on the ATsB blurb and in particular the word "guests"??: Virgin Australia is assisting the Air Transport Safety Bureau with an investigation of an international flight at Melbourne International Airport on Thursday 15 August. The aircraft landed without incident after the crew disengaged the autopilot and manually flew the aircraft. There was no danger to the aircraft or guests at any time.
You're right though not much commentary on here about anything much at the moment!!??:E

[FYSTI]

Your link is broken: Virgin Australia 777 in sudden brief dive near Melbourne Airport (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/08/20/virgin-australia-777-in-sudden-brief-dive-near-melbourne-airport/).

[vee1-rotate]

Interesting to research this event using the "basic" tools available on the internet to a general observer.

Utilizing both flightaware and webtrak data, it seems that the descent, which is commenced after passing overhead SHEEDS continued down quite a bit quicker and lower than is normal. Flightaware and webtrak both show the aircraft descending from approx 2500ft at SHEEDS to between 700 and 900ft before the aircraft even starts its right turn onto finals for runway 34.

Again, this is only using flightaware and webtrak so their reliability isn't guaranteed but watching the same approach from subsequent aircraft, most dont venture below ~1400ft before the turn to final on runway 34.

Just a few observations. Perhaps a few of the guys who shoot this approach regularly in real life can explain the approach a bit more specifically.

A few links:

Flightaware data
Flight Track Log ? VOZ24 ? 13-Aug-2013 ? KLAX - YMML / MEL ? FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VOZ24/history/20130814/0640Z/KLAX/YMML/tracklog)

Webtrak
WebTrak: Melbourne International Airport (http://webtrak.bksv.com/mel)
(you need to change the date on the left side to Augut 15th at approx 8am to view the flight in question)

[Sub Orbital]

Regarding the visual approach to MEL 34 from over head Sheed, it's a piece of cake. I've done it many times.
Speaking for the B747-400 and the A380 (can't speak for smaller aircraft) the technique is simple.
Firstly it is a VISUAL approach flown MANUALLY. Repeat, MANUALLY.
Aim to be overhead Sheed fully configured and then (shock horror) disconnect the A/P and turn of the F/D at Sheed.
That's right. you need to fly it yourself!!
Set up a ROD of approx 1000'/min immediately (depending on the headwind on r/w 34) and aim to be at 1350' (1000'agl) by 3nm from touchdown. Simple.
Having said that, I've had 3 F/O's who told me they wouldn't do it and "required" the Rnav approach. Oh, it was CAVOK.
I told them if they wouldn't do it, then I'd do it myself. Surprise, change of heart and they all did a beautiful job of it.
WHY is everyone so scared of hand flying?
I commonly do it (in the right environment) all the way to TOC and from TOD.
Does wonders to improve your scan. I do say "in the right environment", because there are times when it is not appropriate.
Surely we haven't descended to the "apparent" lack of manual manipulation that "appears" to be the case on SFO.
Or have we??

[porch monkey]

You don't even need to hand fly it, at least in the 737. Most do, though. The problem in the past for some has been configuring in time....... Can't offer a reason for the issue with the 777 tho.

[Des Dimona]

You don't even need to hand fly it, at least in the 737

You have got to be kidding me - From 2500 ft with so few track miles, any delay or error is going to well and truly stuff things up.

If you don't practice manual flying skills in these types of approaches, come the time when you really need them, it's all over the place.

Sub Orbital is right - fly it manually - couple of ways to do it, but my technique is about 1200 ft min until it intercepts DME x 3 which puts the a/c exactly on the 3 degree slope for RWY 34.

[framer]

I do exactly as Des does. With the location of the dme and the elevation 3x works out perfectly. Also, looking out the window does a fine job as well.

[dartman2]

"Guests", what sort of toss pot came up with that? Most of us do not charge guests in our homes to come in. They are passengers.

All modern aircraft are fitted with a special optical devise that has been designed for these sort of approaches. It is called a window. Most airlines fail to instruct their crews in its correct use.

[mgahan]

Excuse the intrusion of an old ATC type into an operational flying discussion.

An old video no doubt but sill of some relevance to this discussion. Children of Magenta - YouTube

I wish I could find a similar video to show to automation dependent controllers.

MJG

[ad-astra]

Well with the likes of Sub Orbital and Des Dimona telling us all that we MUST hand fly this approach I will have to go back over the last 11 years on the 737 and thank the almighty that somehow I cheated death every time I passed over Sheed.

How about we loosen up on the joystick boys and acknowledge that there are numerous ways to safely conduct this approach.

As Porch Monkey described it can be flown effortlessly and very accurately in LNAV/VNAV and can be manually flown just as well.

Hopefully the high horses are back in the corral.

[piston broke again]

From the SHEED requirement of 2500A, you do not have a 3 degree path to the runway so the rate of descent is always going to be a bit higher than normal unless you have a rip roaring northerly which is sometimes the case. So you need the dunlops down and almost full flap before you leave SHEED. 737 can be flown down to short final before disconnecting automatics. Just set up the runway extension (2.85nm final) and Bob's your aunt!

[Roo]

How about we loosen up on the joystick boys and acknowledge that there are numerous ways to safely conduct this approach.
+1 :D

Hopefully the high horses are back in the corral.
Seems not. Cant help em selves :ugh:

[Capt Fathom]

The ATSB report is based on a Operational non-compliance.

All the talk here is how to fly a visual approach from over Essendon. How does that relate to this particular Operational non-compliance event?

The report doesn't say.

[Hempy]

'SHEED' and 'overhead EN' are the same place, the waypoint has been given a different name to define it as part of the ML 34 approach. The limit NB 2500' til overhead SHEED is due to the 1500' circuit at EN

[neville_nobody]

All the talk here is how to fly a visual approach from over Essendon. How does that relate to this particular Operational non-compliance event?

It relates to the arrival holding you up over YMEN then diving you down. If you have a strong tailwind and don't configure as mentioned about it can get outa hand. I doubt this would have been anything new to the VA crew as they fly into MEL all the time.

[Centaurus]

If you don't practice manual flying skills in these types of approaches, come the time when you really need them, it's all over the place.

From talking to colleagues in the industry over the years, I get the impression that there is indeed a fair proportion of airline pilots that are very wary of hand flying unless it is in the last 1000 ft where they have little choice depending on the type of approach.

Again, I can only relay what I have been told. And that is, if the captain is a stickler for hanging on to the automatics asap after take off and until committed on landing, then, if it is the first officer's sector, it is doubtful the captain will let him go click click and hand fly when he wants the practice.

On the other hand, those captains who are only too happy to let the first officer keep his hand in on manual flying, and have offered their F/O's the opportunity to hand fly, sometimes get knocked back because the F/O is too nervous and lacking confidence in his ability to hand fly. I get the distinct impression that both scenarios are more common in Australian crews that one would think.

[Capn Bloggs]

It'll be interesting to see what punishment is meted out to the aircraft for not operationally complying. Maybe banished to only conduct ILS approaches from 20nm out for the next 12 months?

I have no idea about the gear in the 777. What would you expect to happen if that approach was flown in VNAV with the hold-up at SHEED? My jalopy would stuff the nose down to try to get back on the 3° profile to the runway after passing SHEED.

[Capt Claret]

How many track miles SHEED to the 34 threshold?

[Capn Bloggs]

How many track miles SHEED to the 34 threshold?

Here you go Clarrie, all discussed previously...

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/471505-plane-talking-bogan-air-atsb-report-4.html#post6900086

[Derfred]

The only thing worse than a pilot who can't hand-fly is a pilot who can't use automatics properly.

Of course you can use an autopilot for this approach.

[Oakape]

A couple of days back I heard a VAI 777 say that they couldn't accept the arrival via sheed & if they were assigned 34 they would require the full RNAV approach. Perhaps there has been a directive from management due to this incident.

The 777 should have no trouble flying this approach in LNAV/VNAV if it was selectable from the database.

[Capn Bloggs]

The 777 should have no trouble flying this approach in LNAV/VNAV if it was selectable from the database.
In my machine, no Visual Approaches are. Looking at the chart, I very much doubt that this one is either.

I reckon it'll be a simple case of Automation Surprise. What is it with these 777 thingees on 34? :}

[Hugh Jarse]

In the thing I fly, should you want LNAV/VNAV path guidance to the RWY from SHEED, you just create a RWY extension and a 3deg path to the RWY. Link it up to the SHEED WPT and it works perfectly.

KISS.

Dunno about the tripler though.

[porch monkey]

Thanks ad Astra, Derfred, at least a couple of you got my intent........

[Capt Claret]

Apparently 2 x missed approaches to RWY 11 at DRW this afternoon followed by an ILS to 29. Wonder if the FOQA bogey man is making people nervous?

[myekppa]

Bunch of armchair experts here I fear.

[biggles61]

Absolutely. As long as you are fully configured at SHEED, and arrival is loaded in FMC with a 2.8 NM rwy extension and 3 deg path it works a treat every time in LNAV/VNAV with automatics in or out.

[hoss]

Similar to Bloggs, the decision is 'black and white' for the Ejet. Visual approaches using the FMS navigation source for guidance are prohibited. The chart indicates clearly that it is a visual segment of the approach. At best HDG and FPA could do the trick but usually it's 'click click' back at LIZZI or NABBA!

Fly safe.

[Des Dimona]

I fly Boeings, but friends on the A320/330 say they would always manually fly the aircraft from SHEED for this approach.

You can create a linked approach using the FMS and AP, but one stuff up and it can turn into a mess pretty quickly.

I stand by what I said earlier, and believe this particular approach is better flown manually.

[Wally Mk2]

Interesting thread, the core subject (the actual event) is now pretty much irrelevant as hand flying is what needs to be discussed here & for good reasons.

The 'sheed' arrival is or can be a real balls up. Working from EN over many years I/we used to often see that App looking like a real mess with one international heavy one day disappearing behind the hangers a LOT earlier than usual & I think it was a recorded event to.
Being a visual App from overhead 'sheed' I personally believe that hand flying is far more appropriate due a few factors. One being that any adjustments can be made instantly by hand where as making adjustments via the auto flt system takes just that few seconds longer as our own brain sees thru our eyes that some correction needs to be made so we reach for the appropriate button/knob etc make the adjustment then kinda wait to see if the A/P is doing what you expect it to do & often it doesn't as quick as you would have liked so then it's back to either further A/P corrections (inc ROD more for Eg) & again wait & see or turn it all off then make manual corrections whilst all the time the machine is eating up Trk miles & possibly not doing what you want it to in a timely manor.

Hand flying from the beginning removes a lot of ambiguity right there & then providing that the pilot is capable, that's the subjective part of all this.

Having modern Nav equip & knowing how to use it combined with timely hand flying means this App is a no brainer if yr ahead of the machine.

Most of us have flown turbo props with not to dissimilar App speeds (in the last segment) to some medium sized jets & that would have been 2nd nature to hand fly such an App yet have a jet under yr ass & the whole thing seems a lot harder!-)

Wmk2

[framer]

Most of us have flown turbo props with not to dissimilar App speeds (in the last segment) to some medium sized jets & that would have been 2nd nature to hand fly such an App yet have a jet under yr ass & the whole thing seems a lot harder!-)
For a few different reasons ( airspeed is not usually one of them), pilots who have been very competent at flying visual approaches manually for years in turbo props can struggle flying the exact same approach in a 737 or 777.
Is the inference in your paragraph that there is something wrong with the jet pilot and that Most of us have flown turbo props with not to dissimilar App speeds would do a better job?
Or is the inference that there must be some other factor than airspeed that makes the pilot who is competent in the turbo prop unable to replicate that in a jet?

[Wally Mk2]

'framer' you can read what you like into my posts that's yr prerogative but the key word here is competent (you used it yourself) or being confident in handling this App manually.



Wmk2

[Derfred]

Practicing using the automatics properly is just as important as practicing hand flying. It is often more challenging to use the automatics properly than to just "give up" and disconnect the autopilot.

If you "give up" every time using the automatics becomes difficult for you then you might need some more practice or training.

Some aircraft obviously have better automatics than others. But this thread is about a 777.

[Vorsicht]

FMC incorrectly programmed, A/P did what it was meant to. Crew identified problem, disconnected and completed approach without incident.

Nothing to see here. Mistake get made, errors identified and managed.

Had the crew persisted with Automatics, then it may have become an issue. Had the crew not been competent to manually correct the problem, then it may have become and issue.

At VAI A/P is deemed as the most appropriate method of mitigating the effects of fatigue. In this instance it didn't work.

[framer]

'framer' you can read what you like into my posts that's yr prerogative but the key word here is competent (you used it yourself) or being confident in handling this App manually.
No worries Wally, I'm just unsure what the relevance of the turbo prop pilots abilities have got to do with a 777 'non compliance' that's all, so I asked.
I've seen several chaps who had had commands on Dash 8's and Jetstreams for years unable to produce the same competency levels in a jet and therefore not make the check to line. The jet is not necessarily more difficult, just different and I wondered if you were suggesting otherwise. I guess I'll keep wondering.
Have a good one :)

[The Banjo]

A lot of discussion on appropriate levels of automation. Have a listen to this uni lecture recorded in 1997.


Children of Magenta - YouTube (http://youtu.be/h3kREPMzMLk)


A very wise perspective.

:ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Hey Banjo, you'd better look at your FMA a bit more. That video has been posted on page 1 already! :D

[Wally Mk2]

That vid which has been around a while ought to be mandatory watching for all pilots in 2day's modern Airliner.
What that guy was saying is pretty much what's in the body of a previous post of mine, hand fly the machine when it's not doing what you want it to or want it to be more effective in a instant sought of way.

'framer' I don't believe my post was making ref to a jet pilot being anything other than able to fly their machine it was more that is 'seemed' (the optimum word there I used) that flying a jet was harder than a turbo prop with similar speeds.
Basically put it's probably a mental thing when first on a jet that it flies faster & therefor must be harder as everything happens quicker which it does up top but down low near Ldg the only diff would be the energy behind the jet due weight. It's just a skill to be learnt like all things in life:-)
I went from small light twins to Lear's in the early days, Christ I reckon I was still on the threshold when the Capt flared at our destination but in the end it's all relevant especially the 4 hrs bit meaning 4 hrs in a C150 & 4 hrs in a Lear is still 4 hrs ya just go further!:)

Wmk2

[Oakape]

FMC incorrectly programmed, A/P did what it was meant to. Crew identified problem, disconnected and completed approach without incident.

Nothing to see here. Mistake get made, errors identified and managed.

Had the crew persisted with Automatics, then it may have become an issue. Had the crew not been competent to manually correct the problem, then it may have become and issue.

At VAI A/P is deemed as the most appropriate method of mitigating the effects of fatigue. In this instance it didn't work.

Vorsicht, not surprised to hear that. As you said, nothing to see here!

[Con Catenator]

Practicing using the automatics properly is just as important as practicing hand flyingI hardly think practicing using the automatics on a non standard close in profile from SHEED to RWY34 (or any other similar approach environment) is very sensible.

There is just not enough track miles to recover to a stable approach if it goes wrong.

[Lookleft]

It would be interesting to know how often go-arounds occur on 34 compared to the other runways. The only place that I have had to do more GA's is MCY. 34 ML comes second. Probably I'm not as good as the other hotshots on this thread but any approach that requires a sink rate of greater than 1000'/min just to get on profile is fundamentally flawed.

[Capt Basil Brush]

Both sides of the argument here have been flogged to death.

Any chance to do some hand-flying should obviously be taken where appropriate, and this approach can be one of those opportunities. Whether hand-flown, or autopilot flown in LNAV/VNAV - SITUATIONAL AWARENESS is required to do it well. (As well as programming the box correctly, and cross-checking it).
As has been said here before, from SHEED at 2500' to a 2.8nm runway extension and then to RWY34, and configured over SHEED will work every time no problems. Too fast and not configured over SHEED, then you you are setting yourself up for an unstabilised approach.

Basic flying skills and situational awareness seem to be in decline these days.

[Lookleft]

setting yourself up for an unstabilised approach.

You are already unstabilised when with 6 track miles to run you are required to maintain an initial descent rate of over 1000'/min. If the Boeing pilots are building a non-coded approach and allowing the A/P to fly a VNAV descent then IMHO it only reinforces the fundamental flaw with the approach. With RNP approaches there is no longer a valid reason for not having an approach which allows for a constant 3degree path.

[Tankengine]

Since we have been doing this approach for over 25 years ( that I know of )
WTF has changed to make it so difficult?:confused:
I have done it in 747s, 737s and A330s, you just need to be prepared!:rolleyes:

[Lookleft]

25 years ago pilots could also do straight in visual approaches without stuffing it up, its called the lowest common denominator. We also used to do 300kts at 3000' to 16 miles tracking to ROC from the west. As a way of saving fuel and improve the traffic flow it is a far better way of coming from the west instead of the Wendy arrival. With current technology and reduced experience levels the arrival over SHEED doesn't need to be done at all.

[t_cas]

DFDR, FOQA etc now scrutinise flight operations like never before. To make assumptions that these events never happened at this level in the past is a little presumptuous. For better and for worse, the domain of the flight deck has become one of the most recorded and scrutinised workplaces on the planet. This makes the daily job a balance of avoiding the interview and enjoying the actual job. Not at all what it used to be. The thrilling, sporting approaches of the past are gone. Deal with it.
Statistically, we may be better or we may be worse, the question is... at what?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Slightly off topic, but is it coincidence that SHEED is overhead Essendon? :ok:

[Keg]

Or PLUGA, LOKIT and KELLY just near Sydney. :ok:

[MrWooby]

Lookleft, the approach over SHEED, does not require a rate of descent greater than 1000fpm. I have plotted the distances, tracks and turn radius accurately using google earth. Also flown it a few times in an A330.

You need to be at SHEED, 2500 ft, with gear down, take full flap as you arrive over SHEED. Then wind in ROD of 1000 fpm, this will have you arriving at the finals turn point which is just prior to South centre road, ( the road parallel to RWY 34) at around 1450ft, (1000 agl). Disconnect AP, reduce ROD TO 700 fpm turn onto finals and you roll out on finals on a stabilised approach on a 3 deg path.
I prefer to use the AP for the initial descent as it allows you more time to scan and build up the finals picture.

[Keg]

Depends on the wind doesn't it. Sometimes you need a bit more rate of descent, sometimes a bit less. Either way, as Lookleft points out, an approach that requires 1000 fpm RoD from 2000' above the airfield until 1000' above the airfield with a turn before intercepting a visual approach to an up sloping runway is fundamentally flawed.

[Lookleft]

Thanks for the flying lesson Mr Wooby. I must admit I have never gone to the trouble of plotting it on google earth but I have looked at the FMS when it says 6 track miles from overhead SHEED. Rough calculations are 3x plus HAA should give a starting height of 2100' on a 3degree path. I'm sure winding in 1000'/min does a good job, what if you have a wind from the NE at 40kts? Have your few times doing the approach been in daylight or darkness? When you disconnected and manually flew the aircraft your support pilot was now having to turn off the F/D, possibly select FPA,set runway track and monitor the speed as GS mini swung into action. In the 330 I doubt that you have an F/O with anything less than 3000 hours TT so he will be on top of it all but if you have a cadet with less than 500 hours it just all adds up to a situation that could be avoided by making it an RNP approach. Other than "that's the way we've always done it" I have not seen anyone present a case for why it should continue to be done the way it is now. I haven't got any evidence other than anecdotal but how many G/A are conducted on 34 compared to ML other runways?

[Capn Bloggs]

In a medium-sized, high-performance, manoeuverable drag-bag like mine, that STAR would be doable by day (good for reduced track-miles). I would expect a comprehensive entry in the Port Info Manual to prep crews as to what to expect, as things would turn pretty ugly pretty quickly if you weren't on top of it. In a big thingee, I would be very hesitant.

By night, it would be silly. See previous thread re earlier Jetstar incident:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3529338/ab2011128.pdf#page=30

(Interesting that the ATSB failed to identify the dive-bomb design of the approach as being the main reason for incident!).

By my calculations, track miles from SHEED via a 2.9nm final flyby to the 34 threshold would be about 5.5nm (6.2nm via straight-lines). That's not far to lose 2170ft...

[FFRATS]

Create a WPT -Airbus PB/PB- SHEED-256/IMS-160.
Over head SHEED almost fully configured, at least gear down and F3, disconnect push over Flap Full/40 (whatever) 1200 ROD initially then back to less than 1000' turning at said WPT around 1250'. 4x DME I think.

Checklist done early, both eyes out front/RHS and the PAPI shows the story if hi/low.

Most problems I see are late configuration after SHEED and not enough early ROD.

3* Deg slope only works when your on it. If your level at SHEED the ROD is not instantaneous when descent starts so workings on distance/ROD etc are grey at best.

FFRATS

[le Pingouin]

Sounds like the visual STARs are less than ideal. Would it be preferable to use the instrument STARs by default with the visuals available on pilot request/ATC request and pilot agreement? Not being a TMA controller I'm not sure if they'd prefer one over the other, but then that's our problem, not yours.

A few airlines such as Emirates get the instrument by default. Noticed a Jetstar requiring it the other day.

[porch monkey]

It just isn't that fu@kin hard........:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[ad-astra]

FFS


porch monkey has the post of the day!!

[haughtney1]

Well I'm glad ATC have never tried that on with me going into MEL, it would violate at least 2 of my outfits stab criteria, why is everyone on here seemingly happy with a high ROD so close to terra ferma? Or is that the point? should we be comfortable with it because its the best thing to do?
If I tried it in my 777 at close to max LW, I'd be struggling unless everything was out very early....so I'd be making a shed load of noise and burning a heap more gas than a nice easy CDA.
Just sayin...

[Hot High Heavy]

FoxtrotAlpha18 - you beat me to it!

I wonder if the real Sheeds knows that there's a waypoint named after him??

[clark y]

The safest solution (apart from everyone doing the full instrument approach) would be to offset the track 2 or 3 miles south to give a 5 nm final. I haven't followed the Essendon localiser for over a decade.
The fact that this arrival keeps coming up in discussions is enough for me to realise there is a definite threat here.

[Keg]

I wonder if the real Sheeds knows that there's a waypoint named after him??


I've previously asked him via Twotter (with an 'I' instead of an 'O') but never got a response! :ok:

[Wally Mk2]

The likes of 'Sheeds' wouldn't have a clue!

Those guys live in another world where thuggery & corruption reign.

Wmk2

[nitpicker330]

Oh I dunno Wally, he spoke out against Bogans with stupid Tattoos ( especially in Football ) saying why would people deface their bodies.......he can't be all that bad !:ok:

[Beer Baron]

So it looks like they simply put the altitude at the threshold into the FMC at the final turn waypoint instead. Oops :uhoh:

Waypoint data entry error led to 777's rapid descent (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/waypoint-data-entry-error-led-to-777s-rapid-descent-390804/)

[Lookleft]

As Porch Monkey described it can be flown effortlessly and very accurately in
LNAV/VNAV and can be manually flown just as well


Given what was stated in the article I think this might have been the start of the problem. Building vnav approaches on a non-coded approach always has the potential for a major stuff-up. Once again I think the solution to the problem is a properly constructed RNP approach.

[Keg]

So it looks like they simply put the altitude at the threshold into the FMC at the final turn waypoint instead. Oops


I caught myself about to execute something today without getting my offsider to cross check. Then I remembered having read about this and stopped myself. It's funny how often the pickle we end up in is a result of our own lack of adherence to procedures put in place as a result of pickles such as this.

[Derfred]

The 777 requires changing the altitude at the threshold to build a 3 degree path? Sounds odd.

[Capn Bloggs]

Increasing the VNAV threshold crossing height by 50ft is unnecessary. It's a visual approach down final (<1000ft). The VNAV should not be playing a big part of proceedings at that stage.

[Keg]

The 777 requires changing the altitude at the threshold to build a 3 degree path? Sounds odd.


For building that particular approach it does. Same for the 767 and 744 as well. It's a function of the selection of that particular STAR that its not coded beyond SHEED.

[Derfred]

Keg, that wasn't my question. I do that approach all the time in a 737NG. Never have to change the threshold altitude. Nor is there any "procedure" to do so.

[Keg]

Not sure what you mean. We have a statement somewhere in our books that the FMC programming should reflect the intended flight path. Are you saying the last thing you put in the FMC for that approach is /2500A at SHEED?

[maggot]

He is saying there is no need to define an end of descent on the 737, nor intermediates (excepting star height reqs). Ergo, unless the 777 needs this, it was most likely a superflous entry - maybe trying to make it artificially low or something like that

Edit:
Either way, having just read the report linked above, maybe entered in error having being up all night - bottom line, picked up and fixed. :ok:

[compressor stall]

Quote:
I wonder if the real Sheeds knows that there's a waypoint named after him??

Has anyone asked the Duchess of York same? (The two waypoints after TN on the ALLEE2 STAR. ) :cool: