Kathmandu operation with atr72 or turboprops

[arman737ng]

Dear Aviators,

We only recently started operating to Kathmandu with ATR72s. As we don't have any previous experience operating on this airfield with turboprops, i would highly appreciate if i can get some local knowledge..
Spcly, people who are operating with atr72 or 42 or even any other multi turboprops..

If any one out there kind enough to share their company SOP of Kathmandu operation would be highly appreciated. for example dep 02/20, missed app 02/20, any load penalty for 02 dep, your acceleration alt, climb speed so on..

As i said at the beginning, local experience can help us a lot to make safer operation..

[DaveReidUK]

As I said at the beginning, local experience can help us a lot to make safer operation.So best avoided by travellers in the meantime ?

[ZFT]

Isn't Kathmandu a Cat C Airfield?

[compressor stall]

You come here for your missed approach and engine out guidance? :{

Well, at least you're considering it I guess.

[arman737ng]

it is CAT C @ZFT

[arman737ng]

nobody with any soft copy?? :(

[Trackdiamond]

Subscribe to ATR Flight Ops Software (FOS).

Are you Management or just making a rudimentary piloting enquiry?

[aterpster]

ZFT:

Isn't Kathmandu a Cat C Airfield?

A, B, C, and D.

One of the VOR approaches is for A and B only.

For those who are RNP AR qualified the airport got a lot better a year or two ago.

[underfire]

http://i39.tinypic.com/rli0ba.gif

[underfire]

flyboy, if you are referring to the descent profile, this is from SAS operations.

[flyboyike]

No, that's not what I'm referring to.

[jackcarls0n]

For an ATR 72 the operation shouldn't be that difficult.

If you are landing at Night you can only land on runway 02. Landing on runway 20 would bring you close to the hills on the north end of the runway.

Also, if you are coming from west or east would make a big difference. You might need to hold quite a bit if a jet comes in for landing. So if you are on visual approach, you might need to hold at visual points. They are bit difficult to point out.

If you are arriving from east and in the morning hours be careful of the traffic departing towards the lukla region and for the mountain flights. the traffic flow can be quite a bit but you would have information. Since they is no radar, spotting traffic can be a bit tricky.

During afternoon and later in the day the traffic would be mostly towards the west and south east.

I might have a SOP from the national career. I might be able to share it with you.

But if you are coming to VNKT, you would be on IFR approach. and that would be the VOR/DME approach. Sometimes you have to get down 50ft below MDA to be able to spot the runway just because of the Haze or you can keep holding over simra. Especially during the oncoming winter season the fog can cover up the runway in minutes. so be prepared for holding and if required for a go around.

Other than that just follow the procedures on the approach plates. And keep calm it is not that difficult. Just the traffic can be too much in the area.

[Mach E Avelli]

If your company is not obtaining properly approved performance data from a qualified provider of same, they are probably seriously in contravention of a whole bunch of Part 121 and ICAO rules.
PIDOOMA is not an acceptable means of compliance in these matters.

[arman737ng]

So best avoided by travellers in the meantime ?
You come here for your missed approach and engine out guidance?
Well, at least you're considering it I guess.
No shortage of u guys in the industry...

Subscribe to ATR Flight Ops Software (FOS).
Are you Management or just making a rudimentary piloting enquiry?

Thanks a lot for your information, i will deffinately try that. @Trackdiamond

@underfire
thanks for your contribution.. much appreciated..


First of all i would like to clarify that i'm not one of the managements.
i never said i need the info to make an unsafe operation safe but a safe operation safer..
Its a mare personal interest not a company interest.. Just to see are they all doing the same.. For example we don't consider runway 02 for takeoff for engine out n high climb gradient. of course management is a lot concerned about the safety..

I would love to know more about the takeoff and climb profile from runway 02/20 with ATR72.. what is your acceleration altitude, single engine etc.. Descent profiles look pretty straight forward..

thanks again

[aterpster]

For those who have the equipment and qualifications, this recent addition to VNKT makes the operation a lot better:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/VNKTRNAVRNP02_zps78126b9e.jpg

[aterpster]

flyboyike:

Looks scary.

RNP redundancy, autoflight, auto-throttles, and VNAV. You can just sit back and enjoy until DA.

[underfire]

Terpster...Is this the Jepp tailored design?

I had interesting issues with the trees on final...

(the missed is a bit intimidating as well...)

http://i43.tinypic.com/28ivpn9.jpg

Edit: The procedure that I designed has an EO missed, so it does not look like this. I would also be curious how they got 0.3RNP containment with that treeline jumping up on the sides on final....

Edit2: speed restriction of 170 kts, do not concur..

[jackcarls0n]

Underfire- The RNP 0.3 was incorporated and all the big boys(qatar, jet airways, thai, korean, etihad etc etc- they all wanted it with so many flights it made a lot of sense. They tried an ILS with an offset as well but that didnt work out) sat down at a seminar and with the help of airbus who invested a lot of know how into the program got it going. The equipment required for RNP approaches alone costed more than some of the domestic aircrafts used in nepal. But anyway, the picture you have is old. The trees are gone and the road jst at the final is a six lane highway now.

but major problem in ktm is at times power loss. The generators running the VORs has sometime lost power and went in-op.

Unique problems in KTM for sure.

[aterpster]

Underfire:

Have you designed RNP AR approaches?

If not, speed limits are quite common because of wind effect on radius to fix (RF) turns.

The designers did a great job on this one by not having to use an RNP value of less than 0.30.

But, they also used RNP 0.30 for the first part of the missed approach, which makes it a "dual string" procedure; i.e., in addition to dual FMSes the airplane must have at least one IRU.

[underfire]

thanks Jack..the trees were a constraint, I am glad that was resolved, it was certainly an issue in the early days.

The power issue was one of the main reasons to justify access going to RNP AR..

The EO missed was another significant issue that was to be addressed, or weight/temp limits.

Could you send me a PM, I would like to correspond...

Yes terspter, I have significant experience with RNAP AR procedures, and yes, I did design RNP AR procedures for VNKT.
I also understand why the 170 kts speed restiction at that distance, with turns, and the altitude is a question.

[aterpster]

jackcarl:


The equipment required for RNP approaches alone costed more than some of the domestic aircrafts used in Nepal.


The performance model was built around the existing equipage for modern heavy iron: dual FMS, dual auto-flight, dual A/T and most expensive, three IRUs.


The concession was made for "entry level" RNP AR by not requiring one or more IRUs provided no approach segment is less than 0.30 and the missed approach is convention TERPs/PANS-OPs.


Thus, the bar is set very high indeed. In the U.S. at least most corporate operators have all the equipage beg off because of the very high administrative burdens set by the FAA (not so high for airlines with large flight technical staffs and a limited number of RNAP AR approaches in their ops specs).

[ironbutt57]

Everytime I flew the VOR during the monsoon..CB's used to sit in that valley right where the RNAV approach takes you...

[underfire]

jack,

The trees were there in 2010 when I did the first RNP-AR procedsure through the gap.

In regards to cost, some aircraft manufacturers are including RNP procedures in the box to sell aircraft.. Similar situation at WAMM and WAPP.

[aterpster]

Underfire:


In regards to cost, some aircraft manufacturers are including RNP procedures in the box to sell aircraft..
Speaking only for "N" registered airplanes, the FAA requires that database and FMS vendors not include RNP AR IAPs in the database unless the operator and aircraft are RNP AR qualified. The procedures have to go through a second validation including "flyability" for each type of FMS before the RNP ARs can be added to the FMS database. Again, this is a straight forward process for air carriers, but not so for business aviation.


For the relatively few business aviation operators that have the OEM qualified airframe and avionics, and the operator elects to pursue the qualification, the validation process is sold by Honeywell and Jeppesen.

[galaxy flyer]

Aterpster
Speaking only for "N" registered airplanes, the FAA requires that database and FMS vendors not include RNP AR IAPs in the database unless the operator and aircraft are RNP AR qualified. The procedures have to go through a second validation including "flyability" for each type of FMS before the RNP ARs can be added to the FMS database. Again, this is a straight forward process for air carriers, but not so for business aviation.

Curious, the Honeywell FMS DB on the Global Express had a variety of clearly RNAV AR (RNP) approaches loaded for KASE despite no Globals were, at the time, approved for AR approaches. Handy for daylight VMC Roaring Fork Visuals, though

[aterpster]

g.f.


Curious, the Honeywell FMS DB on the Global Express had a variety of clearly RNAV AR (RNP) approaches loaded for KASE despite no Globals were, at the time, approved for AR approaches. Handy for daylight VMC Roaring Fork Visuals, though


What's more curious is that KASE so far has not had any public RNP AR approaches. Those had to be specials and likely a database or FMS vendor screw up.

[jackcarls0n]

underfire: Yes the trees are gone. Flew there in 2012. Kathmandu went on a major overhaul with the roads. so a lot of trees are gone.

I think the RNP approach is a great benefit and helps more airliners to fly into kathmandu with lower DA compared to the VOR approach and thus decreasing the delays and diversions.

Most newer aircraft are equipped for RNP but some operators even the National Career the aircrafts are not equipped with the equipment.

But anyway, things are getting better. I flew for four years in Nepal. I guess we flew so often in nepal and mostly little aircraft, that everything seemed easy and became second nature. Flying into kathmandu is so much easier then flying into Lukla.

[underfire]

There was a tailored RNP-AR procedure designed for a Gulfstream into Aspen.

[aterpster]

underfire:


There was a tailored RNP-AR procedure designed for a Gulfstream into Aspen.
I recall something along that line for NetJet. I don't believe it was never approved, though.


You are using "tailored" differently than those I work with do. The Net Jet procedure was a special instrument approach procedure, which Jeppesen would have issued as a tailored chart. A special is always a tailored chart but a tailored chart does not have to be a special procedure. In the latter case a customer, typically an airline, requests that Jeppesen tailor the chart for a public procedure, perhaps to reflect more conservative minimums or perhaps to include a company note, etc.


But, I suspect you already know all of this. Forums are a very imperfect method of communication technical information.

[aterpster]

ironbutt:


Everytime I flew the VOR during the monsoon..CB's used to sit in that valley right where the RNAV approach takes you...


Best to wait it out at RATAN or request the VOR approach if its path looks clear.


There is no deviating once started down the RNAP AR yellow brick road.

[arman737ng]

RNP redundancy, autoflight, auto-throttles, and VNAV. You can just sit back and enjoy until DA.

Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of RNAV n VNAV.. Sigh:(