QF Captain was feeling low...

[VH-Cheer Up]

From today's Age:

Qantas captain was feeling tired, sick and hardly ate on day his plane flew too low (http://www.theage.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-captain-feeling-tired-and-hardly-ate-on-day-his-plane-flew-too-low-20150709-gi8dmy.html)

[Duck Pilot]

How many of us can honestly say that we haven't flown at some stage in our careers feeling the same way as the captain in the report?

Hope he hasn't been punished for being honest in his report.

We are all human.

[Metro man]

QANTAS should be grounded immediately for busting an altitude and not allowed back into the air until proven safe.

Just like Tigerair :E

[piratepete]

What on earth do the words INEFFECTIVE TARGET ALTITUDE mean? What a weird way to describe a complete lack of S.A. and poor terrain awareness.If it were Garuda or Thai Air, every man and his dog would be going on about POOR AIRMANSHIP etc etc, but no not QANTAS, ......they never make mistakes apparently.

[Duck Pilot]

Don't agree Metro Man, why should an airline be grounded due to one person's mistake? The key to a positive outcome for all concerned is how did QANTAS address the incident after the report was filed.

We as an industry must get away from the blame and punishment philosophy and utilise the Just Culture process.

[Ollie Onion]

Umm, sure I have been low and messed up profiles from time to time. But only 600 ft above the ground with 9nm to run on a VISUAL approach is pretty extreme.

[ACMS]

Sounds like another QF 1 wake up call for QF management and rostering practices.

[ACMS]

Huh? You think the magic A330 knows it's 600' 9 nm from landing in VMC and will automatically climb back up????

The GPWS did warn them as designed and they reacted.

With the Captain obviously operating at lower than desirable levels I'm wondering what took the FO so long to say something.....

[Chris2303]

Tigerair was grounded for "systemic failures"

One error like this in VMC is hardly up to the incredibly low standard of Tiger.

[biggles61]

Question? What was the PM in this case the FO doing? Should have alerted prior to it going this far.

[blueloo]

What was the PM in this case the FO doing? Should have alerted prior to it going this far.

Doesn't the article say he did speak up..... ?

[ACMS]

Yes but as I said "what took the FO so long" he should know how high they were supposed to be at that point and when they went say 200' below with no comment or correction from the Captain he should have began to question the Captain......

[VH-Cheer Up]

Quote:
What was the PM in this case the FO doing? Should have alerted prior to it going this far.
Doesn't the article say he did speak up..... ?Exactly, the FO did call out that they were too low. At ROD 2,200 ft/min it was all happening pretty quickly. They pulled up 1,900 ft below the glideslope which sounds like it took 45 seconds or so to realise the situation was awry and fix it.

Lucky it wasn't NZQN.

The investigation final report is available here: Investigation: AO-2013-047 - Flight path management and ground proximity warning involving Airbus A330-202, VH-EBV, 15 km NNE of Melbourne Airport, Victoria on 8 March 2013 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-047.aspx)

[Exascot]

I do not care if the press pick up on this moderators but the fact is that there are too many fatigued pilots out there. I gave up commercial aviation because of it.

[Duck Pilot]

Who cares about all the wotifs, let's move on from the blame game and work together to make aviation a better and more enjoyable environment to work in!

[sunnySA]

from the report
Air traffic control procedures
Air traffic controllers are able to issue clearances for visual approaches when flight crew have established and can continue flight to the airport with continuous visual reference to the ground or water and with visibility at least 5 km. Once an air traffic controller clears a crew to conduct a visual approach, the crew has responsibility to maintain separation from terrain and, in the case of the occurrence flight, remain at least 500 ft above the lower limit of controlled airspace.
After the occurrence, the air traffic service provider (Airservices Australia) advised that the minimum safe altitude warning system (MSAW) had been inhibited in certain areas to the north-east of Melbourne to reduce the number of false alarms in those areas. In addition, Airservices Australia advised that when a flight is cleared for a visual approach its corresponding cleared flight level is set to 000 (ft) on the controller’s air situation display. As a result, the system automatically inhibits the MSAW aural alarm and display for that flight.
Really, is this good enough?

Minimum safe altitude warning system (MSAW) had been inhibited in certain areas to the north-east of Melbourne to reduce the number of false alarms in those areas.

Why not fix the software to reduce the number of false alarms?
Why not develop SOP to reduce the likelihood of false alarms?
Was a safety alert issued by the controller?
Swiss cheese anyone?

[tyler_durden_80]

From the other side of the radio, all too often you see individual performance diminished due to various human factors, especially fatigue. Lip service on fatiue is paid by management, but it genuinely astounds me how often fatigue is dismissed by individuals who are prepared to plug in on medium to high fatigue. The effects of operating on high fatigue, and the resulting diminished performance and decision making process, cannot be understated.

[B772]

After reading the report I would suggest the ATSB has gone easy on the Captain and QF. Even the Safety Message makes no reference to the dangers of flying with the conditions being experienced by the Captain.

Flying with a cold/virus let alone with disrupted and restricted sleep is downright dangerous and irresponsible in my opinion and should have not occurred. There is also the risk of a permanent reduction in hearing ability in some circumstances.

[The Green Goblin]

I can just imagine if this was Jetstar. The Qantas guys would be relentless...

Open decent below 2000 feet with 1000 feet set in the altitude selector? Ouch.

We all have a bad day I suppose. Glad it wasn't me.

So I suppose they will dicipline the SO, demote the FO and congratulate the captain for outstanding CRM and saving the day? :D

[wheels_down]

I have never seen a airport with so many carriers breaking MSA.

In the last three years Tiger a320, Jetstar A320, Thai twice, Malaysian, AirAsia a330 now QF 330.

[Capt Fathom]

We all have a bad day I suppose. Glad it wasn't me.
And there by the grace of God go all of us!

[Trent 972]

TGG,So I suppose they will dicipline the SO, demote the FO and congratulate the captain for outstanding CRM and saving the day?
You are so far off the mark with your supposition, you look silly to those who know what the outcome was.

[missy]

I have never seen a airport with so many carriers breaking MSA.

In the last three years Tiger a320, Jetstar A320, Thai twice, Malaysian, AirAsia a330 now QF 330.
Makes me wonder ...

[maggot]

I have never seen a airport with so many carriers breaking MSA.*

In the last three years Tiger a320, Jetstar A320, Thai twice, Malaysian, AirAsia a330 now QF 330.
Are you really 'breaking MSA' doing a daytime visual?

Manage that blood sugar.

[The Green Goblin]

Trent 972

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 535
TGG,
Quote:
So I suppose they will dicipline the SO, demote the FO and congratulate the captain for outstanding CRM and saving the day?
You are so far off the mark with your supposition, you look silly to those who know what the outcome was.


You obviously don't know another scenario then where this happened :)

[Potsie Weber]

Sounds like another QF 1 wake up call for QF management and rostering practices.

The pattern was hardly arduous, 24hrs in Singapore, then 31hrs in Perth!

Fitness for duty is up to the individual.

[Karunch]

Sounds like another QF 1 wake up call for QF management and rostering practices.


139 hours in the last 90 days for the PF, 131 hours for the PM. Half the workload or rostering practices of most of the competition. I think they'll be scratching to use the rosterung practices excuse!

[oicur12.again]

Setting 1000 (400 agl) in the fcu and then using open descent? Is this not frowned upon at QF?

[Keg]

Yes. Yes it is.

[C441]

So I suppose they will dicipline the SO, demote the FO and congratulate the captain for outstanding CRM and saving the day?
...or maybe they didn't and why would they?

139 hours in the last 90 days for the PF, 131 hours for the PM. Half the workload or rostering practices of most of the competition.

Probably including assigned leave, blanklines and low divisors; no excuse for what happened but hardly the responsibility of the crew when their flying has been 'outsourced'.

[prospector]

Qantas' head of flying operations, Mike Galvin, said the airline had reviewed its training procedures in light of the incident to highlight the importance of high levels of situation awareness during landing.

I really have a hard time trying to digest that. It has to be highlighted the" importance of high levels of situational awareness", and that comes from the Head of Flight Operations? and that after a review? What was the procedure prior to the review? a med to low level of situational awareness?

[blueloo]

"We are no longer a legacy airline, we are a low cost one"


Food for thought

[Dale Hardale]

On a related matter - why do guys accept this visual SHEED arrival for 34 late at night after a long 4 sector day, and even more interesting why does CASA allow this.:confused:


An instrument approach might take another minute, but it's a lot safer proposition.


Go figure.

[34R]

I wasn't in that flt deck and don't really know what transpired, but judging by the report I suspect not many 'Gates' were monitored, and more alarmingly I don't think anybody actually looked out the bloody window!
It's amazing what that picture can tell you should you take the time to look.

There is nothing overtly difficult about visual approaches into MEL, track shortening from Horus can get a little busy but if you're expecting it, as this crew appeared to, it ends up being done quite comfortably.

I'm staggered they got that out of shape.

As far as accepting a visual arrival from SHEED after 4 sectors, please tell me you're joking ��

[Dale Hardale]

34R - Read what I said: "late at night" after perhaps an 11 hour day. If you don't think fatigue might be an issue in this case, then I wouldn't want to be in the back of an aircraft you were in charge of. :ugh:

[mikedreamer787]

let's move on from the blame game and work together to make aviation a better and more enjoyable environment to work in!


You can make a good start by getting rid of low cost bogan carriers like, well, I can think of one in Oz.... :rolleyes:

[Capt Claret]

On a related matter - why do guys accept this visual SHEED arrival for 34 late at night after a long 4 sector day, and even more interesting why does CASA allow this.

An instrument approach might take another minute, but it's a lot safer proposition.


Go figure.

Because a request for a GNSS or VOR approach will oft be denied due sequencing. And a requirement for the same approach will occasionally require a phone call to a number provided on taxi after landing.

[morno]

You can make a good start by getting rid of low cost bogan carriers like, well, I can think of one in Oz....

Ohh please, get your head out of your ass and grow up. The low cost model has been in Australia for 15 years now, providing a much needed boost to the industry.

Aircraft are the modern day bus service, you're not flying around aristocrats anymore.

Just because it's low cost, it doesn't mean it's low safety.

morno

[blueloo]

Just because it's low cost, it doesn't mean it's low safety.



Low cost, high cost.....

I think it's called affordable safety now. Or is it "worlds best practice"?

Basically whatever we can get away with until there is a death and/or Royal commission...

[swh]

Morno,

I think the LCC mindset had been with Qantas since setting up Qantair in 1970, later in the 1970s offing fares from Sydney to London for just 79 pounds. Being a government subsidised airline they did not need to make a profit or pay for their own aircraft.

[Capn Bloggs]

ACMS: +1 on that.

[rodney rude]

dale hardale


And you have just shown exactly the problem. too scared and unable to fly a visual approach due to over reliance on automatics. waaaa


You don't want to be in the back of 43R's aeroplane if he flies the Sheed late at night. I'd rather be in his aeroplane than yours if you are of the mindset that you can't fly that approach because you're tired.


Time for you to get back on Flight sim 10 and relearn how to fly an aeroplane. Stick to ATMs if you just want to press buttons.

[Iron Bar]

+1 to Rodney half Rude and his false arse!

[The Green Goblin]

So get rid of the LCC carrier and blame them because the legacy division cocked up a simple approach?

Puuuulease.

If you can't fly a visual approach after sitting in the seat for 11 hours, you shouldn't be in it.

Set circuit height on the altitude selector of the FCU, bird on AP off, FDs off, set runway track, use the blue arrow for required ROD to be on profile at the CF.

Fly from the CF just like any instrument approach. You'll still have the brick :)

[ACMS]

Really mate? I suppose a circling approach in bad weather whilst an ILS was available to save a few minutes and make you feel like Chuck would be perfectly acceptable as well?


There is a time and a place for visual approaches, I've done Hundreds in my time all over the world and will continue to advocate their use as long as it's JUSTIFIED under ALL circumstances on the day.

I think you've lost sight of the job requirement.......:=

[The Green Goblin]

Really mate? I suppose a circling approach in bad weather whilst an ILS was available to save a few minutes and make you feel like Chuck would be perfectly acceptable as well?


There is a time and a place for visual approaches, I've done Hundreds in my time all over the world and will continue to advocate their use as long as it's JUSTIFIED under ALL circumstances on the day.

I think you've lost sight of the job requirement.......

Why would you do that?

An ILS approach is justified in bad weather.

Just like a visual approach is justified in good weather to keep the traffic flowing and to prevent the backlog and slowdowns that we all love so much.

Saving one minute is 3-6 mm and an additional landing or takeoff slot.

I think you've lost sight of the job requirement!

[ExtraShot]

Whilst nobody knows the guys full reasoning or situation on the day, there is something of a sticking point for me out of this story.

The amount of people who turn up to work on the flight deck of an aircraft worth millions upon millions of dollars, carrying paying passengers over thousands of kilometres and millions of city dwelling innocents, whilst feeling under the weather, or after a night without sleep, or in an emotionally unfit state, etc ,etc ,etc; is pretty astonishing.

Airlines have folks on standby for a reason, they have means to get extra help from others when the standbys are all used up (day off payments in some airlines, etc), they have a massive support network that can swing into action to ensure things get done.


YOU ARE NOT LETTING ANYONE DOWN BY CALLING IN SICK!!!!!

Don't be afraid to do it!

I would be even more peeved if you show up to work and pass an illness on to me, or contribute to an incident such as this, rather than have a perfectly healthy standby come out and work instead.

[Trevor the lover]

Oh NO, NOT THE DREADED SHEED ARRIVAL, AND AT NIGHT. Do they really expect me to take out the autopilot and fly a base turn onto finals by looking out the window??!!!! Who do they think I am??? That's impossible.


FFS.


Oh Dale, did you really mean this??
"On a related matter - why do guys accept this visual SHEED arrival for 34 late at night after a long 4 sector day, and even more interesting why does CASA allow this."

I would say, Dale, guys accept this because they are far more competent than you seem to be. And you want CASA involved??? You really make me laugh.

[Blitzkrieger]

I don't fly into Melbourne so I am not familiar with ATC practices over there, or approaches via sheed.

Why do you have to make phone calls presumably to explain yourself after rejecting a problematic approach? Maybe your company should be on side with you by telling Airservices what they require from the "service" it provides.

[34R]

Thanks Des :D

I seem to recal reading your own comments on the successful conduct of visual approaches into MEL after a non QF carrier buggered it up. Sorry if doing the same upset you.

[Angle of Attack]

Well that old chestnut, the SHEED arrival, the old debate that flares up every couple of years on pprune land !! At the end of hundreds of posts it still ends up the same a few detractors of it and most don't care! Lol!

[ACMS]

Hey I'll do the Sheed visual approach in suitable conditions and that includes the state of the crew as well.

Like I said, time and a place.

[Derfred]

Why do you have to make phone calls presumably to explain yourself after rejecting a problematic approach?

You don't.

[Rashid Bacon]

Re SHEED and 34:


I think the whole point is that it is "time and place". After a long duty period and late at night - is this the right time to be accepting this?


Otherwise, it's not a problem.

[Capt Claret]

I think the whole point is that it is "time and place".

Similarly with a strong N to NE winds on the leg overhead SHEED, a combination of turning onto final and the turbulence with such winds can often trigger a wind-shear alert. Flying a long final to 34, say the GNSS approach, almost completely avoids this.

[capt.cynical]

WTF is SHEED ??

[Oakape]

WTF is SHEED ??

A New Zealand shed?

[Lookleft]

WTF is SHEED ??

Absolutely nothing to do with this incident!

[Capt Claret]

WTF is SHEED ??

Check out the WAREN 9V. SHEED is a waypoint about 8nm from the threshold, that has an altitude restriction of 2500' for the landing runway elevation of 330'.

So passing at 2500' puts one between 400' & 500' above profile, on a right base, to a runway that slopes upward and has only a PAPI for slope guidance.

[porch monkey]

8 miles at 320ft/mile is 2560. Less 330 is 2230. 400 to 500 high? Am I missing something?

[framer]

Not really, it puts you about 50ft high.
There is nothing wrong with it if you are aware that it is right on profile. If there is a tail wind it can require piloting skills.

[porch monkey]

Well, that was why I asked. Never thought I had been 4 or 500 feet high whenever I've flown it. Ahh, hang on, piloting skills. I see the issue now.

[Lookleft]

The last time I looked at the FMS SHEED was 6nm to the threshold. You might want to run your numbers again. If you are saying you are on profile at SHEED and descend at 800'/min it might explain why there are so many go-arounds on 34. Anyway still irrelevant as to why an A330 was 1900' low on profile approaching rwy 16.

[International Trader]

Carrie,
400-500' high at 8 miles to an upsloping runway but, saved only by one Papi?
You make it sound like something from the annals of the old days in the PNG highlands.
I must be a better pilot than I thought because I never had a problem with that sort of approach into MEL .
Maybe put the glass down before you do your calcs because it appears to be about on profile to me.

[spelling_nazi]

Porch Monkey you've got it ass about.

8 miles at 320ft/mile is 2560. Less 330 is 2230. 400 to 500 high? Am I missing something? You ADD the elevation, not subtract it!

So 8 miles @ 320 feet/nm = 2560, plus +330 = 2890 AMSL.

But it's 6 miles so natural height at sheed is 2250amsl. Which is why 2500amsl requires a small dirty dive.

Thus 2500 puts you 250' high, no biggy unless you have a screaming easterly then it is a llittle challenging , but it's never such an issue that I'd refuse it. Just hit sheed gear down , final flap coming out and decending. Easy

NB: What use is the notation on the chart that states "asuki is 4nm to YMML international"?! What possible use is a finals waypoint from an aerodrome reference point in this case? The distance noted should be "the distance from sheed to 34 threshold is 6nm"

[Led Zeppelin]

Framer:
Not really, it puts you about 50ft high

Porch Monkey:
Never thought I had been 4 or 500 feet high whenever I've flown it. Ahh, hang on, piloting skills. I see the issue now. hmmm....

I think both of you need to have another look at the descent gradient in ft/nm.

International Trader:
Maybe put the glass down before you do your calcs because it appears to be about on profile to me.

Just wondering who needs to put the glass down ??

Words fail me:ugh:

[Going Nowhere]

SHEED to ASUKI is 5nm, ASUKI is 4nm from YMML.

9 x 320 = 2880ft AGL would put you on a 3deg profile.
Add the 330ft to get 3210ft AMSL.

Subtract even 1nm for tracking to final and you're still at 2890ft AMSL.

Doesn't look like being not below 2500ft AMSL should put you high at all.

Do crews cross SHEED @ 2500ft or do they accept what 'the box' produces as a 'suggested' crossing height which could be higher?

Genuine questions

[C441]

Back in the days before Sheed (named after the legendary Bomber coach!!:ok:) the procedure passed over Essendon NDB at 2500ft. At the time it was a reasonably comfortable visual approach provided you were prepared and had configured appropriately.

EN NDB was further east than the current Sheed waypoint thus there's an extra mile, plus or minus a bit, to lose 2170ft.

[porch monkey]

Fair enough, I see that, I didn't look at the chart, I went on what was the reported distance in the post above. In any case, since we're dealing with agl, and the altimeter is giving us AMSL, why would you add the 330'? You're not going to descend that 330' Indicated height AMSL should be at or above 2500 at SHEED. You only have to lose 2200' in round figures to get to the threshold. If it is actually 6 miles and not 8 as indicated above, then about 250' high is about right. Does that make my maths better? Going Nowhere, the FMC in the 737 has SHEED at or above 2500. Usually flown at 2500.

[spelling_nazi]

Sheed to Asuki is 3.1nm
asuki to threshold is 2.88 nm.

measured directly from google maps.

So total about 6 . So about 250' high

Porch, if you can't understand why you need to add elevation to get on slope height amsl on a 3 degree slope, you shouldn't be flying. It's basic altimetry.

Going nowhere the 4nm anotated is to the ARP... a useless distance. The distance asuki to threshold is 2.88nm (you'd need to add 1000' I suppose to get touchdown point) so 2.88 + .16 = 3.04

Asuki is basically a 3nm final to touchdown.

[Going Nowhere]

Off the Jepp Charts SHEED to ASUKI is 5nm, ASUKI to YMML is 4nm. Take about 1.5 nm to adjust for the 34 threshold from the ARP and another 1 nm to 'cut the corner' at ASUKI to fly-by the wpt.

So 6.5 track miles to lose 2170ft (2500-330ft) which is 333ft per nm.

Near enough to 3.15deg profile if you cross SHEED AT 2500ft.

If you're configured early enough and don't carry too much speed, it doesn't look like such a big deal.

[porch monkey]

In the interest of furthering my career, which you seem to think is limited, can you show me where my calculation for the example we are using is incorrect? 2170' to lose, 6 miles to do it. Starting at 2500' AMSL. landing at 330' AMSL. 6x320 = 1920. 250' high. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I can successfully fly a visual approach. I grasp what you are saying in say pure glideslope on an approach. To get an indicated height for a correct glideslope you would add. But since we already have the height indicated as a given, adding and subtracting in this example is irrelevant. All you need is height to lose versus distance to run. From that you have + or - glideslope, don't you? In hindsight, I think we are talking about the same thing, the context is different and I used a different methodology to you in this case.

[framer]

Even before Asuki went in it never had you 400/500 ft high.
It has always been just a wee bit high, in my mind about 50ft ( I haven't calculated it like the above posters but that's what it seems like when I fly it. The problem is one of energy management more than profile management. If you are at Sheed and still trying to slow the aircraft then you have probably carried too much energy into it. If you are going to have a tailwind then you want to be fully configured by Sheed, if no tailwind you can take final flap after Sheed.
Use of automatics also plays a role in cocking this approach up. If you mis manage the altitude selections and the machine begins to level at 2500ft you need to abandon the automatics quick smart and fly the aeroplane because the automatics will be too slow to re establish an appropriate rate of descent. The VSI can't be allowed to reduce if you want a nice stable approach. Whether that is achieved soley by looking out the window or if the VSI is kept in your scan is neither here nor there.

hmmm....

I think both of you need to have another look at the descent gradient in ft/nm.


I don't need to have another look at the gradient Lead Zepplin, every time I arrive at Sheed on profile I just look out the window at the threshold and glance inside at the airspeed every few seconds and it all seems to work out fine.
Having said that, if I was tired and had had a long day and there was a tailwind I may well request the RNP, no big deal.

[The Green Goblin]

Farkin hell you guys complicate a simple thing.......

Times the track miles by 3.......

It's 8nm. 8 x 3 = 2400 feet. Runway 34 is 330 feet AGL. You're actually 2100 feet agl at sheed.

The only time it gets difficult is if you DON'T keep driving it down, and you turn into melbournes legendary winds on final, ground speed mini kicks in and the engines spool up just as your trying to drive it down......

It can catch out young and old.

Now back to how a senior Qantas captain buggered up a simple approach, how it's Jetstars fault for giving their crews a pay rise and how life is so unfair when there's nobody left to blame but yourself.....

[Buckshot]

All this talk of 34 visual approaches reminds me of this QF A380 YouTube clip.

The PNF skipper has to remind the FO to 'keep it coming down' on final. (after the rebuke to 'stop playing with the buttons mate and just fly it at 1'13' !)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_1i-kdjhvQ

[spelling_nazi]

It's 6 nm , not 8.

5.35 + 5.72 km = 11.07 km (if you ignore the curvature) = 5.98nm. plus 1000' for aim point, 6.14nm.

Probably a bit less when you take into account a curved finals turn. Definitely not 8.

Google maps with lat longs used.

http://i61.tinypic.com/qzhfua.jpg

[Wally Mk2]

Oh boy some very basic airman-ship totally misunderstood here....very worrying to think that some are actually flying these things.The RWY is already 330ft up stacked upon lots of dirt, aboriginal sacred site stuff etc!!!:ugh:Maybe the flat Earth society is alive & well!:-)
At Sheed you are 2500ft above St Kilda beach NOT RWY 34 piano keys!!!
You need ruffly (slang) 7 NM's to loose the height difference (std ILS 3 deg profile), easily doable if you are in front of the plane. You need around 700-800 FPM (speed dependent of course) all the way so from over Sheed you don't get that in an instant so there is some catching up to make up especially if the wind is up yr ass initially!!!.

The biggest issue here with this App is a significant T/W component making yr GS across the ground higher eating into those few Trk miles quicker before you get a chance to wash off that height. SA, it's all about SA, a skill that is lost due the very thing that was was meant to help us dumb sh1t pilots in the first place, the AUTOMATICS!!

[The Green Goblin]

Mate, look at the bloody jepp chart and what the FMS tells you!

Google maps isn't something we use in the flight deck......

[Capt Fathom]

The Jepp Chart is wrong. It has rounded up too liberally!

SHEED to ASUKI is 3.1nm according to my calculator!

By the way, the chart says 4nm from ASUKI to Melbourne Intl. Whatever that means?

[34R]

I'm with Mr Goblin, enough of SHEED already.

[Lead Balloon]

No offence intended, but if it's all the same to you guys, please use the automatics ...

Clearly it's all too complicated. :eek:

[CurtainTwitcher]

http://s12.postimg.org/wkvl63n0p/ymml_34_3.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/wkvl63n0p/)
(click to enlarge)
After playing around with the software a bit more, the actual track distance is about 5.7nm (6.54 statue miles as per shown above), distance markers are in statue miles.

[Capt Claret]

Geez, what a sh!tfight! All I tried to do was explain to someone what "SHEED" was, honest.

I unreservedly apologise to all and sundry that my figures weren't exact, and were sourced from memory, well away from an FMS or Jeppesen Chart.

I've never refused it, it doesn't scare me, I can cope with just a PAPI. But I've also experienced difficulties in seeing the runway on a hazy day with the sun low in the western sky. I've also expressed a preference for the GNSS when I felt that the conditions made that a better option. Sometimes approved, sometimes declined because of the "flow". I confess to not understanding when arriving from the SE, why a PORTS or WAREN Zulu STAR doesn't work for ATC.

As to how high above profile it is, in the jet that I fly, the altitude the aeroplane wants to cross SHEED were the altitude constraint not there is either just under or just over 2100' (I don't remember the exact figure), so that's close to a '400' to 500' difference to the FMS profile. It's high enough that the very gentle autopilot will still give close to 1500'/minute ROD (not all the way to the ground) to regain the desired profile once past SHEED.

Finally, though I've no experience of other makes of FMS, I'd be most surprised if any FMS operating properly, put the aeroplane above 2500' at SHEED.

:\

[framer]

In my opinion it's sometimes the automatics that get guys in trouble. If they they disconnected It might work out better. The approach is less forgiving than some others, but scores of planes manage it every day without busting the very conservative company ' stable approach' criteria. Like I said, it's an energy management issue ( read: the pilot did a crap job) rather than a profile management issue.
If you don't back yourself to be on your game then ask for something else, if all is normal, there should be no problem with it.

[Derfred]

Framer, that may be your experience but I don't think you can generalise.

The B737NG will fly that approach perfectly on automatics in LNAV/VNAV right down to 50' above the threshold. I do it regularly. I also hand fly it regularly - depends how I feel on the day. It's good to practice both, in my opinion.

Not all autoflight systems may be up to the task, however. Know your aircraft and it's limitations and abilities.

[spelling_nazi]

Goblin, I also use Jepp on f/d but the distances are wrong on the chart. It's just shy of 6nm. You can believe what you like but the fact is it is not 9, or 8....

Google maps, with Lat/longs gives an extremely accurate distance.

Getting pissed at me aint gonna change the fact it isn't what the chart says.

[Lead Balloon]

Gosh: An error on a chart?

How many incident reports, ATSB investigations and Senate inquiries do you reckon it will take to fix that?

[Denied Justice]

At a speed of about 150 kt., unless the aircraft is pitched down right at SHEED, the vertical profile can get out of hand.

I would agree with SN - it's about 6 track miles.

Initial descent rate between 1200 - 1500 ft/min in the aircraft I fly, until intercepting the 3 degree slope to the runway.

It really is no big deal (as others have said) provided you are on to it early.

With any weather or other adverse factors (this could include fatigue late at night), there is certainly an argument for an instrument approach, but it should be left to the crew on the day to make the right approach choice. :ok:

QED

[B737SFP]

Geeeeeez

I never came anywhere close to Melbourne, but if I get there one day and the ATC tells me to fly this god damn approach, I will be fckin worried.

4 pages talking about this... That looks challenging !









Is it ? :E

[framer]

Framer, that may be your experience but I don't think you can generalise.

Fair call Derfred, I'l edit my post now to make that clear.
Cheers

[C441]

Not surprisingly, it seems that none of us are immune to making a stuff-up.
If I was one of my kids I'd probably add #SHEED #toolow #visualapproach #fatigue?
.....a Boeing 777 aircraft, registered VH-VPF and operated by Virgin Australia International Airlines, was conducting a visual approach to runway 34 at Melbourne Airport, Victoria. During the approach and after the waypoint SHEED, the aircraft descended below the approach path to about 500 ft above ground level. Upon recognising the descent profile error, the captain disengaged the autopilot and flew the aircraft level, re-intercepting the profile and continuing the approach to land.

ATSB report (http://atsb.gov.au/media/5313094/AO-2013-130-FINAL.pdf)

[ANCIENT]

Wow, I never realised flying the approach via SHEED was so difficult.
I think it is meant to be flown looking out the window and not following the Magenta/Green line.

Used to enjoy the over fly of Essendon for right base to 34 Tull in the 727 and still enjoy it in the Bus.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I think it is meant to be flown looking out the window and not following the Magenta/Green line.

Exactly. It's amazing how much easier these visual approaches are if you just look out the window and fly the thing. And maybe think about it a bit before launching into it v:ok:

[Captain Gidday]

:ok: to the two posts above. Exactly.

747-400 : At SHEED. Flaps 20, Gear down. Flaps 20 Speed, 2500'. Then - Right Over SHEED, thrust idle, flaps 30 coming into the slot and thrust to 1.18.

[Oriana]

Regardless of some of the testosterone on here about visual approaches, Flight Safety Foundation data supports flying an ILS where available, instead of a visual approach, presents less risk.

FSF ALAR BRIEFING NOTE 5.1
The Flight Safety Foundation Approach-and-Accident Reduction [ALAR] Task Force, in an analysis of 76 approach-and-landing accidents and incidents, including controlled-flight-into-terrain [CFIT] accidents in 1984 through to 1997, found that:
- Fifty-three percent of the accidents occurred during nonprecision instrument approaches or visual approaches [42 percent of the visual approaches were conducted where an instrument landing system [ILS] approach was available:

I suggest that our job is not a pissing contest, nor is it about self-gratification. The priority is taking the course of action that has the least amount of risk attached to it. Especially considering we're talking, in this instance, about a wide-body aircraft with 250+ people on board. Is it appropriate, given the facilities available? It's not a dick measuring excercise about being able to fly a visual approach or not (all things considered) but whether, it is the safety course of action or not (given the options).

Someone mentioned earlier about not flying ILS when the weather is good to save ATC time/airspace? Well, the time these guys saved, could have been an eternity.

If i have an ILS available, I will fly it. I have had too many bull**** slowdowns into Melbourne from 250-300nm out, just to be sped up, and track shortened inside of the TMA by APPROACH, just so I can get a late landing clearance at 100'.

ATC have to realise, the increase in flight crew workload, at low altitudes, that goes on when they 'spot a gap'.:ugh:

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Oriana, I agree that it shouldn't be about testosterone, pissing contests, or self-gratification.

For me, what it's about is being able to take the opportunity to save the odd few minutes and few hundred kilos of fuel - and more importantly, exercising some basic skills which can easily atrophy if we spend our lives coupled up to an electronic glideslope and flight director. Skills which might've come in handy when Aseana tried to land that 777 in SFO.

[Keg]

Skills which might've come in handy when Aseana tried to land that 777 in SFO.

Or may come in handy on the day when you've got issues and there is no ILS available.

[The Green Goblin]

The aeroplane doesn't know it's day, night an ILS or visual approach. The physics of flight does not change one iota.

The only one who knows the difference is the pilot. If you feel you are less safe on a visual approach than an ILS approach, you shouldn't be flying an aeroplane.

You have the same indicators for spacial and situational awareness for both approaches, and all the tools to do both equally as safely on a fine day.

I remember back in the GA days an ILS approach was considered the harder aporoach. This was due to the precision required to fly it within tolerance compared to a normal every day circuit and visual approach.

At least you've got a PAPI and track miles :)

[waren9]

if both were equally safe mr goblin, then by definition the stats would bear your argument out.

as someone has already pointed out, they do not.

[The Green Goblin]

It's down to training and being current.

[Capt Fathom]

Define current!

[framer]

If you feel you are less safe on a visual approach than an ILS approach, you shouldn't be flying an aeroplane
I agree that you shouldn't feel unsafe on a visual approach but to say that you shouldn't be flying an aeroplane if you recognise the fact that it is less safe....that's a bit silly.

[oicur12.again]

"If you feel you are less safe on a visual approach than an ILS approach, you shouldn't be flying an aeroplane."

According to the FAA you statistically ARE less safe.

[Oriana]

@it'snothatbloodyhard:
For me, what it's about is being able to take the opportunity to save the odd few minutes and few hundred kilos of fuel - and more importantly, exercising some basic skills which can easily atrophy if we spend our lives coupled up to an electronic glideslope and flight director. Skills which might've come in handy when Aseana tried to land that 777 in SFO.
Like I said, in this instance, the time this crew were to save, could have been an eternity.

I agree. However, I argue, that in some visual approach scenarios it's not actually prudent to 'take the opportunity' to practice etc (especially considering there are 100-300-400 people on board your aeroplane who are along for the ride on your visual approach practice). The Aseana into KSFO is on the face of it a botched landing, and I'll keep this courteous, there are plenty of reasons behind that, beyond lack of ability or currency.:rolleyes:

@Keg
Or may come in handy on the day when you've got issues and there is no ILS available.
I am sure Qantas pilots are more than able to fly a visual approch into anywhere - all things being equal. Infact, I will expand that to Australian airline pilots in general.

@The Green Goblin
The aeroplane doesn't know it's day, night an ILS or visual approach. The physics of flight does not change one iota.

Ahh, that ol' chestnut. :ugh:You're right! BUT, the HUMAN operating the machine does, and in fact, the human's ability to operate in various environment varies, and often, deteriorates. I won't get into how we react in a dynamic environment and cope with short term targets at the expense of the long term goals. The ILS in GA days was considered a harder approach, because we hardly did them. So, we are talking about deteriorating skill-sets, and hopefully, an airlines Check & Training System will give guys training and plenty of opportunity to keep those visual approach skills to a safe level before releasing a pilot to the line. BUT - again, I argue, the JET, is a machine to get the punters from A to B, not a place for you to be practicing an eroded skill, if it has, in fact, eroded. I am sure, anyone who ended up in the same position as the investigation crew (or even if they FOQA busted or got unstable) would, if they could turn back time, let the 'automaton' fly the ILS approach, and both pilots would be actively monitoring the flightpath - leaving plenty of brain space for increased SA.

@The Green Goblin
If you feel you are less safe on a visual approach than an ILS approach, you shouldn't be flying an aeroplane.

Like I said, it's not a pissing competition, and the jet i command is not the place for me to display my huge cajones.:}

In the operation I fly, I do a mixture of all types of instrument and visual approaches, many times a week :sad: so currency is not an issue. (Some of my hot-shot FO's might argue that my level of skill may be an issue :hmm:).I still pick my fights so to speak. And the scenario that these Qantas guys found themselves in, is one that rings alarm bells in my head, especially into Melbourne. Why doesn't YSSY or YBBN or other major TMA's have the same level of incidents as YMML?

Ok, on the face of it, a VISAPP into YMML16 should be 'easy'. But there are plenty of underlying snags, and when you add it all up..... stupid CTA steps that aren't a defined DME distance or arc, late track shortening, increased track shortening on an ATC opportunity basis, being held high by ATC above your already tight profile, that screw with your now decreasing options to manage the aircraft energy reduction requirements and company FOQA speed limits, flap speeds, speedbrake availability, elevation considerations when calculating your profile, and the looking out the window bit where you are looking into haze, tracking to a visual aim point that is a faarking paddock all the while looking at 60m runway with terrain sloping back up at you. The SHEED arrival, on the other hand, although a pain in the arse with the profile, can be PLANNED and a strategy can be briefed, flown and MONITORED.

I am sure these guys were skilled pilots & quite capable of flying a visual approach in their aircraft. Hell, I'll even bet a fiver they were able to multiply DTR x 3 + 480' for profile!! However, in my view, things were stacking against them in terms of how they felt, and the increase of crew workload at low level, late in the approach, and the things I have stated above and in my previous post.

Finally, although this is a polite and good discussion, I must admit that I feel somewhat disappointed that professional pilots on here, who face the same thing daily, feel they are somehow immune from all the factors that trapped these guys, and are quick to blame our colleagues.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Why doesn't YSSY or YBBN or other major TMA's have the same level of incidents as YMML?


I suspect a major reason is that ML often offers track-shortening to a 4 or 5 mile visual final on 16, rather than the full ILS via BOL. That doesn't really happen at the other ports - you tend to just stay on whatever STAR (instrument or visual) you were issued. Occasionally you might get cut in a bit under vectors at YSSY, but it's not to the same extent.

Just because Flight Safety Foundation data suggests that, industry-wide, ILS approaches are statistically safer, doesn't mean that we, as individuals, shouldn't be able to fly a visual approach with an equal amount of safety and efficiency. In many cases it may be in the best interests of our passengers to do so.

Case in point (which seems to occur every so often): say there's a cell preventing you joining the ILS at 10 nm, and your choices are to fix the vertical offset and cut in for a 5 mile visual final, or to refuse this and instead hold for an hour before flying the ILS. If I can safely take the first option, without my brain being 10 miles behind the jet, then I will. I'd suggest that it's in the interests of both my employer and my passengers to be able to do so. But if I've spent years spurning visual approaches and/or track-shortening, and just flying the full ILS wherever possible, then I'm less likely to feel comfortable and competent in taking the more expedient (and desirable) option.

It's not a question of displaying huge cojones, more a matter of maintaining an overall level of professional competence. If someone's not totally comfortable doing something, then they absolutely shouldn't be doing it (particularly with a few hundred passengers down the back). But equally, they should maybe be wondering why they're not comfortable with it, and what they could do to improve things.

[The Green Goblin]

If you're not well practiced and current in any type of approach, you won't recognise when it's not going so well. (Case in point). Which is why we are encouraged to get practice on the line.

I try to do a manual thrust approach and visual approach every new roster publication.

I feel completely comfortable flying any approach and I enjoy flying the Victor type arrivals.

I signed up to be a pilot, not a systems analyst. I take pride in the way I fly.

[Oriana]

Neither of you read the post properly.

[Capt Fathom]

Visual approaches. Are they really all that exciting? Do you get a Mickey Badge when you do one? :E

"Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots." – E. Hamilton Lee, 1949

[ACMS]

I said this back in post #35 and I stand by it:---

Really mate? I suppose a circling approach in bad weather whilst an ILS was available to save a few minutes and make you feel like Chuck would be perfectly acceptable as well?


There is a time and a place for visual approaches, I've done Hundreds in my time all over the world and will continue to advocate their use as long as it's JUSTIFIED under ALL circumstances on the day.

I think you've lost sight of the job requirement.......