Innsbruck Go-arounds 15-3-03

[meslag]

sorry to the moderators - please move to whichever forum you think best.

Sat in the afternoon at innsbruck - clear day landing on 08 with a stiff breeze down the runway. No fohn conditions or turb noticed on our arrival.

About 10 minutes later a ba73 arrived and when turning finals went around. fair enough. second approach at about downwind he/she went around again. he/she then positioned to land on 26 with a v.stiff tailwind. needless to say we all went out to watch.

now the questions. just wondered why the two goarounds and why the decision to land on 26. maybe the no more than 2 ga's rule from the ops man came into play and they decided to get around it by landing on a differant runway. anyone there?

anyway the main point of this drivel is that on the second goaround, a 757 was descending into the valley from kti and ended up also going around. When i first started going to lowi about 4 years ago, we were told that the deal with lowi was that only one aircraft was to manoever in the valley at once. now, obviously that is not the case as you have aircraft cleared to line up as you are downwind. not ideal if you goaround as they get airborne.

Was anyone else under the impression of only a certain amount of aircraft in the valley at one time? ie one.

Lastly are any of the operators of med jet allowed to descend visually into the valley. Our 320/321 proc mean we always follow the inst. arrrival but sometimes you hear or see more unusual arrivals.

Not trying to get at the ba dude as i have no doubt he made the best decisions but just wondered what the score was.

cheers

[Std Speed]

Don't know the full details, but I understand that due to map shift in the EGPWS, two hard 'pull up' warnings were received. The first on finals, the second when positioning for a second approach.

SOP's require a pull up to MSA etc etc. It cannot be ignored even if you are visual/CAVOK as big brother aka SESMA is ever watchful.

May have landed 26 to avoid any warnings, but now I'm guessing.

[Basil]

Yes, posn shift probs with EGPWS can be a real pain.
Had a G/A a couple of days ago at about 500ft for that very reason - right in the slot but when you gotta go you gotta go :(
VMC so we just disabled Terrain and made a further approach.

Ref Innsbruck, I wonder if they'd a strong tailwind on finals becoming a headwind on the ground :confused:

[411A]

That's the problem with some aircarriers...they insist that pilots go around when the aircraft is CLEARLY safe to land.
GPWS/EGPWS do indeed malfunction from time to time....just how is it safer to approach an airfield (and land) with the terrain c/b pulled, yet at the same time, g/around when the system malfunctions?
More 'do as the box says' rather than 'use your brain'.
:rolleyes:

[Hamrah]

Our 737-700 circled to land on 08 yesterday without incident or spurious warnings. I presume the Dual GPS helps eliminate the position shift problem.

H

[BOAC]

As 'H' knows, (for those who don't) the problem lies in the LACK of GPS in the 3/4/500 series 737. Loss of DME update then causes the FMC position to wander gently off into the bundox until the EGPWS cries 'You are going to die!'

I hear that there is a strong possibility that INN will have an extra DME positioned to the south of the field soon which should alleviate the problem.

[In trim]

411A,

You make a valid point. Fully stabilised, visual, CAVOK, on the ILS (where applicable), spot on with VASI/PAPI, whatever, and the computer tells you that you're unsafe.

Option 1 -
Continue with a perfectly stable approach using all visual clues and other aids.

Option 2 -
Spend the next 15 mins p155ing about in the valley, surrounded by cumulo-granite, in a high workload environment, even though you know the computer is wrong.

Tell me, which is the safest option?

SESMA is great, and I would never want to condone over-riding computer warnings without valid cause, but equally we can't take the human totally out of the equation.

:mad:

[Raw Data]

I too was making an approach in the valley on Saturday, arriving from KTI and circling for 08. The wind was quite strong at about 4000 feet from about 150 and it was consequently hard to make the final turn accurately, even if you were right over to the left when downwind. We ended up going through the centreline at min approach speed and max bank angle. Not dangerous per se, but concentrates the mind!

Regarding other traffic in the valley, the LOWI ATC folk seem to do whatever they can to expedite the traffic flow. I have more than once been asked to shorten or lengthen an approach to allow other aircraft to manouvre over or under me. On one occasion we had a exec jet approaching 26 at the same time as we were, but he was visual and only half a mile away- and converging. Not good. ATC never told us he was there, and wouldn't tell us what his intentions were (he ended up heading off up the Brenner Pass). Thank goodness for TCAS, I say.

Separation never seems to be compromised, but I often wonder how things would go if somebody went around at an inopportune moment.

Some people do visuals straight in on 08, I have heard at least two BA aircraft accepting that clearance.

[Cough]

The lack of GPS is apparently easily sorted with the addition of a GPS card to the FMC that we currently use (or was it the U10 FMC that was gong to appear pre Sep11?), oh yes and the addition of another aerial...

Either a GPS card or a second FMC installed in the 737 is required when PRNAV is mandated in the future. GPS card is cheap, second FMC isn't. Just wot I am told you understand...

[aztruck]

cor...we could have had a mini bash on the ramp!! I was the FO on the Astraeus 73 that day and, as H mentioned, we had no problems at all with GPWS. I understand that the BA problems were caused by map shift triggering a spurious warning, which is still a mandatory Go round.
Having said all that it is quite a spectacular base to final turn, I'm glad I saw it in 50k vis.

[Flywheel]

As has been pointed out, the lack of GPS has always been a main contributory factor with these map shift incidents, and as BOAC has indicated the additional DME planned for Innsbruck will alleviate this aspect of the problem.

However, there are two other contributory factors that are also being addressed:

(i) An updated FMC programme is on order, because it has been discovered that, particularly where a hold is entered - prior - to an approach, which has itself got a hold programmed into the go-around, the poor old FMC has been using virtually all of its limited computing power to sort out that conundrum and it has therefore not been updating the position even when signals are available;

(ii)The current BA policy of a mandatory go-around in the event of a 'hard' warning, even when over the runway, has been reviewed - watch this space !!

[maxrpm]

saw it. At least the second GA, after being alerted be the first. Looked like a balked landing in training. After some turning in the canyon he came in for a 15 kts tailwind landing on 26.

Rumour soon spread that these manoeuvres where due to a map shift. Frankly, quite a few of us thought that questionable airmanship.

But now a new rumour is arrising. It is said that the same pilot got the same map shift warning 20 feet AGL a week before - showed good airmanship - continued the stabilized approach and landed. Back home he got bashed for not flying by the book. And now he demonstrated that the book might need some amendement.

Anybody able to confirm this?

Don´t put too much hope in that NDB. The locals are doing a lot of testing on GPS based missed approach procedures. This would cancel the need for the NDB project (which has been on for years now)

[M.Mouse]

Frankly, quite a few of us thought that questionable airmanship

What a pompous statement, based on hearsay and rumour.

[FlyMD]

Policy at Swissair, Edelweiss air, BalairCTA, Crossair,.... :

GA is mandatory for a hard GPWS warning:

- at night
- in IMC
- Daytime VFR IF WARNING UNEXPECTED

Seems to me that policy is kind of sensible, cuz in this case, at least the second warning would have been "expected", and thus led to a landing with headwind...

I wasn't there, though, and I quite like the old saying that a missed approach is NEVER wrong. (As long as you have fuel, that is... hehe)

[In trim]

FlyMD - Totally agree. I still stand by my previous post, but even if there is a valid argument for the first GA, the BA ruling which resulted in the second GA (even though I am sure the crew were well aware of the map shift and their true position!) is inexcusable. It resulted in more time messing around in a tight valley and a high workload environment, followed by a landing with a 15kt tailwind......so 30kt higher groundspeed than required. In terms of "safety exposure" this was totally unnecessary.

[JW411]

What on earth has happened to good old-fashioned common sense and airmanship?

[fireflybob]

The people who write these ridiculous rules need to get down onto the shop floor more often to get a dose of reality!

Was it Trenchard who said that rules were for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men?

I am all for SOPs but let's not stop pilots from using their own original thought entirely.

[Land ASAP]

The 'people' who write these rules quite likely have also written a rule that states that
"Pilots should check the integrity of IRS position against serviceable navigation aids before commencing their approach."
Consequently map shift would be seen to be present and the TERRAIN OVRD button would have been pressed.

And besides, if you've forgotten that then
PULL UP! + VISUAL = GO AROUND + TERR OVRD ON for next approach.

Sensible and safe.

Shall we shut up now gringos?

[PA38]

Does anyone remember the South American pilot who's reply to a GPWS warning was "shut up gringo" just before he flew into the ground!!!
Analysing the data from accidents going back decades has developed the features fitted to modern aircraft, where hundreds and hundreds of people have been killed.
Should we all now sit around and debate what we consider a better way of doing things, or should we read accident reports from the past?
Isn’t this one of the reasons they are published
:confused:

[flt_lt_w_mitty]

OH dear, here we go again!

link (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=56307&perpage=15&pagenumber=6 )

My post

"posted 22nd June 2002 18:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORM TWO TEAMS!
RIGHT NOW! FORM UP IN TWO TEAMS! Supermarket trollies on the right, Nigels on the left.

This should get the keyboards clacking!

Recent BA Shorthaul 'incident', from BASIS:

Position: around 50' over the threshold of the intended runway of landing at xxx, good VMC

Cockpit situation: Handling pilot - both hands on control column to flare and land, iaw BA sops. Non handling pilot - hands on lap (or somewhere)

Event: EGPWS Hard terrain warning, due to totally erroneous 'map shift'

SOP: PULL UP and Go-AROUND

Crew reaction: SOP

I almost hesitate to say this, but I'm tending to agree a bit with 411A (damn, I said it).

Supermarket trollies - your challenge - a PA to explain to the pax how you saved their lives by avoiding hitting the hill on the runway at xxx

Nigels - ????

It would be NICE if repliers could announce which team they are playing for!

Walt"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


I (hesitate!) to leap to the defence of the Nigels here, but I MUST slap 'maxrpm' for that totally 'out-of-order' comment on 'airmanship'. There ARE some Nigels with that quality, although it is not a 'pre-requisite for the job', as I believe Big Airways believe that 'Nasa Team Skills' overcome all known aviation hazards.

To follow 'maxrpm's query, it is quite probable that the same crew HAD done as you suggest with that result, as I am told by my 'informants' that the *'space cadets'* in charge STILL insist on a g/a even over the threshold of a runway, if map-shift and EGPWS warning occurs, with DIRE CAREER threatening responses if you do not do so.

* 'Space cadet' is the replacement for the 'hamster' - as fast as the production line can turn them out.*

I believe 'flywheel' must be closer to the situation than most and perhaps has some inside knowledge of common sense prevailing soon?

There are times when an imnmediate reaction to a warning is VITAL, there are times when the average intelligence pilot can assess the warning to be false. There need to be some 'SOPs', but surely, space cadets, if the crew KNOW where they are, are in good vmc, have discussed the potential map problem, and are keeping the flight path under constant review, can they not use some common sense?. Certainly, repeated go-rounds at INN with other traffic (yes, there are other operators, boys!) should be avoided unless........ Never mind the paperwork, terrified passengers, over-worked ATC etc.

Oh, and Land ASAP - shot yourself in the foot there, eh Gringo?

[Land ASAP]

How have I shot myself in the foot eh Mitty?

In every airline there are Lowest Common Denominators. Some airlines have more than others. The BA S.O.P. takes care of all and no-one gets hurt.

If some F**kwit takes more than ONE approach to realise that he has mapshift, it would be preferable to some F**kwit flying into something unpaved because an S.O.P. existed that allowed some discretion over whether to respond to a "Pull Up!" warning.

Some airlines have S.O.P.s that leave more room for the superior airman that you no doubt are, Capt Mitty. But not every airman is superior as yourself, even in your company.

I'm not trying to sound patronising Walter. But some Nigel making a slight arse of themselves because of their limited knowledge of EGPWS is somewhat preferable to a smouldering wreck, regardless of our NASA team skills.

[JW411]

So three times round the valley at Innsbruck in CAVOK conditions followed by a 15 kt tailwind landing on that huge runway equals "a slight arse of themselves".

I agree with flt_lt_w_mitty.

Whatever happened to common sense and good old airmanship?

[Land ASAP]

Our definitions of 'Good Airmanship' differ. My opinion of good airmanship would have been the Captain 'trapping' the error made at Innsbruck 20 minutes previous, when map integrity was checked during the descent.

I think we agree that he posessed by either mine or your definition, a lack of good airmanship on that day.

"The superior pilot uses his superior knowledge to avoid the use of his superior skill"

[BOAC]

I don't want to get into a 'slanging match' over this incident, except to ask whether anyone KNOWS whether either of the hard warnings were genuine, and not 'false'? INN is festooned with terrain which can give a hard warning even on the 'old' GPWS, and the 'look-ahead' function of EGPWS CAN trigger there even with spot-on nav accuracy, so perhaps it is a bit unfair to try to judge?

Land ASAP - the position was almost certainly checked IAW SOPs as accurate before descent into the valley, and the map shift, if any, could have been sudden and extreme. I have had a position jump of 8 miles at low level into Aberdeen (and subsequent g/a) with a good accuracy at top-of-drop, due to an incorrect update on the only available DME, the Aberdeen VOR/DME. It is the 'kit' that is lacking. The SOP requires only a check of FMC pos against actual and as we know, IRS pos is where the 'kit' goes (at a given rate) when it loses the update. I personally check the IRS positions against actual. There is the option to 'tell' the 737 WHICH IRS it should trust!

For those other operators using the same 'kit', I have heard today that it is believed that the new DME (south of INN) is operative and should go a long way to eliminating false warnings with EGPWS.

[In trim]

And isn't it a bit unfair to be having a go at the crew if, as it appears, they were strictly following BA SOP's?

Comments such as "good airmanship" might be unreasonable in this respect. If the company has decided (rightly or wrongly) that hard warnings must ALWAYS be followed, even when fully visual, safe, and stabilised, then surely it is the procedures which should be questioned rather than the airmanship per se.

With SESMA looking over the crews shoulder, and a BA SOP which would no doubt result in "a quiet chat" if you continued the approach, what would you do?

[JW411]

It seems to me that there are two things wrong here; faulty equipment and poor SOPs. My own company is quite adamant that all warnings must be reacted to immediately unless you are in CAVOK conditions and can safely continue to land.

Now most airlines operating into Innsbruck must have similar SOPs otherwise the valley would be permanently stuffed full of circling aeroplanes!

In my case, the situation would never have arisen for I would have been able to land without breaking company SOPs. In any event, I would not have been thrilled about landing on a 6000 foot runway with a 15 knot tailwind.

Perhaps the easiest way for these chaps to get things sorted out would be to start diverting to Munich or Salzburg on CAVOK days when everyone else is landing without difficulty and that might get the attention of the accountants!

After all, Innsbruck is a Category C airfield and special procedures apply so why can't their company have a CAVOK get-out clause? The way things are at the moment, rules are being followed blindly and common sense is being ignored. Mind you, I'm sure the chaps on the ground thoroughly enjoyed the flying display. However, if they do it too often, they could find that they will not be invited back by the airport authorities!

[Burger Thing]

Just a general statement regarding GPWS warnings as we had this discussion before, let's see what Mr. Boeing says:

From the B737 QRH - warning systems:

Condition: The GPWS provides warnings and/or alerts for any of the following potentially hazardous flight conditions:


excessive descent rate
excessive terrain closure rate
altitude loss after takeoff or go-around
unsafe terrain clearance when not in the landing configuration
excessive deviation below an ILS glideslope


Correct the flightpath lor the airplane configuration

not really surprising but then:

NOTE: If an alert occurs when flying under daylight VMC conditions, and positive visual verifications is made that no hazard exists, the alert may be regarded as cautionary and the approach may be continued.

If this is to technical, we can translate that to:

Hey, man, look out and use your eyes and experience. Don't rely too much on technical systems as they can fail occasionaly. Comman sense still apply as well.

[LRdriver]

Also the BA had that "tattle tale" gizmo that records all deviations, hence the crew couldn't use common sense

[M.Mouse]

Also the BA had that "tattle tale" gizmo that records all deviations, hence the crew couldn't use common sense

The SOP may or may not be satisfactory but that statement is only indicative of your ignorance.

[Youwererobbed]

All very interesting................ but do BA actually fly to Innsbruck?

If so from which base?:confused:

[Hotel Mode]

Would have thought the thread made it obvious, but yes they fly 737's from Gatwick, Newcastle and Dublin as per cityflyer in previous years. And Manchester on the RJ100, which incidently has GPS based EGPWS so doesnt suffer from this unfortunate problem!

[RAT 5]

For all the airlines I've flown for there has always been the proviso that Captain has the discretion to deviate from SOP's for flight safety reasons.

Secondly; I've always had the idea that MK. 1 eyeball over-rides computers, and common sense is the pre-requisit of all pilots.

It has also been stated that a GWPS warning can be assessed for validity if visual. Electronics can go wrong...go worng.. go wonrg.....!

So, I am lost as to this thread. Call me an old fart if you wish, but with an empty piece of tarmac in front of me, and in the visual slot & stabilised, and cleared to land from other traffic, why not do the simple thing. I'd look a right Charlie burying it into the local concretous mountinous trying to be smart.

I'm not trying to be cute, just follow the principle of KISS. Get it right, you're a hero, but f+*k it up and no one wants to know.

[Youwererobbed]

Hotel Mode you say ...."Would have thought the thread made it obvious, but yes they fly 737's from Gatwick, Newcastle and Dublin as per cityflyer in previous years. And Manchester on the RJ100, which incidently has GPS based EGPWS so doesnt suffer from this unfortunate problem!"

So NOT a BA aircraft or trained crew then....!

These days just because an aircraft has BA colours it does not mean it is a BA aircraft. In 5 years it will, when the new scope agreement comes in.

[White Knight]

Robbed boy

The 737's were always BA aircraft, with BA crew. As are the RJ 100's now. Can you not understand simple english or woz' ur' brane robbed ov all normal finkin'.

What's it got to do with who the pilots were anyway dimwit - BA has a big book of FCO's "Flight Crew Orders" that they HAVE to abide by - even if it does make good old fashioned airmanship a thing of the past. It's simple - you follow the FCO's, or else you get your P45 unless you have a very good reason.
Having been ex CFE myself and having trained some of the "Nigels" onto the RJ - MAN and BHX guys- all I can say is that they were some of the BEST pilots I've had the pleasure of working with.

Unfortunately the company makes the rules - ignore them at expense of your career and your pension.

[Hotel Mode]

I do hope you dont work for BA you were robbed 'cos you havent been keeping track on events at Crawley International.

And White Knight, hope the suns treating you well, best out of the current mess.

[maxrpm]

Sat 29th. Same situation. Wind 090/16 RWY 08 in use. When BA 737 reported right hand downwind for 08 everybody watched. Some might have hoped for replay óf those go arounds and downwind landing, if so they wasted their time. AC came in stabilized, weel contact on the 1000" marker - made it for B without backtrack.

As the map shift problem should have persisted in the INN valley, there must have been a change in the books or a crew with a different philosophy.