Thai 777 NDB into MEL
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RNAV/RNP AR and GBAS are the way of the future. Get rid of all this radio nav aid sh t.
Totally agree about our third world aviation status. Why do we continue to turn ILS systems off all the time for techs to play with. How about the stupid visual approach onto 34 from overhead Essendon. No wonder they're called the bombers. "Cleared for a visual approach" yet the ILS if available is always used to a couple of hundred feet regardless. ATC don't get it or just don't understand how an airliner is operated.
Totally agree about our third world aviation status. Why do we continue to turn ILS systems off all the time for techs to play with. How about the stupid visual approach onto 34 from overhead Essendon. No wonder they're called the bombers. "Cleared for a visual approach" yet the ILS if available is always used to a couple of hundred feet regardless. ATC don't get it or just don't understand how an airliner is operated.
"Cleared for a visual approach" yet the ILS if available is always used to a couple of hundred feet regardless. ATC don't get it or just don't understand how an airliner is operated
Nunc est bibendum
Given the location of the ML VOR a 16 VOR approach probably isn't feasible. Minima (on the extended centerline) would probably be too low not to mention the turn required.
Besides that, a properly executed TWIN LOC approach on 16 YMML runway is always going to have you set up better than the VOR approach. On most airliner nav displays you can get just as good accuracy with the two needles as you can with the VOR bar.
Is there a problem with the 34 visual from Essendon? I've flow that off the back of a flight from LAX (into a hot, blustery 40 knot northerly as well as 290/10 on a fine, mild day) and it's a doddle.
If wind calm and cloud low then why not 27 ILS? A 744 at moderate weights (diversion fuel to SYD for example) won't have too many dramas with it. Sure it'd be nice to slide on down 16 but I don't see a drama with 27 as long as you know your go around point if you fluff the approach and landing.
Besides that, a properly executed TWIN LOC approach on 16 YMML runway is always going to have you set up better than the VOR approach. On most airliner nav displays you can get just as good accuracy with the two needles as you can with the VOR bar.
Is there a problem with the 34 visual from Essendon? I've flow that off the back of a flight from LAX (into a hot, blustery 40 knot northerly as well as 290/10 on a fine, mild day) and it's a doddle.
If wind calm and cloud low then why not 27 ILS? A 744 at moderate weights (diversion fuel to SYD for example) won't have too many dramas with it. Sure it'd be nice to slide on down 16 but I don't see a drama with 27 as long as you know your go around point if you fluff the approach and landing.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Orstraylia
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat IIIB
You could even take this argument further and ask why there is not at least one CATII/III approach into Mel
The article revolved more around ground surveillance radar for vehicles operating on taxiways and runways having transponder equipment fitted for low vis ops.
A quick search of the APAM website revealed no info though.
Last edited by Bumpfoh; 1st Jul 2009 at 10:33. Reason: can't spell
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asking a new generation crew to perform an NDB approach is asking for trouble, as most of them don't get the practise and that is a fact. If you have seen what i have in a simulator, you would agree.
If it is - and the company fail to provide the necessary simulator training to ensure currency at using that aid, then heads should be chopped at management level. Having said that, there is nothing to stop a keen pilot from practicing NDB approaches on a home PC. After all, we are all keen pilots - aren't we...
On the other hand, if the pilot has not been certified to conduct an NDB approach, he should not be a crew member on routes where use of an NDB may be required and that includes an alternate airport.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: HK MTR
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg
You must be a reaaaallly good pilot if everything is a doddle for you
Just imaging if every pilot was as good as you, we would not have any more accidents/incidents (or would we have more).
Is there a problem with the 34 visual from Essendon? I've flow that off the back of a flight from LAX (into a hot, blustery 40 knot northerly as well as 290/10 on a fine, mild day) and it's a doddle.
Just imaging if every pilot was as good as you, we would not have any more accidents/incidents (or would we have more).
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Capricorn
Age: 57
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you guys are not only showing your lack of knowledge of the procedures that you fly you are missing the point to make a separate point.
It does not matter what type of approach you fly, if you get too high above the descent profile you are screwed and need to start again.
A DIRTY DIVE TO TRY TO REGAIN THE PROFILE PUTS YOU IN A CFIT SITUATION REAL QUICK, and that's what this crew did, regardless of the lack of 1st world facilities at Australian airports or the lack of REQUIRED navigation aids installed in airliners by AIRLINE MANAGEMENT.
As for any pilot designing his own 3 degree profile on his aircraft's FMC while he is airborne and then flying it in IMC.......mmmmm....even 3rd world cowboys don't let you do that, do they?
It does not matter what type of approach you fly, if you get too high above the descent profile you are screwed and need to start again.
A DIRTY DIVE TO TRY TO REGAIN THE PROFILE PUTS YOU IN A CFIT SITUATION REAL QUICK, and that's what this crew did, regardless of the lack of 1st world facilities at Australian airports or the lack of REQUIRED navigation aids installed in airliners by AIRLINE MANAGEMENT.
As for any pilot designing his own 3 degree profile on his aircraft's FMC while he is airborne and then flying it in IMC.......mmmmm....even 3rd world cowboys don't let you do that, do they?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg,
Whilst I agree with you that the 34 Essendon Visual isn't particulally difficult, it is probably unnecessarily tight for the bigger jets.
When it was developed you flew down the EN LOC before the turn - now it isn't defined by the LOC, but just waypoints.
What would you think about moving SHEED a couple of miles to the left, now that the LOC isn't used? It wouldn't slow down the flow, and just gives everyone a few hundred feet more on final, which would just make it a little less "tight".
Only a thought
Ramjager - the 34 VOR approach is only a "sidestep" because of the incorrect coding (and now depiction) of the original VOR approach. The left turn at the FF34 point to the THRESHOLD instead of continuing straight to the VOR is the reason for it.
A.C.C
Whilst I agree with you that the 34 Essendon Visual isn't particulally difficult, it is probably unnecessarily tight for the bigger jets.
When it was developed you flew down the EN LOC before the turn - now it isn't defined by the LOC, but just waypoints.
What would you think about moving SHEED a couple of miles to the left, now that the LOC isn't used? It wouldn't slow down the flow, and just gives everyone a few hundred feet more on final, which would just make it a little less "tight".
Only a thought
Ramjager - the 34 VOR approach is only a "sidestep" because of the incorrect coding (and now depiction) of the original VOR approach. The left turn at the FF34 point to the THRESHOLD instead of continuing straight to the VOR is the reason for it.
A.C.C
Nunc est bibendum
Comfy chair, it's probably a good idea and would make the approach more user friendly. I'm not sure what the 'No Essendon Airport group' would think when we suddenly appear regularly a couple of miles to the south over houses and so on!
The tracking via the the IEN 26 LLZ (& now Sheed) for RWY34 in Melbourne was originally designed so that there would be no conflict with arrivals for the Northerly runway at Essendon. Moving the track 2NM south would cause problems for ATC slotting Esendon arrivals between Tulla arrivals.
I've been on the 777 for nearly a decade now with a very well respected International airline.
In that 10 years, I've never flown an NDB approach in the simulator or real life. We simply don't do them. They're obsolete on the World stage.
I recall flying in Oz, whereby you needed to fly an NDB/VOR approach every 3 months to remain current. Like most things, if you don't practice, you become very sloppy, very quickly. Having said that, although the Captain and First Officer onboard Thai had many hours, I'm sure like most International Airlines, they never practice them because they're simply never flow.
Having said that, both sides need to be looked at here, not simply from the perspective of Pilots who only fly within Australian Airspace. I can certainly understand how this could have happened.
So why didn't they ask for a visual approach, you may ask. Again, on the World stage, unfortunately, they are very rarely given. With the odd exception of flying into the US. In my previous life flying within OZ, visual approaches was my 'bread and butter'. They where flown without much thought. In the last 10 years, I've been offered a visual approach maybe 3 times and I can tell you how shocking it is with how sloppy you become. Again, we rarely train for this in the simulator because basically, they're never given.
The Thai crew were most likely faced with a rather difficult decision. Fly the NDB approach that they've quite possibly haven't done this century or secondly, fly a visual approach that they've done probably a hand full of times over the same period. Combine this with what "By George" said, that being they'd been flying all night with possibly 2 crew and this simply adds another 'complication' to the incident.
In that 10 years, I've never flown an NDB approach in the simulator or real life. We simply don't do them. They're obsolete on the World stage.
I recall flying in Oz, whereby you needed to fly an NDB/VOR approach every 3 months to remain current. Like most things, if you don't practice, you become very sloppy, very quickly. Having said that, although the Captain and First Officer onboard Thai had many hours, I'm sure like most International Airlines, they never practice them because they're simply never flow.
Having said that, both sides need to be looked at here, not simply from the perspective of Pilots who only fly within Australian Airspace. I can certainly understand how this could have happened.
So why didn't they ask for a visual approach, you may ask. Again, on the World stage, unfortunately, they are very rarely given. With the odd exception of flying into the US. In my previous life flying within OZ, visual approaches was my 'bread and butter'. They where flown without much thought. In the last 10 years, I've been offered a visual approach maybe 3 times and I can tell you how shocking it is with how sloppy you become. Again, we rarely train for this in the simulator because basically, they're never given.
The Thai crew were most likely faced with a rather difficult decision. Fly the NDB approach that they've quite possibly haven't done this century or secondly, fly a visual approach that they've done probably a hand full of times over the same period. Combine this with what "By George" said, that being they'd been flying all night with possibly 2 crew and this simply adds another 'complication' to the incident.
Last edited by Giuseppe Giovanni; 2nd Jul 2009 at 05:49.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lord Howe
Age: 44
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Metro man, you can fly an NDB app using the Auto Pilot by
1, An ILS coded overlay
2, If ILS not avaliable (GP) can use LOC or LNAV and either VNAV or VS/FPA.
Dog one, yes the 777 has a vertical profile for VNAV on the ND Display.
However we always use an ILS if avaliable.
1, An ILS coded overlay
2, If ILS not avaliable (GP) can use LOC or LNAV and either VNAV or VS/FPA.
Dog one, yes the 777 has a vertical profile for VNAV on the ND Display.
However we always use an ILS if avaliable.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, the 380 doesn't have "NDB" fitted
I've heard the figure of $20 million a year quoted as what it costs to maintain NDBs in Australia because of that one civilian bureaucrat in the Defence Department. If he'd done his homework on the Herc buy, they'd have been withdrawn some years ago, as they have been on other countries like the USA. Still, $20mill is pocket money when you look at some of the other screwups in Defence, like Seasprite and the Collins subs.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Standing at P37
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Halas said,
A380-800 driver said,
Careful there, maybe the 380's that YOU are familiar with don't have an ADF system fitted.
However, this doesn't translate that ALL A380's are devoid of ADF. The 380's that I'M familiar with, most certainly have an ADF installation.
Just as some 380's are fitted with passenger showers and EA engines, this doesn't mean that ALL 380's have showers and EA engines.
.
Wow, the 380 doesn't have "NDB" fitted
Sounds fishy
Sounds fishy
A380-800 driver said,
Halas- You are quite correct- No ADFs fitted.
However, this doesn't translate that ALL A380's are devoid of ADF. The 380's that I'M familiar with, most certainly have an ADF installation.
Just as some 380's are fitted with passenger showers and EA engines, this doesn't mean that ALL 380's have showers and EA engines.
.
I would not throw stones in a glass house at "foreign crews".
The reality is that there have been a number of quite concerning incidents in Australia, in Australian registered aircraft, flown by Australian (Anglo saxon) crew stuggling with automation. The includes 6 stick-shaker incidents by one company in a 12 month period. One on climb above F300, the other in the circuit area at a regional airport below 1000' AGL on landing.
Go sit in the simulator and watch a crew attempt to do a manually flown visual day circuit with no auto-thrust- you will be shocked at the loss of manipulative flying skills
The reality is that there have been a number of quite concerning incidents in Australia, in Australian registered aircraft, flown by Australian (Anglo saxon) crew stuggling with automation. The includes 6 stick-shaker incidents by one company in a 12 month period. One on climb above F300, the other in the circuit area at a regional airport below 1000' AGL on landing.
Go sit in the simulator and watch a crew attempt to do a manually flown visual day circuit with no auto-thrust- you will be shocked at the loss of manipulative flying skills
Go sit in the simulator and watch a crew attempt to do a manually flown visual day circuit with no auto-thrust- you will be shocked at the loss of manipulative flying skills
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Fathom, I'd have to agree with the comments in the quote in your post. When I first moved overseas almost twenty years ago now (perhaps that should read "was moved overseas"), I was more than a little surprised at the vastly different attitude pilots trained in Europe and Asia had to visual approaches than to those from Australia. Where the Australians saw a visual as a relaxing exercise (along the lines of "Oh good, let's turn off all those flight director/autothrust thingies and enjoy actually flying the aeroplane"), most pilots trained in Europe and Asia saw a visual as a very steep increase in workload and something to be approached with some caution.
Twenty years later, much of it spent flying for an airline that insists I use the highest level of automation possible at all times and whose SVP of Flying Ops once issued a memorable document to crews stating (and I quote) that "the line is no place to practise your flying skills", I can see that the European pilots were probably more correct than we were in treating a visual as something to be treated with some (perhaps a lot of) caution.
The vast majority of Australian pilots back then had spent four or five years flying (perhaps that should be written as "actually flying") light twins in the demanding environment of GA in Australia or PNG before they even were considered acceptable for an airline, operating into bare bone fields, many of which had no glideslope indications and certainly no precision approach aids.
The Europeans, very well trained for what they did and also very good at what they did - operating big jets - had no such GA background to fall back on.
I'm first to say that my manipulative skills today are a pale shadow of what they were twenty years ago (i.e., I no longer approach a visual as an easier, more relaxing exercise than an ILS - as I once did). I think it would be safe to say there'd be few pilots in today's environment who fly only airliners (i.e., who don't fly privately for recreation) whose actual flying skills have improved or even been maintained over what they were capable of in their initial training.
The major difference is that old farts of my age can usually dredge up some semblance of the flying skills we once possessed should the automatics have a brain freeze, as they still sometimes do. Too many younger pilots who went straight from initial training straight into airline flying - particularly if in the Airbus FBW product - without those incredibly valuable few years of tooling around remote strips in the demanding GA environment find themselves in an environment they’ve never really experienced before should they be called upon to actually manipulate the airframe for something more than the two minutes from rotate to autopilot on and from 200’ to touchdown.
I’m first to accept that I’ve generalised enormously in the above comments and accept that there are many exceptions to what I have said. I also hasten to say that the younger generation of pilots are not lesser pilots than the older generation. It’s just that they are trained in other skills without necessarily being asked to first develop and hone skills that were once demanded of anyone before he or she found themselves in the right seat of an airliner.
Twenty years later, much of it spent flying for an airline that insists I use the highest level of automation possible at all times and whose SVP of Flying Ops once issued a memorable document to crews stating (and I quote) that "the line is no place to practise your flying skills", I can see that the European pilots were probably more correct than we were in treating a visual as something to be treated with some (perhaps a lot of) caution.
The vast majority of Australian pilots back then had spent four or five years flying (perhaps that should be written as "actually flying") light twins in the demanding environment of GA in Australia or PNG before they even were considered acceptable for an airline, operating into bare bone fields, many of which had no glideslope indications and certainly no precision approach aids.
The Europeans, very well trained for what they did and also very good at what they did - operating big jets - had no such GA background to fall back on.
I'm first to say that my manipulative skills today are a pale shadow of what they were twenty years ago (i.e., I no longer approach a visual as an easier, more relaxing exercise than an ILS - as I once did). I think it would be safe to say there'd be few pilots in today's environment who fly only airliners (i.e., who don't fly privately for recreation) whose actual flying skills have improved or even been maintained over what they were capable of in their initial training.
The major difference is that old farts of my age can usually dredge up some semblance of the flying skills we once possessed should the automatics have a brain freeze, as they still sometimes do. Too many younger pilots who went straight from initial training straight into airline flying - particularly if in the Airbus FBW product - without those incredibly valuable few years of tooling around remote strips in the demanding GA environment find themselves in an environment they’ve never really experienced before should they be called upon to actually manipulate the airframe for something more than the two minutes from rotate to autopilot on and from 200’ to touchdown.
I’m first to accept that I’ve generalised enormously in the above comments and accept that there are many exceptions to what I have said. I also hasten to say that the younger generation of pilots are not lesser pilots than the older generation. It’s just that they are trained in other skills without necessarily being asked to first develop and hone skills that were once demanded of anyone before he or she found themselves in the right seat of an airliner.
