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

[Keg]

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

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

[Wally Mk2]

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

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

Wmk2

[nitpicker330]

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

[Beer Baron]

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

Waypoint data entry error led to 777's rapid descent

[Lookleft]

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

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

[Keg]

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

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

[Derfred]

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

[Capn Bloggs]

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

[Keg]

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

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

[Derfred]

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

[Keg]

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

[maggot]

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

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

[compressor stall]

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

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