Virgin Australia Boeing 777 dirty dive at Melbourne 34

[point76]

As others have said-this is a Visual approach.The only reason it exists with its minimal margin for error ( unlike most procedures in Airline flying ) is geographical, ie-Melbourne Airports close proximity to Essendon Airport. By flying down the EN Runway 26 centreline it allows ATC to do simultaneous take-off & landings to the North at both airports without worrying about separation issues. Initially you flew the EN 26 localiser to EN NDB not below 2500', now its an RNAV route to SHEEDS which gives slightly more room to move. I believe the intent though ( like the 'breakout' manouevre for a PRM approach at SYD ) is that it is a hand flown visual approach ( & which commences about 500' too high on to a 2.8 nm final ). Trying to fly this approach on automatics is always going to leave a crew wide open to a major stuff-up and there are already plenty of examples of that on this approach.

[Potsie Weber]

From the ATSB Investigation AO-2013-130

The altitude for RW34 defaulted to the runway threshold altitude, in this case 330 ft and the altitude of RX34 was automatically calculated by the FMC. The operator’s SOP advised flight crews to amend the runway 34 threshold altitude to 380 ft, resulting in a 50 ft threshold crossing height at RW34. At the time of the occurrence, the procedure did not include an altitude constraint for RX34 and hence the FMC-calculated altitude for RX34 was to be accepted by flight crews.

What? So someone is lying to the ATSB? There was no SOP to alter the altitude?

[maui]

Again. Where is it or was it published? If published, was it a controlled document.
An SOP is different to a discussion in a sim session

M

[Vorsicht]

In days of old, (before it was called SHEED and before 250 below 10) this approach was regularly flown at up to 300 clean at the 26 EN threshold

Gee you guys must have been awesome in the old days, and I bet nobody ever screwed that up either. Tis a pity that us mere mortals of the digital age aren't capable of such manly feats of aviation, or is it just that as an industry we have got a bit smarter and don't do that sort of macho sh!t anymore because the only person it impresses is the idiot behind the control column.

[maui]

Vorsicht

That is not to suggest that we can indulge in that style of operation in
today's environment, nor should we.

I wasn't a matter of being awesome or macho. That was just the way it was done.

Circumstances and knowledge evolve.

Maui

[Lookleft]

Circumstances and knowledge evolve

Precisely! So why are we still doing a visual approach off a STAR that positions you at a point that requires a non-standard configuration and an initial RoD greater than the standard accepted for a stabilized approach?

Not being pious or have issues but the approach is a hangover from dem olden dayz and should no longer be necessary.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Vorsicht

Gee you guys must have been awesome in the old days,

If you're going to rip into Maui on the basis of

In days of old, (before it was called SHEED and before 250 below 10) this approach was regularly flown at up to 300 clean at the 26 EN threshold

then at least also quote what he said next:

That is not to suggest that we can indulge in that style of operation in today's environment, nor should we. It does however suggest that this approach is not overly difficult for a crew that is on top of their game.

Originally Posted by Lookleft

requires a non-standard configuration and an initial RoD greater than the standard accepted for a stabilized approach?

In all likelihood this was a stabilised approach. Don't confuse a "normal" approach verses an unstable approach. Just because you're doing 1500ft/min at 1500ft doesn't mean the approach is unstable. The "accepted standard" for a "comfortable" approach could be anything; the ops manual will detail the actual requirements of a "stable approach".

Good on the crew for reporting it. Lots of good lessons from it. I hope they don't get carpeted given that, from the interim report, it appears the aircraft was never "unstable".

[maui]

Lookleft.

At the point where a higher than normal ROD is required, the aircraft is not yet at the point where stabilisation is mandatory, so criteria are for reference only at that point.

If you are properly configured, on speed, and commence descent immediately you pass overhead SHEED, unless you have a screaming easterly, you will have no trouble getting on slope and stabilised within the criteria.

On that basis, what is the "non standard configuration" you talk of. Is being configured for landing with 5 or 6 miles to run a big ask. Pretty normal in other parts of the world. What do you do when the turkey in front slows up too early and you get "reduce to approach speed"? Do you respond with "no I am too far out to configure", and initiate a missed approach because you would require a "non standard" configuration? Doubt it.

To the question of "why are we still doing"
It is not compulsory.
Airspace restrictions
Traffic flow
It can be done within all required parameters
Economics

There are far more challenging approaches than this one lurking away in the wider world.

Maui

[Wally Mk2]

I love reading this thread, one of the most interesting out of the lot here on PRRune:-)
Cm' on guys it's a simple Viz App flying an aeroplane, remember we are pilots you know guys/gals who manipulate the controls of a heavier than air machine to put it where YOU want to put it, man has been doing it since the "Wrong Bro's" started this whole mess
This is dead easy if yr ahead of yr charge & the planes not flying you, 3x time yr dist to run less any correction for RWY elevation, real basic raw pilotman-ship
If this App gets cocked up big time then it's obvious that someone is not minding the shop


Wmk2

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Wally

3x time yr dist to run less any correction for RWY elevation, real basic raw pilotman-ship

Errr, how about 600-odd feet high with about 5 track miles to run. Work out the 3x for that.

[jbr76]

A fantastic video which relates to this thread is called Children of the Magenta.

Goes in depth into the various facets regarding automation dependency.

Automation Dependency 0001 - YouTube

[Capt Fathom]

Cm' on guys it's a simple Viz App flying an aeroplane

Wally by name, Wally by nature! One of your better ones!

[Wally Mk2]

'blogsy' the 3x's thingy is once you have washed off any access height initially, then it's std stuff.

'CF' that's fine I've been called worse & if it makes you feel more like a man knock yourself out there buddy


Wmk2

[Lookleft]

I love all the qualifications that accompany why this is a "standard" visual approach:

once you have washed off any access height initially

If you are properly configured, on speed, and commence
descent immediately you pass overhead SHEED, unless you have a screaming easterly, you will have no trouble getting on slope and stabilised within the criteria.

Just because you're doing 1500ft/min at 1500ft doesn't mean the approach is unstable.

There is no other visual approach off a STAR in Australia that requires any special considerations in terms of descent profile or configuration. All the others put you at 10 miles 3000' which is a standard descent point and profile with the aircraft being configured as the descent is maintained. The only reason this approach exists is because "we've always done it this way". If that is a valid reason for not changing anything then why not continue with the practice of 300kts to 20 miles, after all that would be the most economical and quickest way of processing traffic in the TMA. Its the way it used to be done and it was a lot of fun as well.

[Red Jet]

The only reason this approach exists is because "we've always done it this way".

Actually - I believe the only reason this approach exist, is due to the proximity of Essendon airport and that it allows an efficient utilization of both airports - Tulla AND Essendon, when a northerly landing is required or desirable due to the existing wind.

As has been pointed out - this ain't rocket science, it is a STAR that puts you on a Right Base turn onto the second longest runway in Australia and it is only used in good weather conditions. If it doesn't suit your operations, I believe the terminology "REQUIRE" RNAV or VOR for Runway 34 will sort it out henceforth.

[Lookleft]

I'm no airspace designer but what about moving the position that aircraft join final onto 34 further to the south so that aircraft into Essendon can join their final off a short base. Like I said "its always been done this way".

Just as I can't require a high speed descent into Melbourne because of personal preference I can't require another STAR because of personal preference. The word require is not to be used on a whim or to make a point. If its allocated I'll fly it but it is not without an elevated level of risk as the VA crew discovered.

You might want to define what "good weather conditions" are. If you exclude the wind then CAVOK=good weather conditions. Gusty northerlies and its associated turbulence does not mean good weather. Ask the people of the Blue Mountains whether they have been experiencing good weather conditions over the past few weeks.

[Red Jet]

Not saying you should do this, or anything else "on a whim". To REQUIRE another STAR is quite simply telling ATC that you cannot accept the SHEED approach. They will not make you do it, nor will they ask you to explain WHY. Quite simple - no really, it is!

[framer]

This is dead easy if yr ahead of yr charge & the planes not flying you, 3x time yr dist to run less any correction for RWY elevation, real basic raw pilotman-ship
If this App gets cocked up big time then it's obvious that someone is not minding the shop

Or......someone has been given less and less opportunity to fly the aircraft over the last decade as their sim time fills up with RNP procedures, low viz procedures, more V1 cuts, circling approaches with the automatics in etc yet no more sim time has been mandated to cover the changes. Eventually they lose confidence and skill and proficiency and elect to keep the automatics in when they shouldn't.
How many times a year would a long haul pilot do a visual approach hand flown?
The only way we will claw it back ( the skill set) is if companies are forced to train flying the aircraft.
Framer
Ps I hand fly often so I'm not making excuses but I can see why the skills are fading.

[C441]

Perhaps in response to this and other events, Qantas has advised their 747 and A380 crew not to accept the 34 Sheed arrival.
The approach is currently part of the simulator program for some fleets and will continue to be practiced there.

[Tipsy Barossa]

[QUOTE]C441 Perhaps in response to this and other events, Qantas has advised their 747 and A380 crew not to accept the 34 Sheed arrival.
The approach is currently part of the simulator program for some fleets and will continue to be practiced there.
[QUOTE]

Now, now, now...I thought only Asian chicken little airlines react this way! How the Yanks and misguided skygods laugh when some Asian airlines ban LAHSO procedures and some unfamiliar visual procedures? Not to excuse downright incompetence as the OZ214 crew's performance, but us westerners are good at covering our yellow spines under superfluous PR codswallop, smoke and mirrors. Rant over, got to finish my swig!