QF Captain was feeling low...
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Porch Monkey you've got it ass about.
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"
8 miles at 320ft/mile is 2560. Less 330 is 2230. 400 to 500 high? Am I missing something?
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"
Last edited by spelling_nazi; 13th Jul 2015 at 23:43.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Framer:
Porch Monkey:
hmmm....
I think both of you need to have another look at the descent gradient in ft/nm.
International Trader:
Just wondering who needs to put the glass down ??
Words fail me
Not really, it puts you about 50ft high
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.
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.
Words fail me
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
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
Back in the days before Sheed (named after the legendary Bomber coach!!
) 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.
) 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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by porch monkey; 14th Jul 2015 at 01:50.
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.
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.
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 think both of you need to have another look at the descent gradient in ft/nm.
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.
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.....
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.....
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
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
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.
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.
Last edited by spelling_nazi; 14th Jul 2015 at 05:16.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melb
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!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!!
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 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?
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?