QF Captain was feeling low...
No offence intended, but if it's all the same to you guys, please use the automatics ...
Clearly it's all too complicated.
Clearly it's all too complicated.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(click to enlarge)
After playing around with the software a bit more, the actual track distance is about 5.7nm (6.54 statue miles as per shown above), distance markers are in statue miles.
Last edited by CurtainTwitcher; 14th Jul 2015 at 23:10. Reason: Track modified to include exact distance from SHEED
Bottums Up
Geez, what a sh!tfight! All I tried to do was explain to someone what "SHEED" was, honest.
I unreservedly apologise to all and sundry that my figures weren't exact, and were sourced from memory, well away from an FMS or Jeppesen Chart.
I've never refused it, it doesn't scare me, I can cope with just a PAPI. But I've also experienced difficulties in seeing the runway on a hazy day with the sun low in the western sky. I've also expressed a preference for the GNSS when I felt that the conditions made that a better option. Sometimes approved, sometimes declined because of the "flow". I confess to not understanding when arriving from the SE, why a PORTS or WAREN Zulu STAR doesn't work for ATC.
As to how high above profile it is, in the jet that I fly, the altitude the aeroplane wants to cross SHEED were the altitude constraint not there is either just under or just over 2100' (I don't remember the exact figure), so that's close to a '400' to 500' difference to the FMS profile. It's high enough that the very gentle autopilot will still give close to 1500'/minute ROD (not all the way to the ground) to regain the desired profile once past SHEED.
Finally, though I've no experience of other makes of FMS, I'd be most surprised if any FMS operating properly, put the aeroplane above 2500' at SHEED.
I unreservedly apologise to all and sundry that my figures weren't exact, and were sourced from memory, well away from an FMS or Jeppesen Chart.
I've never refused it, it doesn't scare me, I can cope with just a PAPI. But I've also experienced difficulties in seeing the runway on a hazy day with the sun low in the western sky. I've also expressed a preference for the GNSS when I felt that the conditions made that a better option. Sometimes approved, sometimes declined because of the "flow". I confess to not understanding when arriving from the SE, why a PORTS or WAREN Zulu STAR doesn't work for ATC.
As to how high above profile it is, in the jet that I fly, the altitude the aeroplane wants to cross SHEED were the altitude constraint not there is either just under or just over 2100' (I don't remember the exact figure), so that's close to a '400' to 500' difference to the FMS profile. It's high enough that the very gentle autopilot will still give close to 1500'/minute ROD (not all the way to the ground) to regain the desired profile once past SHEED.
Finally, though I've no experience of other makes of FMS, I'd be most surprised if any FMS operating properly, put the aeroplane above 2500' at SHEED.
In my opinion it's sometimes the automatics that get guys in trouble. If they they disconnected It might work out better. The approach is less forgiving than some others, but scores of planes manage it every day without busting the very conservative company ' stable approach' criteria. Like I said, it's an energy management issue ( read: the pilot did a crap job) rather than a profile management issue.
If you don't back yourself to be on your game then ask for something else, if all is normal, there should be no problem with it.
If you don't back yourself to be on your game then ask for something else, if all is normal, there should be no problem with it.
Last edited by framer; 15th Jul 2015 at 01:25.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Framer, that may be your experience but I don't think you can generalise.
The B737NG will fly that approach perfectly on automatics in LNAV/VNAV right down to 50' above the threshold. I do it regularly. I also hand fly it regularly - depends how I feel on the day. It's good to practice both, in my opinion.
Not all autoflight systems may be up to the task, however. Know your aircraft and it's limitations and abilities.
The B737NG will fly that approach perfectly on automatics in LNAV/VNAV right down to 50' above the threshold. I do it regularly. I also hand fly it regularly - depends how I feel on the day. It's good to practice both, in my opinion.
Not all autoflight systems may be up to the task, however. Know your aircraft and it's limitations and abilities.
Goblin, I also use Jepp on f/d but the distances are wrong on the chart. It's just shy of 6nm. You can believe what you like but the fact is it is not 9, or 8....
Google maps, with Lat/longs gives an extremely accurate distance.
Getting pissed at me aint gonna change the fact it isn't what the chart says.
Google maps, with Lat/longs gives an extremely accurate distance.
Getting pissed at me aint gonna change the fact it isn't what the chart says.
Gosh: An error on a chart?
How many incident reports, ATSB investigations and Senate inquiries do you reckon it will take to fix that?
How many incident reports, ATSB investigations and Senate inquiries do you reckon it will take to fix that?
At a speed of about 150 kt., unless the aircraft is pitched down right at SHEED, the vertical profile can get out of hand.
I would agree with SN - it's about 6 track miles.
Initial descent rate between 1200 - 1500 ft/min in the aircraft I fly, until intercepting the 3 degree slope to the runway.
It really is no big deal (as others have said) provided you are on to it early.
With any weather or other adverse factors (this could include fatigue late at night), there is certainly an argument for an instrument approach, but it should be left to the crew on the day to make the right approach choice.
QED
I would agree with SN - it's about 6 track miles.
Initial descent rate between 1200 - 1500 ft/min in the aircraft I fly, until intercepting the 3 degree slope to the runway.
It really is no big deal (as others have said) provided you are on to it early.
With any weather or other adverse factors (this could include fatigue late at night), there is certainly an argument for an instrument approach, but it should be left to the crew on the day to make the right approach choice.
QED
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Someone else's acft
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geeeeeez
I never came anywhere close to Melbourne, but if I get there one day and the ATC tells me to fly this god damn approach, I will be fckin worried.
4 pages talking about this... That looks challenging !
Is it ?
I never came anywhere close to Melbourne, but if I get there one day and the ATC tells me to fly this god damn approach, I will be fckin worried.
4 pages talking about this... That looks challenging !
Is it ?
Speaking of Sheed approaches
Not surprisingly, it seems that none of us are immune to making a stuff-up.
If I was one of my kids I'd probably add #SHEED #toolow #visualapproach #fatigue?
ATSB report
If I was one of my kids I'd probably add #SHEED #toolow #visualapproach #fatigue?
.....a Boeing 777 aircraft, registered VH-VPF and operated by Virgin Australia International Airlines, was conducting a visual approach to runway 34 at Melbourne Airport, Victoria. During the approach and after the waypoint SHEED, the aircraft descended below the approach path to about 500 ft above ground level. Upon recognising the descent profile error, the captain disengaged the autopilot and flew the aircraft level, re-intercepting the profile and continuing the approach to land.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I never realised flying the approach via SHEED was so difficult.
I think it is meant to be flown looking out the window and not following the Magenta/Green line.
Used to enjoy the over fly of Essendon for right base to 34 Tull in the 727 and still enjoy it in the Bus.
I think it is meant to be flown looking out the window and not following the Magenta/Green line.
Used to enjoy the over fly of Essendon for right base to 34 Tull in the 727 and still enjoy it in the Bus.
I think it is meant to be flown looking out the window and not following the Magenta/Green line.
to the two posts above. Exactly.747-400 : At SHEED. Flaps 20, Gear down. Flaps 20 Speed, 2500'. Then - Right Over SHEED, thrust idle, flaps 30 coming into the slot and thrust to 1.18.
Regardless of some of the testosterone on here about visual approaches, Flight Safety Foundation data supports flying an ILS where available, instead of a visual approach, presents less risk.
FSF ALAR BRIEFING NOTE 5.1
I suggest that our job is not a pissing contest, nor is it about self-gratification. The priority is taking the course of action that has the least amount of risk attached to it. Especially considering we're talking, in this instance, about a wide-body aircraft with 250+ people on board. Is it appropriate, given the facilities available? It's not a dick measuring excercise about being able to fly a visual approach or not (all things considered) but whether, it is the safety course of action or not (given the options).
Someone mentioned earlier about not flying ILS when the weather is good to save ATC time/airspace? Well, the time these guys saved, could have been an eternity.
If i have an ILS available, I will fly it. I have had too many bull**** slowdowns into Melbourne from 250-300nm out, just to be sped up, and track shortened inside of the TMA by APPROACH, just so I can get a late landing clearance at 100'.
ATC have to realise, the increase in flight crew workload, at low altitudes, that goes on when they 'spot a gap'.
FSF ALAR BRIEFING NOTE 5.1
The Flight Safety Foundation Approach-and-Accident Reduction [ALAR] Task Force, in an analysis of 76 approach-and-landing accidents and incidents, including controlled-flight-into-terrain [CFIT] accidents in 1984 through to 1997, found that:
- Fifty-three percent of the accidents occurred during nonprecision instrument approaches or visual approaches [42 percent of the visual approaches were conducted where an instrument landing system [ILS] approach was available:
- Fifty-three percent of the accidents occurred during nonprecision instrument approaches or visual approaches [42 percent of the visual approaches were conducted where an instrument landing system [ILS] approach was available:
Someone mentioned earlier about not flying ILS when the weather is good to save ATC time/airspace? Well, the time these guys saved, could have been an eternity.
If i have an ILS available, I will fly it. I have had too many bull**** slowdowns into Melbourne from 250-300nm out, just to be sped up, and track shortened inside of the TMA by APPROACH, just so I can get a late landing clearance at 100'.
ATC have to realise, the increase in flight crew workload, at low altitudes, that goes on when they 'spot a gap'.
Oriana, I agree that it shouldn't be about testosterone, pissing contests, or self-gratification.
For me, what it's about is being able to take the opportunity to save the odd few minutes and few hundred kilos of fuel - and more importantly, exercising some basic skills which can easily atrophy if we spend our lives coupled up to an electronic glideslope and flight director. Skills which might've come in handy when Aseana tried to land that 777 in SFO.
For me, what it's about is being able to take the opportunity to save the odd few minutes and few hundred kilos of fuel - and more importantly, exercising some basic skills which can easily atrophy if we spend our lives coupled up to an electronic glideslope and flight director. Skills which might've come in handy when Aseana tried to land that 777 in SFO.
Nunc est bibendum
Skills which might've come in handy when Aseana tried to land that 777 in SFO.
The aeroplane doesn't know it's day, night an ILS or visual approach. The physics of flight does not change one iota.
The only one who knows the difference is the pilot. If you feel you are less safe on a visual approach than an ILS approach, you shouldn't be flying an aeroplane.
You have the same indicators for spacial and situational awareness for both approaches, and all the tools to do both equally as safely on a fine day.
I remember back in the GA days an ILS approach was considered the harder aporoach. This was due to the precision required to fly it within tolerance compared to a normal every day circuit and visual approach.
At least you've got a PAPI and track miles
The only one who knows the difference is the pilot. If you feel you are less safe on a visual approach than an ILS approach, you shouldn't be flying an aeroplane.
You have the same indicators for spacial and situational awareness for both approaches, and all the tools to do both equally as safely on a fine day.
I remember back in the GA days an ILS approach was considered the harder aporoach. This was due to the precision required to fly it within tolerance compared to a normal every day circuit and visual approach.
At least you've got a PAPI and track miles