Our Airline (Nauru) seriously close shave during NDB approach

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by piratepete

Surely one of the descent/approach/landing checklist items is "altimeters".The fact that this action was missed indicates some kind of serious issue in the cockpit, perhaps stress or fatigue, could be anything.My other observation would be to ask why pilots in this current age are still flying a dive and drive method.

According to the ATSB report, they had completed the Descent Checklist (whcih contains altimeter setting) earlier, and had noted that the altimeter setting was not yet accomplished, as they were still above the rather low transition level ... and then the altimeter setting got forgotten when they did descend through the transition level.

[piratepete]

If what you are saying is that the checklist item "altimeters" is part of the DESCENT checklist, then this is a seriously flawed set up.On the Boeings that I fly, the checklist item "altimeters" is only actioned as part of the APPROACH checklist upon (or earlier) reaching the transition level, whatever that might be locally.As is commonly the case, the job of MONITORING often is not performed very well by many pilots, and I would suggest that more emphasis needs to be placed on this function during most training events.

[Capt Fathom]

If you read the ATSB report:

The crew had briefed the new transition level at top of descent and had briefly discussed the need
to conduct the approach checklist on passing through the transition level when they were
descending through FL 130 (the usual transition level). The crew had put a plan in place to
complete the checklist. However, as they were flying over the non-directional beacon at FL 050
and were looking at the runway in preparation for the commencement of the approach, workload
began to rise and they forgot to return to the approach checklist and complete it, as per a
prospective memory error.

[witwiw]

Originally Posted by 4 Holer

Only a matter of time for these porch monkeys flying old 737-300s out in the middle of the pacific not a place for this type aircraft, limited fuel two baby engines, limited or no alternate ( Island alternate fuel for holding to hope for the best ) it will not end well.

Well, well, well - there's a pot trying to call the kettle black. Where do I start?

You Tube

You Tube

Is this not your aircraft, fitted with the possibly same CFM (baby) engines as the 737's?

"limited or no alternate". Better let United know that - their destinations include Chuuk, Pohnpei, Yap, Majuro, Kosrae, Kwajalein, Koror - all in the "middle of the pacific".


I'm reliably informed that three of Nauru's "old" 737s are the last ones off the Boeing production line around 1997, maybe later. Of the others, neither is anywhere near 50 years old like this DC-8.

An interesting read:
Incident: Skybus DC87 at Rionegro on Jan 21st 2018, unsafe departure

I didn't see anything in the ATSB report about a downwind takeoff at a performance critical airport - and you refer to Porch Monkeys? Best look elsewhere, methinks.

To quote you "It will not end well" - not if the DC-8's are operated like that.

It appears you are harbouring some sort of grudge with this nonsensical rant against an operation with, overall, a pretty good record. They haven't put anything into Botany Bay - not everyone can claim that?


.

[4 Holer]

No idea, NASA have DC8s so they must be OK and that mob own 6 x DC8-70s and couple MD11s out of LAS and Miami.

Back to the thread. 3.5 DME at 300 feet with a bunch of pax in the back "forgot to adjust the QNH " unreal stuff, 16 year old schoolkid student pilots even do it, presume the chief pilot / Dir Ops got fired for letting Monkeys fly.

Tiger lost their AOC for less than that so Nauru must have a nice " arrangement " with the Civil Aviation ......down there in White Africa.

[witwiw]

"Back to the thread" = avoid the questions.

Originally Posted by 4 Holer

have a nice " arrangement " with the Civil Aviation ......down there in White Africa.

Ah, yes, you don't like CASA either. Would that be because a ramp check on a 727 in Cairns saw that aircraft grounded? That and how Botany Bay got their attention.

Sour grapes springs to mind.

I think the only monkeys here were the ones in the trees at the end of the runway, and whose bowels probably evacuated rapidly when they saw a DC-8 looming at them. :-)

[Car RAMROD]

Originally Posted by 4 Holer

..... these porch monkeys...

Racist much?

[BPB737]

HEY 4 HOLER.
Seem to remember the only thing that didn't end well was the F/O that was PIC that ended up in Botany Bay in a DC 3 VH-EDC !!!!!

[porch monkey]

Hey 4 holer, I know you have an axe to grind against almost everybody, but lay off the porch monkeys. Some can fly.

[Capn Bloggs]

Disappointing!

ATSB
- Called it a Dive and Drive. It isn't. Could have been flown as a CDFA using the DME for a profile (as done for decades by some Australian RPT jet operators). Nice load of motherhood and brotherhood from FSF though...
-Mish mash of approach charts: half of the Jepp chart but profile diagram of the FAA chart! Publish the complete chart used by the crew. FAA "remain within 10nm" not on Jepp chart.
-No comment on the apparent absence of the charted procedure turn.
-No recommendation to review/increase the TA. Ridiculous to have it at 5000ft.
-No analysis of company procedures to re-initialise the IRS on the threshold prior to takeoff (810m error before takeoff). In any case, actual map shift was irrelevant to this incident (even though the crew cancelled the first EGPWS warning on map=shift concerns).
-No mention of any VASI.
-Failure to hammer Aviate Navigate Communicate in relation to the Flight Info Service updates (page 17).
-risk amplified by "the location and height of the missed approach point, which was well below a normal 3 approach profile" Seriously??

Originally Posted by Teemm

That operator has been flying the 737-200 and now the 737 Classics all over the Western, Central and South Pacific since 1974 which is 44 years without an accident and crewed from the beginning by Australian pilots. Pretty good porch monkeys I would say, wouldn't you?

Not sure I'd agree with that, TM. That must have been a regular approach, but there appeared to be no SOPs for conducting it, based on what the ATSB said eg distance cutoff for landing straight in on 05, lack of profile...

That Airbus incident is a bit of a worry too, particularly the (in) actions below 1000ft...

As usual, lots of lessons for us all, pity that the standard of the report and lack of punchy criticisms/recommendations by the ATSB means learning opportunities lost...

[ivan ellerbai]

"That must have been a regular approach,"

Read the report - the inaugural flight.


"No analysis of company procedures to re-initialise the IRS on the threshold prior to takeoff "

Do you "re-initialise" the IRS or do you update it on the threshold? However, as you say, it wasn't relevant as they should have been on raw data seeing it wasn't updating via GPS.


"Could have been flown as a CDFA using the DME for a profile"

Is the DME valid when it's an offset approach - in those circumstances DME does not represent track miles to run? Having said that, it is possibly better than nothing.


"but there appeared to be no SOPs for conducting it".

And that comes from where? Looking at their network, they operate into Ponape (offset approach to the east) and recently, I'm told, had Vila in their operation operating for Vanuatu Airlines (another offset approach onto the south-eastern runway). I expect they would have offset approaches adequately covered in their SOP's.



"As usual, lots of lessons for us all, pity that the standard of the report and lack of punchy criticisms/recommendations by the ATSB means learning opportunities lost..."

Couldn't agree more.

.

[Capn Bloggs]

"That must have been a regular approach,"

Read the report - the inaugural flight.

I did. I was referring to Teeemms comment that Aussies had been flying in the area for years.

Is the DME valid when it's an offset approach - in those circumstances DME does not represent track miles to run?

30° offset, of course it does.

but there appeared to be no SOPs for conducting it".

And that comes from where?

Because none are mentioned by the ATSB, as I said.

I expect they would have offset approaches adequately covered in their SOP's.

If that approach was following their SOPs...

[ivan ellerbai]

"I did. I was referring to Teeemms comment that Aussies had been flying in the area for years."

Yes, they have, for decades, but that doesn't mean this particular crew had that experience. An "inaugural" flight would indicate that it was new to the current network. It may well have been a destination in years past, but that's irrelevant to current crews if the place hadn't been flown into for some time.


"30° offset, of course it does."

It's more than 30 degrees, closer to 40 degrees.


"Because none are mentioned by the ATSB, as I said."

So because the ATSB don't mention them, they have none? What rubbish.


"If that approach was following their SOPs..."

And the evidence is where that it wasn't?


"the location and height of the missed approach point, which was well below a normal 3 approach profile" Seriously??"

Yes, seriously. Look at the chart - missed approach at 500' at 2.9 DME. How is that on a 3 degree profile?.

[maggot]

Yeah iirc the 737 classic had a runway position update button on the MCDU, not a full re init I would think

[Capn Bloggs]

Hmm. Kicked a hornet's nest here, I have.

It's more than 30 degrees, closer to 40 degrees.

Semantics! The DME could have been used to put the aeroplane on a 3° approach profile that would have been far better than what happened. It doesn't matter that it's offset! You manoeuvre visually to the right to join Final. The approach analysis (in the office, by Flight Ops beforehand) should have worked out a DME cutoff after which a Straight-in must not be attempted. And what went on during the route-proving flight? Surely such a difficult approach would have been test-flown?

So because the ATSB don't mention them, they have none? What rubbish.

OK, the ATSB didn't mention them (as I have already said). You indicate pretty firmly ("What rubbish") that they do have SOPs. What are they, for this type of approach?

And the evidence is where that it wasn't?

Are you seriously suggesting that they were following an SOP?

Yes, seriously. Look at the chart - missed approach at 500' at 2.9 DME. How is that on a 3 degree profile?.

Again, my remark on this is directed at the ATSB "this was a dive and drive" comment. With a MAPt at 2.9DME, it is your choice to be at 500ft. My comment re "profile" relates to how you get there. I'll spell it out. 3x-400ft. That clears the 5DME step and provides a constant descent profile to hit the MAPt at the MDA. Fly a lower profile if you like. Just fly A profile. You will obviously be way below the runway profile but you would know that it was planned that way and so it shouldn't be a "threat", per se. Let the aeroplane level off and do the circle (you would obviously be too far offset to land straight-in at that point).

Now the EGPWS may not like you being at that point, but that should've become evident during the route-proving flight.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

-Mish mash of approach charts: half of the Jepp chart but profile diagram of the FAA chart! Publish the complete chart used by the crew.

Well, true, but what *real* difference does that make? Is there some critical item of information whcih is germane to the incident at hand, whcih is missing on one or the other?

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

FAA "remain within 10nm" not on Jepp chart.

FAA chart has "Remain within 10 NM" (obviously from UKS D5) and

Jepp chart has "10 NM from D5.0", positioned so that it is clear it is the limit of the procedure turn maneuvering area.

Seems to me that it's the idential information presented in 2 slightly different ways. What relevance to this incident is the procedure turn distance?

[Capn Bloggs]

Well, true, but what *real* difference does that make?

If you're going to publish a report on a stuffed-up NPA, why wouldn't you publish the whole chart that was being used?

Typical Americans. FAA giving a distance limit on a DME distance. Jepp not saying it's a limit. What about for both, "Max distance during Proc Turn 15 DME UKS".

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

Jepp not saying it's a limit.

Huh??? is this your first time looking at a Jepp chart? Do you not know that that is the way Jepp displays the limit of the procedure turn limit? If you're confused about what the information displayed Jeppesen's approach charts means, you probably ought to get some remidial instruction in that before you use them in flight. I can help you out, that particular tidbit of information can be found in the Approach Chart Legend, under "profile view" it's explained in Note 5.

Apart from your rather astonishing ignorance of Jepp charts, can you explain what difference the procedure turn distance makes to the incident at hand?

[Capn Bloggs]

My bad, I'll take some spelling lessons too.

Never seen one of those "don't go outside XXnm from D5 UKS" on a procedure turn before. I learn something every day.

can you explain what difference the procedure turn distance makes to the incident at hand?

Did I say it did? Sorry for throwing in all these tangents. I will in future preface all such comments with "Thread drift". On the subject, it does seem a bit odd that there is a 10nm limit from a fix that in all likelihood the crew has no displayed distance to it (unless they had a GPS-updated FMS). It would be much simpler to have the limit based on the DME.

Thread Drift: why would there be a 15DME (10 on 5) limit on the proc turn? Doesn't seem to be any limiting obstacles...

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

On the subject, it does seem a bit odd that there is a 10nm limit from a fix that in all likelihood the crew has no displayed distance to it (unless they had a GPS-updated FMS). It would be much simpler to have the limit based on the DME.

Scratching my head here. It would be based on the DME. the IAF is at D5.0 and remaining within 10 NM of that fix would be D15.0 approximately, technically being at D15.0 right at the furthest point on your PT would put you slightly farther than 10.0 nm from the D5.0 fix because the distances aren't all on the same line. But that wouldn't be enough to be operationally significant. Normally procedure turn limits are referenced to the IAF.

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

Thread Drift: why would there be a 15DME (10 on 5) limit on the proc turn? Doesn't seem to be any limiting obstacles...

Well, all procedure turns have some maximum distance established. The normal procedure turn distance from the IAF is 10 NM (unless there is a need for something different) so procedure turn protected areas are established for obstruction clearance out to 10 nm, plus a stepped and tapered buffer margin. Obviously in this case you could go 100nm in that general direction and not find anything higher than a ship's mast. But, the normal procedure is to evaluate obstacle clearance for a PT with 10 NM of the IAF, and unless the approach designers need the additional distance for some reason, why expand the normal protected area when it's not needed? I think it's not that there's a specific reason (like high terrain) limiting the PT distance, but just that's the extent built into the design of the approach and "beyond here be dragons".