Our Airline (Nauru) seriously close shave during NDB approach
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The Approach is a NDB DME-A. The DME Freq is 115.3. My take is that to complete the approach both the NDB and the DME needs to be working, (or you have approval to use GPS in lieu of DME - not in this case obviously)
As to the Holding pattern distances, I would agree that there is a limit, but it seems poorly described (10NM from D5.0!). In this case it did not have any effect as the approach was joined from the arc.
Unfortunately poor countries in the Pacific struggle to keep the navaids operating, let alone updating to something more "modern" like a VOR. (PNG is a prime example and it has much more resourses and cash than FSM).
WRT the why the ATSB did not address the fact that the Transition Level was at A050 (as someone complained in an earlier post)...I would say that it is not up to the Australian ATSB to make comment on how other States run their airspace, just to comment on how the crew failed to adhere to what was there.
What I take from this as a lesson is that systems knowledge if paramount (crew not understanding that the EGPWS had its own GPS and was not subject to map shift was another a pretty big hole in the cheese after the QNH issue), and that unless it is DAY VMC you do not disregard a hard warning from the EGPS.
Nice to see that the crew have not been slagged off at here on PPruNe, incidents like this are for us all to learn from....especially when one is not flying from ILS to ILS in First World Countries.
The Approach is a NDB DME-A. The DME Freq is 115.3. My take is that to complete the approach both the NDB and the DME needs to be working, (or you have approval to use GPS in lieu of DME - not in this case obviously)
As to the Holding pattern distances, I would agree that there is a limit, but it seems poorly described (10NM from D5.0!). In this case it did not have any effect as the approach was joined from the arc.
Unfortunately poor countries in the Pacific struggle to keep the navaids operating, let alone updating to something more "modern" like a VOR. (PNG is a prime example and it has much more resourses and cash than FSM).
WRT the why the ATSB did not address the fact that the Transition Level was at A050 (as someone complained in an earlier post)...I would say that it is not up to the Australian ATSB to make comment on how other States run their airspace, just to comment on how the crew failed to adhere to what was there.
What I take from this as a lesson is that systems knowledge if paramount (crew not understanding that the EGPWS had its own GPS and was not subject to map shift was another a pretty big hole in the cheese after the QNH issue), and that unless it is DAY VMC you do not disregard a hard warning from the EGPS.
Nice to see that the crew have not been slagged off at here on PPruNe, incidents like this are for us all to learn from....especially when one is not flying from ILS to ILS in First World Countries.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see that the crew have not been slagged off at here on PPRuNe, incidents like this are for us all to learn from
In instances such as this particular case, because of the close proximity of hilly terrain, it may be more expedient when conducting the go-around to simply switch off the flight director and automatics and conduct the climbing turn manual raw data until established on the outbound track of the missed approach procedure, when at crew leisure, the crew could re-engage the automatics as required for the occasion. All pilots should be able to perform such a manoeuvre with no problem providing they are competent to do so without sweat.
From the ATSB report which stated the pilot went at one stage from 15 degrees nose up during the go-around to suddenly minus 0.3 degree nose down, it would suggest that instrument flying skills were somewhat rusty? Automation dependency maybe? Certainly a good simulator exercise in IMC. Fiddling with the automatics in that situation may not be the wisest thing to do. Boeing cover that in their 737 FCTM when it states: "Early intervention prevents unsatisfactory airplane performance or a degraded flight path. Reducing the automation as far as manual flight may be necessary to ensure proper control of the airplane is maintained. The pilot should attempt to restore higher levels of automation only after airplane control is assured."
Cairns ILS Runway 15 missed approach procedure has a similar missed approach procedure to Kosrae so the reversal turn is nothing new
Last edited by Judd; 23rd Mar 2018 at 14:26.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that calling them incompetent "Porch Monkeys" qualifies as not slagging them off.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts