PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   QF Captain was feeling low... (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/564283-qf-captain-feeling-low.html)

Lead Balloon 14th Jul 2015 07:09

No offence intended, but if it's all the same to you guys, please use the automatics ...

Clearly it's all too complicated. :eek:

CurtainTwitcher 14th Jul 2015 07:24

http://s12.postimg.org/wkvl63n0p/ymml_34_3.jpg
(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.

Capt Claret 14th Jul 2015 07:57

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.

:\

framer 14th Jul 2015 08:04

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.

Derfred 14th Jul 2015 08:58

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.

spelling_nazi 14th Jul 2015 09:19

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.

Lead Balloon 14th Jul 2015 09:51

Gosh: An error on a chart?

How many incident reports, ATSB investigations and Senate inquiries do you reckon it will take to fix that?

Denied Justice 14th Jul 2015 22:26

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. :ok:

QED

B737SFP 14th Jul 2015 23:37

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 ? :E

framer 15th Jul 2015 01:24


Framer, that may be your experience but I don't think you can generalise.
Fair call Derfred, I'l edit my post now to make that clear.
Cheers

C441 15th Jul 2015 04:14

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?

.....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.
ATSB report

ANCIENT 15th Jul 2015 04:17

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.

itsnotthatbloodyhard 15th Jul 2015 04:39


I think it is meant to be flown looking out the window and not following the Magenta/Green line.
Exactly. It's amazing how much easier these visual approaches are if you just look out the window and fly the thing. And maybe think about it a bit before launching into it v:ok:

Captain Gidday 15th Jul 2015 10:43

:ok: 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.

Oriana 17th Jul 2015 09:11

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

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:
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'.:ugh:

itsnotthatbloodyhard 17th Jul 2015 11:08

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.

Keg 17th Jul 2015 13:32


Skills which might've come in handy when Aseana tried to land that 777 in SFO.
Or may come in handy on the day when you've got issues and there is no ILS available.

The Green Goblin 17th Jul 2015 14:00

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 :)

waren9 17th Jul 2015 22:45

if both were equally safe mr goblin, then by definition the stats would bear your argument out.

as someone has already pointed out, they do not.

The Green Goblin 17th Jul 2015 23:26

It's down to training and being current.


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:07.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.