Emirates A388 - Moscow UUDD, GA from 400 feet AGL, 8nm out.
WK,
EKs EGPWS is calibrated to AMSL- some guys tried to use QFE into DME years ago, with the result that they got a hard GPWS warning.
It's not just "bigging up", there are actual reasons for it.
EKs EGPWS is calibrated to AMSL- some guys tried to use QFE into DME years ago, with the result that they got a hard GPWS warning.
It's not just "bigging up", there are actual reasons for it.
Well, that's interesting, wizofoz. We never had that problem with EGPWS either in Honeywell or Collins equipped Global 6000 or Challengers. In fact, we had QRH procedures for using QFE. All designed with BBD, the avionics manufacturers and FAA.
One of my C-5 crews nearly CFIT'd in Bishkek. Had to convert millibars to inches, then QFE to QNH and then the altitude conversions. As Bishkek is at 2,000' ish, they couldn't crank down the baros low enough to indicate QFE. Now, the "glass" cockpit avionics can do that.
One of my C-5 crews nearly CFIT'd in Bishkek. Had to convert millibars to inches, then QFE to QNH and then the altitude conversions. As Bishkek is at 2,000' ish, they couldn't crank down the baros low enough to indicate QFE. Now, the "glass" cockpit avionics can do that.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wizofoz
WK,
EKs EGPWS is calibrated to AMSL- some guys tried to use QFE into DME years ago, with the result that they got a hard GPWS warning.
It's not just "bigging up", there are actual reasons for it.
EKs EGPWS is calibrated to AMSL- some guys tried to use QFE into DME years ago, with the result that they got a hard GPWS warning.
It's not just "bigging up", there are actual reasons for it.
I'm well aware of how EGPWS is calibrated but thanks for the 'lesson'
Either I was typing gibberish or you don't understand my Queen's English; the 'bigging up' was regarding the unimportant bits which EK like us to spout about! The C-TWO F model is fine as long as we stick to the relevant and important stuff! Such as the need to convert QFE/meters to QNH/feet at UUDD and not discussing the need for something like ice-protection on a CAVOK summer's day!
Briefings need to be brief. Unlike the EK Longings!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not been flying to Russia for couple of years so I am not up-to-date about present situation. But some time ago I found this article:
http://flightservicebureau.org/big-c...moving-to-qnh/
Any progress?
http://flightservicebureau.org/big-c...moving-to-qnh/
Any progress?
Sorry to ask but from the discussion above should we summize that the two go around were auto initiated due to some bogus EGPWS warning linked to some confusions about measurement units ?
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never heard of "auto initiated" go-arounds. I am not familiar with airbus, but on Boeings there are no auto initiated go-arounds. It can be done on autopilit, but the initiation is done by the pilot.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was this an ILS or NPA? I've had false glide slopes, but they've all been above the real one not below. Is that possible? It was CAVOK, but darkness, so they should have been visible with the runway. If the a/c descended to such low height too early was this a case of WTF is it doing now, and not reacting as we hope most would do, and disconnect and fly the damn thing into a safer place?
I see the primary approach is ILS. The chart has Altitude - M conversion tables, but DME linked in. The approach is 1977'agl at 8.5nm - 1647' at 6.5nm and descend from this at 5nm. So 400' at 8nm, if it was radar to ILS, is astonishing. Does Moscow radar ATC not have a 'low level alert' warning for arriving a/c? If this was a VOR approach does EK or AB SOP's not require a DMA v ALT check during an approach. Is this shades of the AC Halifax incident?
If this scenario is true is does seem scary that such a sophisticated a/c, in visual conditions could be at 400' all when it should have been about 1900'.
If it was at 1977' and the crew watched and wondered while it descended to 400' is curious. If at 700fpm that takes 2 minutes. That is along time to watch something you should not be happy with. A simple ALT v DME would have alerted you at the first check.
The comment that it failed to descend at the correct point on the 2nd approach is also worrying. Is this an SOP mess-up, a mis-understanding of how the system works, a system mess-up? What did they do differently on the 3rd approach?
I see the primary approach is ILS. The chart has Altitude - M conversion tables, but DME linked in. The approach is 1977'agl at 8.5nm - 1647' at 6.5nm and descend from this at 5nm. So 400' at 8nm, if it was radar to ILS, is astonishing. Does Moscow radar ATC not have a 'low level alert' warning for arriving a/c? If this was a VOR approach does EK or AB SOP's not require a DMA v ALT check during an approach. Is this shades of the AC Halifax incident?
If this scenario is true is does seem scary that such a sophisticated a/c, in visual conditions could be at 400' all when it should have been about 1900'.
If it was at 1977' and the crew watched and wondered while it descended to 400' is curious. If at 700fpm that takes 2 minutes. That is along time to watch something you should not be happy with. A simple ALT v DME would have alerted you at the first check.
The comment that it failed to descend at the correct point on the 2nd approach is also worrying. Is this an SOP mess-up, a mis-understanding of how the system works, a system mess-up? What did they do differently on the 3rd approach?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: B.F.E.
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know, all the discussion of altimetry should really be set aside; it takes our eye off the "basic airmanship" ball...
If the aircraft went around from 1000 MSL, and that equated with 400 AGL, then whether they were on QFE, QNH, feet, or metric is a moot point. ANY of those altitudes / settings would still be WAY too low while descending 8 NM out from the threshold.
And the SECOND try was also unsuccessful.
I have absolutely no idea how the 380 flies, but on approach in the 330 if the VDEV says one thing but a basic mental 3 1/2 to 1 (3 and a half miles to every 1000 feet left to lose) is significantly different, it is very likely that the VDEV is wrong / misprogrammed. What was in these guys' FMS, and does Emirates give you a lobotomy when they put you thru Airbus school?
If the aircraft went around from 1000 MSL, and that equated with 400 AGL, then whether they were on QFE, QNH, feet, or metric is a moot point. ANY of those altitudes / settings would still be WAY too low while descending 8 NM out from the threshold.
And the SECOND try was also unsuccessful.
I have absolutely no idea how the 380 flies, but on approach in the 330 if the VDEV says one thing but a basic mental 3 1/2 to 1 (3 and a half miles to every 1000 feet left to lose) is significantly different, it is very likely that the VDEV is wrong / misprogrammed. What was in these guys' FMS, and does Emirates give you a lobotomy when they put you thru Airbus school?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As other have mentioned already, QFE / meters is manageable but represents a big threat indeed. Historically several airlines have had their own share of troubles with Russian altimetry system so it still amazes me that nothing is done to mitigate this very simple risk. How many Tupolev and Ilyushin are still flying around (especially in and out Moscow) compared to Boeing and Airbus "Qnh only" airplanes ?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lat N55
Age: 56
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
!!!!
Guys - it is really shocking what most of you are writing here - only excuse for it, is if you have not been back to Russia recently. 
:
As one poster already stated, Russia has changed the Rules and exclusively uses QNH altimetery below Transition Level and this has been in effect since Feb 2017. It is no longer a QFE environment.
Just have a look at your charts: No more conversion tables and need to work out meteres, as there are no longer clearances issued in meteres. Just set the given QNH after TL fly in feet and that's it.
: As one poster already stated, Russia has changed the Rules and exclusively uses QNH altimetery below Transition Level and this has been in effect since Feb 2017. It is no longer a QFE environment.
Just have a look at your charts: No more conversion tables and need to work out meteres, as there are no longer clearances issued in meteres. Just set the given QNH after TL fly in feet and that's it.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Stable
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly to UUEE every month - yes, the conversion tables are still part of the charts (Lido), the atc sometimes gives you QNH sometimes not, below TL they always give you height.
Last edited by cowhorse; 19th Sep 2017 at 18:19.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
good point but the transition started in Feb this year with ULLI and will slowly keep going till hopefully the whole area is QNH. Haven't flown there for a while now so I do not know what the story is (and do not have the charts right here to check). As the prev poster mentioned it appears that You still work on QFE.
good point but the transition started in Feb this year with ULLI and will slowly keep going till hopefully the whole area is QNH. Haven't flown there for a while now so I do not know what the story is (and do not have the charts right here to check). As the prev poster mentioned it appears that You still work on QFE.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: All around the world
Age: 53
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sonicbum is right.
ULLI is the only airport in Russia which uses QNH.
And yes. All the charts still have QFE and QNH values given.
It is a testing phase. All others work with QFE but more and more give you QNH if you ask them.
Even RNAV approaches are possible on a few airports if you ask for it.
I presume, flying and out of Russia about 20 times a month this was just a missinterpretation of the numbers on the charts.
Flying on QNH and reading the QFE values or vice versa.
The biggest problem is that you fly down to FL50 on QNH and then you have to transition to QFE. Close to ground, stress and "out of a sudden" a different altitude reading procedure/measurement.
Also the EGWPS does will not be triggered if you dont touch the altitude numbers in the FMS, like changing the airport elevation to 0 just your altimeter will show 0 upon landing. Plus, you need to set all other values in the FMS to QNH. Never use QFE in the FMS
ULLI is the only airport in Russia which uses QNH.
And yes. All the charts still have QFE and QNH values given.
It is a testing phase. All others work with QFE but more and more give you QNH if you ask them.
Even RNAV approaches are possible on a few airports if you ask for it.
I presume, flying and out of Russia about 20 times a month this was just a missinterpretation of the numbers on the charts.
Flying on QNH and reading the QFE values or vice versa.
The biggest problem is that you fly down to FL50 on QNH and then you have to transition to QFE. Close to ground, stress and "out of a sudden" a different altitude reading procedure/measurement.
Also the EGWPS does will not be triggered if you dont touch the altitude numbers in the FMS, like changing the airport elevation to 0 just your altimeter will show 0 upon landing. Plus, you need to set all other values in the FMS to QNH. Never use QFE in the FMS
Ok I'm still a bit confused here.
Are we speaking of an EK 380 having two go arounds while landing in Moscow Domodedovo, presumably because the approach was botched due to crew error (incorrect altitude settings (ie QNH vs QHE)) ? Certainly doesn't reflect positively on said crew but is it such a huge deal ? Or am I missing something ?
Are we speaking of an EK 380 having two go arounds while landing in Moscow Domodedovo, presumably because the approach was botched due to crew error (incorrect altitude settings (ie QNH vs QHE)) ? Certainly doesn't reflect positively on said crew but is it such a huge deal ? Or am I missing something ?