Emirates A388 - Moscow UUDD, GA from 400 feet AGL, 8nm out.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rat 5
Perhaps they have an airfield brief covering that topic?
I didn't think EK has cadets
Are EK F/O's encouraged to speak up?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From another forum I follow:
Heard about this a few days ago. they were about to join the localiser when they implemented a missed approach just under 1000ft ALT (i.e. above mean sea level, how "height" is measured in the majority of the world), the elevation (height above sea leavel) of Moscow DME is approx 550ft, i.e. they were <500ft (approx 165m) above the airfield, hills/buildings could easily make up the difference at 8nm out from the threshold.
Apparently both pilots were immediately grounded and not even permitted to operate back to DXB and are presumed to be fired shortly. They operated another failed approach, my source thinks they only then understood the problem, before a third successful approach.
The problem: Russia uses the metric system in aviation. While I, and most of the "rational" world are proponent of the metric system, the aviation world has always used nautical miles, knots and feet. I also think that this should stay this way and be the standard method used. Unfortunately two major aviation regions, Russia and China, choose to differ.
The problem with Russia, since an Airbus has a button to switch altitude to meters, is that ATC don't provide instructions with altitude in meters (again, altitude = height above SEA LEVEL - also known as QNH), ATC in Russia provide instructions in QFE - meters above AERODROME.
Part of the standard approach procedure at DME, when provided joining instructions to the localizer (a radio beam from the runway that indicates the extended centreline and is used by the aircraft in lateral navigation to line up with the runway) is to descend to 600 meters (!!!)
Now unfortunately the A380 doesn't have an automated system in place to implement this instruction, so pilots have conversion tables where they must look this up. Given the descent pattern of the subject aircraft it is plausible that the pilots simply input 600ft into their aircraft, when the correct reading would be 550ft+600m = approx 765m = approx 2200ft.
From what I've been told they only realised the issue and implement the missed approach when they received an alert from the GPWS (ground proximity warning system). The scary part: The radar altimeter which provides the height (height = distance to ground) callouts during final approach (1000 above, 500 above, 100 above etc) beings way above what they were at, so they would've heard 2 or 3 height callouts already, and their assigned altitude (if 600m QFE) would've been above even the first such callout.
Very scary stuff indeed, a 500 person A380 buried in the Moscow suburbs.
Apparently both pilots were immediately grounded and not even permitted to operate back to DXB and are presumed to be fired shortly. They operated another failed approach, my source thinks they only then understood the problem, before a third successful approach.
The problem: Russia uses the metric system in aviation. While I, and most of the "rational" world are proponent of the metric system, the aviation world has always used nautical miles, knots and feet. I also think that this should stay this way and be the standard method used. Unfortunately two major aviation regions, Russia and China, choose to differ.
The problem with Russia, since an Airbus has a button to switch altitude to meters, is that ATC don't provide instructions with altitude in meters (again, altitude = height above SEA LEVEL - also known as QNH), ATC in Russia provide instructions in QFE - meters above AERODROME.
Part of the standard approach procedure at DME, when provided joining instructions to the localizer (a radio beam from the runway that indicates the extended centreline and is used by the aircraft in lateral navigation to line up with the runway) is to descend to 600 meters (!!!)
Now unfortunately the A380 doesn't have an automated system in place to implement this instruction, so pilots have conversion tables where they must look this up. Given the descent pattern of the subject aircraft it is plausible that the pilots simply input 600ft into their aircraft, when the correct reading would be 550ft+600m = approx 765m = approx 2200ft.
From what I've been told they only realised the issue and implement the missed approach when they received an alert from the GPWS (ground proximity warning system). The scary part: The radar altimeter which provides the height (height = distance to ground) callouts during final approach (1000 above, 500 above, 100 above etc) beings way above what they were at, so they would've heard 2 or 3 height callouts already, and their assigned altitude (if 600m QFE) would've been above even the first such callout.
Very scary stuff indeed, a 500 person A380 buried in the Moscow suburbs.
Discontinue use of QFE (and demand Russia does likewise).
Discontinue use of pressure altimeters (and thereby eliminate setting errors) except as backup to GPS altimeters.
Discontinue references to feet and metres in altimetry in favour of 'flight levels' throughout.
So an airliner cruising at FL330 has 33,000 indicated on its altimeters (as at present). A pilot flying circuits in his Cub or Cessna 152 will report his flight level (not altitude) as (for example) 14 (or 014).
Discontinue use of pressure altimeters (and thereby eliminate setting errors) except as backup to GPS altimeters.
Discontinue references to feet and metres in altimetry in favour of 'flight levels' throughout.
So an airliner cruising at FL330 has 33,000 indicated on its altimeters (as at present). A pilot flying circuits in his Cub or Cessna 152 will report his flight level (not altitude) as (for example) 14 (or 014).
Psychophysiological entity
As one who loved QFE, all I can say to that, is EEEEEEERRRRG!
Demand Russia does something? Can't quite see what's wrong with that plan but I know there's something.
Oh, and as one who called for QNH in Texas and was met with a silence never before heard on USofA airwaves, I know that we all need to be using the same terms as well as rulers.
As an oldie, I can't imagine going to metres for height but if the whole world made the change it would make a lot of sense. Though like driving on the right in the UK, I'd hate to be the one responsible for all the initial carnage.
(and demand Russia does likewise.).
Oh, and as one who called for QNH in Texas and was met with a silence never before heard on USofA airwaves, I know that we all need to be using the same terms as well as rulers.
As an oldie, I can't imagine going to metres for height but if the whole world made the change it would make a lot of sense. Though like driving on the right in the UK, I'd hate to be the one responsible for all the initial carnage.
Last edited by Loose rivets; 23rd Sep 2017 at 12:20.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discontinue use of QFE (and demand Russia does likewise).
Discontinue use of pressure altimeters (and thereby eliminate setting errors) except as backup to GPS altimeters.
Discontinue references to feet and metres in altimetry in favour of 'flight levels' throughout.
So an airliner cruising at FL330 has 33,000 indicated on its altimeters (as at present). A pilot flying circuits in his Cub or Cessna 152 will report his flight level (not altitude) as (for example) 14 (or 014).
Discontinue use of pressure altimeters (and thereby eliminate setting errors) except as backup to GPS altimeters.
Discontinue references to feet and metres in altimetry in favour of 'flight levels' throughout.
So an airliner cruising at FL330 has 33,000 indicated on its altimeters (as at present). A pilot flying circuits in his Cub or Cessna 152 will report his flight level (not altitude) as (for example) 14 (or 014).
Last edited by ManaAdaSystem; 23rd Sep 2017 at 12:21.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brazil
Age: 67
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no "auto initiated go around"
Airbus normal airplanes, flown by pilots too ! Go arounds are initiated by them....no such thing as auto go around !
Again, operating on QNH in an QFE environment is an error waiting to happen, especially when you are fatigued, hard to understand ATC, don't frequent a location often, etc.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've operated for years in & out of Russia and it's always been Flight Levels given in Metres, and altitudes (actually, heights) referenced to QFE and also given in Metres.
The navigation charts carried onboard typically contain altitude / height conversion tables i.e. to quickly allow one to ascertain the conversion between metric and imperial.
Also, on Lido approach charts (which is what EK & FZ use) they provide the arithmetic correction (i.e. how many Mb's are needed) to convert the QFE (provided by Russian ATC) into QNH for that specific airport (and which is what you set on your Altimeter, i.e. QNH).
Inside your aeroplane you're flying the whole thing as normal, i.e. with reference to QNH and feet.
I myself would make this a risk assessment / risk reduction 'briefing item' and make sure that we both fully understand how to use the conversion tables.
Using the chart below as an example, it would (or should) go something like this:
It's not exactly f'ing rocket science and only gets slightly more burdensome when it's seriously cold (what with 'cold temperature corrections', albeit - in a radar environment - ATC are supposed to take care of that aspect for you).
The following chart shows the sort of conversion table that is commonly used.
The navigation charts carried onboard typically contain altitude / height conversion tables i.e. to quickly allow one to ascertain the conversion between metric and imperial.
Also, on Lido approach charts (which is what EK & FZ use) they provide the arithmetic correction (i.e. how many Mb's are needed) to convert the QFE (provided by Russian ATC) into QNH for that specific airport (and which is what you set on your Altimeter, i.e. QNH).
Inside your aeroplane you're flying the whole thing as normal, i.e. with reference to QNH and feet.
I myself would make this a risk assessment / risk reduction 'briefing item' and make sure that we both fully understand how to use the conversion tables.
Using the chart below as an example, it would (or should) go something like this:
ATC: "EK388 you're cleared descend 900m QFE"
Have already worked out the relevant QNH (from the ATC provided QFE) and set it on your altimeter, you would then refer to the conversion table for this airport, find out where it says 900m QFE and look across to the left side of the table to find the equivalent number of feet QNH... in this instance that'd be 3580'... and that's what you then set (or as close as you can get to it) in the MCP Altitude Window... you both check & confirm it... and away you go (and, if there's doubt, you confirm the clearance with ATC before you do it).It's not exactly f'ing rocket science and only gets slightly more burdensome when it's seriously cold (what with 'cold temperature corrections', albeit - in a radar environment - ATC are supposed to take care of that aspect for you).
The following chart shows the sort of conversion table that is commonly used.
Except the difference between QNH and STD could be huge. Your Cessna could be flying at 200 ft above ground in your scenario.
ICAO resolution 23/2020: 'No non-Russian registered aircraft will operate within Russian airspace unless their crews are permitted to use absolute altimetry (derived from GPS signals or local sea level air pressure) at all levels. Altimeter scales will be graduated in Imperial feet but indications (divided by a factor of 100) will be referred to as 'flight levels' at all levels.'
Last edited by Discorde; 23rd Sep 2017 at 18:19. Reason: ICAO resolution added
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few thoughts:
As the chart says, you can request QNH then use the table on the chart to convert the cleared metric level into feet. For some companies this is SOP in Russia.
GPS Altitude is not a reliable source and prone to DOP and Errors.
Another factor could be, that Russia is not WGS84 compliant as they use a different Geoid for their GLONASS System.
As the chart says, you can request QNH then use the table on the chart to convert the cleared metric level into feet. For some companies this is SOP in Russia.
GPS Altitude is not a reliable source and prone to DOP and Errors.
Another factor could be, that Russia is not WGS84 compliant as they use a different Geoid for their GLONASS System.
I'm actually quite happy to read that (although the initial wording was somehow implying differently) but out of curiosity what happens if the autoland detects some abnormally? Just an ECAM message and revert to manual flight?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lat N55
Age: 56
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triple click and af downgrade or autoland warning light/disconnect warning if it goes that far amongst other things
No it ain't rocket science but it is an extra two steps to a critical clearance (descent vector) to normal to be done a bunch of times on the arrival. Fair enough, happens all day every day but it is most certainly 2 big holes in the cheese waiting to add up to another distraction/busy environment/crew fatigue etc
presumed to be fired shortly
And reason I'll no longer fly a ME airline.https://livingsafelywithhumanerror.c...-of-expertise/
https://livingsafelywithhumanerror.c...ion-accidents/
Reminded of a story about a junior exec who cost the company some heaps of money on a contract through some ill thought out decision. A toady sucking up to the boss remarked, "well, that's him for the sack". Boss replied, "what? after all the money I just spent on his education?".
Only half a speed-brake
Exactly twice for each approach. And LIDO has a smarter design of the table, only two columns. Covered during the FMS preparation and ARR briefing no less than three times. Whatever happened, the metric conversion was not a reason, at worst just a catalyst if of any role at all.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS altitude : will not work below 3000 ft because the earth is not a perfect circle . Your C152 will find itself 1000ft below the ground in some places..
As said before WGS84 is an North American reference point made artificially to ensure positive altitude above its continent . Will not work in other parts of the world.
QFE. meters and Russians : This is not the cause of this incident . Tens of thousands of western aircraft fly every year since decades in this mixed environment without problems. I would say lack of proper training is . This is the common denominator of many incidents / accidents we see today. Add fatigue to that , plus fast airline expansion introducing new routes/ airports ,and not visiting them often and there you go.
Fixing the training issue would also far easier than changing Units of measurement on a global scale..
As said before WGS84 is an North American reference point made artificially to ensure positive altitude above its continent . Will not work in other parts of the world.
QFE. meters and Russians : This is not the cause of this incident . Tens of thousands of western aircraft fly every year since decades in this mixed environment without problems. I would say lack of proper training is . This is the common denominator of many incidents / accidents we see today. Add fatigue to that , plus fast airline expansion introducing new routes/ airports ,and not visiting them often and there you go.
Fixing the training issue would also far easier than changing Units of measurement on a global scale..
Last edited by ATC Watcher; 24th Sep 2017 at 04:39. Reason: typos