EK207 Jfk
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Miami
Age: 59
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK207 Jfk
Another 
up into JFK . Canarsie approach, ek 207 few days ago.
Busted minimas no level segment. GPWS activated on go around.
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kj...2017-0100Z.mp3
up into JFK . Canarsie approach, ek 207 few days ago. Busted minimas no level segment. GPWS activated on go around.
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kj...2017-0100Z.mp3
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Those mp3 time hacks seem to be slightly different depending on the player.
On the approach control LiveATC clip Emirates 5KP is given "cross ASALT at 3000, cleared VOR 13L approach."
At 25:42 on the tower clip linked above "Emirates 5KP low altitude alert, check your altitude, Kennedy altimeter 30[.]43." "3043 Emirates 5KP."
Then at 26:03 "Emirates 5KP you appear to be extremely low on your approach, do you have the runway in sight?"
EK then went missed for vectors and it appears that they subsequently successfully landed out of the VOR/DME 22L.
The FR24 data looks like they were indeed quite low. They should have been 800 feet at DMYHL, the FR24 track log shows 250 feet and they continued down to ZERO indicated (uncorrected) altitude
on the FR24 plot for several data points before going around. Any apartment building rooftop clotheslines and satellite dishes missing?
The flight is the one that departed on December 4, the times and dates are often a mix of local, your computer and UTC on these online trackers
:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f.../ek207#fba99be
On the approach control LiveATC clip Emirates 5KP is given "cross ASALT at 3000, cleared VOR 13L approach."
At 25:42 on the tower clip linked above "Emirates 5KP low altitude alert, check your altitude, Kennedy altimeter 30[.]43." "3043 Emirates 5KP."
Then at 26:03 "Emirates 5KP you appear to be extremely low on your approach, do you have the runway in sight?"
EK then went missed for vectors and it appears that they subsequently successfully landed out of the VOR/DME 22L.
The FR24 data looks like they were indeed quite low. They should have been 800 feet at DMYHL, the FR24 track log shows 250 feet and they continued down to ZERO indicated (uncorrected) altitude
on the FR24 plot for several data points before going around. Any apartment building rooftop clotheslines and satellite dishes missing?The flight is the one that departed on December 4, the times and dates are often a mix of local, your computer and UTC on these online trackers
:https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f.../ek207#fba99be
Last edited by Airbubba; 9th Dec 2017 at 18:36.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Miami
Age: 59
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates safety record is hitting rock bottom, actually the worst among the 3 gulf carriers and this is happening despite ultra modern aircrafts and in excellent weather, the future doesn’t look so bright.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Looking at another dataset over at:
WebTrak JFK with the time set to 8:25 pm local on December 4.
This display appears to be corrected for the local altimeter setting. It looks like EK hit DMYHL at 800 feet at 151 knots (probably groundspeed but not sure). Then they continue down to a low of 338 feet at 137 knots in the Howard Beach area before starting to climb. Speed on this plot dropped to 120 knots (!) at 922 feet on the missed approach/terrain avoidance maneuver.
Usual caveats but this looks like yet another major miscue.
WebTrak JFK with the time set to 8:25 pm local on December 4.
This display appears to be corrected for the local altimeter setting. It looks like EK hit DMYHL at 800 feet at 151 knots (probably groundspeed but not sure). Then they continue down to a low of 338 feet at 137 knots in the Howard Beach area before starting to climb. Speed on this plot dropped to 120 knots (!) at 922 feet on the missed approach/terrain avoidance maneuver.
Usual caveats but this looks like yet another major miscue.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kopavogur
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because there is no RNAV Approach for RWY13L.
To be honest JFK is one the absolute worst airports in the Western Hemisphere.
Giving non precision approaches with lead-in tight visual manoevring in marginal weather is an absolute insult to Safety, yet accepted by the FAA and all Operators, including the one I fly for. Luckily, we do train this approach almost every sim.
The whole JFK operation, from approach to taxi into the gate is full of Safety issues, compounded by less than impressive, obnoxious and non standard ATC.
To be honest JFK is one the absolute worst airports in the Western Hemisphere.
Giving non precision approaches with lead-in tight visual manoevring in marginal weather is an absolute insult to Safety, yet accepted by the FAA and all Operators, including the one I fly for. Luckily, we do train this approach almost every sim.
The whole JFK operation, from approach to taxi into the gate is full of Safety issues, compounded by less than impressive, obnoxious and non standard ATC.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Looks to me like they made ASALT, CRI VOR and DMYHL OK. Where do you see the level segment on the VOR 13L?
The called visual when they checked in with the tower on 119.1 for the VOR 13L, it may have been on the preceding traffic rather than the runway however.
Did they somehow follow bad path guidance past DMYHL? Or did they see the wrong lights for the runway or aircraft ahead?
Well, there certainly is an RNAV RNP 13L approach but it is probably not available to third world carriers. Most of the U.S. carriers use it though.
The called visual when they checked in with the tower on 119.1 for the VOR 13L, it may have been on the preceding traffic rather than the runway however.
Did they somehow follow bad path guidance past DMYHL? Or did they see the wrong lights for the runway or aircraft ahead?
On behalf of the crew I would like to thank everyone for their support.
No one goes to work wanting to make the news. Lots of this type of event in the recent past and spread across the two fleets. Who's head will fall next!
No one goes to work wanting to make the news. Lots of this type of event in the recent past and spread across the two fleets. Who's head will fall next!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The Dee Sea
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a carrier-specific RNAV/RNP to 13L. It was developed by JetBlue, and I believe one of the other hometown carriers (Delta or American) bought the rights to use it.
I haven't played back the tracks, but it's likely they passed CRI at the required 1500, but then started the descent angle to aim for 13R instead of 13L, which is 1.0 track miles further.
[EDIT: Just realizing that this happened about 16 hours before the Volaris 13R/13L stuff-up. See thread on the North America board]
I haven't played back the tracks, but it's likely they passed CRI at the required 1500, but then started the descent angle to aim for 13R instead of 13L, which is 1.0 track miles further.
[EDIT: Just realizing that this happened about 16 hours before the Volaris 13R/13L stuff-up. See thread on the North America board]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Anyway, some of us know about that supersecret supposedly nonexistent RNAV RNP approach to 13L. But it probably isn't an option for Emirates or any of them EASA carriers (whatever that means
).They were given cross ASALT at 200 knots, cross CRI at 180 knots.
If you hit DMYHL at 800 feet and go for 13L, it looks like you do need that dive and drive level segment Jack330 mentioned before you start down again.
Non-precision approaches in FMS aircraft continue to generate a lot of EGPWS saves.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because there is no RNAV Approach for RWY13L.
The caveat here is that we are used to a continuous descent. We do that all the time. Here it isn't. If you cross DMHYL at 800' you're about 3.5 NM out so about 300' low. If you continue descent you're in for a surprise. I guess they discovered that the hard way. Better to find out in the sim; as a regular to JFK, we do.
A lot of fun, but a challenging approach, already harder in a heavy then a 73, must be twice as hard after a long haul from DXB.
Last edited by golfyankeesierra; 9th Dec 2017 at 23:15.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: a very sandy place
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All,
I will let others argue the how, when, why, ect. For safety though, and having flown that approach many times in may career including a few times at EK, in my opinion, and I will emphasis, my opinion, the most critical mistake that people not familiar with this approach make whether they are flying the VOR or RNAV is that they look for the runway first instead of picking up the visual lead in lights. These lights, can be used to ensure you are going towards the correct runway and even provide for a pretty accurate turn rate to 13L if you follow them. They will also assist in determining if you are low or not. The main point is they will lead you to the correct runway. They are depicted on both charts and are a briefing point I make every time I fly this approach.
Although I agree that there has to be a better way to get in to these runways with today's technology, for now, this is what we have. Remember, this approach was designed for steam gauge airplanes and they safely made it work for longer than GPS and RNAV have been around. The difference is, back then, they new how to look out a window, hell they used the stars, lol. Point being is, if you are going fly this approach, remember when it was designed, and the fact it was designed to look out the window and be visual. If you brief the visual cues, it should help protect you from picking up the wrong runway.
I hope my post helps those reading in for safety reasons, and if anyone else has any tricks to add, please post them. I really hope if we get some more info out there, we can help protect from future mistakes.
I will let others argue the how, when, why, ect. For safety though, and having flown that approach many times in may career including a few times at EK, in my opinion, and I will emphasis, my opinion, the most critical mistake that people not familiar with this approach make whether they are flying the VOR or RNAV is that they look for the runway first instead of picking up the visual lead in lights. These lights, can be used to ensure you are going towards the correct runway and even provide for a pretty accurate turn rate to 13L if you follow them. They will also assist in determining if you are low or not. The main point is they will lead you to the correct runway. They are depicted on both charts and are a briefing point I make every time I fly this approach.
Although I agree that there has to be a better way to get in to these runways with today's technology, for now, this is what we have. Remember, this approach was designed for steam gauge airplanes and they safely made it work for longer than GPS and RNAV have been around. The difference is, back then, they new how to look out a window, hell they used the stars, lol. Point being is, if you are going fly this approach, remember when it was designed, and the fact it was designed to look out the window and be visual. If you brief the visual cues, it should help protect you from picking up the wrong runway.
I hope my post helps those reading in for safety reasons, and if anyone else has any tricks to add, please post them. I really hope if we get some more info out there, we can help protect from future mistakes.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Gadhafi's tunnel
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts