Wikiposts
Search
The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

YPPH RNAV 21

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 23rd Sep 2012, 13:22
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
YPPH RNAV 21

Done a couple of these approaches over the past week or two, and with both of them it seemed to me that there is a bit of an offset to the west of the centreline.
Both times RNP was 0.11 actual was 0.05, so I'm wondering if it's a known thing in YPPH, or maybe a coding thing?
Both times I checked and re-checked, and both times it was on 777's with less than 1000hrs on each airframe.
All you PER based guys got any ideas? or seen anything similar?
haughtney1 is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2012, 13:55
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Central Hub
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is 1 degree difference between runway direction and the final approach course, which is listed on the charts. Would this account for it, or is it a great difference?

I'd be more interested to know, why so many Perth based operators are opting for the VOR over the RNAV or stating they're unable to accept the RNAV?
avconnection is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2012, 14:02
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Av, yeah I guess that's probably part of it, plus after 11hrs across the Indian ocean I'm most likely a bit crossed eyed in any case
It just didn't seem that the final approach course was leading us directly to the threshold.....but I can accept my eyes could have been playing tricks....the glideslope was a thing of beauty...2 whites 2 reds all the way in
haughtney1 is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2012, 15:41
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: A long way from home with lots more sand.
Age: 55
Posts: 421
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Maybe you should have been using those 3 hrs in the CRC for zzzzz's rather than watching the latest (modified) releases on ICE !
clear to land is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2012, 01:28
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Perth
Age: 41
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe both pilots arent RNAV approved or the aircraft doesn't have the right gear or approval to do the approach. Thats just what we face in our fleet.
Aeromuz is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2012, 01:35
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Rounding errors affect RNAV runway approaches, they are often a little offset.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2012, 06:13
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,568
Received 76 Likes on 44 Posts
H1, what was your Flight Technical Error (CDI bar deviation)? The box/magenta line can be spot on but the autopilot may not be following it exactly/accurately enough for the eyes looking out the front.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2012, 06:23
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 3,104
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
haughtney1, was the other pilot offset slightly east of the centre line?

avconnection, I know that for one of the Perth operators, part of their fleet will fly the RNAV NPA nicely on the autopilot but the CDI isn't scaling properly on finals so you can't easily crosscheck the autopilot's tracking without looking at the xtrack on the box, and you can't accurately fly it by hand. There is a fix on the way supposedly, so hopefully you'll see more RNAV NPAs and fewer VORs.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2012, 06:38
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by haughtney1
Done a couple of these approaches over the past week or two, and with both of them it seemed to me that there is a bit of an offset to the west of the centreline.
Both times RNP was 0.11 actual was 0.05, so I'm wondering if it's a known thing in YPPH, or maybe a coding thing?
Both times I checked and re-checked, and both times it was on 777's with less than 1000hrs on each airframe.
All you PER based guys got any ideas? or seen anything similar?
ANP 0.05 is ~92m of possible lateral error (think i calculated that ok). How much were you offset by?

The runway at PER is closer to 195 than 196 - 1 degree is noticeable.

Was it a constant offset, ie flying parallel to centerline?

Or an angular offset, converging or diverging from centerline?
unseen is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2012, 09:13
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Bloggsy, it was all well within the tolerances, the FD's were not commanding any corrections.
Haha Aero...yeah probably.
Unseen it was a constant offset, it didn't appear to be converging on the threshold.
Again, don't get me wrong, at MDA it was a perfectly acceptable position from which to continue the landing, it's just not what I expected to see in terms of lateral guidance.
haughtney1 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

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