Black Hole approaches without visual glide slope guidance
 

Is it normal procedure in Australia for RPT operations at night with Saab 340/Metro/Dash-8 to operate into regional airports that do not have PAPI/VASIS? Airports with black hole approaches and served by medium size passenger turboprops and not equipped with PAPI/VASIS, mean night approach and landings can be quite hazardous especially in rain where rain refraction on windsreens can give misleading visual information. It is then visual slope guidance is essential for safety.

These days would not most aircraft, under the circumstances described, fly the GPS RNAV Appr - which would largely eliminate the "black hole" problem?

Dr :8

Indeed,

However - just because it does not have a glideslope indicator, you can still fly as if it does!

3000 ft @ 10 miles on a straight in with a 3 degree glideslope which is 300ft per minute ROD using gear and flap in a continual descent, or wrap the 10 miles around the circuit doing the same thing. 3000 over head, 2200 downwind 1500 abeam threshhold etc etc. We all have a GPS these days for that little bit more situational awareness to avoid the published perils of autokineses.

And even if arriving 'visually' you would be absolutely mad not to have the GPS (assuming no DME) giving you an accurate distance to threshold to work a basic 3x profile off...thereby negating the 'black hole' effect greatly, if not eliminating it all together.

BTW Centaurus Billy speaks very highly of the quality of your training on the 737 recently...best he's ever seen he tells me:ok:

Centaurus: In answer to your question - Not that I am aware of (at least in the operation I am involved in) - they all have some form of visual slope guidance for HN ops. I cannot answer for other operations though.

Forkie: Not every turboprop RPT operation has embraced the ease and accuracy of GNSS/RNAV approaches to date... It didn't help with the regulator's percieved knee-jerk reaction to a perfectly serviceable SA227 being drilled into a range up your way. Now it would appear that every operator of the type is dangerous in their view..... :ugh:

MACH082: Could you possibly mean 300'/NM for your profile calculations? That might work a little better... :E: Great advice though!:ok::D:ok:

Chuck: Distance to threshold or aid?:oh:;);)

I know - pull me 'ead in!:}:}

Taking the Dash into places like YMOR & YNBR can be interesting (no VASI/PAPI). I wouldn't call them "black hole" approaches per se, because there is a little background lighting. The worst place I went to for "black hole" was 'HMAS' Grafton. Even with a VASI (at the time) it was a difficult place at night, being located in the middle of nowhere. From memory it had 90m light spacing which exacerbated the usual approach illusions.

Assuming the wind was favourable, at YNBR I used to preferably fly the 36 RNAV to within the circling area for a straight-in, using the dist/alt profile all the way down. The advantage is you can get the aircraft stable nice and early, get a reasonable handle on drift, etc and work out your aimpoint positioning in the windscreen. From there you keep the aimpoint where you want (for me it was about 1/2 way up the windscreen, day or night) while maintaining the RNAV profile. By the time you're in the circling area (and on final) you should have sufficient visual cues with the runway itself (big picture) to effect a landing in the TDZ.

If joining the circuit in the circling area (ie 19 YMOR) we used to time the various legs to put us in a similar position on final. Once again, using the same visual cues as mentioned above.

This technique yielded consistently satisfactory results for me. (No comments on my landings, thanks!):E

I've been flogging this problem to whoever will listed for years now! It amazes me that in the 21st century we still have this situation. DR, most pilots do elect to fly the RNAV appproach, but there are instances where this is not possible for the intended runway. While the terrain clearance provisions have been pretty well sorted, it is the final and visual stages of the approach that have been neglected with regard to a large part of regional Australia.

I believe the problem is one of apathy. Apathy by the regulator. Apathy by the airlines, and apathy, due to ignorance, by the airport operators. Mind you there is no apathy by the crews of these aircraft as they break visual on a dark and rainswept night, peering through the windscreen, trying to judge the the best slope, and using all their experience and skill to sort through the visual illusions that come with such a scenerio!

If I were running a regional airline I simply wouldn't stand for it. If a local council (most are the airport operators) wish to have a modern air transport service, then I would mandate some form of visual approach guidance, or no service. The regulator has largely ignored the issue. The airlines concerned obviously see no commercial value in it, and as such have neither the inclination nor the b#lls to enforce a change with the airport operators. And after all, pilots have been doing it for years, and we've never had a prang! Very dangerous assumption.

I've seen first hand the results from a crew making a mistake whilst visual at night at a "black hole" aerodrome without visual slope guidance. Aircraft destroyed, and all on board killed. This was after the captain had satisfied all the requirements of the instrument approach and was turning on to final!

Visual approach guidance on it's own will not completely mitigate the dangers of the remote night approach. It may however break the final link of the chain that could lead to a disaster. That in itself should be reason enough to have it mandated.

Newman is a good black hole approach but the papi saves the day when its working.

Anybody mention WAAS was a great idea, and when Oz will be getting it?

J:ok:

sorry ops you are correct! my bad (and late night wine induced error)

All this talk of GPS RNAV is fine and dandy IF YOU HAVE IT. Rex's 340 A models spring to mind (Trimble anyone?) :ugh:

Quite correct Wing Root. RNAV or no RNAV though is really not the issue. True, the ability to line up on a straight in approach is much safer than having to circle. But this discussion is about visual approach path guidence. Once on final and visual and especially once passed the MAP, crews should have all the assistance that modern ground based aids can provide.

In this day and age, it's nothing short of scandalous that those with the power to make this happen, lack the will to do so.

If you want to see a black hole approach try an oil platform on a dark, dark night, no glide slope info and with a 20° pitch change thrown in for good measure.

CC. I paid him 20 British guineas to spread that around...
Thanks, though...

= 60 kts groundspeed ! Black hole approach in a ... gyrocopter! :D

In fairness he may have meant 3 degree = 320'/nm...at 120Kts = roughly 640'/min:ok:

Opsnormal well that would depend on whether you were using DME or GPS derived dist to ARF or the GPS NPA MAP. Calculating a profile is easy using the above 320'/nm and airfield elevation as a starting point.

If the ARF is in the middle of a 6000' runway then (3x GPS nm) - 160' plus elevation would work nicely. If the DME was at the far end of that 6000' runway (3x dme) - 320' plus elevation.

So 2nm on final to that 6000' runway with the DME at far end. (3x3) - 320' would have you at 600'. If the elevation was 200' the math would be (3x3) -120' (sum the -320 + elev). That would have you 800' altimeter and 600' ht.

I would rather have PAPI/VASIS but I don't need PAPI/VASI.

But you knew that:ok:

Edit: For those readers not experienced with runway profiles please don't try them out the first time on a real black hole approach. Practice with them in daytime so you're completely comfortable with them first and for God's sake don't try and calculate a profile on descent at the last minute...have them pre calculated and written down somewhere like your approach charts or flight plan:ok:

When you get good at them they are just as useful on base leg but you need to be a little high on profile to allow for the fact you're descending while not actually pointing at the runway. If you were on mid base and say 50-100' higher than the profile that would be about spot on. Even when approaching a runway with visual slope guidance do the calcs and you'll roll out on slope every time:ok:

And what did we all do when there was no such thing as GPS's ???
We flew using airmanship & a lot of common sense. We have become very relient on 'help' & may very well, have lost certain other 'skills' Am sure a few in here fly SP into some very dark holes and do it well without the aid of any gizmo's. Rad ALT is a great tool is you have it, it's part of my inst scan when within 2K of the ground. A stable app is everything, speed dec rate etc if correct for airframe type will work everytime.

Damn snow, will be lucky to get out of my driveway this morning !:bored:


CW

Was taught to fly approaches to a single point light source at night (what B.A. was talking about) during RAAF helicopter conversion.

We teach kids to fly into Moree in the avioncs-challenged CT4 at night and somehow we survive. And they're Army students too!:eek:

As CAPT W. says, it's not an insurmountable problem given the correct training and experience.

However on the other hand if you've got the flash gadgets to make your life easier, why not use them? At least I am happy that I have the training behind me not to become a smoking hole in the ground if the gadgets fall over.

The Mount Gambier RFDS King Air accident is one of the "classic" black hole approach accidents. Despite T-VASIS the pilot flew into the ground 3-4 miles on final to runway 18 at night. Weather was also against him at the time. Scattered low scud, temp and dew point equal and light drizzle. Witnesses saw the aircraft landing lights on final so presumably the pilot saw the T-VASIS and runway lights.

For years, it was known by local pilots that the Mt Gambier T-VASIS was prone to giving erroneous light signals in similar weather conditions to that present at the accident scene. Investigation by ATSB did not address the problem with this particular T-VASIS, but some time after the accident an ERSA change occurred warning of erroneous light signals in certain weather conditions. The King Air had GPS and it was assumed the pilot was utilizing GPS distance. Since then the visual aid is now PAPI but a warning in ERSA states it is not to be used for RPT jet operations.

If it is available for charter and private jet operations but not RPT jet ops, this warning suggests the PAPI also has a problem at Mt Gambier. First the T-VASIS there and now the PAPI. But what problem and why the discrimination?

Centaurus

Do you believe we should be pushing the Oz Gov't to provide WAAS?

It seems to me that some rather high profile CFIT's of the past could be repeated in the future and WAAS is a very effective tool in minimizing the chances of them happening again.

J