|
Yes, it's like making the ground fit the map in the early stages of getting lost and until something so obviously wrong appears, it is too easy to convince yourself all is well and just as you planned it.
|
Originally Posted by dClbydalpha
(Post 9772995)
I think it's important to make a distinction between confusion and incorrect SA.
Confusion is a lack of understanding or lack of confidence in the information presented. This crew showed no sign of questioning that accompanies confusion. Compare this with the transcript of AF447, where everyone is trying to grasp what is going on. I am convinced that this crew started the last phase of the flight with a clear, albeit incorrect, mental picture of what was ahead and how they would deal with it. Nothing in that aircraft, crew, training, procedure or technology was compelling enough to cause a re-assessment of that mental picture. In fact, it appears that most cues were readily incorporated into the existing SA. Until the moment that something untoward was seen on the electroptics. |
This gets back to my question about "How" and "Why".
"How" is the triggering event....and "Why" is what set it all up for the "How" to happen.....as I see it. |
The how is easy, the aircraft was flying below MSA for the area.
The why, is because the crew hadn't got a clue they were below MSA due to inadequacies in the charts they were using. They knew perfectly well where they were, the chart displayed just didn't show them to be in any danger. That led to confusion when an obstruction was identified ahead, because the chart would be expected to show anything large or tall enough to cause danger to the aircraft. It really doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. |
Originally Posted by G0ULI
(Post 9774559)
The how is easy, the aircraft was flying below MSA for the area.
The why, is because the crew hadn't got a clue they were below MSA due to inadequacies in the charts they were using. They knew perfectly well where they were, the chart displayed just didn't show them to be in any danger. That led to confusion when an obstruction was identified ahead, because the chart would be expected to show anything large or tall enough to cause danger to the aircraft. It really doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. |
MSA
Gouli,
at 200ft you know you are below msa! |
(Posted in error)
|
|
Originally Posted by jeepys
(Post 9774767)
Gouli,
at 200ft you know you are below msa! No you don't know if your (electronic) maps don't show any obstacles higher than 30ft. In hindsight obviously we know better. It is sad to see how a combination of inexact information and certain logic in the equipment that by itself would not cause a big risk/problem (280ft high obstacle in open sea not shown in EGPWS database, not or only partly shown in moving map, depending on mode, EGPWS inhibition in low altitude mode, deactivated clutter suppression, in exactly this combination lining up for a perfect disaster) still makes such a scenario possible even in such a modern machine. Very enlightening regarding unwanted consequences of features. Why they cruised at 200ft for such an extended period of time will probably remain a mystery, though. |
Has anybody on this thread got any information as to how the search for the two missing crew is going.
|
Henry,
I don't know what rules you work to but I have always known msa to be 1000 ft about highest object. At 200 ft you are therefore obviously below msa regardless of what your paper or electronic map says. Offshore MSA is 1000ft or 1500ft in areas of wind turbines. |
Why they cruised at 200ft for such an extended period of time will probably remain a mystery, though. One scenario is that they "let down" over the ocean. Got clear of cloud. Then followed a route (clear of cloud, but in the dark?) at a height they thought they were safe at. Any mystery in my mind is why they thought the route was safe at 200'. The tragedy in my mind is all the safety back stops not working, especially EGWPS. |
I may have missed it in the previous pages but has there been any info on the vertical path of this procedure?
|
Jeepys - We are talking SAR here and there are different rules for them that take into account their mission, the training and the equipment on board. Read the previous posts and you will get the picture.
G |
"Dive and drive" is the term you may be looking for.
It has its uses but........................ |
Geoffrey,
Well aware of that but I thought they were following a company let down route? |
Originally Posted by jeepys
(Post 9779682)
Geoffrey,
Well aware of that but I thought they were following a company let down route? |
Democritus,
Seen that thanks but where is page two of the route guide giving other info? Is there info on that page that gives advisory heights etc? |
For the jeep seats:
As stated further up this page. They "let down" over the sea. A common, and safe practice. They were using a company VFR route guide. To get to the refueling destination. Not a "let down route". No vertical guidance. Spot heights were included on the second page. This is only my understanding from reading the report, with both eyes open, some experience, and a healthy interest. |
Yes so the second page is pretty important for any height/vertical guidance or spot heights
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:33. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.