Mahan air impounded at Birmingham
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things have moved on...
When I learned to fly on instruments I was taught to get down to the MDA and then motor along to the MAP, hoping to spot the approach lights before the time was up. We didn't call that 'Dive and Drive,' but I guess it was the same thing.
Thinking later changed to the use of a stabilised 3 degree approach slope, just as on a precision approach. Figure out your groundspeed and apply an appropriate rate of descent (for example: G/S 120 knots, ROD 646 feet per minute for 3 degrees) to arrive at the VDP (Visual Descent Point) at the MDA. If you do not have the lights or the runway in sight at that VDP then you will not be able to make a stabilised approach to land, so that you might as well go around rather than hope to see something from over the threshold at the MDA. Of course it makes a big difference if you are in a Twin Otter at 80 knots or perhaps a jet doing double that, so that this is not a given for all situations.
What I usually do in practice is to hit the MDA just a bit short of the VDP so that the PNF can take a good long look for the lights. Too, if you are just a little bit off on your rate of descent it's much easier to cope with being a bit low on the slope compared to being a bit high. And, after all, this is a non-precision procedure.
We used to amuse ourselves holding at Lagos, Nigeria when the weather was bad and the VOR was the only approach aid available by watching for the next BAC 1-11 to come blasting out of the murk at nought feet. 'Stabilised Approach? No idea what you are talking about, mate!'
Of course another problem with 'dragging it in' is the way it can be very difficult to land the aircraft on the fixed distance markers. You will be very shallow as you come across the threshold. So it would be a case of 'Here he comes! There he goes!' with the occasional landing that would end in tears.
I became a convert to this newer way of doing things. Plus, as previously pointed out, it is now mandatory in many places.
Thinking later changed to the use of a stabilised 3 degree approach slope, just as on a precision approach. Figure out your groundspeed and apply an appropriate rate of descent (for example: G/S 120 knots, ROD 646 feet per minute for 3 degrees) to arrive at the VDP (Visual Descent Point) at the MDA. If you do not have the lights or the runway in sight at that VDP then you will not be able to make a stabilised approach to land, so that you might as well go around rather than hope to see something from over the threshold at the MDA. Of course it makes a big difference if you are in a Twin Otter at 80 knots or perhaps a jet doing double that, so that this is not a given for all situations.
What I usually do in practice is to hit the MDA just a bit short of the VDP so that the PNF can take a good long look for the lights. Too, if you are just a little bit off on your rate of descent it's much easier to cope with being a bit low on the slope compared to being a bit high. And, after all, this is a non-precision procedure.
We used to amuse ourselves holding at Lagos, Nigeria when the weather was bad and the VOR was the only approach aid available by watching for the next BAC 1-11 to come blasting out of the murk at nought feet. 'Stabilised Approach? No idea what you are talking about, mate!'
Of course another problem with 'dragging it in' is the way it can be very difficult to land the aircraft on the fixed distance markers. You will be very shallow as you come across the threshold. So it would be a case of 'Here he comes! There he goes!' with the occasional landing that would end in tears.
I became a convert to this newer way of doing things. Plus, as previously pointed out, it is now mandatory in many places.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lux
Age: 56
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
be professional!
Magploug
Magploug, sorry, but you don't only fly NDB app with a C150! Most companies even fly it with all type of airplanes! That's why a company employs pilots, to get passengers/freight from A to B ! And an NDB app is a normal procedure for every pilot!
You simply do NOT fly an NDB approach like that in heavy jet.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think he meant 'that's not the WAY to fly an NDB approach in a heavy jet'. Most company SOPs that I know of require a continuous descent approach with a missed approach executed at MDA+50', so as not to descend below the MDA during the GA manoeuvre. Advisory altitudes after the final approach fix usually allow the descent to be judged (if published, if not - make them up yourself).
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my previous post.
Following a notional glide path on a non-precision approach that remains at or above all step-down fixes is the best way to do it in a large aircraft. However, the approach procedure is designed to permit the aircraft to descend almost vertically to the MDA at the FAF or last step-down fix as appropriate and then fly level until the MAPT. That is legal and ensures the required obstacle clearance is maintained.
There is no legal or procedural requirement for an aircraft not to follow the "dive and drive" option at Birmingham.
The advice included in the noise abatement procedures for Birmingham to follow the notional glide path on a non-precision approach is a noise abatement procedure alone. If one reads the noise restrictions at Birmingham, one will see that the notional glide path applies not only to IFR flights but also to your average VFR flight in a C150.
So looking at this incident, there is not yet any evidence that the crew did not follow a notional glide-path and as such the discussion regarding those issues may be a red herring. The evidence available seems to indicate that if they did a notional glide path or dive and drive, they would still have ended up at MDA(MDH) 800 (475) when the DME they used said about 1nm.
Unfortunately, it seems possible that the DME that was used was HON.
It is an unfortunate co-incidence that BHX and HON are both to the left of the centerline and the NDB DME 33 final approach track is offset by 5deg from the centerline. Have a think about that and then what you would expect the LOC to be showing when on a 5deg offset.
Again it would be very intersting to find out what was briefed, what was tuned and what was identified. It would also be interesting to hear how ATC positioned the flight and what the approach clearance wording was.
Regards,
DFC
Following a notional glide path on a non-precision approach that remains at or above all step-down fixes is the best way to do it in a large aircraft. However, the approach procedure is designed to permit the aircraft to descend almost vertically to the MDA at the FAF or last step-down fix as appropriate and then fly level until the MAPT. That is legal and ensures the required obstacle clearance is maintained.
There is no legal or procedural requirement for an aircraft not to follow the "dive and drive" option at Birmingham.
The advice included in the noise abatement procedures for Birmingham to follow the notional glide path on a non-precision approach is a noise abatement procedure alone. If one reads the noise restrictions at Birmingham, one will see that the notional glide path applies not only to IFR flights but also to your average VFR flight in a C150.
So looking at this incident, there is not yet any evidence that the crew did not follow a notional glide-path and as such the discussion regarding those issues may be a red herring. The evidence available seems to indicate that if they did a notional glide path or dive and drive, they would still have ended up at MDA(MDH) 800 (475) when the DME they used said about 1nm.
Unfortunately, it seems possible that the DME that was used was HON.
It is an unfortunate co-incidence that BHX and HON are both to the left of the centerline and the NDB DME 33 final approach track is offset by 5deg from the centerline. Have a think about that and then what you would expect the LOC to be showing when on a 5deg offset.
Again it would be very intersting to find out what was briefed, what was tuned and what was identified. It would also be interesting to hear how ATC positioned the flight and what the approach clearance wording was.
Regards,
DFC
Mmmmm - landed at about same time yesterday, I think I heard him on frequency. I don't know the details so I will not comment on the incident itself.
However BHX is once again only LLZ/DME on 33 due to a second winter of work in progress. Minima for us was 790 MDA - reported cloudbase about 500agl - so all a bit close really though we got in fine with a monitored approach - good vis under the cloud. Whilst surface wind favoured 33 it would have been acceptable for tailwind approach on 15 (fully serviceable) for medium size aircraft but a couple of large aircraft from distant climes would probably not have been keen for the tailwind and no doubt ATC would prefer not to chop and change.
However BHX is once again only LLZ/DME on 33 due to a second winter of work in progress. Minima for us was 790 MDA - reported cloudbase about 500agl - so all a bit close really though we got in fine with a monitored approach - good vis under the cloud. Whilst surface wind favoured 33 it would have been acceptable for tailwind approach on 15 (fully serviceable) for medium size aircraft but a couple of large aircraft from distant climes would probably not have been keen for the tailwind and no doubt ATC would prefer not to chop and change.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bhx has been a LLZ/Dme app on Rwy33 this week, my guess is a perfect approach on the localiser but with Hon vor/dme tuned. The same that would have been used during the STAR for the south into Bhx.
Good planing to have the ILS off during the winter on the "perfered" runway.!!!!
Good planing to have the ILS off during the winter on the "perfered" runway.!!!!
BBC Midlands Today 'one minute disaster' retraced the 'footsteps' of the Mahan flight, brilliant shots even the approach onto runway 15.
Thought it was 33 they landed on!!
Thought it was 33 they landed on!!
Originally Posted by Georgeablelovehowindia
bookworm: I can't see from your profile if you're a professional pilot or not. I was. Both the LLZ/DME and the NDB/DME procedures for 33 at Birmingham have notes which state that DME is mandatory. There's a further note which states that the DME I-BM reads zero at D THR (displaced threshold). Therefore, in spite of the absence of the ILS glideslope, there is provision to follow a vertical profile.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone confirm it was a real Mahan plane?
Mahan wet-leased several A310s and other stuff like even one or two L1011s in the last months on longterm-basis due to capacity-shortages and to cover mx-times of their own fleet. (which mainly consists of A300s from 1974-1983).
It might have been an A310 of Saga Airlines (Turkey) that operates for them frequently in the moment.
I don't wanna be discriminating but turkish carriers and their crews are
well-known in Germany for "seldom" maneuver and other operational items that -if the rules are applied by 1000%- should end up in groundings etc.
This would perfectly fit into the given description of the incident.
Mahan wet-leased several A310s and other stuff like even one or two L1011s in the last months on longterm-basis due to capacity-shortages and to cover mx-times of their own fleet. (which mainly consists of A300s from 1974-1983).
It might have been an A310 of Saga Airlines (Turkey) that operates for them frequently in the moment.
I don't wanna be discriminating but turkish carriers and their crews are
well-known in Germany for "seldom" maneuver and other operational items that -if the rules are applied by 1000%- should end up in groundings etc.
This would perfectly fit into the given description of the incident.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny "F" Reg im sure the Mahan I taxied past today was TC Reg which I believe is Turkish, may be wrong though, I wonder who these lease companies are and once again do the pax know they are buying tickets on these quality carriers? I assume Mahan vet these third party carriers to the companies own high standards?????????
O well makes a change not to see icelandic reg's stuck on the side of many an "airlines" aircraft!
O well makes a change not to see icelandic reg's stuck on the side of many an "airlines" aircraft!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newspaper...
The Sun on friday reported this incident briefly, something along the lines of:
"An iranian plane full of hundreds of terrified passengers mistakenly attempted to land at an abandoned airfield when the pilot became confused. If the plane had landed at the WW2 airfield the plane would have broken up and everybody would have died. Luckily ATC spotted the mistake and warned the pilot..."
#not exact text, cos i left the rag on the tube#
"An iranian plane full of hundreds of terrified passengers mistakenly attempted to land at an abandoned airfield when the pilot became confused. If the plane had landed at the WW2 airfield the plane would have broken up and everybody would have died. Luckily ATC spotted the mistake and warned the pilot..."
#not exact text, cos i left the rag on the tube#
ZbV
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Samsonite
Age: 51
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHX
Just looking at the BHX plates. If ILS was unseriveable at the time, Mahan would have been cleared for NDB DME Rwy 33 and NOT NDB ILS DME Rwy 33 approach. On the NDB/DME approach, the procedure calls for IBM 110.1f or DME and 406 BHX for bearing with 5.1 as descent point, Minimums at 800ft or height of 475ft. MAP over the threshold at 800ft would result in a go around. Following the ILS profile would allow reaching 800ft approximately at 1.3 to 1.5 DME.
If Mahan was at 800ft at 6DME they where indeed low and below prescribed heights.
However the paragraph quoted from BHX noise abatement procedures is slightly out of context and by no means is it MANDATORY but rather recommended to follow these procedures. Read part GENERAL.
Aircraft performance, adverse weather conditions and safety will sometimes dictate deviations from noise abatement procedures.
Wether it is smart to deviate is a totally different issue: Bells will ring, letters to the company, fines etc and a DCM (Don't Come Monday) letter from Chief pilot.
JJ
If Mahan was at 800ft at 6DME they where indeed low and below prescribed heights.
However the paragraph quoted from BHX noise abatement procedures is slightly out of context and by no means is it MANDATORY but rather recommended to follow these procedures. Read part GENERAL.
Aircraft performance, adverse weather conditions and safety will sometimes dictate deviations from noise abatement procedures.
Wether it is smart to deviate is a totally different issue: Bells will ring, letters to the company, fines etc and a DCM (Don't Come Monday) letter from Chief pilot.
JJ
Just so there is no doubt - on thursday the Glidepath was not available on 33 - therefore next best option Localiser approach utilising dme - same approach we had to use most of last year because the 'builders' were in at BHX. Therefore no need to resort to NDB approach.
I think it is far to say that most operators utilise a constant descent approach guided by advisory altitudes against dme. If anyone believes that a non-precision approach should be conducted by an immediate descent to MDA after the IAF followed by a low and slow dragged in approach at minima they are kidding themselves especially in medium or large commercial aircraft.
There is the odd exception where reaching minima 'slightly early' may be considered an essential compromise (Corfu 35) - but this has to be well considered and briefed relative to the circumstances in question.
There is the odd exception where reaching minima 'slightly early' may be considered an essential compromise (Corfu 35) - but this has to be well considered and briefed relative to the circumstances in question.
Originally Posted by Call Established
Acft was F-OJHI A313
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RED WINGS
Funny "F" Reg im sure the Mahan I taxied past today was TC Reg which I believe is Turkish, may be wrong though, I wonder who these lease companies are and once again do the pax know they are buying tickets on these quality carriers? I assume Mahan vet these third party carriers to the companies own high standards?????????
O well makes a change not to see icelandic reg's stuck on the side of many an "airlines" aircraft!
O well makes a change not to see icelandic reg's stuck on the side of many an "airlines" aircraft!
The aircraft involved was F-OJHI and did indead depart just after midnight. The aircraft you saw was TC-SGB operating the following days flight which is leased from Saga Airlines in full Mahan colours
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Waterworld
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those of you arguing as to how to fly a NPA, I draw your attention to DOHA vordme/vor Jepp rwy34 plate 13/2 date nov 05. Something there for everyone.
As for bhx. Well the last time i was there the atis said ils u/s, not loc. The loc was not notammed out either. Last minute clearance for the NDB. I asked why they couldnt put the approach in use on the atis. We assumed a loc. Wasnt , visual so no probs but could have been a mess. Their terse response was to say it was notamed out. It wasnt but either way we have to show good airmanship with timely and effective briefings. Surely they should show good atismanship and stop being such brummy t0ssers
As for bhx. Well the last time i was there the atis said ils u/s, not loc. The loc was not notammed out either. Last minute clearance for the NDB. I asked why they couldnt put the approach in use on the atis. We assumed a loc. Wasnt , visual so no probs but could have been a mess. Their terse response was to say it was notamed out. It wasnt but either way we have to show good airmanship with timely and effective briefings. Surely they should show good atismanship and stop being such brummy t0ssers