Mahan air impounded at Birmingham
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: leamington Spa
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mahan air impounded at Birmingham
Anyone know anything about this? happened around lunchtime today, aircraft reported to have decended to below 600ft on an 8 mile final NDB approach for runway 33. 2 go arounds initiated by ATC - aircraft impounded on arrival.
Notwithstanding the advisory heights and mandatory OCH limits on the RW33 NDB approach chart, I note the following for Birmingham from the AIP:
"An aircraft approaching without assistance from ILS or radar shall follow a descent path which will not result in its being at any time lower than the approach path which would be followed by an aircraft using the ILS glidepath."
"An aircraft approaching without assistance from ILS or radar shall follow a descent path which will not result in its being at any time lower than the approach path which would be followed by an aircraft using the ILS glidepath."
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: zz plural 5
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds like a dive and drive approach to me.Why were they using the NDB when the LLZ approach is available?The unservicability of the full ILS seems to be going on forever.Who impounded the aircraft?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stockport
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This won`t be the first issue with Mahan Air as a few weeks back at Manchester when 24L was in use during runway repairs one was told to go around because he was well north of track during and VOR approach and on his second was was if anything worse and a lot lower making a huge track correction at about 3 miles out and I would estimate a good 300ft below glide path
I live at about 4 miles on the approach and have never seen anything as low as it was
Any comments from MAN ATC
Please note these are only my estimates but it did concern me at the time
G-I-B
I live at about 4 miles on the approach and have never seen anything as low as it was
Any comments from MAN ATC
Please note these are only my estimates but it did concern me at the time
G-I-B
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From the Beeb website here
Plane flies too low into airport
Inquiries have started after an aeroplane landing at Birmingham International Airport came in too low.
The passenger airliner is reported to have descended to 600ft (182m) six miles from the airport - experts said it should have been at 1,800ft.
National Air Traffic Services has confirmed the incident near Kenilworth, Warwickshire, happened on Thursday.
An airport spokeswoman said the aircraft and its flight data recorder were being held for investigation.
The Airbus A310 operated by Tehran-based airline Marhan, reportedly flew low over Honiley, near Kenilworth, as it begun its descent around midday.
A farmer in nearby Mere End rang the airport to say a plane had flown too low over his farm.
Reports say the pilot was alerted and told to climb, which he did before making a second attempt at landing.
Plane flies too low into airport
Inquiries have started after an aeroplane landing at Birmingham International Airport came in too low.
The passenger airliner is reported to have descended to 600ft (182m) six miles from the airport - experts said it should have been at 1,800ft.
National Air Traffic Services has confirmed the incident near Kenilworth, Warwickshire, happened on Thursday.
An airport spokeswoman said the aircraft and its flight data recorder were being held for investigation.
The Airbus A310 operated by Tehran-based airline Marhan, reportedly flew low over Honiley, near Kenilworth, as it begun its descent around midday.
A farmer in nearby Mere End rang the airport to say a plane had flown too low over his farm.
Reports say the pilot was alerted and told to climb, which he did before making a second attempt at landing.
The point I was making was that, even if the crew were flying a non-precision approach involving a descent at the maximum rate allowed for in the procedure construction in order to level at MDA/H ("dive and drive"), such procedures are not permitted at Birmingham as they will involve a descent below the equivalent ILS Glideslope.
600 ft in an A310 over Honiley must have looked....interesting. Hope that was height, not altitude!
Well done to that ATC controller for saving a potential disaster.
600 ft in an A310 over Honiley must have looked....interesting. Hope that was height, not altitude!
Well done to that ATC controller for saving a potential disaster.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle..... your point is correct but however quite academic. You simply do NOT fly an NDB approach like that in heavy jet.
This incident is reminiscent of 7T-VEE of Air Algerie at Coventry airport in 1994..... unfortunately back then ATC were not in a position to prevent them from crashing.
This incident is reminiscent of 7T-VEE of Air Algerie at Coventry airport in 1994..... unfortunately back then ATC were not in a position to prevent them from crashing.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: zz plural 5
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This airline i believe started with Russian equipment .I am sure that a dive and drive technique would have been sop in a Tupolev.One chart compiler shows minimum altitudes at various points along some non-precision approach charts(Dublin is a good example).From memory the note about not descending below the pseudo glideslope is not on the approach chart itself.These notes are usually put in for noise considerations and are found on the noise procedure pages.As for not doing dive and drive I can think of a number of airfields that only have an NDB and this technique is the only one available.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stockport
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cannot think Manchester would be on that list otherwise they might get a bloody nose due the Pennines
Made me think! as it was not a very nice night when it had the go around with a quite thick layer of cloud at 1000`and no ILS and infact only about 30 mins after it happened all runway work was suspended for night due other aircraft not getting lights until quite late
G-I-B
Made me think! as it was not a very nice night when it had the go around with a quite thick layer of cloud at 1000`and no ILS and infact only about 30 mins after it happened all runway work was suspended for night due other aircraft not getting lights until quite late
G-I-B
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pure conjecture of course, but perhaps they had mistaken HON DME for IBM DME. 
(For those unfamiliar with Birmingham: Honiley VOR is about 6nm from the runway 33 threshold and only just off the final approach course)
(For those unfamiliar with Birmingham: Honiley VOR is about 6nm from the runway 33 threshold and only just off the final approach course)
Magplug, that might be the SOP in most airlines but, unless proscribed by the relevant aerodrome regulations requiring a notional glidepath technique, some heavy jet operators certainly do practise descents at up to the maximum assumed RoD of 400ft/nm from the FAF.
Were they at 600 ft height or 600 ft altitude?
If any aircraft 'approaching MDA' commences a go-around, it may well go slightly below MDA. Which is not permitted unless visual criteria are met...
Hence the decision to go-around must be initiated before MDA so that the aircraft does not fly below MDA, whereas for a precision approach the DA is the last point at which the decision must be made and the loss of height converting to a go-around is allowed for. Thus if you fly a non-precision approach as though it was a precision approach, you must use a higher approach minimum than the non-precision MDA.
However, if you fly an increased RoD (not more than 400 ft/nm) where this is permitted, you will have time to level at MDA (but not go below) and then maintain this until either the MAP is reached or visual criteria are met.
If any aircraft 'approaching MDA' commences a go-around, it may well go slightly below MDA. Which is not permitted unless visual criteria are met...
Hence the decision to go-around must be initiated before MDA so that the aircraft does not fly below MDA, whereas for a precision approach the DA is the last point at which the decision must be made and the loss of height converting to a go-around is allowed for. Thus if you fly a non-precision approach as though it was a precision approach, you must use a higher approach minimum than the non-precision MDA.
However, if you fly an increased RoD (not more than 400 ft/nm) where this is permitted, you will have time to level at MDA (but not go below) and then maintain this until either the MAP is reached or visual criteria are met.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Robin Hood country.
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a dive and drive approach in a heavy - just plan accordingly by doing the maths ( MDA /Visual descent point intercept), make certain the approach is well briefed and understood and sit up straight and fly properly. I rather used to enjoy making them although they're now somewhat out of fashion. The usual eye witness account is on the BBC, he's quite certain that the pilot was alerted by a herd of stampeding cattle. Moo. Of course, for those unable to juggle the requirements, dive and drive can rapidly become an express ticket to a smoking hole.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: zz plural 5
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown all the airbus family and I have never flown a non-precision approach using profile mode(this is what vnav is called on the A300/310) or the managed modes on the fbw fleets.On the 300 family you have to hand fly these type of approaches(apart from LLZ) as you use track/fpa.The A300 i used to fly had TWO RMI's one for vor and one for adf.The latter was tucked away in a dark corner of the instrument panel-an ergonomic nightmare.The fms was very basic,akin to a sinclair zx81 and the associated database was tiny.Certainly no room for arrival/instrument procedures.This incident definetly seems to be a dive and drive.Why weren't they using the LLZ?Only the gp is notammed u/s?BHX have been taking forever with their "improvements".As i said in an earlier post there are airfields(Tobago springs to mind) where you have an ndb and no dme.You have to dive and drive and this is done by A330s,B747s etc.In an ideal world you do fly a 3degree stabilised approach, but the world is not perfect and these type of approaches exist.If you can find them have a look at the non-precision approaches at some Iranian airports,they certainly do not adhere to the stabilised approach criteria.I am still interested who had the authority to impound the aircraft and which charts the crew were using and why BHX has managed to get away with this protracted work in progress for so long.
The UK AIP does not mention following a pseudo-glideslope profile and it has an OCH of 475 ft.It shows a profile that is "recommended" but not MANADATORY!
The UK AIP does not mention following a pseudo-glideslope profile and it has an OCH of 475 ft.It shows a profile that is "recommended" but not MANADATORY!
Last edited by cornwallis; 23rd Feb 2006 at 19:47.
cornwallis, as at least 2 of us have already quoted from the UK AIP, 'notional glidepath' techniques are indeed mandatory at Birmingham:
"An aircraft approaching without assistance from ILS or radar shall follow a descent path which will not result in its being at any time lower than the approach path which would be followed by an aircraft using the ILS glidepath."
"An aircraft approaching without assistance from ILS or radar shall follow a descent path which will not result in its being at any time lower than the approach path which would be followed by an aircraft using the ILS glidepath."
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: zz plural 5
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a look at the ndb procedure for 33 in the AIP.It has a table of "recommended" ranges /altitudes, your reference is on the noise page!!If you have never been to BHX when the ILS is working on 33,(it must be over a year by now)you follow what it says on your ndb chart.If the CAA dont put it on their approach charts what hope does somebody who is probably an infrequent visitor have?These restrictions are usually buried on the same page as advice on running apu's on stand.
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several Points...
Magplug and others...
A non-precision approach is just what it says..."non-precision"...The whole idea is to descend safely to an altitude from which the runway can be seen and a safe landing accomplished...
After passing the FAF, basic instrument skills (no FMS, just time, speed, distance) apply...descend to MDA and fly the course until arriving at the MAP or the runway enviornment becomes visable. Land or go around as appropiate...
These approaches are in widespread use in Africa and the Mideast...any pilot flying in these regions knows the drill and can practice it, or they have no business in this business...
As for the quote re: "without radar assistance..." this a/c most likely was under ATC control during the approach...how else could ATC have mandated a "missed approach" thus "preventing a crash"?
Magplug and others...
A non-precision approach is just what it says..."non-precision"...The whole idea is to descend safely to an altitude from which the runway can be seen and a safe landing accomplished...
After passing the FAF, basic instrument skills (no FMS, just time, speed, distance) apply...descend to MDA and fly the course until arriving at the MAP or the runway enviornment becomes visable. Land or go around as appropiate...
These approaches are in widespread use in Africa and the Mideast...any pilot flying in these regions knows the drill and can practice it, or they have no business in this business...
As for the quote re: "without radar assistance..." this a/c most likely was under ATC control during the approach...how else could ATC have mandated a "missed approach" thus "preventing a crash"?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: zz plural 5
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The later A300 and the 310 will not let you fly track/flight path angle with the autopilot engaged. This is the preferred mode for non-precision approaches.You can fly hdg or llz with vertical speed with it engaged but from memory and many sims, ndbs were done using trk/fpa and handflown .Hdg/vs were used for SRA and Loc B/C.The fbw types however can do all of this with the ap engaged.
I looked also at the BHX section of the AIP and found your quote in the noise section.I personally would not have flown an approach as this crew did,but until we here further we can all only speculate.
So they got low and went round-many years ago a BA 747 did a go-around from within a gamepark. What would we be saying about that?
I looked also at the BHX section of the AIP and found your quote in the noise section.I personally would not have flown an approach as this crew did,but until we here further we can all only speculate.
So they got low and went round-many years ago a BA 747 did a go-around from within a gamepark. What would we be saying about that?