SQ Incident?
Hmmm... so much for ignoring a GP check eh?
The KIWIs did a similar thing at an island with a dodgy GP.
That's why ALL ILS's should have a DME - take note, Airservices Australia.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That happens at the OM, still .9nm away...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TB
The answer is yes, you can; you will set a new higher DA/DH and use the advisory check distances against altitude/ height.
Notify ATC of the lack of glidepath. If the fault is on the ground, the Tower will have received a warning of the failure.
The answer is yes, you can; you will set a new higher DA/DH and use the advisory check distances against altitude/ height.
Notify ATC of the lack of glidepath. If the fault is on the ground, the Tower will have received a warning of the failure.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rumour that I heard made no mention of a false G/S signal. It just said that the crew descended too early because they weren't aware of the G/S intercept being closer to the field due the airport elevation. Also heard that they ignored the EGPWS warnings for a considerable time.
Capn Bloggs Re GS check – “That happens at the OM …”
The primary purpose of markers / fix (or distance) checks during an approach is to determine the ‘acceptability’ of the vertical approach path / confirm your location with respect to that path. For safety, where a check involves altitude and distance, the altitude must take priority – it’s the early contact with ground that you wish to avoid, not the determination of distance to the airfield.
Dream Land states the required safety defence, check the altitude first and do not descend below it until the appropriate ‘fix’. In the specific case of an ILS I would suggest a climb, then determine the cause of the discrepancy – don’t trouble shoot at minimum altitudes, and don’t continue with an alternative procedure by assuming that the LOC (and your position relative to the airport) is correct – climb, check, rebrief, and recommence the approach. Beware the unexpected / unexplained; if the EGPWS alerts / warns - climb.
uncle dickie, you probably meant the above, but stating the check correctly (altitude vs distance tables) might aid correct use as well as recalling the check from memory, thus avoiding any complacency / omission of routine actions and checks.
Safety examples ‘EPGWS events and analysis’.
Also see ‘Thai Air B777 Melbourne NDB approach’.
The primary purpose of markers / fix (or distance) checks during an approach is to determine the ‘acceptability’ of the vertical approach path / confirm your location with respect to that path. For safety, where a check involves altitude and distance, the altitude must take priority – it’s the early contact with ground that you wish to avoid, not the determination of distance to the airfield.
Dream Land states the required safety defence, check the altitude first and do not descend below it until the appropriate ‘fix’. In the specific case of an ILS I would suggest a climb, then determine the cause of the discrepancy – don’t trouble shoot at minimum altitudes, and don’t continue with an alternative procedure by assuming that the LOC (and your position relative to the airport) is correct – climb, check, rebrief, and recommence the approach. Beware the unexpected / unexplained; if the EGPWS alerts / warns - climb.
uncle dickie, you probably meant the above, but stating the check correctly (altitude vs distance tables) might aid correct use as well as recalling the check from memory, thus avoiding any complacency / omission of routine actions and checks.
Safety examples ‘EPGWS events and analysis’.
Also see ‘Thai Air B777 Melbourne NDB approach’.
I don't think the Air New Zealand crew got anywhere near 500' AGL. They realised quite early on that the GS was wrong.
from here:
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/ro/apac/cnsmet_sg6/wp39.pdf
To all, out of interest, does your company have a SOP glideslope check that uses the DME at say 10DME (or the distance when the ILS starts) as opposed to the Outer Marker?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the Air New Zealand crew got anywhere near 500' AGL. They realised quite early on that the GS was wrong.
Minimum height during the go-around was 340 ft PA (384 ft RA). This was at approximately 5˝ miles from the threshold of the runway
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all, out of interest, does your company have a SOP glideslope check that uses the DME at say 10DME (or the distance when the ILS starts) as opposed to the Outer Marker?
Q: Aren't SQ Aeroplanes equipped with Enhanced GPWS, showing contour layers?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Russia
Age: 58
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was on the plane
9V-SYI
http://aviaforum.ru/attachment.php?a...2&d=1203758692
After landing captain told by announcement about engine malfunction. He shut both engines after landing. Taxi to gate by tow car.
The 777 is still in DME. Another plane from SIN to take passengers expected to be arrived at DME about 8 p.m. local.
9V-SYI
http://aviaforum.ru/attachment.php?a...2&d=1203758692
After landing captain told by announcement about engine malfunction. He shut both engines after landing. Taxi to gate by tow car.
The 777 is still in DME. Another plane from SIN to take passengers expected to be arrived at DME about 8 p.m. local.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Perth
Age: 57
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ 777 diverted to CGK
Anyone knows what happened to this 777 ?
It was a schedule flight from SIN - PER, but according to www.singaporeair.com it made a un-schedule stop in CGK for an hour.
It was a schedule flight from SIN - PER, but according to www.singaporeair.com it made a un-schedule stop in CGK for an hour.