CNN Reports FEDEX crash in Tokyo
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a major issue in the Pusan crash, perhaps, was that the crew weren't aware of the nature of the differences in obstacle presentation in TERPS charts v. PANS OPS charts.
I don't think PR China use TERPS, so the crew may not have been aware (as I wasn't until fairly recently) that TERPS don't provide any obstacle information outside of the (restrictive) circling areas. The PANS OPS circling areas are very generous by comparison, and obstacle data outside the circling area is shown.
Maybe if the obstacles in the vicinity of the one that they hit had been clearly visible on the chart, they may not have chosen to fly the circling manoeuvre in the first place.
Our SOPs prohibit circling outside our domestic airspace for that very reason - we use PANS OPS.
But, having said that, we still have to show competency in hand-flown OEI ILS and circling approaches in the sim - it's a regulatory requirement here.
I don't think PR China use TERPS, so the crew may not have been aware (as I wasn't until fairly recently) that TERPS don't provide any obstacle information outside of the (restrictive) circling areas. The PANS OPS circling areas are very generous by comparison, and obstacle data outside the circling area is shown.
Maybe if the obstacles in the vicinity of the one that they hit had been clearly visible on the chart, they may not have chosen to fly the circling manoeuvre in the first place.
Our SOPs prohibit circling outside our domestic airspace for that very reason - we use PANS OPS.
But, having said that, we still have to show competency in hand-flown OEI ILS and circling approaches in the sim - it's a regulatory requirement here.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We did an analysis of the of the amount of times that the circling runway would be used...we elected to accept tailwind landings rather than do the circling at night....we eventually got an rnav approach to the circling runway and used that.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any sign of a preliminary report - or a factual summary from the data recorders. There must be some info around by now you would think.
We seem to have drifted off thread here, but my 2 cents worth, on the matter of circling approaches, in particular the Busan 767 accident.
It is a requirement of the circling approach, to keep the runway or lights associated with the approach, in sight at all times.
I am astounded at the number of pilots I have watched, trying to circle without looking outside until late on base leg.
Busan 18 is a tight approach (done it many times), and in bad weather can be a handful. However if the Chinese 767 crew had bugged out when they lost visual this would not have happened. They hit the hill from behind! Seen the scars.
Maui
It is a requirement of the circling approach, to keep the runway or lights associated with the approach, in sight at all times.
I am astounded at the number of pilots I have watched, trying to circle without looking outside until late on base leg.
Busan 18 is a tight approach (done it many times), and in bad weather can be a handful. However if the Chinese 767 crew had bugged out when they lost visual this would not have happened. They hit the hill from behind! Seen the scars.
Maui
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sonoma, CA, USA
Age: 79
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 365
Circling approaches per se are not that dangerous if the PF keeps the airport in sight at all times in addition to scanning the panel for altitude and speed info.
Good hand flying technique is required.
I flew with too many FOs who were in it for the money and the hours to be hired by a major. The instant I saw anything start to go wrong, I said, "My airplane!"
The problem now is that there aren't too many "seat of the pants" flyers left (and, frankly, the low pay and company oversight is often too much for the talented ones to deal with).
Good hand flying technique is required.
I flew with too many FOs who were in it for the money and the hours to be hired by a major. The instant I saw anything start to go wrong, I said, "My airplane!"
The problem now is that there aren't too many "seat of the pants" flyers left (and, frankly, the low pay and company oversight is often too much for the talented ones to deal with).
Robert;
The lessons of aviation were first available in 1903 and haven't changed one bit. The currently-very-low fatal accident rate is going to have to climb first, before this industry realizes what it has done in the name of profit and shareholder value, forgetting that it is in the aviation business, not the CEO-wealth-making business.
This industry will not change until it, and it's passengers, begin to comprehend the reasons for the increase in fatal accidents. They are but not limited to, low pay, universally lousy working conditions, zero-security and even less future security, bare-bones training, an enforce/punish/criminally charge crews mentality (but not towards CEOs, senior management or line managers) and SMS where the regulator's responsibility for regulatory compliance and flight safety programs and decisions is being handed over to the airlines' flight operations' line managersf who are also responsible for their organization's commercial priorities.
I have been saying for about a decade now that those with the intelligence, the talent, the will, the discipline, and finally the raw drive that it takes to get into aviation, will take a look at aviation and say to themselves, "No thanks", and take their abilities elsewhere, where the remuneration, job and pension (DC/401k or DB) security, by comparison, more positive and the risk of being fired or jailed for making a mistake is less, while those who have stars in their eyes and a fresh MPL will continue to come.
There aren't, obviously, stark divisions between such phenomenon, no direct causal connections, not 1-for-1 outcomes, but such trends are "stochastic" - random, but with an outcome that is more likely than others. That is what flight safety is all about - the mitigation of stochastic processes, which are not wholly random or by mere chance. Executives demand that both information and justifications for spending be presented in easily-digestible quantatively-packaged bits so they can justify expenditure to the board. Trouble is, how does one quantify the need for programs, resources and expensive people which produce "nothing"? These justifications cannot be power-pointed, so they're always the first to go. I've seen it at my own airline right now and am holding my breath.
Perfect. Trouble is, given trends, the occupant of the left seat may not retain that kind of life-saving thinking or experience. When a first year nurse or teach makes more in a year than a seasoned airline pilot it is easy to see what is going to happen to the profession - the factors and the trends are already in place.
I loved the profession and the operation but am glad I'm retired - I see expertise dismissed, concerns such as these poo-poo'd and shareholder value reign over wise counsel.
It is these factors I had in mind when commenting on such operational matters as circling approach and simply hand-flying an airplane even though the automation does as good if not better job. When a circling approach or even a hand-flown approach is counted as a risk, it is time to first become aware of then seriously re-examine the business you're in.
The lessons of aviation were first available in 1903 and haven't changed one bit. The currently-very-low fatal accident rate is going to have to climb first, before this industry realizes what it has done in the name of profit and shareholder value, forgetting that it is in the aviation business, not the CEO-wealth-making business.
This industry will not change until it, and it's passengers, begin to comprehend the reasons for the increase in fatal accidents. They are but not limited to, low pay, universally lousy working conditions, zero-security and even less future security, bare-bones training, an enforce/punish/criminally charge crews mentality (but not towards CEOs, senior management or line managers) and SMS where the regulator's responsibility for regulatory compliance and flight safety programs and decisions is being handed over to the airlines' flight operations' line managersf who are also responsible for their organization's commercial priorities.
I have been saying for about a decade now that those with the intelligence, the talent, the will, the discipline, and finally the raw drive that it takes to get into aviation, will take a look at aviation and say to themselves, "No thanks", and take their abilities elsewhere, where the remuneration, job and pension (DC/401k or DB) security, by comparison, more positive and the risk of being fired or jailed for making a mistake is less, while those who have stars in their eyes and a fresh MPL will continue to come.
There aren't, obviously, stark divisions between such phenomenon, no direct causal connections, not 1-for-1 outcomes, but such trends are "stochastic" - random, but with an outcome that is more likely than others. That is what flight safety is all about - the mitigation of stochastic processes, which are not wholly random or by mere chance. Executives demand that both information and justifications for spending be presented in easily-digestible quantatively-packaged bits so they can justify expenditure to the board. Trouble is, how does one quantify the need for programs, resources and expensive people which produce "nothing"? These justifications cannot be power-pointed, so they're always the first to go. I've seen it at my own airline right now and am holding my breath.
The instant I saw anything start to go wrong, I said, "My airplane!"
I loved the profession and the operation but am glad I'm retired - I see expertise dismissed, concerns such as these poo-poo'd and shareholder value reign over wise counsel.
It is these factors I had in mind when commenting on such operational matters as circling approach and simply hand-flying an airplane even though the automation does as good if not better job. When a circling approach or even a hand-flown approach is counted as a risk, it is time to first become aware of then seriously re-examine the business you're in.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 31C circle to 22L at midway is not a Instrument approach. We use the 31C ils do get under the ceiling, then do a VFR left traffic pattern to 22L. The reason why its done that way is do to ORD traffic. It is initially an IAP, but then transitions to a good ole VFR traffic pattern. BTW, its a fun approach to fly.
BTW, its a fun approach to fly.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If pilots would actually plot the Expressway Visual to rwy 31 at LGA in their FMC's they'd realize that almost everyone is flying the pattern outside of the depicted pattern. It's the rare crew that flies the pattern as depicted. You need to be looking into Shea Stadium(or whatever it's replace is called), from a tight base position, to be flying the approach as published.
Canarsie. Obviously some carriers SOP require a descent to minimums, drag the plane around the pattern at minimums until intercepting the PAPI's, even on VFR days. The only problem is you can tell who's too low, and with TCAS it's you can tell who's floundering at 400'-600' several miles from the runway, making a simple approach an absolute mess.
Canarsie. Obviously some carriers SOP require a descent to minimums, drag the plane around the pattern at minimums until intercepting the PAPI's, even on VFR days. The only problem is you can tell who's too low, and with TCAS it's you can tell who's floundering at 400'-600' several miles from the runway, making a simple approach an absolute mess.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was wondering what all this 'non-pertinent' discussion about circling approaches had to do with it, but when I interject I seem to get savagely attacked, so I haven't been following this thread! Have I missed something or have the last 2 pages been about something else altogether?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Maryland
Age: 64
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry to keep this going down the wrong path...but...
...straight in approach to 22's at MDW are negated by the location of the Sears Tower (OK, now Willis Tower for you brits 
) That also keeps an ILS from being installed. An MLS was installed for 22L and was operational just before Midway Airlines quit flying (the first ML). It never was officially commissioned due to ML's failure. Two MD87's came equipped from McD with MLS receivers (government paid for it).
I used to use the non-published precision DME for avionics ops checks on the ground. The system was kept running for a couple of years (original vendor contract), before being removed from the field.
besides the 31 ILS circle to 22 (fondly described as the 'circle to die' approach back in the 60's and 70's), they also fly the 4 ILS, break-off and circle to 13. As has been stated, depends on winds and what they are doing at ORD.
OK, again, sorry for the diversion, back to the FEDX MD11?
) That also keeps an ILS from being installed. An MLS was installed for 22L and was operational just before Midway Airlines quit flying (the first ML). It never was officially commissioned due to ML's failure. Two MD87's came equipped from McD with MLS receivers (government paid for it). I used to use the non-published precision DME for avionics ops checks on the ground. The system was kept running for a couple of years (original vendor contract), before being removed from the field.
besides the 31 ILS circle to 22 (fondly described as the 'circle to die' approach back in the 60's and 70's), they also fly the 4 ILS, break-off and circle to 13. As has been stated, depends on winds and what they are doing at ORD.
OK, again, sorry for the diversion, back to the FEDX MD11?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BARKAN, if this is what you were asking about, Busan report. http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/549.pdf
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: all over the place
Age: 63
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
again we have a hopeless moderator who can't decide to delete posts that are not relevant unless they affect the commercial interests of the site, his buddies or his own personal views and reputation
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Pilots, Shea Is Less Ballpark Than Landmark
CNN Reports FEDEX crash in Tokyo
So could we please get back to topic
. Regards,
DBate
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilotbear and DBate, we hear you loud and clear. A feature of Pprune is that thread drift does from time to time occur and sometimes develops into something far more interesting than the original title would suggest. I think those tasked with moderating are more than well able to make a judgement as to where to draw the line without heckling from the stalls. Or are you promoting your own personal views and reputation?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No think he just wants to hear about the fedex md11 accident. Pretty simple really.
Thread drift does occur yes....but the last ten pages have been completely unrelated, and its just as easy to start a new topic.
So, anyone have any updates on the fedex Crash - any sign of a preliminary report?
Thread drift does occur yes....but the last ten pages have been completely unrelated, and its just as easy to start a new topic.
So, anyone have any updates on the fedex Crash - any sign of a preliminary report?