Airblue down near Islamabad

[BOAC]

I think I know what you mean by a "cocktail napkin procedure" although it is not an expression I am familiar with - I think we use "back of a cigarette packet" - and I can understand your 'position' because of your current role, but yes, the same, and it would not get within 100nm of an AIP. Don't get fixated on my idea - I am merely scratching around and looking for some explanation of a bizarre flight path in the complete vacuum that exists, and am nudged in that direction by the unsubstantiated comment by Meekal and now by this other forum post. I had been hoping for a little more light on the query.

The world is full of "back of a cigarette packet" procedures, particularly the private and military world, and just such killed the British racing driver Graham Hill a few years back.

[Lonewolf_50]

Timing:

I am not an accomplished glass cockpit kind of person, so I 'd have to ask: do pilots still use timing/the clock during non precision approaches?

Do pilots still time their teardrop/procedure turn legs?

I accept that the circle-to-land isn't the same thing as timing from a NAVAID inbound to an FAF ... but ... if the clock in one's head isn't working, flying away from a runway at x degrees (30?? 45??) and then a minute or so later seeing "runway" next to you or infront of you ... doesn't match. Basic VNAV.

However, as I don't do that sort of flying anymore, I do not know where the state of the art is, nor what common practice is.

"We've been outbound from the runway for a minute/two minutes, we need to turn back to the runway to land"

Based on where the plane ended up, it looks like something prevented that thought from raising to number one in priority of things to act upon.

[BOAC]

I would not expect a crew to use timing on a circling approach until they passed the approach end of the runway (some might choose to time the dog-leg - I used to eyeball it unless the track was 'defined'). The other clues like heading, map display, DME range high and increasing, ATC, 'haven't we been going this way a long time, Skip?', appear also to have been missed.

[aterpster]

Lonewolf 50:

Do pilots still time their teardrop/procedure turn legs?

The modern FMS navigator does a better job with course reversals than pilots, whether they be teardrops, procedure turns, or hold-in-lieu-of-procedure turn. (positive course guidance throughout the maneuver.) The pilot nonetheless has the duty to monitor the flight path for reasonableness.

accept that the circle-to-land isn't the same thing as timing from a NAVAID inbound to an FAF ... but ... if the clock in one's head isn't working, flying away from a runway at x degrees (30?? 45??) and then a minute or so later seeing "runway" next to you or infront of you ... doesn't match. Basic VNAV.

Circle to land is a nasty visual-segment option from the dark ages of aviation to visually proceed in sometimes lousy, unforgiving weather conditions to a runway that lacks an IAP. Why is is usually done? Because of straight-in tailwind limits, the very winds that send you rapidly on your way to the other runway.

[aterpster]

BOAC:

The world is full of "back of a cigarette packet" procedures, particularly the private and military world, and just such killed the British racing driver Graham Hill a few years back.

We Yanks, especially pilots, have mostly given up smoking. But, we still go to the cocktail lounge.

[BOAC]

Anyone read Pakistani? Someone has posted a copy of a letter on the PIA site.

History of PIA - Forum :: View topic - AirBlue jet down in Islamabad

[sohailsf]

re BOAC: Anyone read Pakistani?

You'll be shocked to know that the article claims that the AB was downed because it was hijacked by Blackwater, for the purpose of crashing it into the Quetta nuke plant (that's when I stopped reading )

The evidence is irrefutable, and its absolutely true!!

This kind of conspiracy journalism is a staple in pakistan, in all sectors and at all levels of education. And its almost always America's fault. Don't you get it??

With this mentality in Pak, we hardly ever get the truth, but hopefully we will find it this time for the sake of prevention if nothing else.

[BOAC]

Hadn't thought of that one. Thanks - nailed! Nice to see they have their weirdos as well

[Fawad]

@BOAC

Its not pakistani, its called Urdu and its the national language there.

The article is pure BS from a local newspaper and claims blackwater people hijacked the plane and wanted to attack the nearby Kahuta nuclear facility and stuff like that. The basis of all this is that why hasn't the voices of the cockpit been made public yet.

Nothing to be taken seriously. Actually, I even doubt this is from the newspaper. There is no journalists name and it quotes "sources that wouldn't like to be named". Even the font and style doesn't seem to match a scan from a paper thought I won't be surprised if it is.

Unfortunately, and as mentioned above, some local channels and newspapers thrive on such made-up news by sensationalizing things and twisting facts. If you want to follow local news, try Dawn newspaper (DAWN.COM | Home | Latest News, Pakistan, World, Business, Cricket and Multimedia). Its english language and is far more respectable than others.


Also its not PIA site but some private forum.

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf 50:

Originally Posted by aterpster

The modern FMS navigator does a better job with course reversals than pilots, whether they be teardrops, procedure turns, or hold-in-lieu-of-procedure turn. (positive course guidance throughout the maneuver.) The pilot nonetheless has the duty to monitor the flight path for reasonableness.

Thank you for summarizing why I have stopped flying as a passenger unless absolutely necessary. That viewpoint, and its acceptance in the aviation industry. Not your fault, but the state of being that this paragraph describes makes me puke. I shall cross reference the discussion on rudder reversals and AA 587 and conclude that all the pilot is for in the airline is to provide a scapegoat on demand, eh? (Yes, a bit of sarcasm there, sorry ... ) Grrrr. Time turn time transition ... basic airmanship, the fundamentals.

EDIT: As to why it makes me puke, let's think about what the auto pilot is designed to do ... it is designed to imitate, or to attempt to replicate the pilot flying task.

Quote:Circle to land is a nasty visual-segment option from the dark ages of aviation to visually proceed in sometimes lousy, unforgiving weather conditions to a runway that lacks an IAP. Why is is usually done? Because of straight-in tailwind limits, the very winds that send you rapidly on your way to the other runway.

Dark ages? That's a curious take on what they are there for. Granted, I'd prefer straight from the FAF to the RWY every time. It's easier.

Circle to land got me home, and into a few airports that were not home, very nicely (thanks very much!) when NAVAIDS weren't working or a bit of equipment was on the fritz leading me to a non-precision approach. Granted, I was not hauling three hundred people at the time (the most I ever had in the back was five) but I don't find the flexibility that CTL allows to be a bad thing.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by Fawad

@BOAC

Its not pakistani, its called Urdu and its the national language there.

- my apologies for the mistake.

[wiggy]

Lonewolf

The modern FMS navigator does a better job with course reversals than pilots, whether they be teardrops, procedure turns, or hold-in-lieu-of-procedure turn. (positive course guidance throughout the maneuver.)

To which you replied:

Thank you for summarizing why I have stopped flying as a passenger unless absolutely necessary

Yes there are some aspects of the FMS that are pants and need watching - "my" FMC flies a dire direct entry to the Ockham hold as an example , but given the choice, to get me home, in dire weather, of flying, say, a Non precision approach using stopwatch and heading, or flying the same approach "coupled" using GPS and database for guidance I'm quite willing to forgo the heroics and use my braincells to monitor the flightpath.... and I suspect the several hundred folks down the back might agree with the more conservative approach.

[aterpster]

Lonewolf 50:

Thank you for summarizing why I have stopped flying as a passenger unless absolutely necessary. That viewpoint, and its acceptance in the aviation industry. Not your fault, but the state of being that this paragraph describes makes me puke. I shall cross reference the discussion on rudder reversals and AA 587 and conclude that all the pilot is for in the airline is to provide a scapegoat on demand, eh? (Yes, a bit of sarcasm there, sorry ... ) Grrrr. Time turn time transition ... basic airmanship, the fundamentals.

When did you get your instrument rating? I got mine in 1958 and flew four-course range procedures as well as VOR without DME. And, when ATC had radar identification was done with turns, sometimes into mountains. I flew a lot of light G/A time then was with TWA from 1964 through 1990.

I wouldn't think about going back to some of the lousy stuff earlier in my career. Today's modern air carrier aircraft, used by competent pilots, is a modern wonder compared to the past.

Also, I have stated my position on hand-flying skills on this forum many times.

As to circle-to-land getting you home, there were times I was happier getting home the next day.

[Lonewolf_50]

aterpster, I got my instrument rating in 1982. My first instrument check included holding at an NDB in a nice cross wind, in actual IFR conditions. Yes, the sweat pumps were working.
EDIT: I also did a bit of instrument training down in the Rio Grande Valley. At the time, it wasn't radar covered, which made position reporting and navigational accuracy, and dead reckoning, pretty important ... one didn't want to end up in Mexico's airspace, for one thing!

Aerodymanics hasn't changed much since then, nor since you got your card, nor has physics, nor has time and distance, and for that matter, nor has the requirement for a crew to fly as a crew.

Would I rather shoot an ILS than an NDB? Hell yes, particularly when the weather is poor. Given a choice, would I like some auto trip, airspeed hold, and other aids to controlling descent on glide path? Sure, why not?

Would I rather fly a GPS approach than a TACAN or VOR/DME approach? Yes. And if one NAVAID is down, or broken, which happens, I want to be able to complete the flight it the weather hasn't gone to complete crap.

Today's modern air carrier aircraft, used by competent pilots, is a modern wonder compared to the past.

It certainly is.

As to circle-to-land getting you home, there were times I was happier getting home the next day.

But your paying passengers often are not.

I too, as a pilot in command, have sometimes had to land elsewhere than my intended destination when the weather was too bad to continue. (That consideration is relevant to this mishap, given the diversion of some other flights in roughly the same time window).

That said, there was a point earlier in this thread asking why that airport didn't have the ILS or LOC approaches servicing both runways, which is answerable only by the non-flying element of the industry ... though when I look at the terrain north and west of the airport, I suspect the approach would need to be designed with some care.

Also, I have stated my position on hand-flying skills on this forum many times.

Indeed you have, which takes us back to a crew that flies well, or competently as you put it, to get the performance out of their modern miracle of metal, glass, rubber, and plastic that achieves their mission.

[Fawad]

There was a special program on a local tv last night about the crash with the CEO of Airblue and director of CAA (civil aviation authority). Nothing breakthrough in it, just the usual questions. A few points below (most of which we already knew)

- The captain, though had a 36 hr break since his last flight, but he wasn't supposed to fly. He was just called in 2 hrs before since the pilot on duty had to excuse himself. There was also a question raised on whether the captain that flew was on standby or not.

- The black boxes are already in France for decoding and the report will come in 2-3 days (doesn't mean it will be shared publicly though).

- At the time of landing, there were 5 planes waiting to land at the airport, and the doomed airblue flight was 2nd in the queue.

- A 5 member team from Airbus also participating in the investigation, and a person(s) from the engine manufacturer also visited the crash site.

- The plane was equipped with an EGPWS

- There is a senior Airblue pilot in the investigation team too and the lead investigators are well qualified with lots of experience.

- The main focus of the program, however, was why CAA is doing the investigation and why isn't there an independent body such as NTSB and even if there isn't, why isnt there parallel investigations? given that it (CAA) could be a party to the investigation. Also the issues of the qualification of both ATC and CAA officials were raised as well as their training but just the usual 'they are well trained' answer.

[aterpster]

Lonewolf 50:

That said, there was a point earlier in this thread asking why that airport didn't have the ILS or LOC approaches servicing both runways, which is answerable only by the non-flying element of the industry ... though when I look at the terrain north and west of the airport, I suspect the approach would need to be designed with some care.

You perhaps missed earlier in the thread where I posted pro-forma VOR approach to Runway 12. With DME the terrain is not an issue. But, the VOR may have performance issues in that sector. I also "penciled in" an RNAV approach, which would work great with vertical guidance all the way in. Restricted airspace is the issue much more than terrain.

An ILS would be difficult to site and not worth the expense if the reports in this thread are correct about moving the airport.

[Lonewolf_50]

aterpster:

I didn't "miss that," so I may go back and have another look.

When I was reading through that sequence of posts a few days ago, most of the pictures didn't come up on my PC -- all I got was nice blank yellow background. *shrugs* Not sure why.

EDIT:

I have a question for you, please bear with me.

There is circling, then there is circling. OPRN, being a PANS-OPS airport has a realistic circle-to-land maneuvering area. I have no quarrel with circling at such an airport provided the pilot has proficiency and currency in CTL procedures in a heavy jet transport. In that case circling at OPRN can be quite safe.

TERPs is a different matter. The protected airspace less than 50% of that provided by PANS-OPS. Is ICAO wasting airspace or is the FAA deadly wrong? It's the latter.

I agree with having 5nm to work with allows the pilot of a heavy room to work, but I think you see what I am going to say next: instrument approaches and the procedures that go with them are intended to work under IMC, which is typicallly < 1000/3. If you can't see the 5nm, of course it doesn't do you much good to have that much room to work with. Losing sight of the RWY environment puts an end to the CTL.

Granted, there are some days when it's pretty clear vis below an OVC or BKN layer, but I don't think you can design an approach based on that assumption.

On the other hand, time and distance for a heavy, particularly with wind, makes the 2.3nm circle hard work in bad weather relatively low to the ground.

In your comparison of either/or, and I think you have a detailed understanding of this, why won't the FAA budge on the 2.3 nm? Why not 3sm or 3nm? There is probably a reason, but I don't know what it is.
Mention was made earlier of the procedure having been designed for the Convair being applied to faster jets, and I note disagreement on why CAT C or D should, or should not, accept the CTL.

[BOAC]

Indeed, Lonewolf - as I said way back, PansOps is too big and Terps too small. The advantage of PansOps is that there is more room for 'error' in positioning whereas as a few Terps circlers have discovered, go slightly outside the normal circuit distance and you hit a hill. We were expecting Terps to increase their cleared area, but I think it was Aterp who said earlier that they now decline to. I am at a loss to understand their logic.

On the topic of a 12 VOR, it could actually easily have been designed without DME using the 'old-fashioned' timed outbound leg - the hills are not THAT high. In any case, with 2 DMEs available at the airfield I cannot see a problem.

[RegDep]

GoogleEarth

Just realized the GoogleEarth seems to have updated the satellite images of Islamabad since the beginning of this thread. The current ones are from 15 March 2010, but the ones used by PJ2 and BOAC seem to be from 17 May 2009. Not that it would make much of a difference to this thread, but wanted to point this out.
Reg

[Lonewolf_50]

BOAC: Aye, the old two minute then 45 deg barbed Procedure turn approach, descend at X ... which would typically in this day and age be more often given as a vectors to final. DME? Just makes it a better approach. Mins would be higher, though, than an ILS or LOC.

The non-flying element of the industry in Pakistan might want to explain why such an approach was either abandoned, or never certified ...