Henan Airlines Crash in China
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A4
Of course, it is possible to fly a 'raw' VOR approach in the EMB but, and I hope you agree with me that, faced with the following:
A/F not in the database
Capt's first visit to the A/F
Tricky terrain
VOR/DME only available
it would be prudent to use all other available info and displays to assist you.
As far as 'A/F not in database' is concerned; it is possible that the FMS had not been updated but, being China, there is another possibility. The Chinese authorities are very security conscious and, if an airfield is both military and civil, it is quite often 'not in database'. I don't know the status of this particular airport.
Now for the vertical approach profile: as vieri007 says, it is possible to manufacture waypoints in the FMS. For this particular approach it would be very easy to construct 2 extra waypoints - one at the FAF and the other at the MAP. The easiest way would be to use the P/B/D (Place/Bearing/Distance) method with the VOR being the 'Place'. Add vertical definitions to the waypoints (eg Platform Height to the FAF and MDH to the MAP) and the FMS will construct a descent profile which you can monitor on the MFD. As previously discussed you can use FPA or V/S in the descent. With the PNF giving distance and altitude reminders from the Approach Chart, or a manual table (remember those?) scribbled on the back of the PLOG, you have covered most of the bases.
Apologies to any 'grandmothers' on here who already know 'how to suck eggs'.
A/F not in the database
Capt's first visit to the A/F
Tricky terrain
VOR/DME only available
it would be prudent to use all other available info and displays to assist you.
As far as 'A/F not in database' is concerned; it is possible that the FMS had not been updated but, being China, there is another possibility. The Chinese authorities are very security conscious and, if an airfield is both military and civil, it is quite often 'not in database'. I don't know the status of this particular airport.
Now for the vertical approach profile: as vieri007 says, it is possible to manufacture waypoints in the FMS. For this particular approach it would be very easy to construct 2 extra waypoints - one at the FAF and the other at the MAP. The easiest way would be to use the P/B/D (Place/Bearing/Distance) method with the VOR being the 'Place'. Add vertical definitions to the waypoints (eg Platform Height to the FAF and MDH to the MAP) and the FMS will construct a descent profile which you can monitor on the MFD. As previously discussed you can use FPA or V/S in the descent. With the PNF giving distance and altitude reminders from the Approach Chart, or a manual table (remember those?) scribbled on the back of the PLOG, you have covered most of the bases.
Apologies to any 'grandmothers' on here who already know 'how to suck eggs'.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach Ban
An Approach Ban should be spelt out in clear language in the relevant company Operations Manuals. It is normally predicated on RVR and is not negotiable, nor open to interpretation. The usual caveats apply, such as dire emergency.
It is not, and should not be, up to ATC to issue an Approach Ban.
It is not, and should not be, up to ATC to issue an Approach Ban.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Hello kilwhang,
Constructing your own approach in the FMS and then flying it is a NO NO!! I agree on using all available information but don't confuse or overload yourself with (possibly incorrect) PBD's/track lines.
I agree that circumstances facing the crew were not ideal. But that should make you all the more cautious and conservative in your operation. You slow down, check, check and double check everything you are doing. 950fpm from the FAF does not sound like the actions of a crew who's situational awareness was at its peak. The fact that required viz was below minima and they continued backs this up.
What I'm getting at is that even if there is no airport in the database, for whatever reason, the crew should be able to fly it using raw data.
There is a VOR. There is a runway. There is an approach plate with specified tracks, descent points and minima. If a crew are unable to utilise the three to put the aircraft at a point from which a safe landing can be made or a missed approach flown..... then they shouldn't be sitting in the front seats.
Many references have been made to "children of the magenta line" - production line pilots who are great with the FMS but found wanting when it either fails or does not behave as expected. Is this another example?
kilwhang you said
I'm not sure I fully understand this, could you elaborate? 0.3nm is RNP for GNSS approaches and 1.0nm is for P-RNAV SID/STAR's. The EMB is a modern type so I assume it is P-RNAV/GNSS capable? Does it have twin GPS RX's?
Enjoying the discussion.
Constructing your own approach in the FMS and then flying it is a NO NO!! I agree on using all available information but don't confuse or overload yourself with (possibly incorrect) PBD's/track lines.
I agree that circumstances facing the crew were not ideal. But that should make you all the more cautious and conservative in your operation. You slow down, check, check and double check everything you are doing. 950fpm from the FAF does not sound like the actions of a crew who's situational awareness was at its peak. The fact that required viz was below minima and they continued backs this up.
What I'm getting at is that even if there is no airport in the database, for whatever reason, the crew should be able to fly it using raw data.
There is a VOR. There is a runway. There is an approach plate with specified tracks, descent points and minima. If a crew are unable to utilise the three to put the aircraft at a point from which a safe landing can be made or a missed approach flown..... then they shouldn't be sitting in the front seats.
Many references have been made to "children of the magenta line" - production line pilots who are great with the FMS but found wanting when it either fails or does not behave as expected. Is this another example?
kilwhang you said
The reasoning behind this is that the accuracy of a VOR/DME is 1nm and the accuracy of the GPS is 0.3nm, therefore the GPS/FMS NAV is much more precise.
Enjoying the discussion.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: belgrade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Constructing approach in FMS, is must, for some regions in world. There are airports in Asia, Africa, which are not covered by Honeywell data base.
This airport was that case, and I suppose, that pilots construct approach, maybe as a help tool, for raw data app, or to fly it as LNAV approach.
Any way, it makes sense for me, to construct something like that, in that case, for lateral navigation, having in mind its capabilities (but not in weather conditions which were below minimum).
Regarding reasoning behind Embraer policy for VOR/DME app., kilwhang is right. EMB simply says that, why to allow flying app. with 1nm, as VOR/DME app., when you can fly LNAV app. with RNP 0.3 in terminal area.
That is also policy for future for all manufactures and airports. Simply to reduce cost in all segments, by changing non precision app.(somewhere and precision app.) to GNSS appproaches (aircraft based navigation).
Regards
This airport was that case, and I suppose, that pilots construct approach, maybe as a help tool, for raw data app, or to fly it as LNAV approach.
Any way, it makes sense for me, to construct something like that, in that case, for lateral navigation, having in mind its capabilities (but not in weather conditions which were below minimum).
Regarding reasoning behind Embraer policy for VOR/DME app., kilwhang is right. EMB simply says that, why to allow flying app. with 1nm, as VOR/DME app., when you can fly LNAV app. with RNP 0.3 in terminal area.
That is also policy for future for all manufactures and airports. Simply to reduce cost in all segments, by changing non precision app.(somewhere and precision app.) to GNSS appproaches (aircraft based navigation).
Regards
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A4
I, too, am enjoying this discussion. If we get too boring I'm sure that the Mods will shunt us off to a siding somewhere till we see the error of our ways.
I will try and confine my comments to the subject of the thread and some of the features of the E170/190.
First of all, communications. It's amazing - before I posted my last missive I read it over and over to make sure it conveyed what I wanted. Yet you and, I've no doubt others, read into it something I had not intended. I do not advocate 'constructing your own approach in the FMS and then flying it'. The approach in question is a VOR/DME. It should be flown according to the correct procedures. All I suggested was that you could construct a visual representation of the descent path on the MFD. This would have no effect on the ACTUAL descent path other than, maybe, make you query the situation if a discrepancy appeared. I agree that there is no substitute for careful planning and briefing.
Can I make a comment on the 'children of the magenta line?' I am 62 yrs old and pre-date the FMS by longer than I care to think. The new guys are not to blame for the knowledge and techniques they've been taught. That is the system. It is no good us 'old-uns' complaining about young pilots - the fault, if there is one, lies with the system of training. Let me give you an example: a few weeks ago I was demonstrating a VOR/DME approach to a group of young F/O's. They were from an airline that advocates the 'dive and drive' method of descent from FAF to MDH. Their approach plates do not have distance/altitude tables. I wanted to use FPA to descend and needed to construct a table to illustrate my points. I can't remember the exact figures but the descent was from about 9.5 miles at 3000ft. As I was talking I made up a table on the whiteboard, mentally calculating the distances and altitudes. I realised that they were looking at me with wonder - I wasn't using a calculator. The point is that they are from a different generation and have different tools at their disposal. In my opinion, they are usually very sharp cookies but they can only learn what we teach them.
Now I'm really going to have to get the grey matter working. You asked a question about accuracies and RNP........OK here goes.
Navigational equipment accuracies:
In the E170/190 the accuracy of the GPS is +/- 0.3nm (however, I'm led to believe that Nicki have requested an accuracy of +/- 0.1nm for use in really restricted areas)
The standard accuracy for DME/DME is +/- 0.5nm
The standard accuracy for VOR/DME is +/- 1.0nm
On the E170/190 the drift rate of the IRS is a max of 2.0nm/hr
RNP is the Required Navigation Performance that must be adhered to in specific airspace, eg:
Departure, Arrival, Missed Approach............1nm
EnRoute.................................................2nm
Approach...............................................0.3nm
You can now see why the GPS accuracy is 0.3nm; if it wasn't we couldn't do GPS based approaches (VGP etc)
It is also the reason why you have to do all those extra checks (RNP, EPU, RAIM, etc) prior to attempting a GPS based approach.
Now, I have plucked those numbers from my head - not a ref book - so please don't jump down my throat if they are not 100% accurate. I'm trying to convey the principle so be nice. If, however, I've really got it wrong please tell me........I'm never too old to learn.
It is now 17.30 here in Singapore so I'm off to say hello to a 'Tiger'.
I will try and confine my comments to the subject of the thread and some of the features of the E170/190.
First of all, communications. It's amazing - before I posted my last missive I read it over and over to make sure it conveyed what I wanted. Yet you and, I've no doubt others, read into it something I had not intended. I do not advocate 'constructing your own approach in the FMS and then flying it'. The approach in question is a VOR/DME. It should be flown according to the correct procedures. All I suggested was that you could construct a visual representation of the descent path on the MFD. This would have no effect on the ACTUAL descent path other than, maybe, make you query the situation if a discrepancy appeared. I agree that there is no substitute for careful planning and briefing.
Can I make a comment on the 'children of the magenta line?' I am 62 yrs old and pre-date the FMS by longer than I care to think. The new guys are not to blame for the knowledge and techniques they've been taught. That is the system. It is no good us 'old-uns' complaining about young pilots - the fault, if there is one, lies with the system of training. Let me give you an example: a few weeks ago I was demonstrating a VOR/DME approach to a group of young F/O's. They were from an airline that advocates the 'dive and drive' method of descent from FAF to MDH. Their approach plates do not have distance/altitude tables. I wanted to use FPA to descend and needed to construct a table to illustrate my points. I can't remember the exact figures but the descent was from about 9.5 miles at 3000ft. As I was talking I made up a table on the whiteboard, mentally calculating the distances and altitudes. I realised that they were looking at me with wonder - I wasn't using a calculator. The point is that they are from a different generation and have different tools at their disposal. In my opinion, they are usually very sharp cookies but they can only learn what we teach them.
Now I'm really going to have to get the grey matter working. You asked a question about accuracies and RNP........OK here goes.
Navigational equipment accuracies:
In the E170/190 the accuracy of the GPS is +/- 0.3nm (however, I'm led to believe that Nicki have requested an accuracy of +/- 0.1nm for use in really restricted areas)
The standard accuracy for DME/DME is +/- 0.5nm
The standard accuracy for VOR/DME is +/- 1.0nm
On the E170/190 the drift rate of the IRS is a max of 2.0nm/hr
RNP is the Required Navigation Performance that must be adhered to in specific airspace, eg:
Departure, Arrival, Missed Approach............1nm
EnRoute.................................................2nm
Approach...............................................0.3nm
You can now see why the GPS accuracy is 0.3nm; if it wasn't we couldn't do GPS based approaches (VGP etc)
It is also the reason why you have to do all those extra checks (RNP, EPU, RAIM, etc) prior to attempting a GPS based approach.
Now, I have plucked those numbers from my head - not a ref book - so please don't jump down my throat if they are not 100% accurate. I'm trying to convey the principle so be nice. If, however, I've really got it wrong please tell me........I'm never too old to learn.
It is now 17.30 here in Singapore so I'm off to say hello to a 'Tiger'.
Last edited by kilwhang; 1st Oct 2010 at 10:39.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...or 'Niki'
Quick rewind regarding the E-Jet and making approaches at airfields not in the FMS - they are just a little more painful than old fashioned aircraft because the Embraer's SOPM implies that you can't practice them in the real aircraft (that is what the sim. is for). It's nothing to do with the magenta line, it's to do with the way the aircraft is designed and the SOPM is written. The aircraft itself will let you (as along as you wind up the selected altitude before you start the descent) but you are flying the approach in a manner for which the aircraft was not designed and in a style which you will have rarely practiced. Even the different scan takes some getting used to. And if some of the posts here are correct, this was a CAT C airfield being approached for the first time without sim practice, being flown on a non-precision, approach using abnormal procedures with weather below minima.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piltdown Man.
' it's to do with the way the a/c is designed and the SOPM is written'
If only it were that straightforward. I've just had a quick look round my office and I have 7 different AOM's and 4 different SOPM's for the E170/190 family. The extra ingredient in all this is the controlling authority of the respective airline: in this case the Civil Aviation Authority of China (CAAC). As I wrote earlier, co-located civil/military airfields in China tend not to be in the FMS database. Now, I don't know how many airfields are like this but, in a country the size of China, it must be a lot.
So, until evidence to the contrary, we have to surmise that the CAAC are happy for a Capt (who has never been there before) to attempt a Non-Precision Approach into a Cat 'C' airfield - which isn't in the FMS database - and which he/she hasn't practiced previously in the sim. I wonder if they have videos of the approaches which they can view prior to a flight.
Notice that I haven't mentioned the weather - that is still 'under investigation'.
"The a/c itself will let you(as long as you wind up the selected altitude before you start the descent) but you are flying the approach in a manner for which the a/c was not designed..........."
Not so long ago I would have agreed with you, but would it surprise you to know that there are some authorities who tell you to wind the selected altitude DOWN before the descent?
For instance, in a very famous airline, controlled by a very well respected authority, the SOP for a Non-Precision Approach descent is this:
Prior to FAF select MDH on the Altitude Selector.
At FAF select a rate of descent greater than that required to maintain the descent angle.
Level off at MDH and select Go-Round Altitude
At MAP, if no visual references, carry out Missed Approach Procedure.
They call this the 'Dive and Drive' method, and it is the method recommended by the authority.
I totally agree with you that making approaches at airfields which are not in the FMS should be reasonably straightforward if you stick to the procedures. Once again I say that the reason I mentioned (notice I say 'mentioned' NOT 'recommended') inserting a descent into the FMS is merely to give an extra indication to the crew to help them monitor what is going on.
If only it were that straightforward. I've just had a quick look round my office and I have 7 different AOM's and 4 different SOPM's for the E170/190 family. The extra ingredient in all this is the controlling authority of the respective airline: in this case the Civil Aviation Authority of China (CAAC). As I wrote earlier, co-located civil/military airfields in China tend not to be in the FMS database. Now, I don't know how many airfields are like this but, in a country the size of China, it must be a lot.
So, until evidence to the contrary, we have to surmise that the CAAC are happy for a Capt (who has never been there before) to attempt a Non-Precision Approach into a Cat 'C' airfield - which isn't in the FMS database - and which he/she hasn't practiced previously in the sim. I wonder if they have videos of the approaches which they can view prior to a flight.
Notice that I haven't mentioned the weather - that is still 'under investigation'.
"The a/c itself will let you(as long as you wind up the selected altitude before you start the descent) but you are flying the approach in a manner for which the a/c was not designed..........."
Not so long ago I would have agreed with you, but would it surprise you to know that there are some authorities who tell you to wind the selected altitude DOWN before the descent?
For instance, in a very famous airline, controlled by a very well respected authority, the SOP for a Non-Precision Approach descent is this:
Prior to FAF select MDH on the Altitude Selector.
At FAF select a rate of descent greater than that required to maintain the descent angle.
Level off at MDH and select Go-Round Altitude
At MAP, if no visual references, carry out Missed Approach Procedure.
They call this the 'Dive and Drive' method, and it is the method recommended by the authority.
I totally agree with you that making approaches at airfields which are not in the FMS should be reasonably straightforward if you stick to the procedures. Once again I say that the reason I mentioned (notice I say 'mentioned' NOT 'recommended') inserting a descent into the FMS is merely to give an extra indication to the crew to help them monitor what is going on.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just had a quick look round my office and I have 7 different AOM's and 4 different SOPM's for the E170/190 family.
co-located civil/military airfields in China tend not to be in the FMS database
Last edited by Piltdown Man; 5th Oct 2010 at 22:16.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airfield Location
The airfield doesn't show on Google Earth because it is only a couple of years old and post-dates the Google picture but, if you want to check out the terrain, the airfield co-ordinates are N47 45 06 E129 01 05
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: England
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The end.
From here : Court rejects pilot?s appeal | Shanghai Daily
Source: Xinhua | April 11, 2015
A COURT in northeast China’s Heilongjiang Province yesterday upheld the verdict of a lower court that had sentenced a pilot to three years in prison for misoperation in a 2010 plane crash that killed 44.
The Intermediate People’s Court of Yichun found that Qi Quanjun, the captain of the ERJ-190 regional jet that crashed in Yichun on August 24, 2010, had violated aviation rules by attempting to land when visibility was below safety standards. He was also found guilty of failing to fulfill his duty as the aircraft’s pilot by ensuring all passengers were evacuated.
The crash resulted in the death of 44, including the co-pilot, and 52 others sustained injuries.
Qi’s behavior had serious consequences, the court ruled.
“The facts are clear, the evidence was solid and ample, the verdict accurate, the sentence appropriate, and the procedure legitimate,” it said.
Qi was first tried by the Yichun District People’s Court on December 19 last year.
The defendant appealed, claiming that the conviction was made without a thorough probe or adequate evidence, and the penalty was too harsh.
Source: Xinhua | April 11, 2015
A COURT in northeast China’s Heilongjiang Province yesterday upheld the verdict of a lower court that had sentenced a pilot to three years in prison for misoperation in a 2010 plane crash that killed 44.
The Intermediate People’s Court of Yichun found that Qi Quanjun, the captain of the ERJ-190 regional jet that crashed in Yichun on August 24, 2010, had violated aviation rules by attempting to land when visibility was below safety standards. He was also found guilty of failing to fulfill his duty as the aircraft’s pilot by ensuring all passengers were evacuated.
The crash resulted in the death of 44, including the co-pilot, and 52 others sustained injuries.
Qi’s behavior had serious consequences, the court ruled.
“The facts are clear, the evidence was solid and ample, the verdict accurate, the sentence appropriate, and the procedure legitimate,” it said.
Qi was first tried by the Yichun District People’s Court on December 19 last year.
The defendant appealed, claiming that the conviction was made without a thorough probe or adequate evidence, and the penalty was too harsh.
