Air Blue crash was caused by Captain

[BOAC]

Interested in any link? I am not sure I am easy with 'RNAV guidance for a visual' for reasons expressed a few pages back to Aterp - especially with TERPS areas.

[HundredPercentPlease]

Heading knobs!

Surely this was a simple case of subtle incapacitation combined with a lack of intervention by the FO.

The Captain showed signs of anxiety, preoccupation, confusion and geographical
disorientation in various phases of flight especially after commencement of
descent.

FO kept watching the Captain’s failures, and unsafe actions such as inducing
steep banks; and continuous flight into hilly terrain at low altitude in poor visibility;
and failure to apply power and pull up. Unfortunately, FO remained impassive
and failed to assert himself due to non congenial environment in the cockpit.

Those are the two primary causes, all the other guff is simply a list of consequences of the those primary causes. If the captain was that poor as normal, he would have crashed decades ago.

[Denti]

This is all getting very confused! IF an RNAV pattern (let's call it a 'CIRCLE' although it won't be) is constructed, it will NOT need to be constrained by a TERPS or PANSOPS circling area, since it will be drawn (and hopefully flown) avoiding KNOWN obstructions. In fact it will not need ANY sort of 'area' constructed. Nor would it need 'visual contact with the runway environment'.

Interesting opinion. I flew yesterday a nice and easy RNAVV in LLBG. You need visual contact with the runway to descend below 3000ft, therefore you need to be visual the same as during a normal visual approach. There are other airports that have visual approaches with prescribed tracks as well, for example LFMN. Dunno how you would see those under your cited presumptions.

[HundredPercentPlease]

BOAC,

Here is the RNAV Visual that Denti (and I) fly regularly. Always happens to the South, and makes for an efficient and low-stress arrival.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37912564/llbg26.pdf

[BOAC]

Sorry, Denti - I think you have missed the whole point!

There are other airports that have visual approaches with prescribed tracks as well, for example LFMN. Dunno how you would see those under your cited presumptions.

- all 'new' RNAV 'circling' procedures would by definition be 'prescribed tracks'. 'Prescribed' in a DB and flown by the autopilot. That is the whole point. None of the examples you quote have any relevance to what is being discussed.

100% - likewise that is not what is being considered - that is simply a visual approach with 'preferred tracks' arranged to suit traffic flow, nothing else, and nothing like a current 'Terps circle" (well outside the restricted area) and just would not be flyable under current 'circling' minima which is the whole point of an RNAV 'circle' as being discussed.

Is that the only visual option now in TLV for R26? I guess some see that as progress.............................

[Sunnyjohn]

HundredPercemtPlease

Surely this was a simple case of subtle incapacitation combined with a lack of intervention by the FO.

I agree. There is always a lot of postings regarding technical, navigational and meteoroogical aspects but I have noticed a marked reluctance on these forums - not just this one - to consider or discuss the physical or mental state of the crew. Why is that?:

[BOAC]

I have noticed a marked reluctance on these forums - not just this one - to consider or discuss the physical or metal state of the crew. Why is that?:

- don't know but does not apply on this thread.

[Sunnyjohn]

Well, yes, it does. I've just been through the 193 posts on this forum and only six of them refer to the captain's physical health, two of which were mine. It is true that there have been a number of posts regarding CRM but not with regard to the actual mental state of the pilot - I counted two. That's eight out of 193. When one considers that the mental and physical well-being of the crew is one of the most important aspects of aircraft safety, I have to repeat that I am surprised that there is not more discussion on this and I wonder why.

[BOAC]

Well, I am with you, but remember the other factors you list are still important in trying to reduce 'pilot error' accidents like this. A reduction in the physical and mental state of the crew is only really resolved by the unliklihood that both pilots will suffer the same together. I believe there is still 'mileage' to come on the accident report as evinced by the 'missing' bits referred to earlier. There is a lot of regional/national 'pride' involved here too, and the 'truth' may never become public. I would suggest that there is not really much value in discussing the 'mental' issues and that few posters here - outside the region - would deny the apparent cause.

[aterpster]

HundredPercent:

Here is the RNAV Visual that Denti (and I) fly regularly. Always happens to the South, and makes for an efficient and low-stress arrival.

Interesting "Ceiling Required" yet not specified.

[BOAC]

That is because 'visual with the ground' is required below 3000' and altitudes are specified therefore no need. There is no minimum ceiling for a visual approach that I am aware of.

[HundredPercentPlease]

It does - just below (3000'). The "Ceiling Required" in explained in the Jepp text.

[aterpster]

HundredPercentPlease:

It does - just below (3000'). The "Ceiling Required" in explained in the Jepp text.

Well, yes, that is a condition but not exactly a required ceiling. Charted Visual Flight Procedures (CVFP) in the U.S. have a specific charted minimum ceiling and visibility published. It tends to keep folks on both sides of the mic honest.

[BOAC]

Leaving visuals into TLV aside, are there any examples of the development of an RNAV circling type approach? OBN/Aterp?

[Zeffy]

OK465

You don't have to call it a 'circling approach' if you don't want to, but it is...

Straight-in only -- no circle to land minimums.

Six nm final segment; gun-barrreled to the rwy centerline...

Probably eligible for designation of "Straight-in", eh?

[BOAC]

Look at the RNAV (RNP) 'Y' to 16L or 16R at KRNO.

Don't think I can

It is, however, a 'guided' RNAV approach track starting from a position equivalent to a 'circling' downwind and with 'circling' track guidance on the RF turn. Can be FD hand flown or coupled.

- Perhaps I have misunderstood the way we are trying to go? I thought we were looking at an RNAV IMC flown pattern (with suitable ANP) around an airfield and down to a DH on a runway?

You don't have to call it a 'circling approach' if you don't want to, but it is...

- no, it cannot be called that or there will be utter confusion. Let's have a PPRune 'New Name' competition for this procedure.

Edit - thanks Zeffy - yes, that is getting there - IMC to around 500' on final.

[Zeffy]

Don't think I can

Of course you can !

Simply click here for many hours of free downloading.

[Sunnyjohn]

When one considers that the mental and physical well-being of the crew is one of the most important aspects of aircraft safety, I have to repeat that I am surprised that there is not more discussion on this and I wonder why.

Having given it some thought it occurs to me that the majority pf posters (other than the trolls) post about things of which they know much - like technical details, meteorology and navigation, as one would expect from highly trained and experienced personnel. I can still remember my five year training with (then) BEA and I can still recall some of the systems and circuits we studied for the Vanguard and Viscount. I recall little about human behaviour. I suspect this is still true. We may receive training in systems, CRM and human behaviour but it's the day to day stuff that we use and remember. We don't usually have to think about our state of health or the psychology of our mind so any training in that regard is lost. Therefore, very few people on this forum have much recall of knowledge or interest in these things. This is unfortunate bearing in mind that the person at the front is still a human and subject to all the frailties that come with being one. We should take more interest in these things but we don't. So when a disaster could be explained by a failure of a human in medical or psychological terms, nobody has sufficient recall to discuss it. Just a theory . . .

[FLCH]

I agree this is more about the psychological aspects of the pilots flying rather than the technical aspects.

The confusion of what to do and when to do things is what is important, but some on these boards choose to focus on what they know rather than what really happened.

Shame.....

[aterpster]

BOAC:

Leaving visuals into TLV aside, are there any examples of the development of an RNAV circling type approach? OBN/Aterp?

None in the U.S. But, the U.S. presently has 292 RNP AR IAPs, many of which have curved flight paths (ARINC radius-to-fix, or "RF" legs) to avoid terrain and line up with final. These are IMC approaches to a DA.

I would envision an RNAV circle to land to be "assisted" circle to land in VMC. I think you and I agree that it may turn out to not be such a good idea.

The bar is set quite high to play in the RNP AR sandbox, but the Air Bus that crashed fully meets the airframe and avionics requirements for RNP AR. The other part of the equation is crew and flight ops technical qualifications.

But, the terrain at OPRN would support a conventional RNAV IAP quite easily. It could even arrive far enough from the northwest over the mountains where no part of the procedure would have to pass over the restricted airspace to the south of Runway 12's final approach course.