Air Blue crash was caused by Captain
The mess was made long before the heading bug got involved. Any pilot who would have been awake enough to see a dotted line and interpret its meaning would also have been awake enough to have never got that far in the first place, IMO.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs:
It depends on how late the right turn was made. This is the topography of the crash site:
On the contrary, it would in all probability have saved them. The reason they clobbered the hill was because the aircraft turned right initially because that was the shortest way to the final position of the heading bug. If it had turned left when HDG was selected, the direction in which the heading bug had been turned, they probably would have missed the hill.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mess was made long before the heading bug got involved. Any pilot who would have been awake enough to see a dotted line and interpret its meaning would also have been awake enough to have never got that far in the first place, IMO
But it's another hole in the Swiss Cheese, and as I said: We (and the industry) should all strive to eliminate every hole, shouldn't we?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pressurized tube in the sky
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...But it's another hole in the Swiss Cheese, and as I said: We (and the industry) should all strive to eliminate every hole, shouldn't we?..
No doubts, agree. This simple feature could help in thousands less dramatic events.
The latest one I saw this evening sitting in the sim
Heading bug rotated much further then it was requested by "ATC" instruction while attempting to expedite the turn (that's true, very often pilots do this unconsciously!) resulted in rotation into opposite direction.
No doubts, agree. This simple feature could help in thousands less dramatic events.
The latest one I saw this evening sitting in the sim
Heading bug rotated much further then it was requested by "ATC" instruction while attempting to expedite the turn (that's true, very often pilots do this unconsciously!) resulted in rotation into opposite direction.
Originally Posted by Aterpster
It depends on how late the right turn was made. This is the topography of the crash site:
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs:
Here is a diagram that may be more useful with scale and the Jeppesen plan view. You can relate this to the diagram on Page 26 of the report and perhaps decide whether a left turn would have saved the day.
My orange CTL is PANS-OPS CAT D so it is a bit larger than the investigator's CAT C CTL area.
Thanks. The scale from your diag is not clear, but looking at the map on page 26 of the report, based on the length of the runway, I guesstimate that the aircraft would have been at least 1nm further southeast had it turned left immediately the Captain pulled Heading.
My orange CTL is PANS-OPS CAT D so it is a bit larger than the investigator's CAT C CTL area.
You are all piddling in the grass at the side of the road. At the time of impact the descent rate was 3000fpm. Left turn/right turn??
Precisely. If every hole in the cheese is ever to be plugged, the result will be a large collection of airport fences that are lined with parked airplanes. And PPRuNe will be as useful as nipples on a bull.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
No, you're not reading the time line in full. After the heading was selected incorrectly the airplane subsquently climbed before it went into its final high desent rate to impact.
You are all piddling in the grass at the side of the road. At the time of impact the descent rate was 3000fpm. Left turn/right turn??
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes I am - it is quite apparent (from the reported manoeuvres) that the Captain had completely lost the plot and probably did not even know what day it was. Add to that an F/O who, to paraphrase 'J.O' - was as useful as 'tits on a nun', and persuade me that either of them had any idea what heading was actually selected - or why. As to which way it was 'going to turn' with bank angles of 50deg+ !!! Come on. There was only ONE direction they should have been going, and it wasn't left or right - as a clue, and nor was it in 'Autopilot'. This is like straightening the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
The only point I was making that your previous statement disagreed with the time line. Now, you bring in the captain's state of mind. You're certainly right on that one, but that doesn't change the fact the airplane probably could have been saved by the F/O after the right turn begain.
The aerodynamics at that point in time permitted a save; neither pilot took advantage of the time remaining.
Oh yes I am - it is quite apparent (from the reported manoeuvres) that the Captain had completely lost the plot and probably did not even know what day it was. Add to that an F/O who, to paraphrase 'J.O' - was as useful as 'tits on a nun', and persuade me that either of them had any idea what heading was actually selected - or why. As to which way it was 'going to turn' with bank angles of 50deg+ !!! Come on. There was only ONE direction they should have been going, and it wasn't left or right - as a clue, and nor was it in 'Autopilot'. This is like straightening the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The aerodynamics at that point in time permitted a save; neither pilot took advantage of the time remaining.
''ICAOis overdue in developing circle to land database procedures using a combination of TF and RF legs that would execute the maneuver and remain within PANS-OPS protected airspace. Both the track and the MDA could be coded, thus freeing the crew of an advanced airplane to spend more time looking outside.
The FAA can't do it with their present very small circle to land airspace.''
They can, it's just going to be very tight. Pusan in Korea uses TERPS and the circling approach onto the 18L/R is very challenging. A series of waypoints 'draws' the limits of the circling area on the ND for the crew to stay within. I't's tight, but easliy acheivable - although those who have flown the procedure may question the 'easy' bit. And an RNAV circling approach onto these runways is being developed apparently. And before anyone asks, I have no idea what an RNAV circling approach will look like or how it will be flown.
The FAA can't do it with their present very small circle to land airspace.''
They can, it's just going to be very tight. Pusan in Korea uses TERPS and the circling approach onto the 18L/R is very challenging. A series of waypoints 'draws' the limits of the circling area on the ND for the crew to stay within. I't's tight, but easliy acheivable - although those who have flown the procedure may question the 'easy' bit. And an RNAV circling approach onto these runways is being developed apparently. And before anyone asks, I have no idea what an RNAV circling approach will look like or how it will be flown.
As for the Airbus heading bug, if you engage the HDG mode by pulling the knob before you turn it, it will follow the direction of the turn regardless of the heading set.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'.
I can see very few airports where this will be necessary - there are of course some (please don't start listing them!) - but the vast majority will be better served by a properly constructed RNAV approach directly to the runway in question, where 'traditional' approaches do not exist.
I still suspect that AirBlue set out to fly some 'secret handshake' homebuilt RNAV pattern onto R12 (as hinted at by the poster way back on the original thread) and simply screwed up big time.
I can see very few airports where this will be necessary - there are of course some (please don't start listing them!) - but the vast majority will be better served by a properly constructed RNAV approach directly to the runway in question, where 'traditional' approaches do not exist.
I still suspect that AirBlue set out to fly some 'secret handshake' homebuilt RNAV pattern onto R12 (as hinted at by the poster way back on the original thread) and simply screwed up big time.
I can see very few airports where this will be necessary - there are of course some (please don't start listing them!) - but the vast majority will be better served by a properly constructed RNAV approach directly to the runway in question, where 'traditional' approaches do not exist.
I still suspect that AirBlue set out to fly some 'secret handshake' homebuilt RNAV pattern onto R12 (as hinted at by the poster way back on the original thread) and simply screwed up big time.
I still suspect that AirBlue set out to fly some 'secret handshake' homebuilt RNAV pattern onto R12 (as hinted at by the poster way back on the original thread) and simply screwed up big time.
With all the kit on board modern aircraft direct approaches should be coded in the database - far safer than clambering around a circle to land in marginal conditions.
Ok yes there is a certification issue but the authorities and the operators need to get going on this stuff asap.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judging by the 'comments/surprise' when I briefed and flew Visuals on the 737 in Astraeus and BA (yes, I know...................
), very few Captains seemed to do it and I nearly always had to 'persuade' an F/O to try one and then talk him round it. Sad days. If it ain't an ILS in CAVOK I ain't doing it................
), very few Captains seemed to do it and I nearly always had to 'persuade' an F/O to try one and then talk him round it. Sad days. If it ain't an ILS in CAVOK I ain't doing it................
"In fact it will not need ANY sort of 'area' constructed. Nor would it need 'visual contact with the runway environment'."
Apparently, this one in Pusan will. I don't know the details yet - it's still being developed but it appears it will be RNAV guidance for the visual element of the circling approach. Interestingly, it will have to conform the the TERPs circling minima - this is one of your exceptions. An Air China 767 crew discovered there isn't much room for lattitude about ten years ago.
Apparently, this one in Pusan will. I don't know the details yet - it's still being developed but it appears it will be RNAV guidance for the visual element of the circling approach. Interestingly, it will have to conform the the TERPs circling minima - this is one of your exceptions. An Air China 767 crew discovered there isn't much room for lattitude about ten years ago.