Lionair plane down in Bali.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone have the answer about what happened at 300' to increase the V/S.
Last edited by olasek; 6th Sep 2014 at 09:12.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone have the answer about what happened at 300' to increase the V/S.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you guys for the replies. I admit I have not read the report in detail, most only here; I will correct that. One reason for my curiosity is I instruct on the a/c type and am always interested to find out how/why pilots screw up. It makes for educational input into any training.
Question still remains. On an NPA approach, above minimums, not visual why would any sane pilot disconnect the automatics? There should be one pilot looking outside and one inside. Preferably PNF is searching for the visual reference and PF is monitoring the instruments and flight path. If this didn't happen and PF disconnected to go 'scud running' then it brings into question SOP's and airmanship. The latter is already under scrutiny, the former is in writing.
Perhaps I am mistaken and the disconnect came below MDA; even more scary and disturbing.
Question still remains. On an NPA approach, above minimums, not visual why would any sane pilot disconnect the automatics? There should be one pilot looking outside and one inside. Preferably PNF is searching for the visual reference and PF is monitoring the instruments and flight path. If this didn't happen and PF disconnected to go 'scud running' then it brings into question SOP's and airmanship. The latter is already under scrutiny, the former is in writing.
Perhaps I am mistaken and the disconnect came below MDA; even more scary and disturbing.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
above minimums, not visual why would any sane pilot disconnect the automatics?
Last edited by olasek; 6th Sep 2014 at 21:22.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indonesian NTSB incompetence?
Hi All
I just read the final report and this tread after it was issued.
I have read a few reports in my time but this must be a joke, a project in the local flyingclub?
I was under the impresion that there is a certain template and a bit of minnimum facts that a local NTSB has to come up with.?
No proper CVR timeline transkript for eksampel.
No proper conclusion.
No proper recomandation.
Just a lot of repeats ,irrelevant quoats grafs and nice pictures.
They say the Crew lost the big picture, well they lost the Greater picture!
I just read the final report and this tread after it was issued.
I have read a few reports in my time but this must be a joke, a project in the local flyingclub?
I was under the impresion that there is a certain template and a bit of minnimum facts that a local NTSB has to come up with.?
No proper CVR timeline transkript for eksampel.
No proper conclusion.
No proper recomandation.
Just a lot of repeats ,irrelevant quoats grafs and nice pictures.
They say the Crew lost the big picture, well they lost the Greater picture!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK456 "...the NG VNAV system when the coded E/D is not at an RWXX waypoint and..."
Quotes FCOM:
- An E/D point must be defined in order to accomplish a path descent. It may be defined manually or by the selection of an arrival procedure.
- If a path (VNAV PTH) descent is active when a vertical angle leg becomes active, the path mode will remain active, but VNAV will follow the vertical angle rather than the idle thrust descent path.
- For an approach without a runway waypoint on the RTE LEGS page, the VNAV path is calculated to the MDA or a calculated altitude at the missed approach point. The calculated altitude may be below the MDA to ensure a flight path angle and normal threshold crossing height.
And most importantly this NOTE:
It is the flight crew’s responsibility not to descend below the MDA until adequate visual contact is achieved.
Thus we do not need necessarily a RWXX point, but an angle coded and a E/D point or RWXX point
Quotes FCOM:
- An E/D point must be defined in order to accomplish a path descent. It may be defined manually or by the selection of an arrival procedure.
- If a path (VNAV PTH) descent is active when a vertical angle leg becomes active, the path mode will remain active, but VNAV will follow the vertical angle rather than the idle thrust descent path.
- For an approach without a runway waypoint on the RTE LEGS page, the VNAV path is calculated to the MDA or a calculated altitude at the missed approach point. The calculated altitude may be below the MDA to ensure a flight path angle and normal threshold crossing height.
And most importantly this NOTE:
It is the flight crew’s responsibility not to descend below the MDA until adequate visual contact is achieved.
Thus we do not need necessarily a RWXX point, but an angle coded and a E/D point or RWXX point
OK465, WTF was all that about?? Unless the 737 has idiosyncrasies, whether there is a RWXX or not is irrelevant (certainly in my "DC9") in this situation. We use approaches with and without RWXX. RWXX is actually a bl@@dy nuisance and in some cases downright dangerous, because it takes you direct from the FAF to the threshold. That is NOT how the approach is supposed to be flown or charted. The approach is designed to cross the centreline on the way to the VOR, with the MDA (or DDA if you like) occurring as the aircraft crosses the CL; a simple turn onto the runway QFU to land. Going via RWXX means I've got to jink towards the CL then back to the QFU to get lined up.
Many of our NPAs don't have 3° displayed in the active plan (ie don't have RWXX) but the machine flies down the charted profile ie 3° (or greater if designed) regardless, as described by Skyjob.
Many of our NPAs don't have 3° displayed in the active plan (ie don't have RWXX) but the machine flies down the charted profile ie 3° (or greater if designed) regardless, as described by Skyjob.
The approach is designed to cross the centreline on the way to the VOR, with the MDA (or DDA if you like) occurring as the aircraft crosses the CL
I didn't say anything different. The WTF was an explanation that the 737 VNAV will disconnect at the coded E/D at MA09, but the LNAV steering will remain to the VOR. With the runway/REILS in sight, you disconnect everything at MA09, ignore the steering, turn on to final, land and go to the bar.
My point was you can't use LNAV or VNAV inside MA09.
My question remains. What does 717 VNAV steering and auto-flight do at this coded E/D? Or do you know?
(and BTW for this approach it's 2.8 degrees and this will be displayed on the 737 legs page to enable approach geometric from the FAF, but the altitude at MA09 is hard coded and not 'computed')
What does 717 VNAV steering and auto-flight do at this coded E/D?
On an NPA approach, above minimums, not visual why would any sane pilot disconnect the automatics
The whole approach could have been easily flown manually and on raw data by any half decently trained pilot. Moreover an instrument rated pilot in a Cessna 172 could fly it. Yet both the pilots lost the plot once the first officer made his own decision to go manually on instruments and within seconds his poor instrument flying ability immediately caused the aircraft to become unstable.
Worse still the captain was driven by the local culture that says that real men don't go around and he too deliberately ducked under. Interesting that he exhibited the same tendency in the simulator judging by comments in his previous training record. 15,000 flying hours in his log book showed he must have got away with unstable approaches for years.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus
I think you are completely off the mark. In this accident it is not the inability of the crew to hand fly but noncompliance of SOP is the cause. Even the best pilot in the world would have landed in the sea had he continued to 20ft without sighting the runway. Off course he even messed up the GA because except saying go around he did very little else but from 20ft. it wouldn't have mattered, may be would have been worse because he might have crashed into the boundary wall.
I think you are completely off the mark. In this accident it is not the inability of the crew to hand fly but noncompliance of SOP is the cause. Even the best pilot in the world would have landed in the sea had he continued to 20ft without sighting the runway. Off course he even messed up the GA because except saying go around he did very little else but from 20ft. it wouldn't have mattered, may be would have been worse because he might have crashed into the boundary wall.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Worse still the captain was driven by the local culture that says that real men don't go around and he too deliberately ducked under."
Actually the local culture is not to be confrontational but to work things out together - admittedly a bit tough where they were
Actually the local culture is not to be confrontational but to work things out together - admittedly a bit tough where they were
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Back of Beyond
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ vilas -
Are you stupid or something?
"Even the best pilot in the world would have landed in the sea had he continued to 20ft without sighting the runway."
Surely if you follow the LOC and GS down to 20 feet, then miss, you won't hit the sea... Surely there's a runway where the LOC and GS meet terra firma no? Or in this case - the magenta LNAV-VNAV guidance down to the RWY point.
At least most airports I've been to that seems to be the case.
If it was poor SOPs but excellent flying skills they would have hit the runway at 1500 feet and slammed on the brakes without seeing a thing! Duhhhhh
(disclaimer - I don't support that sort of landing!)
No, the SOPs are by the by. In fact, I'm sure they were crap too. But the major factor here is useless pilots. You pay peanuts, you get these foolish monkeys. That's a fact for any of these cowboy outfits.
What airline in their right mind would hire pilots from Lionair? I mean, really?
Are you stupid or something?
"Even the best pilot in the world would have landed in the sea had he continued to 20ft without sighting the runway."
Surely if you follow the LOC and GS down to 20 feet, then miss, you won't hit the sea... Surely there's a runway where the LOC and GS meet terra firma no? Or in this case - the magenta LNAV-VNAV guidance down to the RWY point.
At least most airports I've been to that seems to be the case.
If it was poor SOPs but excellent flying skills they would have hit the runway at 1500 feet and slammed on the brakes without seeing a thing! Duhhhhh
(disclaimer - I don't support that sort of landing!)
No, the SOPs are by the by. In fact, I'm sure they were crap too. But the major factor here is useless pilots. You pay peanuts, you get these foolish monkeys. That's a fact for any of these cowboy outfits.
What airline in their right mind would hire pilots from Lionair? I mean, really?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this accident it is not the inability of the crew to hand fly but noncompliance of SOP is the cause
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Clog
Friend, SOPs are made taking into consideration human and equipment capabilities to ensure consistent results. When you decide to do something stupid there is no SOP for that and obviously the result is as on that day. You are suggesting in heavy rain with zero visibility they should have flown accurately to hit the runway to touch down point. That would have avoided ditching but aircrafts do crash on land and horribly that too. Anybody suggesting what he should have done below minima is very stupid indeed.
Friend, SOPs are made taking into consideration human and equipment capabilities to ensure consistent results. When you decide to do something stupid there is no SOP for that and obviously the result is as on that day. You are suggesting in heavy rain with zero visibility they should have flown accurately to hit the runway to touch down point. That would have avoided ditching but aircrafts do crash on land and horribly that too. Anybody suggesting what he should have done below minima is very stupid indeed.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
olasek
"They both go hand in hand, poor instrument flying skills go with tendency to SOP violations"
There is no connection whatsoever. Following rules is just a matter of mental discipline it has nothing to do with manipulative skills. Haven't you heard that "SOPs are for the guidance of the wise and compliance by idiots" Off course that is a joke but second part applies to this crew.
"They both go hand in hand, poor instrument flying skills go with tendency to SOP violations"
There is no connection whatsoever. Following rules is just a matter of mental discipline it has nothing to do with manipulative skills. Haven't you heard that "SOPs are for the guidance of the wise and compliance by idiots" Off course that is a joke but second part applies to this crew.
