Below the GS at SFO again

[Dream Land]

I like the guys that are proud of themselves for doing the SFO visual procedure several times a month, how bout getting a reality check. The ILS should have been working.

[olasek]

The ILS should have been working.

NO.
There are many airports that accept daily transport category aircraft filled with passengers that never had ILS. This is your reality check

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Ultra Glide

Similarly, if you know ATC is just ITCHING to give you a visual, when he asks if you have XYZ in sight, say "negative" and if he says, "report it in sight," say, "Roger," and just wait, sooner or later he has to clear for some sort of instrument approach.

That's a pretty professional way of going about business...Not.

[JRBarrett]

Originally Posted by Dream Land

I like the guys that are proud of themselves for doing the SFO visual procedure several times a month, how bout getting a reality check. The ILS should have been working.

The glide slope was (and still is) out of service because there is extensive runway construction work underway, right at the location where the glide slope transmitter and antenna array is (was) located. You cannot undertake that kind of work and keep a functional glide slope system at the same time - it would be like trying to change the oil and spark plugs on your car's engine while at the same time, driving it on the highway.

Even after all the construction work is done, and a new glide slope antenna is installed, it will still take many days, (or even weeks) of testing, and multiple approaches by the FAA's highly-instrumented Flight Check aircraft, before the glide slope can be given a clean bill of health, and the new ILS officially commissioned.

ALL reconstruction work must be fully complete before that can happen. We just went through this very scenario last summer at my local airport, where the ILS runway was extended by 1000 feet.

They did, at least, maintain the functionality of the runway 28L localizer, (the antenna of which is located at the far end of the runway, well away from the construction work), and the PAPI, (until Asiana plowed through the light array and destroyed it.)

The only argument that could be made, I suppose, would be that only one of the two parallel 28 runways at SFO should have been rebuilt at one time, leaving the other runway with a fully functional ILS, but that may not have been feasible, financially or otherwise.

[ExSp33db1rd]

NO.There are many airports that accept daily transport category aircraft
filled with passengers that never had ILS. This is your reality check

Landing a Boeing 747 in the Maldives, ( which is just a runway surrounded by water, after getting off the aircraft you get in a BOAT to your hotel ) at night with the ILS out, was not an experience I enjoyed, and said so - and a quiet voice from the jump seat said - now you know what it's like landing on a carrier at night !!

and how was one supposed to get an ILS into Rwy. 13 at Kai Tak ( Hong Kong ) ? The IGS only got you to a position where you made a right turn, fairly close in, from base leg to final -the rest was VISUAL and MANUAL.

( maybe in the last few years of that airport the Magic Box and Magenta Line and GPS concocted some sort of auto assisted approach - dunno ? )

[Jet Jockey A4]

The RNAV GPS approach to 28L...

I don't think typical airliners are equipped/certified for an LPV approach, airlines don't want to invest money in hardware and/or pilot training, so I doubt they could have a GP (glide path) available to them through WAAS-GPS though apparently 777 is capable of generating its own 3 deg. glide path.

I find hard to believe that airlines wouldn't spec out a GPS WAAS sensor for their aircrafts (especially one worth $250M). With so many airports now with LPV types approaches it makes sense to have your aircraft equipped with it but in any case the RNAV GPS approach to 28L in SFO does not require WAAS GPS to do the approach unless you want the lower minimums.

The GPS approach to 28L accommodates both LNAV and LNAV/VNAV minimums too. Although higher than the LPV minimums you still get a 2.85 degree flight path down to the runway... Why not use it to make your approach stable instead of a "dive and drive" type approach?

[BuzzBox]

( maybe in the last few years of that airport the Magic Box and Magenta Line and GPS concocted some sort of auto assisted approach - dunno ? )

Nope, nothing changed in the last few years of Kai Tak's operation. You had to be visual before the turn and the turn always had to be flown manually. No two approaches were ever the same and it was great 'fun' with a howling crosswind from the south!

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Sqwak7700

They even teach using the clock to time your downwind leg FFS!

How else do you propose knowing when to turn base? Craning your neck over your shoulder to see the runway hiding under the wing/engine? Or does the FO get the captain to call out "turn now!"

Originally Posted by aa73

1500AGL on downwind. Flaps must be at 15 and gear down at the midpoint. Flaps 30 when abeam the end, and clock is started. Base turn not started until 35 seconds on the clock.

That is an eminently sensible way to fly a circuit in a jet. Just don't do it on the autopilot. There is little point looking outside on the initial part of the base turn, for the runway at least, until half way round anyway.

Originally Posted by olasek

I don't think typical airliners are equipped/certified for an LPV approach, airlines don't want to invest money in hardware and/or pilot training, so I doubt they could have a GP (glide path) available to them through WAAS-GPS though apparently 777 is capable of generating its own 3 deg. glide path.

Need to catch up with technology, methinks. LPV is not necessary to provide a pseudo glideslope; any basic GPS/RNAV/RNP-LNAV approach will provide that, and any modern jet can do them. No WAAS required. Crew training and approval is pretty basic as well.

[Mr.Bloggs]

Given the Asiana crew messed up badly, I read some ignorant and critical comments from people who clearly do not fly frequent long-haul. It is much more difficult than other forms of flying simply because of the tiredness and disorientation that is normal after a long night without proper sleep followed by a stressful approach. It is not anything like the same as landing after a 4- hour flight period.

I see some people claiming to be experienced pilots have no idea about the back end of a long haul flight. And as for private pilots, their remarks here are worthless.

[bubbers44]

If doing a visual after a long haul as we also do is so difficult have a second crew rested to do it. We have no problem with a visual so why should you?

Maybe you could have the competent pilots take off, let the incompetent pilots fly the enroute portion and hand it back to the good guys for the landing.

[framer]

I would like to put my name down for the good team please. I bet the B team don't even get invited to the bar.
At the end of the day if every pilot had to manually fly two visual approaches with no Flight Directors or auto throttle at their 6 month sim session, this wouldn't happen. Off you go NTSB/FAA.......make it happen.

[olbob]

Sharing

That makes sense to me and I am not even a hot shot pilot.

[BuzzBox]

I read some ignorant and critical comments from people who clearly do not fly frequent long-haul.

I couldn't agree more. I don't dispute that the Asiana guys appear to have messed up big time, but I'm betting the NTSB will highlight a number of other factors in their final report, including training, recency and fatigue. Some of the short-haul jet jocks that have commented appear to have little experience outside their own bubble.

It'll be interesting to read the comments the next time a US airline runs off the end of a runway following an unstable approach. But it could never happen, could it? Oh, hang on a minute...

As someone commented on another thread:

We should never become complacent about our operation as to do so is fraught with danger.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Stressful approach?

In reply to Mr.Bloggs...

"Given the Asiana crew messed up badly",

That's an understatement if I ever heard one.

"I read some ignorant and critical comments from people who clearly do not fly frequent long-haul".

Yes, yes not every pilot flies long-haul... Can you relate to us some of those ignorant and critical comments you don't like.

"It is much more difficult than other forms of flying simply because of the tiredness and disorientation that is normal after a long night without proper sleep followed by a stressful approach".

Yes we know about the biological clock and the circadian rhythm and how the body is affected by weird flying hours going through multiple time zones. Fortunately today's aircrafts offer an environment to help with these problems and with multiple crews flying these long sectors it is better than ever.

As for the stressful approaches well that's why there is that automation to help out (if you know how to use it). Personally I don't think a visual approach on a clear day in VFR conditions is stressful but hey I could be wrong. If I'm tired and don't feel up to par after a long flight, I don't accept an approach I'm uncomfortable with and get vectored in on an approach where I can let the automation do most of the work. Also there is nothing wrong with passing the controls to your mate in the next seat if he feels sharper.

I think a regional pilot flying a Dash 8 or regional jet in the low to mid altitudes in the summer with thunderstorms and turbulence or in the winter with all sorts of icing conditions on a 8 sector day with long duty days for multiple consecutive days in the northeast corridor between Boston, New York, Philly and Washington is a lot more stressful than your long-haul multi crew flying.

"And as for private pilots, their remarks here are worthless."

So only long-haul pilots should have an opinion on this matter. How do you know there are "private pilots" giving their opinions on this subject anyway?

[Dream Land]

There are many airports that accept daily transport category aircraft filled with passengers that never had ILS. This is your reality check by olasek

sir, I'm assuming that you pretty much have been operating only in domestic setting (let's not count CUN), and not in a wide body aircraft with a worldwide route structure, that's why I made the rebuttal about short haul guys proud that they are accomplished at the Bridge Visual, of course the are!

[BOAC]

If this long-haul/circadian/bunk rest/lack of 'handling' issue is that bad, we should surely question the whole ethos of the way it is being done? How would the same crew cope with an emergency on finals? Would they be too 'tired' to handle it properly? This problem is only going to get worse as range/flight times increase.

[scotbill]

It is much more difficult than other forms of flying simply because of the tiredness and disorientation that is normal after a long night without proper sleep followed by a stressful approach. It is not anything like the same as landing after a 4- hour flight period.

And you think shorthaul pilots don't fly at night? More than one sector? Try Gatwick - Canary Islands return for example.

Few of us can enjoy flying in the dark when the body wants to be in bed - but personally found one sector long haul flying much more relaxed than multi-sector Europe with numerous crack-of-dawn starts.

[bugg smasher]

Proud that they are accomplished at the Bridge Visual?

No, it is a maneuver requiring nothing more than average airmanship, something you should have when you occupy a seat in an airliner cockpit.

There are those of us who work for airlines that have both short, and long haul fleets, and have done a good deal of both in our careers. With a proper sharing of rest and duty periods, given appropriate rest facilities aboard the aircraft, fatigue is eminently manageable.

This argument, in relation to the SFO events, is a red herring.

[aterpster]

Dream:

I like the guys that are proud of themselves for doing the SFO visual procedure several times a month, how bout getting a reality check. The ILS should have been working.

They have a major construction project going on. On nice, clear ultra-VFR days they take the ILS out of service so the workers can do their work, which would interfere with the ILS signals if it were left on.

[Jet Jockey A4]

You and others can say this until you are blue in the face...

It seems some on here want a functioning ILS to every runway at every airport where airliners fly into which in my own experience is far from the reality.

In any case and I'll repeat what I said before, at SFO on that day for the approach to that runway there were two instrument approaches available...

- LOC with a functioning PAPI.

-RNAV GPS with LPV minimums for those equipped with *WAAS GPS.

* For those not equipped with WAAS GPS a LNAV/VNAV approach was still available with higher minimums but with the same 2.85 degree flight path down to the runway.

Also mentioned by B777 pilots was the fact that the aircraft's FMS (like many other aircrafts with modern FMS) could provide a "visual" type approach with a 3.0 degree slope.

How many more excuses do you need? They had all the tools at their disposal and used none of them.

Yes there are many factors that lead to an accident but the bottom line here is that 3 pilots in the cockpit of this B777 allowed a perfectly functioning aircraft hit the ground short of the runway on a clear day!