Turkish A330 incident, Kathmandu
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Somewhere in Indo...
Age: 48
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by silvertate
>>RAIM outages.
RAIM is real-time monitoring of the satellite constellation. You cannot determine RAIM outages by NOTAMS. Or are you telling me that the NOTAMS know exactly when the next satellite will be hit by some space debris, or lose its IRS stability system?
RAIM is real-time monitoring of the satellite constellation. You cannot determine RAIM outages by NOTAMS. Or are you telling me that the NOTAMS know exactly when the next satellite will be hit by some space debris, or lose its IRS stability system?
I'll think you'll find that RAIM prediction is very much possible due to the "fixed" nature of the constellation, and being able to calculate if there will the appropriate number of satellites available to facilitate the use RAIM at a given place at a given time.
Obviously, the RAIM in the onboard system will then make sure everything is working nicely, "in realtime", when you actually get there... And provide the appropriate "RAIM unavailable" type warnings should anything be amiss (like a satellite getting hit by debris in the interim etc)
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver:
Indeed, many times. Did you note ANP? RNP is a performance minimum. ANP is much better on RNP AR approaches or alerting will require the pilot execute an extraction.
As to IRU drift, on any airframe approved for RNP AR of less than 0.30, there are generally three IRUs, with blended position updated continuously by GPS/GNSS. So, if an alert is received that requires extraction, the IRU position is the same as the GPS position was when the alert is received. From that point on (which is very rare) the IRUs begin drifting. This drift is accounted for very conservatively in RNP AR missed approach criteria.
RNP AR is presently the term used for this type of approach throughout the world. The U.S. stopped using RNP AAAR several years ago.
Sorry, but did you read that Powerpoint link? It says (p10), quote...
As to IRU drift, on any airframe approved for RNP AR of less than 0.30, there are generally three IRUs, with blended position updated continuously by GPS/GNSS. So, if an alert is received that requires extraction, the IRU position is the same as the GPS position was when the alert is received. From that point on (which is very rare) the IRUs begin drifting. This drift is accounted for very conservatively in RNP AR missed approach criteria.
RNP AR is presently the term used for this type of approach throughout the world. The U.S. stopped using RNP AAAR several years ago.
Originally Posted by Silvertate
>>TCAS assisted incidents.
The Swiss collision would not have happened without TCAS. It was a total system usage error that had not been fully thought through and promulgated to all airlines and crews before the incident.
The Swiss collision would not have happened without TCAS. It was a total system usage error that had not been fully thought through and promulgated to all airlines and crews before the incident.
Originally Posted by Silvertate
And the multiplicity of notation does not help. The USA might have RNP-AR, but in Europe we generally have RNAV GNSS. EPKT Katowice in Poland or EGBB Brum in the UK are GNSS approaches. There are a few around. LTBS Dalaman GNSS in Turkey is more pertinent to this thread, as it goes through the hills and is offset.
Originally Posted by Silvertate
The satellite constellation is fixed, while the Earth rotates inside it. Thus the number of satellites you can see, and the declination and azimuth of those satellites, will change during the day (and with your location). Some locations and times are better than others - especially if there is a satellite outage in your area.
Originally Posted by Silvertate
>>IRS backup.
Worse than useless. As I said before, our IRS fix can easily be a couple of miles away from the GPS fix, and the VOR/DME is not much better in mountainous terrain. So if you lose the GPS on the approach, and the FMC position reverts to IRS fix position, you get a rapid 2nm map-shift. Ok, so the nearest mountain peak is only a couple of nm away, and the autopilot is trying to recapture the new IRS trackline which is 2nm away - your move, as they say...
Worse than useless. As I said before, our IRS fix can easily be a couple of miles away from the GPS fix, and the VOR/DME is not much better in mountainous terrain. So if you lose the GPS on the approach, and the FMC position reverts to IRS fix position, you get a rapid 2nm map-shift. Ok, so the nearest mountain peak is only a couple of nm away, and the autopilot is trying to recapture the new IRS trackline which is 2nm away - your move, as they say...
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The satellite constellation is fixed, while the Earth rotates inside it. Thus the number of satellites you can see, and the declination and azimuth of those satellites, will change during the day (and with your location). Some locations and times are better than others - especially if there is a satellite outage in your area.
Global Positioning System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The satellite constellation can be varied, and the satellites do rotate around a rotating earth if you believe Wikipedia (at twice the earth's speed). The satellites are not fixed in space relative to the earth, if that's what you mean. Their altitudes are about 3 times the diameter of the earth, so this helps coverage greatly. The official websites do say that 6 should be available almost anywhere on earth, but if you read some websites, it says that these satellites should be "above the horizon". If you're in a deep valley or flying below the top of a mountain range, your horizon may well be limited. With a satellite out, perhaps GPS coverage could get pretty sparse. However, depending on your navigation system, your map position shouldn't suddenly start moving sideways to the pure IRS position when you lose your GPS. The nav system should maintain a constant bias towards the previous radio-based position until you reacquire a new radio position or the system is reset. The difference is not (normally) suddenly washed out.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
So do any of you guys have any info relevant to this KTM accident, was there in fact some issue with how the Turkish pilots flew the RNP approach on that day, or are you just having a willy waving contest over who knows the most intricate knowledge of RNP / RNAV?
It's all very interesting but I'll bet my bottom dollar it's completely irrelevant to this accident. The approach was fine until the point where they actually had to look out the window and determine if they could see the bloody runway or not.
It doesn't matter what kind of high tech you have on board, what approvals you have, or what kind of approach you do, if you elect to continue below minima without sufficient visual reference.
It's all very interesting but I'll bet my bottom dollar it's completely irrelevant to this accident. The approach was fine until the point where they actually had to look out the window and determine if they could see the bloody runway or not.
It doesn't matter what kind of high tech you have on board, what approvals you have, or what kind of approach you do, if you elect to continue below minima without sufficient visual reference.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found our OM-C comments re the KTM VOR approach.."in the event of loss of VOR or DME a missed approach is required..."...hmmmm that would have been interesting in our non-GPS 767.
So Boeingrestricted, where in his "books" is silvertate going find out about RNP-ARs? Perhaps you don't realise it, but there is a great deal of knowledge put forward by members of Prune. If one is a professional pilot who has a basic handle on things, it is easy to sort the wheat from the chaff and learn a lot.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Doha
Age: 13
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree totally with Luke SkyToddler post
He posted
So do any of you guys have any info relevant to this KTM accident, was there in fact some issue with how the Turkish pilots flew the RNP approach on that day, or are you just having a willy waving contest over who knows the most intricate knowledge of RNP / RNAV?
It's all very interesting but I'll bet my bottom dollar it's completely irrelevant to this accident. The approach was fine until the point where they actually had to look out the window and determine if they could see the bloody runway or not.
It doesn't matter what kind of high tech you have on board, what approvals you have, or what kind of approach you do, if you elect to continue below minima without sufficient visual reference.
The questions I would like to ask are these
What was the reported viz before they commenced each approach, how much fuel did they have left after their second approach and what was their planned diversion strategy ie to where and did they have enough fuel to get there ?
He posted
So do any of you guys have any info relevant to this KTM accident, was there in fact some issue with how the Turkish pilots flew the RNP approach on that day, or are you just having a willy waving contest over who knows the most intricate knowledge of RNP / RNAV?
It's all very interesting but I'll bet my bottom dollar it's completely irrelevant to this accident. The approach was fine until the point where they actually had to look out the window and determine if they could see the bloody runway or not.
It doesn't matter what kind of high tech you have on board, what approvals you have, or what kind of approach you do, if you elect to continue below minima without sufficient visual reference.
The questions I would like to ask are these
What was the reported viz before they commenced each approach, how much fuel did they have left after their second approach and what was their planned diversion strategy ie to where and did they have enough fuel to get there ?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually reported vis is the main point at their approach ban and minima.
Seeing the runway with reported fog may not warrant a safe landing.
Entering the flare and the fog at the same time could lead to obvious difficulties eventhough you saw the runway from a different height/angle.
Respecting given visibility is paramount to a safe and legal approach and landing.
Seeing the runway with reported fog may not warrant a safe landing.
Entering the flare and the fog at the same time could lead to obvious difficulties eventhough you saw the runway from a different height/angle.
Respecting given visibility is paramount to a safe and legal approach and landing.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brussels
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPS constellations
Luke
So do any of you guys have any info relevant to this KTM accident? Or is this willie-waving?
So do any of you guys have any info relevant to this KTM accident? Or is this willie-waving?
However, having mentioned these innacuracies of the GNS approach system, various critics came out of the woodwork claiming that GNS is a navigational panacea that is never wrong. And they are still claiming that GNS works to the accuracy of the ANP, when ANP is only the performance at this moment in time. Clearly, some operators need to set up training programs to discuss the design, operation and pitfalls of the standard GNSS approach system.
The known inaccuracies of GNSS is why the WAARS and EGNOS augmentation systems are being developed. Why spend all that money on a new augmentation system, if the original GNS is always 100% accurate? Answer - it is not that accurate, which is why it says 95% accurate on the tin.
P.S. Yes, the orbits of the satellites stay fixed, while the Earth rotates underneath them, just as I said. So the azimuth and declination of the satellites is constantly changing - with satellites setting behind the hills as you make the approach.
Below is a nice GPS satellite animation.
Note that the orbits remain fixed, resulting in an ever-changing azimuth and declination of the satellites your receiver is tracking.
The blue satellites are the ones that are visible. Note the changing number of satellites visible, and remember that this number will be less in high terrain.
The green lines indicate the azimuth and declination of each satellite. Note how satellites drop behind the horizon and are then deleted.
Remember that satellites in the zenith (overhead) provide little or no lateral navigation input, while those on the horizon are subject to refraction errors.
ok 465
Actually GLS and WAAS are two different animals.
Actually GLS and WAAS are two different animals.
A GNSS approach plus a GBAS equals a GLS. So they are all part of the same system - a system that will eventually eradicate the errors being discussed here.
Last edited by silvertate; 11th Mar 2015 at 21:37.
Originally Posted by Silvertate
The known inaccuracies of GNSS is why the WAARS and EGNOS augmentation systems are being developed. Why spend all that money on a new augmentation system, if the original GNS is always 100% accurate? Answer - it is not that accurate, which is why it says 95% accurate on the tin.
GLS same: lower minima, no need for expensive ILS gear.
Do you really think someone didn't think of "hey hang on, that satellite is going to drop out of view! What is a crew going to do then?!" That's what RAIM, FD and FDE is all about.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Stansted
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand from the info I have there are no runway centre line lights at this airport.
When i saw this it reminded me of something that happened to me and who knows might have been a factor with the THY.
Thanks to a good co pilot I got away with it.
Landing from minimums with low vis and blowing crosswind, when I broke out of cloud with the aircraft in a crab I got sight of the lights and continued towards what I thought was the centreline however it was the left edge of the runway.
My co pilot called go-around, which at the time I didn't understand but knew he must have had a good reason.
Going downwind he explained and then it dawned on me what I had done. During the approach briefing I had made no mention of no centre line lights and assumed the airport had them.
Landed from the second approach but was shocked how my mind had convinced me of an image that looked absolutely right at the time.
In other words did they line up with the edge lights thinking they were on the centre line?
When i saw this it reminded me of something that happened to me and who knows might have been a factor with the THY.
Thanks to a good co pilot I got away with it.
Landing from minimums with low vis and blowing crosswind, when I broke out of cloud with the aircraft in a crab I got sight of the lights and continued towards what I thought was the centreline however it was the left edge of the runway.
My co pilot called go-around, which at the time I didn't understand but knew he must have had a good reason.
Going downwind he explained and then it dawned on me what I had done. During the approach briefing I had made no mention of no centre line lights and assumed the airport had them.
Landed from the second approach but was shocked how my mind had convinced me of an image that looked absolutely right at the time.
In other words did they line up with the edge lights thinking they were on the centre line?
Last edited by Say Mach Number; 14th Mar 2015 at 17:09.