Turkish A330 incident, Kathmandu
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aterpster:
"illusion" implies you can see the object concerned - in this case the runway. In this case the aircraft descended into fog (see previous posted video clip). I will not even discuss "slant visibility" and its effect on "forward visibility" as this is basic knowledge.
ATC watcher:
Exactly - welcome to the real world - not the 1st world.
JammedStab:
By ignoring just about every basic rule/regulation regarding the IFR, including but not limited to:
1. Flight Planning (Dispatch)
a. Alternate requirements
b. Fuel Requirements
i. holding fuel
ii. minimum fuel [including minimum divert fuel]
2. Holding and Instrument Approach to Land Procedures
a. Meteorological minima for the approach
3. Aerodrome Meteorological Minima
a. Landing Minima
b. Low visibility operations/procedures (application of such procedures)
c. Application of Aerodrome Meteorological Minima
i. Pilot responsibilities
ii. ATC assessment
In short, the PIC may have had all these cards in their hand but due to the decision making processes, for what ever reason, discarded them one-by-one until there was nil other alternative/option other than to land in such weather conditions by conducting a Low Visibility Operation (LVO) autoland onto a runway that, as aterpster has pointed out, was NOTAM'ed with a displaced threshold, which is a lesser issue than that of the runway, itself, was not to the equipment/facility standard required to conduct such a landing in LVO conditions.
The belief that an RNAV/RNP, RNAV/GNSS approach makes you bullet proof is a fantasy that has invaded the profession. As discussions with 7478ti have disclosed, there is so much more that has to be in place to conduct these approaches to a CATII, CATIIIa/b minima/standard both in the airborne equipment and training of aircrew to the ground based facilities and training of ATC.
As an example compare the VOR and RNAV/GNSS approach minima to RWY 35 at OEMA.
This "accident" will no doubt be used, in the future, as a valuable lesson in CRM and application of SOP, Rules and Procedures and how they are incorporated into the decision making process of pilots.
then again the illusions created by the airplane being in a vertical position in space at DA to land on a runway 400 feet closer could have been a contributing factor.
ATC watcher:
Exactly - welcome to the real world - not the 1st world.
JammedStab:
Help prevent a repeat accident by telling us what happened. By not doing so, you could be one of the holes in the Swiss cheese if it happens again
1. Flight Planning (Dispatch)
a. Alternate requirements
b. Fuel Requirements
i. holding fuel
ii. minimum fuel [including minimum divert fuel]
2. Holding and Instrument Approach to Land Procedures
a. Meteorological minima for the approach
3. Aerodrome Meteorological Minima
a. Landing Minima
b. Low visibility operations/procedures (application of such procedures)
c. Application of Aerodrome Meteorological Minima
i. Pilot responsibilities
ii. ATC assessment
In short, the PIC may have had all these cards in their hand but due to the decision making processes, for what ever reason, discarded them one-by-one until there was nil other alternative/option other than to land in such weather conditions by conducting a Low Visibility Operation (LVO) autoland onto a runway that, as aterpster has pointed out, was NOTAM'ed with a displaced threshold, which is a lesser issue than that of the runway, itself, was not to the equipment/facility standard required to conduct such a landing in LVO conditions.
The belief that an RNAV/RNP, RNAV/GNSS approach makes you bullet proof is a fantasy that has invaded the profession. As discussions with 7478ti have disclosed, there is so much more that has to be in place to conduct these approaches to a CATII, CATIIIa/b minima/standard both in the airborne equipment and training of aircrew to the ground based facilities and training of ATC.
As an example compare the VOR and RNAV/GNSS approach minima to RWY 35 at OEMA.
This "accident" will no doubt be used, in the future, as a valuable lesson in CRM and application of SOP, Rules and Procedures and how they are incorporated into the decision making process of pilots.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JammedStab:
By ignoring just about every basic rule/regulation regarding the IFR, including but not limited to:
1. Flight Planning (Dispatch)
a. Alternate requirements
b. Fuel Requirements
i. holding fuel
ii. minimum fuel [including minimum divert fuel]
2. Holding and Instrument Approach to Land Procedures
a. Meteorological minima for the approach
3. Aerodrome Meteorological Minima
a. Landing Minima
b. Low visibility operations/procedures (application of such procedures)
c. Application of Aerodrome Meteorological Minima
i. Pilot responsibilities
ii. ATC assessment
In short, the PIC may have had all these cards in their hand but due to the decision making processes, for what ever reason, discarded them one-by-one until there was nil other alternative/option other than to land in such weather conditions by conducting a Low Visibility Operation (LVO) autoland onto a runway that, as aterpster has pointed out, was NOTAM'ed with a displaced threshold, which is a lesser issue than that of the runway, itself, was not to the equipment/facility standard required to conduct such a landing in LVO conditions.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Olbie:
Thanks for that clarification. So, the accident airplane may have been Cat D. That affects both DA and visibility minimum on this approach.
Not sure why people are going after each other regarding the approach category?
There are Cat C and Cat D variants of the A330 just as there are Cat C and Cat D variants of the A321.
There are Cat C and Cat D variants of the A330 just as there are Cat C and Cat D variants of the A321.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 59
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Google before you post!!!!!!
There is NO 330 certified as CAT D in the world!!!!
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...at-Feb2013.pdf
There is NO 330 certified as CAT D in the world!!!!
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...at-Feb2013.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pearse's Domain
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of FKAs here.
As far as I know, the A330 is categorized as Cat C for normal operations. ICAO and FAA.
However in non normal operations with approach speeds above 140 kts, or for circling approaches at speeds above 140 kts, we are obliged to conform to Cat D restrictions. Just my 2cents.
As far as I know, the A330 is categorized as Cat C for normal operations. ICAO and FAA.
However in non normal operations with approach speeds above 140 kts, or for circling approaches at speeds above 140 kts, we are obliged to conform to Cat D restrictions. Just my 2cents.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What iceman might be referring to... it appears some operators (including a certain Hong Kong based one) require their pilots to consider all of their large aircraft as Category D from an approach minima perspective -- regardless of their actual approach speeds -- to be more conservative/restrictive than regulation allows.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SI
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iceman
So, what was you approach speed on your last landing? I just did one an hour ago. Config 3 vapp 137. That is what defines the airplane category. Yes or no?
Now if what you meant to say is that your operator uses its own criteria for that, well, what can I say. Thats a whole different story. One thing is your operator, another the aircraft and its approach speed.
Now if what you meant to say is that your operator uses its own criteria for that, well, what can I say. Thats a whole different story. One thing is your operator, another the aircraft and its approach speed.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as I advised Iceman earlier that indeed all 330 are not CAT D , I would caution against being dogmatic that all ARE CAT C . Airbus has a habit of doing different things for different operators and there are several higher landing weight versions ( 343, 342 ) ,engine & airframe combinations that may be certified CAT D .With AIrbus , you just never know . You can verify what you operate , Iceman says his are CAT D . I would leave it at that .
Regarding non normal configuration & circling minima , under PansOPS , as far as I know , there is no obligation to move up a category based on actual approach speed / configuration . The approach category criteria is based upon certified approach category ( Stall speed ratio in landing config at Max landing mass) . However maybe TERPS and your company apply different .
Regarding non normal configuration & circling minima , under PansOPS , as far as I know , there is no obligation to move up a category based on actual approach speed / configuration . The approach category criteria is based upon certified approach category ( Stall speed ratio in landing config at Max landing mass) . However maybe TERPS and your company apply different .
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 59
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps, Iceman and all.
Certification of an aircraft is final. The FAA and EASA have certified the airbus 330 as a Category C aircraft. This cannot change because an operator decides to classify it as a CAT D aircraft for operational reasons.
The airlines in the fragrant harbour have categorised the aircraft as CAT C for straight in approaches and CAT D for circle to land.
This is because the speed during the circle to land at max landing weight with Auto-Thrust ON is on the threshold of CAT D speeds, while airbus have certified it as CAT C even for circling to land because they don/t need to use the A/THR ON. (5 Kts makes all the difference).
The airline in question operates the aircraft as a CAT C aircraft. Standard practice for EASA compliant countries.
I trust this makes sense and clarifies the difference between certification category and operational classification by an airline. The link I provided earlier has the certification categories of all airbus aircraft.
Iceman I do fly the 330/340
Certification of an aircraft is final. The FAA and EASA have certified the airbus 330 as a Category C aircraft. This cannot change because an operator decides to classify it as a CAT D aircraft for operational reasons.
The airlines in the fragrant harbour have categorised the aircraft as CAT C for straight in approaches and CAT D for circle to land.
This is because the speed during the circle to land at max landing weight with Auto-Thrust ON is on the threshold of CAT D speeds, while airbus have certified it as CAT C even for circling to land because they don/t need to use the A/THR ON. (5 Kts makes all the difference).
The airline in question operates the aircraft as a CAT C aircraft. Standard practice for EASA compliant countries.
I trust this makes sense and clarifies the difference between certification category and operational classification by an airline. The link I provided earlier has the certification categories of all airbus aircraft.
Iceman I do fly the 330/340
Ahhhhh me brain hurts..
Say what you will but our HK company OPS A manual stipulate we are to consider ALL of our Aircraft as CAT D for published minimas......End of story full stop.
Next
Say what you will but our HK company OPS A manual stipulate we are to consider ALL of our Aircraft as CAT D for published minimas......End of story full stop.
Next
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An operator via its own CAA approval has the right to INCREASE its aircraft category...ie from C to D...(as john wrote ,for operational classification only)
However crews arent allowed to reduce their minima to lower Category based on actual landing speed.
For example,your aircraft is CAT C but you land empty ,and get a lower Vref equal to CAT B then you cant use cat B minima.
However crews arent allowed to reduce their minima to lower Category based on actual landing speed.
For example,your aircraft is CAT C but you land empty ,and get a lower Vref equal to CAT B then you cant use cat B minima.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John , nothing is final in aviation and if one really wants to be pedantic then if it's in their OMA then it is certified .
Curious to know what speed you circle at with a 330 at max landing weight .
As you state strongly , the approach category is certified i.e fixed , so why change the category if you circle close to CAT D threshold . Seems you are in favour of changing from CAT C to D for "operational reasons " when it suits you .
Curiously enough , I know of at least one carrier which alters the max takeoff mass of their A321's depending on the sector it is flying to take advantage of the Landing fee's . Guess what , it miraculously loses 4 tons on these sectors with the flip of a placard in the cockpit , just saying ..with Airbus you get what you pay for .
BTW , follow the thread before you freak out !!!! I posted that link you claim in post 238 .
Curious to know what speed you circle at with a 330 at max landing weight .
As you state strongly , the approach category is certified i.e fixed , so why change the category if you circle close to CAT D threshold . Seems you are in favour of changing from CAT C to D for "operational reasons " when it suits you .
Curiously enough , I know of at least one carrier which alters the max takeoff mass of their A321's depending on the sector it is flying to take advantage of the Landing fee's . Guess what , it miraculously loses 4 tons on these sectors with the flip of a placard in the cockpit , just saying ..with Airbus you get what you pay for .
BTW , follow the thread before you freak out !!!! I posted that link you claim in post 238 .
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what the FAA has to say about it:
5−4−7. Instrument Approach Procedures
a. Aircraft approach category means a grouping of aircraft based on a speed of VREF, if specified, or if VREF is not specified, 1.3 VSO at the maximum certified landing weight. VREF, VSO, and the maximum certified landing weight are those values as established for the aircraft by the certification authority of the country of registry. A pilot must use the minima corresponding to the category determined during certification or higher. Helicopters may use Category A minima. If it is necessary to operate at a speed in excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an aircraft’s category, the minimums for the higher category must be used. For example, an airplane which fits into Category B, but is circling to land at a speed of 145 knots, must use the approach Category D minimums. As an additional example, a Category A airplane (or helicopter) which is operating at 130 knots on a straight−in approach must use the approach Category C minimums.
5−4−7. Instrument Approach Procedures
a. Aircraft approach category means a grouping of aircraft based on a speed of VREF, if specified, or if VREF is not specified, 1.3 VSO at the maximum certified landing weight. VREF, VSO, and the maximum certified landing weight are those values as established for the aircraft by the certification authority of the country of registry. A pilot must use the minima corresponding to the category determined during certification or higher. Helicopters may use Category A minima. If it is necessary to operate at a speed in excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an aircraft’s category, the minimums for the higher category must be used. For example, an airplane which fits into Category B, but is circling to land at a speed of 145 knots, must use the approach Category D minimums. As an additional example, a Category A airplane (or helicopter) which is operating at 130 knots on a straight−in approach must use the approach Category C minimums.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't disagree with you ATP . I know the FAA/Terps circling criteria is much more restrictive , (don't know the exact numbers as I don't need them ), hence perhaps the need to "up" it .
PansOps :
Circling Speed : CAT C 180 knots max ,
CAT D 205 knot max .
Circling radii : CAT C 4.20 nm
CAT D 5.28 nm .
Hence the point some are trying to make , different strokes ..
PansOps :
Circling Speed : CAT C 180 knots max ,
CAT D 205 knot max .
Circling radii : CAT C 4.20 nm
CAT D 5.28 nm .
Hence the point some are trying to make , different strokes ..
Folks,
Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons, I can nominate at least one major and well known airline that does, in fact, have approval to operate Cat. D aircraft to Cat. C PANS/OPS criteria in selected cases ---- with the obvious restriction being that Cat. C speeds must be flown.
I know this to be the case, because I worked for them for years, and have flown the procedures more times than I care to remember, sometimes twice a day.
Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons, I can nominate at least one major and well known airline that does, in fact, have approval to operate Cat. D aircraft to Cat. C PANS/OPS criteria in selected cases ---- with the obvious restriction being that Cat. C speeds must be flown.
I know this to be the case, because I worked for them for years, and have flown the procedures more times than I care to remember, sometimes twice a day.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Area51
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FO Cokebottle:
thats a big assumption to make considering you don't have the relevant data nor the aware of the dynamics within the cockpit at the time.....
the issue is more deep seeded than the crew disregarding ( if indeed that is remotely relevant in this case) all the items one by one as you simply put it.. may i suggests reading on james reasons work before you try to pin the issue at the sharp end. indeed there might be many valuable lessons in the form of "CRM and application of SOP, Rules and Procedures and how they are incorporated into the decision making process of pilots" but remember no occurrence or accident is a SINGULARITY but rather layers of failures that surpass common crm and decision making processes...
JammedStab:
i dont think fuel was as issue from what i know, that flight had 22t of tankering fuel plus alternateS..
when THY plans for alternates, the diversion airfield(s) must have met conditions equal or above the next highest category of approach... e.g ILS CAT1 at dest then the alternate wx min for the alternates should at least NPA minima.... ..
In short, the PIC may have had all these cards in their hand but due to the decision making processes, for what ever reason, discarded them one-by-one until there was nil other alternative/option other than to land in such weather conditions by conducting a Low Visibility Operation (LVO) autoland onto a runway that, as aterpster has pointed out, was NOTAM'ed with a displaced threshold, which is a lesser issue than that of the runway, itself, was not to the equipment/facility standard required to conduct such a landing in LVO conditions.
the issue is more deep seeded than the crew disregarding ( if indeed that is remotely relevant in this case) all the items one by one as you simply put it.. may i suggests reading on james reasons work before you try to pin the issue at the sharp end. indeed there might be many valuable lessons in the form of "CRM and application of SOP, Rules and Procedures and how they are incorporated into the decision making process of pilots" but remember no occurrence or accident is a SINGULARITY but rather layers of failures that surpass common crm and decision making processes...
JammedStab:
Not sure I understand. I heard they held for quite a while due to poor weather. Did they hold for such a long time that they could no longer get to their alternate? Was their alternate New Delhi which has CAT III?
when THY plans for alternates, the diversion airfield(s) must have met conditions equal or above the next highest category of approach... e.g ILS CAT1 at dest then the alternate wx min for the alternates should at least NPA minima.... ..
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GF4RCE:
Based on my experience in the airline industry and within the multicrew cockpit environment, I can well ascertain the dynamics.
Flying, at this level, is procedural and rule based, hence, the reasons for the plethora of theory examinations, countless hours of procedure training in simulators including company SOPs, the countless regulatory publications including but not limited to State AIPs, Aviation Acts, Aviation Orders and the most dominant document - the Company's OPS SPEC.
Please read my previous posts within the thread. The accident started back in LTBA - at Dispatch.
This only makes this accident totally avoidable and unnecessary.
With 22 tonnes of "tankering full", due most likely to commercial reasons (far too expensive at VNKT), the PIC had the options to divert (even back to LTBA if so desired) or to hold for 3+ hours (with MDF still intact) until the fog burned off.
The standard Company SOP statement regarding the responsibilities of the PIC has a legal finality
One may infer that you work for THY.....?
In the end, if walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck - it's a duck!
thats a big assumption to make considering you don't have the relevant data nor the aware of the dynamics within the cockpit at the time.....
Flying, at this level, is procedural and rule based, hence, the reasons for the plethora of theory examinations, countless hours of procedure training in simulators including company SOPs, the countless regulatory publications including but not limited to State AIPs, Aviation Acts, Aviation Orders and the most dominant document - the Company's OPS SPEC.
no occurrence or accident is a SINGULARITY but rather layers of failures that surpass common crm and decision making processes...
i dont think fuel was as issue from what i know, that flight had 22t of tankering fuel plus alternateS..
when THY plans for alternates, the diversion airfield(s) must have met conditions equal or above the next highest category of approach... e.g ILS CAT1 at dest then the alternate wx min for the alternates should at least NPA minima.... ..
when THY plans for alternates, the diversion airfield(s) must have met conditions equal or above the next highest category of approach... e.g ILS CAT1 at dest then the alternate wx min for the alternates should at least NPA minima.... ..
With 22 tonnes of "tankering full", due most likely to commercial reasons (far too expensive at VNKT), the PIC had the options to divert (even back to LTBA if so desired) or to hold for 3+ hours (with MDF still intact) until the fog burned off.
The standard Company SOP statement regarding the responsibilities of the PIC has a legal finality
the issue is more deep seeded than the crew disregarding
when THY plans for alternates, the diversion airfield(s)
In the end, if walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck - it's a duck!
