A380 low at Melbourne
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lower Silesia
Age: 77
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit off topic but recently read an interesting (but incomplete) dissertation on the FMS and the whimsicalities of some systems when dialling up waypoints. Mention was made of how the Helios 737 flew to Athens and entered a holding pattern (presumably via the correct sector entry at the holding fix). However that got me wondering what would happen when you weren't enroute to a destination and overflew that way-point which had no associated instrument appch and/ or onwards waypoint in the same direction beyond that waypoint. What would that FMS do as far as onwards tracking/heading goes? It surely wouldn't orbit that way-point. Would it just maintain locked to its last track or heading? If so and turbulence/cloud deflected it from that track/heading, what tracking could be expected?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
However that got me wondering what would happen when you weren't enroute to a destination and overflew that way-point which had no associated instrument appch and/ or onwards waypoint in the same direction beyond that waypoint. What would that FMS do as far as onwards tracking/heading goes?
On others, like the A310/A306, seems like the autopilot kicks off with an aural warning (to wake up the pilots
).
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like all this "magic," vendors have different methods of implementation. In my view, having the autopilot disconnect is not good safety engineering. Aural warning, yes. Disconnect, no.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Over here in FAA land, the feds are now offering this conservative guidance about last minute changes to an approach:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...N_8900.311.pdf
I don't know how EK does it these days. And we won't know for a while if a botched route mod or mode selection caused this MEL altitude bust.
Seems like some operators, like Air Canada, had a rule that you couldn't do any button pushing on the FMS below 10,000 feet and if there was a runway or approach change, you would go to raw data. Of course, these days on approaches like the one discussed above at MEL, there is no raw data, at least not in the traditional sense of ground based navaids.
And, I've seen the other extreme in years past where the sim instructor would have the PNF typing all the way down to the runway to demonstrate proficiency with last minute route mods and runway changes that were very unlikely in the real world. For training, of course...
b. POIs will work with their operators to ensure that operators have procedures that explicitly state that any changes to an approach after the initial briefing should be re-briefed in accordance with accepted crew briefing procedure. Last-minute runway or approach changes should be accepted only if pre-briefed as a backup to the planned approach. The PM should update the FMC to reflect an approach change, and verify with the PF that the new approach is properly set up in the aircraft. If time does not allow for re-brief and verification of proper FMC/cockpit setup, the flightcrew should ask for extended vectors or holding until briefing/setup can be accomplished.
c. POIs will also work with their operators to develop information about how the FMS could provide an incorrect presentation in the lateral and/or vertical profiles if waypoints are incorrectly entered, or a route discontinuity exists that is not corrected before conducting an approach.
c. POIs will also work with their operators to develop information about how the FMS could provide an incorrect presentation in the lateral and/or vertical profiles if waypoints are incorrectly entered, or a route discontinuity exists that is not corrected before conducting an approach.
I don't know how EK does it these days. And we won't know for a while if a botched route mod or mode selection caused this MEL altitude bust.
Seems like some operators, like Air Canada, had a rule that you couldn't do any button pushing on the FMS below 10,000 feet and if there was a runway or approach change, you would go to raw data. Of course, these days on approaches like the one discussed above at MEL, there is no raw data, at least not in the traditional sense of ground based navaids.
And, I've seen the other extreme in years past where the sim instructor would have the PNF typing all the way down to the runway to demonstrate proficiency with last minute route mods and runway changes that were very unlikely in the real world. For training, of course...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlikely to be a modification to the approach as the RNP AR with RF leg is not permitted to be modified.
And generally once ATC (in Australia) clears you for the approach they will expect you to do exactly as it says on 'the tin'.
As I said this is flown in NAV/DES and there is a whole section in the FCOM about how to fly these approaches; which we are required to have a look at as part of the arrival briefing before TOD. Personally I don't like the NAV/DES way of doing it and I have seen finger trouble with these more than once!
And generally once ATC (in Australia) clears you for the approach they will expect you to do exactly as it says on 'the tin'.
As I said this is flown in NAV/DES and there is a whole section in the FCOM about how to fly these approaches; which we are required to have a look at as part of the arrival briefing before TOD. Personally I don't like the NAV/DES way of doing it and I have seen finger trouble with these more than once!
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
White Knight:
There are three choices offered in the FMS when this approach is selected, all of which begin at IAFs, LAVER, SUDOS, or GOOLA. If the SUDOS IAF is selected all inbound RFs drop out of the approach. Since the scant report states he was 28 KM south, presumably he was cleared off-route to SUDOs and presumably told to maintain 3,000 (or, at or above 3,000) until crossing SUDOS.
If they were cleared off-route to SUDOS, they would have been "on the tin," as you characterize it.
But, anything less than 3,000 would presumably have violated the "pre-tin" portion of the clearance.
Unlikely to be a modification to the approach as the RNP AR with RF leg is not permitted to be modified.
And generally once ATC (in Australia) clears you for the approach they will expect you to do exactly as it says on 'the tin'.
But, anything less than 3,000 would presumably have violated the "pre-tin" portion of the clearance.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you listen to ATC Live, you will hear that they were recleared off the STAR to "direct PIERS".
PIERS is 14nm to run to the runway and 6nm before SUDOS. Refer Ports Nine P STAR
(14nm = 26 kilometres)
PIERS is 14nm to run to the runway and 6nm before SUDOS. Refer Ports Nine P STAR
(14nm = 26 kilometres)
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trent 972:
If they crossed PORTS at 9,000, and been on a VNAV path, they should have crossed PIERS at 4,900, or so.
If you listen to ATC Live, you will hear that they were recleared off the STAR to "direct PIERS".
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
EK407 checks in at 3:22 in this recording:
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ym...2016-0930Z.mp3
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to my question: what was the Wx? IF VMC and insight, all this playing around with FMC approaches for X or Y or Z and being vectored off the expected approach etc/etc. If you want to fly via automatics why not just use basic modes; if confused why not go manual? Rule No. 1. If confused DO NOT connect FMC to autopilot and then ask "what's it doing now."
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5:
"
Absolutely! And, that goes even more so for RNP AR approaches where special training is supposedly required.
Having said that the STAR they were on melds perfectly with the RNP AR approach at issue.
"
Back to my question: what was the Wx? IF VMC and insight, all this playing around with FMC approaches for X or Y or Z and being vectored off the expected approach etc/etc. If you want to fly via automatics why not just use basic modes; if confused why not go manual? Rule No. 1. If confused DO NOT connect FMC to autopilot and then ask "what's it doing now."
Having said that the STAR they were on melds perfectly with the RNP AR approach at issue.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5, the problem with that argument is that if you can't use the automatics properly in VMC, what hope do you have in IMC?
If you've been taken off the approach, then fine, basic modes or manual flight.
But they weren't.
If you've been taken off the approach, then fine, basic modes or manual flight.
But they weren't.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to think that an RNP AR crew that must be specifically trained and qualified on the ins and outs of RNP AR would not screw up one, especially this one that is designed and set-up so perfectly.
Then again, Turkish Airlines really messed up at VNKT and so did Nepal's aviation authority. But, I'm confidant the Australians don't have QC issues.
Then again, Turkish Airlines really messed up at VNKT and so did Nepal's aviation authority. But, I'm confidant the Australians don't have QC issues.
Watch it on Webtrak:
WebTrak
Click the Historical tab, then choose 14 July, 7 40 PM.
Interestingly, it looks like they descended to and maintained 2500ft. The didn't climb back to 3000 as stated by the ATSB.
WebTrak
Click the Historical tab, then choose 14 July, 7 40 PM.
Interestingly, it looks like they descended to and maintained 2500ft. The didn't climb back to 3000 as stated by the ATSB.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Watch it on Webtrak:
WebTrak
Click the Historical tab, then choose 14 July, 7 40 PM.
Interestingly, it looks like they descended to and maintained 2500ft. The didn't climb back to 3000 as stated by the ATSB.
WebTrak
Click the Historical tab, then choose 14 July, 7 40 PM.
Interestingly, it looks like they descended to and maintained 2500ft. The didn't climb back to 3000 as stated by the ATSB.
Hopefully the ATSB report will have distances in nautical miles instead of kilometers since that is what is on the charts and instruments the pilots were using.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Remember that the aircraft's altitude is displayed. Altitude is relative to mean sea level and not your home location. However if you know the elevation of your home location then you can work out how high above your location the aircraft is at a particular time (the height with reference to your location). You can find more discussion of Altitude in Aviation on Wikipedia.
As a crosscheck, EK407 altitude on rollout is 453 feet, in close agreement with the upwind threshold elevation of 432 feet.