Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Near miss with 5 airliners waiting for T/O on taxiway "C" in SFO!

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Near miss with 5 airliners waiting for T/O on taxiway "C" in SFO!

Reply

Old 16th Jul 2017, 11:42
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: EU
Posts: 111
"ACMS"

Many times when you are flying a Visual approach, there is a reason for this, generally it is that the ILS is unserviceable.

If the the ILS not working, or you are told to NOT use this NavAid, and make a visual approach, you would most certainly NOT tune in the ILS for any kind of reference, as it would be unreliable.

This is BASIC stuff.

And for "ratpackgreenslug" - The Airbus have NO MAGENTA LINE.

There are certain tools that could have been used, example extended centre line and various fixes, to establish current position for the approach to assist with SA.
BusAirDriver is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 11:44
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 186
@ShyTorque - I think alot can be taken away from that and I suspect you are very close to the truth.

Also in the helicopter world, I've been 'plugged in' in the back listening to the discussion in the front about the crew deciding if they had the right visuals for a Nato T, listening to this I decided to to turn around and see what was going on poking my head through to the cockpit, both crew totally fixated on the lights outside, no one monitoring the instruments, airspeed washing off rapidly and rate of decent rapidly increasing, neither crew aware, I called the go around. The crew were getting confused with brighter lights nearby which were much clearer than the Nato T.

Slightly different scenario but I think it goes to highlight the night environment can catch you out very quickly as you become fixated.
helicrazi is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 12:20
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 53
Posts: 1,671
Are you sure? The FMS Bridge Visual to 28R is an Authorization Required (AR) approach procedure but not, as far as I can see, an AR RNP (Required Navigation Performance) instrument approach.
Never said it was an RNP AR approach. It is a tailored approach to approved operators, hence the AR. It is the same approach as the visual quiet bridge, but adds ARCHI, and F101D, which doglegs it back to extended centerline, and adds the stepdown fixes as named waypoints for the database. (UAL also is approved for this procedure, I dont know who else)

The FMS Bridge Visual Approach 28R is a version of the Quiet Bridge Visual Approach 28R which is coded with GPS coordinates and can be included in an FMS database for approved operators. This allows the procedure to be used when the SFO VOR is out of service, and also gives ATC additional flexibility by allowing them to clear pilots direct to any of the fixes without needing to intercept the radial on the standard arrival.

Last edited by underfire; 16th Jul 2017 at 12:55.
underfire is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 12:21
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: By the sea
Posts: 3,422
Originally Posted by BusAirDriver View Post
"ACMS"

Many times when you are flying a Visual approach, there is a reason for this, generally it is that the ILS is unserviceable.

If the the ILS not working, or you are told to NOT use this NavAid, and make a visual approach, you would most certainly NOT tune in the ILS for any kind of reference, as it would be unreliable.

This is BASIC stuff.

And for "ratpackgreenslug" - The Airbus have NO MAGENTA LINE.

There are certain tools that could have been used, example extended centre line and various fixes, to establish current position for the approach to assist with SA.
the visual approach they were flying is an FMC approach, therefore it is in the database, and when selected provides all the information you need to fly..the autopilot system does a very nice job on these approaches...some here seem to think they were eyeballing seat of the pants approach flying, not the case, or wasn't supposed to be anyway..
ironbutt57 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 13:47
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 2,959
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
Airbubba, that particular procedure is with waypoints and is AR. The ac would have had to be GPS to get the AR approval to use the procedure
I hadn't previously heard the term "FMS Approach" but I am familiar with "RNAV Visual Approach," which are issued only to air carriers. Business aviation cannot have access to them, not even the high-end jets.

Technically, these RNAV visual approaches are not "AR' in the sense that RNAV RNP AR or CAT II or III ILS approaches are. Everyone has the charts for those AR approaches, but in the case of RNP AR they won't be in the FMS database unless qualified.

With these RNAV visuals neither the chart nor the database procedure are available publicly. But, nowhere on the chart does it state "authorization required," per se. At least it doesn't on the SFO charts for one major carrier that I have seen.

Interestingly, the "FMS Bridge Visual Rwy 28R" has an IFR missed approach procedure, which is contrary to the usual FAA policy for visual approaches.
aterpster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 13:59
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 457
In the A320 the display of ILS GS and LOC symbology on the PFD is incompatible with using the autoflight system to fly a non-precison approach. The ILS may be hard-tuned but the crew will not see the data unless they select the LS pushbutton or switch the Nav Display over to ROSE LS mode. If they do press the LS pushbutton after loading an approach with vertical guidance, they will get a flashing amber V/DEV message on the PFD to highlight the incompatible selection. I do not have experience of any 'FMS coded' visual approaches (RNAV visuals in other parlance?) but I expect that the FMGS behaviour is the same.

In the case of a classic visual approach, with just the runway selected in the FMGS, the ILS will have auto-tuned (the FMGS will know that it is an ILS runway) and the data can be displayed on the PFD without any advisory messages; the selections are compatible. However, by coding the visual approach trajectory into the FMGS it has effectively been transformed into a non-precison approach, and the selection of supporting ILS information is not as straightforward.

Bearing in mind the above information, just try writing a procedure to turn what may sometimes be a valid technique into a SOP. You would have to decide at what point it would be safe for the crew to start making fundamental changes to their EFIS set-up in order to discard the FMGS guidance and switch to ILS data. You would also need to consider if your procedure is robust enough to cope with the different cases of a non-ILS runway, ILS not available and a full-up ILS.

I also think it is worth pointing-out that hard-tuning the ILS requires manual entry of data from a different approach and introduces the chance of incorrect data entry. What if the FMS Quiet Bridge approach to 28R had been selected, but going to a different plate to obtain the ILS ident resulted in the tuning of the ILS for 28L? The technique is valid, but it is not a completely threat/error free.

Perhaps this particular occurence has found the flaw in FMS coded visual approaches? Rather than just censure the crew, the industry needs to look at what lessons we can all learn from this. Would the inclusion of runway lighting configuration on the ATIS at airports with close parallel runways be worthwhile?
Brain Potter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 14:25
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 53
Posts: 1,671
I hadn't previously heard the term "FMS Approach" but I am familiar with "RNAV Visual Approach," which are issued only to air carriers.
It does remind me of the current RNAV visual approach procedures, but the AR is due to the 'tailored' approach part of the adventure.
The waypoints are at setpdown fix locations, with at/abv designators, which appears to add a quasi vnav to the RNAV approach.

With RNAV visuals, the FMS auto computes a straignt line VNAV path. I think that the legs may too short and outside of the FMS ability, especially the dogleg at ALPHI for the FMS to keep up with a VNAV solution. Perhaps this is why it is considered a tailored approach requiring approval to use?

I have also encountered differences in the ac/FMS performance with AT/ABV altitudes on waypoints on final. Another good reason for the tailored designation on the procedure.

I seem to remember in AUS, the international crews are/were not authorized to use the RNAV visuals.

Last edited by underfire; 16th Jul 2017 at 14:35.
underfire is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 14:45
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: By the sea
Posts: 3,422
Originally Posted by Brain Potter View Post
In the A320 the display of ILS GS and LOC symbology on the PFD is incompatible with using the autoflight system to fly a non-precison approach. The ILS may be hard-tuned but the crew will not see the data unless they select the LS pushbutton or switch the Nav Display over to ROSE LS mode. If they do press the LS pushbutton after loading an approach with vertical guidance, they will get a flashing amber V/DEV message on the PFD to highlight the incompatible selection. I do not have experience of any 'FMS coded' visual approaches (RNAV visuals in other parlance?) but I expect that the FMGS behaviour is the same.

In the case of a classic visual approach, with just the runway selected in the FMGS, the ILS will have auto-tuned (the FMGS will know that it is an ILS runway) and the data can be displayed on the PFD without any advisory messages; the selections are compatible. However, by coding the visual approach trajectory into the FMGS it has effectively been transformed into a non-precison approach, and the selection of supporting ILS information is not as straightforward.

Bearing in mind the above information, just try writing a procedure to turn what may sometimes be a valid technique into a SOP. You would have to decide at what point it would be safe for the crew to start making fundamental changes to their EFIS set-up in order to discard the FMGS guidance and switch to ILS data. You would also need to consider if your procedure is robust enough to cope with the different cases of a non-ILS runway, ILS not available and a full-up ILS.

I also think it is worth pointing-out that hard-tuning the ILS requires manual entry of data from a different approach and introduces the chance of incorrect data entry. What if the FMS Quiet Bridge approach to 28R had been selected, but going to a different plate to obtain the ILS ident resulted in the tuning of the ILS for 28L? The technique is valid, but it is not a completely threat/error free.

Perhaps this particular occurence has found the flaw in FMS coded visual approaches? Rather than just censure the crew, the industry needs to look at what lessons we can all learn from this. Would the inclusion of runway lighting configuration on the ATIS at airports with close parallel runways be worthwhile?
well said, should clear it up for some here...
ironbutt57 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 15:19
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 2,959
Originally Posted by Brain Potter View Post

Perhaps this particular occurence has found the flaw in FMS coded visual approaches? Rather than just censure the crew, the industry needs to look at what lessons we can all learn from this.
Absolutely! I'm confident the NTSB and their Canadian counterpart will be looking looking quite closely at all aspect of these database FMS "visual" procedures.
aterpster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 15:39
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 2,959
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
I seem to remember in AUS, the international crews are/were not authorized to use the RNAV visuals.
Thinking about your comment, perhaps Air Canada wasn't authorized the FMS Visual. If so, seems like they would have been flying the plain vanilla Quiet Bridge 28R Visual.
aterpster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 15:54
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by aterpster View Post
Thinking about your comment, perhaps Air Canada wasn't authorized the FMS Visual. If so, seems like they would have been flying the plain vanilla Quiet Bridge 28R Visual.
Didn't the ATC recording include a clearance to TRDOW and the FMS Bridge visual for AC 759?
Zeffy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 16:25
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 2,959
Originally Posted by Zeffy View Post
Didn't the ATC recording include a clearance to TRDOW and the FMS Bridge visual for AC 759?
I only looked at the tower transcript. If they were cleared for the FMS Visual, in some ways that deepens the mystery.
aterpster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 17:36
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 53
Posts: 1,671
I only looked at the tower transcript. If they were cleared for the FMS Visual, in some ways that deepens the mystery.
I listened to the recording, they specifically asked for FMS Bridge vsual 28R, and were cleared to land.

Interesting, when you listen (to the recording in post #4 of this thread) you hear different requests coming in.
at 1430 you have a delta request 28R visual;
at 1705 someone requests FMS 28R, bridge visual;
at 1942, a delta asks for RNAV bridge visual 28R;
at 2110, you have air canada 759 request FMS bridge visual 28R.

Interestingly, the "FMS Bridge Visual Rwy 28R" has an IFR missed approach procedure, which is contrary to the usual FAA policy for visual approaches.
True for the US on public procedures, but as a tailored approach, it makes sense to have that in the design? That may be another reason that this is a special, because you would have to include VFR and IFR waypoints in both of the databases.

TLV and BOD have published missed approaches on their RNAV visuals.

Last edited by underfire; 16th Jul 2017 at 18:44.
underfire is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 17:53
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: By the sea
Posts: 3,422
both are the FMGS database
ironbutt57 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 18:05
  #275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 53
Posts: 1,671
From ICAO guidance:

An RNAV Visual Approach is comprised of a flight path requiring an FMS and use of ground based, space based or onboard navigation aids, followed by a visual track to landing.
These are very specific procedures which require the operator to obtain Civil Aviation Authority approval before its pilots can fly an RNAV Visual.


■Your airline is required to be CAA approved for RNAV Visual approaches. Note that it is possible for an airline to be authorized to fly RNAV approaches, but not authorized to fly RNAV Visual approaches.
■ If your airline is not approved, you should not have the RNAV Visual charts, however, reports indicate that some crews have had these approaches included in their onboard chart library even though neither they nor their airline was authorized.

From FAA:

In 2010 the FAA issued Order 8260.55 allowing the development of RNAV Visual Flight Procedures (RVFPs) that capitalize on the capabilities of RNAV systems to provide repeatable flight paths, reduce pilot-controller communications and enhance safety through the use of vertical guidance during visual approaches. These RVFPs are not “Public” procedures. Instead, they are approved by a process similar to “Special” IFPs and are only available to part 121 and part 135 operators through OpSpec approval.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...er/8260.55.pdf


Yes, it does deepen the mystery...

both are the FMGS database
Yes, they may be. As noted, an airline can be approved, but the crew must also be appoved to use them.

Last edited by underfire; 16th Jul 2017 at 18:41.
underfire is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 18:16
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 53
Posts: 1,671
terpster, a few years ago, the FAA was looking at RNP AR to visual approach procedure concepts with Naverus. Are you aware if they were working on this concept with anyone else? Naverus was looking at this to get below the 250 HAT.
underfire is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 21:16
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,275
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
It does remind me of the current RNAV visual approach procedures, but the AR is due to the 'tailored' approach part of the adventure.
The waypoints are at setpdown fix locations, with at/abv designators, which appears to add a quasi vnav to the RNAV approach.
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
Airbubba, that particular procedure is with waypoints and is AR. The ac would have had to be GPS to get the AR approval to use the procedure
But I still don't believe the AR necessarily means that GPS is required. You certainly don't need GPS to fly a procedure with waypoints in all cases.

As the FAA document Special Area Navigation Visual Flight Procedures you cited in your previous post says:

RNAV Equipment Requirements and Procedure Flyability. Only RNAV systems compliant with AC 90-100, using distance measuring equipment (DME)/DME/Inertial Reference Unit (IRU) and/or global positioning system (GPS) sensor inputs, are acceptable for use on an RVFP.
After the release of the YHZ accident report, Air Canada has committed to upgrading their narrowbody fleet with GPS by the end of this year but there is a good chance that C-FKCK had not yet been upgraded. If didn't have GPS it might have made a difference in matching the picture on the screen with the view out the window when they were lining up on final.

Originally Posted by underfire View Post
I listened to the recording, they specifically asked for FMS Bridge vsual 28R, and were cleared to land.

Interesting, when you listen (to the recording in post #4 of this thread) you hear different requests coming in.
at 1430 you have a delta request 28R visual;
at 1705 someone requests FMS 28R, bridge visual;
at 1942, a delta asks for RNAV bridge visual 28R;
at 2110, you have air canada 759 request FMS bridge visual 28R.
You might want to listen to that recording again. I don't think any of these folks are requesting the FMS Bridge Visual 28R from the tower controller on the link posted by that smart feller in post #4. They are reporting their assigned approach procedure to the tower. You probably do that when you switch to tower, don't you?

They were already cleared for that approach by the previous controller.

As I posted earlier:

Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
You can hear AC 759 cleared for the FMS Bridge Visual at about 15:45 into this approach control clip (the time seems to be different depending on the .mp3 player used):

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ks...2017-0630Z.mp3
Originally Posted by aterpster View Post
Thinking about your comment, perhaps Air Canada wasn't authorized the FMS Visual. If so, seems like they would have been flying the plain vanilla Quiet Bridge 28R Visual.
Originally Posted by Zeffy View Post
Didn't the ATC recording include a clearance to TRDOW and the FMS Bridge visual for AC 759?
Yep, I agree, their clearance for the FMS Bridge Visual RWY 28R is in the approach control clip linked again above. And there still is no runway 28C...
Airbubba is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 21:19
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Peeking from behind the curtain
Posts: 379
Originally Posted by Brain Potter View Post

Perhaps this particular occurence has found the flaw in FMS coded visual approaches? Rather than just censure the crew, the industry needs to look at what lessons we can all learn from this. Would the inclusion of runway lighting configuration on the ATIS at airports with close parallel runways be worthwhile?
Thank you Brian Potter! We have a crazy policy recomendation to de-tune the ILS for an RNP approach when the runway is equiped with an ILS, why? Because of occasional GPWS glideslope alerts if the ILS is tuned! The GPWS is valid, but because some approaches are 2.8 degree (due hot weather), if it is cold and with enough barometric error you are actually low on path compared to the ILS. Better to turn the noise off than acknowledge the issues. Reminds me of "Shut up Gringo".

It goes against all instincts to deliberately hide a piece of potentially extremely valuable information, especially at night or in marginal weather.
CurtainTwitcher is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 22:41
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 2,959
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
terpster, a few years ago, the FAA was looking at RNP AR to visual approach procedure concepts with Naverus. Are you aware if they were working on this concept with anyone else? Naverus was looking at this to get below the 250 HAT.
I haven't heard of that. If could still be in-house though. That would require some changes to criteria.

MITRE has been looking at RNP AR to LPV. That's been going on for several years.
aterpster is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jul 2017, 23:45
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,344
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
terpster, a few years ago, the FAA was looking at RNP AR to visual approach procedure concepts with Naverus. Are you aware if they were working on this concept with anyone else? Naverus was looking at this to get below the 250 HAT.
I haven't heard of that. If could still be in-house though. That would require some changes to criteria.

MITRE has been looking at RNP AR to LPV. That's been going on for several years.

Naverus is no more, they were bought out a few years ago by General Electric, Flight Effeciency services is the new name under GE.

MITRE for lack of a better term has licensing authority over FAA software called TARGETS that is the basis for building RVFPS. This is often issued to airlines who build them for their needs, SWA being one of the more aggressive ones.
West Coast is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service