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

Air India B788 descends to 200 ft over water at HKG

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

Air India B788 descends to 200 ft over water at HKG

Old 9th Dec 2018, 15:39
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ---
Posts: 281
GLS would solve the issue..
ray cosmic is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 16:39
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem View Post
That is your view, mine is: Thatís why they have an off button for the glideslope.
Actually, the B787 also has a switch to turn off the glideslope. The FCOM recommends using this with unreliable indications. Itís called IAN (integrated approach navigation). You arm approach just like on an ILS, only you descend in GP mode instead of GS mode, and you canít do an autoland.
Long Haul is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 16:48
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 430
Maybe it's time to match operations to reality (i.e., that a standard approach is on the ILS with the AP, and anything else is a quasi emergency) and protect the GS critical area no matter what the weather is.

So there's a note that legally transfers responsibility... what's the flight crew supposed to do with that info, hand fly the approach? I think that ship has sailed.

Last edited by Vessbot; 9th Dec 2018 at 17:03.
Vessbot is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 16:59
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 269
Itís noteworthy that the incident aircraft was B788. The B787 has a FMC generated approach system called I.A.N. This is in most respects the same as a Vnav approach, except that it generates a (usually) 3 degree approach path out from the runway to the FAF and an inbound course, termed FAC. It is beautifully simple in that normal ILS approach procedures are used, even for a VOR approach, when final approach FMAs would read SPD/FAC/GP.
With known GS fluctuations this crew could have entered the ILS procedure but selected G/S off. This would have generated a hybrid IAN approach in LOC/ GP mode and would have been independent of, and impervious to, G/S fluctuations. Maybe they didnít understand the system. Further: the B787 has a superb VSD ( vertical situation display) which would have been clearly showing the aircraft flight path directed to a point well short of the runway.
777fly is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 17:42
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 203
Did anyone look out of the window?
Bengerman is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 17:42
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Long Haul View Post


Actually, the B787 also has a switch to turn off the glideslope. The FCOM recommends using this with unreliable indications. Itís called IAN (integrated approach navigation). You arm approach just like on an ILS, only you descend in GP mode instead of GS mode, and you canít do an autoland.
That's a nice feature.
aterpster is online now  
Old 9th Dec 2018, 23:04
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,712
Originally Posted by Bengerman View Post
Did anyone look out of the window?
apparently not
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2018, 02:31
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,704
that a standard approach is on the ILS with the AP, and anything else is a quasi emergency
I really hope that you are joking.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2018, 03:06
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,684
Whilst conducting a VOR approach to RWY 34 at YMML in their super dooper 787 AI tried to land at YMEN airport in good weather a while ago. Seems they still cannot do any RNAV approaches........
ACMS is online now  
Old 10th Dec 2018, 03:06
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by Icarus2001 View Post
I really hope that you are joking.
About 50/50
Vessbot is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2018, 12:53
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,734
Originally Posted by Aterpster
It's called reading the notes.
If only that comment was in the notes!

Jepp has put the note about the LOC being useable in The Notes section, but not the note/Caution about the GS interference. Not desirable.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 12:50
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
If only that comment was in the notes!

Jepp has put the note about the LOC being useable in The Notes section, but not the note/Caution about the GS interference. Not desirable.
Look at Post #57. The note is prominent and in the plan view.
aterpster is online now  
Old 12th Dec 2018, 15:29
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by Bengerman View Post
Did anyone look out of the window?
When I was flying airliners, an instructor saw me focusing too much on the outside and he told me to follow FD down to 50 feet.
This was in Asia !!!!
Boeing_Guy is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2018, 18:04
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by Bengerman View Post
Did anyone look out of the window?
Being a 787 then I would very much hope they were looking out of the window, through the HUD.
BleedingOn is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 06:40
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,238
When crew is informed about GS unreliability they needed to have a plan to mitigate the threat. Close monitoring of GS with ILS DME and when required disengaging the GS and selecting appropriate VS, planning a LOC only approach or switching to visual approach are part of the options. From available evidence it appears the threat was not assessed in it's entirety and suitable threat mitigation was not planned. Surely action based on GPWS cannot be a safe option. The CVR read out should reveal the crew thought process if any. Since the issue is recurring event I hope the airline quickly addresses the issue and circulates the information and procedures to manage the threat.

Last edited by vilas; 13th Dec 2018 at 07:18.
vilas is online now  
Old 13th Dec 2018, 13:44
  #76 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 41
Posts: 2,479
True vilas, and very systematic. Only half of the story though, the less important one. It is not right they did not have a workable plan to a known hazard, what's wrong is how the situation was allowed to unfold.

The A/C left 1700 ft 2 NM before the G/S intercept point and dived with 2700 fpm. Eventually becoming stabilized with -2000 fpm' for 40 seconds until approx 400 ft AGL. Then an adjustment was made reducing to -300 fpm for another 40 seconds, still descending to surface.

Apart from the preparation, assessment and mitigation that śhould have been in place, a completely different toolbox of skills was not present to stop the developing situation. If the report and corrective actions are only limited to what you describe - stage 1 - of what happened, it would be a very sad state of affairs. A missed opportunity as well, let's wait and see.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2018, 14:03
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,238
The A/C left 1700 ft 2 NM before the G/S intercept point and dived with 2700 fpm. Eventually becoming stabilized with -2000 fpm' for 40 seconds until approx 400 ft AGL. Then an adjustment was made reducing to -300 fpm for another 40 seconds, still descending to surface
I hadn't seen this. No approach has such high descent segment and that itself is an indicator that something is wrong and immediately it should have been stopped. Shudder to think if GPWS was U/S.
vilas is online now  
Old 15th Dec 2018, 11:59
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 814
LOL... All these excuses, always excuses. No one is flying the aircraft anymore and using their common sense... If I'm flying an aircraft at 1700' AGL and the machine decides on its own to leave that altitude 2.0 nm before the G/S intercept point and starts a 2700 feet per minute descent then it's time for some "real" pilot thinking and action… Like I said before... Click, click... Autopilot "OFF" fly manually!

Too many idiots flying aircrafts these days.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2018, 12:31
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,037
Originally Posted by Jet Jockey A4 View Post
LOL... All these excuses, always excuses. No one is flying the aircraft anymore and using their common sense... If I'm flying an aircraft at 1700' AGL and the machine decides on its own to leave that altitude 2.0 nm before the G/S intercept point and starts a 2700 feet per minute descent then it's time for some "real" pilot thinking and action… Like I said before... Click, click... Autopilot "OFF" fly manually!

Too many idiots flying aircrafts these days.
I wouldn't call them idiots, they're only inept and incapable.
Idiots, and i am staying politically correct because privately i use more stringent terms, are the regulators giving them a licence and airline managers giving them a seat.
glofish is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2018, 17:32
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by glofish View Post
I wouldn't call them idiots, they're only inept and incapable.
Idiots, and i am staying politically correct because privately i use more stringent terms, are the regulators giving them a licence and airline managers giving them a seat.
I'll go along with that!
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.