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

Ryanair GPWS @ Bergerac

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

Ryanair GPWS @ Bergerac

Old 28th Jun 2020, 22:32
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,288
JPJP,

I know that's what people do (I have 18 years on 737/A320). The distance shown is derived from GPS. GPS is not a primary navaid for the approach, yet it is used for navigation - descent no less. If you are going to use GPS, then you should use RNAV procedures.
HundredPercentPlease is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2020, 12:47
  #42 (permalink)  
ENTREPPRUNEUR
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 567
Originally Posted by JPJP View Post
The irony is that the entire NDB approach could have been flown in LNAV/VNAV. Or, worst case LNAV/VS, whilst backing up the Descent page guidance with timing from the approach chart. And the ADF confirming the LNAV guidance.
I'm glad someone said this. I was completely baffled why they seemed not to be making best use of available computer navigation. It reads like they were flying in 1965 and not 2015.
twistedenginestarter is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 08:03
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 79
What’s interesting to me is the cockpit conversation that precluded the decision to conduct the NDB approach. The tortuous complexity of crew and airline approvals and nomenclature that surround the GPS based approaches is madness. FFS. The industry needs to get a handle on this quickly. GPS has the potential to makes approaches so much safer and more straightforward. How have we found ourselves in this mire of descriptors that leave crew so perplexed and confused? GPS, GNSS, RNAV (GNSS), PRNAV, PBN.......
a5in_the_sim is online now  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 08:44
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 50
I'm glad someone said this. I was completely baffled why they seemed not to be making best use of available computer navigation. It reads like they were flying in 1965 and not 2015.
Training flight, was it not? I recall when I first started on the A320 at a big UK operator my training folder had a big table with required items on it to complete during line-training, and one of them was a raw data non-precision approach in selected modes. Having said that I still cheat and glance at the calculated vertical profile from the FMS whenever I fly a non-precision or even a visual approach, provided it has something sensible loaded in it. I think it's vitally important that the FMS is loaded with what you expect to fly regardless of how you're going to fly it, whether that's the full procedure or just the runway extended centre line.

I hasten to add that I've not flown an NDB (timed) approach since I climbed out of the vile Seneca for the last time.
Fursty Ferret is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 08:44
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,962
The irony is that the entire NDB approach could have been flown in LNAV/VNAV. Or, worst case LNAV/VS, whilst backing up the Descent page guidance with timing from the approach chart. And the ADF confirming the LNAV guidance.
I think you will find their SOPs say that if the approach is not "coded" in the FMC then it is not permitted to engage LNAV/VNAV to fly the approach, or words to that effect.
I'm not saying I agree with that but that was certainly the case when I was with said airline some years ago now.
fireflybob is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 10:13
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,786
I agree with a heck of a lot of the above (especially the comment about nomenclature) but we almost certainly would not be having this discussion if a simple agreement had been reached by the crew as to when the published procedure permitted leaving 2500' and what NBD indications were required. Regardless of what mode the aircraft was navigating in laterally, this was an NDB approach.

I do accept that workload/SA wasn't helped by the modes used and there may have been restrictions on modes available...
wiggy is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 10:20
  #47 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 73
Posts: 3,256
JPJP
And the ADF confirming the LNAV guidance.
Wiggy
Regardless of what mode the aircraft was navigating in laterally, this was an NDB approach.
Agree with Wiggy. What is should be is LNAV confirming the ADF guidance. Not the other way round.
Herod is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 12:17
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,023
And displaying EGPWS Terrain Map to monitor the 'mind'.
safetypee is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 13:00
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 43
Posts: 342
There's something called information overload.... the procedure is based on an NDB.... the more systems you ask the pilots to monitor and confirm with.... the higher the risk is them missing something.

Not that some sort of "defenses" are not usefull, like the MSAW at the controllers position and the EGPWS in the cockpit, but we have to be carefull not to overload pilots with information.

In my opinion there is a tendency, and has been for the last 20 years or so, of throwing a lot of stuff at people, stuff that may seem "nice to know", but essentially is only clogging up systems.
jmmoric is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 14:14
  #50 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 42
Posts: 2,960
And setting the step-down fix as a hard limit on the MCP (procedure with no FAF)

It seems a quite straight forward case of a crew not competent to fly any NPA drill whatsoever.

Last edited by FlightDetent; 2nd Jul 2020 at 15:58.
FlightDetent is online now  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 14:15
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,023
jmmoric, not denying overload is a concern; priorities must be considered by value. Need to know vs nice to know, but do we know.

If LNAV is not approved, then why use it to monitor the approved navigation system.

We choose to display weather radar; decisions based on that system would be more strategic - delay the approach.

Whereas EGPWS display is more tactical, potential to detect inadvertent changes to plan, position, altitude. Why wait for (depend on) the EGPWS alert / warning.

ADF, compass, stopwatch, map (procedure / terrain), altimeter, airspeed …
safetypee is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 15:12
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: uk
Posts: 220
I used to treat non precision approaches as emergency procedures, both pilots checking and cross checking throughout; if there's any doubt, there's no doubt.

I agree with Wiggy, hope you are well! Mebbe see you in November?

Busta is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2020, 15:23
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 43
Posts: 342
So you wouldn't do that during a precision approach?
jmmoric is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 19:17
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,879
I remember arriving at Bournemouth early in the morning returning from Orlando, to be informed the ILS and Radar was u/s and that we should have to fly a procedural NDB to Rw 27. Probably not at our sharpest after a night flight and notams had given us no reason to expect anything other than Radar to ILS. Fortunately the weather was not too bad so the procedure became in effect an NDB to cloudbreak followed by a visuaL.

It seems ludicrous that modern aircraft should have to fly a procedural NDB in this day and age bearing in mind the alternatives which should be available.
beamer is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 20:14
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,101
I don't know about you but we fly any NPA (incl. VOR, NDB, LOC) in the exact same manner as an RNP (or RNAV, to use other terminology) approach. LNAV/VNAV magenta highway bang on the centerline. Yes, you should monitor raw data but I am sure you'd get away with it your whole career if you didn't. So why curse the NDBs when we praise RNP appr.?
172_driver is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2020, 21:28
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 259
Looking at the Avherald report, I can't see any obvious problem with the lateral navigation. The aircraft seemed to join down wind in the hold and looking at the trajectory graphic, it even seemed to turn inbound at roughly the correct time. Compare it to the 10nm range on each.
I wonder about the comment- "The autopilot initiated a second left turn again consistent with a hold pattern rather than joining the final approach course." Was someone expecting it to turn the other way? Looking at the charts, it appears to be the same lateral path so why would that comment be made? Is it because of the diagram for the Cat A/B versus the Cat C holding?

clark y is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 07:12
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 48
Posts: 1,701
Originally Posted by Rt Hon Jim Hacker MP View Post
The simple fact is that an NDB approach is probably the most challenging. The majority of CFIT accidents have occurred on non-precision approaches in perfectly serviceable aeroplanes. All engines with an autopilot.


My point is this. These types of approaches are statistically way less safe than a conventional ILS. If you apply TEM, an NDB should be at the very bottom of your list of preferred approaches.
If You apply TEM You can safely fly an NDB approach when no better approaches are available, such as ILS, RNPs, etc..
From what I have understood out of this report, the crew was not sure whether they were allowed to fly an RNP approach at Bergerac (knowledge problem within the crew ? Company information confusing?) and hence reverted to the NDB which was also mismanaged. The consequential errors were finally mitigated by the crew reacting appropriately to the EGPWS warning.
sonicbum is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 07:56
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,786
Originally Posted by clark y View Post
Looking at the Avherald report, I can't see any obvious problem with the lateral navigation. The aircraft seemed to join down wind in the hold and looking at the trajectory graphic, it even seemed to turn inbound at roughly the correct time. Compare it to the 10nm range on each.
I've never been able to see a major problem with the lateral side of the join and the downwind portion of the approach either, I'll bet that procedure has seen a lot worse..
wiggy is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 09:26
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Miles away
Posts: 69
This is the sort of mistake made in the early stages of training for an IMC rating. How on earth did they pass the initial IRT?
Procrastinus is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2020, 10:00
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,472
If I was a betting man, I’d put money on the “how” element being missed or only cursorily covered in briefing. It appears there were inappropriate lateral mode and height selections, which opened the door to the subsequent poor performance.

It’s difficult to ascertain without knowing the SOPs they were operating under, but for us, a non-database NPA with a runway-aligned FAT says fly it as an overlay or RWY EXT in LNAV/VNAV. If you’re not allowed to do that, at least put the approach in so you have something to compare with the raw data. As others have said, a timing-only NPA can be incompatible with many operators' SAC requirements, especially if you are not acquiring a visual reference until <1,000R. Non-CDA also needs specific approval in my airline.

We did one of these in the sim a few years back and much of the emphasis was on the planning stage. Once you’ve got that sorted out it becomes much easier to implement.
FullWings is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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