Ryanair GPWS @ Bergerac
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 not saying I agree with that but that was certainly the case when I was with said airline some years ago now.
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...
I do accept that workload/SA wasn't helped by the modes used and there may have been restrictions on modes available...
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
JPJP
Wiggy
Agree with Wiggy. What is should be is LNAV confirming the ADF guidance. Not the other way round.
And the ADF confirming the LNAV guidance.
Regardless of what mode the aircraft was navigating in laterally, this was an NDB approach.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 46
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Only half a speed-brake
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 …
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 …
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: uk
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
I agree with Wiggy, hope you are well! Mebbe see you in November?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 50
Posts: 2,229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rt Hon Jim Hacker MP
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by clark y
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 46
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I not sure how many places does it, but how about radar vectoring to final on an NDB approach? That would eliviate some of the problems in navigating the entire approach.
(We do it, though I've experienced once that an aircraft couldn't accept vectoring to final, he required the entire procedure)
(We do it, though I've experienced once that an aircraft couldn't accept vectoring to final, he required the entire procedure)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jmmoric
I not sure how many places does it, but how about radar vectoring to final on an NDB approach? That would eliviate some of the problems in navigating the entire approach.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This happened 5 years ago. I can’t find a plate for RNP approach for 2015 - current issue is brand new (Apr 2020).
The investigation states that the RNP plate wasn’t in the company booklet so the Cp assumed he wasn’t able to fly it - (AR) annotated perhaps?
The investigation states that the RNP plate wasn’t in the company booklet so the Cp assumed he wasn’t able to fly it - (AR) annotated perhaps?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 46
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlyingStone
In this particular procedure, how would you know when are you safe to descent towards the NDB? You can't get vectors for a timed NDB approach without a FAF.
In our case the NDB is inside the point we line them up on the final course, and the timing starts at the NDB. Of course if the timing starts outside the point of line up..... yeah....
