Ryanair GPWS @ Bergerac
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Radar room
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by jmmoric
Am I the only one who find that rather "normal", that you'd call "established" to ATC before you actually are... hence not really a problem in the current situation?
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by Philoctetes
For such an error, both pilots should have had their IRs immediately suspended and made to pass another 'initial issue' flight again. The situation seems to have been saved by the terrain warning. What could have happened had that system been unavailable is beyond imagination.
That really is nonsense. You evidently don't understand how the professionals within the industry operate.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,535
I suppose some of the problems in flying a raw data approach when much/all of your day-to-day operation involves radar vectors to an ILS or some kind of PBN approach, are not that you can’t do it or don’t know how, it’s the difference in preparation, execution, familiarity and workload.
RNAV: Load approach into FMC(s), check, brief, set up MCP, altimetry, FMAs, RNP/ANP, progressive config, etc. Much button pressing and checking of automation which has deviation alerts but 99.9% of the time does it all pretty well.
Raw data: Brief, tune/ident navaid, procedural, timing, tracking, altitudes, full config, descent rates, more tracking, etc. Hands-on with the aeroplane - no alerts or warnings that you’re not doing it right until the EGPWS gets involved.
At first glance, they did bits out of both lists but omitted some of the more important items.
RNAV: Load approach into FMC(s), check, brief, set up MCP, altimetry, FMAs, RNP/ANP, progressive config, etc. Much button pressing and checking of automation which has deviation alerts but 99.9% of the time does it all pretty well.
Raw data: Brief, tune/ident navaid, procedural, timing, tracking, altitudes, full config, descent rates, more tracking, etc. Hands-on with the aeroplane - no alerts or warnings that you’re not doing it right until the EGPWS gets involved.
At first glance, they did bits out of both lists but omitted some of the more important items.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 98
No, sadly plenty of your colleagues find it "normal", too. Sometimes I wonder whether you guys realise we can see you on the radar!
On a non-precision calling established a tiny bit earlier (ie as the turn starts) just frees up capacity for the whole descent / timing / monitoring stuff.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hector's house
Posts: 83
Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret
On a non-precision calling established a tiny bit earlier (ie as the turn starts) just frees up capacity for the whole descent / timing / monitoring stuff.
UK airspace vertical division between Class D/G requires you to be cleared to descend on the ILSGP by Approach due to the possibility of uncontrolled VFR traffic below the platform altitude and within 10nm from the THR. In Europe the rules are different in Class C airspace where you may be cleared for the approach from the IAF.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The sky
Posts: 230
If a crew called established before being within +-5° during an LPC it would trigger a repeat if I was examining with a discussion about CFIT thrown in for good measure. Likewise if they deviated from +-5° during the approach and continued while not being visual, or went below any hard minimum altitude.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hector's house
Posts: 83
Originally Posted by Locked door
If a crew called established before being within +-5° during an LPC it would trigger a repeat if I was examining with a discussion about CFIT thrown in for good measure.
A fact of life nowadays is that the volume of knowledge required to assimilate the airline SOPs and the complexity of the aircraft type rating tends to displace the basics in the pilot's personal database. (head)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kopavogur
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by Locked door
If a crew called established before being within +-5° during an LPC it would trigger a repeat if I was examining with a discussion about CFIT thrown in for good measure. Likewise if they deviated from +-5° during the approach and continued while not being visual, or went below any hard minimum altitude.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Icelanta
You are completely out of your mind to fail someone for calling established a bit early. It is a debriefing point, nothing more.
When I did my initial CAA IR ( many many years ago on a Piper Aztec ) , this would have been a re-fly for that segment , just like failing to call " check for ice ! " every 5 minutes . No questions asked . And then, apart from anything else , money alone ( re-booking the aircraft for another test ) meant it was not an option . Discipline .
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: SW1A 2AA
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by Locked door
If a crew called established before being within +-5° during an LPC it would trigger a repeat if I was examining with a discussion about CFIT thrown in for good measure. Likewise if they deviated from +-5° during the approach and continued while not being visual, or went below any hard minimum altitude.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
We had a TRE that seemed to be on a bit of a crusade in my outfit. Lots of sickness from candidates on their LPC/OPC days with this guy. Duly noted by management and the CAA FOI.
My two cents.
Last edited by Rt Hon Jim Hacker MP; 7th Jul 2020 at 21:05.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: everywhere
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Locked door
If a crew called established before being within +-5° during an LPC it would trigger a repeat if I was examining with a discussion about CFIT thrown in for good measure. Likewise if they deviated from +-5° during the approach and continued while not being visual, or went below any hard minimum altitude.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
If a crew obeys the rules in the sim and then breaks them on the line, they’re asking for trouble in an environment where a repeat / retest isn’t an option.
Thankfully in my outfit they are more focused on the big picture stuff rather than focusing on reasons to fail you.
Only half a speed-brake
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 43
Posts: 3,175
Originally Posted by A320LGW
Thankfully in my outfit they are more focused on the big picture stuff rather than focusing on reasons to fail you.
Perhaps for the altitude bit? Brrr.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 48
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by Phantom Driver
Unfortunately , it sometimes needs a fail , rather than a debrief to concentrate minds .There are some areas in the profession where lazy practice is definitely not acceptable. Discipline is paramount .
To fail/retest a crew You must have observed an unacceptable reduction in safety level at any stage of the flight, and it must be observed and described in details, otherwise the crew will (rightfully) appeal.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 48
Posts: 1,854
Originally Posted by Rt Hon Jim Hacker MP
I'm just interested as a fellow TRE. PF flies the NDB within all the tolerances but the PM calls "established" at +/- 6 degrees. Whilst a repeat is at the discretion of the examiner, we are also encouraged by DOC24 to avoid nit picking. Personally, I wouldn't even mention it. It's trivia.
We had a TRE that seemed to be on a bit of a crusade in my outfit. Lots of sickness from candidates on their LPC/OPC days with this guy. Duly noted by management and the CAA FOI.
My two cents.
We had a TRE that seemed to be on a bit of a crusade in my outfit. Lots of sickness from candidates on their LPC/OPC days with this guy. Duly noted by management and the CAA FOI.
My two cents.
When conducting Initial TRE AOC during my career I have witnessed in many occasions a lack of knowledge on OM-D and EASA training bulletins and that is exactly the moment I understand they are not (yet) suitable for the position despite a total knowledge of FCOMS/OM-A and so on.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,620
I think the "established" point has two elements.
One is for ATC sequencing, the other for safe descent:
It is not unknown to called established as the ILS pointer moves across, because if one has armed ILS capture, modern airliners will very rarely not capture, assuming correct speed and config for that phase of flight. And it helps ATC sequencing if they know you are within a gnat's crotchet of being there rather than them having to move planes around in the sequence. Would ATC agree?. I would say "becoming established" to indicate this. Likewise, if we were intercepting an NDB track, I might call established if I could see that the trend was reliable - we might be +- 6° but by the time I had finished the radio call, we would be within +- 5° for example.
The second point is being actually legally established for the purposes of descent, which must obviously be within the published limits, otherwise, CFIT or terrain issues could occur.
I am sure that most TREs would use their sensible discretion on this.
One is for ATC sequencing, the other for safe descent:
It is not unknown to called established as the ILS pointer moves across, because if one has armed ILS capture, modern airliners will very rarely not capture, assuming correct speed and config for that phase of flight. And it helps ATC sequencing if they know you are within a gnat's crotchet of being there rather than them having to move planes around in the sequence. Would ATC agree?. I would say "becoming established" to indicate this. Likewise, if we were intercepting an NDB track, I might call established if I could see that the trend was reliable - we might be +- 6° but by the time I had finished the radio call, we would be within +- 5° for example.
The second point is being actually legally established for the purposes of descent, which must obviously be within the published limits, otherwise, CFIT or terrain issues could occur.
I am sure that most TREs would use their sensible discretion on this.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 70
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by Uplinker
I think the "established" point has two elements.
One is for ATC sequencing, the other for safe descent:
.
One is for ATC sequencing, the other for safe descent:
.
From my long passed Approach days , "reporting established" for a Controller main function is that it automatically means the aircraft is on its own navigation .In a radar environment you stop vectoring it to intercept the LOC , and transfer it to TWR ( or keep it in LVP ) Responsibility for terrain is transferred to the pilot.
As to sequencing, In busy airports maybe , but we have better ways to sequence aircraft . As an aside in Bergerac they have 2 or 3 commercials ops per day only ..
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 600
Interesting discusssion, I would put completely the opposite emphahsis on my debrief to an LPC candidate; if you have been cleared for the approach (ILS or other), then all R/T calls are merely courtesy to help the controller keep his SA. They are totally secondary to the task of flying the correct profile and as such can wait until workload permits. Radar to the ILS this is usually as it happens, but in a procedural environment crews need to prioritise taking into accoutn their level of currency.
Particulalry relevant at the moment, I have done a lot more procedural stuff than normal recently as ATC units are short staffed. In addition to a sudden revivial in LPC/OPCs in the aircraft as we are unable to get crews to the sim. Interesting times!
Particulalry relevant at the moment, I have done a lot more procedural stuff than normal recently as ATC units are short staffed. In addition to a sudden revivial in LPC/OPCs in the aircraft as we are unable to get crews to the sim. Interesting times!
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: everywhere
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
And hence the decline continues, by our own folk cherry picking which rules they like to be subjected to and which not.
Perhaps for the altitude bit? Brrr.
Perhaps for the altitude bit? Brrr.
Meanwhile the rest of us will keep flying practically. Not busting altitude limitations and maintaining big picture situation awareness at all times.
As a matter of interest I don't think I have ever called ATC as being 'established' until actually established on the LOC course (CDI needle centered is my mental cue) or fully established LOC and GS. I have no fears of failing for calling 'established' when 5.3 degrees off the inbound course because for me it isn't habit (whereas for you it would clearly lead to a climax)
Whoever said that people need to be failed to concentrate on something need to have a word with your selection department if that's the type of pilot being hired. I speak for every colleague I've been in the sim with when I say a notebook of the debrief is always kept and used for personal review. To suggest you need to fail someone for them to learn something is an insult to our profession and intelligence.
