Ryanair GPWS @ Bergerac

[macdo]

Herod

I don't disagree with your sentiment. But, it is possible that modern day crews are not trained or practiced enough to do NPA without the RNAV overlay and all the automatics helping. I don't think it is anything particularly to do with this crew's abilities. I can't remember when raw data NDB apprs' were taken out of our LPC/OPC's, but it was years ago and I'd frankly not elect to do one unless it was the only option.

[172_driver]

A raw data NDB (no A/P) was part of the sim profile at the interview for that airline. Seems like flying ability has only degraded since flight school.

[Banana Joe]

When was that?
What I and many others had was a procedural NDB ILS approach. Not as hard as a pure NDB approach.

[booze]

I did my assessment with them back in January 2017 for a NTR DEC position and also had a raw data NDB for GLA or EDI (can't remember anymore).

[HundredPercentPlease]

Are some getting confused with an NDB-DME? This is an NDB only with no accurately defined descent point, and therefore no way of knowing if you are on a 3 degree path for stability criteria, and almost certainly will result in a dive and drive which again has been outlawed for decades.

It used to be a sim scenario at MyTravel. The crew would (naughtily) define a descent point by GPS. The instructor would simulate a GPS fault (map shift), because you are only meant to use the NDB and a stopwatch. All sorts of fun then ensued.

The conclusion is that dive and drive NDB approaches are only for operations without any stable approach requirements. Which is why I have never attempted one in 20 years!

[172_driver]

What I and many others had was a procedural NDB ILS approach. Not as hard as a pure NDB approach.

10 years ago. It was a pure NDB, no ILS behind, no RNAV overlay

[Ray_Y]

NDB with timing table.
Questions: Did the pilots know of the ILS/DME u/s in advance (per NOTAM) or just when arriving?
Fair enough, they briefed before TOD, which is generally acceptable. Still it looks like they didn't get it together in the FMC. And such approach is really out of the norm for .
What's the truth regarding RNAV permission at FR - too greedy to buy all modern data sources? Or crew error?

[HundredPercentPlease]

Originally Posted by 172_driver

10 years ago. It was a pure NDB, no ILS behind, no RNAV overlay

Which is odd, because it's so easy. No height and distance checks, just wang it round the corner, descend at constant v/s, track the beacon in/out until you hit one of many conditions that force you to g/a. An NDB-DME would be more of a test, because you have to fly a prescribed slope.

[Rt Hon Jim Hacker MP]

Originally Posted by sonicbum

Guys, sh1t happens, they got got out of it in one piece and most likely got chewed out and retrained appropriately (at least I hope so).

I am more concerned by people claiming that it is unsafe to fly a Raw Data NDB approach with 2 engines and the autopilot.

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.

[LXGB]

Scary stuff!

I agree 100% that airliners shouldn't be flying NDB approaches anymore. A big hurdle to implementation of GPS approaches at many small regional airports is the high cost of the required consultations needed for regulatory compliance. Here's a link to the BEA investigation page where the full report, currently only available in French, can be downloaded.

Incident to the Boeing B737-800 registered EI-EMK operated by Ryanair on 01/29/2015 when approaching AD Bergerac-Roumaničre (24)

Direct link to report pdf

[macdo]

The last few posts seem to miss the point. It is not the ability to have been taught to do any type of NPA procedure and then use it in the sim for an interview that counts. If it had been me taking that interview, I'd be doing them by the dozen on my PC at home to get the brain functioning properly. The relevant point is, can the average crew do one, in anger, with poor weather, when they least expect it. My contention, is that unless it forms a part of a regular LPC/OPC you probably can, but with much reduced safety margins.

[Check Airman]

I don’t understand. Didn’t the crew have a working ND? How’d they get so disoriented? Good job of fixing the situation though.

[HundredPercentPlease]

macdo,

Nothing wrong with with an NPA. Especially with a GNSS overlay. But only if you have a distance indication, which they all do other than this one. The NDB-only is not compatible with a stabilised approach philosophy, which is a requirement of modern ops.

[Bergerie1]

That is why, in my day, everyone had to fly an NDB non-precision approach, sometimes with an engine out, and in a strong cross-wind on every six-monthly sim detail. Hard work, but invaluable basic instrument flying practise.

[JPJP]

HundredPercentPlease

Regarding the distance indication; inserting RW28 in the fix page will give the distance to the end of the runway. And putting it in the Descent page will show all sorts of magic, including a constantly updating required rate of descent to said runway.

One of the many puzzling factors is this; The aircraft being (inadvertently) left in LNAV, yet their track didn’t bring them out on the inbound course to the NDB. They are identical. Perhaps the FMS wasn’t programmed or sequenced correctly. Or there’s another hold over BGC ?

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 none of our aircraft have an ADF

[svhar]

In PNG all the copper cables from the local NDB´s were stolen every few days so they stopped replacing them. No big losss.

[HundredPercentPlease]

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.

[twistedenginestarter]

Originally Posted by JPJP

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.

[a5in_the_sim]

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.......

[Fursty Ferret]

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.