Clildren of magenta
 

bugg smasher,
Just wanted to let you know that "children of magenta" was not invented by Gretchenfrage, but a long time ago by some guy with American airlines. Since several years this term is commonly used in discussions about auto-flight addiction. Check out this video if you don't know it already!

- to avoid misinformation, please note that '1900' to the bridge' is 'recommended' and not mandatory.

“A Black-Hole Approach Illusion can happen during a final approach at night, with no stars or moonlight, over water or unlighted terrain to a lighted runway beyond which the horizon is not visible. When peripheral visual cues are not available to help you orient yourself relative to the earth, you may perceive the runway to be tilted left and up sloping.
In the example [circa 2003], the final approach fix (FAF) was at 5nm, but to fly a 3-deg flight path the descent should be delayed until 4.3nm.
An early descent from the FAF creates a shallow approach, and if the standard descent rate is used the aircraft will descend below the ideal flight path.
The VOR/DME is 0.4 nm before the runway threshold, thus some effort is required to cross check altitude against range to monitor the approach.
The approach chart used variable range scaling that indicated the DME displacement at approximately 1.5nm instead of 0.4nm, this might have encourage an early descent. The chart did not have an altitude – range table for the non-precision approach.
The analysis considered incorrect FMS programming, an early 3 degree approach, and a deliberate ‘dive and drive’ procedure.
However, none of the scenarios matched the recorded flight path.”

“A long straight-in final. A runway in a remote location, few lights in the local area, but with a town in the distance beyond the airport or to the side.”

Slides 7-10 ‘Understanding Visual Illusions And Disorientation.’

For the TEM gurus, how many 'threats' in this scenario?

Well, yes, the charts for the Quiet Bridge Visuals do use the word 'recommended'. From the Tipp Toe Visual to 28L however, I offer the following verbiage:

"Aircraft should cross the OAK VOR R-151/16.1 DME (Menlo Int) at or above 5000 and the San Mateo Bridge at or above 1900."

Duly noted the word 'should', is still not as conclusive as the word 'mandatory'.

There are a few very good reasons for this altitude, it keeps you inside of Class B Airspace, which keeps you away from the light aircraft traffic operating out of San Carlos Airport, and it puts you very nicely on a 3 degree-ish glide path. EVA may consider themselves lucky not to have near-missed, or worse. They were not where they should have been.

I leave it to the common sensibilities of most pilots to determine whether this altitude should be mandatory or not; in my cockpit, it most certainly is.

lonewolf...Rather how one gets that low on approach so far out is another question.

When I approach an airport I get dangerously low when I cross the threshold of the runway, about 50ft.:ok:

I agree. There is no more demanding flying job than scheduled commuter passenger service - frequent takeoff/landings, lower cruise altitudes and operating out/into often marginally equipped secondary airports.

28L visual
 

FWIW I just landed my bird at SFO on 28L on a visual approach off the Big Sur arrival which comes in rom the LA direction to the south. This has you join final approach at around 10 to 15 miles - depending on ATC

There are no ground based radio aids "up" for the 28's except the SFO VOR. The PAPI's are up for both 28L and R - based on the new displaced threshold.

3 to 1 works great. This is not a difficult approach if you just stop worrying about what mode to operate your FD or AP in. Turn the whole lot off and look out the window. Your PM should be keeping a watchful eye out for red flags...

OH

No it doesn't. The bridge is 5nm or so from the 28 thresholds. That's 1650ft for 3°, 1500ft for 3 to one, not 1900. Worse, because it's way above the 3 times profile, the crew would probably be holding the nose up to make the "recommendation", making the subsequent dive for the dirt/water even more challenging. Hardly desirable for those who are not good at visual approaches anyway.

Its not a race issue, its a an educational issue. Its a cultural training issue.

When, as a kid you are exposed to rote learning as the norm, it can have its downfalls. Looking at geometry or algebra, or the oddities of various languages, rote learning has its place. Rote learning has its place in emergency memory items.
Aviation is far too complex to throw a rote learned individual into an imperfect world where we have to be very flexible at a moments notice.

99% of the time, they will do OK. Its the final 1% that causes issues. Now, put two of those folks together in the same cockpit...............

28L visual to SFO is so easy. No glide slope is required. They had a papi the last asian aircraft took out and was replaced and operative. We need to tighten up our standards so all airlines can perform visual approaches because we can with no problem. Last I flew you couldn't do an autoland unless you had a sterile approach so GS and LOC were protected. We can't slow down our system for the lowest common denominator so they have to speed up. I was landing on 9 at MIA one day and at 50 ft had full localizer deflection because an aircraft on a crossing runway deflected the localizer full left and right so autolands were out of the question.

Visual approaches are easy so either learn how to do them or don't fly to the US. Your choice. We don't want pilots flying into our airports that risk our airlines like last time. United could have been lost if they had crashed slightly to their side instead of the other.

I don't get it. 50,000 flights a day, 5 million people carried per day. 1,000 deaths per year. 2+1 guys stuffed a VFR approach in a heavy jet after 12 hours overnight flying into a complex ATC/aerodrome environment with no navaids at their disposal on a training flight. Surely this factors into anyone's risk calculations, is it not a statistical certainty? If there was no sea wall they would have missed the runway by 50-100 feet or so, and probably landed just short. Interesting reading, but not many people are above having a sub par day at the office, ask the fire truck driver. Many holes lined up for this one, Korean command gradients, and rote learning/training are just a couple of them...

Bubbers,

Rightly or wrongly, visual approaches are a fast dying art in the long-haul world. It's an area where international airlines of all descriptions need to provide better training. Long haul pilots only fly 3-4 sectors a month (if they're lucky) and simply don't get the opportunity to do visual approaches on a regular basis.

It's very different for you, flogging around in your 737 or MD80 all day, every day, as it were. Even those of us that came from a background where visual approaches were the norm find it hard to stay up to speed after moving to long haul. I can only imagine what it must be like for the poor sods that come through airline cadet programs and never get a chance to develop some of the basic skills you and I take for granted. Unfortunately, that is the way the airline world is moving, and piloting skills & standards are declining in some areas.

Like it or not, a visual approach is a significant threat at the end of a 12-14 hour long haul flight, when you're at the back of your body clock, haven't done a landing for several weeks, and haven't done a visual approach for several months, if not longer.

Well, not exactly, the aiming point is somewhere 1000 feet down the runway so they were already that much off. So they could have a sub-par day and land say 500 feet down the runway, or even make it a very, very sub-par day, touch down say 200 feet downstream from the sea wall, the airplane would still be in one piece but them "missing" the runway by over 1000 feet that's pretty extreme, landing is not like shooting darts into a target, you miss or not, landing is a prolonged event and you have multiple chances to make corrections, they never took advantage of them.

Willisimo. All navaids were available except the iLS, which is probably the one that any pilot needed the least in such perfect conditions.

In North America, experience is gained flying bush or checks, then twins piston to turbine followed by small jets in commuter airlines with lots of crummy weather in the Northeast.

And guess what: a number of these up and coming pilots end up in fatal accidents along with a small number of passengers behind them.

By the time a North American pilot makes it to a widebody command, he or she has survived the winnowing that has taken out some of his or her aspiring colleagues.

The Asian airlines do not have this pool of pilots who have ( paid their dues / survived lower tier carriers ); so have to use a cadet system if they want to hire their own nationals.

A cadet system can work very well. It does in the military where pilots end up with serious commands in a few hundred hours.

But if all you train is button pushing, that's all you're going to get.

Visual Approach option on FMC
 

777 FMC'S have an option for a visual final along with the option of a pilot specified RW EXTENSION of upto 25 nm. The FMC then provides a path with a nominal 3 degree GlidePath angle working back from 50ft over the threshold. Alternatively the GlidePath angle can be set within a range of between approx 2.5 to 3.4 degrees.

Well put Olasek
 

. . . And I would venture to add that wide body/longer body airplanes can have a recommended Aim Point of 1500 to 2500 ft.

Other aircraft do to. But then plop in a waypoint at 5nm and not below 1900ft and the setup becomes a bit messy, especially at night, with the aircraft diving down afterward to get back on the 3° slope.

You'd probably be surprised to know this, but in the civilian world, we are also required to be capable of everything our mission may entail. Haven't done a VOR approach in the past year? You may have to do 3 of them down to mins tomorrow. There's no difference.

Had a dekko at the SFO Jepps. I see what you mean, San Mateo bridge alt xing recommendation. Hate to say it, but slowly this accident is becoming believable in a sense.