All this talk about mis-set altimeters. Whatever happened to "Rad Alt live, altimeter check"? Particularly at a sea-level airport.

In seven operators, I've never seen anyone use it as a crosscheck, Herod. Rad alt and baro alt seldom match, really just over the sea and Norfolk, so (probably) nobody has an SOP to do that.

We do, although unless you’re over the sea or flat ground there’s not enough information on the chart to tell much more than yes, there’s something underneath you.

Back to the incident, I too am perplexed as to how they ended up as low as they did if they were in constant visual contact with the runway & slope guidance. Must have been four reds for a while but corrective action only taken when within seconds of flare height over the ocean.

Rad alt alive crosscheck:
Our lot do it as well.

You saying this could be similar to the THY 737 at AMS where the rad alt was faulty and put it into retard flare. At least this time somebody noticed the drop in speed.

FullWings, re, "Must have been four reds . . .", I wondered too. I haven't yet finished reading the entire thread so perhaps the question is dealt with earlier in, but the Airport INFO chart shows nothing regarding visual vertical guidance installations.

Also, I saw nothing regarding night approaches on 10, (not permitted on 28, nor in IMC).

PJ / FW, " four reds ". " something beneath the aircraft ".
This assumes that PAPI was visible sometime after 'first contact'. Furthermore this poses the question, contact with which feature.
Conventional overland NPAs require visual contact with the runway environment, which can be interpreted as not requiring contact with the runway, and in extreme no approach lights.
Overwater NPAs such as this approach, then the immediate coastline may have been seen, but nothing more. This could be similar to a classic night 'black hole' illusion where the focus of attention is on a single dominant feature, resulting a low visual approach.
Also that when the PAPI should have been visible were the conditions suitable to immediately determine 'red' etc.
Thoughts?

In seven operators, I've never seen anyone use it as a crosscheck, Herod. Rad alt and baro alt seldom match, really just over the sea and Norfolk, so (probably) nobody has an SOP to do that.

Oh dear; another item thing that used to be called airmanship and SA, but now requires an SOP so that pilots act like airman. Disappointing that standards have dipped so low.

Rat5, are you suggesting that an altimeter check is a bad practice? Yes, I concede baro and rad alts will only agree over the sea, but even in other situations it does give a prompt to check that both baro-alts are set to the same figure, generally before you get dangerously close to terra firma. But in this case even more so, since they would agree within a few feet of one another.

SOP.

Paint by numbers so all artists are at the same level.

Hi safetypee;

Indeed: what was considered "contact" for this particular approach and what internal guidance and secondary (confirming) information was being used to verify on-slope/off-slope? The investigation will determine that. From what I know, WJ has a robust safety culture.

Retired now but our operation specified the meaning of "contact" for both VMC & IMC conditions and it was much like you describe - minor differences.

Along with the external vertical guidance, I think that good clues that can verify height vs. distance to go are also internal, from the ND, set to the lowest scale, and then using the usual 3:1 ratio, (a thousand feet out, 300ft height above the threshold or 300ft on the RA, and multiples of, etc., roughly), and descent rate vs. ground speed, (again for others looking for the "rules", a rough 3deg descent path can be determined thus: add a zero to the ground speed, divide by 2. eg. 140kts x 10 = 1400 / 2 = 700fpm).

Google Earth shows what looks like a PAPI installation at the start of the Aiming Point marking. There's also some type of installation (or foundations) at the 300m markers.

I would be very surprised if regular Hi Cap operations would be permitted with no visual or GS guidance available, especially there with an over-water approach. We (RPT) are simply not permitted (CASA rule) to operate without slope guidance of some type for more than 7 days.

Dodgy Brothers Incorporated... :)

Drawing a long bow to interpret Macdonalds, then the beach, then the roundabout then the threshold as the runway "environment", if you know what I mean (going a bit overboard, I know). Our AIP says "“visual reference” means the runway threshold or approach lights or other markings identifiable with the landing runway clearly visible to the pilot".

Capn Bloggs - yes, your observations occurred to me also...it would be surprising not to have some vertical guidance - I just couldn't find that confirmed by the current Airport chart, that's all. I'm sure someone with experience into the field will come forward to answer the question.

Found a stock photo of the approach - PAPI installed. Symbol didn't seem to be on the chart, but that's what "Retired" means...

Rat5, are you suggesting that an altimeter check is a bad practice?

Quite the opposite. In Line Training & Line Flying I used to demonstrate the X-check of RA 2500' & bro made sense knowing where you were. It was not a perfect match due terrain, but if you had SA you could make sense of it. My post was this: this addition to help SA should be airmanship and it's sad if it is only does by those who have an SOP to tell them to do it.
In many airlines the RA EGPWS blurts out an alert and the crew respond like parrots without thinking. That is the consequence of many SOP call outs I've experienced. They really were a Parrot Pantomime.

Agreed RAT 5.

A simple crosscheck of radio altimeter simply makes crew aware they are now 2500' Above Ground Level and this should be resembled by the Altimeter taking into account Elevation underneath aircraft at time of activation.
Another tool to prevent Blunder Error in QNH settings...

Such cross checks are fundamental airmanship, and I don't think anyone could legitimately criticise anyone for performing them. However, they are not in typical SOPs, and the point has been made in thread after thread about the demise of airmanship and the rise of SOP dogmatism. No-one in their right mind likes it, but that is the modern culture almost everywhere. With inexperienced trainers, only recently promoted to command months before getting a training ticket and only a few thousand hours in their book becoming the norm, it's not going to get better, either.

PAPI on both sides for rwy 10 :



Also confirmed by the airport chart.

Such cross checks are fundamental airmanship, however, they are not in typical SOPs, and the point has been made in thread after thread about the demise of airmanship and the rise of SOP dogmatism.

Opening paragraph of any SOP manual should read, "Airmanship at all times is an SOP."

but I take your point.

Rat5. I have to agree with you. I can't remember whether the altimeter check was SOP or whether it was just something I did. I've been retired over twelve years now, and things slip out of the mind.

"A significant number of operating practices allow the discretion to the Commander to decide how the flight should be flown. These are characterised with the need to exercise sound judgement and prudent assessment and may be referred to as sound operating practises (included under the more general heading of airmanship during an earlier period)."

Re photos of the airport, yes, found earlier as posted above.

Re, "Also confirmed by the airport chart."

The PAPI information is not on the Jepp Airport chart. The info is on the approach plates, just below the profile section.

Herod, yessir, ten years retired and stuff does slip away!

I don’t know about at MDA but the PAPIs were very likely visible during the latter stages of the approach. Why? Because on the airport video you can see the 737 on finals for both approaches, so the vis was good enough. The PAPIs are lit on the video as well.

For us all red or all white visual slope guidance is a mandatory go-around below 1,000R because the approach is unstable (some exceptions).

In my last company (I was there for 19 years) the "Rad Alt live - 2500 feet" with a cross check from the other pilot was an SOP call. Making sure that both Rad Alts agreed was particularly important on an LVP approach.

It made perfect sense to me and cost absolutely nothing.

By the way, I used to go into St Maarten with the DC-10. We always landed to the east and took-off to the west. It was not difficult as long as you had done your homework. The length of the runway and the hill at the eastern end were the main problems. Most of the time we could make JFK with a full load but sometimes the tailwind on take-off would mean a quick refuel at San Juan.

The PAPI information is also included on the Jepp Taxi charts if you don't wish to call it "Airport chart".

The 737 was so close from the water maybe becouse the pilot doesn't calculate well the speed or alttitude. The problem was he did the go around very late. I can't understand how he could not see the lights indicated by the altitude

PJ12:

It certainly is, on the 10-9A page, not the airport diagram side but the side with runway info and takeoff minimums. If the PAPI or VASI has limitations as less than standard distance or less than standard beam width, that info will be shown on the "takeoff info continued" page (usually the 10-9A page).

The info on the approach chart does show the PAPI and ALS, but is quick-reference info as opposed to the airport/takeoff pages.

I didn't say that. What I meant was that 150 ft below minima is certainly higher than what they ended up flying at.

Regarding misset, my mistake, English is not my first language and haven't seen it written like that before. Though mis-set would probably be easier to understand for a non-native English speaker.

@Aluminum shuffler: you're right, I didn't mean to dismiss the whole wrongly set altimeter theory altogether, and surely they could have misheard an altimeter setting. However, if the pilots were familiar with flying in the Caribbean, an altimeter setting higher than say 1020 mb (30.14 inhg) at a sea level airport in the Caribbean is unlikely and should have raised an eyebrow. That's a big IF though.

I do keep the radio alt in scan once it becomes alive, and although in some mountainous airports (like several Andean ones...) it doesn't help much if you don't have some context or knowledge of the terrain around the airport, it's pretty obvious it's more than useful at a sea level airport.

With the info we have, I'm still biased to both pilots looking outside (or getting distracted somehow) when breaking out and no one looking inside. It still doesn't paint the full picture as a 3° path should look familiar to two commercial jet pilots, even if no PAPI. Surely the weather on this approach couldn't make that assessment any easier, but at least a rough "3° visual path" could have been "calculated"

:ok:, thanks aterpster.

Dadanawa, you seem to be speaking the most sense here, backed up with numbers. If the MDA is 500' at 1.5nm or 700' at 2.0nm as you suggest, then it would be very easy for a 737 at a low thurst setting to lose several hundred feet if hit by a microburst or downdraught. It would take a few seconds to spool up and go-around which is what it looks like in the video. That weather was moving towards the airport (don't know if a frontal system or just a band or rain showers) and I have had experiences flying through a 'curtain' like that where there was a sudden downdraught and sometimes changes in wind velocity/direction (horizontal windshear too). If you were in IMC and breaking out on an approach, this may not be a hazard you are anticipating especially as the weather band on the weather radar may not appear to be moving. It could also be that the windsock situated half-way down the runway, may still be showing the runway as favouring the opposite wind as the weather over the sea may not yet be affecting that far inland. I think they got caught in something like windshear an responded appropriately, another few miles out and it would have been a non-event. The closer you get to terra-firma, the more significant downdraughts and windshear become and are sometimes an unseen danger.

Can people explain why the Truck heading towards the main runway in this video isn't being given more credit for a go around decision?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...78&app=desktop

Anyone who has flown to FNC (LPMA) will surely know this, but in this particular case it's something to be expected even on a calm day. On other airports given the lack of recent episodes, you might be more relaxed, and more prone to be caught off-guard.

Good wet-runway landing...not.

Are you suggesting that if it wasn't for the truck being there, they might have continued their approach?

May I remind you what that approach looked like?

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b7...pstcjz6lls.jpg

Hmm now you've also reminded me of the Turkish 738 at AMS.

That was on the correct profile until they stalled due to a radalt failure affecting the autothrottle and piss poor pilots. Whatever happened to this Westjet is unrelated to the Turkish.

The 2nd landing was with a 'healthy' margin beyond the threshold, compared to the bigger visitors; so for a smaller cousin it was perhaps acceptable. But back to my question, which only the crew can answer: what did they do differently the 2nd time? They seemed to have worse vis e.g. the rain, but flew a better profile for glide path to the runway. Why? I'm assuming they flew both approaches on autopilot. I'm curious what they did differently to execute so different a profile. That is how we can learn from this. That is what this discussion should be about: what did they do wrong and then how did they correct it. This is a learning process not a blame process.

Paid attention? Took them 45 minutes to collect themselves.

That is simply not true. Read the thread.

Looking at that video ... and looking at the photo posted at the beginning of the thread, surely no one is suggesting they were taken of the same approach on the same day? The cloud cover, rain, approach angle are completely different. It's solid cover with rain on the video, broken and sunny on the photo .. the sea state is calm ... it would have been somewhat more lively in that storm etc ...