Lowi 15-3-03
 

sorry to the moderators - please move to whichever forum you think best.

Sat in the afternoon at innsbruck - clear day landing on 08 with a stiff breeze down the runway. No fohn conditions or turb noticed on our arrival.

About 10 minutes later a ba73 arrived and when turning finals went around. fair enough. second approach at about downwind he/she went around again. he/she then positioned to land on 26 with a v.stiff tailwind. needless to say we all went out to watch.

now the questions. just wondered why the two goarounds and why the decision to land on 26. maybe the no more than 2 ga's rule from the ops man came into play and they decided to get around it by landing on a differant runway. anyone there?

anyway the main point of this drivel is that on the second goaround, a 757 was descending into the valley from kti and ended up also going around. When i first started going to lowi about 4 years ago, we were told that the deal with lowi was that only one aircraft was to manoever in the valley at once. now, obviously that is not the case as you have aircraft cleared to line up as you are downwind. not ideal if you goaround as they get airborne.

Was anyone else under the impression of only a certain amount of aircraft in the valley at one time? ie one.

Lastly are any of the operators of med jet allowed to descend visually into the valley. Our 320/321 proc mean we always follow the inst. arrrival but sometimes you hear or see more unusual arrivals.

Not trying to get at the ba dude as i have no doubt he made the best decisions but just wondered what the score was.

cheers

Don't know the full details, but I understand that due to map shift in the EGPWS, two hard 'pull up' warnings were received. The first on finals, the second when positioning for a second approach.

SOP's require a pull up to MSA etc etc. It cannot be ignored even if you are visual/CAVOK as big brother aka SESMA is ever watchful.

May have landed 26 to avoid any warnings, but now I'm guessing.

Yes, posn shift probs with EGPWS can be a real pain.
Had a G/A a couple of days ago at about 500ft for that very reason - right in the slot but when you gotta go you gotta go :(
VMC so we just disabled Terrain and made a further approach.

Ref Innsbruck, I wonder if they'd a strong tailwind on finals becoming a headwind on the ground :confused:

g/a when not necessary...
 

That's the problem with some aircarriers...they insist that pilots go around when the aircraft is CLEARLY safe to land.
GPWS/EGPWS do indeed malfunction from time to time....just how is it safer to approach an airfield (and land) with the terrain c/b pulled, yet at the same time, g/around when the system malfunctions?
More 'do as the box says' rather than 'use your brain'.
:rolleyes:

Our 737-700 circled to land on 08 yesterday without incident or spurious warnings. I presume the Dual GPS helps eliminate the position shift problem.

H

As 'H' knows, (for those who don't) the problem lies in the LACK of GPS in the 3/4/500 series 737. Loss of DME update then causes the FMC position to wander gently off into the bundox until the EGPWS cries 'You are going to die!'

I hear that there is a strong possibility that INN will have an extra DME positioned to the south of the field soon which should alleviate the problem.

411A,

You make a valid point. Fully stabilised, visual, CAVOK, on the ILS (where applicable), spot on with VASI/PAPI, whatever, and the computer tells you that you're unsafe.

Option 1 -
Continue with a perfectly stable approach using all visual clues and other aids.

Option 2 -
Spend the next 15 mins p155ing about in the valley, surrounded by cumulo-granite, in a high workload environment, even though you know the computer is wrong.

Tell me, which is the safest option?

SESMA is great, and I would never want to condone over-riding computer warnings without valid cause, but equally we can't take the human totally out of the equation.

:mad:

I too was making an approach in the valley on Saturday, arriving from KTI and circling for 08. The wind was quite strong at about 4000 feet from about 150 and it was consequently hard to make the final turn accurately, even if you were right over to the left when downwind. We ended up going through the centreline at min approach speed and max bank angle. Not dangerous per se, but concentrates the mind!

Regarding other traffic in the valley, the LOWI ATC folk seem to do whatever they can to expedite the traffic flow. I have more than once been asked to shorten or lengthen an approach to allow other aircraft to manouvre over or under me. On one occasion we had a exec jet approaching 26 at the same time as we were, but he was visual and only half a mile away- and converging. Not good. ATC never told us he was there, and wouldn't tell us what his intentions were (he ended up heading off up the Brenner Pass). Thank goodness for TCAS, I say.

Separation never seems to be compromised, but I often wonder how things would go if somebody went around at an inopportune moment.

Some people do visuals straight in on 08, I have heard at least two BA aircraft accepting that clearance.

The lack of GPS is apparently easily sorted with the addition of a GPS card to the FMC that we currently use (or was it the U10 FMC that was gong to appear pre Sep11?), oh yes and the addition of another aerial...

Either a GPS card or a second FMC installed in the 737 is required when PRNAV is mandated in the future. GPS card is cheap, second FMC isn't. Just wot I am told you understand...

cor...we could have had a mini bash on the ramp!! I was the FO on the Astraeus 73 that day and, as H mentioned, we had no problems at all with GPWS. I understand that the BA problems were caused by map shift triggering a spurious warning, which is still a mandatory Go round.
Having said all that it is quite a spectacular base to final turn, I'm glad I saw it in 50k vis.

As has been pointed out, the lack of GPS has always been a main contributory factor with these map shift incidents, and as BOAC has indicated the additional DME planned for Innsbruck will alleviate this aspect of the problem.

However, there are two other contributory factors that are also being addressed:

(i) An updated FMC programme is on order, because it has been discovered that, particularly where a hold is entered - prior - to an approach, which has itself got a hold programmed into the go-around, the poor old FMC has been using virtually all of its limited computing power to sort out that conundrum and it has therefore not been updating the position even when signals are available;

(ii)The current BA policy of a mandatory go-around in the event of a 'hard' warning, even when over the runway, has been reviewed - watch this space !!

stood there
 

saw it. At least the second GA, after being alerted be the first. Looked like a balked landing in training. After some turning in the canyon he came in for a 15 kts tailwind landing on 26.

Rumour soon spread that these manoeuvres where due to a map shift. Frankly, quite a few of us thought that questionable airmanship.

But now a new rumour is arrising. It is said that the same pilot got the same map shift warning 20 feet AGL a week before - showed good airmanship - continued the stabilized approach and landed. Back home he got bashed for not flying by the book. And now he demonstrated that the book might need some amendement.

Anybody able to confirm this?

Don´t put too much hope in that NDB. The locals are doing a lot of testing on GPS based missed approach procedures. This would cancel the need for the NDB project (which has been on for years now)

What a pompous statement, based on hearsay and rumour.

Policy at Swissair, Edelweiss air, BalairCTA, Crossair,.... :

GA is mandatory for a hard GPWS warning:

- at night
- in IMC
- Daytime VFR IF WARNING UNEXPECTED

Seems to me that policy is kind of sensible, cuz in this case, at least the second warning would have been "expected", and thus led to a landing with headwind...

I wasn't there, though, and I quite like the old saying that a missed approach is NEVER wrong. (As long as you have fuel, that is... hehe)

FlyMD - Totally agree. I still stand by my previous post, but even if there is a valid argument for the first GA, the BA ruling which resulted in the second GA (even though I am sure the crew were well aware of the map shift and their true position!) is inexcusable. It resulted in more time messing around in a tight valley and a high workload environment, followed by a landing with a 15kt tailwind......so 30kt higher groundspeed than required. In terms of "safety exposure" this was totally unnecessary.

What on earth has happened to good old-fashioned common sense and airmanship?

The people who write these ridiculous rules need to get down onto the shop floor more often to get a dose of reality!

Was it Trenchard who said that rules were for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men?

I am all for SOPs but let's not stop pilots from using their own original thought entirely.

The 'people' who write these rules quite likely have also written a rule that states that
"Pilots should check the integrity of IRS position against serviceable navigation aids before commencing their approach."
Consequently map shift would be seen to be present and the TERRAIN OVRD button would have been pressed.

And besides, if you've forgotten that then
PULL UP! + VISUAL = GO AROUND + TERR OVRD ON for next approach.

Sensible and safe.

Shall we shut up now gringos?

Does anyone remember the South American pilot who's reply to a GPWS warning was "shut up gringo" just before he flew into the ground!!!
Analysing the data from accidents going back decades has developed the features fitted to modern aircraft, where hundreds and hundreds of people have been killed.
Should we all now sit around and debate what we consider a better way of doing things, or should we read accident reports from the past?
Isn’t this one of the reasons they are published
:confused:

OH dear, here we go again!

link

My post

"posted 22nd June 2002 18:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORM TWO TEAMS!
RIGHT NOW! FORM UP IN TWO TEAMS! Supermarket trollies on the right, Nigels on the left.

This should get the keyboards clacking!

Recent BA Shorthaul 'incident', from BASIS:

Position: around 50' over the threshold of the intended runway of landing at xxx, good VMC

Cockpit situation: Handling pilot - both hands on control column to flare and land, iaw BA sops. Non handling pilot - hands on lap (or somewhere)

Event: EGPWS Hard terrain warning, due to totally erroneous 'map shift'

SOP: PULL UP and Go-AROUND

Crew reaction: SOP

I almost hesitate to say this, but I'm tending to agree a bit with 411A (damn, I said it).

Supermarket trollies - your challenge - a PA to explain to the pax how you saved their lives by avoiding hitting the hill on the runway at xxx

Nigels - ????

It would be NICE if repliers could announce which team they are playing for!

Walt"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


I (hesitate!) to leap to the defence of the Nigels here, but I MUST slap 'maxrpm' for that totally 'out-of-order' comment on 'airmanship'. There ARE some Nigels with that quality, although it is not a 'pre-requisite for the job', as I believe Big Airways believe that 'Nasa Team Skills' overcome all known aviation hazards.

To follow 'maxrpm's query, it is quite probable that the same crew HAD done as you suggest with that result, as I am told by my 'informants' that the *'space cadets'* in charge STILL insist on a g/a even over the threshold of a runway, if map-shift and EGPWS warning occurs, with DIRE CAREER threatening responses if you do not do so.

* 'Space cadet' is the replacement for the 'hamster' - as fast as the production line can turn them out.*

I believe 'flywheel' must be closer to the situation than most and perhaps has some inside knowledge of common sense prevailing soon?

There are times when an imnmediate reaction to a warning is VITAL, there are times when the average intelligence pilot can assess the warning to be false. There need to be some 'SOPs', but surely, space cadets, if the crew KNOW where they are, are in good vmc, have discussed the potential map problem, and are keeping the flight path under constant review, can they not use some common sense?. Certainly, repeated go-rounds at INN with other traffic (yes, there are other operators, boys!) should be avoided unless........ Never mind the paperwork, terrified passengers, over-worked ATC etc.

Oh, and Land ASAP - shot yourself in the foot there, eh Gringo?