Here is the equipment note on the current Jepp chart. As you can see, for a pre-GPS airplane DME/DME/IRU is the option to GPS.

Also, my FAA expert friend contacted his Jeppesen database expert. Jeppesen codes LNAV approach mode (RNP 0.30) at what they consider to be the "FAF."

The lack of standards is a bit appalling, though. At KLAS the FMS Visuals have a profile view. Not so at KSFO.

Yep, and a pre-GPS A320 would certainly have DME/DME/IRU. Thanks. :ok:

The SQ accident at TPE occurred when they were taking off at night into an approaching Typhoon. Lots of rain and wind, not so much visibility. This AC incident at SFO took place in completely clear conditions, although at night. Visibility should not have been an issue.

terpster, can you provide the entire Jepp chart you have the exerpt from?

Waypoints with coordinates in the FMS, how are these coordinated with DME?

No. It's not in the public domain.

I am wondering if the chart shows the DME distance, or simply the waypoints. Quiet Bridge visual does, but I dont see them on the FMS Bridge Visual, but I only have the waypoints from the database.

Construction at SFO.

https://photos.smugmug.com/News/7291...ction_04-L.jpg

I agree, the SFO incident where pilots in a 25 year-old glass cockpit plane on a clear night with light winds were unable to correctly execute a published visual approach procedure is very puzzling.

The incident databases have many reports of TCAS alerts, missed restrictions and off-profile descents on this approach. You can flip through some on this NASA site, search for quoted text "FMS Bridge Visual" in the narrative:

https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/search/database.html

I haven't run across anything yet with lineup on the wrong runway or taxiway. A recurrent theme seems to be the casual sounding ATC clearances to join and descend via the FMS Visual Approach with crew questions over whether the aircraft are actually cleared for the approach.

Can you provide a screenshot of a waypoint?

Is this sufficient?

Thanks, every one of the waypoints can be cross-checked with either VOR/DME or, in the case of F101D, LOC/DME if the aircraft and company procedures allow it.

Still, using raw data is considered a somewhat antiquated concept in these enlightened times of ever increasing automation. ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian W http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
Similarly, had ATC switched on the 28L lights the illusion would have been destroyed, had ATC added to the approach clearance 'runway 28L is out of use unlit and marked with a red cross' - the illusion would have been destroyed.

The Gorilla in the human factors research video is also totally impossible to miss unless your brain is told to focus its attention on something else. You will have to accept that when attentional tunneling occurs you will miss things that are in plain sight even those things that can be seen for miles on a clear night. This is a feature of the human attention system; trying to pretend it is not is dangerous.

I am beginning to think that rather like the decompression and hypoxia training that is done so crews recognize it, there should be some attentional training done so pilots can understand when they are likely to have cognitive issues. Unfortunately, the natural response to a stressful task with fatigue/circadian stress is to try to concentrate more and that is the classic way to initiate attentional tunneling ("count the passes by the white team" in the gorilla video)
If it is simple to ensure against the illusion by a few words on each transmission then it blocks that hole in the cheese at low cost.

Yes, thank you very much. Now I can see that the waypoints also have the DME information, makes more sense now for a non-GPS equipped ac.

I also thought that FMS Bridge visual did align with extended runway, but I see this is not the case.

What does Jepp consider as the FAF on this chart?

When we were testing the RNAV Visuals, on the Bus, we would have the #1 set to RNAV solution using the waypoints (GPS) and the #2 set to ILS as a check. Seems reasonable to do this operationally, not sure why one could not, (I am sure you guys will let me know)
Thanx

Ian, note 'X' on post #448

EDIT: Given what happened, this would seem to raise concern on the remote tower operations. In many ways, listening to radio, you could imagine this senario. Runway appears occupied, no its clear, and no apparent warnings from any ground based system that the ac was landing on a taxiway, occupied or not.
Seems to be a failure of several systems already in place. How would remote tower operations fare?

The Gorilla in the human factors research video is also totally impossible to miss unless your brain is told to focus its attention on something else. You will have to accept that when attentional tunneling occurs you will miss things that are in plain sight even those things that can be seen for miles on a clear night.

Yes but; NOTAM said that 28L was closed and approach light were off. Therefore you land on 28R which has all the usual lights. You should not have focus on landing on the right most set of lights that you see. The airport chart shows 28L - 28R - taxiway. You read the NOTAMS and construct a picture in your mind that 28R is the left most set of lights you will see. Indeed you will see only 2 sets of lights, and they will be very different. There will be only 1 set of approach lights and one set of white runway lights. That's the one that is open for use.
I'm beginning to think the gorilla comparison is not apples & apples. It is a scenario of complicated multi-item moving targets that you've never seen before. If there were strobe lead-in lights, and the a/c was on auto flight, and the crew had been instructed to count how many strobe flashes there were in 2 mins, I can almost guarantee they would not see the regional jet lining up ahead of them; especially at night. But this was not the scenario.

When the crew have been debriefed, which must have happened already, we might learn if this was a case of failing in the 6P's when planning the arrival into SFO.

I believe alignment occurs flying by F101D.

Don't know. I'm trying to find out. Anyone here who flies this RVFP should be able to tell us.

I have no doubt this procedure works great when competently flown in an airplane with a GPS FMS. I have to wonder about D/D/IRU, though. The industry learned the hard way to require GPS for TSO-C-129 RNAV instrument approach procedures.

I am hoping that the report will go into detail around why the crew didn't read/brief the notams that applied to their time of arrival. ( if that is the case)
Will it go into detail surrounding their sign on time and the time they were expected to be at the aircraft? How long did it take them to get through security? Was there sufficient time to read all the notams and briefing documents prior to walking to the aircraft ?

Was there sufficient time to read all the notams and briefing documents prior to walking to the aircraft ?

I asked if AC filters their NOTAMS to hi-light such critical items and cut out the rival. No reply. However, it was not a short flight, i.e. time enough to include a NOTAM review in the approach brief prior to TOD. That is indeed what is salient.

I looked at my FMS bridge visual and this is not real clear. The course is flown 275 deg to SAMUL then a jog 267 deg to F101D then 281 deg. Nowhere does it say that F101D is the runway 28R centerline. I suspect it is supposed to be and the planview looks like it is.
More confusing is the LDA28R approach is 281 deg (a 3 deg offset) all the way in.
Also to add further confusion the RNAV app to 28R is 284 deg all the way in which coincides withe LOC 284 deg but doesn't jive with the FMS visual 281 deg from F101D?

Often the FMS course is a couple degrees off from the LOC or VOR course. I don't know what's going on here.

These procedures are essentially coded visual approaches and therefore do not have FAFs per se, as they are not considered to be Instrument Approach Procedures. They can only be flown when there's adequate ceiling and visibility for visual approaches.

I.e., one can obviously fly the underlying visual approach without any special equipment other than mk1 eyeballs.. Hence the use of even DME/DME/IRU is acceptable as long as there's adequate DME infrastructure nearby. Otherwise the procedure will be marked "GPS only".

RAT 5,

I agree, as you say, the Gorilla video is not 'apples and apples'. Nevertheless, pilots do need to be aware that the human animal is surprisingly vulnerable to various types of misperceptions either when under stress or when preconditioned by certain expectations, or when fatigued, or all of the above.

I know it seems daft - but it does happen.

But can the gorilla shoot free throws?
 

You're not alone in starting to ask about that, RAT 5. Quickly to say, there is little if any denying that what I have learned here is known as "attentional tunneling" quite likely played a large role. And being an outsider to the flight deck, I also have begun to think, . . . yes, but aren't aviators so highly trained, so polished and attuned to crisp and precise adherence to procedures, that they are expected to overcome what would otherwise afflict people in usual occupations and professions? I suppose, that could be and should be, ripped to shreds, as a point of view.
But even so, it would seem that a more relevant set of data would be some studies in simulators with well-trained senior aviators given scenarios in which attentional tunneling is, from some reasonable standpoint, expected to occur. Gorillas and basketballs, data from (I think, correct me if this is mistaken) some long time before smartphones and electronic displays in the cockpit and a strong accommodation by literally almost everyone to "screen time" and its effects on eyesight (the physical process), vision (the perceptual processing) and cognition. This is not meant to discount or denigrate the posts about the video with the gorilla, but what if we change just one little fact about it? The gorilla now looks like it is one from the 800 pound cage. But in any event, if some Transportation Research Institute pro in Ann Arbor with a budget for human factors research were to become interested, the proper scenarios could be put together in plenty of time to generate a valid data set prior to the NTSB process reaching the end of its inquiry cycles.

I tried to search for the FAA charts of the approach procedure involved with no luck. Same result when looking into our providers' world-wide database.

There seem to be a nubmer of RNAV approaches published recently with an effective date of 20 JUL.

Any chance the FMS BRIDGE VIS is no longer a published procedure?

Nonetheless these FMS RVFPs are designed and "flight inspected" by the lead carrier. Airlines don't have the extremely sophisticated equipment that an FAA flight inspection airplane contains.

Seems to me there should be DME screening, such as the FAA does with RNAV-1 SIDs that permit D/D/IRU in lieu of GPS:

It's still published. Unless your provider is a commercial operator that operates into KSFO, it won't be in the charts or the database.

FAA link... any search guru around?

To allow non-GPS use, DME/DME analysis is a required part of RVFP development, via RNAV-Pro plus flight testing.

Yes, I learned that since my earlier posting. But, there doesn't seem to be any requirement to require use of GPS is the critical DME(s) is (are) off the air.

Concur, why have the FMS Bridge Visual with waypoints in the FMS, and then basket case it to DME? If you dont have GPS, use the Quiet Bridge Visual.

According to the plate it is DME et al OR GPS, so if DME is down you have to use GPS.

If the DME is down, and you dont have GPS, I guess it is the 28R ILS or the 28R visual approach.

Well, yes and no, it is for approved operators only (and approved crews) It will be in your FMS if your airline is approved. As a Special Instrument Approach, it is not 'published' in the public domain. (and now not AC!)

RNAV-Pro...and not even a thank you...jeez

The big reason is to provide an (automated) vertical path / guidance that the FMS can follow, even with older DME/DME based equipment.

At SFO especially -- with other aircraft flying "wingtip to wingtip" to you on a close parallel approach -- it's too easy for pilots busy maintaining visual with other traffic to either fly too low and bust minimums, or conversely stay too high and require high descent rates to get back on path.

With RVFP, the FMS can alleviate much of this workload and improve flight safety.

By the way, technically an RVFP is not considered a special instrument approach (visual approaches are not instrument approaches).

FMS Bridge visual is basically an overlay of Quiet Bridge Visual. It was supposed to provide reduced workload to the controller, as the waypoints and stepdowns altitudes are coded into the FMS.

FMS Bridge visual is considered a special procedure, (and it is an instrument approach) which the airline and pilots are required to be approved to use. This has been discussed at length in this thread.

FAA 8260.55 explains why RVFPs exist and why they are NOT considered (special) instrument approach procedures.

Or you can just re-read my post above. :E

The big reason is to provide an (automated) vertical path / guidance that the FMS can follow, even with older DME/DME based equipment.

Not an AirBus guy, so some info please. The statement above would suggest an FMS guided approach. Does that need autopilot in CMD or can it feed into the FD? Is this FMS approach used to give guidance until you intercept a visual centre-line & visual glide path?

What we have not yet heard, and perhaps only the crew will know, is if they were in manual control or autopilot during the initial approach, and at what point they went manual. It is suggested that the FMS gives vertical guidance, but we are shown bright shiny PAPI's and it is a visual approach, certainly from 4nm or so. That would suggest PF would be scanning out of the window and inside to PFD in varying ratios descending below 1500'. I would have thought that from 1200' or so the PAPI would have been the primary vertical guidance aid, and I would have expected PF to be in manual control from that time, at least. Thus I am curious how the PAPI did not alert them to the active runway. The taxiway is a couple of hundred metres laterally displaced from them; and between the only PAPI visible and the taxiway is an equally bright & shiny only 1 set of approach lights. If they were following the PAPI in vertical how come they were following a flight path that would have landed them well into the taxiway, and not, seemingly, abeam the TDZ of the runway? I can't believe AirBus guys use the FMS FD guidance for vertical path below 500'.
So what might they have been using for vertical guidance below 1000' if not the PAPI?

RAT_5 you may be thinking about final approach guidance, but this type of procedure isn't designed for that. Indeed the FMS Bridge procedure is meant to bring you to about <4nm from the runway threshold at 1,200ft.

But the procedure starts at ARCHI which is 25nm out at 8000ft and has many "stair-step" altitude restrictions to remain within the SFO Class B. Due to high workload during parallel approaches, pilots have been known to bust these restrictions (or conversely "dive and drive" often with high descent rates). So this is where RNAV automation can help out.

The entire procedure is still designed to be visual and you have to be clear of clouds throughout. Which means that at night the pilots should have picked up the correct runway environment from a longs ways out.

Absolutely correct. They are not designed in accordance with TERPs, much less any semblance of any nstrument flight procedure (IFP) criteria. Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) that design and publish FAA public SIAPs, SIDs, STARS, and Obstacle Departure Procedures have absolutely no involvement in the development and issuance of FMS database RNAV VISUAL Flight Procedures.

They are "lead carrier" developed. In some cases they provide 3D guidance to the runway at LNAV approach sensitivity (RNP 0.30). In other cases, such as Runway 29 at KEWR, they do not.

My sources tell me that the FAA's Flight Standards Service "tolerates" RVFPs, but they don't like them. They are the product of the major Part 121 carriers and Air Traffic Services.

Seems like a crew needs a Philadelphia lawyer on the jump seat to interpret/apply the "or" part of the required visibility. And, by which waypoint does the crew have to be VMC?

AIM
FAA-H-8083
They're an IFR instrument procedure but not technically IAP's.

I think the point RAT5 is making is AC didn't fixate on the wrong runway at 25nm but somewhere in the vicinity of the FAF at 4nm. Yes, the approach is not straight in. But I feel the thread has fixated on the approach where, all else considered, a near straight-in visual from the SE would put them in the exact same spot. Not saying I don't appreciate the discussion between the different visuals. But back to RAT5's point, from 4nm what were they using for vertical guidance to not fly red-over-red. What did they make of the PAPI and the lack of one adjacent to the pavement they almost set down on? Idea for a simple solution: turn off the runway lights (see SQ) leave the PAPI on?

By the time the accept the approach, which may be well before any waypoint. Typically ATC will confirm that the pilot has the airport (or preceding aircraft) in sight before offering a visual approach.

https://flightaware.com/resources/ai...SFO/procedures has parsed KSFO charts, FMS Bridge VIS not there.

The charting provider I have access to delivers to several large US airlines operating there, but no trace of FMS BRIDGE. So is it perhaps a Jeppesen only proc?

So is it perhaps a Jeppesen only thing?

Can that be? A few decades ago, when first starting out in airlines, I'd alway thought Jeppesen had some input into the charts data. I was told they were just publishers of AIP and airfield provided data in their own particular style. All the numbers etc were given to them.
If that is the case it follows that any publisher could have access to FMS Bridge approach with all the numbers. I don't see how it could be a 'Jeppe thing'.

Please correct me if I'm in error.

Jepp and others do provide made-to-order tailored plates if requested. Some, I believe Jepp is one of them have the expertise to even devise the underlying procedure. http://www.asap.sk/about-us/projects...arab-emirates/

. No trace of the procedure from FAA sources.
. No trace of the procedure from the world-wide database of Jepp's competitor.
. PPRuNe claims that the procedure exists and have Jepps pictures of it.
Where is the tie to these loose ends? Most likely I did miss something.

The FMS DB coding is provided on the same principle, it is a mere representation of data laid-out elsewhere, not a source by itself.