Glideslope capture from above
Guest
Posts: n/a
Glideslope capture from above
I am on a fleet which has just changed its policy on what alt we set in the fcu (alt selector) whilst intercepting the g/s from above. We have gone from 1000` aal to above current a/c alt. Seems to me that this has nasty implications if the g/s is not armed first, ie, missed out because of high workload etc....
Yes, in an ideal world we would always intercept from on or underneath!
Would like to hear any other views and sops.
Yes, in an ideal world we would always intercept from on or underneath!
Would like to hear any other views and sops.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should realise as early as possible that you'll need to descend further to capture the glide.
Request a lower altitude to ATC as soon as that becomes evident, and set it in the MCP.
Extend flaps and gear early in order to be able to dive when cleared to do so.
But you can do that only if later on you'll be able to check the glide with another fix.
Be very careful!
Request a lower altitude to ATC as soon as that becomes evident, and set it in the MCP.
Extend flaps and gear early in order to be able to dive when cleared to do so.
But you can do that only if later on you'll be able to check the glide with another fix.
Be very careful!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: on the blue danube
Age: 48
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Altitude selection will depend a little on how high above glide you are.
Just slightly above glide, set something below as a safety net. Normally no problem.
Glideslope WELL below will require a higher V/S, resulting in a fairly early altitude capture-phase of the FD, not really getting you close to the GS. So altitude selection above your current level simply works better, avoiding nuisance action of the auto flight system. But your safety net is gone....
Just slightly above glide, set something below as a safety net. Normally no problem.
Glideslope WELL below will require a higher V/S, resulting in a fairly early altitude capture-phase of the FD, not really getting you close to the GS. So altitude selection above your current level simply works better, avoiding nuisance action of the auto flight system. But your safety net is gone....
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHB - why is your 'GP' not 'armed' in the situation you describe? If it is you have a 'safety net' and you WILL always g/a at the DA/DGH or earlier if things are not right, no?
You can either wind it down to ?DA? or put it 1000' above current and use v/s. As long as you are LOC established, you are safe down to the LOC only DA, but LEM has a better idea.
You can either wind it down to ?DA? or put it 1000' above current and use v/s. As long as you are LOC established, you are safe down to the LOC only DA, but LEM has a better idea.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Haywards Heath
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am making the assumption from your posting that you haven't managed to get a "localiser established" call in on time due to ATC workload, so correct me if I am wrong there. In this case, and assuming (again) you are fairly close in eg 2000', personally I would take the glide anyway and descend from the assigned altitude. This gets you out of the "having to capture the glide from above" trap which is a pain. Many people will tell you that "this is not permitted in the UK, only in other european countries" which may be true, but then capturing the localiser from above is frowned upon also.
Every NATS radar controller I have spoken to, and my superiors have had the same feedback, is that they fully expect you to take the glideslope if they are busy with other r/t. OK, probably best not to do this from 4000' or 5000' where you have time to accept further assigned descents for glide capture, as ATC may be moving VFR traffic around underneath you. But close in, say 2000', I would never want to be in the late position of trying to capture from above.
I know this goes off the point of your thread and doesn't answer your question, but my operators have no such alt arming settings published for "capturing from above". All we would have in the window is the go around stop altitude.
Hope the assumptions I've made are not too far off the mark!
Every NATS radar controller I have spoken to, and my superiors have had the same feedback, is that they fully expect you to take the glideslope if they are busy with other r/t. OK, probably best not to do this from 4000' or 5000' where you have time to accept further assigned descents for glide capture, as ATC may be moving VFR traffic around underneath you. But close in, say 2000', I would never want to be in the late position of trying to capture from above.
I know this goes off the point of your thread and doesn't answer your question, but my operators have no such alt arming settings published for "capturing from above". All we would have in the window is the go around stop altitude.
Hope the assumptions I've made are not too far off the mark!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the g/s is not armed first, ie, missed out because of high workload etc....
First of all, you should always call "GLIDE ALIVE".
I once forgot to arm the glide (!), and since then I always call "GLIDE ALIVE AND ARMED".
If the scenario is the opposite, eg the controller forgets you and gets too busy, I go with Ojuka.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am on a fleet which has just changed its policy on what alt we set in the fcu (alt selector) whilst intercepting the g/s from above. We have gone from 1000` aal to above current a/c alt.
FWIW, I have found that the 744 is very unlikely to intercept the G/S from above in a reasonable manner in any automatic mode. Hand-flying it down is the best way. FLCH or V/S may give useful Flight Director info, though.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thank you for your thoughts. I agree that it is a situation which is best avoided, a go-around would be a better course of action for the more extreme cases. Better still an early clearance.
Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the background for this change of sop is to avoid the early alt capture as mentioned by Open Climb.
Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the background for this change of sop is to avoid the early alt capture as mentioned by Open Climb.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once you are cleared for the approach, on the LOC, and above G/S, your altitude setting will likely be at the previously cleared altitude. That altitude is no longer applicable, though, once established and cleared.
IMO, at that time you should consciously reset the MCP altitude; it could be either the Missed Approach Altitude, the MDA, or the min altitude for "Stabilized Approach" per your SOP. Our SOP has us set the Missed Approach altitude AFTER the G/S is captured, so I would recommend the "Stabilized Approach" altitude until the G/S is captured. That will give you a level-off command if you do not get to the G/S in time, as well as prevent the early altitude capture. Then you can make the go-around decision.
If the G/S is captured prior to min altitude, call "Set Missed Approach" and the Landing Checklist (if not already done).
IMO, at that time you should consciously reset the MCP altitude; it could be either the Missed Approach Altitude, the MDA, or the min altitude for "Stabilized Approach" per your SOP. Our SOP has us set the Missed Approach altitude AFTER the G/S is captured, so I would recommend the "Stabilized Approach" altitude until the G/S is captured. That will give you a level-off command if you do not get to the G/S in time, as well as prevent the early altitude capture. Then you can make the go-around decision.
If the G/S is captured prior to min altitude, call "Set Missed Approach" and the Landing Checklist (if not already done).
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: down-route
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the background for this change of sop is to avoid the early alt capture as mentioned by Open Climb
I like the idea of selecting an altitude above your aircraft as opposed to 1000'AAL. To take it a step further it would be even better if you're able to select the GA altitude.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the idea of selecting an altitude above your aircraft as opposed to 1000'AAL. To take it a step further it would be even better if you're able to select the GA altitude.
"GA altitude" (i.e., DA) is reasonable IF you are in a reasonable configuration -- speedbrakes in, power up, V/S <1000 FPM. If you're still trying to achieve the G/S from above, that's too low!
The min SOP "stabilized approach" altitude gives you the margin of safety for virtually all unplanned situations -- at 1000' AAL, you can recover from any reasonable configuration. It carries the bonus of being "legal" if you are ever officially questioned.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intruder - your idea of the 'Stab' altitude setting - probably around 1000'AAL for most - has merit...but...
Is anyone else getting prickles on the back of their neck here? What on earth could ANY crew be doing at LOC only DA, without the necessary gear/flap/speedbrake/power settings AND STILL not on the GP - that needs an 'automatic' reminder to go-round? Surely they have already sailed through the first 'gate' for a stabilised approach WELL OUTSIDE the parameters and are now patently NOT going to achieve the next. The setting of LOC only DA is MERELY to enable descent without the annoying a/p habit (Boeing anyway) of early alt acquire. It is not a safety net. Likewise setting '0' or G/A altitude should NOT degrade 'safety'.
Whatever happened to airmanship, situation awareness, tightnening of the sphincter muscle? Things seem to have gone the wrong way to me! This particular aspect of the approach should not even be considered. There are plenty of other safeguards in the system first.
"GA altitude" (i.e., DA) is reasonable IF you are in a reasonable configuration -- speedbrakes in, power up, V/S <1000 FPM. If you're still trying to achieve the G/S from above, that's too low!
Surely they have already sailed through the first 'gate' for a stabilised approach WELL OUTSIDE the parameters and are now patently NOT going to achieve the next. The setting of LOC only DA is MERELY to enable descent without the annoying a/p habit (Boeing anyway) of early alt acquire. It is not a safety net. Likewise setting '0' or G/A altitude should NOT degrade 'safety'.Whatever happened to airmanship, situation awareness, tightnening of the sphincter muscle?
Things seem to have gone the wrong way to me! This particular aspect of the approach should not even be considered. There are plenty of other safeguards in the system first.
Guest
Posts: n/a
So who would have the chance to look up localiser MDA whilst all this is going on? Do you commit that to memory??
Just say it really wasn`t your day, if alt sel was set above a/c alt (new sop) and during the dive in vert speed to try and establish the glide the airbus has a momentary overspeed, the FD would revert to open climb. Fine, almost an automatic go-around you might say.... Except if you are at EHAM the missed approach alt may still be beneath you...
The only option I can see is to close the thrust levers and use vert speed or disconnect a/p and athr to sort out the mess. Not forgetting that in order to sequence the flight plan for a missed approach on a bus you need to select toga....
AAAAAAaaaaaarrrrggghhhhhh!!!!!
Will stop having nightmares now.
Just say it really wasn`t your day, if alt sel was set above a/c alt (new sop) and during the dive in vert speed to try and establish the glide the airbus has a momentary overspeed, the FD would revert to open climb. Fine, almost an automatic go-around you might say.... Except if you are at EHAM the missed approach alt may still be beneath you...
The only option I can see is to close the thrust levers and use vert speed or disconnect a/p and athr to sort out the mess. Not forgetting that in order to sequence the flight plan for a missed approach on a bus you need to select toga....
AAAAAAaaaaaarrrrggghhhhhh!!!!!
Will stop having nightmares now.
Last edited by BigHairyBum; 26th Apr 2004 at 08:19.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if it were to happen, my PERSONAL preference would be to set G/A alt, disconnect and fly manually and go-round if it looks dodgy or PNF calls for it. That does not need anything 'looking up' Why this obsession with automatics? Mind you, I know nowt 'bout t'bus
...and look what happened there!
and go-round if it looks dodgy or PNF calls for it. That does not need anything 'looking up' Why this obsession with automatics? Mind you, I know nowt 'bout t'bus
Or at Stockholm Arlanda where a typical GA altitude is only 1500 ft
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is anyone else getting prickles on the back of their neck here? What on earth could ANY crew be doing at LOC only DA, without the necessary gear/flap/speedbrake/power settings AND STILL not on the GP - that needs an 'automatic' reminder to go-round?
However, I also believe that when automation in the form of alerts and reminders is available, it is ridiculous to disable them when you are scrambling to get from "outside normal parameters" to "in the box." A crew still attempting to intercept the G/S from above while approaching MDA or DA is already way outside the "safety box," and probably needs all the help and further reminders they can get BEFORE they bend metal!
Certainly there are degrees of deviation. If the crew consciously makes the "big play" for the G/S above 2000' AGL, keeps the V/S below 2000 FPM down to 1000' AAL, and is able to make the final adjustment with power applied and less than 1000 FPM after that, it may well be a reasonable approach. However, if the power is still at idle and/or the speedbrakes are still out below 1000', the ONLY sane option is a go-around! If it takes an automated alert to convince the crew of that fact, it's better than smearing rubber and aluminum all around the runway...
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, MJ - you are right - it was OSL. The low altitude lead me astray!!
Intruder - you say "If it takes an automated alert to convince the crew of that fact, it's better than smearing rubber and aluminum all around the runway" - full agreement, but what have we come to in 100 years of aviation when this sort of flying is even considered? I think that anyone who gets into situation (a) is probably going to ignore the alert at (b) anyway, so they would simply crash with extra noise
What are the training departments NOT doing, and where is 'PNF' in all this?
Intruder - you say "If it takes an automated alert to convince the crew of that fact, it's better than smearing rubber and aluminum all around the runway" - full agreement, but what have we come to in 100 years of aviation when this sort of flying is even considered? I think that anyone who gets into situation (a) is probably going to ignore the alert at (b) anyway, so they would simply crash with extra noise
What are the training departments NOT doing, and where is 'PNF' in all this?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: BHX
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tricky call. Older Boeings have no speed protection in V/S and the Airbus goes into open climb if too high a rate of V/S is selected.
V/S is probably the safest method with the go around altitude dialled in the window, but beware of alt captures and watch speed would be my suggestion.
V/S is probably the safest method with the go around altitude dialled in the window, but beware of alt captures and watch speed would be my suggestion.
