Planned CFIT?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Emoh
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Planned CFIT?
Are there other ways to define a published procedure that guides an aircraft into the terrain?
It is not a joke and it should never have happened but somehow this procedure was approved, made the print and is now a potential accident.
Seychelles Intl – Aerad Breakcloud VOR X 13 – N1 - 19 Jun 08.
Have a look at the plate and feel the thrill
(I have tryed to attach plates AJ1, N1 and N2 without success. I will try again but If someone with more expertize can help .. thanks)
Since its introduction in the binders nobody has, obviously, managed to complete the procedure.
The closure of the high ground has, so far, made everyone tracking inbound R324 break left at around 1800 ft and continue visually.
Because the weather allowed it.
Now with a nice layer at 1300ft only Mr. GPWS will hopefully be there to save the day.
All the pilots involved talked about the bad feeling but no one dared confront the word of truth of the Authority (SCAA).
Pilots relay on charts because with them safety is assured.
Murphy’s law at work.
Finally somebody went all the way as far as possible:
B763 in landing configuration, on speed and check list completed. A/P on leaves 2500ft at SEY11d in V/S rate 700 ft/min down to 1120 ft. Backed by GPS the fellow is accurately tracking on R324 inbound.
At SEY8.5 passing 1600ft “Terrain Pull Up Terrain” GPWS warning and another one bites the dust!!!!!
I wish to know the kind of emotional surprise they proved but it must not have been nice by the tone and wording they used in their ASR.
What next?
Who is going to check who?
Which Authority will take action?
Have the airlines operating on SEZ been informed of the situation?
It is not a joke and it should never have happened but somehow this procedure was approved, made the print and is now a potential accident.
Seychelles Intl – Aerad Breakcloud VOR X 13 – N1 - 19 Jun 08.
Have a look at the plate and feel the thrill
(I have tryed to attach plates AJ1, N1 and N2 without success. I will try again but If someone with more expertize can help .. thanks)
Since its introduction in the binders nobody has, obviously, managed to complete the procedure.
The closure of the high ground has, so far, made everyone tracking inbound R324 break left at around 1800 ft and continue visually.
Because the weather allowed it.
Now with a nice layer at 1300ft only Mr. GPWS will hopefully be there to save the day.
All the pilots involved talked about the bad feeling but no one dared confront the word of truth of the Authority (SCAA).
Pilots relay on charts because with them safety is assured.
Murphy’s law at work.
Finally somebody went all the way as far as possible:
B763 in landing configuration, on speed and check list completed. A/P on leaves 2500ft at SEY11d in V/S rate 700 ft/min down to 1120 ft. Backed by GPS the fellow is accurately tracking on R324 inbound.
At SEY8.5 passing 1600ft “Terrain Pull Up Terrain” GPWS warning and another one bites the dust!!!!!
I wish to know the kind of emotional surprise they proved but it must not have been nice by the tone and wording they used in their ASR.
What next?
Who is going to check who?
Which Authority will take action?
Have the airlines operating on SEZ been informed of the situation?
There are many other examples of charts which can be misinterpreted; see the incidents here.
What to do? Submit a safety report to your national authority.
What to do? Submit a safety report to your national authority.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Emoh
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[IMG]
[/IMG]alf5071h is perfectly right!
Charts can be misinterpreted.
That is on the assumption for them to be flawless on the first place.
They must be, otherwise who could we trust?
But now, what if without misinterpretation a chart leads to GPWS warning or worst?
Here are the charts, check the minima and have a dry run while sitting at your desk and let me now were the profile puts You.
[/IMG]alf5071h is perfectly right!Charts can be misinterpreted.
That is on the assumption for them to be flawless on the first place.
They must be, otherwise who could we trust?
But now, what if without misinterpretation a chart leads to GPWS warning or worst?
Here are the charts, check the minima and have a dry run while sitting at your desk and let me now were the profile puts You.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That procedure is quite different on the Jepp chart 13-1. The inbound turn is a right turn away from terrain, instead of into it, and the procedure as depicted on the Jepp chart places the inbound aircraft farther from terrain. It may be a different procedure entirely, but it's the only one in the Jepp volume that I see has the same name; VOR/DME 13, Cloud Break procedure.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: not a million miles from old BKK
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
planoramix
Put the charts, in .jpg format, onto Image hosting, free photo sharing & video sharing at Photobucket (or similar) and then publish the location as a link in Pprune.
Put the charts, in .jpg format, onto Image hosting, free photo sharing & video sharing at Photobucket (or similar) and then publish the location as a link in Pprune.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That procedure is quite different on the Jepp chart 13-1.
must be missing something because 1600ft at 8.5d SEY is below the minimum altitude shown on the chart for the leg between 10d and 6.5d (1760ft)! Is it not obvious that this procedure can't be flown as a 3 degree slope from 11d to 4.5d?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is misleading. Either it is 1760 at 10d and 1120 at 6.5d or it is 1760 at 6.5d and 1120 at 4.5d. Both doesn't fit for profile and text.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly not the best chart ever produced and I would agree with BOAC's interpretation and it looks like the B767should not have been "passing 1600' at 8.5D.
And I would respectfully point out that as this is a circling approach, it is not meant to be "doable" from either 6.5D or 4.5D i.e. a landing. Surely on reaching MDA by 4.5D AND visual, one should proceed to circle over the airfield to land. If not visual by 4.5D then of course follow MAP.
Having said that it is a circling procedure, nothing precludes the pilot from making a straight in approach to land if he is visual early on in the procedure, in fact it is expected by ATC (in general) that he would do so.
What I think is quite wrong is the dotted line from 4.5D to the threshold almost inviting a final approach to land from that position which would be very steep (though from 6.5D it looks manageable even if not required)
And I would respectfully point out that as this is a circling approach, it is not meant to be "doable" from either 6.5D or 4.5D i.e. a landing. Surely on reaching MDA by 4.5D AND visual, one should proceed to circle over the airfield to land. If not visual by 4.5D then of course follow MAP.
Having said that it is a circling procedure, nothing precludes the pilot from making a straight in approach to land if he is visual early on in the procedure, in fact it is expected by ATC (in general) that he would do so.
What I think is quite wrong is the dotted line from 4.5D to the threshold almost inviting a final approach to land from that position which would be very steep (though from 6.5D it looks manageable even if not required)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1110 feet in 3.1nm - not TOO difficult! I reckon the line-up is more of a challenge?
Edit: I agree with your 'circling inclination', but is does say 'VOR X R13' and not just 'cloudbreak'.
Edit: I agree with your 'circling inclination', but is does say 'VOR X R13' and not just 'cloudbreak'.
Last edited by BOAC; 4th Jul 2008 at 21:03.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
You may have missed them but Planormix posted the minima tables at post #4 which makes it clear it is circling only.
Incidentally I made it 1100' from only about 2.6 nm hence my too steep comment, perhaps with the offset you figure may be closer.
Incidentally I made it 1100' from only about 2.6 nm hence my too steep comment, perhaps with the offset you figure may be closer.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: overseas....
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very unclear.
What does one do between 11d and 10d?........?
Why is the FAF at 10d...with not altitude check, or reference?
The way the minimum altitudes (if thats what they are) that are in the shaded areas are displayed, bear no resemblance to other aerads ....including the Legend in the aerad explanations/legend booklet.
A dangerous , misleading plate, that should of not made it off the press.
What does one do between 11d and 10d?........?
Why is the FAF at 10d...with not altitude check, or reference?
The way the minimum altitudes (if thats what they are) that are in the shaded areas are displayed, bear no resemblance to other aerads ....including the Legend in the aerad explanations/legend booklet.
A dangerous , misleading plate, that should of not made it off the press.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Euroland
Age: 53
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may have missed them but Planormix posted the minima tables at post #4 which makes it clear it is circling only.
VOR X 13, the suffix X means it is a circling approach (it can be any suffix: A, B, C,....)
From 2500at 10.0 DME to 1760 at 6.5 DME is a 2,1 degree slope and from 1760 at 6.5 DME to CIRCLING MDA 1120 at 4.5 DME is a 3.2 degree slope, that is no problem.
Remains the GPWS
Bart
Last edited by bArt2; 5th Jul 2008 at 07:15.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SB
You may have missed them
Vref - I agree with your "unclear", but suggest that if you descend from 11D to 1760' by 6.5D at an appropriate rate that would be fine. I'm sure someone has talked about the shaded areas before on Aerad. I've looked at the Jepp which is a lot better, and indeed shows the profile I suggest. It also shows spot heights and the highest on the approach is 1503' at around 8D, hence the comments on the B763
. Again, a thorough look at the chart/briefing should have sorted that out.Some time ago in another discussion it was suggested that vertical terrain profile plus perhaps a 'critical' radalt check would be a good inclusion on charts.
Thank heavens I don't have to go there
The depiction of the step-down fixes on the Aerad charts is very misleading. The minimum level at the SDF should be printed beside the SDF, but it is not. The Jepp chart offers a much clearer depiction.
Had you considered simply picking up the phone to EAG? The editors' names and telephone numbers are in that link.
What next?
Who is going to check who?
Which Authority will take action?
Have the airlines operating on SEZ been informed of the situation?
Who is going to check who?
Which Authority will take action?
Have the airlines operating on SEZ been informed of the situation?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landed many times on SEZ rwy 13 -(since 1978). Mostly either visual, arriving from the west, or from the south via a published circling approach, breaking off from the Rwy 31 ILS at 1120ft. into a left-hand circuit with published VOR radials and DMEs. The difficulty in lining up occurs with a strong SE wind due to rotors from the cliff to the south of the runway and strong downdrafts.
My interpretation of the chart above is that you should maintain 2500ft until 10DME (FAF) and then descend to be 1760ft by 6.5DME,then descend to 1120ft by 4.5DME at which point if not visual, perform the published missed approach. None of the above descents require excessive rates- of- descent, and of course if visual before MAP then adjust the approach accordingly.
I'm not sure why the 763 left 2500ft at 11d, nor why it continued descending to 1120ft and ignored the 6.5d altitude check, unless the crew were visual early in the approach. The trick is to be in the landing configuration before starting descent at 10d - it reduces the approach speed and consequently the RoD.
A "fun" approach in a large aircraft along with JFK -Carnasie 13 and the old Hong Kong (Kai Tak) IGS 13
My interpretation of the chart above is that you should maintain 2500ft until 10DME (FAF) and then descend to be 1760ft by 6.5DME,then descend to 1120ft by 4.5DME at which point if not visual, perform the published missed approach. None of the above descents require excessive rates- of- descent, and of course if visual before MAP then adjust the approach accordingly.
I'm not sure why the 763 left 2500ft at 11d, nor why it continued descending to 1120ft and ignored the 6.5d altitude check, unless the crew were visual early in the approach. The trick is to be in the landing configuration before starting descent at 10d - it reduces the approach speed and consequently the RoD.
A "fun" approach in a large aircraft along with JFK -Carnasie 13 and the old Hong Kong (Kai Tak) IGS 13
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EAG charts look kinda different once again.
Never was there so i cannot possibly comment on the approach or any other peculiarities, was just curious how that approach is depicted on the EAG chart system. There is no other approach to Runway 13 available in our documentation.
Never was there so i cannot possibly comment on the approach or any other peculiarities, was just curious how that approach is depicted on the EAG chart system. There is no other approach to Runway 13 available in our documentation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Emoh
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ooooops
NOTAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued 0806300605
08070300907-081103400 FSIA A00048/08
DUE TO INCREASING REPORTS OF GPWS WARNINGS OCCURING PRIOR TO THE MAPT, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN CANCELLED AND WITHDRAWN WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT:
FSIA VOR X 13
PILOTS ARE ADVISED THAT ON SOME OTHER INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES (INCLUDING CIRCLING FOR RWY 13), GPWS WARNINGS MAY ALSO BE ACTIVATED IN THE VISUAL SEGMENT PAST THE MAPT DUE TO THE TERRAIN AND TOPOGRAPHY. PILOT TO EXERCISE CAUTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued 0806300605
08070300907-081103400 FSIA A00048/08
DUE TO INCREASING REPORTS OF GPWS WARNINGS OCCURING PRIOR TO THE MAPT, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN CANCELLED AND WITHDRAWN WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT:
FSIA VOR X 13
PILOTS ARE ADVISED THAT ON SOME OTHER INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES (INCLUDING CIRCLING FOR RWY 13), GPWS WARNINGS MAY ALSO BE ACTIVATED IN THE VISUAL SEGMENT PAST THE MAPT DUE TO THE TERRAIN AND TOPOGRAPHY. PILOT TO EXERCISE CAUTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------