Sidesteping in a A320 (Max taxi speed and landing callout)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411, the PHX tracon might want you to fly the original missed.
But do not assume that this is a rule valid on all sidesteps everywhere!
At my base in MUC the RWYs are very far apart, and miss takes you either 90deg north or 90 deg south, depending on the RWY.
Now if you flew the miss to the N from the southern RWY, it would be very dangerous. You usually get the sidestep, because they have lots of departures waiting at the original RWY, and low traffic on the other one.
So, as just discussed on another thread, have a word with ATC when accepting the clearance for the swing about the missed app procedure at least.
Nic
But do not assume that this is a rule valid on all sidesteps everywhere!
At my base in MUC the RWYs are very far apart, and miss takes you either 90deg north or 90 deg south, depending on the RWY.
Now if you flew the miss to the N from the southern RWY, it would be very dangerous. You usually get the sidestep, because they have lots of departures waiting at the original RWY, and low traffic on the other one.
So, as just discussed on another thread, have a word with ATC when accepting the clearance for the swing about the missed app procedure at least.
Nic
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A346 I seriously doubt you'll ever get a sidestep maneuver instruction in MUC at least I never did for the last decade. It must be authorized procedure and published in AIP, like in the US, no such thing in published for MUC and the RWYs are way farther then 1200 ft apart. Because sidestep maneuver is only authorized not farther then 1200 ft away from the initial RWY the missed approach flown is ought to be the one for the IAP cleared. 
Meikleour has a point.
Airbus uses the landing runway to get a lot of information, like the ILS frequency, the landing elevation for the pressurization system, the terrain clearance for the EGPWS, groundspeed MINI etc. Now you can correct me about the effect all this has on a typical landing, i.e. probably not so much. But this discussion has nothing to do with knowing how or not to fly a visual approach, but with making sure the aircraft and yourself agree with what is happening outside.
Airbus uses the landing runway to get a lot of information, like the ILS frequency, the landing elevation for the pressurization system, the terrain clearance for the EGPWS, groundspeed MINI etc. Now you can correct me about the effect all this has on a typical landing, i.e. probably not so much. But this discussion has nothing to do with knowing how or not to fly a visual approach, but with making sure the aircraft and yourself agree with what is happening outside.
Shortfuel: Try counting to ten..........slowly. That might help you counter your hair trigger temperament!
I was merely referring to the GPWS G/S inhibit. This was standard procedure at the old Kai Tak off the IGS, was required at the old Incheon Airport and was even required for a period at AMS when the new runway was opened but before the terrain databuses caught up ( in this case full inhibit was required ) Please also check out the relative GS issues for 14 and 16 at ZRH although I believe the sidestep has been withdrawn from here.
I note that the original poster had no such problem understanding what I was alluding to! Only you it seems!
I was merely referring to the GPWS G/S inhibit. This was standard procedure at the old Kai Tak off the IGS, was required at the old Incheon Airport and was even required for a period at AMS when the new runway was opened but before the terrain databuses caught up ( in this case full inhibit was required ) Please also check out the relative GS issues for 14 and 16 at ZRH although I believe the sidestep has been withdrawn from here.
I note that the original poster had no such problem understanding what I was alluding to! Only you it seems!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Between Vedex and Murag!
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's count together then...
Cause I know you weren't referring to G/S gpws inhibit (I was)...you were simply saying that the OP should better do his rwy change OR inhibit the GPWS. That last recommendation out of any particular context is a bit surprising. By doing so you're getting rid of other precious gpws modes.
Now if you're trying to tell us that some rwy on some specific airports require gpws to be inhibited in our scenario, yes...but not as a general rule as you implied in your previous post.
The aircraft does take lots of info from the landing rwy inserted in the primary but in the case of side-step (both rwy axis within 30deg...otherwise I call it a circle-to-land not a side-step anymore):
- GS mini is still valid
- ILS freq...well you're about to fly a visual app, if you wanna stick to a LOC and G/S, don't accept the side-step in the first place
- Landing elev: rwy thresholds difference is normally within 50 to 100 feet, so again not a big deal here at all
-(E)GPWS...to be considered
Cause I know you weren't referring to G/S gpws inhibit (I was)...you were simply saying that the OP should better do his rwy change OR inhibit the GPWS. That last recommendation out of any particular context is a bit surprising. By doing so you're getting rid of other precious gpws modes.
Now if you're trying to tell us that some rwy on some specific airports require gpws to be inhibited in our scenario, yes...but not as a general rule as you implied in your previous post.
The aircraft does take lots of info from the landing rwy inserted in the primary but in the case of side-step (both rwy axis within 30deg...otherwise I call it a circle-to-land not a side-step anymore):
- GS mini is still valid
- ILS freq...well you're about to fly a visual app, if you wanna stick to a LOC and G/S, don't accept the side-step in the first place
- Landing elev: rwy thresholds difference is normally within 50 to 100 feet, so again not a big deal here at all
-(E)GPWS...to be considered
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: MC80 Home One type Star Cruiser
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus has definitely taken the enchantment of “old school” flying from us, everything (almost) has to be done as they state in their manuals.
E.g. In FCOM 4: In case of manual landing:
At DH: Disconnect AP (They don't write about the A/THR)
Can't remember the last time I disconnected at the minimum and landed with the A/THR. (Something I would do with ceiling and visibility close to minima ofcouse. Common sense.)
However, there is no restriction from Airbus regarding manual flight.
And it is possible that your company SOP differ from Airbus SOP. Company SOP has priority, regardless of what is written in the FCOM.
(E.g. Non precision approach:
Airbus: Vapp and landing config when intercepting final descent
My comp: Flaps 2 and 180kts at final descent
Big difference, but I prefer the second
)My point is that the FCOM is not the holy bible
Can't remember the last time I disconnected at the minimum and landed with the A/THR. (Something I would do with ceiling and visibility close to minima ofcouse. Common sense.)
The Cooler King
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not exactly relevant but this thread brought to mind a discussion from a few years ago:
The Heathrow Shimmy
The Heathrow Shimmy
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: MC80 Home One type Star Cruiser
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said disconnecting the AT was commonsense?
Although, we are deviating from the thread here.
Shortfuel: My postings were to draw peoples` attention to some of the less obvious aspects of this manoeuvre.
1) if the ILS is still being received for the original runway then, you MAY get a G/S warning from the GPWS depending on airfield geometry.
2) if the landing runway is not the same as the one in the active flight plan then you MAY get a EGPWS "TOO LOW TERRAIN" warning.
Both of the above can be avoided by changing the active landing runway.
If you chose to "just switch the F/Ds off and eyeball it" in the style of the best Hollywood airline captains then yes, you MAY get neither warning but also you MAY get either or both warnings!
All I am trying to say is that a bit of system knowledge may save you from a few surprises. If you feel that the above is complete bxllxcks then there is nothing more to be said, I feel. Airline flying is all about risk mitigation. What is least risky - PNF going `head down` for a few seconds at 1,500ft when visual or deciding whether to treat a GPWS warning when received at a lower height as spurious?
Please also note that in my previous posts I have never said exactly how I deal with this occurance.
1) if the ILS is still being received for the original runway then, you MAY get a G/S warning from the GPWS depending on airfield geometry.
2) if the landing runway is not the same as the one in the active flight plan then you MAY get a EGPWS "TOO LOW TERRAIN" warning.
Both of the above can be avoided by changing the active landing runway.
If you chose to "just switch the F/Ds off and eyeball it" in the style of the best Hollywood airline captains then yes, you MAY get neither warning but also you MAY get either or both warnings!
All I am trying to say is that a bit of system knowledge may save you from a few surprises. If you feel that the above is complete bxllxcks then there is nothing more to be said, I feel. Airline flying is all about risk mitigation. What is least risky - PNF going `head down` for a few seconds at 1,500ft when visual or deciding whether to treat a GPWS warning when received at a lower height as spurious?
Please also note that in my previous posts I have never said exactly how I deal with this occurance.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admiral346:
I've never been to MUC, but based on the Jepp charts none of the ILS approaches at MUC have side-step minimums, nor do they have circle to land (CTL) minimums. So, if ATC clears you to "sidestep" to the parallel runway that sounds like it would be a visual approach.
As to the United States, 411 is absolutely right, as is the PHX TRACON controller. LAX does not have CTL minimums but it does have sidestep minimums to the adjacent, closely spaced parallel runway. The clearance, "Cleared for the ILS 24R, sidestep to land 24L" is nonetheless a clearance for the 24R ILS.
411, the PHX tracon might want you to fly the original missed.
But do not assume that this is a rule valid on all sidesteps everywhere!
At my base in MUC the RWYs are very far apart, and miss takes you either 90deg north or 90 deg south, depending on the RWY.
Now if you flew the miss to the N from the southern RWY, it would be very dangerous. You usually get the sidestep, because they have lots of departures waiting at the original RWY, and low traffic on the other one.
But do not assume that this is a rule valid on all sidesteps everywhere!
At my base in MUC the RWYs are very far apart, and miss takes you either 90deg north or 90 deg south, depending on the RWY.
Now if you flew the miss to the N from the southern RWY, it would be very dangerous. You usually get the sidestep, because they have lots of departures waiting at the original RWY, and low traffic on the other one.
As to the United States, 411 is absolutely right, as is the PHX TRACON controller. LAX does not have CTL minimums but it does have sidestep minimums to the adjacent, closely spaced parallel runway. The clearance, "Cleared for the ILS 24R, sidestep to land 24L" is nonetheless a clearance for the 24R ILS.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Between Vedex and Murag!
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meikleour,
This discussion is interesting and yes, system knowledge helps you avoid surprises.
AFAIK, if you're in ldg config at Vapp on a 320 (Vapp below 159 kts), almost impossible to get a TOO LOW TERRAIN. It has to do with Terrain Clearance Floor function of EGPW that takes into account the "Nearest rwy data" and not the one inserted in the primary + in lgd config at Vapp, Mode 4 of gpws is inhibited... Happy to stand corrected.
Flying visually and eye ball the runway should not be considered as the best Hollywood airline captains style (sic)...that is the basic of the basics, even on a jet.
I never said how I deal with the situation either
Cheers
This discussion is interesting and yes, system knowledge helps you avoid surprises.
AFAIK, if you're in ldg config at Vapp on a 320 (Vapp below 159 kts), almost impossible to get a TOO LOW TERRAIN. It has to do with Terrain Clearance Floor function of EGPW that takes into account the "Nearest rwy data" and not the one inserted in the primary + in lgd config at Vapp, Mode 4 of gpws is inhibited... Happy to stand corrected.
Flying visually and eye ball the runway should not be considered as the best Hollywood airline captains style (sic)...that is the basic of the basics, even on a jet.
I never said how I deal with the situation either
Cheers
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown few sidesteps over in the US can't recall changing anything in the box, simply swing over to the other strip and land the bomber, all the technical particularities might be relevant to some extend but nothing seriously affecting safe outcome of the flight. One remark, in case of a missed approach it's better to have the IAP for the cleared RWY in the box since the missed approach procedure for the other one might differ from the cleared one.
Shortfuel: I like it when you say "it is almost impossible to get a TOO LOW TERRAIN warning" however that is exactly what I received years ago on short finals to the newly opened 18R(?) at AMS! The runway was in the MCDU database but presumably was not in the EGPWS one! Warning was triggered at about 300ft. IIRC. I am still of the opinion that a G/S warning is quite likely though on several of the sidestep airports that I can think of.
Cheers
Cheers
