Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

CFIT Risk 3D BARO-VNAV & 2D Approaches

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

CFIT Risk 3D BARO-VNAV & 2D Approaches

Old 9th Jun 2023, 11:24
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Neither here or there
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Captain James T Kirk is 787 rated???
CW247 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2023, 20:22
  #22 (permalink)  
RBF
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Buenos Aires
Age: 35
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rudestuff
Setting the wrong QNH, being given the wrong QNH or not setting QNH at all will always be a threat, especially to NPA but even to a precision approach. Even with a glide slope you could have a decision height below the runway elevation, which would only leave the radalt, assuming you have one, to save you from a surprise no-flare landing.
With nothing to cross check against, perhaps the easiest solution is for the pilot to read the QNH with the landing clearance if not visual, giving the tower controller a final chance to catch an error.

On an ILS you should be able to detect the misset QNH by doing distance altitude cross check. If actual QNH was 1003 and you had 1013 set, then you would cross the altitude crosschecks 300 ft above whats charted.
RBF is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2023, 20:37
  #23 (permalink)  
RBF
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Buenos Aires
Age: 35
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have always been amazed by the general lack of understading of most pilots of the higher risk asociated with QNH missets on RNP approaches using baro-vnav. Industry has been flying this kinds of approaches for a long time and we have just went on happily accepting a very possible catastrophic outcome by a single error with no barrier or crosscheck.
RBF is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2023, 20:47
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 827
Received 174 Likes on 94 Posts
Originally Posted by CW247
Captain James T Kirk is 787 rated???
He passed the Kobayashi Maru test. I expect operating a 787 would be easy in comparison.
MechEngr is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2023, 22:07
  #25 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,319
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by RBF
I have always been amazed by the general lack of understading of most pilots of the higher risk asociated with QNH missets on RNP approaches using baro-vnav. Industry has been flying this kinds of approaches for a long time and we have just went on happily accepting a very possible catastrophic outcome by a single error with no barrier or crosscheck.
Just to pitch an idea that floated on one of the previous threads, credit to Uplinker who I guess was the first to pronounce it loud.

All IAP charts in their respective AIPs need to have the RA HEIGHT published at the 1000' HAT distance point. As an addition to the international standard, respected and observed by the NAA/ANSPs.

Very easy to do, unambiguous and proper solution to what is a narrow but very deep hole lurking there. No need for ADS-B-whatever or CPDLC/S. Pure, old, tested and reliable geometry.



FlightDetent is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2023, 09:22
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
Just to pitch an idea that floated on one of the previous threads, credit to Uplinker who I guess was the first to pronounce it loud.

All IAP charts in their respective AIPs need to have the RA HEIGHT published at the 1000' HAT distance point. As an addition to the international standard, respected and observed by the NAA/ANSPs.

Very easy to do, unambiguous and proper solution to what is a narrow but very deep hole lurking there. No need for ADS-B-whatever or CPDLC/S. Pure, old, tested and reliable geometry.
This was literally the first sentence in my comment weeks ago.

Worth bearing in mind that this will not work on some types (eg B787) as the 1000ft and 500ft auto call-outs are actually driven by barometric data.
Fursty Ferret is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2023, 21:39
  #27 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,319
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret
Worth bearing in mind that this will not work on some types (eg B787) as the 1000ft and 500ft auto call-outs are actually driven by barometric data.
Boeing deserve to burn.

Having said that, we may be skinning the cat from the opposite end. What I imagines was a boxed value such as

​​​​​​[RA 780]
[RA 1036]
[RA 1220]

at the 3.3 NM distance-to-threshold (or wherever the 3 deg nominal intersects exactly 1k HAT).


​​​​
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2023, 06:23
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,833
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
It’s a good idea and would likely work very well over flat terrain or the sea (where the CFIT chance is less) but I have no idea how accurate, precise or consistent RA readings are over hilly/forested/city areas, covering the range of aircraft that are going to be flying these approaches and the fact that there will be a lateral splay even on a precision approach, let alone a RNP one. Within the boundaries of the airfield, which is where we use RA to seriously measure stuff and make decisions based on the results, we’re over a level, solid surface. At the FAF and/or 3NM point there could be almost anything underneath that varies in height by hundreds of feet depending on your precise track.
FullWings is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2023, 23:18
  #29 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,319
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Valid point on the lateral tracking, eloquently raised.

FlightDetent is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2023, 21:27
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
Valid point on the lateral tracking, eloquently raised.
But would you be manoeuvring close to the ground in IMC while off-track on an instrument approach?
Fursty Ferret is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2023, 06:06
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 3,096
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret
But would you be manoeuvring close to the ground in IMC while off-track on an instrument approach?
I think the point is that “on track” on one approach isn’t exactly the same as “on track” on the next approach and variations in the terrain (aka “hills”) would make a radalt value too variable to be useful in some cases.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2023, 13:04
  #32 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,319
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret
But would you be manoeuvring close to the ground in IMC while off-track on an instrument approach?
I may not be able to understand, but I can understand a misunderstanding when I see one.

In agreement with all being said.

1000 equivalent RA check is a perfect safety anchor,oh except hard to quantify when the actual lateral track of overlying aircraft will have a sideways offset L/R about 100 mtrs.

Still an improvement, but not a salvation against QNH errors.
​​​​​
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2023, 15:47
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wherever I lay my hat
Posts: 3,975
Received 30 Likes on 13 Posts
The only way to be sure is to have a waypoint at which to carry out a RA/Baro crosscheck. In most cases with flat ground or water that's not a problem. Where it IS a problem, why not redesign the lateral track so that you DO fly over a something flat. And if there is nothing then use overhead the airfield at 2000', effectively turning it back into a procedural approach.

But you still have to remember to do the crosscheck.
rudestuff is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2023, 15:51
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: England
Age: 76
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 16 Posts
The basic problem is that civil air traffic is still using altimetry procedures originally formulated many decades ago. It would be an interesting exercise to find out how many aircraft around the world were flying with mis-set altimeters at any one time. Crews failing to change from QNH to STD climbing through TA or vice versa during descent, or simply incorrectly set QNH. Fortunately such errors usually result in nothing more serious than red faces when they are discovered.

A 'European' problem which US pilots are spared is low TAs. Every time a severe low pressure weather system crosses the continent the authorities have to send out Notams reminding pilots about setting altimeters correctly in order to avoid level busts or terrain warning episodes. The irony is that such weather systems invariably bring severe low level turbulence. Concentrating on basic aircraft control might distract crews from re-setting their altimeters when required.

With tech refinements altimetry will probably eventually be via satellite signals, which will solve the problems of mis-setting. Transition levels consigned to history! Pressure altimetry (via data link with automatic adjustments to cross-check satellite signals) will be the back-up system.

In the meantime here is a tech solution to incorrect QNH setting problem: ATC data base automatically transmits current local QNH to aircraft ADCs via data link - no humans involved! (Except to check for disparity between received QNH and expected QNH). Presentation in flight deck:



Discorde is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2023, 19:41
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,803
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but can't controllers (in Europe at least) see the pilot's sub-scale setting on Mode S ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2023, 06:14
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,546
Received 73 Likes on 42 Posts
A 'European' problem which US pilots are spared is low TAs.
Exemplary insanity. Why why why? Ours is 10/11. I couldn't think of anything worse than a low TA/TL.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2023, 07:14
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: australasia
Posts: 431
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
For once I heatedly agree with you Bloggs.
However, bear in mind that the areas that have low TA's/TL's generally have significantly more complex airspace requirements and significantly more traffic than is experienced in your usual area of ops.
It might just be a little more complex, than thinking of a suitable number, and then promulgating it.
Maui
maui is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2023, 07:37
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,546
Received 73 Likes on 42 Posts
However, bear in mind that the areas that have low TA's generally have significantly more complex airspace requirements and significantly more traffic than is experienced in your usual area of ops.
So the US has similarly low TAs due to complexity?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2023, 09:49
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,833
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Ultimately, this problem will be solved by using geometric altitude instead of pressure. No more QFE, QNH and QNE to get wrong. When that might happen I have no idea...
FullWings is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2023, 16:14
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: England
Age: 76
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 16 Posts
There'll be a few of these this year (and next and next &c). If the European TA was raised to 10,000 ft (or 18,000 to match the USA and clear Europe's highest terrain) the task of altimeter reset would be moved to a period of lower flight deck workload and therefore more likely to be dealt with correctly.

Discorde is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.