Non-Precision Approaches. What does your airline recommend?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because its controlled by the American military and they can't be trusted not to turn it off when we need it. Thats why. Could make life very difficult if they invoked SCATANA mark 2 and shut off the GPS.
Whereas at DA a decision is made (which will involve the aeroplane descending briefly below DA before go-around is achieved), as we all know, at MDA the aeroplane must not descend further until the appropriate visual references are achieved.
So for those youngsters not trained to fly level at MDA and who therefore treat MDA as DA, an extra factor must be built in to ensure that the aeroplane does not descend below MDA when go-around is initiated. Hence for those who insist on using the DA technique on a non-precision approach, an extra 50 ft at least must be added to MDA to compensate.
Trainig and practice are needed to fly a 'dive and drive' - but commercial pressures rarely allow such luxuries these days.
[ 01 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
So for those youngsters not trained to fly level at MDA and who therefore treat MDA as DA, an extra factor must be built in to ensure that the aeroplane does not descend below MDA when go-around is initiated. Hence for those who insist on using the DA technique on a non-precision approach, an extra 50 ft at least must be added to MDA to compensate.
Trainig and practice are needed to fly a 'dive and drive' - but commercial pressures rarely allow such luxuries these days.
[ 01 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Harare, Zimbabwe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a-
The Flight safety foundation has done a tremendous amount of work on the CFIT problem and have identified the "dive and drive" technique as contributing to the high risk of NPAs. They recommend a constant rate of descent, even if it lessens the chances of getting in. The FSF is, I believe, US based, so this is not just a European thing. Both you and the FAA need to roll with the times here. If you are interested take a look at www.flightsafety.org for plenty of excellent research into CFIT and Approach and landing accidents. Look for the flightsafety digest from a couple of years back, it is a .pdf download.
The Flight safety foundation has done a tremendous amount of work on the CFIT problem and have identified the "dive and drive" technique as contributing to the high risk of NPAs. They recommend a constant rate of descent, even if it lessens the chances of getting in. The FSF is, I believe, US based, so this is not just a European thing. Both you and the FAA need to roll with the times here. If you are interested take a look at www.flightsafety.org for plenty of excellent research into CFIT and Approach and landing accidents. Look for the flightsafety digest from a couple of years back, it is a .pdf download.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kingpilot--
Yes, quite familar with the FSF...who am I to say they are wrong, just that in the past crews were trained dive&drive and I just cannot help thinking that they were/are better trained IMHO.
BEagle--
Yes would agree that if an MDA is treated as a DA, an allowance is needed.
I was involved in training years ago at an asian carrier, and the new F/O's were trained in the aircraft (B707, not an easy acft for the inexperienced) and they had no difficulty with flying level at MDA with an engine inop...but then, fuel was cheaper. They normally received at least 40 landings before being released to the line. With this practice, their handling skills were very good.
Yes, quite familar with the FSF...who am I to say they are wrong, just that in the past crews were trained dive&drive and I just cannot help thinking that they were/are better trained IMHO.
BEagle--
Yes would agree that if an MDA is treated as a DA, an allowance is needed.
I was involved in training years ago at an asian carrier, and the new F/O's were trained in the aircraft (B707, not an easy acft for the inexperienced) and they had no difficulty with flying level at MDA with an engine inop...but then, fuel was cheaper. They normally received at least 40 landings before being released to the line. With this practice, their handling skills were very good.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting reading this debate and it highlights an area of dificulty I had when comming into the Airline environment from GA where NPA's are the rule rather than the exeption...On a dark night in winter flying freight on my own into some god foresaken place in the middle of nowhere I got into the habit of planning a constant rate decent to the MDA..it made life a lot easier I assure you and I felt no need to prove I could fly to within 50 ft of any intermeadiate level.
I know from previous posts that 411A and 2daddies are very experienced training pilots on heavy aircraft..with two very different opinions about how the NPA should be carried out..but just imagine how hard it is on a new FO when he flies captains of differing opinions and you get the "What are you doing" when all you are doing is what the other guy wanted.
Now who am I flying with today...
I know from previous posts that 411A and 2daddies are very experienced training pilots on heavy aircraft..with two very different opinions about how the NPA should be carried out..but just imagine how hard it is on a new FO when he flies captains of differing opinions and you get the "What are you doing" when all you are doing is what the other guy wanted.
Now who am I flying with today...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well fms146, that can be a real problem.
I have noticed DE Captains joining an airline and then adopting their own procedures (from another carrier)and this drives the F/O's to distraction.
A new Captain should let the F/O follow the airline standard operating procedures when he/she is PF and NOT try to change the plot.
I have noticed DE Captains joining an airline and then adopting their own procedures (from another carrier)and this drives the F/O's to distraction.
A new Captain should let the F/O follow the airline standard operating procedures when he/she is PF and NOT try to change the plot.
The MDA is just that - a minimum. If you fly the constant descent profile in a very heavy aircraft, say a 747, you will bust the minima if you TOGA at MDA. For that reason, my the Jepp plates my company uses all have an extra 50' added to the NPA MDAs.
I used to fly with BEagle (in fact checking my logbook, he did 5 of my 6 IRs on that aircraft!) The company policy then was to descend slightly below the notional 3 degree GP and level off to make the MAP at the MDA (legal on all NPAs except SRAs which have lower minima based on the notional 3 degree GP). This is fine if the aircraft can do it, and you stay in currency on that type of approach - we used to have hours allocated for currency training on the aircraft (not the Sim) and had to do one of these approaches every two months. But now I'm flying a much heavier aircraft and rarely flying NPAs - the constant descent and a 50 ft buffer make good sense.
I used to fly with BEagle (in fact checking my logbook, he did 5 of my 6 IRs on that aircraft!) The company policy then was to descend slightly below the notional 3 degree GP and level off to make the MAP at the MDA (legal on all NPAs except SRAs which have lower minima based on the notional 3 degree GP). This is fine if the aircraft can do it, and you stay in currency on that type of approach - we used to have hours allocated for currency training on the aircraft (not the Sim) and had to do one of these approaches every two months. But now I'm flying a much heavier aircraft and rarely flying NPAs - the constant descent and a 50 ft buffer make good sense.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Harare, Zimbabwe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a, I still cannot agree with you. IMHO the better trained pilot is the one who has been taught the safest way of doing the approach. Perhaps your method REQUIRES more skill but who is to say that pilots trained in the constant ROD would not be able to fly level at MDA if they were required to do so? It has been said before but I will say it again, a good pilot uses his superior judgement in order to avoid having to demonstrate his superior skill.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Kingpilot, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am to mine.
Those airlines who use MDA=DA+50' and a constant descent certainly have their reasons, although I would not necessarily agree...but hey, that's what makes a debate.
All good fun.
What ever you do, be safe....as those non-precision approaches are not always easy.
Many times there are traps for the unwary.
Those airlines who use MDA=DA+50' and a constant descent certainly have their reasons, although I would not necessarily agree...but hey, that's what makes a debate.
All good fun.
What ever you do, be safe....as those non-precision approaches are not always easy.
Many times there are traps for the unwary.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting?
First off - using 'dive & drive', steps & level MDAs to MAP etc can be very hairy in a wide-body, the pitch changes are horrendous, even if you're name is Chuck with a 'Y'. Not nice in the sim and even less nice with 200, 300, 400+ trusting souls on board. Piece of cake in a small aircraft with in-line thrust engines though.
2: Treating MDA as a DA or DH is definitely fail material in NZ. The lag of the go around, especially with high by-pass fans, means you sink below MDA! Get out of that one Bloggs!
And, finally, a true story:
Some years ago I was going into Hong Kong when Kai Tak (ah!! the nostalgia) was the joint. The IGS (off-set ILS) was U/S and the favoured approach was a TNDB across HK Harbour AT NIGHT - stirring stuff! Not long after we checked in with HK ATC a United jet called up and when advised of the approach to be flown there was a 'stand-by' followed shortly by a request for vectors to CKS in Taiwan as he "...didn't have that approach in the can."
There was some harrumpphing on my flight deck until it was pointed out that he was probably the most professional pilot in the area that night.
We got in on our TNDB at night OK, but I still wonder...
First off - using 'dive & drive', steps & level MDAs to MAP etc can be very hairy in a wide-body, the pitch changes are horrendous, even if you're name is Chuck with a 'Y'. Not nice in the sim and even less nice with 200, 300, 400+ trusting souls on board. Piece of cake in a small aircraft with in-line thrust engines though.
2: Treating MDA as a DA or DH is definitely fail material in NZ. The lag of the go around, especially with high by-pass fans, means you sink below MDA! Get out of that one Bloggs!
And, finally, a true story:
Some years ago I was going into Hong Kong when Kai Tak (ah!! the nostalgia) was the joint. The IGS (off-set ILS) was U/S and the favoured approach was a TNDB across HK Harbour AT NIGHT - stirring stuff! Not long after we checked in with HK ATC a United jet called up and when advised of the approach to be flown there was a 'stand-by' followed shortly by a request for vectors to CKS in Taiwan as he "...didn't have that approach in the can."
There was some harrumpphing on my flight deck until it was pointed out that he was probably the most professional pilot in the area that night.
We got in on our TNDB at night OK, but I still wonder...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get the impression that there may be a touch of confusion arising from the dual discussions of "dive & drive" Vs. "continuous descent" and MDA Vs. DA.
Legally (no matter how you get down to the minima) an MDA is an absolute floor - it MUST NOT be descended below until all criteria for a visual approach/ circling and landing are met, while a DA is just that - an altitude at which a decision MUST be made. Allowances are made for descending below that altitude if the approach is discontinued.
These rules are incontrovertable.
411A, after reading some of your ensuing posts I'm beginning to see your point a little more clearly and I do agree with it to a certain extent - the longest amount of time spent at the minima does give you the best chance of becoming visual and executing a successful landing. But bearing in mind that legally you must remain at the MDA (or above) until both visual AND established inside the circling area, I still fail to see the point of diving to that minima miles from the airport. Why not just create a constant descent to place you at the correct altitude coincident with the circling area (to be maintained until the MAPT)?
fms146, 411A and I clearly do come from different schools on the issue, but I'd like to think that if we worked for the same airline we'd adopt and practice the same procedure - the one which the airline determines for us. Individuality is an asset at certain times, but not when trying to conduct a single-engine non-precision circling approach to an airfield in marginal conditions!
P.S - fms, you flatter me! I'm actually nothing more than an humble FO with strong opinions on the topic, so I can sympathise with you about flying with Captains who like to run to their own rules. Thankfully, there aren't many where I work now!
Legally (no matter how you get down to the minima) an MDA is an absolute floor - it MUST NOT be descended below until all criteria for a visual approach/ circling and landing are met, while a DA is just that - an altitude at which a decision MUST be made. Allowances are made for descending below that altitude if the approach is discontinued.
These rules are incontrovertable.
411A, after reading some of your ensuing posts I'm beginning to see your point a little more clearly and I do agree with it to a certain extent - the longest amount of time spent at the minima does give you the best chance of becoming visual and executing a successful landing. But bearing in mind that legally you must remain at the MDA (or above) until both visual AND established inside the circling area, I still fail to see the point of diving to that minima miles from the airport. Why not just create a constant descent to place you at the correct altitude coincident with the circling area (to be maintained until the MAPT)?
fms146, 411A and I clearly do come from different schools on the issue, but I'd like to think that if we worked for the same airline we'd adopt and practice the same procedure - the one which the airline determines for us. Individuality is an asset at certain times, but not when trying to conduct a single-engine non-precision circling approach to an airfield in marginal conditions!
P.S - fms, you flatter me! I'm actually nothing more than an humble FO with strong opinions on the topic, so I can sympathise with you about flying with Captains who like to run to their own rules. Thankfully, there aren't many where I work now!
Grandpa Aerotart
Seems to me you're all missing a few important points.
1/. Dive and Drive has lost favour for one very important reason. It's a lot less safe than a constant profile. In any aircraft let alone Transport Cat Jets.
2/. If the NPA you are flying is a runway approach you'll fly to the MDA and if not visual go around immediately. WHY? Because 99% of the time the MAP is at the aid and the aid is to close to the runway to make the straight in approach from the MAP. You cannot circle from that minima so there is no reason to hang around. The absolute safest way to fly these types of approach in heavy aircraft is to fly a constant profile to the MDA.
3/. If you're flying an NPA that is not a runway approach you descend to the higher circling minima and at the MAP decide whether you have the criteria to circle. In my opinion there is no good reason to get down early for a better look because what the ceiling/vis etc is 3nm from the MAP is not as relevant as that from the MAP onwards in the piece of sky you will be circling in! Thus a constant profile descent to a point say 2nm before the MAP should be sufficient to level the aircraft, have a look, decide and then GA if not visual. The other risk that this avoids is when you get 'visual' at the edge of the circling area and descend further to stay visual before actually sighting the runway, and then subsequently lose visual reference, requiring a GA from below MDA and possibly offset somewhat towards the edge of 'protected airspace'.
I spent years flying NPAs for real in everything from Islanders to F28s and Bae146s and the dive and drive is only practiced by old and bolds who refuse to change, for no other reason than they perceive their way as the way "real pilots do it", or "that's the way we did it in the good old days". They usually fail to remember that they were in a DC3 or some such.
The NPA I fly most often these days is the Kathmandu VOR/DME and you can bet your ar$e that I have the relevant profile written on the plate, there is simply no safer, more predictable, and for 411a, more professional way of flying that, or any other NPA.
411a the reasons CRM and descent profiles have evolved (among other things) is because the way you 'old guys' did it in the 'good old days' was not the best way it could be done! Certainly not in the equipment that has prevailed in airlines of the last 30+ years! I suspect that you are retired now anyway, there is no way that any airline C&T department would tolerate you diving and driving on your sim checks these days!
Chuck.(C&T Dassault Falcon 200)
1/. Dive and Drive has lost favour for one very important reason. It's a lot less safe than a constant profile. In any aircraft let alone Transport Cat Jets.
2/. If the NPA you are flying is a runway approach you'll fly to the MDA and if not visual go around immediately. WHY? Because 99% of the time the MAP is at the aid and the aid is to close to the runway to make the straight in approach from the MAP. You cannot circle from that minima so there is no reason to hang around. The absolute safest way to fly these types of approach in heavy aircraft is to fly a constant profile to the MDA.
3/. If you're flying an NPA that is not a runway approach you descend to the higher circling minima and at the MAP decide whether you have the criteria to circle. In my opinion there is no good reason to get down early for a better look because what the ceiling/vis etc is 3nm from the MAP is not as relevant as that from the MAP onwards in the piece of sky you will be circling in! Thus a constant profile descent to a point say 2nm before the MAP should be sufficient to level the aircraft, have a look, decide and then GA if not visual. The other risk that this avoids is when you get 'visual' at the edge of the circling area and descend further to stay visual before actually sighting the runway, and then subsequently lose visual reference, requiring a GA from below MDA and possibly offset somewhat towards the edge of 'protected airspace'.
I spent years flying NPAs for real in everything from Islanders to F28s and Bae146s and the dive and drive is only practiced by old and bolds who refuse to change, for no other reason than they perceive their way as the way "real pilots do it", or "that's the way we did it in the good old days". They usually fail to remember that they were in a DC3 or some such.
The NPA I fly most often these days is the Kathmandu VOR/DME and you can bet your ar$e that I have the relevant profile written on the plate, there is simply no safer, more predictable, and for 411a, more professional way of flying that, or any other NPA.
411a the reasons CRM and descent profiles have evolved (among other things) is because the way you 'old guys' did it in the 'good old days' was not the best way it could be done! Certainly not in the equipment that has prevailed in airlines of the last 30+ years! I suspect that you are retired now anyway, there is no way that any airline C&T department would tolerate you diving and driving on your sim checks these days!
Chuck.(C&T Dassault Falcon 200)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some time ago I read an article on CFIT. A nice setup for a CFIT is a non prec app in IMC and/or night conditions, into an airport surrounded by high terrain. This setup presents itself on a fairly regular basis in my part of the world.
Dive and drive = multiple level offs = multiple possibilities for level busts = multiple possibilities of CFIT. Stating the obvious: MDA is not the only place you need to level off, failure to do so at any minimum (hard) altitudes during the app can kill you.
When, a few years back, we were retrained for the constant angle/rate approach, instructors had very few problems doing so. They found out that was precisely what most linepilots had been doing all along. It was considered poor airmanship to level off more than absolutely neccessary, so we tried to fly NPA's just touching the minimum altitudes. Which is basically what a constant angle approach is all about.
Treating MDA as your DA in this scenario makes sense. You will touch MDA very close to your DP, and if not contact, go around. 35´ added (in our the procedure) for sink through. By treating the NPA as an ILS, we have made the procedure easier.
Dive and drive works. Constant angle approaches, to me, just seem like a step in the right direction. Safer.
I would really hate to have an engine seizure when level at 200 ft agl, IMC, in a high thrust, landing config.
Dive and drive = multiple level offs = multiple possibilities for level busts = multiple possibilities of CFIT. Stating the obvious: MDA is not the only place you need to level off, failure to do so at any minimum (hard) altitudes during the app can kill you.
When, a few years back, we were retrained for the constant angle/rate approach, instructors had very few problems doing so. They found out that was precisely what most linepilots had been doing all along. It was considered poor airmanship to level off more than absolutely neccessary, so we tried to fly NPA's just touching the minimum altitudes. Which is basically what a constant angle approach is all about.
Treating MDA as your DA in this scenario makes sense. You will touch MDA very close to your DP, and if not contact, go around. 35´ added (in our the procedure) for sink through. By treating the NPA as an ILS, we have made the procedure easier.
Dive and drive works. Constant angle approaches, to me, just seem like a step in the right direction. Safer.
I would really hate to have an engine seizure when level at 200 ft agl, IMC, in a high thrust, landing config.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would agree that the constant descent, go-around immediately at MDA+50'.... is generally fine for everyday ops.
However, there are times when you have to be down and dirty at MDA to see the runway.
Go to the alternate...well yes but suppose you ARE at your alternate or your alternate has gone below minimums, and you MUST make the most of your situation. If the "fly level at MDA" until the field is sighted is not practiced in the sim (yes, even with an engine out) and the particular situation demands that this be done before dry tanks...well you would be up the creek without a paddle, or SOL.
Or, take another situation...on approach to the the old HKG airport, IGS trips off (very heavy rain) and the only other approach is the CC NDB. This particular approach requires crossing CC NDB at 1500', descending to (as I recall) 745'msl and then tracking for 10 miles toward Stonecutters NDB where a right 130 degree turn is required toward RW NDB and the runway. If you tried the "constant descent, miss at MDA+50' scenario, you would never see the runway. Extreme case you say, well yes but there are many non-precision approaches where if you do not fly level at MDA....the runway would never be sighted.
This is why the FAA requires level flight at MDA to be demonstrated, and yes, with an engine out. No one said it was always going to be easy at the pointed end.
However, there are times when you have to be down and dirty at MDA to see the runway.
Go to the alternate...well yes but suppose you ARE at your alternate or your alternate has gone below minimums, and you MUST make the most of your situation. If the "fly level at MDA" until the field is sighted is not practiced in the sim (yes, even with an engine out) and the particular situation demands that this be done before dry tanks...well you would be up the creek without a paddle, or SOL.
Or, take another situation...on approach to the the old HKG airport, IGS trips off (very heavy rain) and the only other approach is the CC NDB. This particular approach requires crossing CC NDB at 1500', descending to (as I recall) 745'msl and then tracking for 10 miles toward Stonecutters NDB where a right 130 degree turn is required toward RW NDB and the runway. If you tried the "constant descent, miss at MDA+50' scenario, you would never see the runway. Extreme case you say, well yes but there are many non-precision approaches where if you do not fly level at MDA....the runway would never be sighted.
This is why the FAA requires level flight at MDA to be demonstrated, and yes, with an engine out. No one said it was always going to be easy at the pointed end.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go to the alternate...well yes but suppose you ARE at your alternate or your alternate has gone below minimums, and you MUST make the most of your situation.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maxalt---
Your superior judgement....controls the weather, blocked runways, navaid failure, or one of the very many other variables?
Hope you remain so blessed....many others do not have your good fortune.
Better let your Captain do the thinking
Your superior judgement....controls the weather, blocked runways, navaid failure, or one of the very many other variables?
Hope you remain so blessed....many others do not have your good fortune.
Better let your Captain do the thinking
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Around & About
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
Yup - flown that approach at night in a B747; what's the OCL between CC & Stonecutters with all those ships' masts, derricks etc? Doesn't bear thinking about really!
I think the essence of ANY approach, particularly in large aircraft, is that it is stable. A problem with levelling off at MDA and flying to/through the descent point for the runway is losing the stable approach at low level and THEN trying to re-establish it before touch-down, that can be feat,especially when acquiring the runway late, and has lead to heavy landings or worse.
I take the point on contingencies but I think the comment of maxalt calls to mind another tried and true maxim: "The only time you've got too much gas is when you're on fire!"
If everywhere is on minima then have enough gas to land somewhere easy.
Yup - flown that approach at night in a B747; what's the OCL between CC & Stonecutters with all those ships' masts, derricks etc? Doesn't bear thinking about really!
I think the essence of ANY approach, particularly in large aircraft, is that it is stable. A problem with levelling off at MDA and flying to/through the descent point for the runway is losing the stable approach at low level and THEN trying to re-establish it before touch-down, that can be feat,especially when acquiring the runway late, and has lead to heavy landings or worse.
I take the point on contingencies but I think the comment of maxalt calls to mind another tried and true maxim: "The only time you've got too much gas is when you're on fire!"
If everywhere is on minima then have enough gas to land somewhere easy.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan Winterland
We who advocate the stabilised approach are NOT syaing that you should hit TOGA at MDA - quite the reverse. If you read my first post you will see that on of the airlines for which I train pilots calculates it own DA from the MDA plus a factor to allow for the dip below when the TOGA button is hit (or even manual go-around is commenced!!!!!!!!!!). This is typically 50-60' for a B737. Therefore, a state published 610' MDA becomes a company 660' DA (for example). Then if the go-around is coimmenced, you will not go below MDA. This keeps you safe and legal. This airline, by the way, has an enviable safety record and has not had an accident on NPAs in over 40 years.
If you level at MDA (maybe 400' above the threshold) and track to the MAPt, what do you do when you see the runway when you are crossing the threshold 400 up? What you probably do is go around because if the vis/cloudbase were too poor to see before MDA then they are too poor for a circling approach. Nothing has been gained but safety and fuel reserves have been compromised by an unnecessary level off.
411A you say you trained pilots in Asia to "dive and drive". However, we only have to look at the safety record of Korean Airlines and China Airlines to see that this kind of high workload approach is not a great idea.
We who advocate the stabilised approach are NOT syaing that you should hit TOGA at MDA - quite the reverse. If you read my first post you will see that on of the airlines for which I train pilots calculates it own DA from the MDA plus a factor to allow for the dip below when the TOGA button is hit (or even manual go-around is commenced!!!!!!!!!!). This is typically 50-60' for a B737. Therefore, a state published 610' MDA becomes a company 660' DA (for example). Then if the go-around is coimmenced, you will not go below MDA. This keeps you safe and legal. This airline, by the way, has an enviable safety record and has not had an accident on NPAs in over 40 years.
If you level at MDA (maybe 400' above the threshold) and track to the MAPt, what do you do when you see the runway when you are crossing the threshold 400 up? What you probably do is go around because if the vis/cloudbase were too poor to see before MDA then they are too poor for a circling approach. Nothing has been gained but safety and fuel reserves have been compromised by an unnecessary level off.
411A you say you trained pilots in Asia to "dive and drive". However, we only have to look at the safety record of Korean Airlines and China Airlines to see that this kind of high workload approach is not a great idea.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Spain
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect for the MDA flyers I think that 3° descent is the only way to "standardize" the general XX company for a safe and stabilized approach.
This conclusion comes from many years of CRM & studies of pilot technique on NPA.
It is not wrong to use MDA level for a look but it is "recommended" the std 3° calculation (if the Jepp. chart doesn't depict DME/alts).
We can continue speaking a lot about IF .. Then... but the calculation of fuel should include allowances so it not correct, for my part, to generalize the NPA procedure for the last shot.
Cheers.
Fly safe & enjoy life
This conclusion comes from many years of CRM & studies of pilot technique on NPA.
It is not wrong to use MDA level for a look but it is "recommended" the std 3° calculation (if the Jepp. chart doesn't depict DME/alts).
We can continue speaking a lot about IF .. Then... but the calculation of fuel should include allowances so it not correct, for my part, to generalize the NPA procedure for the last shot.
Cheers.
Fly safe & enjoy life