Non-Precision Approaches. What does your airline recommend?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the talk about Force Majeures getting in the way of successfully completing a landing at an alternate, with min fuel and no other escape etc. etc. seems to be without regard for the fact that, if the crew declare an emergency or for any justifiable reason (only to be justified AFTER the fact) deem it necessary to bust the minima, then they cannot be stopped from doing so.
Rules are rules but not even regulators want to see you turned into a smouldering pile of wreckage just because you couldn't get visual at the minima IN AN EMERGENCY!!!! They'd have to fill out too much paperwork!
Rules are rules but not even regulators want to see you turned into a smouldering pile of wreckage just because you couldn't get visual at the minima IN AN EMERGENCY!!!! They'd have to fill out too much paperwork!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Harare, Zimbabwe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely 2daddies! But I would further ad to what u say, if you are desperate and MUST get in on NPA the safest way to do so is off a stabilised 3 degree descent. Heres a thought, when this method becomes the norm around the world there may well be a case for actually reducing MDA on some approaches if you are flying the constant ROD. After all, you are not descending so low, so far away from the runway. I may have opened myself up with that one but is just a thought. Any how, if I were in the desperate position that 411a describes the only thing I would do different is continue the descent all the way to MDA, or even below. What do you have to lose if you are about to crash due to fuel starvation anyway?
I really would also like to hear from 411a on the question of a stabilized approach. My company, like many others, requires the approach be on glideslope, on centreline and on speed by 500 feet. How do you do this if you are flying level at an MDA of say 350 feet AGL?
I really would also like to hear from 411a on the question of a stabilized approach. My company, like many others, requires the approach be on glideslope, on centreline and on speed by 500 feet. How do you do this if you are flying level at an MDA of say 350 feet AGL?
Guest
Posts: n/a
NPA's have evolved from the only way to find a place in the dark, usually from an NDB sometimes without a DME, which made for the concept of "get to the MDA as soon as possible so you can see the place"
Now they are mostly a secondary approach, usually aligned with the landing surface and with VOR/LLZ/GPS lateral guidance.
Sophistication of GPA's, GSpeed indications, Nav Displays etc have made it a lot easier to be situationally aware, BUT the object of getting SAFELY to the gate with your SLF is just as difficult.
DC-3's etc did all this at 100kts or less, we do all thos at 180 or so with the really heavy metal, so the increase in nav aids is only just keeping us ahead.
For Chimbu, I also go down the VOR at KTM, usually at max ldg wt, TAS 185, 2000+ fpm sink rate with a 300hr F/O calling the steps if he can still speak above the ATC yelling to all and sundry.
GOOD CHARACTER BUILDING STUFF, thanks to the good grounding of my mentors in a real Airline before Ansett made it a joke. You dont forget 400 ft circuits in a jet at YLA because the cloud base was 2000 ft said the man. The trouble was YLA was 1650 ft and you didn't need an alternate in that operation so the NPA was the end of the road and NOT aligned with the runway.
Good stuff from all on this so keep blue side up.
Now they are mostly a secondary approach, usually aligned with the landing surface and with VOR/LLZ/GPS lateral guidance.
Sophistication of GPA's, GSpeed indications, Nav Displays etc have made it a lot easier to be situationally aware, BUT the object of getting SAFELY to the gate with your SLF is just as difficult.
DC-3's etc did all this at 100kts or less, we do all thos at 180 or so with the really heavy metal, so the increase in nav aids is only just keeping us ahead.
For Chimbu, I also go down the VOR at KTM, usually at max ldg wt, TAS 185, 2000+ fpm sink rate with a 300hr F/O calling the steps if he can still speak above the ATC yelling to all and sundry.
GOOD CHARACTER BUILDING STUFF, thanks to the good grounding of my mentors in a real Airline before Ansett made it a joke. You dont forget 400 ft circuits in a jet at YLA because the cloud base was 2000 ft said the man. The trouble was YLA was 1650 ft and you didn't need an alternate in that operation so the NPA was the end of the road and NOT aligned with the runway.
Good stuff from all on this so keep blue side up.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kingpilot, the short answer is you cannot, just as you cannot have that stabilized approach from a circling approach at 600'agl.
However, the FAA still requires these maneuvers for the type rating and, IMHO, for very good reason. It shows the skills the Commander needs for the position, nothing more or less.
Of course, individual airlines certainly have the option of limiting the scope of normal line operations if they so desire, and many do.
However, the FAA still requires these maneuvers for the type rating and, IMHO, for very good reason. It shows the skills the Commander needs for the position, nothing more or less.
Of course, individual airlines certainly have the option of limiting the scope of normal line operations if they so desire, and many do.
Grandpa Aerotart
Greybeard, indeed good character building stuff
We go to KTM probably 4 or 5 times a year, we also fly occasionally the NPAs at Padang, Bandung and a few other places scattered around South East Asia.
From memory(I deliberately make no attempt to commit these things to memory) we fly the KTM VOR/DME on a 400'/nm profile, configured in the Falcon up to, but not including landing flap. This gives about 1200'/min at 170KTAS and cuts no steps. The inbound leg at KTM is the easy part, it's the missed approach that scares the crap out of me
Chuckles
We go to KTM probably 4 or 5 times a year, we also fly occasionally the NPAs at Padang, Bandung and a few other places scattered around South East Asia.
From memory(I deliberately make no attempt to commit these things to memory) we fly the KTM VOR/DME on a 400'/nm profile, configured in the Falcon up to, but not including landing flap. This gives about 1200'/min at 170KTAS and cuts no steps. The inbound leg at KTM is the easy part, it's the missed approach that scares the crap out of me
Chuckles
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading all your posts, I think I can make this final(?) conclusion:
Both the dive-and-drive and the constant descent rate NPA have their loyal fans, although we can all see the later one is quickly becoming the standard with most airlines all over the world.
The reason for this IMHO is that it is slightly safer(?), more comfortable (pax) and very similar (crew) to the regular ILS approach. However, I think the breakthrough of the stabilised NPA came with the introduction of FMS, INS, EFIS and all other modern stuff in the flightdeck, which allows us to calculate and follow up our descent path easily and accurately...
Those guys still using the good old dive-and-drive technique against all odds are of course intitled to doing so, but they should understand that their technique is considered non-standard, even somewhat old-fashioned and that many big companies around the globe will not really like them to use it. In fact it even goes so far that at least one airplane manufacturer (Airbus) more or less forbids their technique althogether!
However, as long as these guys (and girls of course...) keep on flying those good old B727, 737-200 or DC-9 for companies who have no state of the art planes in their fleet, changes are that the dive and drive techinique will be around for at least a few more years...
Both the dive-and-drive and the constant descent rate NPA have their loyal fans, although we can all see the later one is quickly becoming the standard with most airlines all over the world.
The reason for this IMHO is that it is slightly safer(?), more comfortable (pax) and very similar (crew) to the regular ILS approach. However, I think the breakthrough of the stabilised NPA came with the introduction of FMS, INS, EFIS and all other modern stuff in the flightdeck, which allows us to calculate and follow up our descent path easily and accurately...
Those guys still using the good old dive-and-drive technique against all odds are of course intitled to doing so, but they should understand that their technique is considered non-standard, even somewhat old-fashioned and that many big companies around the globe will not really like them to use it. In fact it even goes so far that at least one airplane manufacturer (Airbus) more or less forbids their technique althogether!
However, as long as these guys (and girls of course...) keep on flying those good old B727, 737-200 or DC-9 for companies who have no state of the art planes in their fleet, changes are that the dive and drive techinique will be around for at least a few more years...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Spain
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"VDP: a defined point on the final approach course of a NonPrecisionApproach (straight-in) procedure from which NORMAL descent from the MDA to the RWY touchdown point may be commenced, provided the approach threshold of that rwy, or appr. lights, or other markings identifiable with the approach end of that rwy are clearly visible to the pilot."
How do you interpret "normal" if you don't follow a descent closed to a std 3°?
Cheers.
Fly safe & enjoy life.
How do you interpret "normal" if you don't follow a descent closed to a std 3°?
Cheers.
Fly safe & enjoy life.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: min rest
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DGF ...From the MDA altitude ..you quote, some could say that means you would be maintaining MDA and be expected to be useing duck and drive methods.
However you could get to the mda at the vdp point, if you are lucky, and use the stabilised approach slope of 3degrees to get there.
I think the main problem is the stabilised, 3 degree boys are useing Jepperson plates which show stepdowns as a profile to be flown and no defined VDP fix,they show level offs and a level drive into the map.
In a court of law, if you lived to tell the tale, you were not flying or even attempting to fly the published profile, and you would be guilty, with your employer, of doing your own thing and not in accordance with the plate, even if you used the defence that it is a minimas plate and our method was based on not busting them.
Also the judge would see that the pf could not fly or monitor (if in map mode) properly from his approach plate, and had to hope the pnf could interpret the whole lot useing raw data off his dive drive plate,and communicate that to pf, whilst on a stabilised 3 degreeish path, with the little hills all around.
If the commander was the pf (flying blind) it is necessary for the 300hr fo to order the 411a in the left seat to turn, descend, goaround etc,etc, to a judge it would appear that NPAs today are generally real snafus and the BBC panorama and Daily Mail readers would agree.
On a npa both pilots are in a heavy high speed jet,and often useing plates still predicated on an Apache twin.
From MDA to 1500ft agl on a missed approach in a A330 comes up pretty dam quick at diversion weights on two engines at goaround thrust, flying that manually and not nailing the 1500ft in the sim helped lose a pilot I know his 330 command and later his job.
I feel heavy metal aircraft need redrawn stabilised,3degree NPA plates, that reflect this modern profile and allow for the vastly increased aircraft performance.
If the USA and Faa wish to maintain duck and drive then they can, however the rest of the world should have proper 3 degreeish stabilised plates and fly to them legally.
Many more folk will die due to confused pilots unable to cope in the time allowed or available in the situation that exists today.
How many loft exercises include a cancelled ILS on downwind vectors to real time vectors for a non familiar NPA to a different runway, and keep your speed up, and say your soles on board,change frequency etc...it does not not have to be made so difficult that only senior dedicated sky pilots can do them solo after 6 sim sessions of study.
However you could get to the mda at the vdp point, if you are lucky, and use the stabilised approach slope of 3degrees to get there.
I think the main problem is the stabilised, 3 degree boys are useing Jepperson plates which show stepdowns as a profile to be flown and no defined VDP fix,they show level offs and a level drive into the map.
In a court of law, if you lived to tell the tale, you were not flying or even attempting to fly the published profile, and you would be guilty, with your employer, of doing your own thing and not in accordance with the plate, even if you used the defence that it is a minimas plate and our method was based on not busting them.
Also the judge would see that the pf could not fly or monitor (if in map mode) properly from his approach plate, and had to hope the pnf could interpret the whole lot useing raw data off his dive drive plate,and communicate that to pf, whilst on a stabilised 3 degreeish path, with the little hills all around.
If the commander was the pf (flying blind) it is necessary for the 300hr fo to order the 411a in the left seat to turn, descend, goaround etc,etc, to a judge it would appear that NPAs today are generally real snafus and the BBC panorama and Daily Mail readers would agree.
On a npa both pilots are in a heavy high speed jet,and often useing plates still predicated on an Apache twin.
From MDA to 1500ft agl on a missed approach in a A330 comes up pretty dam quick at diversion weights on two engines at goaround thrust, flying that manually and not nailing the 1500ft in the sim helped lose a pilot I know his 330 command and later his job.
I feel heavy metal aircraft need redrawn stabilised,3degree NPA plates, that reflect this modern profile and allow for the vastly increased aircraft performance.
If the USA and Faa wish to maintain duck and drive then they can, however the rest of the world should have proper 3 degreeish stabilised plates and fly to them legally.
Many more folk will die due to confused pilots unable to cope in the time allowed or available in the situation that exists today.
How many loft exercises include a cancelled ILS on downwind vectors to real time vectors for a non familiar NPA to a different runway, and keep your speed up, and say your soles on board,change frequency etc...it does not not have to be made so difficult that only senior dedicated sky pilots can do them solo after 6 sim sessions of study.
Grandpa Aerotart
Went to KTM again yesterday!
500'/nm not 400 as my feeble memory had suggested. 85kt crosswinds, ruducing to 55kts later in the approach, reducing to 8kts tailwind for landing. Held at 15000' for too long by busy ATC requiring very high rod to recapture profile! Approach completed safely because we knew exactly what altitude we had to be every 1nm down the approach, and because my 3000hr mate in the RHS kept feeding me good info all the way down.
It would be impossible to fly the KTM VOR/DME as a dive and drive because of too many steps too close together. It can't be flown as a 3x profile either because the steps are too steep. 1/2 the DME + Elevation works, but my preference is 500'/nm back from the MAP/MDA to the 11800' MSA.
As Greybeard said, charachter building stuff!
Chuck.
500'/nm not 400 as my feeble memory had suggested. 85kt crosswinds, ruducing to 55kts later in the approach, reducing to 8kts tailwind for landing. Held at 15000' for too long by busy ATC requiring very high rod to recapture profile! Approach completed safely because we knew exactly what altitude we had to be every 1nm down the approach, and because my 3000hr mate in the RHS kept feeding me good info all the way down.
It would be impossible to fly the KTM VOR/DME as a dive and drive because of too many steps too close together. It can't be flown as a 3x profile either because the steps are too steep. 1/2 the DME + Elevation works, but my preference is 500'/nm back from the MAP/MDA to the 11800' MSA.
As Greybeard said, charachter building stuff!
Chuck.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and that is what the aircraft Commander is paid the big bucks for...he has to have the skill AND the management ability for the exercise...and if he does not,...SOL.
The FAA has their collective ducks in a row when they insist that the Captain must be able to demonstrate proficiency. The crew MUST act as a team. Junior guys, with the proper training will certainly be OK.
The FAA has their collective ducks in a row when they insist that the Captain must be able to demonstrate proficiency. The crew MUST act as a team. Junior guys, with the proper training will certainly be OK.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only the captain needs to have all the skills; in Europe (JAR-OPS) the co-pilot too needs to have a full type rating just like the captain! I have been told that in the USA this is not (always?) the case...
Besides, many companies require a NPA in IMC to be flown by the co-pilot (monitored by the captain), so I wouldn't count too much on the captain for this then.
Besides, many companies require a NPA in IMC to be flown by the co-pilot (monitored by the captain), so I wouldn't count too much on the captain for this then.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: min rest
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DGF.. Yes I know it is Jep, and that is exactly the point I was trying to make (badly).
The FAA and Jepperson know exactly how they want a NPA flown, and require it, Flown as Drawn.
The rest of the world has to hack this plate around to fit a FMC 3 degree profile into their computers, physical or mental.
I do not expect todays KTM plate has height v.v. every mile on it,and shows step downs, easy to draw,ok to fly in an Aztec/Apache, impossible to fly in fast modern equipment.
The responsible pilot above, has spent hours of study to figure how to do it in his small high performance machine and with his regular and experienced copilot they have well rehersed it. It is a great credit to him that he tells the truth that this approach and goaround very much concerns him.
Possibly like him, I also spent some time in the loo with the KTM plates and sids, as the accident record there was so chilling,and the profiles made my bottom go "Two and six and nine pence".
In their wisdom my company was to operate 767 and 340 into and out of KTM, and as a bonus, only at night.
I was never required to go there, however the service does operate and I am content to have missed the KTM call out when on a day off or standby.
[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: scanscanscan ]
The FAA and Jepperson know exactly how they want a NPA flown, and require it, Flown as Drawn.
The rest of the world has to hack this plate around to fit a FMC 3 degree profile into their computers, physical or mental.
I do not expect todays KTM plate has height v.v. every mile on it,and shows step downs, easy to draw,ok to fly in an Aztec/Apache, impossible to fly in fast modern equipment.
The responsible pilot above, has spent hours of study to figure how to do it in his small high performance machine and with his regular and experienced copilot they have well rehersed it. It is a great credit to him that he tells the truth that this approach and goaround very much concerns him.
Possibly like him, I also spent some time in the loo with the KTM plates and sids, as the accident record there was so chilling,and the profiles made my bottom go "Two and six and nine pence".
In their wisdom my company was to operate 767 and 340 into and out of KTM, and as a bonus, only at night.
I was never required to go there, however the service does operate and I am content to have missed the KTM call out when on a day off or standby.
[ 06 December 2001: Message edited by: scanscanscan ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Norway
Age: 48
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Guys,, interesting debate.
Here is how a NPA is flown in our company:
We use a concept of CANPA = Constant Angle Non Presicion Approach.
The way the approach is constructed is basically taken from the CAA own plates and prosedures as they comply with Pans-Ops.
The way it is done, is that from the Mapt a constant angle line is drawn from it and outwards towards your DP = Descend Point (Now going backwards. This line is designed to touch the point that has the highest ALT/DIST ratio therfore it will never go below any mandatory altitudes. This means that your descend point on a CANPA approach can be moved forward (Closer to the THR). The way it is flown is that on our approach plate there is calculated an altitude for every mile after the descend point. Our Company regulations states that if you are below 150 ft. on a non-mandatory altitude a missed appr. must be made. A tolerance of +150 / -0 is tolerated on an mandatory altitude. When you reach your MDA this altitude is to be regarded as a DP so if no contact is made then missed approach. (There is nothing other than company regulations in our company that prohibits you from flying level at MDA to your Mapt). On our plate there is also a speed vs ROD table given, so you just set that VS for the autopilot and tracks the radial or NDB whatever by using either HDG or NAV (Radial tracking APP). Crew Coordination is so that PNF=Pilot not flying calls applicable CANPA profile altitudes and the deviation for every mile. A hundered feet before MDA/DP PNF looks out and calls runway insight or if no call is made before MDA/DP the Missed.
It works fine as long as you can consentrate on your flying during this approach. Therefore it is a good rule of thumb to be fully configured and completed all checklists before DP. I mean an approach at 160 kts or more requires a ROD of app. 950 (933) ft/min on a 3,5 degree slope things happends fast if one pilot is flying and the other one reading
2Daddies and others:
Seems to be a little confusion about the terms MDA DA DP Mapt DH.
According to design criteria for approaches used in Europe (Pans-Ops 4) also refered to as old Pans-Ops, not correct in my opinion as 1,2,3 are also old and even older
)
MDA = Minimum Descend Altitude is the term for the Minimum altitude you are allowed to descend to on a Non-presicion Approach.
Mapt = Missed Approach Point is the point (Either a distance from a source or the time flown from passing a source NDB/VOR during the initial approach. This is usually also your FAP=Final Approach Fix) At which the Missed Approach segment of your approach starts and is therefore the point at which you would have to start your missed approach.
Mapt and MDA together constitutes a DP = Desicion Point. As the point at latest a desicion to either continue or abbandon the approach has to be made. These are the terms used for NPA's
DH = Desicion Heigh is the height above the ground from where you must have made a desicion to continue or go-around. This is also a DP as DH is used on a Presicion Approach thereby giving a three dimentional fix from where the missed approach segment starts. As DH is the minimum height at which an approach can continue down to it is also the point at which your DA is calculated (Field elevation + DH = DA) This height is minimum 200 ft on a CAT 1 approach and minimum 100 Cat 2 and so on down to CAT 3c minima of 0 ft.
DA = explained
Hope this clears up the confusion on the terms.
Happy landings!!
Here is how a NPA is flown in our company:
We use a concept of CANPA = Constant Angle Non Presicion Approach.
The way the approach is constructed is basically taken from the CAA own plates and prosedures as they comply with Pans-Ops.
The way it is done, is that from the Mapt a constant angle line is drawn from it and outwards towards your DP = Descend Point (Now going backwards. This line is designed to touch the point that has the highest ALT/DIST ratio therfore it will never go below any mandatory altitudes. This means that your descend point on a CANPA approach can be moved forward (Closer to the THR). The way it is flown is that on our approach plate there is calculated an altitude for every mile after the descend point. Our Company regulations states that if you are below 150 ft. on a non-mandatory altitude a missed appr. must be made. A tolerance of +150 / -0 is tolerated on an mandatory altitude. When you reach your MDA this altitude is to be regarded as a DP so if no contact is made then missed approach. (There is nothing other than company regulations in our company that prohibits you from flying level at MDA to your Mapt). On our plate there is also a speed vs ROD table given, so you just set that VS for the autopilot and tracks the radial or NDB whatever by using either HDG or NAV (Radial tracking APP). Crew Coordination is so that PNF=Pilot not flying calls applicable CANPA profile altitudes and the deviation for every mile. A hundered feet before MDA/DP PNF looks out and calls runway insight or if no call is made before MDA/DP the Missed.
It works fine as long as you can consentrate on your flying during this approach. Therefore it is a good rule of thumb to be fully configured and completed all checklists before DP. I mean an approach at 160 kts or more requires a ROD of app. 950 (933) ft/min on a 3,5 degree slope things happends fast if one pilot is flying and the other one reading
2Daddies and others:
Seems to be a little confusion about the terms MDA DA DP Mapt DH.
According to design criteria for approaches used in Europe (Pans-Ops 4) also refered to as old Pans-Ops, not correct in my opinion as 1,2,3 are also old and even older
)MDA = Minimum Descend Altitude is the term for the Minimum altitude you are allowed to descend to on a Non-presicion Approach.
Mapt = Missed Approach Point is the point (Either a distance from a source or the time flown from passing a source NDB/VOR during the initial approach. This is usually also your FAP=Final Approach Fix) At which the Missed Approach segment of your approach starts and is therefore the point at which you would have to start your missed approach.
Mapt and MDA together constitutes a DP = Desicion Point. As the point at latest a desicion to either continue or abbandon the approach has to be made. These are the terms used for NPA's
DH = Desicion Heigh is the height above the ground from where you must have made a desicion to continue or go-around. This is also a DP as DH is used on a Presicion Approach thereby giving a three dimentional fix from where the missed approach segment starts. As DH is the minimum height at which an approach can continue down to it is also the point at which your DA is calculated (Field elevation + DH = DA) This height is minimum 200 ft on a CAT 1 approach and minimum 100 Cat 2 and so on down to CAT 3c minima of 0 ft.
DA = explained
Hope this clears up the confusion on the terms.
Happy landings!!
still learning....
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to set the record straight-
I'm an Examiner for a major airline in the US. The Regulations here DO NOT require an engine-out non precision approach. I've never done an ATP or a type ride where I've asked for one, and doubt that I ever will.
I'm an Examiner for a major airline in the US. The Regulations here DO NOT require an engine-out non precision approach. I've never done an ATP or a type ride where I've asked for one, and doubt that I ever will.
Question on the constant 3 degree descent slope to MAP in uneven terrain:
How do you set it up when the PAPI slope is significantly steeper as at ZRH?
Either
1: you get a steep descent from the FAF crossing altitude after flying level to the top of descent or
2: you increase your rod upon acquiring the PAPI and destabilize.
Missed approach in case 1: would require a DA significantly higher than the MDA because of the steeper descent path; also, a verification that climb would begin by the MAP where terrain clearance is tight.
No big problem either way in an Aztec with both engines; how about a 777? Perhaps certain NPAs should be restricted to suitable a/c types.
How do you set it up when the PAPI slope is significantly steeper as at ZRH?
Either
1: you get a steep descent from the FAF crossing altitude after flying level to the top of descent or
2: you increase your rod upon acquiring the PAPI and destabilize.
Missed approach in case 1: would require a DA significantly higher than the MDA because of the steeper descent path; also, a verification that climb would begin by the MAP where terrain clearance is tight.
No big problem either way in an Aztec with both engines; how about a 777? Perhaps certain NPAs should be restricted to suitable a/c types.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Harare, Zimbabwe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kujock- Are you using the actual CAA plates or are they Aerad? Does anyone know if Aerad are making any changes?
Scanscan- you may find that Jepp are starting to change their tune on this one. I have seen several Jepp plates now that, while they have the same profile view, also have a little table showing ideal altitudes/DMEs. This,if it is there, is along the bottom of the plan view. I think only approaches that do not have multiple level offs and DME fixes depicted on the profile have this. I think this shows that Jepp do not expect all the level offs to be flown as drawn. Any how, it is time Jepp Aerad etc got their acts together and cleared this one up.
Quid- Glad to hear that, I thought that was the case. Flying level at MDA in a big jet with an engine out is hard work. Doing the same thing in a light twin is impossibe! Most, if not all, will not maintain altitude on one engine with the gear down. In fact it was in light twins that I first came across this method, it was a company requirement to practice NPAs single engine with a constant ROD and GA immediately upon reaching MDA. It was impressed upon us that level flight at this point was not just difficult, it was suicidal!
Scanscan- you may find that Jepp are starting to change their tune on this one. I have seen several Jepp plates now that, while they have the same profile view, also have a little table showing ideal altitudes/DMEs. This,if it is there, is along the bottom of the plan view. I think only approaches that do not have multiple level offs and DME fixes depicted on the profile have this. I think this shows that Jepp do not expect all the level offs to be flown as drawn. Any how, it is time Jepp Aerad etc got their acts together and cleared this one up.
Quid- Glad to hear that, I thought that was the case. Flying level at MDA in a big jet with an engine out is hard work. Doing the same thing in a light twin is impossibe! Most, if not all, will not maintain altitude on one engine with the gear down. In fact it was in light twins that I first came across this method, it was a company requirement to practice NPAs single engine with a constant ROD and GA immediately upon reaching MDA. It was impressed upon us that level flight at this point was not just difficult, it was suicidal!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: min rest
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quid.. Thank you for posting the FAA checkride requirements for our mate 411a,however 411a is right, as he (nearly) always is, that it does seem to leave his "younger!" pilots exposed and poorly placed, if it happens one day.
Then the pilot is unexamined on his ability and probably not trained either on the more demanding NPA with an engine out.
It could be that the FAA basically never want you to do a NPA with an engine out, emergency declared or not, as they still think in Aztec terms.
Maybe as they do not cover it, they would throw their book at you if you did one in your jet and lived.
Personally I think the reality is more old experienced heavy metal captains have actually crashed on NPA anyway and the FAA and the people who draw these killer approaches are light years behind the modern aircraft and constant descent methods.
Although legal,is this FAA stance and requirements wise in todays conditions.?
This engine out, NPA thing, I feel is where the simulator sessions would be of real value, if only to make one aware of their inabilities, on a duck and dive, before they attempt to kill themselves by overconfidence,...an aversion crm therapy session, for the old and younger guys!
Meanwhile in this untrained, unchecked situation,I feel it would be wise if all airports that accepted fare paying passengers were required to have a fully operational and checked, active in limits ILS runway and be "Required" to offer the same to the pilot, irregardless of residential noise considerations.
Incidentaly I also believe in Father Christmas, and that he lives in the underfloor galley of a L1011!
Cheers.
Then the pilot is unexamined on his ability and probably not trained either on the more demanding NPA with an engine out.
It could be that the FAA basically never want you to do a NPA with an engine out, emergency declared or not, as they still think in Aztec terms.
Maybe as they do not cover it, they would throw their book at you if you did one in your jet and lived.
Personally I think the reality is more old experienced heavy metal captains have actually crashed on NPA anyway and the FAA and the people who draw these killer approaches are light years behind the modern aircraft and constant descent methods.
Although legal,is this FAA stance and requirements wise in todays conditions.?
This engine out, NPA thing, I feel is where the simulator sessions would be of real value, if only to make one aware of their inabilities, on a duck and dive, before they attempt to kill themselves by overconfidence,...an aversion crm therapy session, for the old and younger guys!
Meanwhile in this untrained, unchecked situation,I feel it would be wise if all airports that accepted fare paying passengers were required to have a fully operational and checked, active in limits ILS runway and be "Required" to offer the same to the pilot, irregardless of residential noise considerations.
Incidentaly I also believe in Father Christmas, and that he lives in the underfloor galley of a L1011!
Cheers.
Grandpa Aerotart
In both the previous airlines for whom I worked we did assy NPAs with a GA from the MDA in the sim.
I distinctly remember arriving at the MDA after a loft excercise where I had essentially lost almost everything. The Checky had decided to go beresk with the buttons
We had lost an engine, therefor half the hydraulics(F28)and had to do an alt extension + wind up the gear doors, then the flaps failed requiring alt extension also, then they jammed at 6 or 7 degrees requiring Vref recalc(+1kt for every degree of unavail flap).
It was my sector on the LOFT(F/O in those days) and the Capt was working like a dog, out of his seat to wind up the gear doors etc
We got to the MDA and were visual but no airport
Night graphics by the way. Well I firewalled the trusty remaining Spey and we sorta looked left and right but we were on track so it should've been right in front! We were fast approaching the Mapt but what are you gonna do with the gear stuck down and the flaps jammed?
About this time we heard the checky muttering to himself about why couldn't he get the graphics to work, and that if we were not visual we should go around anyway.
My fearless leader turned in his seat and said "and where the F**K would you like us to go in the peice of crap you've left us to fly?"
The Checky (Fleet Captain in fact) hit the freeze button!
The Skipper whinged long and hard after about the stupidity of simulating multiple failures as a teaching tool.
My attitude was, and is, if you're in a sim why not? If the graphics had worked we'd have landed no probs! As long as it's used as a learning experience and not a fail item I see no problem with 'testing to distruction'.
Chuck.
PS While not ideal, as we have no sim, I do give my pilots assy NPAs on their 6 monthly prof checks in our Falcon. But it's MDA + a bit, quick glance and GO AROUND!!
[ 07 December 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
I distinctly remember arriving at the MDA after a loft excercise where I had essentially lost almost everything. The Checky had decided to go beresk with the buttons
We had lost an engine, therefor half the hydraulics(F28)and had to do an alt extension + wind up the gear doors, then the flaps failed requiring alt extension also, then they jammed at 6 or 7 degrees requiring Vref recalc(+1kt for every degree of unavail flap).
It was my sector on the LOFT(F/O in those days) and the Capt was working like a dog, out of his seat to wind up the gear doors etc
We got to the MDA and were visual but no airport
Night graphics by the way. Well I firewalled the trusty remaining Spey and we sorta looked left and right but we were on track so it should've been right in front! We were fast approaching the Mapt but what are you gonna do with the gear stuck down and the flaps jammed?About this time we heard the checky muttering to himself about why couldn't he get the graphics to work, and that if we were not visual we should go around anyway.
My fearless leader turned in his seat and said "and where the F**K would you like us to go in the peice of crap you've left us to fly?"
The Checky (Fleet Captain in fact) hit the freeze button!
The Skipper whinged long and hard after about the stupidity of simulating multiple failures as a teaching tool.
My attitude was, and is, if you're in a sim why not? If the graphics had worked we'd have landed no probs! As long as it's used as a learning experience and not a fail item I see no problem with 'testing to distruction'.
Chuck.
PS While not ideal, as we have no sim, I do give my pilots assy NPAs on their 6 monthly prof checks in our Falcon. But it's MDA + a bit, quick glance and GO AROUND!!
[ 07 December 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quid--
Pity the "younger guys" are not required to do these things (in the sim)...all of my type ratings (7) have required a NPA with an engine out, and two were circling...in the aeroplane.
The old way...much better IMHO.
Pity the "younger guys" are not required to do these things (in the sim)...all of my type ratings (7) have required a NPA with an engine out, and two were circling...in the aeroplane.
The old way...much better IMHO.