Non-Precision Approaches. What does your airline recommend?
Grandpa Aerotart
I presume you're joking that the 'old way' in the actual aeroplane was better!
In the old days how did you practice an electrical failure/fire?
In the sim training I've done we had actual smoke in the cockpit, which required going to emergency power then working through the restoration procedures in real time. That was followed by a diversion back to Singapore and a 02L ILS down to 200 DA on linited panel! With the RHS pilot holding a torch on my instruments so I could see what I was doing as his HSI etc were still failed and I had no lighting! Some of it, his HSI malfunction, was a sim glitch, but we got it on the ground in one piece and recieved a round of applause from the Fleet Captain. As I brought the aircraft to a halt on the runway I realised my heart was racing and my knees were shaking. I had been so engrossed I'd actually forgotten it was 'just' a simulation!
And 411a, given your obvious disdain for us young blokes we were both F/Os doing initial F28 type ratings, both initial jet as well.
There is simply NO BETTER way of training than in a full motion simulator!
And you get to roll it afterwards
Chuck.
[ 07 December 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
In the old days how did you practice an electrical failure/fire?
In the sim training I've done we had actual smoke in the cockpit, which required going to emergency power then working through the restoration procedures in real time. That was followed by a diversion back to Singapore and a 02L ILS down to 200 DA on linited panel! With the RHS pilot holding a torch on my instruments so I could see what I was doing as his HSI etc were still failed and I had no lighting! Some of it, his HSI malfunction, was a sim glitch, but we got it on the ground in one piece and recieved a round of applause from the Fleet Captain. As I brought the aircraft to a halt on the runway I realised my heart was racing and my knees were shaking. I had been so engrossed I'd actually forgotten it was 'just' a simulation!
And 411a, given your obvious disdain for us young blokes we were both F/Os doing initial F28 type ratings, both initial jet as well.
There is simply NO BETTER way of training than in a full motion simulator!
And you get to roll it afterwards
Chuck.
[ 07 December 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
still learning....
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a-
Were any of those type ratings done in the USA?
I can't imagine any Examiner or Inspector trying to justify how he could bust you on a type ride if an engine-out NPA was the only manuever you screwed up. And....if it's not a bust maneuver, why subject you to it?
I try to make a pilot's type ride the easiest I can. No rushing (to meet MY wants), and no compounding to ridiculous extremes (which I've seen).
(I speak only to the US rules.)
Were any of those type ratings done in the USA?
I can't imagine any Examiner or Inspector trying to justify how he could bust you on a type ride if an engine-out NPA was the only manuever you screwed up. And....if it's not a bust maneuver, why subject you to it?
I try to make a pilot's type ride the easiest I can. No rushing (to meet MY wants), and no compounding to ridiculous extremes (which I've seen).
(I speak only to the US rules.)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Spain
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a I understand you prefer the "old way" (either for training and pilot technique on NPA).
I respect your opinions and p. techniques but there are others way of training and managing NPA on big jets (in terms of profile, requirements for checkride, etc..).
A lot of people here is giving a lot of helpful information and I think this international debate is constructive for everybody!
Cheers.
Fly safe & enjoy life.
I respect your opinions and p. techniques but there are others way of training and managing NPA on big jets (in terms of profile, requirements for checkride, etc..).
A lot of people here is giving a lot of helpful information and I think this international debate is constructive for everybody!
Cheers.
Fly safe & enjoy life.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes quid, nearly all were...
For example, my first heavy jet type ride (B707, circa 1974) ended with an NDB approach (engine out, idle thrust) which required a circle to land with the second engine failed (same side) on final...the FAA only wanted to know the new Vref and maintaining 25 flap for the landing, all went well...PanAmerican training was, IMHO, the BEST. If you did not cut the mustard, you were OUT.
I still think that the aircraft commander MUST have the skills for the procedures required....I wonder sometimes about the "new" guys.....
There is always the unexpected to bite you in the....ah, behind.
THAT is what the SIM is for....'tis called "train hard, fight easy".
For example, my first heavy jet type ride (B707, circa 1974) ended with an NDB approach (engine out, idle thrust) which required a circle to land with the second engine failed (same side) on final...the FAA only wanted to know the new Vref and maintaining 25 flap for the landing, all went well...PanAmerican training was, IMHO, the BEST. If you did not cut the mustard, you were OUT.
I still think that the aircraft commander MUST have the skills for the procedures required....I wonder sometimes about the "new" guys.....
There is always the unexpected to bite you in the....ah, behind.
THAT is what the SIM is for....'tis called "train hard, fight easy".
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who doesn't know the easy rule of thumb?
(GS X 5) + 5 = ROD for 3° GP
It is that easy.
Ok, if your app. isn't a 3° GP, use your common sense. But please no diving!!!!!!
Try the stepdown procedure with a 747, you will have to give almost full t/l to level-off. And, oh yeh, think about the passengers to please.
(GS X 5) + 5 = ROD for 3° GP
It is that easy.
Ok, if your app. isn't a 3° GP, use your common sense. But please no diving!!!!!!
Try the stepdown procedure with a 747, you will have to give almost full t/l to level-off. And, oh yeh, think about the passengers to please.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Somewhere below the Exosphere
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it interesting that no-one appears to have mentioned noise-abatement.
Surely we have a moral responsibility NOT to "dive-... " and anything unless we want to attract even more noise complaints from local residents. Descending to MDH unnecessarily early on any approach could be fun, I suppose, but is it always sensible - regardless of the handling ability of the crew. A good handling test but not a sensible SOP.
How about flying level to MDH/MDA when you need to, but maintaining a nominal constant glidepath as a norm?
Before anyone asks - no Im not a tree-hugger.
Surely we have a moral responsibility NOT to "dive-... " and anything unless we want to attract even more noise complaints from local residents. Descending to MDH unnecessarily early on any approach could be fun, I suppose, but is it always sensible - regardless of the handling ability of the crew. A good handling test but not a sensible SOP.
How about flying level to MDH/MDA when you need to, but maintaining a nominal constant glidepath as a norm?
Before anyone asks - no Im not a tree-hugger.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noise abatement is a good one, HO.
If you descent at a constant ROD, there will be a minimum of noise. This is for the pax also.
Keep in mind the following advise (in this order) when flying non-precision app.s:
1. Safety
2. Pax comfort
3. Airline costs
If you comply with these rules you will fly the best non-precision app. ever.
If you descent at a constant ROD, there will be a minimum of noise. This is for the pax also.
Keep in mind the following advise (in this order) when flying non-precision app.s:
1. Safety
2. Pax comfort
3. Airline costs
If you comply with these rules you will fly the best non-precision app. ever.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here I am again on this.
The "YOUNG GUYS" as described do not have and hopefully will never need the "skills" that were needed to do a DME arival/NDB track to the night minima at Paraburdoo in the dark followed by a 270 degree circling approach in a "black hole" to actually survive as no alternate was planned or needed under the "rules" as they were on the day.
We did it in DC3, F27 and F28 on a regular basis and even when the WX was CAVOK if we were not "current" we were encouraged to practice the proceedure so it was hopefully as close to second nature as we could make it.
The Crossair may be a CFIT or an iceing or a rollback or a stuffup or God knows what BUT it was a NPA when others were available and it may have caught out our fellow aviators.
Most airlines these days go from ILS to ILS and a NPA is usually a runway orientated approach which is ABSOLUTELY best flown on a constant slope. Training and PRACTICE are the only way to achieve the SAFE and CONSISTENT standards required for this "non standard proceedure".
Most Airlines make the high use of the flight directors in normal operations and these need more "programing" and UNDERSTANDING in NPA mode as the steps are usually required to be set by SOP's, V/S mode can intrude at "capture" of a step etc etc. This increased workload must be trained for and UNDERSTOOD by the crew, the trainers, the checkers and the Airlines SOP's.
The DIVE method does have its followers and may be appropriate in some places with low sector altitudes, MDA/MAP on your side of the airfield from arrival direction followed by a circling approach and needs to be TRAINED, PRACTICED and UNDERSTOOD.
Regretably most training these days is to the minimal cost for the required result and does not in my book provide what is needed in Airmanship, awareness or sadly common sense.
I have for my sins been and am again in the training seat and the lack of awareness of some is a concern in many areas, not only in the recruits, but much further up the food chain.
The system will reap what it sows.
Debates such as this will help to keep the "blue side up" so keep it coming.
The "YOUNG GUYS" as described do not have and hopefully will never need the "skills" that were needed to do a DME arival/NDB track to the night minima at Paraburdoo in the dark followed by a 270 degree circling approach in a "black hole" to actually survive as no alternate was planned or needed under the "rules" as they were on the day.
We did it in DC3, F27 and F28 on a regular basis and even when the WX was CAVOK if we were not "current" we were encouraged to practice the proceedure so it was hopefully as close to second nature as we could make it.
The Crossair may be a CFIT or an iceing or a rollback or a stuffup or God knows what BUT it was a NPA when others were available and it may have caught out our fellow aviators.
Most airlines these days go from ILS to ILS and a NPA is usually a runway orientated approach which is ABSOLUTELY best flown on a constant slope. Training and PRACTICE are the only way to achieve the SAFE and CONSISTENT standards required for this "non standard proceedure".
Most Airlines make the high use of the flight directors in normal operations and these need more "programing" and UNDERSTANDING in NPA mode as the steps are usually required to be set by SOP's, V/S mode can intrude at "capture" of a step etc etc. This increased workload must be trained for and UNDERSTOOD by the crew, the trainers, the checkers and the Airlines SOP's.
The DIVE method does have its followers and may be appropriate in some places with low sector altitudes, MDA/MAP on your side of the airfield from arrival direction followed by a circling approach and needs to be TRAINED, PRACTICED and UNDERSTOOD.
Regretably most training these days is to the minimal cost for the required result and does not in my book provide what is needed in Airmanship, awareness or sadly common sense.
I have for my sins been and am again in the training seat and the lack of awareness of some is a concern in many areas, not only in the recruits, but much further up the food chain.
The system will reap what it sows.
Debates such as this will help to keep the "blue side up" so keep it coming.
Grandpa Aerotart
Hmmm I don't know if I qualify as 'a young guy' anymore 'cause I turn 40 tonight at midnight.....and not a second before. 
But I still think like an 18 year old, some would say a 12 year old, especially my 12 year old daughter, kids these days have no respect
I suspect you're correct grey beard about the circling approach skills of the 20 somethings, particularly those who have rushed into, or started in the airlines. But I'm sure the kids who are out in the bush in Australia, Alaska, PNG or Africa in C402s, Twin Otters etc are getting their fair share, unfortunate isn't it that airlines don't seem to appreciate that sort of experience much these days.
I would think we're only a few years away from being asked by a young F/O, "Hey you would have been around in the days of NDBs?" and "How did they work, what was it like doing one of those in pi$$ing rain and low cloud?"
I'll go one better! In PNG we used to regularly do REAL DME homing and DME letdowns. Even in the F28s!! Done one of those down to 400' over the jungle 411a? We used to depart Port Moresby in a Bandit(single pilot) for Kiunga or Tububil and track the aids outbound till we were out of range, turn 'over' Kikori(whose NDB didn't work in the Gulf wet season)by using an NDB/DME 109nm away as a 'fix'(when it was working, otherwise just turn on time) then fly another 200 odd nm before picking up the Kiunga DME. We would bracket it, get overhead within 2nm(usually a lot less) and then carry out the letdown till we popped out the bottom over the Kiunga river in, more often than not, very poor vis and low cloud circle at 200' and land on the crushed gravel strip! Did we have fuel to divert to Daru, the nearest suitable alternate, not after leaving cruise we didn't! Now THAT'S Charachter building stuff.
At PX DME Homing and Let Downs were also common at Hoskins in it's wet season, followed by manouvres at 400 or 500 feet to position for a straight in over the water for landing, real 'white out stuff'.
When we did NDB approaches they were always flown at Flight Idle using a drift down method. We'd start overhead at 10000' and not spool up till the gear went down at 1500 AGL. When you know how much fuel a Spey uses down low you know why! If we had to circle, as we often did, it would be at 400 or 500' in tropical rain to a limiting runway.
I did a drift down NDB approach at Siem Rieb in Cambodia some months back, just for fun and to keep my currency. I briefed what I was going to do to the F/O who sat there watching in wonderment cause he'd never seen one before, the tower never had either judging by the number of queries we had about what altitude and where are you now
All great fun though A thing of beauty when done right!
But the 20 somethings will just say "Yeah yeah so what, we don't need to be able to do any of that" and they are fast approaching being right, but not yet!
Chuck.
[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
But I still think like an 18 year old, some would say a 12 year old, especially my 12 year old daughter, kids these days have no respect
I suspect you're correct grey beard about the circling approach skills of the 20 somethings, particularly those who have rushed into, or started in the airlines. But I'm sure the kids who are out in the bush in Australia, Alaska, PNG or Africa in C402s, Twin Otters etc are getting their fair share, unfortunate isn't it that airlines don't seem to appreciate that sort of experience much these days.
I would think we're only a few years away from being asked by a young F/O, "Hey you would have been around in the days of NDBs?" and "How did they work, what was it like doing one of those in pi$$ing rain and low cloud?"
I'll go one better! In PNG we used to regularly do REAL DME homing and DME letdowns. Even in the F28s!! Done one of those down to 400' over the jungle 411a? We used to depart Port Moresby in a Bandit(single pilot) for Kiunga or Tububil and track the aids outbound till we were out of range, turn 'over' Kikori(whose NDB didn't work in the Gulf wet season)by using an NDB/DME 109nm away as a 'fix'(when it was working, otherwise just turn on time) then fly another 200 odd nm before picking up the Kiunga DME. We would bracket it, get overhead within 2nm(usually a lot less) and then carry out the letdown till we popped out the bottom over the Kiunga river in, more often than not, very poor vis and low cloud circle at 200' and land on the crushed gravel strip! Did we have fuel to divert to Daru, the nearest suitable alternate, not after leaving cruise we didn't! Now THAT'S Charachter building stuff.
At PX DME Homing and Let Downs were also common at Hoskins in it's wet season, followed by manouvres at 400 or 500 feet to position for a straight in over the water for landing, real 'white out stuff'.
When we did NDB approaches they were always flown at Flight Idle using a drift down method. We'd start overhead at 10000' and not spool up till the gear went down at 1500 AGL. When you know how much fuel a Spey uses down low you know why! If we had to circle, as we often did, it would be at 400 or 500' in tropical rain to a limiting runway.
I did a drift down NDB approach at Siem Rieb in Cambodia some months back, just for fun and to keep my currency. I briefed what I was going to do to the F/O who sat there watching in wonderment cause he'd never seen one before, the tower never had either judging by the number of queries we had about what altitude and where are you now
All great fun though
A thing of beauty when done right!But the 20 somethings will just say "Yeah yeah so what, we don't need to be able to do any of that" and they are fast approaching being right, but not yet!
Chuck.
[ 11 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
No Chuck, I have never circled at 400' over the jungle but have circled at 400' in the Libyan desert (oil company flights in F.27 acft, NDB approach) with the vis at 'round 1200 metres...great fun! And in heavy 4 engine jets at 600'/3200 metres.
The junior guys most likely will never know the feeling.
Just as well, as suspect that most do not have/are not trained with the skills, and therefore cannot keep current.
The junior guys most likely will never know the feeling.
Just as well, as suspect that most do not have/are not trained with the skills, and therefore cannot keep current.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I haven't flown a jet on an NDB app.(just some simwork, but this doesn't count) But I've flow a Beech Baron (seem speeds as a King Air) more than once to the bare mins., which resulted more than once in a goaroud (if I wasn't unable to pick up an ILS-signal).
If you practice NDB app.s in Europe, you will fly them regularly at the mins. And if you do so, you won't be surprised if you HAVE to do an NDB because the rest has failed.
And yes I'm in my 20's, and yes I know what an NDB app is.
If you practice NDB app.s in Europe, you will fly them regularly at the mins. And if you do so, you won't be surprised if you HAVE to do an NDB because the rest has failed.
And yes I'm in my 20's, and yes I know what an NDB app is.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps I should qualify my remarks as to the Young Ones.
Those who are out there in GA as I will call it have the skills as they use them all the time, as in PNG, Libia, Bamaga, Newman etc etc.
The more direct entry, Cadet course entry system is the one I now have to work with and the skills have not been attained by the majority of these people. No fault of theirs, just the system and the time and space to acquire these is difficult to attain as the system is geared to produce numbers in a given time.
When you end up in a very large Airliner with only 300/350 log book hours and then get 2 or maybe 3 PF sectors a month to an ILS and are more than encouraged to use the automatics, the ability to gather skills is limited. The ever increasing number of the Captains in many Airlines who have and in the future will come along this path is one for the bean counters to work with as the future is in their hands.
I will shortly be "Extinct" in the Industry I have enjoyed for more than 40 years, I wish it well, but I worry a little as to the custodians as times.
I think the roast is done, Fosters was nice and a merry Xmas to all.
Those who are out there in GA as I will call it have the skills as they use them all the time, as in PNG, Libia, Bamaga, Newman etc etc.
The more direct entry, Cadet course entry system is the one I now have to work with and the skills have not been attained by the majority of these people. No fault of theirs, just the system and the time and space to acquire these is difficult to attain as the system is geared to produce numbers in a given time.
When you end up in a very large Airliner with only 300/350 log book hours and then get 2 or maybe 3 PF sectors a month to an ILS and are more than encouraged to use the automatics, the ability to gather skills is limited. The ever increasing number of the Captains in many Airlines who have and in the future will come along this path is one for the bean counters to work with as the future is in their hands.
I will shortly be "Extinct" in the Industry I have enjoyed for more than 40 years, I wish it well, but I worry a little as to the custodians as times.
I think the roast is done, Fosters was nice and a merry Xmas to all.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...about the missed approach: you can start your go-around procedure any time you like, however do not fly the missed approach procedure as far as TRACK goes until you have reached your missed approach point.
Greetings.
Greetings.
Very interesting debates up there!
fms146 and 411A had unique comments about FOs flying approaches with procedures which Captains might not expect. Did the FOs brief such different methods beforehand?
What is the cost to install a VASI or PAPI approach light system by a US runway (whether served by airlines or not) which has no ILS available? Is our Congress planning to use the multi-billion dollar Airport Trust Fund for other priorities?
[ 15 December 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]
[ 15 December 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]
[ 15 December 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]
fms146 and 411A had unique comments about FOs flying approaches with procedures which Captains might not expect. Did the FOs brief such different methods beforehand?
What is the cost to install a VASI or PAPI approach light system by a US runway (whether served by airlines or not) which has no ILS available? Is our Congress planning to use the multi-billion dollar Airport Trust Fund for other priorities?
[ 15 December 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]
[ 15 December 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]
[ 15 December 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO,any NPA with DME should be flown using constant rate.Without it,the dive-and drive is better.Aircraft type also enters into the debate.Latest generation Boeings give you the black-hole approach option which always works out nicely,given the luxury of GPS position updates.If you consider that pilots are notoriously susceptible to get-homeitis,the dive and drive is always worth considering even if a little messier.I dont know how many pilots I've seen scrub a npa because they didnt get down in time.Including myself...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A "dive" at Quito (El 9228) ILS Rwy 35 is necessary when visibility is at minimums (4 km) because the G/S would take you 2,723 feet beyond threshold on its short 10,236' pavement! D/H is 652 AGL. 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What also must be borne in mind is the fact that there are both normal and maximum descent gradients predicated not only for precision approaches (eg - ILS @ 3 degrees) but also for NPAs.
In Australia these are as follows:
INITIAL Normal - 4%
SEGMENT Maximum - 8%
INTERMEDIATE Normal - Level
SEGMENT Maximum - 5%
FINAL Normal - 5.2%
SEGMENT Maximum - 6.5%
If you can contain any diving required within these criteria then you will remain within legal tolerances. If not then the approach MUST be aborted.
Case in point being the GPS NPA for RWY 23 at Dubbo, in New South Wales. At the FAF you may descend from 2500 feet to the minima of 1400 feet (1300 feet on Actual QNH). Problem is that at around a mile after the FAF there is a 1460 foot obstacle. In other words if you are so keen to drive it down and forget the maximum descent gradient then, even though you have passed a step which allows you to fly to the minima, you may very well kill yourself.
Constant descent is my preference but dive and drive does have a place WHEN USED CAREFULLY.
In Australia these are as follows:
INITIAL Normal - 4%
SEGMENT Maximum - 8%
INTERMEDIATE Normal - Level
SEGMENT Maximum - 5%
FINAL Normal - 5.2%
SEGMENT Maximum - 6.5%
If you can contain any diving required within these criteria then you will remain within legal tolerances. If not then the approach MUST be aborted.
Case in point being the GPS NPA for RWY 23 at Dubbo, in New South Wales. At the FAF you may descend from 2500 feet to the minima of 1400 feet (1300 feet on Actual QNH). Problem is that at around a mile after the FAF there is a 1460 foot obstacle. In other words if you are so keen to drive it down and forget the maximum descent gradient then, even though you have passed a step which allows you to fly to the minima, you may very well kill yourself.
Constant descent is my preference but dive and drive does have a place WHEN USED CAREFULLY.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am fairly open-minded on this topic, but would like to make a few observations.
Fistly, the perennial tendency to attempt to reinvent the wheel is apparent.Cf. the recent discussion on crab versus wingdown crosswind technique on this forum.I sense a number of the contributions are from relatively newly qualified pilots merely evangelising the doctrines freshly instilled by their training captains.I question the validity of many of the objections raised against the traditional technique.
(1) Many contributors state,(in a mildly dismissive vein) that the non-precision approach plates were promulgated to be flown by light twins such as Aztecs and Apaches.However this is surely not so.Many are drawn specifying different tracks for CAT A,B,C,D aircraft. These approaches were flown by Super Constellations, 707s and DC8s, significantly more demanding to handle than the 767 and A320 that I fly.
(2)Regarding unsafe rates of descent.The expression "dive and drive" is pilot vernacular.Excessive rates of descent are not advised,just as in X wind landings it is not suggested that one literally " KICKS off drift" .
(3)Regarding FPA approaches using the map display.These work very well nearly all the time because radio updating maintains a high degree of map accuracy.However this accuracy is diminished when updating is not available reducing the efficacy of this method to a corresponding degree.In everyday circumstances this may not prove disadvantageous,BUT, in the extreme situations referred to in the preceding posts,eg. engine failure with low fuel following diversion ,your absolute priority will be to attain sufficient visual reference to land off the approach.Another missed approach is not desirable in this scenario - and by the way take note of the accident statistics for go-arounds, even with all engines operating!
(4) Regarding the dangers of non-precision approaches "per se". Certainly they are more hazardous than precision approaches, but please show me convincing evidence that accidents resulted from the use of "dive and drive" instead of FPA. I am familiar with the circumstances of a number of NPA disasters, and the common factor was failing to adhere to the profile of the procedure as drawn on the approach plate not the technique used to manage the descent.Poor depiction on the plate , esp. on Jeppersens, has often been cited as having invited such errors.
[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: partagas ]
Fistly, the perennial tendency to attempt to reinvent the wheel is apparent.Cf. the recent discussion on crab versus wingdown crosswind technique on this forum.I sense a number of the contributions are from relatively newly qualified pilots merely evangelising the doctrines freshly instilled by their training captains.I question the validity of many of the objections raised against the traditional technique.
(1) Many contributors state,(in a mildly dismissive vein) that the non-precision approach plates were promulgated to be flown by light twins such as Aztecs and Apaches.However this is surely not so.Many are drawn specifying different tracks for CAT A,B,C,D aircraft. These approaches were flown by Super Constellations, 707s and DC8s, significantly more demanding to handle than the 767 and A320 that I fly.
(2)Regarding unsafe rates of descent.The expression "dive and drive" is pilot vernacular.Excessive rates of descent are not advised,just as in X wind landings it is not suggested that one literally " KICKS off drift" .
(3)Regarding FPA approaches using the map display.These work very well nearly all the time because radio updating maintains a high degree of map accuracy.However this accuracy is diminished when updating is not available reducing the efficacy of this method to a corresponding degree.In everyday circumstances this may not prove disadvantageous,BUT, in the extreme situations referred to in the preceding posts,eg. engine failure with low fuel following diversion ,your absolute priority will be to attain sufficient visual reference to land off the approach.Another missed approach is not desirable in this scenario - and by the way take note of the accident statistics for go-arounds, even with all engines operating!
(4) Regarding the dangers of non-precision approaches "per se". Certainly they are more hazardous than precision approaches, but please show me convincing evidence that accidents resulted from the use of "dive and drive" instead of FPA. I am familiar with the circumstances of a number of NPA disasters, and the common factor was failing to adhere to the profile of the procedure as drawn on the approach plate not the technique used to manage the descent.Poor depiction on the plate , esp. on Jeppersens, has often been cited as having invited such errors.
[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: partagas ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scrubber,
Yes these are the design criteria for NPAs - just like the requirement to abort an approach if you fail to remain established inbound (+/- 5 degrees). They are not only a number surveyors and approach designers use to "build" an approach, they are also a legal limit.
Exceed the limit for any given descent and you are outside tolerances. Which equals missed approach.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Yes these are the design criteria for NPAs - just like the requirement to abort an approach if you fail to remain established inbound (+/- 5 degrees). They are not only a number surveyors and approach designers use to "build" an approach, they are also a legal limit.
Exceed the limit for any given descent and you are outside tolerances. Which equals missed approach.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.