High On Final?
 

At Bodrum you get to see some stuff, not always good

Few days back at about midnight local time a Jet2 was attempting an approach onto RW 28. Steep GS, terrain, etc. They advised that they were high and wanted to orbit to the south of the localiser at about 15nm and descend onto the G/S during the 360. Try as I might, it seems a very bad idea at night, vs. going into the published hold and doing the procedure. What does the esteemed PPRRune Tech Log think?

Because of the terrain, and thanks to AIS Turkey, a good chart provides enough information to make that a controlled and well-executed manoeuvre.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...98db6ae892.png

Regardless of the above, both my post and the starter's one: I only did 2x 360 turns on final track to lose altitude, relatively early in the career. And then decided not to, for the years remaining.

Wouldn't it be nice to see the different presentations of that profile by Jepp and Navtech .. anyone? Pretty please.

It is a very bad idea indeed. I cannot think of a valid reason for a 360 to lose altitude in a commercial jet when You have published holdings and/or radar vectors for extra track miles.

What would be the difference between a 360 while on radar, and a radar vector?

Not much, as long as You don't turn the wrong side and bust an area with a higher MRVA especially with high terrain around. Seen it happening while conducting a line check, wasn't to nice to see.

Based on the approach plate and the terrain, it wouldn't seem advisable.

Jet2 seem quite keen on throwing in a 360 at a late stage - twice I've been behind them on a procedural arrival and they've given everyone a bit of a 'surprise' by doing it.

At 15nm from TDZ and South of the localiser is on the protected area of the holding pattern. I think it's safe. Am I missing something?

Don't smoke weed before finals so that you're not high on final :}

:ouch:

Surprised to hear they would do that, normally when following a Jet2 into somewhere they have the speed right back and tend to fly (overly) cautious approaches. If you hear an aircraft going around, you can put money on it being a Jet2. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, perhaps others are less inclined to throw something away that's not going well. Or perhaps Jet2 have stricter rules than others.

One thing is for certain, when the pressure is on (and Bodrum, at night, coming in a bit hot and high), you might do some things that you might not otherwise do if you were observing from the jump seat or posting on this forum! Certainly from my current position, I would most likely throw it away. Day VMC, perhaps different decision.

Homemade shuttle?
 

So we have here a crew that is so rubbish that they can not plan to be at 6000 feet on speed, to drop gear and final flap to do a much nonstandard 3,9 degree GS.
All they have to do is do the standard turn as published.
But we give them the option at NIGHT to do a 360,,,,,, Nah.
I vote for FAIL.

Back in the sim Boys and or move right.
Its not a game , and its all been tried before!
Kiss Boys
Big Kiss from
Cpt B

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. The consensus seems to be that its a very bad idea, not least because its not an IFR Procedure and subject to screw-up over some unforgiving terrain. Perhaps Captain Jackie Mills might write up a relevant piece for Focus on Flight Safety for the UKFCC - I haven't read a decent article in that publication for years :{

I care to disagree. The replies are not thoughtful, and it is not a very bad idea. We also do not know what happened, where it happened, at what altitude it happened. Neither why you came here, nor what you came here for.

To start, "A 360 over unforgiving terrain" is the same as any other curved turn over unforgiving terrain or any straight leg over an unforgiving terrain, or any other trajectory over any terrain, or any other trajectory over no terrain at all. You can smash an aeroplane into near-atomic pieces impacting the water surface too (Gulf Air, Armavia). Which sort of terrain is forgiving, by the way? (rhetorical).

As long as you remain above it, preferably observing the procedural IFR MOCs, it is perfectly safe. Same for the "even during the night", IFR rules, what's the difference?

The second example would be: what's wrong with 360 turn from 11000' to 7000' while you are cleared to 6000 anyways by ATC who approves it? MRVA is 5600, and you are physically over the charted race-track / reversal loop / holding pattern in VMC?

Too many people came here to witness the hanging.

The CAVOK was so severe recently over there that the last week I challenged my colleague if we should ask for a visual, passing EVKUS (downwind fix LTFE 28R). He could see the apron lights so clearly, he fell for it and keyed the mike. From FL220 going to RHO. :)

I care to disagree. Night, not on the approach and not in the Hold, and below the MSA. Madness.

I'm failing to see what the issue is. The platform altitude is 6000ft so they need to be at that and pretty stable by the time they descend (at 15NM), so if they need to lose height then they can do this to the south of the LOC quite safely.

If they do it in the 15NM localiser position (north, south, east OR west) at a sensible speed, they will stay above the Radar Minimum Altitude within 25NM of the BDR, which is easily achieved. The lowest Radar Minimum is 6000ft so can lose any height required down to this level safely. I don't really understand why the MSA is so high as I can't find any terrain within 25NM of the field above 4600ft, there is a hill going up to 6500ft outside 30NM, but this really can't affect them. Here is the LIDO Minimum Radar Chart which has kept the belly of the aircraft soil free for some time now.

MSA is Minimum Sector Altitude, each sector on this chart covers 500 square miles, which isn't much use apart from the day that you've completely lost the plot and need to climb to a safe altitude to out where you went wrong.

How do you guys accept descent clearances to the ILS whilst radar vectoring clearances in IMC? Just hope and prayer?

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...01cc2ddb49.jpg

I hope the fact you've mentioned/shown this doesn't embolden others to start their own terrain avoidance procedures...

That's different: the ATC is actively controlling you. It's his job to keep you clear of terrain.

Okay, we'll set "night" aside for now, Unless I'm missing something, this was right in the hold, and I haven't seen anything which suggests they descended below the published holding altitude.

You realize, don't you, that most instrument approaches take you below the MSA at some point, right?

Seems that everyone agrees that entering the hold, as published, descending to the published holding altitude and then re-intercepting the localizer and GS would be safe and legal, but if they did an "orbit" in the same spot at the same altitude, it would be dangerous lunacy. OK, help me out here, a "hold" is 2 standard rate (rate 1, whatever you prefer) turns of 180 degrees connected by 2 straight legs. An orbit is 2 standard rate 180 degree turns with no straight legs between them. How does the lack of straight legs change the maneuver from something safe and legal to something dangerous?

If they descended below 6000 ft while off the localizer in in their orbit, I'd agree that was bad, but I haven't seen anything which even hints that they did.