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.

Can you explain what you think is meaningfully different between what they did, and "going into the published hold" ?

Seems from the plate that "Established on the localizer and inside of 16.1 IGML/16.6 BDR" or "established on the localizer and on the glideslope" would both be safe, acceptable answers to your question. Do you have an instrument rating?

Is it!

You request to do an orbit and you're under a RADAR service, ATC is monitoring you, you make a request and they either approve it or deny it. That aside, the chart shows the highest terrain so the numbers given seem sensible. There will not be a sector on that chart with a minimum altitude, not giving you the required terrain buffer (assuming no errors in the planning stage).

So if ATC ever tells you 'Radar Control', who is responsible for terrain clearance? You are. That is why they provide you these charts to cross-reference their clearance (except in Milan because... Italy). How an earth could you ever avoid weather at night whilst making an approach (even to Amsterdam) if you had no choice but to stay above Minimum Sector Altitude (read Sector, NOT Safe)?

Would you disagree that staying above the minimum radar altitudes in that chart would give you the required 1000ft terrain clearance?

Bearing in mind a rate 1 orbit at 180kts should give you a turn diameter of about 2NM, if you had request one in any position under 'Positive Radar Control' (meaning you've been positively identified by ATC), they will (should) not allow you to maneuverer in a manner that would compromise safety by encroaching on the 1000ft terrain margin. Therefore, radar minimum sectors are defined with this in mind. Whenever you're inside a given sector of the MRC, any instruction/approved request should give you the legally required terrain avoidance - subject to your cross check of the relevant chart (in this case, your minimum radar chart).

giggity, not saying you're wrong, I agree with what you've posted, but even if this wasn't under radar control, you's still be performing the orbit within the published hold, on the same side of the localizer as the published hold, and at or above the published holding altitude. Radar control is just an additional layer of safety.

Sorry, I wasn't replying to your post, but to Bloggs if that makes it clearer. But I agree with you, that an orbit (in the location to the south of the LOC at ~15NM) is within the published hold so that makes it safe, although whilst safe, i'm not sure it's legally acceptable as the hold is published for procedural purposes only as this chart makes no reference to the MRA.

I agree, with wiggy, that there is a little bit of a trap there as the plate is pretty messy to be quite frank. It could probably do with an expansion chart, though I'm not sure of the technical term - LIDO would call it "ILS 28 Initial". Note 1 also says that in accordance with the procedure you may descend down to 4800ft within 13.5 IMGL which I'm sure people will miss due to the wide 'zoom' shown.

Sure, I get that, you weren't disagreeing with me, and I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just making the point that your comments about Radar control are in addition to the fact the at the procedure gives you ample information to conduct the maneuver safely. As far as legal, maybe it comes down to differences in regulation, but the published hold is in Bold, which in my world means that it is part of the approach (vs a m/a holding fix) for purposes of course reversal in non-radar ops, so could be flown on the approach. (given ATC approval, which they had)

I guess I'm not seeing the trap. I agree that the presentation is cluttered, but the altitude in the hold is pretty clearly 6000 ft, and I would assume that prior to even beginning the approach before the need for the orbit became evident, the crew would have reviewed those DME fixes and altitudes and had an understanding of what altitude they could be at what distance while inbound on the localizer. Anyway, we're discussing pretty fine points here, I think you and I are largely in agreement on the overall issue.

Giving it a bit more scrutiny, it may not be quite as bad as I thought. I guess they arrived on the okesa 1j arrival, so were already established on the final approach track, and were just high for the profile.

Quick fingers on the FMC would have put them round the race track (not the hold) and perfectly legitimately lost the height, but a 360 at tekbu would also seem to be within a protected area (SOPs permitting, which ours wouldn't). However, 6000' at tekbu is still slightly too high for the glide slope. If they did it at some point before tekbu then you're in uncharted territory at night with an 85 msa. I guess a 360 at the 16.6d BDR would be the limit, but you would need to be at 185kt.

I would be wary of having the b'jaysus scared out of me by triggering the egpws by losing height directly over a big hill, so if it were me, I would either have loaded the racetrack, or press on to the BDR for the ILS V big race track.

I knew somebody would rip into me for that. Pull ya head in, Giggity. I never said I pass all responsibility for terrain clearance to ATC when they are radar-vectoring me. We also don't have access to radar terrain charts. Given the gung-ho attitude of some here "she'll be right, no hills around here that I can see", that's probably a good idea.

Unless you're on radar vectors or a STAR, you ain't going below the MSA with me unless you're at the IAF. Weather in the way? Hold or go to your alternate!

If you're doing you own thing though, as it appears here, John Wayneing an orbit below the 25nm MSA because you're high and in the area of the holding pattern is not on. You're either in the Hold or your not.

Can't see the relevance of "500sqm"...

ATC Monitoring You :D Its the Wild East out there, they'd not be of any benefit to flight safety. An orbit at night is lacking in control, disorientating and bad idea before a 3 Degree never mind a 3.9 Degree over high terrain

OK, how is 2 consecutive, 180 degree, rate 1 turns any more "lacking in control" and "disorienting" than 2, 180 degree, rate 1 turns connected with straight legs? Does the airplane get less stable somewhere around the 190th degree of turn?

Still waiting for someone to explain how a 360 degree turn within the published racetrack, at or above the published racetrack altitude is more dangerous than flying the published racetrack.

The IFR principles.
 

As I some times ask my Fo on my 31 second debrief before we go home : "Are we going to do that stunt if tomorrow is a linecheck!?"

" No Sir"
"Good Lad , Class dismissed"

Now for the hypothetical error made:
Firstly, was the 360 done at 185kts, not likely.
Secondly, was wind and drift taken into consideration, very unlikely.
Third: Should I, if I loose the plot of my descend planning, invent something. when a safe shuttle in the hold is right in front of me?
Now back for more coffee.

Safe Regards
Cpt B

Ha ha bluey. I must use that one!

I think most manuals make for a provision for a 360, but ours is not below msa, not within 10 miles, and only in vmc. I've never used it and I don't like it because I find it disorientating, and it's easy to underestimate how much height is being lost and how fast, or to not keep it turning - and head off into God knows where or what. You'd also have to be ultra careful that you're not busting safe altitudes.

You have exactly zero basis for making that assertion,.

What procedures do you use for wind and drift during the turning portions of a racetrack?

The terrain clearance area for racetracks and holds is designed with the assumption of some wind drift. The wind drift in a 360 turn is exactly the same as the wind drift in 2 180 turns of the same rate.

Can someone please direct me to the PANS OPS specification which permits me to swing in a 360 orbit on an instrument approach procedure (get in everyone elses way) and just generally be a bit gash, in front of the rest of the flying community?

Nope? Must be just something they have in the Jet2 OM then.

If you find him, please ask on my behalf, what's illegal about 4x 90 degree turn above MRVA authorized by ATC. Forgot to add, they'd be all in the same direction, and pretty consecutive too. :}

I can't quote chapter and verse, but presumably the published racetrack is permitted, otherwise, what would be the point of publishing an illegal procedure, right? So what would be the difference if you did a 360 in the same spot and at the same altitude you are authorized to do a 180, then a straight bit, then another 180?




Umm, according to the OP, they requested the maneuver from ATC, If that was getting in anyone else's way, ATC wouldn't have approved it. How is doing a 360 any more in anyone's way, and any more being a gash, than getting ATC approval for flying the charted racetrack in the same location?

You folks are really starting to grasp at straws in your search for some justification to castigate this crew.

Seriously, I'm expecting at any moment for one of you to claim that they turned you into a newt.

Will do. Search has been fruitless to date. Will keep you advised.

The thought of "why the need for such sentence" is rather chilling. It means somebody probably tried, and the company should be lucky not learn from the news.

Fully agree with your description. The (pretty common) types I flew would as per FCTM go L/G down, mid-flaps and half spoilers at 180 knots to recover excessive altitude. Gives you between -1800, -2400 fpm in a straight line. If still too high (by 2000 ft above the platform, approaching the FAP - i.e. unrecoverable - let's imagine), the unfortunate decision to do a 360 would have you complete the full circle at 4000 below the target altitude. The obstacle clearance on the intermediate segment is 500 ft. Useless trick, that gets you nowhere but in trouble.

The 360 is not the problem. The height loss through the turn and the position where executed could be, if ignorant of the underlying safe altitude limits. I said before my first picture: the chart provides enough information to execute a 360 in an organized and well-controlled manner. Exactly that. Adding now: execute both safely and legally, definitely at least the first of the two. Fair enough, on the other side of the ring: The terrain, high temps, wind aloft, and GS angle ALSO provide for a mine-field battleground, where a stupid 360 would turn into an Air Crash Investigators episode faster than one can say "Sink-Rate".

Still bit perplexed why the need to hang Jet2 fellow crewmen or libel the whole company based on no evidence what they did if anything at all?!
There will most likely be some, once we'd dig for it. Only then we could see which of the two scenarios fits the reality closer. And open the shooting range.