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!

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?

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.

:D

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.

Greybeard, indeed good character building stuff :D

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 :D

Chuckles

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...

"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.

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.

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.

....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.

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.

scanscanscan,
it was Jeppesen definition for VDP.

Cheers.

Fly safe & enjoy life.

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 ]

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!!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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 :D
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 :D
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?" :D
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 ]

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. :D

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 :D

Chuck.

[ 07 December 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]

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.)

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.

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".
:D

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.

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.

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.
:)

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.
:D

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 :D

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 :D

All great fun though :D 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 ]

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.

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. ;)

http://users.pandora.be/linda.basstanie/TopFly.gif

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.
:p

...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.

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 ]

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...

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. :rolleyes:

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.

2dads,

aren't you quoting the design criteria for the approach? on what basis do you reckon that translates in operational legality? what rule has been broken?

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 ]

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. :rolleyes: