An EGPWS system like it’s available in every SR22 (at least after 2004) would have saved his life, because he would have gotten an aural warning. An EGPWS like the KGP 560 is one of the best systems to preven CFIT accidents.
I have wondered why somewhere on the GS receiver it doesnt display distance to threshold for any procedure regardless which mode you are in.
I am not sure how you could implement this. The GS receiver doesn’t know the distance. All one can do is a forced linkage to a DME readout if the (old style avionics) NAV/GPS switch is in “NAV”. To varying extents the old gear did this, e.g. in my plane the HSI was NAV1 or GPS, and that restricted functionality prevented you from having it driven from NAV2 accidentally. But you could still have the DME working off NAV2. That could be restricted, I guess, but most people would regard it as inflexible, especially if you are flying a DME arc onto a localiser, etc.
would synthetic vision have saved his life?
You get into the old debate whether you fly the instrument indications, or the SV picture 
There is a guy here who told me he flies zero-zero approaches at night to grass runways, using SV, in an SR22. I believe he doesn’t do it anymore.
An EGPWS system like it’s available in every SR22 (at least after 2004) would have saved his life, because he would have gotten an aural warning. An EGPWS like the KGP 560 is one of the best systems to preven CFIT accidents.
Have you verified any EGPWS algorithm would have picked up this actual scenario?
EGPWS uses a GPS terrain database and warns if you approach terrain, but the warnings are limited in the vicinity of known instrument approaches. It is certainly possible to go into the ground with EGPWS. It works best for classic CFITs e.g. flying at 2500ft towards a 3000ft hill, flying at 400ft towards Beachy Head (I’ve tested that), etc. But it is disabled within a “cone” representing the protected area of an instrument approach, with a generous add-on all around to prevent it going off when youa re flying the IAP within normal tolerances (half scale, etc). The one thing you always get is the “500ft” warning.
The algorithms actually used are a commercial secret anyway.
An EGPWS like the KGP 560 is one of the best systems to preven CFIT accidents.
This wasn’t a CFIT.
I am not sure how you could implement this. The GS receiver doesn’t know the distance. All one can do is a forced linkage to a DME readout if the (old style avionics) NAV/GPS switch is in “NAV”. To varying extents the old gear did this, e.g. in my plane the HSI was NAV1 or GPS, and that restricted functionality prevented you from having it driven from NAV2 accidentally. But you could still have the DME working off NAV2. That could be restricted, I guess, but most people would regard it as inflexible, especially if you are flying a DME arc onto a localiser, etc.
but surely it does assuming you have loaded the procedure. When it cycles to the sector between the final approach fix and the threshold this is the range that is displayed.
The one thing you always get is the “500ft” warning.
Exactly, and only that would have saved him.
But it is disabled within a “cone” representing the protected area of an instrument approach
Are you talking about the KGP 560? <It is new to me that it should be disabled on an IAP
Peter wrote:
This wasn’t a CFIT.
Eh? According to the accident investigation report there was no indication of anything being wrong with the airplane and also no indications of loss of control, so of course it was CFIT.
The only thing that is true is that the sensitivity of the EGPWS is decreased gradually as the airplane descends twds the runway. But there is still a saftey net below the airplane and you will get a warning if you descend into that region.
KGP 560 Manual:
RUNWAY FIELD CLEARANCE FLOOR (RFCF)
The KGP 560/860 GA-EGPWS provides additional alerting protection for situations where aircraft descend to an altitude that is too low consid- ering the aircraft’s distance from a known runway. This is called the Runway Field Clearance Floor (RFCF).
NOTE: This alert function is ONLY active when the aircraft is within 5 nm of a known runway in the system database.
Using the aircraft distance to a known runway and Geometric Altitude, the system establishes a “floor” of protection below the aircraft. Penetration of this floor will cause the yellow caution alert annunciator lamp to illuminate, and the voice alert “Too Low, Too Low” to be heard. If aircraft altitude continues to descend, the voice alert will be heard again, and at an increasing frequency.
When the pilot reacts to the alert and climbs back above the RFCF for the current distance from the known runway, the annunciator lamp will extinguish and the voice alerts will cease.
Arriving at the NDB he turned straight outbound. Are you not forced to take up the hold if the inbound angle to the beacon is more than 30 degrees off in relation to the outbound leg?
There’s one sentence in the report that got my attention:
The pilot was familiar with Dundee, having flown there many times.
Wouldn’t he have been aware of the pitfalls ?
Wouldn’t he have been aware of the pitfalls ?
I had the same thought.
.. but clearly in complete IMC, thumbed the wrong fix, perhaps having flown it many times before the same way but with the correct fix, no reason to think it would work out any different, and of course in some ways familiarity breeds etc.
but surely it does assuming you have loaded the procedure. When it cycles to the sector between the final approach fix and the threshold this is the range that is displayed.
Not sure I understand you, Fuji.
With a GPS approach, you have the support of the GPS database, so the “system” knows where you are on the procedure and it can – and indeed supposedly does, as a certification requirement for an approach certified GPS – show certain things at the right times.
But with a non-GPS approach (ILS NDB VOR etc) there is no database so the “system” knows nothing about where you are on a procedure. It is not even aware you are flying a procedure. No procedure is loaded. The act of flying a procedure is wholly in the pilot’s mind.
Admittedly the “system” gets a big clue that the person in the seat might well be trying to fly an ILS, from the fact that it has LOC established and has just got a GS established, but it doesn’t know anything about which airport, the GS angle, etc. And there are ILS approaches with and without a DME, etc.
This guy was apparently flying some sort of a non-GPS IAP (had to be, because Dundee doesn’t have a GPS IAP of any kind) and probably doing what every smart pilot does which is flying it using a GPS, laterally. He appears to have messed up his VNAV.
Regarding EGPWS, I recall discussing this with someone familiar with it before (maybe here) and it definitely won’t prevent you hitting the ground on a published IAP if you do certain things. It will prevent an “enroute” CFIT but then so will this What you get with the $50k systems is a better defined protected area and AIUI some aircraft performance dependent warning (the G496 for example simply extrapolates your track 2 mins ahead at the current GS).
