Because their SV functionality (and some others) are nothing but toy.
I would argue that the topo presentation in my post above is absolutely spot on – if you have GPS reception. And if you don’t have GPS reception, flying the missed approach track (which requires NAV mode, not HDG mode) is not gonna work either.
Of course one should not get to that stage in the first place. One should fly the procedure, and if not visual at the MAP, fly the missed approach. Not keep going down and realise only (by the looks of it) maybe 100ft above the runway that you are not seeing it, and then you have only about 2 more runway lengths (see the pics above) left before you are into the hill.
I don’t have videos of flying into LOWZ since I started using the proper stabilised external camera but this one shows the approach at around 25:00
Thanks for the video Peter,
I don’t think flying that missed approach is sensible neither you have to switch from Track083 to Track085 from the MAPt or climb at 2000fpm to make that +6000ft in 4nm, If you don’t have the right climb performance, going missed at MAPt on Track084 or Track086 will also get you killed !
Ibra wrote:
I don’t think flying that missed approach is sensible neither you have to switch from Track083 to Track085 from the MAPt or climb at 2000fpm to make that +6000ft in 4nm, If you don’t have the right climb performance, going missed at MAPt on Track084 or Track086 will also get you killed !
What do you mean?
Of course you fly the IFR procedure and if not visual at the MAP you fly the MAP procedure. What is there to discuss about it? The self stricken stuff never works.
Snoopy wrote:
Of course you fly the IFR procedure and if not visual at the MAP you fly the MAP procedure.
Yes, if you can fly that MAP procedure with less than +/-0.5 degres track error from the MAPt it should work
I am still thinking what can be done if you miss GA at the MAPt or you figure out that you are off track…
Ibra wrote:
Yes, if you can fly that MAP procedure with less than +/-0.5 degres track error from the MAPt it should work
I am still thinking what can be done if you miss GA at the MAPt or you figure out that you are off track…
I don’t follow you. Do you seriously suggest that this missed approach procedure has been designed assuming +/- 0.5 degrees track error?
I guess the design track accuracy from MAPt to the end of the missed segment is 1nm that is even way less than +/-0.5 degres, if you are off that track you have to fly very precise headings to get off the hook, I am not sure even if that is practically possible
Ibra wrote:
Yes, if you can fly that MAP procedure with less than +/-0.5 degres track error from the MAPt it should work
I am still thinking what can be done if you miss GA at the MAPt or you figure out that you are off track…
The fact that you are struggling with it is very much because you don’t get in that situation. That is why it is called the missed approach point. If you figure out you are off track like on any IFR procedure you get back on it ASAP.
Maybe it was written above by others…sorry if repeating something written above.
This is a sad event. Very sad, for Xmas, for a family where the daddy is lost. This the emotional part. This site is about professionalisms, and good and bad examples we can learn from. Of course, it is still heavily under investigation, but they are points in the game, where we can see how and where the so called Swiss cheese model set up.
In transport aviation, all landing , takeoffs and goarounds are calculated against the terrain. Every single airport we operate, the performance is calculated and we can decide, if we can make it or not. If figures shows not, it is a NOGO, or offloading pax or cargo.
In private aviation, the performance, and the rules of aerodynamic is the same. Kills the same way. The difference is the size of destruction and fire. In GA that calculation is most of the time disregarded. But all the times should have be done, and in the situ like this, the bell will ring immediately
If we look the map of LOWZ it is clearly visible, that it requires a very well performing aircraft, OR VMC in order to be clear of obstacle. The SV is nice toy, enhancing situational awareness but nothing else. When he performed the go around from MDA even a meter behind the MAP, he played Russian roulette or even worse. I flew form many years with 737 to LOWI. We had every single time MDA calculation based on landing weight. This was required by the authorities. Without that we can use only high MDA (default jepp minima) for “beginners”. Honestly, sometimes it was tight. Not because we were not correct, but sometimes we could not fly the textbook procedure or the foen wind was stronger than forecasted
Here, the GoAround requires very very steep climb gradient in order to be out of the hills ASAP. (Or he needs VMC_ ) If the aircraft does not make it, or he climbs too flat, or have some ice or any combo of that, he has the 7th slice of cheese cake.
Ibra wrote:
I guess the design track accuracy from MAPt to the end of the missed segment is 1nm that is even way less than +/-0.5 degres, if you are off that track you have to fly very precise headings to get off the hook, I am not sure even if that is practically possible
Hi Ibra,
I think the point here is that this is an RNAV procedure and it mean 1nm-1nm-.3nm-1nm (initial, intermediate, final and MAP).
If it was a traditional procedure, it would have been different and I agree that if you are flying G/A procedure using VOR, then .5 degress or less would be a bit optimistic.
Am I missing something?
Petre, did you get the LOWZ secret METAR? Look we are all on the same page but would be good to see actual numbers..
