NASCAR Air Force Story

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:23:48 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote:


"zatatime" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:02:56 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

When are GPS approaches for places like this, and thousands of others
going
to be available?


Why would a GPS be better than a Localizer/DME. I doubt a GPS
approach would have had any lower minimums than the LOC did, so I'm
not sure how that would have helped in this situation.


LPV approaches (GPS+WAAS with lateral and vertical guidance) can I believe
get you down to 250' and 1-1/2, which is a lot lower than a GPS (LNAV)
approach and quite close to ILS minima.

Second, an LPV approach should be comparable to an ILS in terms of
difficulty to fly: just configure the airplane and keep the needles in the
donut. By bringing planes down on a stabilized approach all the way to MDA
you eliminate a number of opportunities to screw things up.

None of which may have been responsible for this particular crash, but the
overall statistics strongly suggest that better approaches mean safer
approaches.

-cwk.



I was thinking about a standard GPS (LNAV) approach, but fully agree
on the LPV type of approach adding more safety and ability. I'm not
real familiar with those, but aren't they fairly new, and thre's only
one GPS that is certified for them at this point? I'm sure the way
the teams spend money, they'll all have them as soon as possible, but
will there be enough approaches to make it money well spent? Seems
like its still a few years off to me, but again I admit I don't have
the lo down on them.

Thanks for the explanation.

z

In article ,
says...



There was nothing difficult about these approaches. The LOC at that airport
was quite simple. If they cannot read the chart for a LOC approach, what
makes you think that any new approach will be better?



This was a non-precision approach at or below minimums to an airport with
terrain issues in at least one quadrant, so it is not without difficulties, at
least in the judgement department. Given this was an experienced, well-trained
crew, familiar with the airport and operating top-notch equipment, I think
it's likely there is a missing piece in the puzzle, which we will learn from
the factual investigation. Your summary, damning report that the crew "cannot
read" a LOC approach chart is unsubstantiated, and I believe unhelpful.

G Faris

(G Farris) wrote

Given this was an experienced, well-trained crew,
familiar with the airport and operating top-notch
equipment, I think it's likely there is a missing
piece in the puzzle, which we will learn from the
factual investigation. Your summary, damning report
that the crew "cannot read" a LOC approach chart is
unsubstantiated, and I believe unhelpful.

And I believe that your assertion that it was a "well
trained crew operating top-notch equipment" is nothing
more than speculation.
I tried corporate jet flying for one month after my
retirement from PanAm. I could write a book about the
southern good-ole-boy corporate flying culture.
One example...there was not a check-list in either the
Sabreliner or Diamond, and no-one cared.
My parting words...."You assholes aren't going to kill
me".

Bob Moore

"G Farris" wrote in message
...
In article ,

says...



There was nothing difficult about these approaches. The LOC at that
airport
was quite simple. If they cannot read the chart for a LOC approach, what
makes you think that any new approach will be better?



This was a non-precision approach at or below minimums to an airport with
terrain issues in at least one quadrant, so it is not without
difficulties,

And what difficulties are those? It is a simple approach. If you cannot
see the airport, you execute the missed. My point was that how would a GPS
approach help, there are already a few approaches into the airport. What
makes you think that if they had a precision approach they would have been
able to fly it if they failed to fly the existing one correctly?

They could not have been all that familiar with the airport if they flew
into the highest terrain published on the chart... I think you have to
reconsider your position. I am not damning them - I think it is a shame,
but when people spout things like adding another approach to an airport
would have saved these people I wonder why they think that. There is
nothing difficult int he approach. Now, it is certainly possible that
something happened to cause this crash, but I am not going to speculate on
that, all I stated was that they clearly did not follow the instructions on
the approach chart. If you feel that is damning them, then that is your
business. I can't say that they followed the chart, because clearly they
did not, otherwise they would not have crashed into terrain.

Your ill admonishment to me is unhelpful. No one has yet pointed out why
another approach to this airport would be useful or how it would have helped
in this case. The bottome line is that you still have to execute the
approach and if they did not exdcute this one correctly, what makes you
think they will execute a different one correctly?

at
least in the judgement department. Given this was an experienced,
well-trained
crew, familiar with the airport and operating top-notch equipment, I think
it's likely there is a missing piece in the puzzle, which we will learn
from
the factual investigation. Your summary, damning report that the crew
"cannot
read" a LOC approach chart is unsubstantiated, and I believe unhelpful.

G Faris

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
et...

but when people spout things like adding another approach to an airport
would have saved these people I wonder why they think that.

Well, I'm the original spouter and I approve this spouting.

I thought my first post made the point pretty clearly but I'll elaborate
here.

What we are dealing with here is by nature a game of generalities. Every
accident is by definition unique, but looking at broad patterns certain
unmistakable trends emerge.

Among those trends is the fact that precision approaches are safer than
non-precision ones. Stabilized-descent approaches are likewise preferable to
step-downs, and several of the major airlines got approval for FMS-based
vertical-guidance for non-precision approaches starting a few years ago.

LPV approaches provide a capability that is on its face almost equal to an
ILS, and have all the inherent advantages of a stabilized-descent precision
approach. They provide better guidance in all 3 dimensions and simply allow
fewer opportunities for the pilot to screw up.

in this case. The bottome line is that you still have to execute the
approach and if they did not exdcute this one correctly, what makes you
think they will execute a different one correctly?

This is a red herring. My point is not to glom onto this case so
specifically but rather to make the broad point that since precision
approaches are generally safer, we should push for more LPV approaches as a
safety issue.

-cwk.

And I believe that your assertion that it was a "well
trained crew operating top-notch equipment" is nothing
more than speculation.
I tried corporate jet flying for one month after my
retirement from PanAm. I could write a book about the
southern good-ole-boy corporate flying culture.
One example...there was not a check-list in either the
Sabreliner or Diamond, and no-one cared.
My parting words...."You assholes aren't going to kill
me".

Bob Moore



I think the same could be said about some air carrier pilots as well.

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
link.net...

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
et...

but when people spout things like adding another approach to an airport
would have saved these people I wonder why they think that.

Well, I'm the original spouter and I approve this spouting.

I thought my first post made the point pretty clearly but I'll elaborate
here.

What we are dealing with here is by nature a game of generalities. Every
accident is by definition unique, but looking at broad patterns certain
unmistakable trends emerge.

Yes, that pilots make mistakes and many are unprepared and ill-trained. I
do not mean that of these two pilots, bet certainly many are.


Among those trends is the fact that precision approaches are safer than
non-precision ones. Stabilized-descent approaches are likewise preferable
to
step-downs, and several of the major airlines got approval for FMS-based
vertical-guidance for non-precision approaches starting a few years ago.

I do not see how they are inherently "safer." I prefer them - they let me
get closer to the ground before having to make a decision. A decision that
was not made by the plane in question.


LPV approaches provide a capability that is on its face almost equal to an
ILS, and have all the inherent advantages of a stabilized-descent
precision
approach. They provide better guidance in all 3 dimensions and simply
allow
fewer opportunities for the pilot to screw up.

Better than a localizer in that dimension?
The localizer is not a bad guidance system. They failed to get to the
appropriate height.


in this case. The bottome line is that you still have to execute the
approach and if they did not exdcute this one correctly, what makes you
think they will execute a different one correctly?

This is a red herring. My point is not to glom onto this case so
specifically but rather to make the broad point that since precision
approaches are generally safer, we should push for more LPV approaches as
a
safety issue.

Not a red herring at all. Precision approaches are "safer" if flown
correctly, but since this crew was not able to fly the localizer and missed
properly, how can they be expected to fly any other one? I responded to
this other person who objected to me doing what he thought was speaking ill
of the dead. Again, I see no reason to belive that in this case a
precision approach would have been any better. They ran into a clearly
plotted bit of terrain that is 2000 feet below the approved height for that
sector/part of the approach.



-cwk.

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
et...

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


john smith wrote:

"Taking the chance on being delayed in an airport just won't work,"
Green said. "You have to be there Friday morning for practice or you
miss practice. Miss practice, and they don't let you attempt to
qualify."

Sounds like a recipe for "gottagetthereitis" to me.

Hardly - when you are talking about the pilots, equipment and approaches
they have at their disposal. This is much different than some private
pilot wanting to beat home a lowering cloud deck at night or trying to
beat a t storm...


Not at all different.

No matter how good the pilots, equipment, and approach equipment is , it can
still be insufficient to successfully execute the approach and be in a
position to land when the runway pops into view.

So, do we go a little below posted minimums, 'cause we might still break
through?
If we pop out high, do we steepen our descent and try to make what's left of
the runway????
Do we attempt to keep the runway in sight with a below-limits circle???...

(Everybody here tell me that you have never tried one or more of the above
and managed it successfully, and if you did it once, why not again).

Remember, practice (or qualifying, or photo-shoot, or...) starts in an
hour.... If we overshoot, we may not do any better on the next try and will
have to divert.

Different conditions, maybe, but still the same potential for
"have-to-get-there". More dangerous than the Cessna beating the cloud deck,
because the tolerance for error is much smaller, and the financial
consequence much greater.

Richard Hertz wrote:
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
link.net...

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
.net...

but when people spout things like adding another approach to an airport
would have saved these people I wonder why they think that.

Well, I'm the original spouter and I approve this spouting.

I thought my first post made the point pretty clearly but I'll elaborate
here.

What we are dealing with here is by nature a game of generalities. Every
accident is by definition unique, but looking at broad patterns certain
unmistakable trends emerge.


Yes, that pilots make mistakes and many are unprepared and ill-trained. I
do not mean that of these two pilots, bet certainly many are.


Among those trends is the fact that precision approaches are safer than
non-precision ones. Stabilized-descent approaches are likewise preferable
to
step-downs, and several of the major airlines got approval for FMS-based
vertical-guidance for non-precision approaches starting a few years ago.


I do not see how they are inherently "safer." I prefer them - they let me
get closer to the ground before having to make a decision. A decision that
was not made by the plane in question.


LPV approaches provide a capability that is on its face almost equal to an
ILS, and have all the inherent advantages of a stabilized-descent
precision
approach. They provide better guidance in all 3 dimensions and simply
allow
fewer opportunities for the pilot to screw up.


Better than a localizer in that dimension?
The localizer is not a bad guidance system. They failed to get to the
appropriate height.


in this case. The bottome line is that you still have to execute the
approach and if they did not exdcute this one correctly, what makes you
think they will execute a different one correctly?

This is a red herring. My point is not to glom onto this case so
specifically but rather to make the broad point that since precision
approaches are generally safer, we should push for more LPV approaches as
a
safety issue.


Not a red herring at all. Precision approaches are "safer" if flown
correctly, but since this crew was not able to fly the localizer and missed
properly, how can they be expected to fly any other one? I responded to
this other person who objected to me doing what he thought was speaking ill
of the dead. Again, I see no reason to belive that in this case a
precision approach would have been any better. They ran into a clearly
plotted bit of terrain that is 2000 feet below the approved height for that
sector/part of the approach.



I agree that precision approaches preferable to nonprecision approaches,
but the bottom line is that actually flying either type of approach is
more difficult than necessary, given what current technology makes
possible. The amount of effort necessary to fly approaches safely in
IMC even under normal conditions is very high. It is way too easy to
lose situational awareness. What we need is to demand faster
development and adoption of synthetic vision and Highway in the Sky
symbology in cockpits.

I've flown extremely complicated approaches (curving around mountains,
etc.) down to very low minimums in a research simulator equipped with
Rockwell Colins' future synthetic vision system. It turned hard IMC to
a bright sunny, day VFR pleasure flight, with a display that showed
where all terrain and obstruction were. Folow the boxes and don't fly
into anything brown that looks like a mountain, and you're fine. The
flight management system that drives the displays depends on solid state
Attitude Heading Reference System (solid state gyros) and precision GPS
(GPS + WAAS) but also integrates barometric altimeter and terrestrial
navigation aids. The GPS, however, is generally the most precise
navigation instrument available.

The technology is available, and the faster we get it into cockpits the
more lives we'll save. I find it unfortunate that we still have the
attitude that training alone will solve all our problems. The accident
record clearly shows that even well trained crews can lose situational
awareness in perfectly healthy airplanes. The fact is that there are
human factor issues involved in just about every fatal IMC accident, and
THOSE HAVE BEEN SOLVED with synthetic vision. There should be no
technological hurdles to implementation of this technology in even the
smallest GA aircraft. In fact, I can foresee the Garmin G-X000
replacing the dirt and sky attitude indicator with a SV display. It
would be a matter of changing software. A change that will save lives!

-Aviv

"Aviv Hod" wrote in message
...
Richard Hertz wrote:
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
link.net...

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
v.net...

but when people spout things like adding another approach to an airport
would have saved these people I wonder why they think that.

Well, I'm the original spouter and I approve this spouting.

I thought my first post made the point pretty clearly but I'll elaborate
here.

What we are dealing with here is by nature a game of generalities. Every
accident is by definition unique, but looking at broad patterns certain
unmistakable trends emerge.


Yes, that pilots make mistakes and many are unprepared and ill-trained.
I do not mean that of these two pilots, bet certainly many are.


Among those trends is the fact that precision approaches are safer than
non-precision ones. Stabilized-descent approaches are likewise preferable
to
step-downs, and several of the major airlines got approval for FMS-based
vertical-guidance for non-precision approaches starting a few years ago.


I do not see how they are inherently "safer." I prefer them - they let
me get closer to the ground before having to make a decision. A decision
that was not made by the plane in question.


LPV approaches provide a capability that is on its face almost equal to
an
ILS, and have all the inherent advantages of a stabilized-descent
precision
approach. They provide better guidance in all 3 dimensions and simply
allow
fewer opportunities for the pilot to screw up.


Better than a localizer in that dimension?
The localizer is not a bad guidance system. They failed to get to the
appropriate height.


in this case. The bottome line is that you still have to execute the
approach and if they did not exdcute this one correctly, what makes you
think they will execute a different one correctly?

This is a red herring. My point is not to glom onto this case so
specifically but rather to make the broad point that since precision
approaches are generally safer, we should push for more LPV approaches as
a
safety issue.


Not a red herring at all. Precision approaches are "safer" if flown
correctly, but since this crew was not able to fly the localizer and
missed properly, how can they be expected to fly any other one? I
responded to this other person who objected to me doing what he thought
was speaking ill of the dead. Again, I see no reason to belive that in
this case a precision approach would have been any better. They ran into
a clearly plotted bit of terrain that is 2000 feet below the approved
height for that sector/part of the approach.



I agree that precision approaches preferable to nonprecision approaches,
but the bottom line is that actually flying either type of approach is
more difficult than necessary, given what current technology makes
possible. The amount of effort necessary to fly approaches safely in IMC
even under normal conditions is very high. It is way too easy to lose
situational awareness. What we need is to demand faster development and
adoption of synthetic vision and Highway in the Sky symbology in cockpits.

I've flown extremely complicated approaches (curving around mountains,
etc.) down to very low minimums in a research simulator equipped with
Rockwell Colins' future synthetic vision system. It turned hard IMC to a
bright sunny, day VFR pleasure flight, with a display that showed where
all terrain and obstruction were. Folow the boxes and don't fly into
anything brown that looks like a mountain, and you're fine. The flight
management system that drives the displays depends on solid state Attitude
Heading Reference System (solid state gyros) and precision GPS (GPS +
WAAS) but also integrates barometric altimeter and terrestrial navigation
aids. The GPS, however, is generally the most precise navigation
instrument available.

The technology is available, and the faster we get it into cockpits the
more lives we'll save. I find it unfortunate that we still have the
attitude that training alone will solve all our problems. The accident
record clearly shows that even well trained crews can lose situational
awareness in perfectly healthy airplanes. The fact is that there are
human factor issues involved in just about every fatal IMC accident, and
THOSE HAVE BEEN SOLVED with synthetic vision. There should be no
technological hurdles to implementation of this technology in even the
smallest GA aircraft. In fact, I can foresee the Garmin G-X000 replacing
the dirt and sky attitude indicator with a SV display. It would be a
matter of changing software. A change that will save lives!

-Aviv


And who is going to pay for your silver bullet? Is this stuff so reliable
that you can ignore failure? What happens when it fails? Your argument
about "training alone will solve all our problems" can be thrown right back
at you with "Do you really think that ,insert technology/methodology of your
choice will solve all our problems?" You seem to claim "synthetic vision"
will do it. I have yet to be convinced, but perhaps it will.

Regardless, I was only stating, contrary to previous posters, another
approach to the airport would not have helped - the pilots (for whatever
reason) picked the the worst place to fly and found the highest piece of
terrain on the approach chart and flew into it. That is a problem.

It could not be solved by adding more approaches and spending more money on
flight testing another GPS approach.