Possible Violations @ CVG

[vtwo]

while I agree with most posts I also think the FAA could solve many of these problems by slightly changing the procedures.
Many modern jet airliners are not designed to over-ride the gs capture. For example the md-11, except for a few that have loc track only either do approach mode (full ILS) or you must do approach in NAV only which is based on IRU navigation resulting in less than precision tracking. Can it be done, yes, but at the same time my point is people are consistently screwing it up so what can we do to improve the approach?

Can the MD11 Fly down hill in VS? and heading select?
I know it less than perfect but it might give some good pilot control that way.

By the way I agree with you about the faa. But lately it seams that we are forgetting how to hand fly the airplane.
Remember the days when you clicked off the autopilot at top of decent. how did we survive?
I miss flying jets. now we just try to stay ahead of the automation.

 

[Porch]

Omg

Are you kidding? Are you back in instrument kindergarden... I think there is a place for this question on the ABC's of flying on a different part of this site. You work for FedEx?

 

[DC8 Flyer]

Running the numbers, LAMAH to ANTRI is 344 ft/nm, LAMAH to LOGOZ is 338 FT/NM, DULEY to LOGOZ is 333 ft/nm and LOGOZ to 2.9dme is 325 ft/nm. The 325 ft/nm is the "slope" of the glide slope. Work this backwards 2.9 dme to ANTRI is 14.2NM. At 325 ft/nm that puts ANTRI at 4647.5 feet above the 2.9dme fix. Add in 1260 (the MSL height you should be at over the 2.9dme fix) and you get 5875.

The chart itself is misleading. Most step downs have a "step" look to them. This looks like you are supposed to follow the GS from LAMAH inbound.

I don't have an IFH in front of me, but I seem to recall there being something specifically writting about "angled" lines and step like lines on approaches, but I may be starting to loose it.

 

[C40_Pilot]

USAF interpretation

Here's how the USAF IFR rules reads:

11.5.5. Altitude. When cleared for the approach, maintain the last assigned altitude until established on a segment of a published route or IAP. At that time, the pilot may descend to the minimum altitude associated with that segment of the published routing or instrument approach procedure.

Hence, the pilot would need to meet the stepdown altitudes, and not go below just because they are established on glideslope.

 

[~~~^~~~]

while I agree with most posts I also think the FAA could solve many of these problems by slightly changing the procedures.

Exactly.

Some operators and aircraft types require a different configuration to "dive and drive" resulting in wasted fuel, pollution, noise and slower approach speeds.

I'm kinda glad someone mentioned this in a public forum so we can all be aware of the issue. Most of us probably would have caught it, but getting close to a 16 hour duty day I think anyone can get a little lazy and couple the thing up with the glideslope.

 

[say again]

What some people say on here really scares me knowing that they are up there!!

 

[Amish RakeFight]

What some people say on here really scares me knowing that they are up there!!

A few weeks ago there was a discussion where some seemingly experienced pilots claimed that it wasn't legal to go below DH off an ILS missed.

Soemtimes I scratch my head about the ignorance some professional pilots display of the rules.

 

[XJohXJ]

Boy, no wonder so many people are leaving flight info. Way to help better the general pilot group out there, fellas. Ya know, learning is facilitated through respect, allowing questions, and giving room for improvement. By jumping on people who might not be clear on issues, you are actually facilitating ignorance, rather than clarity. Good attitude, guys!

Just the fact that the controllers are going nuts over a problem being repeated shows that there are plenty of airline pilots unclear on the rules. If there are plenty of pilots unclear on the concept, maybe it's time to look at why they are unclear, rather than personally attacking someone who is unclear. That just doesn't help. The fact that there are apparently many airline pilots making this type of mistake pretty much proves that, in fact, this is not a basic "instrument 101" concept. Learning doesn't stop just 'cause you're an airline pilot. Just because someone passed a 121 ride doesn't mean you already know all there is to be known about flying. Personal attacks aren't going to solve this.

The moral of this thread is: If you aren't sure about something, don't you ever dare to ask about it on flight info.com.

 

[bigsky]

I totally agree...ultimately the pilot needs to get it done correctly, descending in prof/ vs/ whatever and naviagating in some form of nav, loc track, heading , or track....great
however, without having flown there , I believe we referred to ry 18c....a center ils seems to imply they want or require precision, whether or not it is a PRM or not so why not make it easy for us and let us fly it like the other 9000 airports around the world...if I am cleared for an ILS why should I be flying in vertical speed and heading....all I am saying is the FAA could reduce the chance for errors rather than blaming all us dumb pilots.
also if I was planning 18r and at the last possible minute they change me to 18c, I would scramble to get the freq and arm approach land , and very likely miss the fact that the glideslope did not coincide with the stepdowns....

 

[igneousy2]

It is one thing to get caught busting something when you know better...it is a completely different matter to not even KNOW that you are supposed to meet the step downs. I'm sorry if I offend anyone but if you are an airline pilot and you are SURPRISED that you need to meet the stepdowns then you deserve whatever ribbing people give you. There is a difference between accidentally landing without a clearence - and not even knowing that you were supposed to get a landing clearence.

I do see how these "accidental busts" can happen, I don't see why Jepp can't just put a heads-up note on the approaches that state something like "warning-GS outside FAF does not assure compliance with step-downs" or something to that effect for those of us in our 15th or 16th hour of duty.


Later

 

[snow-back]

I can't believe this has gone on for four pages. Someone gave the correct answer within the first few posts. Obviously, KCVG uses this procedure for operational reasons and it seems that the step downs were designed that way on purpose. It looks like a lot of CFIIs haven't been doing a very good job. Scary.

 

[erichartmann]

A few weeks ago there was a discussion where some seemingly experienced pilots claimed that it wasn't legal to go below DH off an ILS missed.

Soemtimes I scratch my head about the ignorance some professional pilots display of the rules.

Nothing new here. It seems many who should know better routinely confuse MDA with DH. When I got my ATP (long long ago in a galaxy far far away) the FAA inspector chastised me for going below DH on an ILS miss. This was in the aircraft, with the inspector calling no runway at DH. I argued, sucessfully (I passed), that DH means decision height, or the point where the decision is made to execute the missed approach, and that the airplane is not static at that point but will continue to move in the established direction. You cannot make the decision at DH and not go below decision height.

 

[The_Russian]

Boy, no wonder so many people are leaving flight info. Way to help better the general pilot group out there, fellas. Ya know, learning is facilitated through respect, allowing questions, and giving room for improvement. By jumping on people who might not be clear on issues, you are actually facilitating ignorance, rather than clarity. Good attitude, guys!

Just the fact that the controllers are going nuts over a problem being repeated shows that there are plenty of airline pilots unclear on the rules. If there are plenty of pilots unclear on the concept, maybe it's time to look at why they are unclear, rather than personally attacking someone who is unclear. That just doesn't help. The fact that there are apparently many airline pilots making this type of mistake pretty much proves that, in fact, this is not a basic "instrument 101" concept. Learning doesn't stop just 'cause you're an airline pilot. Just because someone passed a 121 ride doesn't mean you already know all there is to be known about flying. Personal attacks aren't going to solve this.

The moral of this thread is: If you aren't sure about something, don't you ever dare to ask about it on flight info.com.

Absolutely excellent post. We all have things to learn and we need to extend respect to others when helping to educate them. I, myself, am guilty of being wrong about technical subjects here and there.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I can't believe this has gone on for four pages. Someone gave the correct answer within the first few posts. Obviously, KCVG uses this procedure for operational reasons and it seems that the step downs were designed that way on purpose. It looks like a lot of CFIIs haven't been doing a very good job. Scary.

The last time I flew with a CFII was twenty years, four type rides, and two airlines ago. People forget.

We probably all remembered the requirement to follow the step down fixes, but unless you fly outside the United States, there are few precision approaches where the use of the glideslope does not provide adequate guidance and plenty of room. (that probably explains why Delta is getting this right and other airlines might be overlooking it)

Worse, at CVG the Jeppesen Chart depiction (although we know it is not to scale) clearly shows the glideslope well over the stepdown fixes, which is not normal convention. This is an easy thing to miss unless you perform the math, or put the step down fixes in the FMS.

Unfortunately the avionics in the average 120 knot avgas powered bug-smasher provides much better SA than the average jet in 121 service. In fact, the RNAV procedures have resulted in the removal of most of the step down fixes on precision approaches since something had to be deleted to make room. Even the RJ's have 1980's tech in the FMS.

 

[freightdogfred]

Well I dunno, as I recall the AIM was pretty clear- GS signal is not valid outside of 10 nm. If you're outside of 10 miles, you fly the profile-Inside 10 miles, the glideslope is valid. As some else posted, the CIVET arr/profile descent into LAX25L had this same problem with guys getting violated, and that was about 10 years ago. A heavy DC-8 always seemed to be on the high side of each crossing restriction at idle power clean and 250K so Mr Douglas had figured it out for me. Sounds like some controllers with too much free time on their hands.