raddragon

Fantastic comments Ryan and well summarised. Some general observations which may assist with people understanding the incident: 1. The differing design philosophy between Boeing and Airbus. Many people have overlooked the fact that the Asiana PIC had just transitioned off the A320 and had 33 hours on the B777. FBW has been a factor in many incidents globally and as identified, there was an over reliance on automated systems in the Asiana accident. 2. Korean culture (and military rank) has been a component in many incidents/accidents (though has greatly improved in recent years). Three out of the four pilots were ex Air Force - the PF had no military background. The PF was 'Ab Initio' trained by the Company. 3. The PF was an experienced pilot and ex instructor on the A320, though he hadn't flown into SFO for almost 10 years. Everyone can get rusty, but like you state above, the complete lack of understanding of the systems, poor basic airmanship and poor CRM are the true causal factors of the incident.

Send me a PM with contact details and we'll go from there. In terms of testing for me, I'm planning an acceptance flight at Everett (hopefully my VA is expecting a 77W), then positioning to OMDB, then a trip from OMDB to YBBN/NZAA. I've already entered everything into simbrief. AIRAC/ASN/FS Realtime is all updated in preparation.

Oh heck yes. It's amazing the difference in perspectives too. Some of the RW pilots on here have some great knowledge to share, but it's interesting to see a slightly different perspective. There have been many instances where there has been some misinformation provided in topics (usually conjecture about why something is done this way etc). Being aviation, I cant exactly correct them (due to NDA).

Smart move! I don't even bother really asking questions anymore, too many trolls. A couple in particular are on my blocklist and to be honest, the forum posts are a lot nicer to read without their input. Making a general statement though, it would be nice if everyone was a little more thoughtful when it comes to discussions. Not everyone has the time to visit daily/weekly, not everyone is hugely knowledgeable on the T7/aviation and info sharing should be the goal. However stupid a question sounds, put yourself in the shoes of the person asking, it could be the difference between someone giving up or someone developing a passion for an industry we all love. I’ve spent 5+ years in aviation with some experience in the technical operations field, heck even I’m still learning! Wes, I think we should do a vatsim flight when the 77W is released?

Hey Wes - latest info here - http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/10181087/Ohakea-upgrade-complete. You won't see a Dreamliner into NZHN and the 763 can only go in there very light!

Hi Wes, it is definitely an available alternate and it has had Aero Arg and LAN in there before. They have had a couple of 77W's there before (including an Air NZ one).

Wes, don't forget Ohakea. It took a 77W last year when the Qantas 738 closed NZAA with locked brakes. NZCH is the only alternative in NZ for the A388.

Ok, thanks for the info. Back to the drawing board.

I have just spent the last couple of hours playing around. Looks as though it may have something to do with the RNP ARC's. I replicated the crashes on the NZAA Yankee approaches, but couldn't replicate the crash on the RNP X-Ray approaches. The difference seems to be the T7 adds a waypoint (cannot remember the name) to ensure the X-Ray approaches hold the ARC 5.6 DME from the AA VOR. The Yankee approaches however, do not insert this "additional waypoint" and CTD while attempting to fly the ARC. I am not an expert, but is the addition of such a waypoint normal T7 behaviour to be able to fly and ARC?

I have had a CTD 4 times while attempting to complete the RNP approached into NZAA. Are there any know issues with RNP approaches with the t7?

Hi David this is correct, RNP-AR only supports RF and TF legs, standard RNP use all types of legs.

This incident occurred at Melbourne, not Sydney. It was an error in the performance calculations. Although the crew did punch in the incorrect weight data, the fact is the PF was alternating between operating the 330 and 340; this was identified in the ATSB report and played a major factor as to why a 100 ton discrepancy wasn't picked up. The Capt was the only pilot on the flight deck who had not operated on both the A330 and A340 in the preceding 90 days. Fatigue played a role also, the Capt of EK407 had flown 99 hours of the 100 per month allowed by Emirates.

Sorry to stray a little into competitors products but... I can confirm real world, Auckland Airport (NZAA) has started using RNP-AR approaches and so has Queenstown Airport (NZQN). I can also confirm 100% that in the latest Navigraph data (specifically the Aerosoft Airbus X) has the NZAA 05R and 23L RNP-AR Yankee and X-Ray approaches listed in the FMS. As the Aerosoft Airbus X cannot fly RF Legs, it cannot hold the turns, but they are listed and the waypoints correct. I have tested this several times in the Aerosoft Airbus and iFly 738 - the iFly was the closest at holding the approaches. I have been told the Blackbox Airbus does not support RF legs either but have not tested this. Also, I believe RNP approaches do not utilise RF Legs, but RNP-AR approaches utilise RF Legs.

Completely agree. The only plan I fly in 2d panels is the PMDG 744 (the VC is not great - reflective of the era though).

Agreed. I have just found the ignore member function - you can hide messages from users with absolutely nothing useful to say.