Today's use of VORs and NDB / DME

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Once again, Monday Morning quarterback.... Well done

 

All fairness, I did similar one night because the light on my airspeed indicator failed as I was turning base.  Since I couldn't see it and didn't want to be anywhere near a pattern with my head down trying to grab my flashlight out of my bag*, I just kept an eye on the GS on the GPS, adjusting for known wind, based on the feel of the wing.

 

*...or call up Potomac Approach and justify the reason I was circling the field in the JYO Maneuvering Area, which is watched by the DoD for reasons none other than notional security.

 

 

 

...but, I didn't do that in a storm, at 450 knots across the ground, over the Atlantic, with no external references, and hundreds of people to think about.

[Somebody_Else 7]

Yes, and to be honest, the industry should find the idea of its pilots being unable to fly the aircraft scary, considering that is what they are paid to do!

 

Air France seems to have suffered little in the way of negative passenger reaction after both Concorde and AF447 crashes, which is equally scary.

 

As for the A320 crash at the Paris Airshow, I do *NOT* believe the official version of events.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21823506

 

Coincidence? I don't think so. In 2012 they found Continental Airlines clear on ALL counts relating to the Concorde crash. That raises serious questions about the alleged strip of metal, and still leaves unanswered questions about the role of the Concorde crew and their actions significantly contributing to the crash.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

 

Indeed. Though it's a conversation I'm not comfortable having in a public forum.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

It's all very well to call it "Monday morning quarterbacking", but really - you either thought of it or you didn't. Moral of the story: use all the tools at your disposal.

 

@Somebody_Else: no problem.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

[FLEX1978 373]

You see the problem here is they didn't know the aircraft was approaching a stall, in fact they had reason to think the aircraft was approaching or already in overspeed

 

To top It off the FD (which they should have switched off as part of the UAS procedure) was telling them to climb, they obviously didn't trust the PFD's since the PNF selected ATT on the overhead (same place to select G/S)

 

Some people can go on forever about what should have been done, once again without a doubt Bonin should have pushed however all this other junk about what could have been done... Well I wonder how many people on here have been PF in a heavy jet falling towards the Atlantic at night with 3 minutes to think? Something tells me Robin with all his wisdom & hindsight hasn't...

[3-2-1-Now 126]

The basic principles of flight are the same: if your nose is pointing at the sky whilst the jet is clearly descending like a rock, you DO NOT KEEP PULLING.

 

The FDR shows that not only did they attempt to keep a positive pitch attitude the whole way down, they climbed above MAX ALT (which led to the stall), and if that wasn't bad enough, several times, and for periods of SECONDS, they are recorded as having FULL AFT SIDESTICK (at cruise altitude no less).

 

Do these basic points not ring alarm bells with you? Neither pilot found the requirement for full aft sidestick, in cruise flight, odd. That is the scariest thing for me when reading that report.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

[FLEX1978 373]

Robin,

 

No they didnt have full aft stick the whole way down, whenever they pushed forward the stall warning would sound, this must have been extremely confusing.

 

Anyway, I honestly didnt intend to turn this into a thread drift, I agree with everything you are saying to a point. My only issue is with people that put AF447 down to a simple case of they couldn't fly an aircraft, Bonin screwed up and pulled, no one knows why and his PFD was not recorded, the whole incident is very complex especially if you look at it from a psychological perspective.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

 

 

his PFD was not recorded

Given the lack of discussion about attitude on the CVR, I think it is reasonable to think that they were indicating normally. I'd hope that if he doubted his instrument, he would have at least thought to look over at the other PFD or ISIS to check.

 

 

 

the whole incident is very complex especially if you look at it from a physiological perspective.

Agreed.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

Respectfully:

That's not quite accurate, and really only serves to further the widespread misconception that 250 hours isn't a lot of time (which is one of the reasons Congress forced the ATP rule on us).  Granted, a 250 hour pilot isn't going to have a lot of the experience-based knowledge of thousand hour pilots, it doesn't mean they're lacking fundamentals.  If you're lacking stick and rudder skills, you shouldn't have made it past PPL.

 

Provided your instructor ensures that you know what flying the wing is really all about, it's something that you should have a good understanding of by your PPL, and a basic mastery of soon thereafter.  Granted, with each airframe it'll take some time to get used to it, but I can fly the heck out of the wing of the DA40 (not that it's incredibly difficult - it's a very forgiving wing - won't even really break in a stall) and I only have 7.1 hours in it.

 

The DPE on my PPL checkride complimented my stick and rudder coordination (and she's a tough DPE in the DC area).  Having gotten my PPL at something like 41 hours, I'd attribute that to my instructor's constant reminders of "trust the instruments, but fly the wing."

 

Couldn't agree more. The AF447 crash was arguably more difficult for the pilots to sort out, but the Turkish crash at EHAM, and the Asiana crash at KSFO were both caused because the pilots forgot to keep an eye on the airspeed; something that even a low hours PPL is able to do.

[JC75 22]

Of course taking it back to the ops post, the response here with regards automation and humans, is generally why there are many of the incidents that occur. Not just in aviation. Human Factors is a massive element of aviation nowadays, ATC in fact have probably leap frogged pilots since the initial CRM days. Virtually all ATC procedures/equipment nowadays biggest blocker to being approved is HF. The key issue however is the humans resistance, attitude and approach to it. Which often results in bad interfaces, not enough automation, or humans not taking responsibility. Take the AF accident, actually more automation here and better logic would have done a better job at understanding the situation and recovered it, tech doesn't get confused.

 

With regards to those who have a desire for ndbs/vors (did you know people spot them!) if today I was to say I've invented this great bit of tech, its called a NDB and explained its features, faults etc and use, you'd all laugh at me and say not be ridiculous that's not safe. When you give the examples of failures of a GPS/INS system the list of NDB issues is probably double that, and in fact it's not just when, it's fact it permanently has these issues. Remember their accuracy is reliant still on maintenance of both ground based and airborne equipment. It's far easier to have multiple systems on board now to reduce failure.

 

So actually the quicker people adopt technology and embrace it, stop worrying about their own selfish interests the quicker we will have more reliable and effective technology that isn't limited by humans who introduce these blockers that only result in the overhaul failure.

 

That said, I agree, cost is major driver for the decommissioning of vor and ndbs, but its a realistic one, why should the ansp be paying for it? Especially if it just to keep a few puddle jumpers happy, who are generally not contributing to their upkeep.

 

Here an example of silliness. A Fully rnav equipped Plane departs an airfield with conventional SID,(based on vors etc) because one of the vors is out of service the aircraft isn't allowed to be cleared on that SID and is given vectors instead. Once airborne however, because its now entering RNAV airspace it's given direct to a fix or vor that doesn't matter if it exists physically or not! However the aircraft gets airborne, and instead of selecting gear up, selects flaps up, stalls(but recovers) all put down to increased workload and disorientation(believe it or not)

 

A real good example of old procedures and resistance to advances in technology getting in the way of safety.

That aside I love flying VORS etc purely cus it fun and engaging, having to understand the procedure and chart etc. so guess I think these high tech ILS things are devils work! In my day we stuck our finger out the window to determine if it raining.

[g_precentralis 191]

I'm sorry, I disagree. One day radionav equipment will become obsolete, but not tomorrow. I would not pay for rnav equipped GA aircraft ever, it's obsolete imo. Handheld GPS do job very well. 

[WR269 367]

One day maybe, but not for a long while.

 

Current technology is not secure enough for all eggs to be in one basket.

 

I know of a 737 that had a complete instrument failure and had to point the nose due west ovrr the pacific until it hit the rather large target that is the Australian east coast, luckily the pilot was "old school" and knew his DR well.

 

Another time an Airbus had its IRS boxes blown by a bus overload and the aircraft had to be flown from Athens to Barcelona flying vor to vor! In my view, navigation wise, DR skills first, Radio Nav second, Rnav last.

 

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

And now OP Kevin is banned for the other topic he started yesterday (a faked T7 release announcement) ...

[Guest Aviator449]

I am sure he found a way to read the posts nevertheless. But I guess he will never again write something into that forum. As it was maybe only thought to be a simple joke.

 

That's my interpretation.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

I am sure he found a way to read the posts nevertheless. But I guess he will never again write something into that forum. As it was maybe only thought to be a simple joke.

 

That's my interpretation.

 

 

Aviator449 (post-count 1, joined yesterday),

 

I'm sure N449aa found a way to read here ...

 

He wouldn't admit his joke was not as simple as he might have thought. And even after being advised, he neither admitted, nor did he start to sign his posts with his full name.

 

Neither do you ... Kevin

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

What's your problem mr forum police officer? May I kindly ask you to mind your own business? Thanks for respecting that.

 

 

Wilco, ... Kevin.

 

And right now my own business is anti-trolling ...