Dougdrvr

Just read somewhere that the phrase "runway in sight" was quoted from the CVR. Who said that was not indicated but it could be extremely relevant. One of the things that used to raise the chicken skin on the back of my neck , was hearing that from the PF when I was the PM looking for the runway environment, especially at MDA on a non precision approach. Could it be as simple as BOTH pilots looking out a rain spattered windshield on a black hole approach? Just a thought.....

fr8rcaptain

The Swede isn't making this up. I've also been lucky and dropped large trips with little or no backfill. It does happen, and if you aggressively conflict bid (seniority and living in domicile helps), I get very lucky a few time a year.

fr8rcaptain

I had 1700 of AF fighter time when I got hired at UPS in 1990. I still haven't broken 7000 total time, but total time doesn't equate to lack of experience, it just means I'm good at bidding.

It's difficult to amass time flying the UPS domestic system. Mostly short legs, in the middle of the night with a sort sit, or lots if short domicile turns.

90% of my time is international: 11 hours of block followed by two days at the pool before deadheading to my next leg....

KC10 FATboy

Ok cool, thought I was going crazy.

This discussion has touched on something I've brought up several times to FAA instructors but have fallen on deaf ears.

As USMCFLYR pointed out, there is no VDP published. Why is there no VDP published? According to what the USAF taught me, the answer is "we don't know." Either the approach was built before VDPs were required on NP approaches, or there is an obstacle. Unfortunately, the charts don't tell us which. To be safe, always assume it is due to an obstacle.

In every PART 121 school/military training schoolhouse I've been through, we were always taught (I'd say forced) to calculate our own VDP when one wasn't published. The danger in doing this is we usually use the 300' per nautical mile profile (which is actually 2.82%) instead of the published VDA profile because the math gets too complicated if you don't pull out a calculator.

A regular 3 degree profile is actually 318' per nautical mile (not 300') and in the case of KBHM LOC 18, a 3.28 degree profile is 348' per nautical mile. Hence, using the shallower profile (2.82% or 300'/NM) means you're going to start down too early and be lower than you want to be. Considering you can have roughly 250' of obstacle clearance for some NP approaches inside the FAF, you can get uncomfortably close to obstacles by using the easy pilot math or by descending too early.

To be safe, you must only leave the MDA at the published VDP, OR, when using a VDA profile, only leave the MDA if you are on the VDA profile and that profile is coincident with the VGSI.

The FAA AIM has the following paragraph which is extremely important and all of us should understand it's ramifications...

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...m/aim0504.html

Approaches without VDPs have not been assessed for terrain clearance below the MDA, and may not provide a clear vertical path to the runway at the normally expected descent angle. Therefore, pilots must be especially vigilant when descending below the MDA at locations without VDPs. This does not necessarily prevent flying the normal angle; it only means that obstacle clearance in the visual segment could be less and greater care should be exercised in looking for obstacles in the visual segment. Use of visual glide slope indicator (VGSI) systems can aid the pilot in determining if the aircraft is in a position to make the descent from the MDA. However, when the visibility is close to minimums, the VGSI may not be visible at the start descent point for a “normal” glidepath, due to its location down the runway.

Also, there is an Advisory Circular on Continuous Descent Final Approach.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...%20120-108.pdf

PLEASE NOTE:

My discussion on this topic in no way assumes or speculates as to the cause of the UPS crash at KBHM. Since the discussion was similar to the "no VDP" situation I've encountered before, I felt it was an opportune time to bring it up.

Another disclaimer, I am not currently an instructor, examiner or FAA representative. So anything I said could be a big pile of poop. Don't take my words as fact. Do your own study/research.

If this post turns out to be a bunch of poop, I'll have it deleted.

80ktsClamp

In this case it is quite apparent that the descent angle from the marker is due to the hill, and subsequently there would be no VDP since the marker is where you have to start down at a slightly greater than 3 degree path. Anyone disagree?

I've done this a few times on the CRJ in the daytime. Runway length is nothing concerning as it is about like LGA, but it is pretty crazy sniffing down the hill to the runway. Not unlike the feeling (but much less critical) when doing the RLG transition to the localizer into EGE.

John Carr

Nope, not at all. I'm sure USMC (or another) knows for sure. But I wouldn't doubt that due to any obstruction, per TERPs criteria, it can't be published.

Kind of like RNO landing south, and SAN coming over the garage.

ShyGuy

Excuse you? What gf? I like how the accusation is on me for being her stalker yet you and 80 kts bring her up all the time - not I. The NTSB cannot say pilot error within 4 days of a crash. They've ruled out engine failure, flight control failure, and have stated they are looking at UPS procedures for approaches.

brianb

Do you think they add '50 to their MDA on non-precision approaches?

ShyGuy

5300 hrs over a 23 year career does mean low currency than what might be considered the norm. That averages out to 230 hrs per year, and of those approx. 230 hrs per year just how many LOC to minima are shot in real life? This is something the NTSB will have to look at.

UnusualAttitude

It wasn't an LOC to mins. From what I've read the field was VFR.