Things go Bad on RNAV Approach

luvflyin

luvflyin

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
15,821
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Luvflyin
Coming to this Forum with this https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/kettle-moraine-forest-saved-by-the-chute.132198/

It was a bad Approach Clearance. My opinion is the pilot should have said unable and told the Controller what he needed to do. Two ATClive recordings. It starts pretty much at the beginning of the first one https://archive.liveatc.net/kmke/KMKE3-App-Dep-May-16-2021-0130Z.mp3 At about 3:30 he gets cleared direct JIGTA. Nothing else until about 18:30 and things follow through until the end and start up again on this one https://archive.liveatc.net/kmke/KMKE3-App-Dep-May-16-2021-0200Z.mp3

What say you RNAV/GPS Gurus? We don't know for sure which Navigator he had but the 'rules' would be the same. The buttonology to deal with it would differ though.
 
has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'Navigator', and everything to do with the 'aviator'. how many times does one have to hear "what are you doing?" from atc before realizing you're doing a bunch of things wrong? the guy was incapable of flying a heading without the autopilot. kill the friggin autopilot, hand fly a heading (I know, crazy, right?) then go up on a vfr day with someone who knows how to use the avionics in your plane and can show you how to fly autopilot 101.

EDIT: I didn't listen long enough and the guy eventually claimed to be losing gauges. maybe that's true but who knows, you got a compass, fly a heading.
 
eman1200 said:
has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'Navigator', and everything to do with the 'aviator'. how many times does one have to hear "what are you doing?" from atc before realizing you're doing a bunch of things wrong? the guy was incapable of flying a heading without the autopilot. kill the friggin autopilot, hand fly a heading (I know, crazy, right?) then go up on a vfr day with someone who knows how to use the avionics in your plane and can show you how to fly autopilot 101.

EDIT: I didn't listen long enough and the guy eventually claimed to be losing gauges. maybe that's true but who knows, you got a compass, fly a heading.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I get all that in the spirit of Aviation Mishaps. In the spirit of this Forum and dealing with GPS navigators and Approaches and Approach Clearances and stuff, a listen to the last about 13 minutes of https://archive.liveatc.net/kmke/KMKE3-App-Dep-May-16-2021-0130Z.mp3 I would recommend.
 
Last edited:
There's a lot in those recordings. I'll wait for VASAviation to roll it up.
 
asicer said:
There's a lot in those recordings. I'll wait for VASAviation to roll it up.
Click to expand...

Wish he would. Been a few days now. He was on the Cirrus Metroliner thing in a few hours. Maybe this isn't juicy enough. He does seem to favor things with more drama.
 
It sounds to me like the pilot had no idea how to configure the autopilot to intercept and capture the final approach course on ATC vectors. ATC vectors him twice to intercept outside the FAF and both times couldn't get it right. The ATC vector sequence seemed quite straightforward. The pilot only seemed to know how to load and activate the approach via JIGTA and the HILPT, letting the AP fly the full approach. (That might be a dangerous assumption, too, as my GNS430W has different opinions about how to handle approach HILPTs depending on the individual approach. You have to monitor it like a hawk). At any rate, it should be a can of corn to hand fly the approach using ATC vectors and a WAAS GPS. (I prefer hand flying from FAF in anyway. It's smoother than a rate based AP.) Get the CDI centered and then keep the course line vertical, and Bob's your uncle. WAAS is like cheating compared to a bare ILS. But you do need to know your knobology.

It is really easy to misconfigure a navigator, HSI, and autopilot, depending on your equipment. Then the plane does weird things, or just doesn't respond. I'm tempted to put this into the likely operator error bin until facts determine otherwise.
 
For Cirrus, at a minimum just fly the Attitude indicator and Altimeter. Ask ATC for no Gyro Vectors until you get whatever you have having trouble with figured out.
 
brcase said:
For Cirrus, at a minimum just fly the Attitude indicator and Altimeter. Ask ATC for no Gyro Vectors until you get whatever you have having trouble with figured out.
Click to expand...

The guy wasn’t capable of flying a simple heading without the AP, but yeah.
 
Why is it some folks work their butt off to stay current and proficient to fly a slow boat, while others can blow a half-mil on a plane and can't fly a heading? :confused: Sigh.
 
chemgeek said:
It sounds to me like the pilot had no idea how to configure the autopilot to intercept and capture the final approach course on ATC vectors. ATC vectors him twice to intercept outside the FAF and both times couldn't get it right. The ATC vector sequence seemed quite straightforward. The pilot only seemed to know how to load and activate the approach via JIGTA and the HILPT, letting the AP fly the full approach. (That might be a dangerous assumption, too, as my GNS430W has different opinions about how to handle approach HILPTs depending on the individual approach. You have to monitor it like a hawk). At any rate, it should be a can of corn to hand fly the approach using ATC vectors and a WAAS GPS. (I prefer hand flying from FAF in anyway. It's smoother than a rate based AP.) Get the CDI centered and then keep the course line vertical, and Bob's your uncle. WAAS is like cheating compared to a bare ILS. But you do need to know your knobology.

It is really easy to misconfigure a navigator, HSI, and autopilot, depending on your equipment. Then the plane does weird things, or just doesn't respond. I'm tempted to put this into the likely operator error bin until facts determine otherwise.
Click to expand...
And if he can’t get the GPS to do anything other than the full approach, hand flying it via vectors isn’t going to work either, because he’ll never get the final approach course guidance.
 
MauleSkinner said:
And if he can’t get the GPS to do anything other than the full approach, hand flying it via vectors isn’t going to work either, because he’ll never get the final approach course guidance.
Click to expand...

For sure. With modern navigational equipment, the hardest part of currency (at least at my level of experience) is configuring the boxes, not keeping the shiny side up at the right altitude. But a real basic (and important!) skill is loading and activating an approach, and knowing how to activate a leg on an approach segment. The pilot kept mentioning that his heading bug wasn't working right. I don't know what equipage he has, but my heading bug is not very useful in flying a an approach. In coupled mode, the bug doesn't do anything becuase it's following GPSS commands. Uncoupled...well, I wouldn't by flying the plane with the bug, I'd be hand-flying. If you have to "hand-fly" with the bug in heading mode then you are not proficient enough to fly IFR, IMO.
 
chemgeek said:
The pilot kept mentioning that his heading bug wasn't working right. I don't know what equipage he has, but my heading bug is not very useful in flying a an approach. In coupled mode, the bug doesn't do anything becuase it's following GPSS commands. Uncoupled...well, I wouldn't by flying the plane with the bug, I'd be hand-flying. If you have to "hand-fly" with the bug in heading mode then you are not proficient enough to fly IFR, IMO.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that while he said "heading bug" he might have really meant "heading indicator" (or "heading indication" if an HSI).
 
First minute... he did not know what no gyro vectors are.

back to the tape.
 
Say what you will, but we have many incompetent pilots.
Thank God most, if not all, ATControllers are super competent.

Why the disparity?

Is it lax training in the lower grades of pilot certificates?
 
Kritchlow said:
Say what you will, but we have many incompetent pilots.
Thank God most, if not all, ATControllers are super competent.

Why the disparity?

Is it lax training in the lower grades of pilot certificates?
Click to expand...

ATC is paid and they do it daily as a job/career, so the incompetence % is lower. GA pilots are usually hobbyists, some more serious, some less.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
ATC is paid and they do it daily as a job/career, so the incompetence % is lower. GA pilots are usually hobbyists, some more serious, some less.
Click to expand...
Okay... but should that make the standards lower?
I’m a pro pilot, but I think a non pro IR pilot should know what no gyro vectors are...???
 
Kritchlow said:
First minute... he did not know what no gyro vectors are.

back to the tape.
Click to expand...

The no gyro vector thing was at the end of the incident when it had already turned into a dumpster fire, this tape https://archive.liveatc.net/kmke/KMKE3-App-Dep-May-16-2021-0200Z.mp3
The show starts on this one https://archive.liveatc.net/kmke/KMKE3-App-Dep-May-16-2021-0130Z.mp3 . At about 3:30 he gets cleared direct JIGTA. Nothing else until about 18:30 and things follow through until the end.

 
As I’ve said here before, pro pilots flying several hundred hours a year get checked every six months, while weekend warriors scoff at having to do a one hour flight review every two years. Sometimes, you get the expected results.
 
Kritchlow said:
Say what you will, but we have many incompetent pilots.
Thank God most, if not all, ATControllers are super competent.

Why the disparity?

Is it lax training in the lower grades of pilot certificates?
Click to expand...
People who don't have to pay for their recurrent training tend to get more of it.
 
chemgeek said:
It
Click to expand...
Kritchlow said:
It was also at the beginning.
Click to expand...

The no gyro stuff was at the beginning of the 0200Z recording. The fiasco begins on the 0130Z recording. Start around 18:30. The only thing significant that starts during the beginning of that recording is he gets cleared Direct JIGTA. Now pick it up at 18:30 and follow to the end.
 
Kritchlow said:
Okay... but should that make the standards lower?
I’m a pro pilot, but I think a non pro IR pilot should know what no gyro vectors are...???
Click to expand...

No, but the standard is the minimum, and a pro goes 100x above that minimum standard as a result of company or agency policy in both training and on-the-job maintenance of proficiency.

I agree, any non-pro IR pilot should know what no-gyro vectors are, and should be able to hand fly.
 
chemgeek said:
It sounds to me like the pilot had no idea how to configure the autopilot to intercept and capture the final approach course on ATC vectors. ATC vectors him twice to intercept outside the FAF and both times couldn't get it right. The ATC vector sequence seemed quite straightforward. The pilot only seemed to know how to load and activate the approach via JIGTA and the HILPT, letting the AP fly the full approach. (That might be a dangerous assumption, too, as my GNS430W has different opinions about how to handle approach HILPTs depending on the individual approach. You have to monitor it like a hawk). At any rate, it should be a can of corn to hand fly the approach using ATC vectors and a WAAS GPS. (I prefer hand flying from FAF in anyway. It's smoother than a rate based AP.) Get the CDI centered and then keep the course line vertical, and Bob's your uncle. WAAS is like cheating compared to a bare ILS. But you do need to know your knobology.

It is really easy to misconfigure a navigator, HSI, and autopilot, depending on your equipment. Then the plane does weird things, or just doesn't respond. I'm tempted to put this into the likely operator error bin until facts determine otherwise.
Click to expand...

The ‘vector sequence’ was wrong. If there had been a Fix before the FAF it would have been ok if the pilot had been been given sufficient notice that he was going to be cleared to it. But direct to an FAF is a no no. Link in chain of events. Pilot didn’t deal with it well. Next link.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
The no gyro stuff was at the beginning of the 0200Z recording. The fiasco begins on the 0130Z recording. Start around 18:30. The only thing significant that starts during the beginning of that recording is he gets cleared Direct JIGTA. Now pick it up at 18:30 and follow to the end.
Click to expand...
I guess my point was if he knew what it was at the beginning....
 
Kritchlow said:
Okay... but should that make the standards lower?
I’m a pro pilot, but I think a non pro IR pilot should know what no gyro vectors are...???
Click to expand...
The corollary to the Law of Recency is “use it or lose it.” People (pilots and controllers alike) tend to forget the stuff they don’t use and/or train on a regular basis.

Last time I told a controller that I wanted to fly the approach at Airport A and get a Special VFR out of the Class G to the west, I had to repeat the request two more times before another voice came on asking me what I wanted to do, at which time it was understood.

I see professional pilots on a very regular basis who seem to think the only time they need to be proficient in things like engine failures is on the checkride.

Dave Theisen said:
As I’ve said here before, pro pilots flying several hundred hours a year get checked every six months, while weekend warriors scoff at having to do a one hour flight review every two years. Sometimes, you get the expected results.
Click to expand...
Many pro pilots scoff at the training and checking just as much as the weekend warriors scoff at having to do a flight review.
 
MauleSkinner said:
The corollary to the Law of Recency is “use it or lose it.” People (pilots and controllers alike) tend to forget the stuff they don’t use and/or train on a regular basis.

Last time I told a controller that I wanted to fly the approach at Airport A and get a Special VFR out of the Class G to the west, I had to repeat the request two more times before another voice came on asking me what I wanted to do, at which time it was understood.

I see professional pilots on a very regular basis who seem to think the only time they need to be proficient in things like engine failures is on the checkride.


Many pro pilots scoff at the training and checking just as much as the weekend warriors scoff at having to do a flight review.
Click to expand...

That is true. :)
 
luvflyin said:
The ‘vector sequence’ was wrong. If there had been a Fix before the FAF it would have been ok if the pilot had been been given sufficient notice that he was going to be cleared to it. But direct to an FAF is a no no. Link in chain of events. Pilot didn’t deal with it well. Next link.
Click to expand...

JIGTA is the IAF. LUCIP is the FAF. Subsequent to being originally cleared to JIGTA the pilot is vectored to intercept the final approach course. One assumes that ATC vectored the aircraft to intercept the final approach course somewhere between JIGTA and LUCIP, with the required distance from LUCIP. The pilot balled up the vectors so badly that he never got to the point of getting "3 miles from LUCIP, maintain 2600 until established, cleared for the RNAV 11 approach" call. Somewhere along the line the pilot didn't get the clue that he was being vectored to the final approach course instead of flying the full approach with the HILPT at JIGTA. On the second go-round of vectors the pilot balled it up again. Repeatedly, the pilot asks to be sent to JIGTA to fly the full approach with the AP (he keeps using non-standard language about the "racetrack", which the controller doesn't immediately recognize as referring to the HILPT at JIGTA), although it is not clear the AP is configured properly or working as expected, at which point one would think abandoning the automation would be a good idea. After the second clusterbonk of try to fly vectors I gave up on listening further--it seemed clear that the pilot was having difficulty configuring the plane to fly where it was supposed to go. From there, an incident seemed nearly inevitable. This is not a very difficult RNAV approach to fly by vectors or full approach. It is pretty much the standard RNAV approach design now.
 
chemgeek said:
JIGTA is the IAF. LUCIP is the FAF. Subsequent to being originally cleared to JIGTA the pilot is vectored to intercept the final approach course. One assumes that ATC vectored the aircraft to intercept the final approach course somewhere between JIGTA and LUCIP, with the required distance from LUCIP. The pilot balled up the vectors so badly that he never got to the point of getting "3 miles from LUCIP, maintain 2600 until established, cleared for the RNAV 11 approach" call. Somewhere along the line the pilot didn't get the clue that he was being vectored to the final approach course instead of flying the full approach with the HILPT at JIGTA. On the second go-round of vectors the pilot balled it up again. Repeatedly, the pilot asks to be sent to JIGTA to fly the full approach with the AP (he keeps using non-standard language about the "racetrack", which the controller doesn't immediately recognize as referring to the HILPT at JIGTA), although it is not clear the AP is configured properly or working as expected, at which point one would think abandoning the automation would be a good idea. After the second clusterbonk of try to fly vectors I gave up on listening further--it seemed clear that the pilot was having difficulty configuring the plane to fly where it was supposed to go. From there, an incident seemed nearly inevitable. This is not a very difficult RNAV approach to fly by vectors or full approach. It is pretty much the standard RNAV approach design now.
Click to expand...

There is no ATC procedure for RNAV approaches to 'join the final approach course.' They can be vectored for and cleared direct to Waypoints along the final approach course. But not the FAF. An IF, a Waypoint between an IF and the FAF. But not the FAF. There is no 'legal' procedure that allowed for this plane to be turned inbound before JIGTA.
 
Ah. I see. At some point ATC should have cleared the pilot to JIGTA, the IAF/IF for a NoPT approach. I wonder if the vectors were to point the pilot in the direction of JIGTA after he wandered off course?
 
chemgeek said:
Ah. I see. At some point ATC should have cleared the pilot to JIGTA, the IAF/IF for a NoPT approach. I wonder if the vectors were to point the pilot in the direction of JIGTA after he wandered off course?
Click to expand...

On the first try it doesn’t sound like it. Just vectored him to final like a conventional Nav approach. It sounded to me like he was planing on vectoring him around for another try after it didn’t work to do the same thing again. Maybe he was planning on going out farther and give him direct JIGTA from farther West. Only he knows. Pilot was begging to just be able to go to JIGTA and do the HILPT which he described as the ‘race track.’ It really starts unraveling after that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top