ILS questions

[earl1937]

  I know we don't have any ILS system in this game, it might of benefit to some to talk about the ILS while making a instrument approach to a airport! A few simple ones.
#1- The indicator in the aircraft has some "dots" on the face of the instrument, and a "doughnut". If when making a approach to an airport ILS system and you get a full up deflection of the glide slope indicator and a full right deflection, where are you in relation to the center of the ILS system?

#2- If, making a back course, localizer approach and you have a full right deflection on the localizer indicator, to correct back to center line of localizer, you should do what?

#3- On your glide slope indicator, you have a 1 dot deviation up indication, where are you in relation to the glide slope?

#4- On your localizer indicator, you are 1 dot deviation left of center of the localizer and you cross the outer marker, where are you in relation to the center line, in feet?

#5- If you have a 1 dot deflection in glideslope indicator above the "doughnut" how many feet low are you at the outer marker and the same question about the middle marker?

#6- Do you think the Korean pilot who was flying the Boeing 777, which struck the end of the runway embankment at SFO, would have done so, if he knew the answers to these questions?

What a localizer/glideslope indicator looks like in many general aviation aircraft. The glideslope dots are hidden by the localizer needle.

 

[colmbo]

#6- Do you think the Korean pilot who was flying the Boeing 777, which struck the end of the runway embankment at SFO, would have done so, if he knew the answers to these questions?

I'll be he can quote the textbook verbatim but it didn't keep him from crashing the airplane. 

[Golfer]

I'll be he can quote the textbook verbatim but it didn't keep him from crashing the airplane. 

^^^ this

He didn't have a ground based glide slope anyway. He did I believe have a VNAV path so almost just as good.

At 500' he had descended to a point where he would ordinarily been on course, path and speed.  However with the thrust levers held back at idle he kept right on getting lower, slower and nearly deader.

500' spooled and stable for a reason in a jet.

[earl1937]

I'll be he can quote the textbook verbatim but it didn't keep him from crashing the airplane. 

I don't agree, I think anyone who goes to the trouble of knowing what the answers are to these types of questions, is someone who is totally immersed in flying an aircraft in a safe and efficient manner!

[earl1937]

^^^ this

He didn't have a ground based glide slope anyway. He did I believe have a VNAV path so almost just as good.

At 500' he had descended to a point where he would ordinarily been on course, path and speed.  However with the thrust levers held back at idle he kept right on getting lower, slower and nearly deader.

500' spooled and stable for a reason in a jet.

There is no question that you are correct that he didn't have a ILS system operating, where he could punch in a few numbers and let land itself. My point is that had he know his aircraft forward and backward as he should have, the aircraft would never have arrived short of the runway. You get that kind of knowledge through training!

[Golfer]

I don't agree, I think anyone who goes to the trouble of knowing what the answers are to these types of questions, is someone who is totally immersed in flying an aircraft in a safe and efficient manner!

Reciting rote textbook answers verbatim doesn't mean you're any good at flying.

[earl1937]

Reciting rote textbook answers verbatim doesn't mean you're any good at flying.

Again, you are correct, but like learning to swim, if you don't work at it, you'll never learn. My whole point about him landing short was that if he knew the aircraft as well as he should, he would have never gotten in that position to begin with. It cost a lot of money to train pilots for the airlines, and I think most all cut corners one way or the other to save cost! The Buffalo crash is good example of what I am talking about, he had already flunked some smi-annual check rides and had to retake them, what in the world was he doing in the left seat, without more experience as a first officer?

[colmbo]

ET, I don't need any knowledge of a 777 to know that being low and slow is wrong. It's wrong in a J-3, 777 or the Space Shuttle.  That crew screwed the pooch.  A crew of people who have passed numerous written tests, check rides, phase checks, recurrent training, blah blah blah and still managed to land the airplane short of the pavement in CAVU conditions.

[earl1937]

ET, I don't need any knowledge of a 777 to know that being low and slow is wrong. It's wrong in a J-3, 777 or the Space Shuttle.  That crew screwed the pooch.  A crew of people who have passed numerous written tests, check rides, phase checks, recurrent training, blah blah blah and still managed to land the airplane short of the pavement in CAVU conditions.

I AM AGREEING WITH YOU GUYS! My point is that if they were trained in the real aircraft, not a sim, that accident most likely never have happened!

[DaveBB]

Reciting rote textbook answers verbatim doesn't mean you're any good at flying.

Rote memorization is a form of shallow processing.  Knowing how and why the system works is deep processing.  Something is not truly learned until is actually effects one's behavior.  So the Korean Air pilots had not truly learned the landing system because their behaviors did not change when the situation warranted it.

[earl1937]

Rote memorization is a form of shallow processing.  Knowing how and why the system works is deep processing.  Something is not truly learned until is actually effects one's behavior.  So the Korean Air pilots had not truly learned the landing system because their behaviors did not change when the situation warranted it.

Excellent post sir!

[Toad]

  My point is that if they were trained in the real aircraft, not a sim, that accident most likely never have happened!

Horseshit. Literally tens of thousands, if not far more, airline pilots have qualified in Level D simulators and gone directly to flying the line. Simulators offer the most effective AND cost effective training. Your mistakes don't kill you and you can train to proficiency, repeating maneuvers as many times as is necessary.

How many other Level D simulator trained airline pilots crashed at SFO on a visual approach? I don't know of any others, do you? I'm thinking the answer is none.

Asiana 214 was cleared for a simple visual approach. If you can't land on an 11,000 foot long runway in VFR conditions, you shouldn't pretend to be a pilot.

[Puma44]

There were four qualified, experience pilots in the cockpit of Asiana 214.  The approach into SFO, whether it be IFR or VFR is an energy challenging approach and should have been no surprise to any of the four pilots that day.  Someone screwed the pooch and no one else in the front office took decisive action to correct the situation.  It appears no one had the "brass" to say "you ain't killing me today" and do the right thing.  Before someone brings up the "cultural" issue, yeah it's there, been there, seen it.   Pilots are pilots.  You just don't let the other guy get low and slow, and when he doesn't correct it after some CRM prodding,  just sit there on your thumbs.  But, yeah, these guys did. 

[Toad]

IIRC, the relief Captain was seated in business class at the time of the crash. Nonetheless, your point stands.

[Golfer]

In the 90 seconds before they crashed their perfectly working airplane the airspeed and sink rate deviations were verbalized ten times by the non flying pilot AND acknowledged several by the other non flying pilot who happened to be holding controls.