Would that be true if the crew mistook the FAWP for the MAWP? This doesn’t look like a dive and drive, this looked like a consistent descent to a point in space at which there was no runway. As always, I’m not saying that’s what happened, but if it was, I could see how it’s possible.
I don't know why they would, even accidentally, because it's just not the way we think about approaches at the airline. I think it's more likely they just ignored or deleted the FAWP. I had someone accidentally delete the FAWP on me once, a check airman no less.
You're saying this airliner doesn't have WAAS or for some other reason can't fly (or at least follow) an LPV??
This is my point exactly.
Larry, do you offer this as what they would say in their defense? It would be a weak one if so.
And what? That is a threat. They would not have been familiar with the sight picture for that runway even though were likely very familiar with TPA. That can lead to errors.
As dmspilot said, that's not how we fly approaches. We follow the VNAV path down to visual conditions or a missed approach at the DA/DDA, whichever comes first.
We don't do LPV. We do GLS, which is a form of LAAS, and RNP down to 0.10.
That's true, if the assumptions we are making about what happened are correct.
I haven't offered any defense. How could I? I don't know what actually happened anymore than anyone else. I'm mostly pointing out the differences in how a 737 is operated.
Yes, VNAV PTH if it’s anything like the 757/767. Guessing the FMA’s went unnoticed when the aircraft deviated from PTH, or they never had path in the first place, which is a normally a requirement by the FAF.
I’m currently flying new Boeing equipment without WAAS. Unable LPV. It’s certified for LNAV/VNAV instead.
In addition to traditional altimeters, they also have radio altimeters which display a digital readout of height above the ground starting around 2,500 AGL. They also have a landing altitude reference bar that indicates in the form of a vertical tape that changes colors to indicate 1,000 and 500. Also have alerts of altitude below the tape reading 100’, 50’, 40’, 30’, 20’ 10’.
Lots of things are possible. At this point, I'm trying to think of what is most probable.
The correct way is to use your VNAV path, altimeter, and radar altimeter.
So is RNP 0.10 capability and GLS could be.
I’m a bit surprised it’s not standard equipment but good points regardless. Besides, with HUD/EFIS/FLIR certification credit most any precision or non-precision CAT I approach can be reduced down to approximately CATII mins anyway. I’m more baffled at how Boeing can even offer aircraft without a basic intercom, and FIS-B capability. The average 172 has more technology in that regard.
Also with Cat 3b, it's very rare that we don't get in. It's rare for us to even do an rnav approach and when we do, it's in places that don't have lnav/vnav.
He wasn’t joking. My cousin’s combine has more capable “avionics” than most of the jets I’ve flown.
No doubt. It’s funny to me now flying with newish pilots complaining about how far behind the avionics are in transport jets compared to the GA aircraft they trained on.
Imagine using a sextant to cross the Atlantic?
While GA avionics have some features that airliners designed in the 1980s-2000s don't have, they are significantly less robust and lack core capabilities that airliners possess. RNP 0.10, GLS, Class II nav capability, multiple-IRUs, autoland and/or HUD, CPDLC, etc. VNAVs are also more advanced as they calculate vertical paths with changing speed schedules and flight-idle descents, not just fixed flight path angles.
I used to know a guy who was flying across the Atlantic in a Marine Corps airplane and lost his nav system. He drew a circle about the size of a dime around the North Star on his canopy and held that. Got him pretty close.
Educated guess…
If I tried that, the earth would do some crazy thing like….revolve - and the star I was pointed at would be far removed from my original heading in a few hours.
Depends which way you’re going.
737 audio panels do have a basic intercom, but on the older NG versions, you gotta use a rubber band to hold the audio panel PTT switch to I/C, or intercom position, to have a hot mike intercom system, I cr@p you not. The newer Maxes have a fancy new audio panel that has a lock position for that switch; yay, what an upgrade, no rubber band needed! The ancient 757/767 have different audio panels, no way to rig a rubber band, so those poor bastards are stuck in the stone age yelling at each other. It's just so primitive, and yet seems like it'd be a safety of flight item for me. But hey, I'm just a dumb driver... and I can't bid the B756 fleet because with my lousy ears I need that intercom...
Yep, there’s a number of us still using the old rubber band trick even on brand new Boeings. Just depends on the configuration ordered. A poor man’s intercom is better than wearing a crooked headset covering only one ear in a loud jet while trying to understand South American ATC.
Makes me feel like my flight instructor was a genius when 15 years ago he had an intercom hanging from the tubes in an original J3 cub so we could talk to each other. Even with the door open it worked pretty well with noise cancelling headsets. Funny that an aircraft without an electrical system can have a better intercom than an 80 million dollar airliner.
