Asiana Airlines Flight #214 – Pilot or System Error?

by Michael J. “Mick” Kaufman

With the long summer evenings of flying now behind us, and the world’s largest aviation event, EAA AirVenture Oshkosh, a memory, we can start to look forward to a hopefully colorful autumn of flying.

Several major aviation items have happened since my last column – one of them being the Asiana Airlines accident at San Francisco International Airport of a Boeing 777 (Flight #214), which has triggered a lot of interest. I am focusing a portion of my column to that accident. I will also continue my series on getting established on an instrument approach and the procedure turn.

I am extremely saddened by the loss of life that occurred by the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight #214 and many blame the crew for this unfortunate accident. I personally do not put the blame on the “crew,” but rather on a failure of the “system.” Most of the knowledgeable aviation experts would agree that if the ILS had been working that day, there would have been a 99.99% chance that this accident would not have occurred. To add further to the criteria leading up to that accident, a report said the VASI/PAPI visual approach system was not working, either. I have made that approach into San Francisco on several occasions years ago and remember the situation of landing on a somewhat elevated runway with an over-water approach. It was difficult to judge my approach path with all of the visual illusions while over the water.

If I am making an approach into a strange airport at night, I always prefer a precision instrument approach, or at least the help of a VASI/PAPI light system. The training departments of all of the major airlines are looking at this accident very closely and commenting silently that “it could have happened to our airline,” but thankfully, it hasn’t. Most of the airlines’ training departments are revising their programs to keep such an accident from happening again.

Several days after the accident, I received a call from Dave Monti of Minden, Nevada, director of the maintenance training department for “Bonanza/Baron Pilot Training,” the company we both work for. We shared some mutual thoughts, and we both agreed that our company needs to put some basic airmanship back in our syllabus. As much as I enjoy flying technologically advanced aircraft and writing about those magic black boxes, I continue to write and emphasize the importance of basic airmanship and good flight training.

In the last issue of Midwest Flyer Magazine, I started a series on getting safely and legally established on an approach. To recap a bit from that article, we had been covering the procedure turn, which we said must be done unless one of the following conditions exist:

1. We are getting radar vectors.
2. We are in a holding pattern.*
3. We are on a no-procedure turn transition.
4. We are flying a DME arc.
5. There is no procedure turn shown on the chart.

We covered the first two conditions in detail in that issue, and now we will cover the last three “ways to eliminate a procedure turn.”

Note: Due to the limited size of each figure above, it would be best to follow along using the approach charts on your iPad.

Figure 1

On many of the newer RNAV/GPS approaches, we have a choice where we would like to begin the approach or choose doing a holding pattern entry or do the NoPT transition. In Fig 1, you can see that the pilot has a choice of his entry that he/she can make, which should be made based on the direction from which you are approaching.

You may notice that FINKO has IF/IAF (Intermediate  Fix/Initial Approach Fix) above it. If you have chosen to do the holding pattern method of entry the first time you crossed FINKO, it was the IAF. Upon completing the holding pattern procedure turn the next time you cross FINKO, it becomes the IF with the next listed fix “ESEVE” being the FAF. Should your arrival be from the north, I would have chosen CEBLU as my IAF with FINKO then being my FAF. The label course “3000 NoPT” is our no-procedure turn transition.

Many pilots have asked me about the relevance of the 3000 in the no-procedure turn transition (NoPT). This is the minimum altitude you may fly once ATC has “cleared you for the approach.” It is imperative that you maintain your last assigned altitude by ATC until you receive your approach clearance. You may also notice a routing in Fig 1 from the DLL and LNR VORs that have a published altitude as well. If you are flying these exact routes and receive approach clearance, you may descend to these minimum altitudes as well.

Figure 2

There are numerous versions of the “no-procedure turn transition” with another example in Fig 2. I refer to this as the “blanket transition” as it covers arrivals over a wide area and eliminates the procedure turn. This makes the DLL VOR both the initial and intermediate fix for the approach if you arrive at the VOR from the north 007 degree radial to the southeast 140 degree radial. You can then proceed directly to the LEECH intersection, the final approach fix, once you cross the DLL VOR.

Figure 3

Our next method of eliminating a procedure turn is via a DME ARC. The rules say that you are not to do a procedure turn if you are flying an ARC even if the ARC is not labeled NoPT (No Procedure Turn). There are very few ARCs that do not have this label, but one of my customers did find one for me. Fig 3 shows a DME ARC and we will reference this chart to better understand it.

ARCs are used by ATC to funnel aircraft into airports with minimum delays and are especially useful at airports that have poor or minimal radar coverage. For that reason, it is important for the pilot to keep track of his/her position on the ARC. ATC may ask you what radial you are crossing or request you to report crossing a certain radial while on the ARC. This is for traffic separation. If ATC asks you to fly the ARC, you are required to proceed to the IAF at the beginning of the ARC.

There has been much controversy about the pilot joining the ARC anywhere along it. My interpretation is it is acceptable if ATC assigns a heading or radar vector to join the ARC. As with the no-procedure turn transition, the pilot must fly his last assigned altitude until the approach clearance has been received. Do not confuse a clearance to join the ARC with an approach clearance. ATC may clear you for an approach via the ARC or may assign the approach clearance once your aircraft is established on the ARC.

It is sometimes a challenge to use your panel-mounted approach certified GPS to set up an ARC intercept if not joining the ARC at the IAF. I will highlight a procedure I use with the Garmin 430/530 GPS units. After loading and activating the approach the GPS wants to fly you to the IAF. Select the procedure button and your GPS will display all of the waypoints associated with the approach. Push the waypoint select button and scroll to highlight the ARC. Next, press the “Direct To” button. Your GPS may give you an error message, but don’t give up. Your GPS needs to determine if the heading you are flying will actually intercept the ARC. If you receive the error message, fly a few miles further and try again. If you do not get the error message, press enter to select the ARC as your next waypoint. Some autopilots will allow you to fly a heading until you intercept a published course. If yours does, it is really cool to watch it intercept and fly the ARC without any further input from the pilot.

The last method of eliminating the time and gas consuming procedure turn is selecting or being assigned an approach that does not have one published. At many airports, radar is required and it always used to get us established on the approach or the approach is laid out in a manner that we would not need one. Look on your chart and if no procedure turn is shown, fly to the IAF or follow radar vectors to get established, then proceed inbound.

In concluding my series on getting established on an approach and the procedure turn, I would like to mention a sad ending to misunderstood communications. This flight involved a pilot of a Cirrus in mountainous terrain who asked to fly to the FAF, thereby eliminating the IAF and procedure turn. The reply from ATC was “cleared as requested.” On contact approaches and when flying direct to a waypoint on a non-published route or procedure, the pilot is responsible for avoiding obstacles and terrain, and he flew into a mountain. Had the pilot requested or been given radar vectors, air traffic control would have provided ground and traffic separation.

Blue skies until the next issue of Midwest Flyer Magazine!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Michael J. “Mick” Kaufman is a Certified Instrument Flight Instructor (CFII) and the program manager of flight operations with “Bonanza/Baron Pilot Training,” operating out of Lone Rock (LNR) and Eagle River (EGV), Wisconsin. Kaufman was named “FAA’s Safety Team Representative of the Year for Wisconsin” in 2008. Email questions to captmick@me.com or call 817-988-0174.

This entry was posted in Columns, Columns, Instrument Flight, October/November 2013 and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.