Download Report

LETTERS
CFIT: how to give pilots the means to avoid it
The root cause of controlled
flight into terrain (CFIT) needs
to be addressed.
CFIT becomes a non-issue
only if the aviation industry
provides the crew with safe
height/altitude information at all
times. The fact that a safety net
system is needed is by itself
admitting something is basically
wrong. The industry may solve
the problem at its roots only
when some or all of the
following is taken care of:
• provide a vertical profile
display, including terrain profile;
• eliminate non-precision
approaches;
• stop operating at airports not
properly equipped;
• apply master minimum
equipment list rules to airport
equipment;
• generate an alert if die
barometer set is wrong at
transition height/level;
• display minimum obstruction
clearance altitude, grids and
display penetration;
• add a terrain and obstacle
database to that of the flight
management system.
The answer must not be die
further development of safety
net systems, but die prevention
of CFIT situations. Present day
computing power and display
technology could eliminate
CFIT by simply providing die
pilot widi better information.
The responsibility lies with
aircraft manufacturers and
airlines building and operating
aircraft. Eliminate commercial
suppliers from the flight safety
formulae. It is about time to take
CFIT one step further. It can be
done and it should be done. It is
not acceptable to feel
comfortable knowing some alert
will sound if disaster is
imminent. Will we run out of
excuses soon?
A P KLEINJAN
Haarlem, Netherlands
simulators, teaching pilots to fly
smoothly, and not to over-react,
but with a ground proximity
warning system (GPWS) hard
warning, instant "knee-jerk" is
what is needed. Emergency drill
quick reference handbooks give
GPWS response as "full power,
full up", or initiate a go-around,
etc. The former gives no real
guidance: what does pull up
mean-10°, 20°, 30°? The latter
is, I suggest, totally inadequate.
Of course, there is no
excusing die captain who is too
low, in the wrong place, and, no
doubt, enhanced GPWS will
help prevent diis. When a hard
warning does occur, however,
moments spent deciding how
much/how far to pull up can
make, and I am sure have made,
die difference between life and
deadi. He must respond
instantly to die acceptable limits
of the performance envelope.
As a training captain of many
years experience, military and
civil, I am a little concerned diat
teaching in die area of CFIT is
somewhat lacking.
I have noticed diat a large
number, if not die majority, of
CFITs occur within 500-1,000ft
Simulator profiles should be
(150-300m) of the summit of
developed for every type, and be
high ground. I do not have
part of both conversion and
information on the aircraft status recurrent training in all airline
immediately prior to impact, but programmes. Surely, on die basis
I am willing to bet diat they are
of historical statistics, it should
nowhere near die limits of
have as much priority as die
performance of die aircraft. And asymmetric, non-directional
yet, surely, in die circumstances, beacon approach to minimums.
diey should be.
TERENCE KENNY
We spend most of our time, in Wilmslow, Cheshire, UK
Are supersonic
funds worth it?
These included "No increase in
the level of engine noise can be
tolerated...", and "Economic
operations at supersonic speed
You report {Flight International, 2 5must be practicable over
inhabited areas at any time of the
February, PI 5) that NASA
day or night. Sonic boom could
proposes to spend $365 million
prevent this...". Soon afterwards,
on "a six-year effort to develop
widi government support,
and ground test a full scale
sections of die industry in France,
power plant for a Mach 2.4
the UK, the USA and the USSR
supersonic airliner".
began supersonic projects,
By aviation industry standards
apparently
assuming diat IATA;
this is not a vast amount. But by
requirements could be met, or
die same standards, predictably
could be ignored. Both
die actual cost will be far more.
assumptions were mistaken. The
Taxpayers in die USA should
excessive noise of a small number
question this expenditure. Has
NASA forgotten that in 1962 die of Concorde movements has been
imposed upon die neighbours of a
International Air Transport
few airports. Frequent
Association (IATA) published
Requirements for die Supersonic movements at many airports by a
new supersonic fleet would be a
Airliner (known as "IATAs Ten
different matter. Presumably
Commandments for the SST")?
NASAs engines are for a
supersonic airliner about twice
the size and weight of Concorde,
requiring far more thrust for
take-off. Noise energy levels
permitted by modern airport
rules are 1-2% of Concorde's
output. The new supersonic
airliners' sonic boom would be far
worse than Concorde's, which
prevented operation over land,
decimating its proposed route
network.
IATAs "requirements", and the
supersonic specifications
published in 1960 by ICAO could
usefully be republished, widi an
up to date assessment of their
implications. Vastly more
information is available now than
it was almost 40 years ago.
RICHARD WIGGS
Biggleswade, Bedfordshire, UK
The opinions on this page do not necessarily represent those of the editor. Flight International cannot
undertake to publish letters without name and address and reserves the right to select or edit letters
FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL 15 - 21 April 1998
WHAT'S ON
Prop '98 Pilot's Review ofProficiency
17-18 April, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Contact: June Spencer, FlightSafetv
Tel:+1 (713)644 1521
Fax:+1 (713)6442118
Sun 'nfun
19-2S April, Lakeland, Florida, USA
Contact: Seaplane Pilots Association,
PO Box 6750, Lakeland, Florida 33807,
USA
Tel:+1(941)6442431
Fax:+1(941)6449737
IPEC '98
20-21 April, London, UK
Contact: Shephard Conferences &
Exhibitions, 111 High Street, Burnham,
Buckinghamshire SL1 7JS, UK
Tel:+44 (1628) 604764
Fax:+44 (1628) 664075
E-mail: conference@shephard.co.uk
European Airlines in the New
Millennium
20-21 April, Brussels, Belgium
Contact: Sonia Brant
Tel:+44 (1932) 355244
Fax:+44 (1932) 354576
Thomson Training & Simulation User
Group Conference
20-21 April, Brighton, Sussex, UK
Contact: TT&SL, Gatwick Road,
Crawley, Sussex RH10 2RL, UK
Tel:+44(1293) 563862
Fax:+44(1293) 563682
ATS Facility and Safety Management
20-30 April, Singapore
Contact: Carol New
Tel: +65 5406216; fax: +65 542 9890
RVSM Symposium
21-23 April, Luxembourg
Contact: Dietmar Dorr
Tel: +3 52 43 60 61204;fex:+3 52 42 2071
E-mail: dietmar.doerr@eurocontrol.be
Dangerous Goods 98
21-23 April, Frankfurt, Germany
Contact: Lucie Pinsonneault, IATA
Montreal, Canada
Tel: +1 (514)8446311, ext3452
Fax:+1(514)8444698
Minimising Aircraft Turnaround Ttmes
27-28 April, London, UK
Contact: ITR, London, UK
Tel:+44 (171) 915 5055
Fax:+44(171)915 5056
Sixth Annual Middle East Aircraft
Technology ir Maintenance Conference
28-29 April, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Contact: Aviation Industry
Conferences, 31 Palace Street, London
SW1E 5HW.UK
Tel:+44 (171)9317072
Fax:+44(171)931 7186
Shuttleworth Spring Air Display
3 May, Old Warden Aerodrome,
Biggleswade, Bedfordshire
Contact: Old Warden Aerodrome
Tel:+44(1767)627288
Fax:+44(1767)627745
43