Further to My Discussion on the Approach Trap

Further to my discussion on the Approach trap. Some thoughts for discussion.

Based on my continuing review of the Universal documentation, Universal have provided the following information:

The Universal Operations manual carried as part of the aircraft documentation is a fairly generic document and is not intended to be overly specific. The Training manual has a number of “misleading” statements and Universal has provided some undocumented updates as of April.2010.

These are:

1) Nav approach pages

The enroute nav pages are supplimented by an additional page inserted as Nav Appr 2/4

Nav 1./3 becomes Nav Appr 1/4 once on final approach

While in CMD HDG mode --is named NAV 1/4

Nav 2/3 becomes Nav 3/4 (Pls confirm)

Nav 3/3 becomes Nav 4/4

2) Max allowable Intercept angles become 90 deg. for APPR mode and enroute are 135 deg. This is a change from the 115 deg. delivered in their Training document and possibly in earlier FMS versions.

3) The lateral distance for display of vertical path is based on a +/- 20 deg of runway centerline on a 10,000 ft runway. This is a change from the 12.5 NM stated in their training manual. Note normal ILS tracking provides a valid signal guarantee to +/- 35 deg. in modern systems if memory serves. A 20 deg. splay should display at approx +/- 4 NM at 10 Nm from runway thld ( 8 at 20)

To put this in context.

1)On the CYZD approach , - Simcoe to Adreb track is beyond this 90 deg intercept angle. Is will not provide an INTERCEPT capability if APPR ACT is utilized until the intercept angle is reduced. Vertical path display will not be available until about 8 NM lateral to centerline extended.. Runway centerline guidance must be active before vertical guidance coupling is available. (IE you have commenced the turn to final)

2)Recently the Toronto ILS Rwy 05 was unserviceable and ATC was requesting that those capable use the RNAV runway 05 to assist traffic flow. We agreed and the Simcoe 2 arrival was given. As most of you will now know these transitions present various issues. The ACT APPR method was agreed to and briefed. The base turn to final was delivered with a turn to 160 deg. just before the DWT. shortly after roll out , we were cleared for the approach. No further turn was given.

1. Again the intercept is beyond 90 deg.
2. No intercept selection is presented.
3. Intermediate turn must be calculated, entered and activated,
4. Intercept must be confirmed and selected on the flying pilots FMS by the non flying pilot., along with clearance response.
5. At 200 k the lateral spacing between the transition route and the final track (5NM) will allow approx 30 sec. from roll out of turn to base until turn to final requirement.
6. Turn to final again will use about 2 Nm. placing the aircraft at or near the pseudo glide path. Any delay of VNAV selection will place the aircraft above the path required.
7. There is little opportunity for crew co-ordination and communication as the concentration of the PF must be on the PFD and the PNF is on the FMS programming. Neither screen provides all the relevant information required and ATC requires their responses.
8. Given the limitations of the vertical display, the crew awareness of their relationship to the glidepath is limited/.non existent in relationship to that which would be provided on a regular downwind radar vector to ILS process.

Given the anomalies of this type of approach I suggest crews may wish to try a number of then is their next training sessions. I am trying to get a session in the simulator and some multi camera video for review.

With regard to the Downsview approach. Many crews input a DAROG after ADREB and before the * 15* approach gate; and inserted a 3000’ altitude constraint. This will automatically change the Darog altitude inside the approach gate (400 only) to match the darog outside. There has been an assumption that altitude changes inside an approach will restrict the approach navigation function in some way. This is not the case. MIDPA can also be amended in altitude down to the limit of 1700’ as shown on the approach plate. VPATH can be coupled and followed throughout the arrival and approach path to the runway. Pilots should understand that if this method is used the path to the runway is below 3 deg. and will not be on VASIS.

This method can present one difficulty.

If a vpath was programmed in the descent to Simcoe and beyond to Downsview: and due to an ATC constraint request, the crew descended below the vpath as in a request to descend to 2600” enroute to ADREB, The Vpath knowledge remains in the system.

If then, on turn inbound at ADREB, the pilot was to arm VPATH in anticipation of the approach, the aircraft will cancel ALT and commence climb as the residual vpath descends to within 1000’+/- of his current altitude.

The clear solution is to cancel vnav if not in use. CNCL VNAV is found on the bottom left of the second VNAV page.

It is clear from a review of Universal documentation the they are increasingly emphasizing the function of the Manual approach activation. (ARM APPR and ACT APPR.)

Auto activation is great, subject to the constraints of the enroute vnav to approach v nav. As long as those issues are understood and managed this method can be very useful. However the basic rule I suggest is “if you don’t have the approach clearance at 10,000 agl then you are going for the manual method.”

I suggest the most appropriate operation into Downsview is then a flightplan to ADREB with a “NO LINK” before the programmed Downsview approach.. Upon approach clearance the approach is activated , the heading is reduced to provide INTERCEPT.

VNAV and ALT SEL are employed to MIDPA and VNAV is armed so as to capture the pseudo gp. MA altitude can be set on V capture. I understand gear lowering is best commenced at approx. 800 VDEV.

This method can present one difficulty.

If the crew edit out the “No Link” the plan will close. The Nav page shows at the NX line * 15*. The flight plan also shows a continuity. The MFD is the only instrument demonstrating the problem - an unconnected space..(not shown on the 200). The aircraft flies towards ADREB and commences the smart turn. The approach gate (* 15*) then moves up to the TO space on the NAV page and as per UNS programming then cancels all previous, projecting the approach path backwards. Unfortunately that path is behind you and the intercept programming can not “see” the track. The turn stops and the aircraft continues straight ahead.

Those of you who have programmed the KX approach within a plan that already contains a routing SIMCOE, KX, CYKZ, CYZD will have already seen this when they program the Arrival to CYKZ. You will get a double back from KX to Kengu, that the aircraft does not track.

Again that is because when the “TO” position on the nav page is occupied by an “Approach gate” you have then projected and are tracking the approach track inbound, and the FMS sees that and continues on inward.

In Speaking to tech. Pilots at Porter, Horizon, and Jazz all agree that their SOP’s are highly scripted in order to deal with some of these vagaries of the FMS. Our SOP is not so scripted. I suggest crews should be clear on which type of approach is to be used, be it

Enroute nav,

Approach nav with or without VS,

Approach vnav or,

pseudo gp,

and the duties of each crew as to monitoring, input, and callouts.

I understand from Anthony Mckay at Nav Canada that there are now some 30 LPV approaches commissioned with another 100 expected by the end of the year. There are another 350 already prepared by the contractor awaiting Transport review. Ground nav equipment is being removed in order to reduce operating costs. Those costs are being transferred to the carriers. You can expect this trend to accelerate worldwide.

Brian has recently forwarded issue 3 of sup 97 dual UNS 1Ew SCN 1000 FMS.

I understand from Wally that this hardware is on board aircraft 4316 . This package includes the nav to nav transfer and the interactive heading bug. Harlan also advises it has the full enhanced nav package.