Flight Safety Connection TV #2 – Managing Every Approach Safely

FLIGHT SAFETY CONNECTION TV

29th APRIL 2021

The theme of our second broadcast was ‘Managing Every Approach Safely’.
We strongly believe that the procedures, training and technology are available to manage every approach safely. However, within the industry, we continue to see difficulties experienced in approach. We therefore decided to dedicate this broadcast to highlighting, from an ATR perspective, the on-board technology, the benefits of standardisation and our recommendations to assist your operations reflecting the regions of the world you serve.

The key messages are:

Do use your FMS
Standardization – fly VOR, NDB, RNP approaches the same way

Question – In approach for a VFR airfield, without IFR procedure, does ATR recommend MCDU inputs in order to improve the final approach segment ?

Answer– The FMS can be very useful to follow a safe final approach path, even on a VFR flight. For instance, in the “arrival page”, the pilot can select the runway in use (no other arrival input), then perform a DTO INBOUND CRS on the THR. Doing this will result in the display of the final approach axis. On top, if the aircraft is equipped with the VNAV capability, then the final approach can be performed on a standardized 3D trajectory. At any time, the crew would be aware of any deviation to the optimal flight path and be ready to react accordingly. This brings great safety benefits! But keep in mind that VFR rules must be met at all times.

Question – At airports where there is no ground base conventional navigation aids and also no publish RNAV approach, hence the approach must be done visually, in VMC (as per company policies), is it permitable and ok to “build an approach” on the FMS to assist with the visual approach?

Answer– Kindly refer to previous question, same answer applies.

Question – Most RNP Approaches do not confirm with PAPI. Please let us know the reason why?

Answer– The vertical guidance of LNAV/VNAV approaches comes from the barometric altitude and therefore the PAPI will not always confirm the vertical path, as opposed to the LPV approach where vertical guidance is provided by the GPS.

Question – Can ANSP (Air Navigation Service Provider) design RNP Approach at VFR Airport or are there any restrictions? If yes what could be the minima?

Answer– In order to publish an instrumented approach (including RNP approach), the airport needs to become “IFR”.
The minima depend on the surrounding obstacles and the RNP approach that will be implemented.

Question – Will an automatic navigation source switching be available on the next avionics standard?

Answer– Yes, this is under development: these evolutions are currently under test and will bring significant reduction in crew workload and benefits for standardization.

Question – Would ATR consider for a future avionic standard a means for pilots to display, on each PFD, a Flight Path Vector (FPV) along with Energy Chevrons?

Answer– A FPV is currently available on the PFD when the SVS(*) option is activated. SVS has been developed as a way to improve the flight crew situational awareness. The FPV is not a primary flight parameter.
As a reminder, ATR training recommends to keep the Flight Director (FD) bars displayed.
No development is currently planned to have on the PFD a Flight Path Vector (FPV) along with Energy Chevrons.
(*) Synthetic Vision System – 3D scene displayed in background of PFD

Question – What is the ATR policy about the use of the face masks for the pilots? I think the face mask could be an obstacle to detect the smoke in the cockpit.

Answer– Use of mask must be the airline’s policy in accordance with national regulation. Within ATR’s operations, which are not typical of an airline’s operations, Flight Test pilots do use the masks.

Question – Is there any time limitation for using hotel mode in ATR?

Answer– As stated in the Limitations chapter of the AFM, there is no time limit associated to Hotel Mode use.

Question – Going forward with further development in the current FMS would ATR be looking to have a similar concept as an Airbus FMGS which has more function/capabilities?

Answer– The current FMS includes all RNP Approaches (LNAV, VNAV, LPV, RNP AR). At this stage, we do not envisage a similar concept as FMGS.

Question – Descent initiation is very abrupt when VNAV is engaged initially. Will this be corrected in the next software update?

Answer– You may encounter an abrupt descent initiation if, for example, you have missed the Top Of Descent point and then engage VNAV. This highlights the need for training as with any technology development to use the system to its full capability. However, if you continue to experience issues, we would appreciate further details.

Question – What is your opinion about VISUAL APPROACHES? Is there a need to follow strictly the published/ trained profiles from FCOM? Or they can be performed on a random trajectory?

Answer– ATR promotes standardisation and not random trajectory. Visual approaches need to be properly briefed by the crew in accordance with the FCOM. Among other benefits, this promotes standardization (optimized workload, better Situational Awareness, etc…) and helps the Pilot Monitoring activities.

Question – What is your opinion on how to increase the rate of abandoning unstable/destabilized approaches?

Answer– The industry promotes Go Arounds in case of non stabilized approaches.
ATR recommends:
– Implementing FDM program, associated with just culture, and using positively the results of this program with analysis and counter measures.
– Adjust your SOPs and standardize your operations accordingly.
– Promoting TEM – Threat and Error Management (kindly refer to TV Broadcast #1)
– Promoting efficient approach briefings, including VFR and visual approaches.
Communication on preventing unstabilized approaches is available from many institutions, e.g. EASA, IATA, ICAO, … In addition we highlight the ATR Flight Safety Website including the Flight Safety Connection TV broadcasts which can support your internal communication to flight crews and training departments.

Question – What are the ATR recommendations regarding RNAV visual approaches (VFR vs. IFR)?

Answer– ATR has not yet established its position on RNAV Visual Approaches. Clearly, the technology exists, but the regulation has not yet been developed. In addition, there are different views expressed within the industry of the pros and cons. However we stress that any such development still requires knowing your technology, standardisation and training once introduced.

Question – How do we manage an approach in remotely mountainous, and windy airport which sometimes has a one way runway entry? The atmospheric condition sometimes force pilot to land the plane with unstabilize condition.

Answer– ATR promotes the implementation of RNP Approaches in remote airports in order to standardize the operations and reduce the unstabilized approaches. A risk assessment needs to be made and specific limitations developed. Hence, prior to departure, you additionally further minimize the risk of entering unstabilized conditions..

Question – FCOM give minimum VMCL as 98Kts CAS, but FMS shows below 98kts for low weight landings. Can we follow the FMS app speed in these cases?

Answer– The FMS speed information displayed is the Indicated Air Speed (IAS). The conversion between CAS and IAS leads the Approach speed (Vapp) to be lower than 98kts CAS at low weight (e.g. ATR 72-212A, 16t, wind calm, Vapp=95kts ).

Question – We are in the COVID-19 pandemic situation and it is going to stay for next couple of years. Is ATR is planning to make ATR 42/72 600 cockpit air conditioning virus free by adding an Ultraviolet-C (UVC) lamps to recirculation fans or adding some type of protection to make cockpit air virus free ?

Answer– The air quality is ensured by the continuous fresh air supplied from the packs and the high renewal rate of the cabin air. Optional High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters can be installed in the underfloor pressurized area upstream of the cabin air recirculation fans through SB ATR42-21-0080 (MOD 10174) and SB ATR72-21-1057 (MOD 10175).
Third-party Ultraviolet solutions are available on the market as well.

Question – What is your point of view about the airline no using the FCTM (Flight Crew Training Manual) std 3 but still the std 1

Answer– ATR strongly recommends the retrofit to the avionic standard 3.1.
FCTM is updated to reflect the latest avionic standard in service.

Question – Could you explain the alarms that might come up to pilots when GPS signal loss happens?

Answer– On aircraft equipped with New Avionics Suite, in case of GPS loss, a caution is available on EWD indicating the GPS loss from NAS STD3, also available in NAS STD2 when RNP AR or LPV option is mounted. Automatic reversion is performed on available sensors (VOR, DME, etc.) in such a case.
On aircraft equipped with GNSS HT1000, the loss of GPS is not announced.
Note that in both cases (NAS and HT1000), other messages may be displayed to alert the crew about the consequences of the GNSS loss, such as impacts on position accuracy/integrity or navigation modes.

Question – What is significance of speed 140 magenta during approach , after Flaps 15 selection?

Answer– This speed corresponds to the relevant target speed for the pilot to continue their approach phase: it is the speed of next configuration and preparation for landing.