If using a monopulse SSR, the aircraft lateral deviation
monitoring is improved considerably by displaying more exact
azimuth information in separate window.
In support of suggested monitoring solution efficiency,
Figures 2, 3, 4 represent a real approach with CFIT-related
accident (because of the aircrew error aircraft descends
to the 30 meters altitude at Remote Homing Beacon
location (RHB)).
When this flight was executed, the Tower/Final approach
controller couldn't use the suggested monitoring
solution.
Analyzing Figures 2, 3 and 4, it becomes obvious that
using the suggested approach monitoring solution the
controller would have noted an aircrew error at the
distance of 7 km from the runway threshold (refer to
Fig.3 and 4) by the warning that aircraft is off the
area of acceptable deviations (yellow color) and by the
estimation of the flight path relatively to the glide
path. At the distance of 6.5 km (see Fig.3 and 4) the
system would have alerted the controller that the
aircraft was off the maximum acceptable deviations area
(with red color and a beep sound).Monitoring
capabilities are increased considerably while using
ADS-B and MLAT data. |
|
Figure 2. Flightpath of aircraft
approach with CFIT-related accident on the glideslope.
Figure 3. Landing information at
aircraft approach with CFIT-related accident (distance of 4.5 km, 200 m below the
glideslope) in the GLIDESLOPE
window on the Tower/Fin al approach controller's WP ASD.
Figure 4. Landing information at
aircraft approach with CFIT-related accident (distance of 3.2 km, 130 m below the
glideslope) in the GLIDESLOPE
window on the Tower/ Final approach controller's WP ASD.
|
