 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Phenom 300 flight crew reported that a tree protrudes into the normal 3 degree glideslope for runway 17 at thv.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1480561 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201709 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | THV.Airport |
| State Reference | PA |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | EMB-505 / Phenom 300 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Final Approach |
| Route In Use | Visual Approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Captain Pilot Not Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | Pilot Flying First Officer |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT |
Narrative:
I was the PIC; and the pilot monitoring. The sic was flying a briefed visual approach backed up with a RNAV (GPS) rwy 17 approach which has a 3 degree glidepath. Inside of a mile from the end of runway 17; the sic verbalized and adjusted aircraft pitch and rate of descent because a tree appeared to be close off the right nose. There were no terrain; obstacle; or descent rate warnings. A normal landing was made over a blast fence that was not noted on the 10-9 page.it was day VFR when we flew this approach. If we had continued the approach as depicted; the tree on short final would have been very close to the 3 degree glidepath. This approach (thv 12-1) was dated 18 jul 14; and it's possible this tree had grown in the past 3 years. The PAPI is shown on the 10-9 page to be 4.5 degrees; quite a bit different than 3.0 degrees on the RNAV (GPS) 17 approach. Flying the PAPI angle at 120 knots would result in a descent rate of close to 1000 fpm. In addition; the blast fence was not mentioned on NOTAMS or on the 10-9 page. The 10-9 page also does not show the tree on short final. The 12-1 page for the RNAV (GPS) 17 does mention in note 3; that landing on rwy 17 at night is not authorized. I feel that this approach is also not safe in IFR conditions.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Phenom 300 flight crew reported that a tree protrudes into the normal 3 degree glideslope for Runway 17 at THV.
Narrative: I was the PIC; and the Pilot Monitoring. The SIC was flying a briefed visual approach backed up with a RNAV (GPS) Rwy 17 approach which has a 3 degree Glidepath. Inside of a mile from the end of Runway 17; the SIC verbalized and adjusted aircraft pitch and rate of descent because a tree appeared to be close off the right nose. There were no Terrain; Obstacle; or Descent Rate warnings. A normal landing was made over a blast fence that was not noted on the 10-9 page.It was Day VFR when we flew this approach. If we had continued the approach as depicted; the tree on short final would have been very close to the 3 degree glidepath. This approach (THV 12-1) was dated 18 Jul 14; and it's possible this tree had grown in the past 3 years. The PAPI is shown on the 10-9 page to be 4.5 degrees; quite a bit different than 3.0 degrees on the RNAV (GPS) 17 approach. Flying the PAPI angle at 120 knots would result in a descent rate of close to 1000 fpm. In addition; the blast fence was not mentioned on NOTAMS or on the 10-9 page. The 10-9 page also does not show the tree on short final. The 12-1 page for the RNAV (GPS) 17 does mention in note 3; that landing on Rwy 17 at night is not authorized. I feel that this approach is also not safe in IFR conditions.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.