Air carrier flight crew reported difficulty in executing an RNAV approach using aircraft systems aut...

Narrative:

Sdf was down to one runway; 35R for arrivals and departures. The first officer (first officer) wanted to practice for his upcoming training by accomplishing the RNAV35R approach. The tower gave us a vector from the southeast of the arrival course to the northeast to join the localizer. We opted to do an intercept leg to the course once established on the heading so that we could navigation to the inbound course and shoot the RNAV approach in VFR conditions. I entered the localizer frequency in the nav/rad so that we could monitor the ILS indications to make sure the RNAV approach in navigation/prof would be within the ILS parameters. Once on the intercept heading; we were cleared for the approach; told to contact tower and slow to 170 or less. We were descending and once navigation was engaged we opted to select the decision altitude (da) of 909 in the altitude window. We were configuring at this point and trying to go down and slow to 170 or less. Once established inbound; descending and trying to slow the first officer mentioned that the descent rate was too high and that it was honoring the hard altitudes that we had entered on the RNAV and that matched the indications I was showing on the glideslope (GS) that were showing below GS. We let it go for another couple of seconds to analyze what we had done wrong and the first officer decided it wasn't going to stop the descent and that he was going to click off the auto pilot and climb back up to the GS and just abort the RNAV which was the correct maneuver. As he started to climb we got a landing gear warning; the tower announced an altitude alert; the gear was in transit and the first officer was climbing back up visually to the glideslope. We rejoined the glideslope; flew the visual approach with the ILS backup and were stable by 1000 feet. I believe the aircraft came out of prof or it didn't quite know where it was and was diving for the da of 909 which we recognized and corrected. I called the tower upon leaving the airport and discussed what we were doing and that corrective action was taken and asked if they had any issue or paperwork or needed any information. They said it was all computer generated and was more of a cautionary advisory to us as it was VFR and they saw the corrective action in taking place.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier flight crew reported difficulty in executing an RNAV approach using aircraft systems automation which resulted in going below glideslope mid-approach at SDF.

Narrative: SDF was down to one runway; 35R for arrivals and departures. The First Officer (FO) wanted to practice for his upcoming training by accomplishing the RNAV35R approach. The tower gave us a vector from the southeast of the arrival course to the northeast to join the localizer. We opted to do an intercept leg to the course once established on the heading so that we could NAV to the inbound course and shoot the RNAV approach in VFR conditions. I entered the LOC frequency in the nav/rad so that we could monitor the ILS indications to make sure the RNAV approach in NAV/PROF would be within the ILS parameters. Once on the intercept heading; we were cleared for the approach; told to contact tower and slow to 170 or less. We were descending and once NAV was engaged we opted to select the Decision Altitude (DA) of 909 in the altitude window. We were configuring at this point and trying to go down and slow to 170 or less. Once established inbound; descending and trying to slow the FO mentioned that the descent rate was too high and that it was honoring the hard altitudes that we had entered on the RNAV and that matched the indications I was showing on the glideslope (GS) that were showing below GS. We let it go for another couple of seconds to analyze what we had done wrong and the FO decided it wasn't going to stop the descent and that he was going to click off the Auto Pilot and climb back up to the GS and just abort the RNAV which was the correct maneuver. As he started to climb we got a landing gear warning; the tower announced an altitude alert; the gear was in transit and the FO was climbing back up visually to the glideslope. We rejoined the glideslope; flew the visual approach with the ILS backup and were stable by 1000 feet. I believe the aircraft came out of prof or it didn't quite know where it was and was diving for the DA of 909 which we recognized and corrected. I called the tower upon leaving the airport and discussed what we were doing and that corrective action was taken and asked if they had any issue or paperwork or needed any information. They said it was all computer generated and was more of a cautionary advisory to us as it was VFR and they saw the corrective action in taking place.

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.

Attributes
ACN	1482290
Time
Date	201709
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	SDF.Airport
State Reference	KY
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Widebody Transport
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Pilot Not Flying Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 50 Flight Crew Total 11000 Flight Crew Type 3000
Person 2
Function	Pilot Flying First Officer
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Events
Anomaly	Deviation - Altitude Overshoot Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Air carrier flight crew reported difficulty in executing an RNAV approach using aircraft systems automation which resulted in going below glideslope mid-approach at sdf.