|
That runway is served by two instrument approaches - the older style LOC approach, and an RNAV approach. The LOC approach is based on the aircraft tracking a very precise radio beam to the runway, and the RNAV approach is based on GPS. Both are very precise, and if executed properly in the Airbus (or any modern high end aircraft these days), will get the aircraft exactly into the slot to be in a perfect position to land once the runway environment has been visually identified.
For the life of me, I can't understand how the crew managed to allow the aircraft to descend so far below the FMS generated "glideslope" so as to land about 1100 feet short of the runway, never mind the intended touchdown spot which is normally somewhere about 1000 feet down the runway itself, so in reality about 2000 feet short of where it should have touched down.
For reference, I fly the Airbus 320 series for a living, so I'm very familiar with how that approach should have been handled in that jet.
|