Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tenerif .... MUMBAI!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bstolle
    replied
    I had to fly this once at night without the lead in lights due to an overweight landing in the 767-300ER. Additionally we had to use a reduced flap setting because we couldn't fly the turn with full flaps (Vfe) and selecting full flap after rolling out of the turn wasn't an option.
    Since a had flown this approach only once or twice before and duringc day time, this was the most stressful landing in my career. It even topped flying the Dash7 into Courchevel.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

    Now-now, Evan, what does the chart actually say? Does it say one HAS to turn at the missed approach point or does it say something else? Also, nobody flies that approach "dive-and-drive" anymore so the "MAP" is effectively as soon as you hit (in our case) 850MSL, since we require a 50' addition to any MDA.

    I was based at JFK for 4 years, this was one of my favorite approaches. I wonder if that makes me a "confrontational insider", what with all those credentials and all...

    BTW, I recall there being some ambiguity on the subject if we could continue the approach if we ONLY saw the leading lights but not the runway. I remember the FAA said something like "Ummm..." Fortunately, I have never had to shoot it anywhere near IMC, it was almost always clear and a million. If the weather was iffy, they would use 04R for arrivals, even with decent crosswinds.
    As was I for 4 in the 200. I loved doing that approach and I miss the pound cake at the 5 Towns!

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    RIght... right... sooo many basic errors. But we better tell Jeppesen that there is no such thing as MAP or making a climbing turn at the missed approach point.


    Click image for larger version

Name:	flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg
Views:	143
Size:	400.8 KB
ID:	1191787
    Now-now, Evan, what does the chart actually say? Does it say one HAS to turn at the missed approach point or does it say something else? Also, nobody flies that approach "dive-and-drive" anymore so the "MAP" is effectively as soon as you hit (in our case) 850MSL, since we require a 50' addition to any MDA.

    I was based at JFK for 4 years, this was one of my favorite approaches. I wonder if that makes me a "confrontational insider", what with all those credentials and all...

    BTW, I recall there being some ambiguity on the subject if we could continue the approach if we ONLY saw the leading lights but not the runway. I remember the FAA said something like "Ummm..." Fortunately, I have never had to shoot it anywhere near IMC, it was almost always clear and a million. If the weather was iffy, they would use 04R for arrivals, even with decent crosswinds.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by bstolle View Post

    What I don't like are non-pilots like you who apparently love to blame pilots for every accident/incident as much as possible with mostly hairraising explanations.
    What in the world leads you to this strong assumption?

    Check with Bobby if you are unsure about blue font.

    [Not_Blue Font] I also wanted to highlight how “the new guy” has (yet again) reached a very similar conclusion to several other forum members.

    Evan: Now that you’ve ridden a bike, you need to do some fence perving at a busy, old airport, without the 12 parallel runways. Get a VHF scanner(or use live ATC). Dallas, Washington, Hobby would be good ones. You might observe 1) Human factors and 2) Big shiny airplanes. It’s even cooler on windy days. Live ATC + FligtawareRadar would also work from your sterile bubble.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    OK, you guys have to stop scratching at this. I guess I have to spell this out e x p l i c i t l y:

    1) I showed an instrument approach chart for REFERENCE ONLY to the last point in the approach where I think a SAFE GO-AROUND procedure should occur on a visual approach if the runway is still occupied.
    That's not how it works. The runway will still be occupied MANY TIMES as you fly through the DH in an ILS approach, for example. You would be some 15 seconds from the threshold at this point, plenty of time for the airplane that is at 120kts on the take-off roll to lift off before you reach the threshold.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    And, as I said, I would draw the line at spacing runway operations at least 60 seconds apart. One minute!
    One minute between what and what?

    The DGCA drew that line. Why would they do this if it's no big deal?
    [Insert facepalm icon here]
    May the fact that they were WAAAAAAYYYY less than 6000 ft apart when the landing plane crossed the runway threshold have something to do with that?
    Had they been 6000 ft apart (or 2000m, or whatever the requirement is in India, it might have been no big deal indeed.

    My take on that is:
    Tower is looking at the plane taking off and the plane approaching. Plane approaching is not cleared to land yet.
    If the plane taking off reaches the 6000ft mark before the plane approaching reaches threshold, tower clears plane approaching to land.
    If plane approaching is coming close to the threshold and plane taking off has not reached the 6000ft mark yet, tower instructs plane landing to go around.
    If for whatever reason tower does neither, plane approaching has to go around since they are not cleared to land. (They will probably ask the tower "are we cleared to land yet?" before reaching this point).

    What is your proposal, again?

    Leave a comment:


  • bstolle
    replied
    Sigh, I should have known better. It's always amazing how much crap you can write with so few words.

    Concerning your judgement from your pax seat:
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    I could judge the altitude quite well from the landmark Brooklyn airflield
    Have you considered the possibility that your pilot wasn't concerned about the runway not being clear, but that he was simply too high, and hence he discontinued the approach?

    Anyway, I'll try to avoid replying to your posts in the future since it's just wasted time.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    The term “go-around” is synonymous with the term “missed approach”....in this context. Did you not read what I just posted?

    I'm aware that a missed approach is an instrument procedure. As I have always understood it, a missed approach is a go-around in IFR that adheres to an instrument approach procedure. Is there any other difference that I am unaware of?
    Correct, but you contradicted your previous statement by being correct this time. A VFR go-around you don't necessarily have to adhere to a prescribed route or altitudes making it different, agreed?

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by bstolle View Post
    What I don't like are non-pilots like you who apparently love to blame pilots for every accident/incident as much as possible with mostly hairraising explanations.

    ...and I'm 100% sure...
    Are you 3WE?

    Well, you're 100% wrong. I don't "blame" pilots when they make errors unless they result from deliberate dereliction or recklessness. I point out potential for disaster when it reveals itself in incidents like this one. And, yes, I could judge the altitude quite well from the landmark Brooklyn airflield, the bank angle (obviously) and felt the thrust pushing me into the seat. But how could an "outsider" manage this? It's inexplicable.

    I think you're animosity comes more from me calling you out on that "hair-raising" scarebus video you posted and I remain unconvinced of your insider status. What professional pilot would believe that factually-whimsical nonsense?

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

    Not what I referred to. You stated that The term “go-around” is synonymous with the term “missed approach”.

    That is absolutely false. Missed approach assumes an IFR approach. A go-around is a go-around.
    The term “go-around” is synonymous with the term “missed approach”....in this context. Did you not read what I just posted?

    I'm aware that a missed approach is an instrument procedure. As I have always understood it, a missed approach is a go-around in IFR that adheres to an instrument approach procedure. Is there any other difference that I am unaware of?

    Leave a comment:


  • bstolle
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    ..you are being confrontational and intimidating because you don’t like non “insiders”
    ...Evan, however, is a passenger, a passenger inside, very much an insider and very much what the industry is all about

    In this case, the pilot “went around” from low altitude by adding thrust and making a fairly steep right turn, as is the missed approach procedure for that approach.
    I don't understand, do you consider yourself an out or insider?
    First of all, I'd say all forum members taking part in this discussion are insiders (except you) and I really enjoy reading their replies, (except yours).
    What I don't like are non-pilots like you who apparently love to blame pilots for every accident/incident as much as possible with mostly hairraising explanations.

    Well, if you don't want to stall when levelling off, you have to add thrust, and I'm 100% sure that from the cabin you were neither able to judge the altitude, the bank angle, or how much thrust had been applied.
    And what is a 'fairly steep' turn? The bank angle during manually flown (or AP HDG mode) turns is always between 25 and 30deg.


    Edit: I don't think that you or your attitude is going to change anythime soon and think that I've made it clear that really I dislike your attitude.
    On the other hand I acknowledge your continous attempts to improve aviation safety.
    So I'll try to be less 'confrontational' and 'intimidating'

    Leave a comment:


  • BoeingBobby
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    OK, you guys have to stop scratching at this. I guess I have to spell this out e x p l i c i t l y:

    1) I showed an instrument approach chart for REFERENCE ONLY to the last point in the approach where I think a SAFE GO-AROUND procedure should occur on a visual approach if the runway is still occupied.

    2) The actual JFK incident I brought up happened on a visual approach, and the pilot performed a GO-AROUND following (more or less) the MISSED APPROACH procedure.

    2) Therefore, I meant the GO-AROUND procedure used in this case was synonymous with a MISSED APPROACH procedure described in the instrument approach.

    3) The GO-AROUND I refer to occurred, by my estimate, at or around the MAP and involved an almost immediate, significant right turn. But not before adding thrust. Of course.

    And all of this just to try to provide a REFERENCE to when IMH"O"O a go-around should be performed in VMC if the runway will not be clear when crossing the threshold. Because, beyond that point, dangerous, time-compressed, high-workload things can happen, because this is where error, bad judgement and swiss cheese thrives.
    Not what I referred to. You stated that The term “go-around” is synonymous with the term “missed approach”.

    That is absolutely false. Missed approach assumes an IFR approach. A go-around is a go-around.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post


    WRONG! I am actually surprised that you would post that Evan. You usually do much better research.
    OK, you guys have to stop scratching at this. I guess I have to spell this out e x p l i c i t l y:

    1) I showed an instrument approach chart for REFERENCE ONLY to the last point in the approach where I think a SAFE GO-AROUND procedure should occur on a visual approach if the runway is still occupied.

    2) The actual JFK incident I brought up happened on a visual approach, and the pilot performed a GO-AROUND following (more or less) the MISSED APPROACH procedure.

    2) Therefore, I meant the GO-AROUND procedure used in this case was synonymous with a MISSED APPROACH procedure described in the instrument approach.

    3) The GO-AROUND I refer to occurred, by my estimate, at or around the MAP and involved an almost immediate, significant right turn. But not before adding thrust. Of course.

    And all of this just to try to provide a REFERENCE to when IMH"O"O a go-around should be performed in VMC if the runway will not be clear when crossing the threshold. Because, beyond that point, dangerous, time-compressed, high-workload things can happen, because this is where error, bad judgement and swiss cheese thrives.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    No. Tenerife was totally different in nature.
    Yes, of course it was very different in nature. I was referring to it being also extremely unlikely to occur.

    Every operation has risks. You have to draw the line somewhere or stop operating.
    And, as I said, I would draw the line at spacing runway operations at least 60 seconds apart. One minute! Why is that so difficult? Why is it necessary to pile up airplanes like this. As I fatefully pointed out here, I had a pilot from a very safe airline go-around rather than accept this. But let me put this more succinctly:

    Originally posted by avherald
    India's DGCA opened an investigation and de-rostered an Air Traffic Controller.

    The DGCA drew that line. Why would they do this if it's no big deal?

    I am not concerned with the 6000ft rule as long as it is done in VMC and the landing clearance is withheld until the 6000ft condition is established (not just expected).
    I wouldn't be concerned if a 6000ft rule always resulted in an assured 6000ft separation. But, we all know that is not possible and there is always probability, albeit remote, of a negative separation. Because occasional pilot error and equipment failure is also a rule.

    So it comes back to what I'm saying about 'why' and 'why not'. There are many risks where 'why' is answered with a practical necessity.

    I ask again, what is the 'why' here?

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post


    WRONG! I am actually surprised that you would post that Evan. You usually do much better research.
    Go around and missed approach do not have direct cryptic acronyms, and therefore do not process well for Evan’s brain. MAP, DH, IAF, OM, MM and blue hydraulics and UAS and FLCH; however…

    Note to Evan: This discussion is so cool as I see the insiders explaining rather black and white things to you.

    Note to Gabe: I’m glad you are comfortable with spacings. Are you similarly comfortable that they are “broken” daily? Clarification: Broken in the sense that aircraft go around; not_broken in the sense that an illegal landing occurs.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X