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.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Tenerif .... MUMBAI!
Collapse
X
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
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.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
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.
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.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
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.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostAnd, as I said, I would draw the line at spacing runway operations at least 60 seconds apart. One minute!
The DGCA drew that line. Why would they do this if it's no big deal?
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?
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
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 PostI could judge the altitude quite well from the landmark Brooklyn airflield
Anyway, I'll try to avoid replying to your posts in the future since it's just wasted time.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
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?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by bstolle View PostWhat 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...
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:
-
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.
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:
-
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.
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'
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
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.
That is absolutely false. Missed approach assumes an IFR approach. A go-around is a go-around.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
WRONG! I am actually surprised that you would post that Evan. You usually do much better research.
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:
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostNo. Tenerife was totally different in nature.
Every operation has risks. You have to draw the line somewhere or stop operating.
Originally posted by avheraldIndia'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).
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:
-
Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
WRONG! I am actually surprised that you would post that Evan. You usually do much better research.
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:
Leave a comment: