Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tenerif .... MUMBAI!

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    I’m referring to the missed approach point, the MAP.
    Do you have a Jeppesen chart for JFK’s VOR approach to 13 L/R? You will see that the procedure is a turn at or beyond the MAP.
    MAP in connection with any kind of approach doesn't exist. I assume you mean MAPt. (MAP = Manifold pressure)
    Decision height on a VOR approach? Doesn't exist either.
    Even if the go-around procedure says to turn left/right, it still starts with a wings level climb. Every FD initially commands a wings level roll attitude during a GA.
    Lots of pretty basic errors in your posts, as usual.

    Comment


    • #32
      “I am sure”

      Originally posted by Evan View Post

      Well, that settles it then.
      I am absolutely sure that DH didn’t come into the decision- especially on my IMC go around.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by bstolle View Post
        MAP in connection with any kind of approach doesn't exist. I assume you mean MAPt. (MAP = Manifold pressure)
        Decision height on a VOR approach? Doesn't exist either.
        Even if the go-around procedure says to turn left/right, it still starts with a wings level climb. Every FD initially commands a wings level roll attitude during a GA.
        Lots of pretty basic errors in your posts, as usual.
        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:	131
Size:	400.8 KB
ID:	1191787

        Comment


        • #34
          You still don't understand the turn requirement/procedure. Once the wings level climb has been established, you start turning by selecting a different lateral mode.
          The point is that what you experienced was the pilot simply breaking off the approach, which occurs at a pretty high altitude and has nothing to do with a go around.
          Concerning the MAPt. That's why you have an abbreviation section in the Jeppesen airway manuals.
          If you want to abbreviate the missed approach point in a sentence, you should use the correct abbreviation.
          The missed approach point (MAPt) is the point where the missed approach segment of an instrument approach begins.

          Most other chart providers use MAPt on their charts and I wouldn't be that picky if you wouldn't try to make the impression that you are an insider/airline pilot.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by bstolle View Post
            You still don't understand the turn requirement/procedure. Once the wings level climb has been established, you start turning by selecting a different lateral mode.
            The point is that what you experienced was the pilot simply breaking off the approach, which occurs at a pretty high altitude and has nothing to do with a go around.
            Concerning the MAPt. That's why you have an abbreviation section in the Jeppesen airway manuals.
            If you want to abbreviate the missed approach point in a sentence, you should use the correct abbreviation.
            The missed approach point (MAPt) is the point where the missed approach segment of an instrument approach begins.

            Most other chart providers use MAPt on their charts and I wouldn't be that picky if you wouldn't try to make the impression that you are an insider/airline pilot.
            Let’s not equivocate here. You are not being ‘picky’, you are being confrontational and intimidating because you don’t like non “insiders” discussing aviation despite the fact that it concerns them just as much as it concerns you.

            You said there is no MAP acronym in “any approach”. You were wrong. Admit it. It’s a common acronym used on approach charts. Any pilot accustomed to reading them better know what it means.

            The term “go-around” is synonymous with the term “missed approach”. So don’t gaslight me on this.

            The missed approach I experienced occurred at or near the MAP at about 800ft (I used DH to provide a reference of the safe altitude and distance where it occurred, though I should have used MDA if I knew you were going to be that picky, and yes, I am aware that these do not apply to visual approaches).

            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. All despite the fact that you “as an insider” tell us this never happens.

            And I brought this up because, in my humble “outsider” opinion, that is the point where a safe go-around should happen if the pilot believes that the runway will not be clear of traffic when crossing the threshold.

            Is ‘Safety culture’ in the Skybrary glossary?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              Like Tenerife, you mean?
              No. Tenerife was totally different in nature. It was not due to separating rules being too lax or anything like that.
              Tenerife can happen today with the best separation rules in place, if they are not followed.
              "Incursair 123, taxi via alpha juliet, hold short of 4R on juliet"
              "Alpha, juliet, hold short of 4R"
              "AeroRam 789, runway 4R, cleared to land"
              "Cleared to land runway 4R, AeroRam 789"
              Incursair 123 proceeds to cross the runway in fog
              Tenerife.
              Or soooo many other bad outcomes. One in a million is a lot of fatality. The entire reason I am so interested in aviation safety is that it actually works so well, despite enormous risks, and retains integrity when the rest of the human experiment is racing down the drain of corruption and lassitude. And it works because it does often consider extremely unlikely risks unacceptable. The philosophy seems to be asking 'why do that' as much as 'why not do that'.
              Every operation has risks. You have to draw the line somewhere or stop operating. The place where you draw the line will always be arbitrary. The runway traffic conflict accidents that we have seen on the past, and the incidents that we have seen in recent months / past couple of years, were not related to an airplane arriving crossing the threshold when the preceding departing or arriving airplane was on the same runway 6000 or more ft from the landing threshold. I have never heard if a single incident, let alone an accident, due to that.

              I have however seen repeated incidents where an airplane was cleared to land a few minutes before the actual landing and then the tower clears, or has already cleared, other planes to take off or land in front of them, and then the separation doesn't work as expected or the tower totally forgets that that plane was already cleared to land and the tower or airplane initiate a last-minute go-around after visually detecting the conflict. Those incidents are one thin Swiss cheese slice away from an accident. We even had at least one case of a plane becoming disabled by the runway in very low vis after a landing accident with the next plane already cleared to land, and both the tower and landing plane unable to se the accident plane due to the low vis conditions. The unexpected slice of cheese here was an airport vehicle that just by chance was near the accident airplane and told the tower what happened, who then instructed the other airplane to go around.

              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).



              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                The term “go-around” is synonymous with the term “missed approach”.

                WRONG! I am actually surprised that you would post that Evan. You usually do much better research.

                Comment


                • #38
                  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.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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'

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            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?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X