Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Another Fun Youtube
Collapse
X
-
To me:
- I looked nice. Lots of fun!
- It looked not as EXTREME as the title of the video says.
- It might have been stabilized. Check points 8 and 9 in the pink rectangle in page 2 (Aren't I starting to sound like Evan? )
--- 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 ---
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostAren't I starting to sound like Evan?
That comes when you are unable to acknowledge that being a little high and fast, at 900 feet AGL on a beautiful evening with light winds on a straight in approach to a 10,000 ft runway, that you could, with ordinary pilot skill, continue, cross the threshold at near perfect speed and altitude (or burn an extra 1000 ft of runway/whatever) and still land and stop with extreme safety...
...even though that might be in violation of some stabilized approach criteria.
Heck, remember the video of the cargo plane approaching the fence with the gear up? One of the discussion-fora pilots was saying that that could be 100% book-legal (although a bit unusual).Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
I particularly smiled at the nervous giggle from the FO when he called out "sixty" at the end of the landing run. It's almost as if there was an unspoken " thank Christ !"
Regarding the thought that it could be seen as an unstabilised approach ....... The wings were level at 300 feet AGL on finals although admittedly not exactly pointing down the runway. The curving approach path is considered normal, indeed it is required to avoid a CFIT. Whilst the approach flown was more complex than a simple 10 mile straight line finals the crew seemed to be on top of all that was required of them.Last edited by brianw999; 2015-01-06, 13:50.If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View Post...that you could, with ordinary pilot skill, continue, cross the threshold at near perfect speed and altitude (or burn an extra 1000 ft of runway/whatever) and still land and stop with extreme safety...
Again, not a Cessna...
Comment
-
Originally posted by brianw999 View Post...the crew seemed to be on top of all that was required of them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View Postthe inevitable brainfart error, such as when the pilots are focused on navigating a challenging approach and let the energy fall too low...
--- 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
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostYes... [Severe clear skies, no wind, long straight-in approach, no obstacles whatsoever to concern about, long and wide runway ahead, localizer for track, VASI for glide slope visible from many miles away, state-of-the-art airplane]-type of challenging approach.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostIs it normal to deploy the ground spoilers manually before touchdown? Or is he deploying the speed brake "up" at the last moment? Or what is happening there?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View PostI'd say it's just a callout to confirm that the speedbrakes are up and it happens just before nosewheel touchdown. The mains were already on the ground at that time.
Comment
-
I'm 100% sure that the whining noise (weep) that is heard immediately before the "speedbrakes up" call is the speedbrakes lever moving automatically from auto to full.
Perhaps the speedbrakes deployed when the right gear touched down, and that's why we can still see some roll after that.
The louder thumb seems to be the nose gear. I don't think that the main gear sounds so loud in the cockpit.
Yes, there is barely any pitch between the first and the second. Perhaps an effect of the wide-angle lens, or perhaps it was almost a 3-point landing. (right main first, and then left and nose together).
--- 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
-
Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View PostHmmmm - concerning 3WE's initial statement, I wonder why this wouldn't be considered a stabilized approach? It looked alright to me.
Quite a contrast to someone having to call a go around at 500 feet because they weren't aligned on what's normally a 5 mile final.
My point is to show the stark contrast between a nice, hand flown sweeping visual approach versus a slightly out of whack straight in approach that would be unstabilized by definition while a pilot may be totally in control and safe.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
Comment