Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
Evan
Evan
Senior Member
Last Activity: Yesterday, 15:47
Joined: 2008-01-19
Location:
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • 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?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • 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?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • 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...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Yes, of course it was very different in nature. I was referring to it being also extremely unlikely to occur.



    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:



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



    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...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • 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”...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • 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.


    ​​...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Well, that settles it then....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • 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.

    Who said anything about runway length? The issue here is stopping distance between aircraft sharing the same runway when one lands and the other rejects (or one performs a last-second go-around and the other takes off). The runway can be 100,000ft and they might still collide. I only brought up overruns to point out that these errors and failure do occur, and are not 'extremely unlikely', which could cause such a collision....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • The separation incident I experienced happened at what I estimate to be decision height, and the pilot abruptly turned off the runway heading and back out over the bay. I don't see a considerable risk with go-arounds at that point. Actually, I think that's why they call it decision height...



    I'm not even going to get into that. Pick another failure that affects stopping distance. The point is that they do happen. ​Runway overruns happen. And I'm pretty confident that 100% of them are unintentional. So combine runway overrun with rejected takeoff. The point is, you can't combine them if only one airplane is on the runway at any given time....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan, however, is a passenger, a passenger inside, very much an insider and very much what the industry is all about. I’m not giving advice. I’m discussing what might make being a passenger safer or more risky. And so is the FAA. As an insider yourself, I would think you would share those concerns....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • You’ve addressed the why not but not the why. If you need to have planes going around to avoid this scenario, you have a major problem with your air traffic control. Spacing arrivals at least 90 seconds apart does not equate with “cancel all airline ops” (you’re starting to sound like 3WE).



    Longer stopping distance…?

    And you must factor in human error. The FAA does. There is situational awareness, the time it takes or if it doesn’t happen at all. That can be a lot of runway. There is float, landing further down the runway. There is reaction time, which the FAA factors into stopping distance as an average, expected time. Then, and perhaps most importantly, there is stress and time compression related error. A pilot might touch down, realize the airplane ahead has rejected and choose to go-around. I know it’s the wrong move but check your aviation accident history and you will see a lot of wrong moves made...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • And this is what gets me... Assuming that each plane landing or rolling on takeoff needs that runway to itself for less than a minute, what are they doing piling on like this? Is it really too impractical to enforce a 'sterile runway' rule?



    Like Tenerife, you mean? 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'.

    An arriving plane and a departing plane sharing a runway.
    Why not do that? Because extremely unlikely risks are introduced.
    Why do that? .... (I've got nothing)...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Here, I’ll give you some shades of grey:

    Departing aircraft rejects. Auto brakes. Rapid deceleration. Arriving aircraft touching down is not aware of this. Situational awareness delay. Then reaction time. Then the reverser/ground spoilers/brakes malfunction. The following occurs over a span of seconds.

    shade a) Arriving aircraft attempts to stop but collides with the rejecting aircraft. Bad outcome.

    shade b) Arriving aircraft attempts to get airborne again. Tenerife. Bad outcome.

    shade c) Arriving aircraft manages to steer off the runway at damaging speed. Maybe only losing some gear and an engine in the process, Or maybe only slicing into the departing aircraft with one fuel-laden wing. Best outcome.

    This scenario requires two factors. Most fatal accident do. Swiss cheese.

    What the FAA seems to understand and you cannot is that all of these outcomes are possible when two aircraft are on the same runway...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Are European aircraft equipped with crystal balls? That’s a lot of ‘will be’ in those regulations. How about this:

    (iii) The arriving aircraft will be colliding with the departing aircraft if the departing aircraft rejects takeoff and the arriving aircraft experiences any of the conditions common to runway overrun incidents.

    What? A combination of factors? When has that ever happened? Oh, right, Tenerife…

    The FAA regulations make sense if safety is truly your concern. No departing and arriving aircraft can occupy the runway at any given time. No brainer....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • At the point the video begins, it was possibly better to land. But in VMC, how did it ever get to that point? I recall something about how being visual with the runway was a visual approach requirement and that cockpit windows are provided for this. When a go-around should have happened, that departing plane would have been quite in the window....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • That is either a fake AI video or a blind flight crew. Or maybe this is just another day in India....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • And the LH-744 is just a bigger flying chicken, if you think about it (pass the bong). The problem is that airport crossing runways are no place for a game of chicken. IMHO....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Which explains the price of shark eggs these days.

    Do we really have nothing more to say about the ATC and ground controller debarcles of late? How much do commercial pilots really know about what goes on up in the tower? What technology are they using? Univacs? Gameboys? Obviously not binoculars....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • And now maybe there's some hope that he's going to be electrocuted.

    I remember him ranting on about how his 757 had Rolls Royce engines, like they're some sort of exotic luxury upgrade. Anything for approval and admiration.

    Did BoingBobby's plane have four Rolls Royces? Don't tell the future President. He's out to get even....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Disparity would have been a better word there. Fire my editor.

    However, private aviation operating out of large commercial airports is mostly reserved for an elite class of society, and they enjoy less demanding training and equipment requirements and less stringent safety restrictions than commercial aviation. I mean, just look at Hans Solo.

    Inequity in the larger sense is also a certain recipe for disaster, but that's for another forum....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More
Working...
X