E190 near collision Mildura May 16 - ASI bulletin 56
11,300' at 10nm is not normal. That combined with minimal radio work is also not good airmanship. You seriously can't be defending this?
150kts = 2.5 nm/min = 4 min from 10,000' = 2500'/min...... Really?
150kts = 2.5 nm/min = 4 min from 10,000' = 2500'/min...... Really?
The risk level at which you wet your pants is not an objective measure.
Re straight in approaches can be done and is done all time Jepp ATC 6.7.6.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the rules in Australia have been a special kind of stupid for a long time, and fortunately the rules have little-to-no causal connection with safety outcomes.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11,300' at 10nm is not normal.
straight in approaches can be done and is done all time
If you were conducting spin testing, how far away would you recommend going so you would not be spinning through altitudes likely to be used by RPT?
Originally Posted by LB
The risk level at which you wet your pants is not an objective measure.
Originally Posted by LB
Jepps ain't the authority.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 7th Feb 2017 at 22:38. Reason: The end bit didn't make sense.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The risk level at which you wet your pants is not an objective measure.
No, but the pucker factor has kept pilots alive for a long time. It's our internal risk assessment tool.
If pilots don't have good airmanship and disregard safety then they're putting themselves and others at risk. This is objective ok.
My apologies.
