Originally Posted by
joshuahsong
The aircraft generated a predictive windshear warning: ‘Go around, windshear ahead.’ However, we were already experiencing windshear after passing 2000 ft AGL.
I don’t know your SOPs but for us there is a choice when in receipt of a PWS warning between a normal GA and the WEM. Most importantly, you can attempt to laterally avoid the detected WS area but if you go straight to the WEM that goes away (wings level). Given that not flying in WS is the primary goal, leaving options open in terms of avoidance would appear to be a good strategy? At any point you can revert to the WEM, if needed.
What I keep wondering is when I run into a similar situation next time, how far I can step away from Boeing’s WEM procedure without getting into trouble.
As I said in my last post, mixing procedures often leads to confusion, especially in a scenario that requires crew coordination. I don’t think that this situation is that difficult to resolve: are we in WS? If so do the WEM, otherwise try to avoid flying into it - there’s not a lot of grey to interpret here or any need to invent procedures? TCEs like WS, RTO, GPWS, etc. need consistent rote responses because there is little to no time for cogitation, just action.
Why do we leave the gear and flap as they are in the WEM? The gear is in case the WS is severe enough to cause ground contact, which gets a better result than using the engines and/or fuselage for this purpose and the flap is so you don’t lose lift at a point where you might need every last bit of it. People with bigger brains than ours have spent quite a while thinking these things through on the ground in peace and quiet so we don’t have to in the air. There is a time for ideas and deviation from SOPs, in fact that’s one of the main reasons we are there, but not really with basic QRH drills, unless by executing them the aircraft would be left in a more dangerous state. If you had a hard GPWS going into Tokyo, then popped out of cloud to see Mt Fuji directly in front of you, a turn in either direction would seem to be prudent, despite what the recall items said...