Originally Posted by OK465
From 1900' this equates to about a 3.4 degree approach slope, not some unmanageable 'dive' that Bloggs equated it to. Your folks and others do this every week at San Diego....with a 3.5 degree PAPI.
Don't misquote me: I didn't say it was unmanageable. If you have the skills and training, it would be perfectly manageable. You aces can't understand what may have been going through their heads, can you? Bla Bla bla much wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth useless Asians etc etc etc but not much "gee, maybe there were factors which made this hard for them... ".
One possibility is that, if they were using a 3 x profile (or had set up a 3° visual slope in their FMS) then come up to the bridge/5, 5.4-whatever nm and remembered they'd have to maintain 1900ft until passing the bridge, they would naturally have to reduce the descent rate until passing it, therefore going high. 3.4° (OK465's number) is at least 3 whites on the PAPI, going into 4 if they didn't immediately clip that 1900ft step. Is it any wonder they ended up low at 3.8nm, trying to correct back to two whites?
The relevance of San Diego's 3.5° PAPI to an EVA crew would be what exactly? I used to do 400ft/nm NPAs in a jet. Do I get a medal too?
I stand to be corrected on this (I'm on the other side of the world) but another possible factor is the sun. If they approached at 2100 PDT, the sun at that time was about... 3.8° above the horizon bearing 278°. They would have been battling to see much at all on final, let alone the runway or the PAPI.
Bugg, thank you for your kind comments. I've probably done more visual approaches than you've had breakfasts. And I don't own MS Flight Sim.