Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer
It's been like this for 50 years or more, when flying high performance jet aircrafts. You ever heard about:
Flying by the numbers.
You don't go around guessing in a aircraft that e.g. has a TOW varying between 45000 and 77000 kg weight, depending on the task of the day. For a very good reason, we rely on either calculated values or set number to accomplish certain tasks. Your rant was appropriate in the previous thread about sidestep. But here it has absolutely no value, and unfortunately devaluates your position, as your post show lack of knowledge in airliner operation.
Hello Mr. kramer:
It goes without saying that everyone here is certainly, and obviously, entitled to their own opinions on posts … and … those who make them. Personally, while others may not feel this way, it doesn’t bother me that you may believe I have a “lack of knowledge in airliner operation.” You may or may not find that fact amusing or significant (that’s essentially irrelevant) because I’m perfectly comfortable with what I know and how I apply that knowledge … including MTGW of the airplanes I’ve flown (some of which, by the way, got up to just under the million pound mark) and I’m more than a little familiar with the associated variances in performance adjustments required when the weight of the airplane is different from “last time.”
The concern I was registering – as you apparently recognized in my earlier post – is arguably the same recognizable factors under discussion in this thread. It started with what was likely an apparently innocent question … “how other companies describe the circling approach procedure, specifically the base turn to final from downwind.” The combination of terms is what “set-off” my light bulb … as there are precious few actual “circling approach procedures” that include a “downwind leg, a base leg, and a final approach leg” … including the appropriate turns from one to the next … and where they DO exist … the procedures for accomplishing a circle-to-land should be equally applicable there as to any other circle-to-land maneuver. The mere fact that there are multiple categories of airplanes should be a giant clue to the fact that those who design the circle-to-land authorizations at any airport are acutely aware of the necessity to cover more ground (i.e., due to the necessity to maintain a higher airspeed for the larger categories of airplanes) and is the reason that some airports do not provide circle-to-land capabilities for some categories of airplanes.
In this thread, the original post, and some of the follow-on posts,
seemed to be advocating the same sort of “fly the cheat-sheet numbers and no one will know that you don’t know how to do it.” The fact is that most of my colleagues are interested in populating their cockpits with trained and competent professionals. Many of those friends of mine are recognizing that some of their newer colleagues are frantically recalling (some actually ask for a reminder regarding configuration or techniques) the “cheat-sheet” methodology for some specific tasks.
If there are pilots who believe it necessary to recall the appropriate formulae and then calculate the existing airplane weight and configuration; temperature; density altitude; the true, calibrated, and/or indicated airspeed to hold; the required thrust necessary to achieve that particular speed – requiring a formula for fuel flow and EGT to compute the required thrust level; reference a manual for the throttle position that would yield that thrust level for the existing altitude; the needed bank angle to stay within the authorized ground distance from the runway; and all the other numerous facts, figures, and calculations deemed necessary to complete a circle-to-land maneuver … I say … go for it. Knock yourselves out. However, if I were your instructor, and circle-to-land was the subject at hand, I’d ask you (politely at first) to put away all that … well,
stuff … and look out of the window, fly the airplane at the appropriate circle-to-land airspeed, keeping the required ground objects clearly in sight while maneuvering the airplane to align with the landing runway. Additionally, we (you and I) would continue that practice, at varying airport/runway combinations, until BOTH you and I realized that you had assimilated the required knowledge and awareness to repeat that task successfully – whenever and where ever it was necessary for you to do so. Of course, where I have worked, you would have had the capability to ask for a different instructor … but those instructors I know wouldn’t likely differ in their approach from what I was asking you to do.
While I’m not sure of the nationality of many of those on this forum, here is the specific regulatory requirement in the US for the circle-to-land:
Title 14CFR Part 91.175 (e) Missed approach procedures. Each pilot operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, shall immediately execute an appropriate missed approach procedure when either of the following conditions exist:
(1) …
(2) Whenever an identifiable part of the airport is not distinctly visible to the pilot during a circling maneuver at or above MDA, unless the inability to see an identifiable part of the airport results only from a normal bank of the aircraft during the circling approach.
Originally Posted by flyboyike
Cliff's Notes version, please. Or are you writing for yourself again?
… as it seems to be getting harder and harder for you to read and comprehend my posts … please allow me to free you from what you may believe is your responsibility to read and understand what I write unless I do so in a “cliff notes” fashion … please feel free and welcome to disregard anything I post. I wouldn’t want you to strain your ability to comprehend beyond what is available in other notable and respected cheat sheets – like “cliff notes.”
EDIT: Perhaps you should do what I've done - I'm relying on the logic that the "IGNORE" function will solve the problem for both of us....