Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer
I am not criticizing your experience, which I have no possible way to evaluate or judge. What I am saying about your experience is I don't care!
…and you’ve made that abundantly clear.
Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer
This is a discussion forum, what counts here are what arguments and knowledge you present. Your post are longwinded, full of adjectives and small anecdotes that are irrelevant to the point.
Irrelevancy is often in the eye of the reader … and not all readers read the same thing into what is written … which is why I diligently attempt to say the same things differently to allow for just those kinds of potentials. Obviously, I haven’t yet found the formula to allow some here to understand my points. However, I guess I should offer my “thanks” for the compliment on my writing “style.”
Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer
I didn't eat 5000 meals crossing the Atlantic (too young and also no desire), I don't waste my time doing lunch meetings. I became a pilot because I like flying, to which such activities are contra productive.
I wasn’t saying that you
DO eat 5000 meals crossing the Atlantic – I was attempting to refute that specific allegation … which you made as I’m sure you recall the following...
Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer
(And yes, I don't care how many hours you have... eating a meal and taking a nap 5000 times over the Atlantic doesn't really make anyone an expert in circling approaches).
…which was most certainly thrown in my direction.
Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer
I don't care how many hours you have, or how many Pepsi's you drank or canapés you ate at some lunch-meeting being an international "negotiator".
…and, just in case you continue to have that opinion, I think you might want to know that there are some here who do spend some valuable time in, as you describe, “international lunch meetings,” but I would suspect that they each believe they are contributing to the overall safety of ALL the world’s aviation operations – and very few, if any, of whom are specifically aware of, nor likely care, that you think they are wasting their time.
Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer
I do however, operate a 737-800 (as PIC if that matters to you, you seem very hung on status) into dark desolated (no MacDonalds to steer for) 1 runway-1 taxiway airports, surrounded by mountains on a regular basic. And occasionally do a circling at said airports (because the mountains do not allow to approach from either side). That I do according to the SOP of my company in a safe and efficient manner, as I am paid to do.
My suggestion would be that you slow down your reading rate – just a bit – in order to comprehend what is written … you might recall that what I wrote was a very brief history of why the US rules were changed from what is essentially the language you described (which was … “the basic assumption is that the runway environment should be kept in sight while at minimum descent altitude/height (MDA/H) for circling.” I attempted to explain why the US chose to refine that kind of wording, in that the term “runway environment” was thought to be insufficiently accurate – as it was learned that some pilots were using objects that should never have been used for the purposes that some pilots were using them … hence the new language … as I said:
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
That language seemed to be adequate until it became apparent that the McDonalds Hamburger “Golden Arches,” the “Freeway Entrance Sign” and the “time and temperature display” for some business advertisement, that happened to be located across the street from the airport, adjacent to the runway soon came to be the kinds of things that pilots were using as circling and landing references. Unfortunately, the folks that own McDonalds’ franchises and all those other references are under no requirement to maintain their advertising or their signs in any particular manner and may, at any time, adjust, rebuild, move, or remove such signs. It became apparent that simply describing the “environment associated with the approach end of a runway” might not necessarily ensure that pilots who were using such references could be assured of a safe and accurate final approach segment and landing. It was at that time that the FAA changed the rules to cite “an identifiable part of the airport” for those required references … since airport diagrams are required and flight crews are required to have those diagrams with them when flying and buildings and structures on an airport are very closely regulated, marked, and shown on those airport diagrams.
I’m just trying to understand your thought processes, cosmo… because what you wrote doesn't
seem to make sense ...
Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer
As you can see, it is the runway that should be kept in visual contact. Not airport surroundings. Neither does it say that the Pilot Flying, should be the one to keep the runway in sight, for multi pilot airplanes.
Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer
If you are on downwind, 1 nm past the threshold, still going in the opposite direction, you will not able to fly with reference to the runway.
So … which is it? "The runway is kept in visual contact" … or … "you will not be able to fly with reference to the runway" … ? You can do one or the other … but I would submit … not both at the same time.
...and, since, according to you, the requirement says "...
Visual manoeuvring (circling), 7.2.2. After initial visual contact, the basic assumption is that the runway environment should be kept in sight while at minimum descent altitude/height (MDA/H) for circling"... just who should it be that keeps "
the runway environment in sight while at MDA"??? I ask only because in most cases, directions that are issued regarding how the airplane is to be flown are directed to the pilot doing the flying. Right?
Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer
I don't say that to assert myself, but to explain the reason I felt I had something to contribute to this thread... What was your motivation, except for an opportunity to flash your, for your age quite (sorry) common CV?
So … am I to understand that when you post something, the motivation is pure and contains heartfelt comments from a professional aviator … but when someone like me posts something it can only be “an opportunity to flash my quite sorry (and) common CV?
Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer
If you take the time and look back in the thread, you will see that everyone here use the method I described (including US colleagues). That except for a few cheers to you from General Aviation pilots.
As I read back through this thread I see that there are some who, very definitely, indicate that they do much as you do. I also see that some describe what they do in a manner that could be taken in one of several ways – meaning I am unsure of the specifics of what they describe – and, of course, there are some here who describe their actions as being similar to the procedures I’ve described and some who simply agree with what I’ve posted. I would hope that no one here blindly takes anything written on any forum – including this very fine forum – as justification for changing the way they comply with the way their company wants them to perform. What I do hope for is that those here who are unsure or would like to examine their own understanding of the issue brought to light in this or other forums would take those questions to their training department and have a frank and open discussion about what should be done – and how the airplane is to be flown.
Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer
Face it, you are off track. And maybe it is time you review your perspective
.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion – and that includes both of us.
Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer
By the way, why aren't you out drinking beer? Colleague doesn't want to pay anyway? Time to throw the towel in the ring.
Well, the fact is that when you posted your response to my post – I had made arrangements to do just as you suggest. In fact, since I’m not scheduled to work for another couple of days, I just might repeat that activity with some close friends who I’ve asked to take a read of this particular thread, specifically the thoughts you have expressed. If they’re printable, I’ll let you know what they say.