Originally Posted by
SOPS
OK, so that leads me ask...who designed this 'manoeuvre'? Is it approved by a regulator?
Im not sure I would like to be standing in an American court of law explaining how I managed to park a large passenger jet several hundred feet from the approach end of a runway because ISO flying the approved FAA designed approach procedure, I was carrying out some sort of "manoeuvre" designed by a couple of numpties over a flat white in Costa.
Originally Posted by
FlyingCroc
Yep you said it SOPS? 😂 But what procedure is there besides looking out the window on a visual approach? RNP AR?
I've asked a similar question:
Originally Posted by
Airbubba
And speaking of raw data, were these guys shooting a VOR approach using a non-approved in-house RNAV profile (either the non-approved AR RNAV-X or the canceled by notam RNAV Visual 13L) in the box? Is VOR data displayed in the A380 in this case?
I'm not questioning the nav accuracy of a modern plane but since the FAA is taking a look, is this legal? I've questioned similar kludges in the past but been assured that as long as you can monitor raw data to insure compliance it is OK.
Originally Posted by
misd-agin
DYHML is 3.6 nm to the threshold. At 300:1, and VFR a normal glide slope, you would cross DYHML at 1080’.
Why people descend to 800’, level off, then re-establish the descent in VFR conditions puzzles me. Why make it harder?
Can Emirates pilots eliminate the 800 foot constraint at DHYML on the VOR 13L in good weather or are they obliged by procedure to leave it in? It is charted as at or above unlike the crossings at ASALT and CRI VOR.