turn 60 degrees left turn 60 degrees right parallel runways

[Natstrackalpha]

Is the above (title) a fudge formula for changing from one parallel runway to the next?


Assuming parallel runways are not a universal standard distance apart . . ?
Assuming the change of runway is given in good time (enough time to execute the turn(s) establish (visual) and stabilize (stable) - therefore by 1,000` say, therefore before 4.5 miles?

[cosmo kramer]

Formula?? How about looking out the window when doing a swing over? Seems to be the most effective :)

[cosmo kramer]

P.s. Established does not necessarily means aligned depending on SOPs. Our SOPs allow to be aligned with wings level in 300 feet, but of course all other parameters must be complied with by 1000 feet (config, speed, thrust, checklist complete and on path).

[Natstrackalpha]

QUOTE: P.s. Established does not necessarily means aligned depending on SOPs. Our SOPs allow to be aligned with wings level in 300 feet, but of course all other parameters must be complied with by 1000 feet (config, speed, thrust, checklist complete and on path). UNQUOTE



-on the centreline . . . . . ?------------------------------->

[AirRabbit]

OK … here I go with another of my stubbornly long posts … sorry … but I’ve developed a reputation for doing this …

It seems to me that this thread is seeking confirmation of a set of numbers (and beyond that, providing a validation of sorts for almost any similar set of numbers), as being a logical method for achieving satisfactory performance on any task for which the numbers have allegedly been developed. Unfortunately, this practice has become a rather routine goal of an increasing number of “new hires” (and likely has been somewhat successful to those who were “new hires” over the last few years) to ostensibly provide an outcome of the specified task, under the specified circumstances, for the specific set of numbers, to allow demonstration of an adequate performance of piloting abilities. I’ve seen similar “number set” discussions for tasks such as … “what engine parameters should I set for a heavy weight landing in an XXX airplane type?” or “what rate of descent should I hold during a zero flap approach for an XXX airplane type?” or any of the multitude of other similar “examination crutches.” The expectation is that the camaraderie that supposedly exists between the “brothers/sisters of the control yoke/throttles” can relied upon to help brother/sister pilots in the accomplishment of check rides or hiring determination decisions for would-be pilots who are, themselves, not comfortable about being capable of completing the task on their own abilities.

Before anyone here jumps on me for taking what might seem to be (and perhaps actually IS) an innocent question, let me say for anyone’s and everyone’s edification ... being a pilot certainly can be, and should be a terribly rewarding profession … but that comes only with self-awareness of the fact that what you do is what you know and that simply cannot be achieved by applying the correct “cheat-sheet answers” to the supposedly applicable set of circumstances. Every time you, as a pilot, move a control surface, make a power adjustment, or anything that will affect the existing condition of the airplane (and I use the term “condition” to mean the airplane’s attitude, altitude, airspeed, angle-of-attack, direction of flight, configuration, energy state, etc.), AND you should know that what you are doing is correct and proper to regain or maintain the airplane condition that YOU desire and/or the condition you want for the airplane in the next second … application by application. We already have a system that applies a version of the “cheat-sheet-answers” … it’s called the autopilot/autothrottles. This/these system(s) do that and do it far better than you or I would be able to do. The problem is that this/these system(s) does/do NOT THINK. They only make the appropriate adjustments to the flight controls and/or power based on what was “set” (the desired answers) and what those existing parameters are recognized as currently existing.

While it may be true that there are times when the specified numbers, for the specified airplane type, when flying a specified simulation of that specified airplane type, for the accomplishment of a specified flight task, may provide the “pilot” applying those numbers the appearance of being a competent pilot – but doing so is ultimately compromising that pilot’s integration of knowledge, skill, and awareness. Flying in such a manner is, I believe, a totally misplaced desire to demonstrate a level of competency with an “it-seems-to-work” application of a memory driven set of parameters. These two end points are not only not the same … they are not even in the same realm.

Unfortunately, to complicate this issue, I believe that we are producing a set of flight instructors who teach in the identical manner in which they, themselves, were taught. In some cases, this is precisely what should be happening – but the tide is, I believe, beginning to turn. A good instructor should be capitalizing on the abilities and awareness of the student. To do this correctly, the instructor must invariably allow the student to use what he/she recognizes as informative cues, and teach that student to use the tools available (flight controls, configuration, throttles, energy, etc.) to make those informative cues provide information that is the desired result. I have often used the flare for landing as an example of doing just this… so, pardon me if I re-post those thoughts:

As almost all of the folks above have indicated – the last portion of the final approach should be flown in the configuration in which you plan to land, and flown at a constant speed of 1.3 Vs (computed in that configuration), plus ½ of the steady state wind (not to exceed an additive of 20 knots) plus all of the gust factor. I personally believe that this steady-state condition should be established at 1000 feet AGL, but I know that some operations allow this altitude to be lower – but in the passenger revenue world I’m not aware of any that are below 500 feet AGL.

You should cross the runway threshold at what ever is the minimum threshold crossing height – for most transport category airplanes this should be about 50 feet. And at that point you should have been able to bleed off the airspeed additives you’ve been holding for steady-state wind (only the steady-state wind additives) – you’ll still have the 1.3 Vs plus all the gust factor. This will require you to continue to fly the airplane to the runway. Some operators recommend that you begin to reduce power at this point – if that is the procedure you’ve been taught, fine – but keep the airspeed constant until you begin the flare (that may mean pushing the nose over a bit – hopefully it will only require nose down pressure and not nose down movement. The point to which you should be flying at this point (the “aim” point – that point that doesn’t move up or down in the windscreen) is a point on the runway surface about 2/3 of the way between the threshold and the fixed distance markers (for the C-150 guys, this aim point should be the numbers themselves and for the B-747 guys, the aim point should be the fixed distance markers or just beyond).

OK, now for the flare. The question that always comes up is, “what attitude do I flare to?” When you start to flare is critical. You will want to reach your flare attitude with the main wheels something between 1 and 5 feet from the runway surface (1 foot or so for the C-152 guys and 5 feet for the B-747 guys … yes, I know how difficult it is to imagine the mains at 5 feet above the runway from the B-747 cockpit – but remember, you’re good at your job! – Make it 5 feet!) The change in the attitude from when you initiate the flare to reaching the flare attitude should take just about 3 seconds (no less than 2 for you C-150 guys and no more than 4 for you B-747 guys) and you should wind up with the main wheels “just off the runway surface. The speed you should have when you reach the flare attitude should be just below what you carried from the threshold to this point – between 5 and 15 knots – the smaller number for the smaller airplanes and the larger number for the larger airplanes. The attitude should be just exactly what it would take to maintain level flight from this point all the way down the runway. What I’d have you practice would be, “do not climb, do not descend, do not accelerate, do not decelerate; we’ll go around at the end of the runway.” I’d also have you mentally locate the position on the belly of the airplane exactly between the main gear (the body gear for you B-747 guys) and I’d tell you to fly down the runway (no climb, no descent, no faster, no slower) with that point on the belly of the airplane exactly over the runway centerline – and to do that with whatever crab angle you need to do it. Of course you’d have to add a bit of power – since you had the throttles back but this is OK for practice.

I’d have you do this exercise as many times as was necessary to get you comfortable with when to initiate the flare, how quickly to flare, and to what attitude you need to stop the flare with the main gear just off the runway surface. The key here, getting you to recognize when to start the flare and how quickly to flare, is to get you to recognize what attitude to reach at the end of the flare – THAT attitude is called the LEVEL FLIGHT ATTITUDE.

Once you’ve got it, as you begin the flare, you begin the throttle reduction. The idea is to get the throttles to the idle position as the mains touch the runway. As you pull the throttles back, you will notice the nose getting heavier – don’t let it move down. Increase the back pressure on the elevator controls – not to move the nose up – rather to just keep it from moving down. Over that 3 seconds, the airspeed continues to decelerate, while the airplane continues to descend, going from just above the runway to ON the runway. Level Flight Attitude is the attitude from which you want to land the airplane. Your touchdown should be firm but not hard, the kinetic energy of the airplane should be moving in the right direction, the nose should be able to be flown to the runway rather quickly as it is not unnecessarily high to arrest a high sink rate. You should be over the center of the runway, with the controls already properly positioned for the landing run.

If you had been carrying a crab angle to counter a crosswind, the crab should be removed in exactly the same time as the flare takes – 3 seconds. The pressure applied to the rudder pedal to pressure the nose around to line up with the centerline of the runway should start with the back pressure on the control column to flare. As you probably know, this may take some “into-the-wind” aileron to counter the tendency of the forward sweeping wing to rise … but, unless the wind is quite strong, you won’t be in the air long enough to have the wind blow you downwind off the centerline. Of course, if the wind IS quite strong, you may have to add a bit more aileron to slightly (very slightly) dip the wing tip in the up-wind direction.
The point of saying all of the above was to demonstrate the lengths a good instructor must be willing to go in order to use the talents, knowledge, and experience of the students to the maximum capability. Sure, it is possible to forcefully have a student perform as mandated by the instructor – but that student may have to work exceptionally hard (in many cases, against what he/she would be more comfortable doing) … AND, may, sometime in the future, fall back upon … leaving all the teaching lessons to flounder.

So – my point – after all this – if you want to be a good pilot – not just someone who has passed a series of evaluations – you must NOT become dependent on a set of “cheat-sheet” numbers that sometimes work.

[parabellum]

I believe the manoeuvre you are talking about is called "Side Step", for example, at LAX it was not uncommon to get "(call sign) side step left, cleared to land R/W 24Left" having previously been aligned with R/W 24Right, this change is executed visually and the degree of turn will depend on how far from the threshold that you are, but I have never heard of anyone bothering with actual numbers, as I said, it is a visual exercise

[flyingchanges]

What if the new runway is to your right? 300 left then 60 left?

[Natstrackalpha]

@ Air Rabbit - nice one, but, the objective was not to sail through a check, the objective was to land the aircraft - perfectly, having been given the side-step.


@flyingchanges - that was humour or dumb, I can`t figure out which. Also, if you can`t figure out where you are, then you should not be flying.


There is a formula, which simplifies the manoeuvre and gets you set up for the refining of the final app, if necessary - implying, that this would get you set up on your new final approach - I just forgot what it was and thought some of you may have come across it - it works. If it works, then it works if you are not visual, why should that be different . . . . ?
What? You think am going to go no visual down to the tarmac after such a move . . . . ? . . . duh .. obviously we are no longer precision approach. . . so at this early stage in the game and notwithstanding OCL what is the problem? Moreover, anyone got the formula yet? We are not swanning around in IMC aimlessly, we know where we are and we have minimums, albeit recently amended minimums due to the sidestep move taking us off profile for the previously set up ILS. sigh, it works - you can work it out arithmetically or mathematically, (on the ground prior to(!).


If necessary you can work in any new go around procedure, if that has changed due to the new runway and the same applies to the Emergency turn after a go around and any different MDA but you know that already right?


And Rabbit - I agree with all you say and appreciate your input but sometimes the numbers work.

I was not saying lets divorce all flying for numbers - I was just asking if it was 60 Degrees, in still air if you like, for a sidestep that would set you up nicely, remaining manual or at least selected - because your ILS plans for the evening have been cancelled and it would be imprudent to start ******* about banging in the new ILS (if there was one) at so late a stage in the game into the FMCG,

So, having these little numbers then will reduce the workload at a time when you are going to be busy, as, if you are not visual by (the end of) your new MDA then you are going around, anyway. That was all - its not rocket science, nor a political debate.


You are confirming a sidestep must not be done in IMC? You think good flying skills preclude this practice and therefore it should be ignored and/or rejected . . .?


I was only after confirmation that it was in fact 60 degrees - I did not plan on being sent to the bastille.



http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

[AirRabbit]

@ Air Rabbit - nice one, but, the objective was not to sail through a check, the objective was to land the aircraft - perfectly, having been given the side-step.

Sorry – but it sounded very much like someone was attempting to nail down yet another “set of numbers” advertised as a “sure-fire way to get you there.” I remain firmly of the opinion that flying is a very personal practice – one that not everyone is destined to perform well AND easily. As with any well-performed physical act – the harder the performer of such an act actually works, the more it appears to have been done effortlessly. There is no air traffic controller I know who would issue a landing aircraft a clearance to “side-step” or land on any runway other than the one to which the airplane is approaching – presuming, of course, there was a clearance issued to land on the original runway, without knowing with a reasonable assurance that the maneuver could be accomplished easily and without compromising safety. Of course, such a clearance would have to be issued in visual conditions … or at the very least sufficiently visible to have been issued a clearance for either a “visual approach” or a “contact approach.” And, it is very unlikely that a clearance for a “contact approach” would be issued to change the landing runway once the airplane was inside the outer marker. Additionally, I think that trying to insert the landing runway numbers into a “formula” to provide the amount of degrees one should turn (in/out – left/right – whatever) while you’re controlling any airplane … let alone a transport category airplane … is utter foolishness … and I would encourage ANY pilot to ignore such information – even if the “instigator” makes all kinds of assurances that “it’s easy” and “it always works.” Of course, I have zero objection to accepting a clearance for a side-step landing clearance … but that acceptance is contingent on the fact that I know where I am, where that controller would have me go, and that I know (not “think” – know!) that the adjustment can be made safely with no more risk of completing a non-eventful landing equal to or better than landing on the originally cleared runway. If a pilot cannot see the runway to which he/she is going to attempt to land – or cannot, without a minimum of confusion or concern, know what to do and precisely how to do it – and have substantial flying distance yet to fly, with sufficient altitude and airspeed (without changing configuration and/or airspeed and without minor banking in either direction) to complete such a landing adjustment – it would be folly to attempt anything other than continuing to land on the originally cleared runway or reject the landing and go around. The only things that “sure-fire ways to get you there” will, in a vast majority of the times such things are attempted, provide a better than even chance of your having a "fire for sure" – and I suspect you know what I’m saying.

[cosmo kramer]

Hope you don't have a flight within the next 12 hours! :E

Entertaining stuff though...

Well try it out with different angles and see what works best for you... 60/60 is a good starting point, but also try 85/85... It's great for runways 2-300 meter apart. :hmm: If you are a really good pilot it is no problem doing it IMC, you got two hands and two eyes, so one of each can easily program the FMC. hiiick

[AirRabbit]

I was not saying lets divorce all flying for numbers - I was just asking if it was 60 Degrees, in still air if you like, for a sidestep that would set you up nicely, remaining manual or at least selected - because your ILS plans for the evening have been cancelled and it would be imprudent to start ******* about banging in the new ILS (if there was one) at so late a stage in the game into the FMCG,

So, having these little numbers then will reduce the workload at a time when you are going to be busy, as, if you are not visual by (the end of) your new MDA then you are going around, anyway. That was all - its not rocket science, nor a political debate.

And Rabbit - I agree with all you say and appreciate your input but sometimes the numbers work.

I was not saying lets divorce all flying for numbers - I was just asking if it was 60 Degrees, in still air if you like, for a sidestep that would set you up nicely, remaining manual or at least selected - because your ILS plans for the evening have been cancelled and it would be imprudent to start ******* about banging in the new ILS (if there was one) at so late a stage in the game into the FMCG,

So, having these little numbers then will reduce the workload at a time when you are going to be busy, as, if you are not visual by (the end of) your new MDA then you are going around, anyway. That was all - its not rocket science, nor a political debate.

You are confirming a sidestep must not be done in IMC? You think good flying skills preclude this practice and therefore it should be ignored and/or rejected . . .?

I was only after confirmation that it was in fact 60 degrees - I did not plan on being sent to the bastille.

Hi Natstrackalpha – I’m sorry you felt as though I was sending you to “the bastille,” as I was merely pointing out what I believed to have been yet another in a series of “cheat-sheet” recommendations provided to those who would otherwise not be able to perform the designated task very successfully on their own. I also wanted any interested persons reading these posts to know that there are at least some who contribute here who are committed to doing everything possible to operate airplanes as professionally, as competently, and as safely as they know how – and do all they can to encourage others to do the same. Certainly, a “side-step” maneuver should be included in any initial training curriculum … particularly now (and for the last decade, at least) that the simulation equipment used in a majority of training programs will allow such training to be conducted effectively – and accurately. But, and again, there are very few actions taken by pilots when in an airport traffic area that are not designated by, or at least approved by, the controller on duty. Sure, there are times when a “side-step” clearance may be issued … but the probability of such a clearance being issued grows less and less as the airplane gets closer to the runway originally planned for the landing. Once inside of about 2 miles, the only reason I can imagine that such a clearance might be issued would be that the controller recognizes a developing situation that might be made worse by having the airplane continue the approach to land on that runway. In that event, the more likely scenario would be to direct the landing airplane to “go around.” My suspicion would be that if the airplane was inside the outer marker but still beyond 2 miles out, the controller, having recognized such a developing problem, might ask the pilot of the landing airplane if it would be possible for him/her to accept a “side-step” clearance to land on a parallel runway – knowing full well that a clearance for the side-step landing OR a direction to go around is going to be required pretty darn quickly. Equally true (I believe) is that the pilot should recognize immediately what is being offered, whether or not he/she has the altitude, airspeed, time, and sufficient visual contacts from the current position to the landing runway threshold to effectively and safely make such a landing runway transition. Further, I would think such a decision should not require reliance on his/her mental agility to recall the “formula,” plug in the correct numbers, and perform the associated math, before reaching such a decision ... and he/she should also be acutely aware of what kind of a clearance might likely be issued if he/she responds in the negative.

Also, let me directly address your question as to whether or not I am “…confirming a sidestep must not be done in IMC…” and if I believe that “…good flying skills preclude this practice and therefore it should be ignored and/or rejected…” Yes … capital letters, please … YES, I am confirming that a side-step maneuver should not be performed in Instrument Meteorological Conditions. There is a reason that such conditions are referred to by this title – it is that outside visual references are insufficient to warrant operating in accordance with visibly recognized forward, side-view, and/or ground references. Of course, almost every pilot has experienced operating on an IFR approach clearance and have had times when they were able to see ground objects at distances that might be otherwise seen in VMC (visual meteorological conditions) BUT, and significantly, the governing requirements for determining when IMC or VMC conditions exist is based on what conditions exist throughout more than one-half of the 360-degree horizon as seen by the person observing the weather. The pilot is probably not aware of what quadrants the weather observer recognized as sufficient for making the call that has been made. It would be dangerously foolish to initiate a side-step maneuver when flying in IMC conditions, based on what is seen from the cockpit … as what may be seen from a particular vantage point, may, or may NOT, be able to be seen from a distinctly different vantage point. It is entirely possible that a runway, while perhaps visible from the cockpit when aligned for landing on a parallel runway, may completely disappear once aligned on final approach for that alternative runway. There is a reason that airline pilots are not encouraged to be “cowboys” or “rogues;” and, there is little reason that a professional pilot would ever do anything unprofessional. Accepting a clearance for a visually conducted side step to a parallel runway when operating on an IMC clearance could become folly beyond measure.

Also - please note that I'm diligently trying to comply with our moderator's admonition to "play the ball ... not the person." My comments are directed toward the concept of side-step clearances and not toward any specific person - including you, Natstrackalpha ... and anyway, didn't they tear down the Bastille?

[safelife]

Hint, don't exceed 30 deg. bank during such maneuvre, it would trigger an event in FDM.

[misd-agin]

How closely spaced are the runways? Are the thresholds at a parallel location, or is one closer than the other(ie JFK 04L/R)?

Or are the runways like MIA's 08L/R? Closely spaced with the thresholds abeam each other?

How far out are you when you get the clearance? 1000'? Wide separation? Like LHR? That takes a bigger correction.

MIA 08L/R and given the side step clearance at 2000'? Small correction.

If you like to use X DME from the airport it's a completely different situation if you're at JFK and switching from 04L to 04R. At a given distance from the JFK VOR switching from 04R to 04L is tougher, and much tougher if it's done fairly late.

If you're inexperienced, and make a 60 degree turn in the MIA situation above, you'll rapidly become the PNF/PM.

[flyboyike]

What happened to brevity?

[AirRabbit]

What the heck is brevity?

[flyboyike]

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[AirRabbit]

Well ... when you're right ... you're right! When you're not ... you're not

[pattern_is_full]

Regarding weather conditions - for all practical purposes, a "side-step" maneuver is essentially a "circle to land". You are breaking off from a precision radio approach to a visual landing on a different runway.

Conditions do not need to be VFR-legal (3 miles and 500 below clouds), but you need to have, and be able to maintain, visual contact with the runway you will land on. So you can't initiate a sidestep while still in the clouds.

As to AirRabbit's point, made more succinctly by misd-agin: there are situations where "60L/60R" (or vice versa) will work - and a lot of situations where it won't. It depends entirely on the spacing of the parallel runways, and your distance from the threshold when starting the maneuver. Which will be different for every airport and every landing.

Simply geometry - not all parallelograms are congruent, so there will be times when what you want is 42L/42R or 15R/15L. Or simply look out the window.

[Check Airman]

A professional pilot needs a formula for a sidestep? Every time I've had to do it, it's been something like this:

ATC: Do you have runway 08R in sight?

PM: Affirm

ATC: Change to 08R, runway 08R cleared to land

The PF then disengages the AP or moves the control column while looking outside.

The PM looks up, and loads the ILS frequency to 08R

Is this not something that should have been covered during PPL training?:ugh:

[flyboyike]

I'm more amazed that a professional pilot can make a 2,000+ word post on the subject.

[AirRabbit]

I'm more amazed that a professional pilot can make a 2,000+ word post on the subject.

I’m going to go out on a limb here with the belief that flyboyike’s comment here was addressed to yours-truly. Well … clearly, I’m guilty of using a lot of words to describe/explain my points. I’ve been told that such verbosity comes directly from being an educator, flight instructor, evaluator, and test pilot collectively for close to half a century. I've also been reminded by some of the mentors I’ve had over that time that they’ve published entire books on several specific subjects. I should hasten to point out that no one here should recoil in fear of anticipating my attempting to post a book draft any time in the near future. Besides, if I’m going to suffer criticisms for my posts, I’d MUCH rather have those criticisms directed at the length of the post rather than the accuracy of what it includes.

[flyboyike]

When I see a post half-a-page long on a subject as simple as a side-step maneuver, I don't even bother reading it, so I don't have the foggiest how accurate it is. There isn't that much to say about side-steps unless one just likes to hear himself talk or read his own literary heritage.

[Natstrackalpha]

@flyboyicky, cosmokramer, flying changes - thank you for criticising whilst not actually contributing.


Rabbit, thank you for your input and for emphasising a point BY EXPLAINING (to all you ****** taking critics or is it critters) in adequate detail. Your input, as ever, was golden and invaluable and much appreciated.


Maybe not to you other GENIUSES - oooh, sorry, you meant it was just commonsense . . . .? Aww, why din I figure that one out myself huh?


I thought there was a formula - I was told wrong (not dissimilar to the above mentioned terrapins)


I was assuming when I made the post that there would be plenty of distance between me and the T/H.


>For sequencing, ever increasing nowadays is the possibility of a swing onto a parallel, which in some cases enables more aircraft in a queue if you stagger them such, depending on conditions, distance apart of runways, vortices and the aircraft capabilities, ATC know that the further back you are the easier and most likely it will be for you to accommodate their invitation for a swing (yeeha!) or have to go-around


So - fine, look out the window and fly it over.


@safelife. . . . .? We might not be doing that much banking so late in the approach, probably in the landing configuration and slow, you know...........?


And Rabbit, you don`t need to worry. Sorry if I was defensive, I am working on it.


There is this article on this very subject given by the chairman of . . . Steve Garret? . . .hmmm any way, thanks once again y`all.


Visual and Way out. If we decide to accept it. If not a go around. Goddit.


@Check Airman, Well, yes it is something which should/could have been covered in PPL. Assuming that is that one did one`s PPL at or close to an airport which has two parallel runways - here on the Orion Arm, not many airports of that ilk, let you straddle about the centreline in a spam can. I assume there are far more in the States.


Admittedly one can cover such stuff on the ground, or even using Microsoft sim too as the realism is quite good.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/nerd.gif


@ misd again
@ pattern_is_full


Thanks that's all I wanted to know.


Rabbit - Don`t ever change you are doing fine and very well. Don`t take any notice of `them` they are but jealous, albeit excellent pilots too, probably http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

[AirRabbit]

When I see a post half-a-page long on a subject as simple as a side-step maneuver, I don't even bother reading it, so I don't have the foggiest how accurate it is. There isn't that much to say about side-steps unless one just likes to hear himself talk or read his own literary heritage.

Quite some time ago I was taught, and have verified its accuracy thousands of times since, that there is no such thing as an “out of place question” if it is asked in a legitimate quest for an answer to improve either knowledge or understanding … or both. I’ve also learned over time that there are many people who are not aware of what is or might become “simple” because they know little, or less, about the subject. In a great number of cases, once the thought-to-be-difficult-to-understand-issue is explained in a manner that makes sense to the questioner, the proverbial “light bulb” illuminates and that person acquires the knowledge and/or information originally sought.

I am also aware that there are many people who have adopted the personal belief, shown by their comments and general patience (or more precisely, a lack thereof), that the current “times” seem to have embraced and treat as “the expected.” This has been described by many as being “the miro-wave age” … derived from acquiring the desired end point in mere seconds instead of minutes or, heaven forbid, hours. Perhaps, sometime in the future, knowledge and experience may be able to be absorbed or “experienced” in such a “micro-wave” manner (even though I personally doubt that very much) – but until such a time comes all of us are going to have to suffer with having to gain experience and knowledge over time and through effort.

Since I joined this forum I’ve really enjoyed a vast majority of the exchanges I’ve had with most of the other participants here. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but it appears that you either dislike or distrust the comments I’ve offered because of the number of words used in those comments. I could attempt to explain the absence of logic in such a decision, but that comment would probably be disregarded as well. Certainly, you are (and anyone else is, for that matter) free to read or ignore anything that I post, or that anyone posts for that matter – and I’m sure that if I’m in error, someone will point that out to me. So, my friend, please feel free and welcome to read and digest what I (or others) have said – or, if you are unwilling to invest the time to do that … or if you believe that such an investment of your time certainly couldn’t be sufficiently rewarding for you to do so … please … feel welcome to disregard completely …. skip right over any or all of my posts. No loss for either of us … well, perhaps.

[cosmo kramer]

Move to Jet Blast... :E

Having fun, Natstrackalpha? :)

[flyboyike]

Aww, why din I figure that one out myself huh?


I don't know, why didn't ya?

[misd-agin]

"I was assuming when I made the post that there would be plenty of distance between me and the T/H."



How far is "plenty of distance"? Even to different pilots you'd get different answers.

Here's another factor, where's the wind coming from? How strong is it? The plane will willing track downwind, especially in a strong wind. Offsetting into the wind to align with an upwind runway takes a bigger turn.

The solution is out the window. Period. Working on some formula won't work. The computer program is your eyes, your brain, and the plane's reaction to your inputs. Make the adjustment, observe the changes, and increase, decrease, or maintain the adjustment based on the reaction of the airplane relative to your new desired location. This is the fun part of flying. :D

[M-ONGO]

Another child of the magenta - or a simmer.

[Capt Fathom]

28 posts on how to side step to the adjacent runway? :ugh:

It's life Jim, but not as we know it!

[Pugilistic Animus]

Just turn the wheel :}

[No Fly Zone]

If a pilot is not fully comfortable with a last minute RW change, advise approach or tower, "UNABLE." the either go around or land on the original RW if ATC permits. NEVER let ATC force or trap you into a situation that you believe to be unsafe. To be more explicit, the reply to ATC/Tower might be expanded, "UNABLE, going around. For our next approach we cannot accept runway changes after (some point is space)."

[Natstrackalpha]

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/editor/quote.gif"Originally Posted by nastrasomething"
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/editor/quote.gif
Get it right - its NastraAzzuro:rolleyes: