ATSB Media Release- B737-800 Darwin Runway Overshoot.
tightcannon
Hate to put holes in your story but a stable approach “DOESN’T” mean just on slope. It means on slope in the landing config at Vapp or Vref as the case may be. Now if DJ’s SOP’s state that the approach must be stable by 500 ft then they should have gone around, period. There are no excuses and I’m glad they realize this and have taken appropriate action to remedy this problem.
I think one of the big traps in all of this was the kind of unstable approach it was. Yes they were fast however when you see the charts the a/c was on slope. So they were sort of stabilised.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O410e,
I can assure you both nose wheels had to be replaced prior to further flight due to both outer wheel hubs suffering impact damage.Damage to the nose wheelswas not reported by flight crew contrary to VB OPS Manual .
The engine ingestion was QF,sorry got me facts mixed up,previous post edited for accuracy.
I can assure you both nose wheels had to be replaced prior to further flight due to both outer wheel hubs suffering impact damage.Damage to the nose wheelswas not reported by flight crew contrary to VB OPS Manual .
The engine ingestion was QF,sorry got me facts mixed up,previous post edited for accuracy.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me prefix this with the fact that I'm certain this is an isolated and rare incident which was unfortunately with VB. The Virgin guys that I have met are thoroughly professional, and good blokes to boot. But...
Failing to report the incident is tantamount to lying. Had the Captain reported the incident and said "hey guys, I stuffed up", I'm certain he would still be in the left hand seat.
THERE IS NO PLACE IN AVIATION FOR DISHONESTY!
I would not enjoy travelling VB knowing that this guy is still out there, albeit in the RHS. Virgin's actions have sent a message to their crew that if you screw up and don't report it, then all tyhat will happen is a demotion. You still have a place in our airline.
BAD message VB.
Failing to report the incident is tantamount to lying. Had the Captain reported the incident and said "hey guys, I stuffed up", I'm certain he would still be in the left hand seat.
THERE IS NO PLACE IN AVIATION FOR DISHONESTY!
I would not enjoy travelling VB knowing that this guy is still out there, albeit in the RHS. Virgin's actions have sent a message to their crew that if you screw up and don't report it, then all tyhat will happen is a demotion. You still have a place in our airline.
BAD message VB.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: brisbane
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan
Hey mate I know what stabilised means but I was trying to point out the traps of an on slope approach with the speed way to high, and rate of speed decay unaceptable. They were just doing what you do every day at the upper levels and that is attempting to judge a deceleration rate, I do not condone thier behavior and you are right 500' (VFR) is the call. I guess my attempt to explain the situation went to the dogs.
Hey mate I know what stabilised means but I was trying to point out the traps of an on slope approach with the speed way to high, and rate of speed decay unaceptable. They were just doing what you do every day at the upper levels and that is attempting to judge a deceleration rate, I do not condone thier behavior and you are right 500' (VFR) is the call. I guess my attempt to explain the situation went to the dogs.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Getting there..!
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach window:
maintaining on slope
IVSI maintaining within sensible limits
Correct flap configuration
IAS at VREF + addidtives (if any)
Engines spooled to a known setting
maintaining on slope
IVSI maintaining within sensible limits
Correct flap configuration
IAS at VREF + addidtives (if any)
Engines spooled to a known setting
Last edited by TAY 611; 30th Mar 2004 at 06:01.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That quote used to be very funny until you used it, Tay. Quite inappropriate, mate.
The problem with the parameters you provided, Tay, are that they are negotiable depending upon individual perception. Now, that may have been OK quite a few years ago, but in todays environment operators must give their pilots something "to hang their hat on". That's for everyone's benefit.
For example, you may believe that 1500 fpm ROD is "within sensible limits". Others may not. I'm not for a minute saying that we should legislate for every possibility, because it's just not possible. But the parameters you provide are a recipe for disaster.
The problem with the parameters you provided, Tay, are that they are negotiable depending upon individual perception. Now, that may have been OK quite a few years ago, but in todays environment operators must give their pilots something "to hang their hat on". That's for everyone's benefit.
For example, you may believe that 1500 fpm ROD is "within sensible limits". Others may not. I'm not for a minute saying that we should legislate for every possibility, because it's just not possible. But the parameters you provide are a recipe for disaster.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a burrow
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404,
Your bagging old Tightcannon about Stable Approaches, and stating what you think a Stable Approach is - but you missed out about 4 extra things that are part of a Stabilised Approach that are equally important.
I am not going to tell you what they are - you tell us if your such an accademic on the subject.
Your bagging old Tightcannon about Stable Approaches, and stating what you think a Stable Approach is - but you missed out about 4 extra things that are part of a Stabilised Approach that are equally important.
I am not going to tell you what they are - you tell us if your such an accademic on the subject.
Capt Basil Brush
My intension was never to bag Tightcannon. Different companies have different requirements for a stabilize approach. I only mentioned a few that are generally common to all. To clarify it from our operational point of view I will quote our requirements.
In order to comply with Company approach requirements, the following shall be achieved at or
before the altitudes stated:
• Landing configuration by 1,500 feet AAL.
• Stabilized on Glide Slope/Final Approach Path by 1,500 feet AAL.
• Stabilized at VAPP with thrust above idle and landing checklist complete by 1,000 feet AAL.
My intension was never to bag Tightcannon. Different companies have different requirements for a stabilize approach. I only mentioned a few that are generally common to all. To clarify it from our operational point of view I will quote our requirements.
In order to comply with Company approach requirements, the following shall be achieved at or
before the altitudes stated:
• Landing configuration by 1,500 feet AAL.
• Stabilized on Glide Slope/Final Approach Path by 1,500 feet AAL.
• Stabilized at VAPP with thrust above idle and landing checklist complete by 1,000 feet AAL.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for the professional jet guys and girls on this topic. How difficult would it be to hit your desired touchdown zone at the appropriate speed if from 3000 agl to 1000 agl you were to encounter a 40-50 knot tailwind. The ATIS indicated little wind on runway. Would it not be an issue or would it come down to knowing when the tailwind would cease?
DDG,
your information is incorrect, there was no damage to aircraft, and there were no engineering staff employed to service Virgin in Darwin at that time. No nosewheels were changed on the aircraft. I should know, I was there. I was working on the ground in Darwin for Virgin at the time. check your facts buddy. there were only two ex-bne rescue missions during my time in drw, and both were birdstrike incidents involving -700 series aircraft, vh-vbm and vh-vbo.
What NG and the ATSB report failed to mention was the fact that the operating crew failed to check the aircraft for damage on arrival on the gate and advise Virgin of any defects.Damage was found by Airport safety Officer .Rescue mission had to be done ex-BNE to change both nose wheels(damaged by runway lights) .
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tay, I have figured it out.
You really aren'y very clever, but you think that you are. You have just spent all that time explaining my very own position, all because you clearly did not understand my post.
Read the post again, mate, and this time try to understand it, hmmm?
I did not say 1500fpm was acceptable. What I said was the requirements for a stable approach must be clearly defined. In YOUR definition, there are no clearly defined limits, and thus it is open to interpretation.
OK, there's your definition. To someone else this may mean:
3 degree glide slope
VSI 2000fpm
flaps15
IAS VRef + 110kts (accounting for the high ROD)
35% N1 (A known setting)
Obviously a very poor profile. But it loosly fits YOUR definition of stable.
Understand what I'm saying now, hmmmm?
And don't use the holy grail again, I used to like that movie until you came along.
You really aren'y very clever, but you think that you are. You have just spent all that time explaining my very own position, all because you clearly did not understand my post.
Read the post again, mate, and this time try to understand it, hmmm?
I did not say 1500fpm was acceptable. What I said was the requirements for a stable approach must be clearly defined. In YOUR definition, there are no clearly defined limits, and thus it is open to interpretation.
Approach window:
maintaining on slope
IVSI maintaining within sensible limits
Correct flap configuration
IAS at VREF + addidtives (if any)
Engines spooled to a known setting
maintaining on slope
IVSI maintaining within sensible limits
Correct flap configuration
IAS at VREF + addidtives (if any)
Engines spooled to a known setting
3 degree glide slope
VSI 2000fpm
flaps15
IAS VRef + 110kts (accounting for the high ROD)
35% N1 (A known setting)
Obviously a very poor profile. But it loosly fits YOUR definition of stable.
Understand what I'm saying now, hmmmm?
And don't use the holy grail again, I used to like that movie until you came along.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proploser
You really aren'y very clever, but you think that you are.
Tay is quite correct in what he says.
2000 fpm or even 1500 fpm rate of descent would not be regarded by any pilot as "within sensible limits" for the final stages of an approach, and to try and cover that with the "110 kts additive to Vref" just shows that you know nothing about SOP's combined with a poor amount of technical proficiency.
Your argument is a waste of space (as usual).
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NG, I think you might need to read props post again there, fella. I don't think that he was telling you that 1500 or 2000 fpm is acceptable. He say's "obviously a very poor profile" there, doesn't he?
I think you've just made a fool of yourself NG, yet again. Or do we need another independent audit?
IMHO, as an operator, your pilots need to be given clear guidelines as to what is a stable approach, otherwise you won't be able to hang the guys when they screw up.
I think you've just made a fool of yourself NG, yet again. Or do we need another independent audit?
IMHO, as an operator, your pilots need to be given clear guidelines as to what is a stable approach, otherwise you won't be able to hang the guys when they screw up.
Last edited by Cactus Jack; 30th Mar 2004 at 04:12.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Getting there..!
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi there Prop lever answers in CAPITALS:
3 degree glide slope -SOUNDS NORMAL
VSI 2000fpm -SOUNDS HIGH FOR MOST CAT C/D TYPES
flaps15 -I GUESS SOME TYPES USE FLAP 15 FOR LANDING
IAS VRef + 110kts (accounting for the high ROD) -WAY TOO FAST (WHATS YOUR POINT)
35% N1 (A known setting) -ON THE TYPES I AM FAMILIAR WITH (BAe 146 & GIV) IT WOULD BE TOO LOW HOWEVER ON YOUR AEROPLANE... WELL YOU SHOULD KNOW
Just a question there Proppie why all the AGRO when all I did was post a generic window that I and others use (It varies from type to type hence why I quoted no numbers) along with a bit of humour?
Just so that you can remain a MP fan I have removed the offending statement.
Cactus, I am left with the impression that this forum is here for rumours and exchange of information. If everytime someone says anything that you don't agree with and you call them a fool (or "Stupid" there Proplever), I suspect that they will take their opinions elsewhere and you will not learn anything (unless you allready know it all).
3 degree glide slope -SOUNDS NORMAL
VSI 2000fpm -SOUNDS HIGH FOR MOST CAT C/D TYPES
flaps15 -I GUESS SOME TYPES USE FLAP 15 FOR LANDING
IAS VRef + 110kts (accounting for the high ROD) -WAY TOO FAST (WHATS YOUR POINT)
35% N1 (A known setting) -ON THE TYPES I AM FAMILIAR WITH (BAe 146 & GIV) IT WOULD BE TOO LOW HOWEVER ON YOUR AEROPLANE... WELL YOU SHOULD KNOW
Just a question there Proppie why all the AGRO when all I did was post a generic window that I and others use (It varies from type to type hence why I quoted no numbers) along with a bit of humour?
Just so that you can remain a MP fan I have removed the offending statement.
Cactus, I am left with the impression that this forum is here for rumours and exchange of information. If everytime someone says anything that you don't agree with and you call them a fool (or "Stupid" there Proplever), I suspect that they will take their opinions elsewhere and you will not learn anything (unless you allready know it all).
Last edited by TAY 611; 30th Mar 2004 at 06:56.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair call Tay and I'll let the old proppy answer for himself, but along with NG, I don't think you get his point either.
My reading of his post is that those conditions are obviously not a stable approach. Thats quite clear, and he has said that. But those conditions DO fit into your definition. I think he's saying that your definition won't work.
Love the quote though. Why'd you remove it?
My reading of his post is that those conditions are obviously not a stable approach. Thats quite clear, and he has said that. But those conditions DO fit into your definition. I think he's saying that your definition won't work.
Love the quote though. Why'd you remove it?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand by what I said.
His "example" is a poor attempt to deviate from TAY 611's concept of a stable approach.
NOBODY believes that 1500 to 2000 fpm is within "SENSIBLE" limits during the final stages of an approach, and to then say that to compensate for that, he will carry an extra 110 kts above Vref just shows that he has no idea.
Again, NOBODY would believe that these are "SENSIBLE" limits, except maybe old Proppy!
TAY 611 is quite correct, and accurate.
His "example" is a poor attempt to deviate from TAY 611's concept of a stable approach.
NOBODY believes that 1500 to 2000 fpm is within "SENSIBLE" limits during the final stages of an approach, and to then say that to compensate for that, he will carry an extra 110 kts above Vref just shows that he has no idea.
Again, NOBODY would believe that these are "SENSIBLE" limits, except maybe old Proppy!
TAY 611 is quite correct, and accurate.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Cactus. But I don't think that NG can read. Go back and try to read it again NG you fool.
I did not say that 1500 to 2000 feet per minute was a stable approach. I said the exact opposite in order to highlight the problem with Tay's definition.
For the last time, you cannot just say "IVSI within sensible limits". You must define what "sensible limits" are. Same for the remainder of the parameters. They must be defined or someone who can't read, like NG will misinterpret them.
Has my point been made now? Feel like a fool having reread everything NG? Independent audits have concluded that you are f
ing stupid. Dear oh dear.
No agro Tay. You have a nice day.
I did not say that 1500 to 2000 feet per minute was a stable approach. I said the exact opposite in order to highlight the problem with Tay's definition.
For the last time, you cannot just say "IVSI within sensible limits". You must define what "sensible limits" are. Same for the remainder of the parameters. They must be defined or someone who can't read, like NG will misinterpret them.
Has my point been made now? Feel like a fool having reread everything NG? Independent audits have concluded that you are f
ing stupid. Dear oh dear.No agro Tay. You have a nice day.