ATSB Media Release- B737-800 Darwin Runway Overshoot.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proploser
Again, I say that I stand behind what I said earlier.
Generally, there is a maximum limit as to what amount of additive may be carried on top of Vref (usually around 20kts). This will be DEFINED in your aircraft or company operations manual.
Thus, to achieve a 3 degree glideslope, carrying your maximum allowable Vref additive, you will never come close to the tripe that you espouse as proof that TAY 611's definition is flawed.
Therefore, "SENSIBLE" limits is not open to interpretation, but rather it is logically linked to achieving the correct glideslope at the specified approach speed.
Also, although you probably know this already because you are such a genius, the additive is to compensate for wind conditions, not your rate of descent.
Therefore, in your "example", assuming that a 110 kt correction was required due to some kind of cyclonic wind conditions, your ground speed would still be relatively slow, which would mean that the resultant Rate of Descent would still not be anywhere near 1500 to 2000 fpm.
I look forward to your reply.
NG
Generally, there is a maximum limit as to what amount of additive may be carried on top of Vref (usually around 20kts). This will be DEFINED in your aircraft or company operations manual.
Thus, to achieve a 3 degree glideslope, carrying your maximum allowable Vref additive, you will never come close to the tripe that you espouse as proof that TAY 611's definition is flawed.
Therefore, "SENSIBLE" limits is not open to interpretation, but rather it is logically linked to achieving the correct glideslope at the specified approach speed.
Also, although you probably know this already because you are such a genius, the additive is to compensate for wind conditions, not your rate of descent.
Therefore, in your "example", assuming that a 110 kt correction was required due to some kind of cyclonic wind conditions, your ground speed would still be relatively slow, which would mean that the resultant Rate of Descent would still not be anywhere near 1500 to 2000 fpm.
I look forward to your reply.
NG
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You just don't get it, do you? Need an independent audit? You couldn't even wrap your mind around that argument, let alone this one.
In each of your posts thus far you have shown an ignorance beyond comprehension. You refuse to go back and READ what has been stated.
You cannot read, or understand, or comprehend, anything, so therefore I'm not going to bother any further.
Good day, NG.
In each of your posts thus far you have shown an ignorance beyond comprehension. You refuse to go back and READ what has been stated.
You cannot read, or understand, or comprehend, anything, so therefore I'm not going to bother any further.
Good day, NG.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: down on the farm
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NG
Never say never or nobody
I wonder what profile the US Space Shuttle uses?
Landing config & on speed with power stable at 500' is all I think we should be getting excited about. You should know by 30, 20 or 10 nm if you are going to make it.
In the p**sing contest of conservatism equals safety, some are moving this gate further and further up the profile, I believe the A330 has to be stable at 2000'. What a joke, even the conservative manufacturer uses 1000'. Friends in HK ask why we fly sooo slowly - I wonder when this rot will end?
Never say never or nobody
NOBODY believes that 1500 to 2000 fpm is within "SENSIBLE" limits during the final stages of an approach
Landing config & on speed with power stable at 500' is all I think we should be getting excited about. You should know by 30, 20 or 10 nm if you are going to make it.
In the p**sing contest of conservatism equals safety, some are moving this gate further and further up the profile, I believe the A330 has to be stable at 2000'. What a joke, even the conservative manufacturer uses 1000'. Friends in HK ask why we fly sooo slowly - I wonder when this rot will end?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any company worth 2 bob and with a current AOC would outline all the requirements for a stabilized approach, including into unique airports like LCY.
Our SOPs are ( VMC ) one dot high or low vasis, not greater than Vapp +10, and ROD below 1000 AGL less than 1000' per minute, no engine limits due to very quick spool up of our type.
Obviously Vapp + 50, 2000'ROD and high on slope at 1200' would not be accepatable and a bit of coomon sense would need to be applied, unfortunately for some, the C&T dept. can't have procedures for every comprehendible situation, thats why they pay us good money.
There, bluddy simple is'nt it ??
If this is not achieved by 500 agl it is to be called ( although ROD obviously called below 1000 ) and if it's still not achieved by 200'......around you go, it's not brain surgery !
In closing, sorry if I offend anyone but I am not a believer in " there but for the grace of god go I " ( mentioned earlier ) , an unstabilized approach, yes, we could and probably have, all made that mistake, continuing with such a bad one and overunning the runway is not forgiveable, bluddy stupid, and if any of you think it could happen to you....let me know who you fly for, I don't wanna fly with ya !!!!!
Our SOPs are ( VMC ) one dot high or low vasis, not greater than Vapp +10, and ROD below 1000 AGL less than 1000' per minute, no engine limits due to very quick spool up of our type.
Obviously Vapp + 50, 2000'ROD and high on slope at 1200' would not be accepatable and a bit of coomon sense would need to be applied, unfortunately for some, the C&T dept. can't have procedures for every comprehendible situation, thats why they pay us good money.
There, bluddy simple is'nt it ??
If this is not achieved by 500 agl it is to be called ( although ROD obviously called below 1000 ) and if it's still not achieved by 200'......around you go, it's not brain surgery !
In closing, sorry if I offend anyone but I am not a believer in " there but for the grace of god go I " ( mentioned earlier ) , an unstabilized approach, yes, we could and probably have, all made that mistake, continuing with such a bad one and overunning the runway is not forgiveable, bluddy stupid, and if any of you think it could happen to you....let me know who you fly for, I don't wanna fly with ya !!!!!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Getting there..!
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cunning, I agree with your comments however a "known" or "expected" power setting at the approach window is important for reasons other than slow engine spool up (even the turboprop types).
If on slope, configured correctly, vertical speed within limits and IAS (along with groundspeed) are normal and yet you are still at flight idle or perhaps finding that you are using a lot more power than normal (love the way those auto throttles work). This is an indication that you are experiencing performance enhancing or degrading windshear which can be a precurser to microburst activity. As a final note to Proplever when we have a procedure or SOP such as a stable approach procedure (which I am sure we all have) it is the technique, which involves the training department, that leads us to good practise. In other words it is the training and understanding of how the procedure is built that has the practise (what we do or the end result) matching the written SOP. What I origionally posted was a technique (from a training manual) and not a SOP.
The bottom line know your SOP's and know what your aeroplane is telling you.
If on slope, configured correctly, vertical speed within limits and IAS (along with groundspeed) are normal and yet you are still at flight idle or perhaps finding that you are using a lot more power than normal (love the way those auto throttles work). This is an indication that you are experiencing performance enhancing or degrading windshear which can be a precurser to microburst activity. As a final note to Proplever when we have a procedure or SOP such as a stable approach procedure (which I am sure we all have) it is the technique, which involves the training department, that leads us to good practise. In other words it is the training and understanding of how the procedure is built that has the practise (what we do or the end result) matching the written SOP. What I origionally posted was a technique (from a training manual) and not a SOP.
The bottom line know your SOP's and know what your aeroplane is telling you.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, point taken Tay.
We do have an N1 value that is recognised as part of a stabilized approach but it is not actually a requirement.
As you quite rightly mentioned, know what the A/C is telling you, or in a word....Airmanship.
As previously mentioned, C & T can't write procedures for every conceivable scenario ( well, they could, but you'd need a freighter to carry it ), at the end of the day, we are expected to stick to SOPs and also use a little nouse.
We do have an N1 value that is recognised as part of a stabilized approach but it is not actually a requirement.
As you quite rightly mentioned, know what the A/C is telling you, or in a word....Airmanship.
As previously mentioned, C & T can't write procedures for every conceivable scenario ( well, they could, but you'd need a freighter to carry it ), at the end of the day, we are expected to stick to SOPs and also use a little nouse.
