Don't try for a greaser on a wet runway in a 737-800
Thread Starter
Don't try for a greaser on a wet runway in a 737-800
Yeap it's a slippery sod
fast over the fence too
Same file as the MAX.
fast over the fence too
Same file as the MAX.
fast over the fence too
Excellent writeup on Skybrary. Not too verbose but with the essential learning details. Makes you wonder though, Captain didn't know about wet runway flap requirements (nor, I assume, did the effo challenge him on that; "wood for the trees", perhaps?), PAPI set at 2.39°...
You're not kidding, 149Vref! But not at full flap, I note...
Excellent writeup on Skybrary. Not too verbose but with the essential learning details. Makes you wonder though, Captain didn't know about wet runway flap requirements (nor, I assume, did the effo challenge him on that; "wood for the trees", perhaps?), PAPI set at 2.39°...
Excellent writeup on Skybrary. Not too verbose but with the essential learning details. Makes you wonder though, Captain didn't know about wet runway flap requirements (nor, I assume, did the effo challenge him on that; "wood for the trees", perhaps?), PAPI set at 2.39°...
And, by the way, no greasers in the wet in any aeroplane, unless you want to burn a bleeding great flat spot on tyres, when the wheel doesn't spin up and/or aquaplanes.
Tootle pip!!
The good old BEA myth about wet runway techniques.
And the origin of uncle Charlie's tent peg landings which led to the three being grounded due to main spar cracks.
The inadequate transition ramps during recarpeting the runways at EGLL didn't help either, nor did hitting reverse on the centre engine at about 50 ft on approach. "Back in the day" I often had to position with BEA --- always grounds for thought --- as I recall, the IIIs progressively lost their individual C.of As as the fatigue cracks progressed.---- sometimes it is probably better not to know too much. And it was good business for whoever supplied BEA with crockery, the routine breakage was substantial.
Tootle pip!!
Reverse on centre engine?
Only aircraft that I had tyre failures was the gripper..mainly because they recut the tyres at least 12 times.
BOAC and SR didn't do positive touchdowns on wet runways because they did nowt.
Taught that aquaplaning speed was Sq.root tyre pressure x C, in practice Bllx, tread design, rubber compound have an influence but lift dumpers solve the problem.
Had a Peugeot 204 aqua plane on the hammersmith flyover at 50 mph..and a couple of years ago I took my aprilia rsv4 up to 220kph on the track at Castellet in torrential rain; neither occurrences match the old flight manuals nor vol 5.
BOAC and SR didn't do positive touchdowns on wet runways because they did nowt.
Taught that aquaplaning speed was Sq.root tyre pressure x C, in practice Bllx, tread design, rubber compound have an influence but lift dumpers solve the problem.
Had a Peugeot 204 aqua plane on the hammersmith flyover at 50 mph..and a couple of years ago I took my aprilia rsv4 up to 220kph on the track at Castellet in torrential rain; neither occurrences match the old flight manuals nor vol 5.
And, as I remember, the III counted as a four engine aircraft with that little ON or OFF engine in the base of the fine, a great advantage for a bunch of BEA blokes after the merger, who jumped over a slew of BOAC pilots for commands ---- due their "four engine" experience.
Tootle pip!!
Tootle pip!!
Airtours
Was a fiddle which stopped gripper one and two guys going onto the 707..vanguard counted as 4 engine jet. Probably a good thing as airtours wrote off two of their 10 707s.
iirc biggest problem for boac guys was the rule that you had to have 100 take offs and landings which some didn't have. Days of the Atlantic barons.
iirc biggest problem for boac guys was the rule that you had to have 100 take offs and landings which some didn't have. Days of the Atlantic barons.
I well remember a Boeing standards chap, at Avalon "back in the day", remarking that there were 109 operators of B707, 108 did it the Boeing way, than there was BEA.
They of the justly infamous BEA "monitored approach".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"British Airways Notice".
Versions of this "document" have been in circulation for many years purporting to be an "official British Airways Notice. It is in fact entirely fictitious. It was created as a piece of mischief-making at the time of the merger of BEA (which used PicMA) and BOAC to create British Airways. It was created by disaffected pilots from BOAC who were strongly opposed to the merger and this was distributed as propaganda to discredit the "opposition". Following the merger longhaul fleets continued to use "conventional" procedures until phased out, and BA has used PicMA as the basis of all its operations since 1997 - with no confusion among its pilots.
"BRITISH AIRWAYS FLIGHT MANUAL CLARIFICATION Of the procedure known in the US as a "monitored approach": British Airways Flight Operations Department Notice ...
There appears to be some confusion over the new pilot role titles. The following will hopefully clear up any misunderstandings.
The titles P1, P2 and co-pilot will now cease to have any meaning within the BA Operations Manual.
They are to be replaced by: Handling Pilot, Non-Handling pilot, Handling Landing Pilot, Non-Handling Landing Pilot, Handling Non-Handling Pilot and Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot..
The Landing Pilot is initially the Handling Pilot and will handle the take-off and landing except in role reversal when he/she is the Non-Handling Pilot for taxi until the Handling Non-Landing Pilot, hands the Handling to the Landing Pilot at eighty knots. B.
The Non-Landing (Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is Handling) Pilot reads the checklist to the Handling Pilot until after Before Descent Check List completion, when the handling Landing pilot hands the handling to the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot who then becomes the Handling Non-Landing Pilot. C.
The Landing pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "decision altitude" call, when the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the Non-Handling Landing Pilot, unless the latter calls "go around', in which case the Handling Non-Landing pilot continues handling and the Non-Handling Landing Pilot continues non handling until the next call of "land" or "go around", as appropriate. In view of the recent confusion over these rules, it was deemed necessary to restate them clearly.
This then should eliminate any confusion."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the disclaimer, this is, in fact, very close the BEA "procedure", I have occupied a BEA jump seat often enough to personally witness same.
Tootle pip!!
