AA Crash Jamaica
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our airline does use FOQA. The only good I have ever heard about from it was a great deal of steep (high rate of descent) approaches at one particular airport...so the company called ATC to make things work better and it did. (Myrtle Beach)...but we don't even fly there anymore.
Now I have a big, tough question. Are the runway lights at this airport the standard height above the runway?
And, we should all know that at night, we ''flare'' where the runway edge lights are...and not at the runway itself...so, in effect, we are flaring too high at night...unless we make a concerted effort not to.
Could the crew have been mis cued becaue of the above?
Now I have a big, tough question. Are the runway lights at this airport the standard height above the runway?
And, we should all know that at night, we ''flare'' where the runway edge lights are...and not at the runway itself...so, in effect, we are flaring too high at night...unless we make a concerted effort not to.
Could the crew have been mis cued becaue of the above?
Big Pistons Forever,
You are a fine example of the point I am trying to make, inward looking and unable to see problems when they exist and expounding the 'fact' that the US leads the way in aviation. This is not backed up by accident rates. You call Europeans 'anal retentive bores'. Europe is made up of many very different countries, none of which would appreciate that description. Except possibly the Germans. Joke!!!!!!
There are some fine aviators in the US, who have travelled the world and seen how the others do it, and take aboard the good points and have witnessed the bad. One problem US aviation faces is that a significant number of aviators have never left US airspace (I include Canada and some countries to the south) and their perception is based on nothing more than national pride.
You say anal, we say careful. I take some pride that you describe us like that. The US national psyche is much more 'gung ho' and 'can do' than some (or all) European countries and that directly translates into the way some people operate their a/c. If not tempered by adherence to SOP's and knowledge safety margins become eroded. 75% of all landing accidents come at the end of an unstable approach yet how many US majors have mandatory stabilised approach criteria backed up by automatic computerised monitoring? I'm genuinely interested in the answer.
As a further example I offer you LVP's. Unless you've operated into a European airport in LVP's you're going to think that the USA are the best in the world at it. Those who have experienced both environments know this is blatantly not the case.
Please don't take this as a swipe at the good 'ol US, I've lived there and learned to fly there and in my current role approx 30% of my sectors terminate there. Some things are done very well there however until the culture of continuing high energy approaches, willie waving and flying heavy jets like Cessnas is removed these accidents will continue to happen.
Standing by to receive incoming!
LD (anal retentive European)
You are a fine example of the point I am trying to make, inward looking and unable to see problems when they exist and expounding the 'fact' that the US leads the way in aviation. This is not backed up by accident rates. You call Europeans 'anal retentive bores'. Europe is made up of many very different countries, none of which would appreciate that description. Except possibly the Germans. Joke!!!!!!
There are some fine aviators in the US, who have travelled the world and seen how the others do it, and take aboard the good points and have witnessed the bad. One problem US aviation faces is that a significant number of aviators have never left US airspace (I include Canada and some countries to the south) and their perception is based on nothing more than national pride.
You say anal, we say careful. I take some pride that you describe us like that. The US national psyche is much more 'gung ho' and 'can do' than some (or all) European countries and that directly translates into the way some people operate their a/c. If not tempered by adherence to SOP's and knowledge safety margins become eroded. 75% of all landing accidents come at the end of an unstable approach yet how many US majors have mandatory stabilised approach criteria backed up by automatic computerised monitoring? I'm genuinely interested in the answer.
As a further example I offer you LVP's. Unless you've operated into a European airport in LVP's you're going to think that the USA are the best in the world at it. Those who have experienced both environments know this is blatantly not the case.
Please don't take this as a swipe at the good 'ol US, I've lived there and learned to fly there and in my current role approx 30% of my sectors terminate there. Some things are done very well there however until the culture of continuing high energy approaches, willie waving and flying heavy jets like Cessnas is removed these accidents will continue to happen.
Standing by to receive incoming!
LD (anal retentive European)
PTH;
Thanks, re FOQA.
Are you referring to the height of the actual white runway light fixture? Would a difference of even a foot make a difference in judged flare height? I don't think so not perhaps because of the tiny distance difference but because the question assumes that there is a background (the runway surface) against which one sees the light - If that is the case, one can see the runway. If it is that dark and rainy, the surface of the runway will be difficult to see and therefore judge; whether the lights are one foot, six inches or variations on the theme, is not going to materially affect the flare height. In fact, if it's that wet and/or flooded, why flare at all - why not just a slight touch back at, say, ten feet on the RA which the non-flying pilot can call (or the 320 calls for one)? We all know that a touchdown on a wet runway can (and should) be much firmer than a dry one and not be a bone-jarring arrival.
Just a thought.
Thanks, re FOQA.
Are you referring to the height of the actual white runway light fixture? Would a difference of even a foot make a difference in judged flare height? I don't think so not perhaps because of the tiny distance difference but because the question assumes that there is a background (the runway surface) against which one sees the light - If that is the case, one can see the runway. If it is that dark and rainy, the surface of the runway will be difficult to see and therefore judge; whether the lights are one foot, six inches or variations on the theme, is not going to materially affect the flare height. In fact, if it's that wet and/or flooded, why flare at all - why not just a slight touch back at, say, ten feet on the RA which the non-flying pilot can call (or the 320 calls for one)? We all know that a touchdown on a wet runway can (and should) be much firmer than a dry one and not be a bone-jarring arrival.
Just a thought.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spooky2 - I'd forgottan about that string of Delta events. I was recalling the flybys at uncontrolled fields, including one landing(?), and a couple other unfortunate events I think DL experienced in the early 1990's(?).
No one's immune to them. Some make the press, some don't.
No one's immune to them. Some make the press, some don't.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes, I am refering to the white lights at the edge of the runway. if you flare and hold off at the lights instead of the runway...you could go on forever (assuming you are a bit fast).
I've watched dozens of pilots make this basic mistake.
And yes, I agree with you...even in my prehistoric jet, I used to set about 5 feet on my RA and when the light went on, I slightly arrested my descent with a slight back pressure but did not stop the descent entirely.
we flare based on our side to side vision and I think it all boils down to fundamentals.
just like a football team that is losing too often...get back to fundamentals.
I've watched dozens of pilots make this basic mistake.
And yes, I agree with you...even in my prehistoric jet, I used to set about 5 feet on my RA and when the light went on, I slightly arrested my descent with a slight back pressure but did not stop the descent entirely.
we flare based on our side to side vision and I think it all boils down to fundamentals.
just like a football team that is losing too often...get back to fundamentals.
Well, I always thought that flaring at the correct height came from looking a long way down the runway, not from using peripheral vision or actually turning to the side to judge height. Looking straight ahead a long way down provides good lateral guidance as well - one simply can't judge height quickly/accurately enough "close in". On the Lockheed, we closed the thrust levers at 30', checked back a degree or two and waited and never, ever, pushed forward to roll it on...!).
In a word PTH, I don't think the height of the runway lights affects much in terms of judging flare height.
In a word PTH, I don't think the height of the runway lights affects much in terms of judging flare height.
misd-agin;
Oh I know the difference and why peripheral vision is part of the perceptual requirements - it is being suggested that this is primary and dirty nights where runway lighting height may affect the judgement of height, and I disagree. In Canada our runways are 200ft wide so flying to the US and to the Caribbean (especially on hot days when it was the middle of winter here), we have to be very cognizant of both the runway width, (and the optical illusions created by the narrower pavement) and the "thinner" air - it sometimes made for interesting arrivals. Those runways you mention wider than 200'? If so, how come?
Oh I know the difference and why peripheral vision is part of the perceptual requirements - it is being suggested that this is primary and dirty nights where runway lighting height may affect the judgement of height, and I disagree. In Canada our runways are 200ft wide so flying to the US and to the Caribbean (especially on hot days when it was the middle of winter here), we have to be very cognizant of both the runway width, (and the optical illusions created by the narrower pavement) and the "thinner" air - it sometimes made for interesting arrivals. Those runways you mention wider than 200'? If so, how come?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I forget the width but I think it's AMA that's very wide. Ex SAC base. Wide, wide, wide.
It's like the countries south of the Rio Grande, aircraft's always parked on the leadin line. How do they do that? The leadin line is 6 feet wide!
It's like the countries south of the Rio Grande, aircraft's always parked on the leadin line. How do they do that? The leadin line is 6 feet wide!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some runways are 300 feet wide...yes former Strategic Air Command bases. Formation takeoffs...planes like the B36.
contingency for damaged runways and still needing to get planes into the air.
contingency for damaged runways and still needing to get planes into the air.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the accident/incident rate per 100,000 miles has been higher for EU based airlines as compared to US based ones since accurate stats have been keep. Just to be clear my point about anal retentive was in directly in response to your post about how you appear to consider any radio transmission that does not sound like it was delivered by a pilot with an iron rod inserted up his backside, evidence of an unsafe culture.
Most European aircraft are operated by sensible pilots who know when to be serious and when a bit of levity is in order.....the others are operated by ARB's.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to burst your bubble but the accident/incident rate per 100,000 miles has been higher for EU based airlines as compared to US based ones since accurate stats have been keep.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways / British Airtours
Even counting the Manchester accident, that still means 25 years without a fatality for BA. Any other major gone longer? (pax inflight deaths not counted)
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how many US majors have mandatory stabilised approach criteria backed up by automatic computerised monitoring? I'm genuinely interested in the answer.
(For obvious reasons....)