Quality of ATSB reports getting worse?
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I find amusing is that on a pilot's forum no one is talking about the pilots attempts to fix the increased rate of descent. But then again most of the harrumphing about grammar and they and their is from journalists and other pontificating professions.
Even when its in writing you won't accept it.
The Road Safety(Vehicles) Regulations 2009 allow certain types of vehicles to operate up to 4.6 metres in height.
These include:
Car carriers
Hay trucks
Livestock trucks
Vans carrying light freight (separate information bulletins detail the
operating requirements for these types of vehicles)
All vehicles likely to be on a country road passing a rural airport. Your assertion was that the investigator hadn't done their homework and therefore the whole report is wrong.
All bow down
All I know about you is what you post and from what I can tell you make statements that are incorrect. From your focus on the periphery of what happened and your lack of discussion on the actions and thought processes of the pilot I am assuming that you are not a professional pilot.
The Road Safety(Vehicles) Regulations 2009 allow certain types of vehicles to operate up to 4.6 metres in height.
These include:
Car carriers
Hay trucks
Livestock trucks
Vans carrying light freight (separate information bulletins detail the
operating requirements for these types of vehicles)
All vehicles likely to be on a country road passing a rural airport. Your assertion was that the investigator hadn't done their homework and therefore the whole report is wrong.
If you knew me, you wouldn't question.
All I know about you is what you post and from what I can tell you make statements that are incorrect. From your focus on the periphery of what happened and your lack of discussion on the actions and thought processes of the pilot I am assuming that you are not a professional pilot.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSB barking up the wrong tree
The ATSB's findings and "safety message" from the Barwon Heads incident suggest that they believe the pilot's non appreciation of ALA standards was the major factor.
This is WRONG. That aspect was not the major factor and I'm sure most pilots would agree with me.
The major factor was the flight path and the management thereof. This flight path was either chosen by the pilot, or was imposed on him by the circumstances, or was some combination of both.
The ATSB seem to believe that the runway threshold is the target of the flight path. This is not the case. Pilots are trained to touchdown at an "aiming point" which is some distance beyond the threshold. Passing over the threshold at 50 feet, on a descent angle of 3 degrees, for example, puts the aiming point about 300 metres beyond the threshold.
Why 50 feet over the threshold? Pilots are trained to do this because this is the optimum, according to landing performance theory. If this pilot had been conducting the approach in accordance with how he had been trained, and in accordance with his knowledge of landing performance, he would have been about 63 feet (19 metres) above the height of the threshold at the point he passed over the truck.
The aircraft was well below where it should have been. The pilot's poor management of the flight path had entirely eroded the safety margins that are provided by a normal approach.
This is the real "safety message" from this incident. Sure, ALA standards may have been a contributing factor, but only by a few centimetres.
Try again, ATSB.
This is WRONG. That aspect was not the major factor and I'm sure most pilots would agree with me.
The major factor was the flight path and the management thereof. This flight path was either chosen by the pilot, or was imposed on him by the circumstances, or was some combination of both.
The ATSB seem to believe that the runway threshold is the target of the flight path. This is not the case. Pilots are trained to touchdown at an "aiming point" which is some distance beyond the threshold. Passing over the threshold at 50 feet, on a descent angle of 3 degrees, for example, puts the aiming point about 300 metres beyond the threshold.
Why 50 feet over the threshold? Pilots are trained to do this because this is the optimum, according to landing performance theory. If this pilot had been conducting the approach in accordance with how he had been trained, and in accordance with his knowledge of landing performance, he would have been about 63 feet (19 metres) above the height of the threshold at the point he passed over the truck.
The aircraft was well below where it should have been. The pilot's poor management of the flight path had entirely eroded the safety margins that are provided by a normal approach.
This is the real "safety message" from this incident. Sure, ALA standards may have been a contributing factor, but only by a few centimetres.
Try again, ATSB.
Pilots are trained to touchdown at an "aiming point" which is some distance beyond the threshold. Passing over the threshold at 50 feet, on a descent angle of 3 degrees, for example, puts the aiming point about 300 metres beyond the threshold.
Why 50 feet over the threshold? Pilots are trained to do this because this is the optimum, according to landing performance theory.
Why 50 feet over the threshold? Pilots are trained to do this because this is the optimum, according to landing performance theory. If this pilot had been conducting the approach in accordance with how he had been trained, and in accordance with his knowledge of landing performance, he would have been about 63 feet (19 metres) above the height of the threshold at the point he passed over the truck.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try that at places like Mabuiag and Darnley in the Torres Strait.
This thread is not really about landing technique. More about ATSB reports. Suggest you make your comment on the Barwon Heads PA31 thread.
The strips are only 4-500m long, and in the case of Darnley, going in one of the directions is some sporty down slope. You do NOT want to be landing with your suggested aim point 300m past the threshold!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two Dogs Rooting
Do you actually read what you write FGD:
This is a few postings after this:
And this just proves you have absolutely no idea about commercial GA operations:
Those of us who have know exactly what Car RAMROD is talking about.
This thread is not really about landing technique. More about ATSB reports. Suggest you make your comment on the Barwon Heads PA31 thread.
he ATSB's findings and "safety message" from the Barwon Heads incident suggest that they believe the pilot's non appreciation of ALA standards was the major factor.
This is WRONG. That aspect was not the major factor and I'm sure most pilots would agree with me.
The major factor was the flight path and the management thereof. This flight path was either chosen by the pilot, or was imposed on him by the circumstances, or was some combination of both.
The ATSB seem to believe that the runway threshold is the target of the flight path. This is not the case. Pilots are trained to touchdown at an "aiming point" which is some distance beyond the threshold. Passing over the threshold at 50 feet, on a descent angle of 3 degrees, for example, puts the aiming point about 300 metres beyond the threshold.
Why 50 feet over the threshold? Pilots are trained to do this because this is the optimum, according to landing performance theory. If this pilot had been conducting the approach in accordance with how he had been trained, and in accordance with his knowledge of landing performance, he would have been about 63 feet (19 metres) above the height of the threshold at the point he passed over the truck.
The aircraft was well below where it should have been. The pilot's poor management of the flight path had entirely eroded the safety margins that are provided by a normal approach.
This is the real "safety message" from this incident. Sure, ALA standards may have been a contributing factor, but only by a few centimetres.
Try again, ATSB.
This is WRONG. That aspect was not the major factor and I'm sure most pilots would agree with me.
The major factor was the flight path and the management thereof. This flight path was either chosen by the pilot, or was imposed on him by the circumstances, or was some combination of both.
The ATSB seem to believe that the runway threshold is the target of the flight path. This is not the case. Pilots are trained to touchdown at an "aiming point" which is some distance beyond the threshold. Passing over the threshold at 50 feet, on a descent angle of 3 degrees, for example, puts the aiming point about 300 metres beyond the threshold.
Why 50 feet over the threshold? Pilots are trained to do this because this is the optimum, according to landing performance theory. If this pilot had been conducting the approach in accordance with how he had been trained, and in accordance with his knowledge of landing performance, he would have been about 63 feet (19 metres) above the height of the threshold at the point he passed over the truck.
The aircraft was well below where it should have been. The pilot's poor management of the flight path had entirely eroded the safety margins that are provided by a normal approach.
This is the real "safety message" from this incident. Sure, ALA standards may have been a contributing factor, but only by a few centimetres.
Try again, ATSB.
Sounds like you must be landing overweight, Car RAMROD. That's your choice.
