Airmanship
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: home
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAHAHAHAHAAAAA........!!! 
I had to read that about 6 times to figure what you meant.
You don't really think that, do you?? But if you do, well my friend, I'm flattered you have such a high opinion of me...
Hey there's one thing no one has considered here with this landing:
Maybe it was Aloha's will.
I had to read that about 6 times to figure what you meant.
You don't really think that, do you?? But if you do, well my friend, I'm flattered you have such a high opinion of me...
Hey there's one thing no one has considered here with this landing:
Maybe it was Aloha's will.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: min rest
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think ATC today run aircraft too close for the old runway system that has limited and very short high speed turnoffs placed close to taxiways designed for past generation narrowbodied aircraft.
The tower instruction "Cleared to land" has become "Land after" ( Basically bloody good luck to you as you are nolonger my responsibility do what you like we do not care as we are in the clear legally if there are two or three of you on the runway.)
I consider it poor airmanship to be fixated in making a nearly impossible turn off in the wet and ATC who never issue a MU reading and can avoid liability by asking a prop pilot what the braking action is for a landing jumbo is a totally stupid blind leading the blind system.
I agree with 411A that if you make the runway it is yours until you are satisfied you are at a safe speed to turn off.
ATC telling you to expidite as you flare for landing or killing the ILS on you during an autoland flare is to be deplored and ignored if doing so you would endanger your aircraft.
ATC was a service now it is more like a Control and getting to the point of orders to be followed into danger.
Follow LHR speed instructions to the letter and you will have several go arounds. There is a time lag on their instructions (if they have not forgotten about you) and there is a further time lag as the pilot adjusts speed and it takes effect. This eats up the reduced safety margins and gaurantees a goodly number of ATC accepable goarounds.This situation may stop when enough people die, but do not hold your breath.
The tower instruction "Cleared to land" has become "Land after" ( Basically bloody good luck to you as you are nolonger my responsibility do what you like we do not care as we are in the clear legally if there are two or three of you on the runway.)
I consider it poor airmanship to be fixated in making a nearly impossible turn off in the wet and ATC who never issue a MU reading and can avoid liability by asking a prop pilot what the braking action is for a landing jumbo is a totally stupid blind leading the blind system.
I agree with 411A that if you make the runway it is yours until you are satisfied you are at a safe speed to turn off.
ATC telling you to expidite as you flare for landing or killing the ILS on you during an autoland flare is to be deplored and ignored if doing so you would endanger your aircraft.
ATC was a service now it is more like a Control and getting to the point of orders to be followed into danger.
Follow LHR speed instructions to the letter and you will have several go arounds. There is a time lag on their instructions (if they have not forgotten about you) and there is a further time lag as the pilot adjusts speed and it takes effect. This eats up the reduced safety margins and gaurantees a goodly number of ATC accepable goarounds.This situation may stop when enough people die, but do not hold your breath.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Follow LHR speed instructions to the letter and you will have several go arounds
a goodly number of ATC accepable goarounds.
Double WTF??
Have you actually been to West Drayton and sat and watched the Approach guys and gals?
(Did ya like that one Scrubbed
)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking about Airmanship.........
Seems to me that there are loads of folk who either can't or wont fly a visual approach. Now I know theres loads of times and places where it would not be appropriate either to ask for or accept one. Equally there are loads of opportunities to expedite your own flight and also the one behind you.
Discuss.
Seems to me that there are loads of folk who either can't or wont fly a visual approach. Now I know theres loads of times and places where it would not be appropriate either to ask for or accept one. Equally there are loads of opportunities to expedite your own flight and also the one behind you.
Discuss.
ATC was a service now it is more like a Control
Atc are under an enormous amount of pressure to use the runway as efficiently as possible. ALL this pressure comes from the airlines.
Take Heathrow as an example where the landing rate can be around 40 per hour.
If ATC reduces the inbound spacing by a quarter of a mile, over one hour they save 10 miles-that's three extra movements. If the tight spacing causes one go around per hour the landing rate is still ahead by two.
If you're the unlucky one that gets the go-around, you might come on here and bemoan the airmanship of the one ahead or the spacing from radar but the truth is go-arounds are unavoidable if we are to achieve the runway utilisation demanded by airlines.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
go-arounds are unavoidable
I still want to know WTF this means...............
a goodly number of ATC accepable goarounds
One thinks Roy doesn't want to play anymore........
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right way up
I agree. 24 at EDI is a prime example.
Del Prado.
My point precisely.
If more folk could take/ asked for/ were offered/ would fly a 'visual', it would take some of the heat off ATC. Seems to be the queue that builds up is simply to make sure you're kept clear of the one ahead. But if the one ahead went viz there would be less of a need for seperation and less of a queue would build.
Thats what 'airmanship' used to be about.
I agree. 24 at EDI is a prime example.
Del Prado.
My point precisely.
If more folk could take/ asked for/ were offered/ would fly a 'visual', it would take some of the heat off ATC. Seems to be the queue that builds up is simply to make sure you're kept clear of the one ahead. But if the one ahead went viz there would be less of a need for seperation and less of a queue would build.
Thats what 'airmanship' used to be about.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Surrey
Age: 46
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scanscanscan
What complete rubbish. I would never issue a straight out landing clearance if there was something on the runway. I might use the "after the landing" clearance, but there are safeguards put in place to ensure safety.
And if I were to consider issuing a "land after" clearance, then yes, the burden of responsibility does pass to the aircraft commander, but as we controllers are so often told, the final arbiter for the safety of the aircraft is...you've guessed it, the aircraft commander.
With this instruction (because it IS an instruction not actually a clearance!) I am NOT saying, "i'm going to look the other way and let you think its safe to land on an occupied runway", what I am saying in this instance is "if you feel that, with your experience and judgement, you can safely land your aircraft and stop it with the distance you can SEE you have (hence the necessity to ask if you're visual with the preceeding traffic) then you can attempt it. If you don't think you can then you initiate a missed approach". Its that simple. All we are doing is saying, rather than automatically send you around we'll give you a choice, one which I'd like to point out I have never seen refused.
And as for...
I would like to point out that the "C" in ATC stands for "CONTROL"
I also find it disgusting that you would suggest that we controllers would do something on purpose to endanger your aircraft. If you feel that an instruction puts you in danger then by all means question it, but only if you feel it puts you and your pax at risk. Otherwise, trust us to look after you and try to provide the best service we can.
FB
The tower instruction "Cleared to land" has become "Land after" ( Basically bloody good luck to you as you are nolonger my responsibility do what you like we do not care as we are in the clear legally if there are two or three of you on the runway.)
And if I were to consider issuing a "land after" clearance, then yes, the burden of responsibility does pass to the aircraft commander, but as we controllers are so often told, the final arbiter for the safety of the aircraft is...you've guessed it, the aircraft commander.
With this instruction (because it IS an instruction not actually a clearance!) I am NOT saying, "i'm going to look the other way and let you think its safe to land on an occupied runway", what I am saying in this instance is "if you feel that, with your experience and judgement, you can safely land your aircraft and stop it with the distance you can SEE you have (hence the necessity to ask if you're visual with the preceeding traffic) then you can attempt it. If you don't think you can then you initiate a missed approach". Its that simple. All we are doing is saying, rather than automatically send you around we'll give you a choice, one which I'd like to point out I have never seen refused.
And as for...
ATC was a service now it is more like a Control and getting to the point of orders to be followed into danger
I also find it disgusting that you would suggest that we controllers would do something on purpose to endanger your aircraft. If you feel that an instruction puts you in danger then by all means question it, but only if you feel it puts you and your pax at risk. Otherwise, trust us to look after you and try to provide the best service we can.
FB
PPRuNe Co-Pilot
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Sky
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on guys, i think this is turning into one of those debates Pilots Vs ATC, apart from a few comments i was/am enjoying reading/learning the information from both sides
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well said fly bhoy!
i would never issue a 'after the landing (a/c) cleared to land (rwy)' unless i am absolutely certain that by the time your aircraft crosses the threshold the preceding lander has vacated. i don't consider the alternative, the more widely used 'land after the' (note the lack of cleared) as viable because if i cannot guarantee your separation when it's my responsibility i am not going to dust my hands of it - instead i'm afraid you're going for a radar circuit...
unfortunately commercial pressure is such that the temptation to let safety lapse for it is there. such instances are obviously not acceptable. a serious accident will do much more to damage the industry than a few thousand quids worth of fuel here and there.
finally, if you are ever cleared to land in a situation where you think it's unsafe, you are not under any obligation to do so. it's been mentioned before, the commander has final responsibility for the safety of his aircraft. if you aren't happy, go-around. please.
i would never issue a 'after the landing (a/c) cleared to land (rwy)' unless i am absolutely certain that by the time your aircraft crosses the threshold the preceding lander has vacated. i don't consider the alternative, the more widely used 'land after the' (note the lack of cleared) as viable because if i cannot guarantee your separation when it's my responsibility i am not going to dust my hands of it - instead i'm afraid you're going for a radar circuit...
unfortunately commercial pressure is such that the temptation to let safety lapse for it is there. such instances are obviously not acceptable. a serious accident will do much more to damage the industry than a few thousand quids worth of fuel here and there.
finally, if you are ever cleared to land in a situation where you think it's unsafe, you are not under any obligation to do so. it's been mentioned before, the commander has final responsibility for the safety of his aircraft. if you aren't happy, go-around. please.
With the greatest of respect, at a little country airport yesterday an old guy I met said: "Its better to be explaining why you went around than why you didn't".
I wonder if this saying is applicable?
I wonder if this saying is applicable?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The title of this thread is 'Airmanship'. A good old expression not much in use these days as the trick cyclists have taken over our HF training and replaced it with jingoism and bullsh*t. I shudder to read that we would even consider landing 300 odd tons of metal at Mirage landing speeds on a runway already occupied by a hunk of metal and flesh. I agree with Sunfish. I also am sorry that the post has degenerated into a bash ATC opportunity. Re- the original slow exit from the runway, well even an old salt such as me has been there, braking problems or technical failures towards the end of the landing ground roll can get your attention, taking the smile right off your puss. Then you assume those behind will demonstrate good airmanship and make a safe go around realising that you wouldn't screw them on purpose. Why as aircrew are we always the first to shove the dirk into our contemporaries? Strange breed we are, when we do decide to stick together we inevitably choose the wrong reason at the wrong time and get the bat shoved right up it. Happy flying guys and gals.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Close to Wales
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point & case. Remaining on the runway for longer than expected rather than taking an exit at 60 kts and putting a wheel in the grass = good 'airmanship'. Going around because the aforementioned aircraft is still on the runway = good 'airmanship'. LHR ATC, on the whole you guys & girls are great. Sometimes circumstance is against you & or us. Devils advocate, a go around costs a bit of fuel, so what, it is a lot better than crashing! (Bad airmanship)!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Summary
Bad Airmanship
Crashing.
Being key witness at investigation after nearly crashing, no matter how positive the attitude and how mild the plea bargain...
Severely embarrassing less fortunate others.
Leaving yourself open to someone else's stupidity or their skill/experience deficit.
Breaking something and handing it back without saying anything.
Being glass-jawed.
Not being prepared for the unexpected.
Good Airmanship
Not crashing
Not being investigated
Not making SLF sick
Returning the equipment in a condition and manner in which you would be pleased to find it.
Being prepared for unusual, unexpected and undesirable situations.
Having the capacity to roll with the punches.
VHCU
Bad Airmanship
Crashing.
Being key witness at investigation after nearly crashing, no matter how positive the attitude and how mild the plea bargain...
Severely embarrassing less fortunate others.
Leaving yourself open to someone else's stupidity or their skill/experience deficit.
Breaking something and handing it back without saying anything.
Being glass-jawed.
Not being prepared for the unexpected.
Good Airmanship
Not crashing
Not being investigated
Not making SLF sick
Returning the equipment in a condition and manner in which you would be pleased to find it.
Being prepared for unusual, unexpected and undesirable situations.
Having the capacity to roll with the punches.
VHCU
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Somewhere hot, hot, hot
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Angle got it right.
We've all done clangers: landed long, too fast, too slow, off the centreline, out of the TDZ, held it off a bit too long, left the power on a bit too late, pulled it off too early - we're only human.
After one of those, in the wet, A330 up your chuff, you're thinking 'whoops' and the natural tendency would be to steam round the (non-high speed) turnoff and get off quick, thereby greatly increasing your chances of putting the thing in the long grass if you make a horlicks of it.
Better that they slowed it down and got off in one piece, on the black stuff, with nothing hurt but a little pride.
Poor airmanship maybe, but the drama didn't become a crisis because of a cool head, at least.
We've all done clangers: landed long, too fast, too slow, off the centreline, out of the TDZ, held it off a bit too long, left the power on a bit too late, pulled it off too early - we're only human.
After one of those, in the wet, A330 up your chuff, you're thinking 'whoops' and the natural tendency would be to steam round the (non-high speed) turnoff and get off quick, thereby greatly increasing your chances of putting the thing in the long grass if you make a horlicks of it.
Better that they slowed it down and got off in one piece, on the black stuff, with nothing hurt but a little pride.
Poor airmanship maybe, but the drama didn't become a crisis because of a cool head, at least.
