Airblue down near Islamabad
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: north-south of nowhere
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thats not a decommisioned strip. the highway was being widened and that construction work caused ALOT of inconvinience when going up and down to the airport from my place, which happens to be about 2 miles from the crash site.
theres are a few straight stretchs of newly constructed roads in the city which may appear like a runway to a non local operator, but even those are way outside the circling area.
knowing the parttern flown in OPRN by all operators, including CX, BA, Qatar, EY, EK etc. they stay west of the highway, and the track is pretty much parallel to the highway. they start the base turn just abeam where the red line is marked on the map. most operators fly a teardrop when flying this circle to land instead of the the 30 degree offset followed by a parallel downwind.
theres are a few straight stretchs of newly constructed roads in the city which may appear like a runway to a non local operator, but even those are way outside the circling area.
knowing the parttern flown in OPRN by all operators, including CX, BA, Qatar, EY, EK etc. they stay west of the highway, and the track is pretty much parallel to the highway. they start the base turn just abeam where the red line is marked on the map. most operators fly a teardrop when flying this circle to land instead of the the 30 degree offset followed by a parallel downwind.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to jump back a few posts where someone suggested that "cockpit gradient" could be solved by adding a 2nd F/O , Er, just remind me how many of these were sat in the front in AMS when Turkish showed the problems with having ex air force pilots in almost all your left hand seats.
Having a little experience of a Turkish company , and the mentality of their ex fighter jocks, it is a BIG problem,& this straight from the horses mouths of the local F/O's I flew with.
CRM/MCC ? forget it !
Having a little experience of a Turkish company , and the mentality of their ex fighter jocks, it is a BIG problem,& this straight from the horses mouths of the local F/O's I flew with.
CRM/MCC ? forget it !
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
denlop - I bow to your local knowledge, but looking at May 2009 Google Earth image
I think there is some credibility in the theory? After all, we've had nothing else.
I think there is some credibility in the theory? After all, we've had nothing else.
Captplaystation,
You're absolutely right. Take a look at the turkish crash at EHAM thread, the very last page. Cockpit gradient problems can be impossible to solve in some regions...
You're absolutely right. Take a look at the turkish crash at EHAM thread, the very last page. Cockpit gradient problems can be impossible to solve in some regions...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: north-south of nowhere
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
theory yeah, but from an old pic.
the road has now been completed and is open. the highway you see in the pic you posted has now been doubled in width essentially. heres a pic from 2004 of that same intersection. that specific area is just in the corner but is visible
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
but yes i can think of a few other roads which could be mistaken for a runway.
the road has now been completed and is open. the highway you see in the pic you posted has now been doubled in width essentially. heres a pic from 2004 of that same intersection. that specific area is just in the corner but is visible
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
but yes i can think of a few other roads which could be mistaken for a runway.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: north-south of nowhere
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well actaully, having a pure civilian in AirBlue is rear as over 85% of their crew are ex-PAF, captains and FOs. the Captain on the flight was one of the few non military guys in the outfit. and there is not such rift between military and non military guys.
for Shaheen Int'l, almsot all their crew is ex PAF, but ofcourse that airline was started by the minstry of defence for ex Military pilots
for Shaheen Int'l, almsot all their crew is ex PAF, but ofcourse that airline was started by the minstry of defence for ex Military pilots
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: KIAD east downwind
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DME ARC
BOAC, now if they really do that teardrop along the highway and break left abeam that airfield-like structure, then it is possible to fly a 4.5 (or so) DME arc to final and remain within 3sm of the field. Hm…
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: north-south of nowhere
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it doesnt have to be a DME arc, just make a tight left turn and you end up on base. if you are visual you continue, otherwise keep the turn going, head to the beacon and go missed. and yes you avoid all the prohibited areas doing this.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off topic again, but for the avoidance of doubt,
- there is NO requirement to 'head to the beacon', and if you are talking about a g/a from base the most sensible option would be to head direct for the 240 radial, I would suggest.
otherwise keep the turn going, head to the beacon and go missed.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the ragged edge
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
International etiquette
Exactly denlopviper,
There's not just one way to do everything. US Intn'l non-radar guidance the AIM allows several methods of course reversal, procedure turn etc; all up to the pilot on how to accomplish them as long as he remains within protected airspace IIRC. And every airline operation is different. In the states the airline's FAA POI may or may not grant permission for interpretations of FAR to the particular airlines advantage. He'll consider a lot of things before making his decision on whether or not to grant relief or concurrence with the stated request.
The going outside the airport's reported vis in statue miles (say vis is 2sm) is a good example. If your outfit allows you to do it, then it's up to the crew to stay within the (obstacle) protected airspace area and keep visual with the airport area and the terrain. We had a stipulation on us, by our POI's judgement, that we had to first identify the landing runway threshold before we could venture further out into protected airspace (to loosen up the pattern). That was if the pilot's vis was better than reported by the airport. As other posters have commented, this means you might loose sight of the runway briefly in the turns, in the real world.
In Pakistan, who knows what the local procedures are as practiced by the local carriers as governed by their CAA? We were about to find out until one of us started shouting "You're not a pilot" because you said 12 mile DME arc.... etc
Which of course, is not what he said.
I mean, English is a second language for the guy. In the dozens of countries I flew into it was a common truth that you couldn't just take the guy's verbage literally. You had to ask the question several different ways several times to figure out what he means. But being polite was essential.
In Pakistan, it's been said in this thread, that the head of Defense was also the head of PIA. If true, it would likely follow that the Defense minister's son would get trained in the sim, since he was a cadet already, and fly positioning flights for the airline. Can he call himself a legal pilot? No. But I've been at airlines where Captain's sons and mechanics, FAA guys, Flight Engineers, board members, flight attendants and doctors all flew the equipment a little bit in the old days. Then on their days off, they might fly GA airplanes for free as co-pilot to gain experience.
If that's the case, then why run this guy off in such a rude fashion? Deposing his every word as if he was on trial? Just because he took a little "journalistic license?" Most flying rags in the US are the same. Many journos admire and pretend to be "pilots" since they once touched the controls of a jet for an article. O.K, we know he's a journalist as he stated that from the start. I've read his stuff, and it's 100 percent better than the trash that's aired by CNN or FOX for example, with non-flying journos. I agree with Meekal's last sentiment especially, that the airmen I knew of the old established trunk airlines, were polite, well-educated, articulate gentlemen, who would not exclude from the going conversation others in the industry with different backgrounds or different responsibilities. This guy's family background was in government and maybe journalism, and he no doubt flew various aircraft at the field for his father, so his father's background certainly is relative.
And to make the insulting comment that he is not entitled to have an opinion about or criticize his own government ("you hate the gov" )is the height of exaggeration. His remarks here on PPRuNe were all in the context of, and related to, air safety, as he cited numerous examples of covered-up accidents (that I never even knew occurred); it was not some vendetta against the government imho.
Then there's this bizarre attitude, held by some, that mountains 4,000 feet high only a couple miles from the edge of the pan-ops protection zone are not really "mountains near the airport" and don't justify a safety backup like airborne weather radar. Let's say he was shaving mountains, hills, whatever, at 7nm. At 180 kts zero wind, he would be doing 3nm/min. But let's just say, hypothetically, he starts the circle too high, and up high, there's a twenty-knot quartering tailwind (just for the worst-case sake of argument), so now we're doing say, 190 kts ground speed or 3.16 nm/min. Maybe that's only 45 seconds or less to impact past the 5.x pan ops obstacle protected area. Right?
But glass pilots never think about wind while hand flying and making turns, because none of them ever has the ROSE display up, where you can look at a full compass rose (especially the back side as it's rotating) and say to yourself, O.K., the wind up here is out of 090 at twenty knots, since I told the F/O to quit dickin with the electric toys and instead just roll in the runway 12 heading in the FCP course window; BEHOLD: I now can now tell, at a glance, map shift or no, whether or not I remembered to turn downwind. I also can tell, since I never fly on autopilot much, that since the 090 is now to the right of my tail that this next turn to base will have to start way early, since the wind will now be trying to push me into those hills that don't qualify as "terrain close to the airport".
Egads, just how many airframes do I know of, still sitting there around the world, in hills ten miles from the airport? Dozens. But these Brave Sim Gods, in their Proud Simulators have never hiked up there and looked at them. These brave new Pushbutton Pilots of Tomorrow, think map shift and distraction are impossible.
411a is right. Basic airmanship no longer exists at many airlines who swallow the "automation will always save you" argument that is peddled by some manufacturers. Honeywell glass is a horrible distraction and insidious additive crutch even when everything works right. As these airframes get older, more and more distracting anomalies are going to plague a crew already in high-workload operations.
The above are just all my opinions only.
CC
There's not just one way to do everything. US Intn'l non-radar guidance the AIM allows several methods of course reversal, procedure turn etc; all up to the pilot on how to accomplish them as long as he remains within protected airspace IIRC. And every airline operation is different. In the states the airline's FAA POI may or may not grant permission for interpretations of FAR to the particular airlines advantage. He'll consider a lot of things before making his decision on whether or not to grant relief or concurrence with the stated request.
The going outside the airport's reported vis in statue miles (say vis is 2sm) is a good example. If your outfit allows you to do it, then it's up to the crew to stay within the (obstacle) protected airspace area and keep visual with the airport area and the terrain. We had a stipulation on us, by our POI's judgement, that we had to first identify the landing runway threshold before we could venture further out into protected airspace (to loosen up the pattern). That was if the pilot's vis was better than reported by the airport. As other posters have commented, this means you might loose sight of the runway briefly in the turns, in the real world.
In Pakistan, who knows what the local procedures are as practiced by the local carriers as governed by their CAA? We were about to find out until one of us started shouting "You're not a pilot" because you said 12 mile DME arc.... etc
Which of course, is not what he said.
I mean, English is a second language for the guy. In the dozens of countries I flew into it was a common truth that you couldn't just take the guy's verbage literally. You had to ask the question several different ways several times to figure out what he means. But being polite was essential.
In Pakistan, it's been said in this thread, that the head of Defense was also the head of PIA. If true, it would likely follow that the Defense minister's son would get trained in the sim, since he was a cadet already, and fly positioning flights for the airline. Can he call himself a legal pilot? No. But I've been at airlines where Captain's sons and mechanics, FAA guys, Flight Engineers, board members, flight attendants and doctors all flew the equipment a little bit in the old days. Then on their days off, they might fly GA airplanes for free as co-pilot to gain experience.
If that's the case, then why run this guy off in such a rude fashion? Deposing his every word as if he was on trial? Just because he took a little "journalistic license?" Most flying rags in the US are the same. Many journos admire and pretend to be "pilots" since they once touched the controls of a jet for an article. O.K, we know he's a journalist as he stated that from the start. I've read his stuff, and it's 100 percent better than the trash that's aired by CNN or FOX for example, with non-flying journos. I agree with Meekal's last sentiment especially, that the airmen I knew of the old established trunk airlines, were polite, well-educated, articulate gentlemen, who would not exclude from the going conversation others in the industry with different backgrounds or different responsibilities. This guy's family background was in government and maybe journalism, and he no doubt flew various aircraft at the field for his father, so his father's background certainly is relative.
And to make the insulting comment that he is not entitled to have an opinion about or criticize his own government ("you hate the gov" )is the height of exaggeration. His remarks here on PPRuNe were all in the context of, and related to, air safety, as he cited numerous examples of covered-up accidents (that I never even knew occurred); it was not some vendetta against the government imho.
Then there's this bizarre attitude, held by some, that mountains 4,000 feet high only a couple miles from the edge of the pan-ops protection zone are not really "mountains near the airport" and don't justify a safety backup like airborne weather radar. Let's say he was shaving mountains, hills, whatever, at 7nm. At 180 kts zero wind, he would be doing 3nm/min. But let's just say, hypothetically, he starts the circle too high, and up high, there's a twenty-knot quartering tailwind (just for the worst-case sake of argument), so now we're doing say, 190 kts ground speed or 3.16 nm/min. Maybe that's only 45 seconds or less to impact past the 5.x pan ops obstacle protected area. Right?
But glass pilots never think about wind while hand flying and making turns, because none of them ever has the ROSE display up, where you can look at a full compass rose (especially the back side as it's rotating) and say to yourself, O.K., the wind up here is out of 090 at twenty knots, since I told the F/O to quit dickin with the electric toys and instead just roll in the runway 12 heading in the FCP course window; BEHOLD: I now can now tell, at a glance, map shift or no, whether or not I remembered to turn downwind. I also can tell, since I never fly on autopilot much, that since the 090 is now to the right of my tail that this next turn to base will have to start way early, since the wind will now be trying to push me into those hills that don't qualify as "terrain close to the airport".
Egads, just how many airframes do I know of, still sitting there around the world, in hills ten miles from the airport? Dozens. But these Brave Sim Gods, in their Proud Simulators have never hiked up there and looked at them. These brave new Pushbutton Pilots of Tomorrow, think map shift and distraction are impossible.
411a is right. Basic airmanship no longer exists at many airlines who swallow the "automation will always save you" argument that is peddled by some manufacturers. Honeywell glass is a horrible distraction and insidious additive crutch even when everything works right. As these airframes get older, more and more distracting anomalies are going to plague a crew already in high-workload operations.
The above are just all my opinions only.
CC
Last edited by Captain-Crunch; 9th Aug 2010 at 06:58. Reason: minor edits, enhancements
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do I start?
- not just in the 'real world' but a fully approved part of circling.
-hmm! I don't think so.
- quite right, as I said. What he actually spoke about was a 'back course to R12'
- you mean like I did?
-what sort of cadet?
- funny - I thought he 'ran himself off' in a huff?
- more a bizarre idea of yours about how to circle-to-land - 'shaving mountains in a circle at 7 miles' 
what on earth is that about? Using weather radar to 'dodge the hills in a circle? - I wonder if you are actually a pilot too. Leaving aside 411A's nightmare FAA tester, you would not get a seat up front that way anywhere, and I would suggest if you have one that you abandon circling forthwith for the sake of everyone else!
Lastly,
- indeed they do, and PPRune has a fine reputation for unmasking such - and getting child molesters convicted too - in its history, and we do prefer the truth rather than the make-believe since that enables a serious focus on events. Of course he may well have been handling the radio for the crew on a scheduled carrier from the jump-seat into a major busy international airport, but I leave the rest of this forum to make their own judgement on that and what it might say about PIA.
Yes, Meekal's insight into the intrigue and politics in Pakistan would have been of use, but presented differently.
you might loose sight of the runway briefly in the turns, in the real world.
We were about to find out
Which of course, is not what he said.
You had to ask the question several different ways several times to figure out what he means.
since he was a cadet already,
If that's the case, then why run this guy off in such a rude fashion?
Then there's this bizarre attitude,
what on earth is that about? Using weather radar to 'dodge the hills in a circle? - I wonder if you are actually a pilot too. Leaving aside 411A's nightmare FAA tester, you would not get a seat up front that way anywhere, and I would suggest if you have one that you abandon circling forthwith for the sake of everyone else!Lastly,
Many journos admire and pretend to be "pilots" since they once touched the controls of a jet for an article.
Yes, Meekal's insight into the intrigue and politics in Pakistan would have been of use, but presented differently.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
I couldn't agree with you more. Meekal is indeed a strange person. First he makes us believe that he is a pilot. Then he starts to take on the local CAA as well as PIA.
He also belittles a pilot by saying that getting into AMS, the pilot incorrectly told him that the controller was bringing him in from the North, whereas it was from the other direction.
And, now when he is caught out, he sulks off and guess what, goes off to another aviation site www.historyofpia.com and starts spreading pearls of wisdom to the unsuspecting.
CC
Please don't support a person who is firstly not a pilot, only posing to be one and secondly is acting as judge and jury on an accident which he knows very little about sans what he has been able to put together from various aviation sites.
I couldn't agree with you more. Meekal is indeed a strange person. First he makes us believe that he is a pilot. Then he starts to take on the local CAA as well as PIA.
He also belittles a pilot by saying that getting into AMS, the pilot incorrectly told him that the controller was bringing him in from the North, whereas it was from the other direction.
And, now when he is caught out, he sulks off and guess what, goes off to another aviation site www.historyofpia.com and starts spreading pearls of wisdom to the unsuspecting.
CC
Please don't support a person who is firstly not a pilot, only posing to be one and secondly is acting as judge and jury on an accident which he knows very little about sans what he has been able to put together from various aviation sites.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ss41 - thanks for jogging my memory there - I had not visited that forum for a few days, but what IS again of interest there is 'Tailwind' (who appears to know a bit about it) saying on Sunday
"First there are published procedures for NDB or VOR approach for rwy 12 OPRN, however these are non-precision approached. These procedures have their own limitations and minimas as is the case with any approach. "
My bold - I think there is more to fall out here.
Meekal is sadly still feeding confusion into that forum as well - on Friday, circling R12 - 'you should not go further than 2.5DME' - could make for an interesting final
"First there are published procedures for NDB or VOR approach for rwy 12 OPRN, however these are non-precision approached. These procedures have their own limitations and minimas as is the case with any approach. "
My bold - I think there is more to fall out here.
Meekal is sadly still feeding confusion into that forum as well - on Friday, circling R12 - 'you should not go further than 2.5DME' - could make for an interesting final
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
Any procedures that the country intends to be for public use would appear in their ICAO-compliant AIP. Those procedures would be charted by both Jeppesen and Lido.
ss41 - thanks for jogging my memory there - I had not visited that forum for a few days, but what IS again of interest there is 'Tailwind' (who appears to know a bit about it) saying on Sunday
"First there are published procedures for NDB or VOR approach for rwy 12 OPRN, however these are non-precision approached. These procedures have their own limitations and minimas as is the case with any approach. "
"First there are published procedures for NDB or VOR approach for rwy 12 OPRN, however these are non-precision approached. These procedures have their own limitations and minimas as is the case with any approach. "
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
If they appear in the AIP they are public and for everyone's use, subject to approach category limitations.
There is also a provision, not used by all ICAO member states, to issue non-public procedures to sponsoring carriers, but that is a very limited process.
If you are implying "cocktail napkin" procedures those are usually not flown in IMC in radar airspace, and especially not by air carriers.
Depends how they are 'published' does it not?
There is also a provision, not used by all ICAO member states, to issue non-public procedures to sponsoring carriers, but that is a very limited process.
If you are implying "cocktail napkin" procedures those are usually not flown in IMC in radar airspace, and especially not by air carriers.