Below the GS at SFO again

[bubbers44]

BS, are you talking about the 777 with no engines? I think they did a great job of not killing anybody. I put them up in the Sully catagory.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Originally Posted by bubbers44

LSM I don't think any pilot on earth would be at 600 ft 6 miles out and look out his window and think that looks about right. I will keep descending. Do you?

Well, I'm aware of at least one...or two.

[flarepilot]

many years ago I read quite a bit about the visual miscues of flying...one of the wisest was one of the most basic...and that ''depth perception'' really doesn't work, or else no one would ever bump wingtips on the ground.having read these interesting books and words like...above 800 feet or so, nothing makes sense to the tired eye, I vowed to always check myself on visual approaches, esp in large planes


I am not alone in this as many pilots have landed at SFO without much of a problem. So, are we all super pilots and asiana pilots are average? No...somewhere these men entrusted with a very large plane and 300 people missed some basics.

whenever a baseball team sucks, its back to the basics

so to a pilot...are you screwing up? go back to the basics.


Stable approaches hopefully by 1000' and certainly no lower than 500'. USE all available aids, known distances, 3 to 1 rule, DME, glideslopes of ILS or PAPI or kinds of computerized.

Looking out the window does work esp with papis.

A student of mine from many years ago wrote me...he is now flying transatlantic runs...he reminded me of the visual scan for any landing...runway airspeed, over and over. Add to that descent rate, pre calculated based on groundspeed and you should not be crashing.

one hand on control yoke, one on the throttes/thrust levers and never let the plane fly you.

Crossing the San Mateo Bridge at 1900 feet is not out of the question for any plane...configure early if you have to, I"ve seen L1011s with their gear down 16 miles from the airport.

[jandakotcruiser]

No one adds 50ft to an MDA for circling do they? Isnt it only for straight in CDFAs with no DH listed?

True, most operators do not add 50 ft for a level segment!

When I flew the B737 classics and old classics, I flew thousands of visual approaches and circling approaches too after the DME step downs! Heck, I dove and drove too!

However once on the heavies and widebodies where the characteristics dictate a saner approach would be constant angle approach to MDA+50', I have no problems with that too. No mucho mumbo jumbo for me because on the heavies, I would be lucky to have 2 approaches and landings a month to airports where I hardly remember.

If I am not mistaken in the U S of A, the heavies are not to circle if the CIG is less than 1000' and vis below 2 sm.

[OK465]

Crossing the San Mateo Bridge at 1900 feet is not out of the question for any plane

I don't think many are questioning this in terms of either what any aircraft is capable of, or what the pilot should be capable of....the question is....WHAT exactly IS 1900' actually providing relative to aircraft in the Class B airspace that goes up to 1500' in some proximity.

It was pointed out that traffic pattern altitude for both fixed-wing and rotary is 805' MSL at KSQL. Rounded upward to 900' + 1000' is indeed 1900', but....

all traffic patterns at KSQL are performed southwest of RWY 12/30 and even the IF legs to the RNAV finals for both 12 & 30 are southwest of the both FACs. The distance from DUYET to KSQL is 3.5 NM and from HEMAN is 3.6 NM. Is this pattern traffic really a factor for the 28L or 28R centerlines?

It would appear that any significant separation requirement for SFO traffic would arise due to GA aircraft that are transiting the Class B between SFO 7 DME & 10 DME inbound from, or outbound to the north or northeast of KSQL, i.e. traffic which actually crosses the 28L/R centerlines.

So....are they issued a restriction to "maintain 900' or below" by NORCAL at certain times in this area of Class B airspace that goes up to 1500' for this reason? Or what?

The 'why' is still a reasonable question.

(BTW b44 I was going to call 'Bay' approach but that number's been disconnected)

[MarcK]

So....are they issued a restriction to "maintain 900' or below" by NORCAL at certain times in this area of Class B airspace that goes up to 1500' for this reason? Or what?

I've never had a restriction, other than staying clear of class B. That's 1500' outside of the 10NM ring. Class B is at the surface at the San Mateo bridge. Typical GA crossing the bay are at 9 DME when crossing the extended centerlines if going to Hayward, and more like 12 DME if going to the central valley via SUNOL.

[bugg smasher]

Whilst this does not address the 1900' vs 1800' issue we are here addressing, the complexity of the airspace is worth noting. From the FAA-issued Southwest A/FD Supplemental;


"SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT EXPANDED CHARTED
VISUAL FLIGHT PROCEDURES
(Until Further Notice)

***GENERAL***

San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is subject to stratus moving slowly from West to East, creating a reportable weather ceiling over the airport, while the final approach area for Runways 28R and 28L have no significant ceiling or visibility conditions. And expanded charted visual flight procedure (E/CVFP) has been developed to maximize the level of airport efficiency during the unusual weather conditions described above.

***MINIMUMS***

The E/CVFP incorporates the following weather minimums:

SFO ceiling 2100 feet and visibility 5 miles; or,
SFO ceiling 1000 feet and visibility 3 miles, and, visibility 5 miles in the Eastern quadrant (030–120), and, ceiling 2400 and visibility 5 miles at the automated weather observing system (AWOS) located at N37°34.332 W122°15.592 LOM. In the event the AWOS is inoperative, weather at San Carlos (SQL) is required to be at least ceiling 2400 feet and visibility 5 miles.

Although the listed weather minima are in effect aircraft should not expect simultaneous E/CVFP approaches unless N37°34.332 W122°15.592 AWOS ceiling is at least 3500 feet and visibility is at least 5 miles.

***SPACING AND SEQUENCING***

Controllers will clear aircraft for the E/CVFP in accordance with the provisions of Order 7110.65, Air Traffic Control. They will not utilize phrases requesting or requiring aircraft to ‘‘fly right alongside’’, ‘‘wingtip to wingtip’’, or ‘‘directly abeam’’ other aircraft. Additionally, controllers will not assign instructions or require aircraft to pass and/or overtake other aircraft on the adjacent final approach course. Preferably, aircraft will be vectored to achieve a slightly staggered position of approximately 1/ to 1⁄4 mile behind the aircraft on the adjacent final approach course. Heavy aircraft and B757’s will not be
authorized to overtake another aircraft on the adjacent final approach course. Wake turbulence cautionary advisories will be issued, as appropriate.

***GO-AROUND PROCEDURE***

The Tipp Toe and Quiet Bridge approaches are visual approaches, and as such have no missed approach segment. If a go-around is necessary, aircraft will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower or tracon. To
ensure standard separation from other traffic, these instructions will include the assignment of a specific heading and altitude, Normally, the following procedures will apply:

Tipp Toe Visual Runway 28L
In the event of a go-around turn left heading 265, climb and maintain 3000; or as directed by Air Traffic Control.

Quiet Bridge Visual Runway 28R
In the event of a go-around turn right heading 310, climb and maintain 3000; or as directed by Air Traffic Control."

In any and all events, ladies and gentlemen, let us not allow ths very interesting discussion to descend, predictably, into a trans-Atlantic slagging match. There are very real issues here at SFO, what better way to sort through them, than with the combined and focused intelligence of PPRUNES' own illuminati.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by OK

It was pointed out that traffic pattern altitude for both fixed-wing and rotary is 805' MSL at KSQL. Rounded upward to 900' + 1000' is indeed 1900', but....

- I'm relieved to see you are questioning this too. In the case of RNAV or ILS this separation is NOT achieved, so why is it there? Now you are telling us the patterns do not conflict anyway? Why 2.85 PAPIs (an angle that no-one needs)?

[FullWings]

If you came in on a 3deg approach to 2.85deg PAPIs, you'd still see two whites and two reds. AFAIK, the transition to three whites/reds is normally set 1/6 (0.166) to 1/5 (0.2) of a degree above/below the datum slope. Four whites/reds is 0.5deg off the datum.

As to WHY they're set at 2.85 @SFO, I have no idea...

[BOAC]

Thanks, FW - put in the fading memory bank

[aterpster]

BOAC:

- I'm relieved to see you are questioning this too. In the case of RNAV or ILS this separation is NOT achieved, so why is it there? Now you are telling us the patterns do not conflict anyway? Why 2.85 PAPIs (an angle that no-one needs)?

These are the folks who take input and can provide such explanations:

[email protected]

[underfire]

Fullwings,

It looks like a mathematical and visual 'equivalent'.

VGSI is set at 2.85° GPA with TCH=64,
ILS is 3° GPA with TCH=57

These two GPA's cross at about 2700 feet from threshold at about 200 feet above threshold, so at that point the 3° ILS GS is on the 2.85° VGSI GS.

At 1800 feet the ILS will be about 80 feet high above the VGSI GS.

The RNAV procedure which is being recommended, has a 2.85° GPA and TCH=53.

I am wondering if the 28L GS is different from the 28R GS was an early attempt to provide some aircraft offset between the parallel runways.

Edit: FW, looking at your .2° number. When you are at 1800 feet on the ILS 3° with TCH=57 GS:
the VGSI GS 2.85° TCH=64 altitude is 1719, (81 feet high on the VGSI GS)
and the +0.2° altitude is 1836. (36 feet low on the VGSI GS +0.2°)
(+.16° altitude is 1812, so you are 12 feet below the VGSI GS +0.16°)

Would this altitude difference be enough to show with the lights you are above the GS?

[fleigle]

For your edification;

You Tube

Enjoy,
f

[Basil]

For your edification;

Izzat LHR on a quiet day?

[Basil]

Had this from a US friend

New SFO approach light option for Asiana pilots......................

http://lists.kjsl.com/pipermail/beec...hment-0001.gif

[bubbers44]

LSM, I said pilots looking out the window would be at 600 ft 6 miles out saying that looks about right. Obviously nobody was looking out the window on those two Asian approaches. Normal pilots on a visual approach look outside because they want to actually pilot the aircraft to landing not program it to landing. It has been done quite easily for over 100 years.

[Jaair]

Daylight as well. Kudos to the tower.

[flarepilot]

how did lindbergh manage a safe landing with no navaids, at night, at lebourget, after over 33 hours at the controls, no flight attendants, no relief pilot, no movies, rnav, authothrottles and NO flight attendants...

oh, and he was ahead of schedule with reserves to make rome.

[AirRabbit]

Hey Coagie: Sorry for the delay on this ... life goes on ... but ... I wanted to respond to your comments ... I couldn’t agree more with most of your statements. My experience has been focused almost exclusively on training and qualification issues, methods, and practices and I, too, would not want to cast dispersions on those members of airline community who do not have previous military background/training … but, those who do not and are still competent pilots must have paid dearly for the experience they do have and/or they’ve spent some significant amount of time in another context.

However, instead of looking in the direction of Pipers and Cessnas for that “back to basics” kind of training (while there are likely some who may be better off in going to that extreme) I think the better choice would be the proper and competent use of airplane flight simulation where specific training program requirements (in the form of specifically named and specifically described flight training tasks) are taught by competently trained instructors (and by that I mean trained on how to teach – not teach like they were taught) who know what tasks are to be taught, how to understand what may be or may not be “getting through” to the student, how to structure task assignments using directions that rely on the student to do something one his/her own. By that I mean … instead of telling a student learning to land the airplane, “flare to the landing attitude,” or more precisely “flare to a level flight attitude” - as the student will very likely have to be told what specific attitude that is and rely on “hints” provided by more experienced pilots as to what to do to find that attitude – all of which will provide opportunities to get it wrong or do it by rote memory (and usually will – as no two pilots fly the same and use exactly the same airplane input stimuli in exactly the same way in exactly the same sequence) which will almost always lead to wrong applications. Instead, a really good instructor (the kind of instructor I’ve attempted to describe above) will tell the student to do something that the student should already know how to do. You and I know that airplanes land from a “level-flight attitude – that is … all airplanes, all the time, no exceptions … unless there are unusual circumstances (and those should be covered AFTER the basics are learned). So, when landing training is needed (and it is almost always needed) good instructors should tell the student to fly down to the runway from the final approach … and level off at a specific height above the runway such that the wheels will be (pick a number) feet above the surface – preferably a rather small number, depending on the airplane – and if you’re unsure of the student’s ability to do this – pick a larger number). Then fly at that altitude AND that airspeed all the way down the runway. Also, tell the student “do not climb, do not descend, do not accelerate, and do not decelerate – also do not raise the nose and do not let the nose drop.” An experienced pilot will recognize that these “do not” instructions cannot be maintained without moving the throttles. A good instructor will point out to the student that a small amount of additional power will be required, but should be reminded to not allow the airplane nose to rise or fall and not to let the airspeed climb above or fall below what it was at the end of the flare … until reaching the end of the runway – then a go-around will be conducted.

Recall that the original reason for going through all this was to teach the student how to find what the landing attitude was and how THAT student should be able to find it. So, once the instructor and the student have reached that point, instructing the student to complete the landing, by gradually reducing the throttle(s) to idle at the end of (or throughout) the flare (ensuring “idle” is achieved not later than at touchdown), maintaining the airplane nose at THAT attitude/position), noting, of course, that the airspeed will decay and will allow the airplane to descend to a proper touchdown (which should be properly firm – not hard and not a “grease job”) should be able to be accomplished rather easily.

If the simulator used is properly defined, constructed, programmed, and tested then the above kind of training can (and should) be able to be used to achieve a student who has been properly and completely trained to land the airplane – and that technique is equally applicable to zero wind, up wind, down wind, cross wind, ice, snow, rain, or dry. Of course there would be more specifics when winds are involved – the above will always remain basic. And - with respect to the simulator – like I said, the simulator would have to replicate the airplane – to the largest extent possible … in every area where simulator performance or handling differs from that of the simulator, additional training and/or experience will be required.

The only logical way for every one of the kinds of training tasks, expected outcomes, methods of achieving such training outcomes would logically require some sort of standardized training instructions and rules. From this it is a rather short distance to understand that the more standardized the basic rules - the more standardized the training - and the more standardized the day-to-day operations. If we go back to what we were discussing initially – I think everyone will understand that we are interested in getting well trained, well qualified pilots into the cockpits of today’s airline operations. To me … this means well planned and well executed training and evaluation standards. And, while I may be stepping out a bit here ... I think that is logically in the hands of the regulator.

[Ye Olde Pilot]

Sops are great until it all goes wrong when you need someone who has basic flying skills and some experience