Below the GS at SFO again
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clildren of magenta
bugg smasher,
Just wanted to let you know that "children of magenta" was not invented by Gretchenfrage, but a long time ago by some guy with American airlines. Since several years this term is commonly used in discussions about auto-flight addiction. Check out this video if you don't know it already!
Just wanted to let you know that "children of magenta" was not invented by Gretchenfrage, but a long time ago by some guy with American airlines. Since several years this term is commonly used in discussions about auto-flight addiction. Check out this video if you don't know it already!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bugg smasher
require you to be at 1900'
“A Black-Hole Approach Illusion can happen during a final approach at night, with no stars or moonlight, over water or unlighted terrain to a lighted runway beyond which the horizon is not visible. When peripheral visual cues are not available to help you orient yourself relative to the earth, you may perceive the runway to be tilted left and up sloping.
In the example [circa 2003], the final approach fix (FAF) was at 5nm, but to fly a 3-deg flight path the descent should be delayed until 4.3nm.
An early descent from the FAF creates a shallow approach, and if the standard descent rate is used the aircraft will descend below the ideal flight path.
The VOR/DME is 0.4 nm before the runway threshold, thus some effort is required to cross check altitude against range to monitor the approach.
The approach chart used variable range scaling that indicated the DME displacement at approximately 1.5nm instead of 0.4nm, this might have encourage an early descent. The chart did not have an altitude – range table for the non-precision approach.
The analysis considered incorrect FMS programming, an early 3 degree approach, and a deliberate ‘dive and drive’ procedure.
However, none of the scenarios matched the recorded flight path.”
“A long straight-in final. A runway in a remote location, few lights in the local area, but with a town in the distance beyond the airport or to the side.”
Slides 7-10 ‘Understanding Visual Illusions And Disorientation.’
For the TEM gurus, how many 'threats' in this scenario?
In the example [circa 2003], the final approach fix (FAF) was at 5nm, but to fly a 3-deg flight path the descent should be delayed until 4.3nm.
An early descent from the FAF creates a shallow approach, and if the standard descent rate is used the aircraft will descend below the ideal flight path.
The VOR/DME is 0.4 nm before the runway threshold, thus some effort is required to cross check altitude against range to monitor the approach.
The approach chart used variable range scaling that indicated the DME displacement at approximately 1.5nm instead of 0.4nm, this might have encourage an early descent. The chart did not have an altitude – range table for the non-precision approach.
The analysis considered incorrect FMS programming, an early 3 degree approach, and a deliberate ‘dive and drive’ procedure.
However, none of the scenarios matched the recorded flight path.”
“A long straight-in final. A runway in a remote location, few lights in the local area, but with a town in the distance beyond the airport or to the side.”
Slides 7-10 ‘Understanding Visual Illusions And Disorientation.’
For the TEM gurus, how many 'threats' in this scenario?
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- to avoid misinformation, please note that '1900' to the bridge' is 'recommended' and not mandatory.
"Aircraft should cross the OAK VOR R-151/16.1 DME (Menlo Int) at or above 5000 and the San Mateo Bridge at or above 1900."
Duly noted the word 'should', is still not as conclusive as the word 'mandatory'.
There are a few very good reasons for this altitude, it keeps you inside of Class B Airspace, which keeps you away from the light aircraft traffic operating out of San Carlos Airport, and it puts you very nicely on a 3 degree-ish glide path. EVA may consider themselves lucky not to have near-missed, or worse. They were not where they should have been.
I leave it to the common sensibilities of most pilots to determine whether this altitude should be mandatory or not; in my cockpit, it most certainly is.
Last edited by bugg smasher; 27th Jul 2013 at 19:51.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lonewolf...
Rather how one gets that low on approach so far out is another question.
When I approach an airport I get dangerously low when I cross the threshold of the runway, about 50ft.
How one gets that low on approach that close in is another question.
When I approach an airport I get dangerously low when I cross the threshold of the runway, about 50ft.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why I'd take a kid with 4 years of commuter flying over a mil guy if I had to choose between the two.
Last edited by olasek; 27th Jul 2013 at 22:56.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28L visual
FWIW I just landed my bird at SFO on 28L on a visual approach off the Big Sur arrival which comes in rom the LA direction to the south. This has you join final approach at around 10 to 15 miles - depending on ATC
There are no ground based radio aids "up" for the 28's except the SFO VOR. The PAPI's are up for both 28L and R - based on the new displaced threshold.
3 to 1 works great. This is not a difficult approach if you just stop worrying about what mode to operate your FD or AP in. Turn the whole lot off and look out the window. Your PM should be keeping a watchful eye out for red flags...
OH
There are no ground based radio aids "up" for the 28's except the SFO VOR. The PAPI's are up for both 28L and R - based on the new displaced threshold.
3 to 1 works great. This is not a difficult approach if you just stop worrying about what mode to operate your FD or AP in. Turn the whole lot off and look out the window. Your PM should be keeping a watchful eye out for red flags...
OH
Originally Posted by Bugg Smasher
"Aircraft should cross the OAK VOR R-151/16.1 DME (Menlo Int) at or above 5000 and the San Mateo Bridge at or above 1900."
and it puts you very nicely on a 3 degree-ish glide path. EVA may consider themselves lucky not to have near-missed, or worse.
and it puts you very nicely on a 3 degree-ish glide path. EVA may consider themselves lucky not to have near-missed, or worse.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 62
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not a race issue, its a an educational issue. Its a cultural training issue.
When, as a kid you are exposed to rote learning as the norm, it can have its downfalls. Looking at geometry or algebra, or the oddities of various languages, rote learning has its place. Rote learning has its place in emergency memory items.
Aviation is far too complex to throw a rote learned individual into an imperfect world where we have to be very flexible at a moments notice.
99% of the time, they will do OK. Its the final 1% that causes issues. Now, put two of those folks together in the same cockpit...............
When, as a kid you are exposed to rote learning as the norm, it can have its downfalls. Looking at geometry or algebra, or the oddities of various languages, rote learning has its place. Rote learning has its place in emergency memory items.
Aviation is far too complex to throw a rote learned individual into an imperfect world where we have to be very flexible at a moments notice.
99% of the time, they will do OK. Its the final 1% that causes issues. Now, put two of those folks together in the same cockpit...............
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28L visual to SFO is so easy. No glide slope is required. They had a papi the last asian aircraft took out and was replaced and operative. We need to tighten up our standards so all airlines can perform visual approaches because we can with no problem. Last I flew you couldn't do an autoland unless you had a sterile approach so GS and LOC were protected. We can't slow down our system for the lowest common denominator so they have to speed up. I was landing on 9 at MIA one day and at 50 ft had full localizer deflection because an aircraft on a crossing runway deflected the localizer full left and right so autolands were out of the question.
Visual approaches are easy so either learn how to do them or don't fly to the US. Your choice. We don't want pilots flying into our airports that risk our airlines like last time. United could have been lost if they had crashed slightly to their side instead of the other.
Visual approaches are easy so either learn how to do them or don't fly to the US. Your choice. We don't want pilots flying into our airports that risk our airlines like last time. United could have been lost if they had crashed slightly to their side instead of the other.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't get it. 50,000 flights a day, 5 million people carried per day. 1,000 deaths per year. 2+1 guys stuffed a VFR approach in a heavy jet after 12 hours overnight flying into a complex ATC/aerodrome environment with no navaids at their disposal on a training flight. Surely this factors into anyone's risk calculations, is it not a statistical certainty? If there was no sea wall they would have missed the runway by 50-100 feet or so, and probably landed just short. Interesting reading, but not many people are above having a sub par day at the office, ask the fire truck driver. Many holes lined up for this one, Korean command gradients, and rote learning/training are just a couple of them...
Bubbers,
Rightly or wrongly, visual approaches are a fast dying art in the long-haul world. It's an area where international airlines of all descriptions need to provide better training. Long haul pilots only fly 3-4 sectors a month (if they're lucky) and simply don't get the opportunity to do visual approaches on a regular basis.
It's very different for you, flogging around in your 737 or MD80 all day, every day, as it were. Even those of us that came from a background where visual approaches were the norm find it hard to stay up to speed after moving to long haul. I can only imagine what it must be like for the poor sods that come through airline cadet programs and never get a chance to develop some of the basic skills you and I take for granted. Unfortunately, that is the way the airline world is moving, and piloting skills & standards are declining in some areas.
Like it or not, a visual approach is a significant threat at the end of a 12-14 hour long haul flight, when you're at the back of your body clock, haven't done a landing for several weeks, and haven't done a visual approach for several months, if not longer.
Rightly or wrongly, visual approaches are a fast dying art in the long-haul world. It's an area where international airlines of all descriptions need to provide better training. Long haul pilots only fly 3-4 sectors a month (if they're lucky) and simply don't get the opportunity to do visual approaches on a regular basis.
It's very different for you, flogging around in your 737 or MD80 all day, every day, as it were. Even those of us that came from a background where visual approaches were the norm find it hard to stay up to speed after moving to long haul. I can only imagine what it must be like for the poor sods that come through airline cadet programs and never get a chance to develop some of the basic skills you and I take for granted. Unfortunately, that is the way the airline world is moving, and piloting skills & standards are declining in some areas.
Like it or not, a visual approach is a significant threat at the end of a 12-14 hour long haul flight, when you're at the back of your body clock, haven't done a landing for several weeks, and haven't done a visual approach for several months, if not longer.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 29th Jul 2013 at 04:56.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there was no sea wall they would have missed the runway by 50-100 feet or so, and probably landed just short.
Last edited by olasek; 28th Jul 2013 at 04:26.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"2+1 guys stuffed a VFR approach in a heavy jet after 12 hours
overnight flying into a complex ATC/aerodrome environment with no navaids at their disposal on a training flight."
overnight flying into a complex ATC/aerodrome environment with no navaids at their disposal on a training flight."
In North America, experience is gained flying bush or checks, then twins piston to turbine followed by small jets in commuter airlines with lots of crummy weather in the Northeast.
And guess what: a number of these up and coming pilots end up in fatal accidents along with a small number of passengers behind them.
By the time a North American pilot makes it to a widebody command, he or she has survived the winnowing that has taken out some of his or her aspiring colleagues.
The Asian airlines do not have this pool of pilots who have ( paid their dues / survived lower tier carriers ); so have to use a cadet system if they want to hire their own nationals.
A cadet system can work very well. It does in the military where pilots end up with serious commands in a few hundred hours.
But if all you train is button pushing, that's all you're going to get.
And guess what: a number of these up and coming pilots end up in fatal accidents along with a small number of passengers behind them.
By the time a North American pilot makes it to a widebody command, he or she has survived the winnowing that has taken out some of his or her aspiring colleagues.
The Asian airlines do not have this pool of pilots who have ( paid their dues / survived lower tier carriers ); so have to use a cadet system if they want to hire their own nationals.
A cadet system can work very well. It does in the military where pilots end up with serious commands in a few hundred hours.
But if all you train is button pushing, that's all you're going to get.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: prime meridian
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visual Approach option on FMC
777 FMC'S have an option for a visual final along with the option of a pilot specified RW EXTENSION of upto 25 nm. The FMC then provides a path with a nominal 3 degree GlidePath angle working back from 50ft over the threshold. Alternatively the GlidePath angle can be set within a range of between approx 2.5 to 3.4 degrees.
777 FMC'S have an option for a visual final along with the option of a pilot specified RW EXTENSION of upto 25 nm.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only speak for one military branch, but I would suggest that the "benefit" that arrived with some (US) military aviators is the breadth of tasks that they are called upon to perform as compared to what one experiences in airline flying. You didn't "bid" the types of flying you did based on seniority, you had to be capable of whatever your unit of assignment's mission happened to be, day, night (lighted and unlighted runway), IFR, VFR, improved airfield, dirt strip, ship's deck, single aircraft, multi-aircraft and so forth.
Are military aviators "better"? No idea - I've never performed a flight eval of a civilian pilot. Are military aviators required to maintain proficiency in a wider range of aviation and flying tasks? Absolutely.
Are military aviators "better"? No idea - I've never performed a flight eval of a civilian pilot. Are military aviators required to maintain proficiency in a wider range of aviation and flying tasks? Absolutely.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: prime meridian
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a dekko at the SFO Jepps. I see what you mean, San Mateo bridge alt xing recommendation. Hate to say it, but slowly this accident is becoming believable in a sense.