Below the GS at SFO again
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Doves
Speed 150 kts results not 750 ft/mn but 913 ft/m
@BOAC
5.2 nm 3° 900 ft/mn results in speed 170 kts, Z=1656 ft not 1800
1900 ft, 5.2 nm, 1300 ft/mn results in speed 215 kts at the bridge decreasing with speed
Speed 150 kts results not 750 ft/mn but 913 ft/m
@BOAC
5.2 nm 3° 900 ft/mn results in speed 170 kts, Z=1656 ft not 1800
1900 ft, 5.2 nm, 1300 ft/mn results in speed 215 kts at the bridge decreasing with speed
When I read these posts about how "difficult" Energy Management is I wonder how we managed all those approaches in basic aircraft like the B 737-200 when due to lack of ATC coordination and/or radar you were often held high!
Anybody would think it was some sort of "black art".
Anybody would think it was some sort of "black art".
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Douala
Age: 44
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Roulis Hollandais
Good to see there are still a few real pilots left in this world who can actually make real and simple calculations.
Ca se perd, mon dieu. Merci mon ami!
Ca se perd, mon dieu. Merci mon ami!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BOAC,
On 16 July you said,
Today you said
When capturing the glide slope profile from above, RODs of more than 1,000ft / min will be required and we've always had SOPs to achieve this.
May I suggest you obtain up to date copies of FCOM etc.
On 16 July you said,
Returning to this SFO "180 to 5" - I consider that if flown EXACTLY that way it is un-doable (I await the 'aces' cries). Most manufacturers' FCOM do not encourage using flaps as 'speedbrakes' which is what is necessary here.
it was not in the 737 FCTM in my time, but a 'special brief' was required if more than 1000fpm was required.
May I suggest you obtain up to date copies of FCOM etc.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ffb
I wonder how we managed all those approaches in basic aircraft like the B 737-200
Try that in your modern company jet? As I said, things have changed.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BOAC,
Why on earth would you try to do that with passengers on board?
I can go back a few more years to land at Vref-5 on the 'numbers' (threshold), throttles closed - every time
Last edited by rudderrudderrat; 7th Aug 2013 at 12:54.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why on earth would you try to do that with passengers on board?
Last edited by BOAC; 7th Aug 2013 at 13:06.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GIVE ME A DARN GOOD THRASHING!!
As BOAC said;
- indeed, but in our days there was a little less 'electronic' monitoring so it was probably 'easier' to hack it. Come to that, I can go back a few more years to land at Vref-5 on the 'numbers' (threshold), throttles closed - every time
Try that in your modern company jet? As I said, things have changed.
Omigawd, I'm now flagellating myself with guilt at the memory of placing a Bae146, with SLF aboard, on the "keys" at NCL, having shut the thrust levers at 20,000ft and not reopened them. What naughty boys and girls we were then?
And that in a 'frame with NO IRSs, wind readouts, not even the early GPS boxes were available.
Seriously though folks, have the skills deteriorated since then, or has the FDM environment shoe-horned us all into a mindset and skillset where such practices are not only frowned upon but may be impossible to repeat when the chips are down and superior skills are required following some catastrophic failure such as Sioux City??
Before the arrows start flying I'm just asking the question, NOT proposing deadstick arrivals in future, though they did save fuel and noise....................
- indeed, but in our days there was a little less 'electronic' monitoring so it was probably 'easier' to hack it. Come to that, I can go back a few more years to land at Vref-5 on the 'numbers' (threshold), throttles closed - every time
Try that in your modern company jet? As I said, things have changed. Omigawd, I'm now flagellating myself with guilt at the memory of placing a Bae146, with SLF aboard, on the "keys" at NCL, having shut the thrust levers at 20,000ft and not reopened them. What naughty boys and girls we were then?
And that in a 'frame with NO IRSs, wind readouts, not even the early GPS boxes were available.
Seriously though folks, have the skills deteriorated since then, or has the FDM environment shoe-horned us all into a mindset and skillset where such practices are not only frowned upon but may be impossible to repeat when the chips are down and superior skills are required following some catastrophic failure such as Sioux City??
Before the arrows start flying I'm just asking the question, NOT proposing deadstick arrivals in future, though they did save fuel and noise....................
Originally Posted by Olasek
Your calculations are seriously OFF, it was calcuted before, it is not 1540 but 1740 instead, this is how high you would be crossing the bridge shooting the ordinary ILS to 28L, so at 1900 you are only 160 ft higher, nothing that even a rookie commercial pilot could not handle. From the bridge it is 5.4 nm to the touchdown zone and the GS is at 3 deg. and the trigonometry is very easy. Also the Asiana 777 crew was nowhere near 1900' when crossing the bridge, they were at about 2400' so the system did not 'set them up', if there was any 'set up' here it was of their own making. Also your assumption about stability at 1000 ft is wrong, in VMC you can get stable as far down as 500 feet. Lets dispell any myth that this was a difficult approach, comparing with what's out there in the world of aviation it doesn't even qualify as a moderately difficult approach.
We used to do that when we suspected the natives were less than friendly...
Letter to editor in the Aug 5-12 issue of Aviation Week. Sounds like he might belong to Prune.
One group of pilots has concluded this based on intimate knowledge of the 777-200ER's automation systems; the other by flying scenarios in a 777 simulator
That "intimate knowledge" was on Prune within a day or two of the prang!
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 7th Aug 2013 at 15:05.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I started flying with the airlines in 737 100s and 200s, then the 300. It seemed so simple then in the 80's. SJC being 3,000 ft 6 miles out was a lot of fun but not a real challenge. Now somehow it is. Why? Different pilots with different experience?
We didn't have GPS then so this FMC constant descent approach wasn't possible then. Now some piilots add 50 feet to MDA so they don't have to level off but go around 50 ft above MDA? I usually did a circle to land approach where I flew so adding 50 ft made no sense because I was going to level off anyway. If you want to be really safe only land when it is VFR. Now the dumbest pilot in the system probably can handle it. We have minimums on all approaches that are safe so unless you are a new captain getting your first 100 hrs at higher minimums, fly the approach to minimums like everybody else.
We didn't have GPS then so this FMC constant descent approach wasn't possible then. Now some piilots add 50 feet to MDA so they don't have to level off but go around 50 ft above MDA? I usually did a circle to land approach where I flew so adding 50 ft made no sense because I was going to level off anyway. If you want to be really safe only land when it is VFR. Now the dumbest pilot in the system probably can handle it. We have minimums on all approaches that are safe so unless you are a new captain getting your first 100 hrs at higher minimums, fly the approach to minimums like everybody else.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bubbers44
If you want to be really safe only land when it is VFR. Now the dumbest pilot in the system probably can handle it.
We didn't have GPS then so this FMC constant descent approach wasn't possible then. Now some piilots add 50 feet to MDA so they don't have to level off but go around 50 ft above MDA? I usually did a circle to land approach where I flew so adding 50 ft made no sense because I was going to level off anyway. If you want to be really safe only land when it is VFR. Now the dumbest pilot in the system probably can handle it. We have minimums on all approaches that are safe so unless you are a new captain getting your first 100 hrs at higher minimums, fly the approach to minimums like everybody else.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't say it, somebody else did. Yes I thought of the Korean airline having a lot of problems landing VFR when I made that post. I meant pilots looking out the window approaches.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole thing sounds like a 1960's Haight-Ashbury put together