“They’d all be walking, talking and alive if they went around”...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gretchenfrage, as a follower of your continuing ignorance of the nuances of that event, would you kindly expound your limited understanding of Brake Energy Limits and how the reduced brake availability along with the much higher approach speed courtesy of the absence of the leading edge slats would effect the landing distance required.
Please take your time because nitpicker330 is giving me a great big laugh with his meanderings on another thread.
I'm not sure the mods will allow me 2 wind-ups in one day.
Please take your time because nitpicker330 is giving me a great big laugh with his meanderings on another thread.
I'm not sure the mods will allow me 2 wind-ups in one day.
You can present me with any BTM or BEL table, but it will not take away some common sense numbers:
You accelerate to a MTOW V1 of some 190kts 2/3rds down the RWY, losing one donkey and not considering revs, telling us that we can still brake before the end lights, at the same time pretending you should not be able to land on the same strip with about 210kts Vcl on an EM Appr, touching down on the numbers and still be able to get survivable speed by the end lights, even without the crap AB brakes and no revs?
Look yourself in the mirror and copy paste your trivial contribution, if you still feel like it ....
that brake energy limits should be reached in a normal weight landing at the correct speed....highly unlikely
Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 16th Sep 2013 at 04:28.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gretchenfrage, it is obvious by the speeds you give in your post above that you have absolutely no knowledge of A380 performance data. MTOW V1 190 knots is so far removed from fact that I now believe I am talking to at best a teenage flight simmer so I will be a little kinder.
Suffice to say that the Brake Kinetic Energy required to be absorbed by the available brakes (12) on QF32 was in the order of 90 million foot pounds, approx 34% more than is required by max braking after an RTO at MBRW.
If the aircraft had made an earlier return, with a higher weight and therefore a higher approach speed it would not have stopped 150 meters before the runway end but have continued on to the grass.
What is the braking coefficient on grass as compared to asphalt?
Disaster was averted and nobody got hurt.
That would most likely not have been the case if Capt. Gretchenfrage had been in command.
Suffice to say that the Brake Kinetic Energy required to be absorbed by the available brakes (12) on QF32 was in the order of 90 million foot pounds, approx 34% more than is required by max braking after an RTO at MBRW.
If the aircraft had made an earlier return, with a higher weight and therefore a higher approach speed it would not have stopped 150 meters before the runway end but have continued on to the grass.
What is the braking coefficient on grass as compared to asphalt?
Disaster was averted and nobody got hurt.
That would most likely not have been the case if Capt. Gretchenfrage had been in command.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BSD, (why does this sound like an unhealthy sandwich?)
I sure do not fly the 380, too ugly. I did not pretend to know its speeds, i merely stated some physical analogies in terms of speed so that the normal pilot gets the drift. Maybe that's why you don't.
On paper your weight/speed/length calculation might apply. In real life i prefer to decelerate the last few knots on grass or on water and survive than lose the turkey airborne and die stupidly because it became uncontrollable due to its injuries or because its CG was more aft than your bunk-sleep.
But i guess you would rather follow ECAM and wish for more of such automatics than apply what was taught on the first lesson in a Chip or L4.
Brave new world and with that i'm out.
I sure do not fly the 380, too ugly. I did not pretend to know its speeds, i merely stated some physical analogies in terms of speed so that the normal pilot gets the drift. Maybe that's why you don't.
On paper your weight/speed/length calculation might apply. In real life i prefer to decelerate the last few knots on grass or on water and survive than lose the turkey airborne and die stupidly because it became uncontrollable due to its injuries or because its CG was more aft than your bunk-sleep.
But i guess you would rather follow ECAM and wish for more of such automatics than apply what was taught on the first lesson in a Chip or L4.
Brave new world and with that i'm out.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can say that Back Seat Driver is essentially absolutely correct, and the time spent working through the ECAM was entirely justified in terms of the crew making certain just which systems they had left. Also that said Captain was previously First Officer on the 707 and 747 Classic, which makes GF's assertion that the guy was one of "today's followers of automatics" not only incorrect, but frankly insulting.
In fact the Captain states that his initial instinct was to turn back ASAP, but that his crew persuaded him not to do so until their damage was fully assessed. He concedes quite willingly that they were correct to do so.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 15th Sep 2013 at 03:04.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: another place
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weekend flyer,
This pretty much covers what you are asking for.
http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/R...y_System_(RAAS)
This pretty much covers what you are asking for.
http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/R...y_System_(RAAS)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No probs - happy to help!
If you haven't already, I must recommend getting hold of the book if you have the spare pennies to do so. Aside from a very interesting memoir as a preface, it also contains what I'd consider a textbook example of applying practical experience, technical nous and Aussie-style CRM to an aviation problem, such that as many "what-ifs" as possible are covered before the first approach is attempted.
It is clear from reading the book that from the time of the initial engine failure to the time all the passengers were back in the terminal safely, no decision was entered into lightly and as many parameters as possible (including fuel status) were taken into account. In fact one of the tensest sections of the story relate to the wait on the tarmac while they tried to shut the stuck engine down and his hope that he'd made the right decision to stay put.
If you haven't already, I must recommend getting hold of the book if you have the spare pennies to do so. Aside from a very interesting memoir as a preface, it also contains what I'd consider a textbook example of applying practical experience, technical nous and Aussie-style CRM to an aviation problem, such that as many "what-ifs" as possible are covered before the first approach is attempted.
It is clear from reading the book that from the time of the initial engine failure to the time all the passengers were back in the terminal safely, no decision was entered into lightly and as many parameters as possible (including fuel status) were taken into account. In fact one of the tensest sections of the story relate to the wait on the tarmac while they tried to shut the stuck engine down and his hope that he'd made the right decision to stay put.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going around is always an option on approach. It is only necessary if the wx is below minimums or the pilot screws up the approach. A visual approach should never require a go around because it is so easy but once in a while a pilot messes it up. Any pilot that can not execute a visual missed approach should not be flying an airplane.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
johnsmith
tell us, would you go around if ATC ordered you to go around but you didn't think it was safe to do so.
if you think ATC orders you to do anything, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of YOUR duties as PIC.
bubbers didn't put every possibility in a short post. and we understood what he was getting at.
and his opening statement was that a go around was an OPTION.
I've seen a situation in which a go around in a windshear wasn't the best thing to do
I've seen a situation in which an ATC instructed go around actually put an airplane in more jeopardy than landing behind a plane still on the runway (but with adequate room).
What did someone say about a Novice in a nunnery? From Gilbert & Sullivan...
Judgement and experience beats tactics in a nunnery.
johnsmith, you might learn from bubbers.
tell us, would you go around if ATC ordered you to go around but you didn't think it was safe to do so.
if you think ATC orders you to do anything, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of YOUR duties as PIC.
bubbers didn't put every possibility in a short post. and we understood what he was getting at.
and his opening statement was that a go around was an OPTION.
I've seen a situation in which a go around in a windshear wasn't the best thing to do
I've seen a situation in which an ATC instructed go around actually put an airplane in more jeopardy than landing behind a plane still on the runway (but with adequate room).
What did someone say about a Novice in a nunnery? From Gilbert & Sullivan...
Judgement and experience beats tactics in a nunnery.
johnsmith, you might learn from bubbers.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is amazing how if you eliminated all but one section of a post, any post can be made to look rediculous, isn't it?
Maybe we could play this game in Jet blast with all posts.
A few posts back I said I had a clearance to land in a Jetstar landing at SNA and went around because a 737 hadn't cleared the runway on the 5700 ft strip. The controller said he would have cleared in time and I said, no problem, I just prefer a clear runway. It was a clear day and I didn't mess anything up and yes, there are a lot of reasons to go around. Most I have witnessed have been those two.
Maybe we could play this game in Jet blast with all posts.
A few posts back I said I had a clearance to land in a Jetstar landing at SNA and went around because a 737 hadn't cleared the runway on the 5700 ft strip. The controller said he would have cleared in time and I said, no problem, I just prefer a clear runway. It was a clear day and I didn't mess anything up and yes, there are a lot of reasons to go around. Most I have witnessed have been those two.
Last edited by bubbers44; 18th Sep 2013 at 15:48. Reason: additional comment
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I know I spelled ridiculous wrong. It didn't seem worth fixing but in your world saved you a post. Have a nice day. In the future don't edit out the part of the post that supports a sentence.
bubbers didn't put every possibility in a short post. and we understood what he was getting at.
Posts on PPrune are not required to be understandable by non-Professional Pilots, are they?
