Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

KC 46 tanker landing at Paris Airshow

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

KC 46 tanker landing at Paris Airshow

Old 22nd Jun 2019, 13:03
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 1,402
Received 40 Likes on 22 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tanker landed on 21. LBG's other runways are 25 and 27.
I am corrected. I misread post #2 which says approach to 25 sidestep to 21 overshoot CL and correct. Still not impressively handled.
beardy is online now  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 13:21
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,577
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Do I hear a voice say "vache!" at 0:22?
LowObservable is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 14:03
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"la vache!" == "holy ..."
pax2908 is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 16:57
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,809
Received 199 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by beardy
I am corrected. I misread post #2 which says approach to 25 sidestep to 21 overshoot CL and correct. Still not impressively handled.
Yes, see the previous discussion - there isn't actually any definitive evidence of a sidestep at all. Having flown a 30 nm base leg, it might simply be a misjudged turn onto final approach.

Other explanations are available.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2019, 15:53
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: The woods
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
... . For a while every GE powered 747-400 had autostart - in fact we didn't even have drawings for a non-autostart 747-400/CF6-80C2. Then someone came in, ordered a couple GE powered 747-400s, but declined the autostart option. Cost a small fortune to develop and certify the configuration, just so that we could charge less for the aircraft.
I always figured we should have simply had the sales team tell them we were having a limited time special and would throw in autostart for free...
Like when X Air bought a couple of Jumbos - wanted them with no logo lights... B said sure! Made up and certified blanking plates to cover the holes where the lights would have gone and each copy cost a massive extra fee. The next Jumbos came with logo lights, as did all subsequent X Air aircraft.
bill fly is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2019, 16:54
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
Once upon a time, novice BOAC VC10 pilots flew something like 40 landings under training, with plenty of manual circuit flying. Whereas today the emphasis appears to be on SOPs and autoflight systems monitoring, with aircraft largely flying themselves, so much so that the airlines have discouraged much in the way of manual flying skills, deeming them unnecessary in day-to-day flying. As a result , some 'children of the magenta' would be quite out of their depth flying something as simple as a visual circuit.

Some military operations require a higher degree of manual flying, it is true. But emphatically not the type of approach flown by that KC-46A at Paris. Start the final turn with the RW threshold 45 deg behind you, control speed, rate of descent and configuration throughout the turn until you roll out on the centreline at about 600ft 2 miles out fully configured and stabilised at the correct speed. Not exactly demanding. But something that KC-46A crew seemed to be unable to manage.

Nearly correct Beagle! on my Command Course at Prestwick I had 29 landings, a real cross country for a final Route Check. Prestwick -Newcastle diverted to Shannon due “disruptive pax” with engine failure simulated en route. Flew a VC10 to Keflavik for the day with a bunch of us to find some real X Wind landings, I think we had to have min 25 kt to qualify.
On the subsequent 6 month new Capt. handling Check at Stansted, the final circuit was briefed by the very Senior ex WWII TC as, “ Show me the tightest visual circuit you can do, don’t be below 500 lined up on final”. Stansted was still a quiet back country airport then!

Different times!!
cessnapete is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2019, 17:31
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BOQ
Age: 79
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
don’t be below 500 lined up on final
Hmmm. Not trying to one up.....but we taught roll out at 300' and a mile from touchdown in the 727 aircraft (not simulator)....and that was the regulator's aircraft. Used 300 and a mile for no-flaps and 2-engine outs also, just wider downwinds. Generally to touch-and-goes and right back around. Trainee would generally get 10 or more landings a day.

I can see why the opinions vary so much on this poor (unfairly I think) maligned dude.
OK465 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2019, 20:18
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: The woods
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by OK465
Hmmm. Not trying to one up.....but we taught roll out at 300' and a mile from touchdown in the 727 aircraft (not simulator)....and that was the regulator's aircraft. Used 300 and a mile for no-flaps and 2-engine outs also, just wider downwinds. Generally to touch-and-goes and right back around. Trainee would generally get 10 or more landings a day.

I can see why the opinions vary so much on this poor (unfairly I think) maligned dude.
At LSZH for years the locals could ask for a “Swing over“ from 14 to 16 which cut taxy time considerably.
Due to the geometry of the thresholds, this manoeuvre would only start below 300ft. Only a small amount of bank was required but the glide path had also to be adjusted.
Occasionally one could be asked by ATC quite far out whether a Swing over to 14 from 16 could be made for traffic reasons. This was more demanding and needed more ROD. Needless to say only in VMC.
bill fly is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2019, 22:17
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BOQ
Age: 79
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
bill fly,

That's another excellent example of why 'one-size doesn't fit all' at all airports at all times.

The current 'stabilized approach' guidance was primarily driven by 'misadventures' in thrust control and not bank excursions....and whose to say at any moment exactly where 'normal bracketing' becomes 'abnormal bracketing'. In the past we used to train circling at altitudes below 1000', with turns done 15 seconds beyond the abeam to accommodate the visibility minimums, resulting in roll-outs inside 1 mile, with maybe room for one reversal in the event of an overshot centerline. If taught properly and flown precisely in line with the training guidance it was generally doable. But you also tried to give trainees the room to determine what they could cope with and what they would recognize in the future as requiring 'conservative' judgement and not worth attempting.

For better or worse, a lot of those options are not available anymore...I always avoided the 'policy' level and just adhered to whatever guidance was in place.....but there are still airports in the CONUS & Alaska where if you roll-out at 500' and 1 and 2/3 mile out VMC, you'll be in the terrain.
OK465 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.