WIZZ AIR Skiathos vid
Originally Posted by FullWings
It may be the training department but it’s also the manufacturer and the regulator. Doing non-standard stuff invalidates performance calculations and sets you up for failure in limiting conditions. There are plenty of examples of aircraft going off the end of 3,000m+ runways through a combination of factors, including a lack of concern because “it's a long runway”.
Using standard technique and being totally open about rejecting the landing should it not work out is the way to proceed. The videos showing the majority of flights into JSI crossing the road at a reasonable height, doing a “standard landing” and rollout with room to spare shows this.
Part of being a professional pilot is to have the ability to get creative when needed but also to follow SOPs when they have been demonstrated to work.
Using standard technique and being totally open about rejecting the landing should it not work out is the way to proceed. The videos showing the majority of flights into JSI crossing the road at a reasonable height, doing a “standard landing” and rollout with room to spare shows this.
Part of being a professional pilot is to have the ability to get creative when needed but also to follow SOPs when they have been demonstrated to work.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: 🇬🇧🇪🇸
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watching videos such as that just makes me feel extremely angry. I’ve spent 45 years flying into challenging destinations and never felt the need to modify the flight profile to mitigate a perceived risk that doesn’t exist. A weak FOQA department and regulator condones behaviour such as this. I deeply regret bringing this airline to the attention of a close relative who recently flew as passenger with them, never again.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me that is arguably reckless endangerment by an unprofessionally minded pair of pilots. The fact that thrill seekers are allowed to stand on the extended centerline is not wise either. Someone will get their head knocked off at some point.
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
Bad? Stupid more like it. Locking up the wheels just to turn off at the taxiway.
" ... 'ere, 'old me pint, watch this.... "
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Utopia
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FUMR
First of all it wasn't a tripple 7, so a pointless comment. Secondly nothing particularly out of the ordinary for this airport (check out the hundreds of videos). Thirdly wrong forum for this sensationalist stuff!
Appalling misinformed journalism.
"This means pilots are required to approach the airport at a much lower altitude than normal, in order to maximise the space they have."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...outputType=amp
"This means pilots are required to approach the airport at a much lower altitude than normal, in order to maximise the space they have."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...outputType=amp
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Appalling misinformed journalism.
"This means pilots are required to approach the airport at a much lower altitude than normal, in order to maximise the space they have."
"This means pilots are required to approach the airport at a much lower altitude than normal, in order to maximise the space they have."
You don't have to be as low as Wizzair, but it's certainly not "appaling misinformation". It's somewhat near the truth.
No, you won't change my mind and I have watched all the videos including examples of those doing it correctly.
Don't think that I'll change your mind either, so happy and safe flying to you!
Don't think that I'll change your mind either, so happy and safe flying to you!
Is there anything in the manuals that mandate a visual threshold crossing height?
Genuine question as I don’t remember seeing anything for visual approaches in ours.
It was only mentioned for CAT 2, 3 autolands which were prohibited if TCH was below 35’ if I remember correctly.
Not condoning, excusing or even saying it was smart in this case!
Genuine question as I don’t remember seeing anything for visual approaches in ours.
It was only mentioned for CAT 2, 3 autolands which were prohibited if TCH was below 35’ if I remember correctly.
Not condoning, excusing or even saying it was smart in this case!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
simmple, a very good question; interesting.
I do not have an answer, but 35 ft was allowed for steep approaches.
In part, this, like conventional approaches with 50 ft TCH, was the reference for landing performance.
I recall that there are airfield constraints such as obstacle clearance surface, 1:40 ? (I cannot recall).
Also that this slope was cut off before the runway, but not sure of the ref point for the slope.
I do not have an answer, but 35 ft was allowed for steep approaches.
In part, this, like conventional approaches with 50 ft TCH, was the reference for landing performance.
I recall that there are airfield constraints such as obstacle clearance surface, 1:40 ? (I cannot recall).
Also that this slope was cut off before the runway, but not sure of the ref point for the slope.
Only half a speed-brake
No answer if and where it is written. Probably all agree that 8' is not a good number to aim for - that would be the front edge of the 150 m marker.
But 35 rings a bell, right, screen height is common knowledge. As a careful and safe compromise between economy and exposure to risk, under wet or contaminated conditions, 15 feet is the regulatory minimum.
I like that. One should never aim for closer than what gives 15 feet wheel clearance at threshold. That margin shall be sacred in the aiming phase.
Skilled ones who trust the performance might still aim for 330 mtrs and shorten the flare to land there.
Those who touch at 500 mtrs casually better adopt the short aim technique.
95 % of us in reality struggle somewhere in between, despite the different perceptions of own heroism.
But 35 rings a bell, right, screen height is common knowledge. As a careful and safe compromise between economy and exposure to risk, under wet or contaminated conditions, 15 feet is the regulatory minimum.
I like that. One should never aim for closer than what gives 15 feet wheel clearance at threshold. That margin shall be sacred in the aiming phase.
Skilled ones who trust the performance might still aim for 330 mtrs and shorten the flare to land there.
Those who touch at 500 mtrs casually better adopt the short aim technique.
95 % of us in reality struggle somewhere in between, despite the different perceptions of own heroism.
I also think the 35’ was an aircraft limitation.
Seem to recall it was a gotcha in the sim. You would be somewhere to do a cat3 auto land, 3 degree ils all legal on the plate wx wise etc. Land happy ready for medals in the debrief and then shown the TCH and pointed to the limitations in the manual.
If on a normal Ils, manual landing all was fine
But hey that’s from my memory!
Seem to recall it was a gotcha in the sim. You would be somewhere to do a cat3 auto land, 3 degree ils all legal on the plate wx wise etc. Land happy ready for medals in the debrief and then shown the TCH and pointed to the limitations in the manual.
If on a normal Ils, manual landing all was fine
But hey that’s from my memory!
Originally Posted by simmple
I also think the 35’ was an aircraft limitation.
Seem to recall it was a gotcha in the sim. You would be somewhere to do a cat3 auto land, 3 degree ils all legal on the plate wx wise etc. Land happy ready for medals in the debrief and then shown the TCH and pointed to the limitations in the manual.
If on a normal Ils, manual landing all was fine
But hey that’s from my memory!
Seem to recall it was a gotcha in the sim. You would be somewhere to do a cat3 auto land, 3 degree ils all legal on the plate wx wise etc. Land happy ready for medals in the debrief and then shown the TCH and pointed to the limitations in the manual.
If on a normal Ils, manual landing all was fine
But hey that’s from my memory!
Originally Posted by simmple
I also think the 35’ was an aircraft limitation.
Seem to recall it was a gotcha in the sim. You would be somewhere to do a cat3 auto land, 3 degree ils all legal on the plate wx wise etc. Land happy ready for medals in the debrief and then shown the TCH and pointed to the limitations in the manual.
If on a normal Ils, manual landing all was fine
But hey that’s from my memory!
Seem to recall it was a gotcha in the sim. You would be somewhere to do a cat3 auto land, 3 degree ils all legal on the plate wx wise etc. Land happy ready for medals in the debrief and then shown the TCH and pointed to the limitations in the manual.
If on a normal Ils, manual landing all was fine
But hey that’s from my memory!
§ 25.125 Landing.
(a) The horizontal distance necessary to land and to come to a complete stop ... from a point 50 feet above the landing surface must be determined (for standard temperatures, at each weight, altitude, and wind within the operational limits established by the applicant for the airplane):(1) In non-icing conditions; and
(2) In icing conditions with the most critical of the landing ice accretion(s) defined in Appendices C and O of this part, as applicable, in accordance with § 25.21(g), if VREF for icing conditions exceeds VREF for non-icing conditions by more than 5 knots CAS at the maximum landing weight.
(b) In determining the distance in paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) The airplane must be in the landing configuration.
(2) A stabilized approach, with a calibrated airspeed of not less than VREF, must be maintained down to the 50-foot height.
(i) In non-icing conditions, VREF may not be less than:
(A) 1.23 VSR0;
(B) VMCL established under § 25.149(f); and
(C) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h).
(ii) In icing conditions, VREF may not be less than:
(A) The speed determined in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section;
(B) 1.23 VSR0 with the most critical of the landing ice accretion(s) defined in Appendices C and O of this part, as applicable, in accordance with § 25.21(g), if that speed exceeds VREF selected for non-icing conditions by more than 5 knots CAS; and
(C) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h) with the most critical of the landing ice accretion(s) defined in Appendices C and O of this part, as applicable, in accordance with § 25.21(g).
(3) Changes in configuration, power or thrust, and speed, must be made in accordance with the established procedures for service operation.
(4) The landing must be made without excessive vertical acceleration, tendency to bounce, nose over, ground loop, porpoise, or water loop.
(5) The landings may not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness.
(c) For landplanes ... the landing distance on land must be determined on a level, smooth, dry, hard-surfaced runway. In addition -
(1) The pressures on the wheel braking systems may not exceed those specified by the brake manufacturer;
(2) The brakes may not be used so as to cause excessive wear of brakes or tires; and
(3) Means other than wheel brakes may be used if that means -
(i) Is safe and reliable;
(ii) Is used so that consistent results can be expected in service; and
(iii) Is such that exceptional skill is not required to control the airplane.
OIS: From the threshold....
Approach end of runways expected to serve large airplanes (Visual day/night); or instrument minimums 1 statute mile (day only). appr 20:1
MEHT vs TCH vs WCH have lots of room for variation. B747.... 72' MEHT gives 48' TCH and WCH of around 28'. Variation dependent on attitude = Vref additives, configuration etc.
airbus
