WIZZ AIR Skiathos vid
Although 50' is still plenty enough to spoil your entire day ...
That is a very good point. I’ve never operated to JSI but I have used airports with similar LDA.
I can understand the reluctance to use a “standard” approach and landing technique but that’s what the figures are based on, and if you get it right you should stop with adequate runway remaining: IFLD uses LDR x 1.15 which is a reasonable margin. Maybe some sessions in the sim to give people confidence that it will do what the book says? My personal experience has been that shallow approaches and/or trying to get it down early often end in a float past the normal touchdown point or a bounce.
If you don’t get it down in the right place at the right speed, then reject the landing. Just out of interest I ran the numbers on the 777 and yes, you could land a -200ER there at MLW but I think it would fail at the planning stage.
I can understand the reluctance to use a “standard” approach and landing technique but that’s what the figures are based on, and if you get it right you should stop with adequate runway remaining: IFLD uses LDR x 1.15 which is a reasonable margin. Maybe some sessions in the sim to give people confidence that it will do what the book says? My personal experience has been that shallow approaches and/or trying to get it down early often end in a float past the normal touchdown point or a bounce.
If you don’t get it down in the right place at the right speed, then reject the landing. Just out of interest I ran the numbers on the 777 and yes, you could land a -200ER there at MLW but I think it would fail at the planning stage.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: SW1A 2AA
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a very good point. I’ve never operated to JSI but I have used airports with similar LDA.
I can understand the reluctance to use a “standard” approach and landing technique but that’s what the figures are based on, and if you get it right you should stop with adequate runway remaining: IFLD uses LDR x 1.15 which is a reasonable margin. Maybe some sessions in the sim to give people confidence that it will do what the book says? My personal experience has been that shallow approaches and/or trying to get it down early often end in a float past the normal touchdown point or a bounce.
If you don’t get it down in the right place at the right speed, then reject the landing. Just out of interest I ran the numbers on the 777 and yes, you could land a -200ER there at MLW but I think it would fail at the planning stage.
I can understand the reluctance to use a “standard” approach and landing technique but that’s what the figures are based on, and if you get it right you should stop with adequate runway remaining: IFLD uses LDR x 1.15 which is a reasonable margin. Maybe some sessions in the sim to give people confidence that it will do what the book says? My personal experience has been that shallow approaches and/or trying to get it down early often end in a float past the normal touchdown point or a bounce.
If you don’t get it down in the right place at the right speed, then reject the landing. Just out of interest I ran the numbers on the 777 and yes, you could land a -200ER there at MLW but I think it would fail at the planning stage.
I REALLY SHOULDN'T BE HERE
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: TOD
Posts: 1,928
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s either wilful disregard of correct technique or (more likely) getting too low due to the visual illusion caused by the upsloping runway.
In either case it is unsafe in the conventional aircraft operational sense, the approach should have been discontinued before crossing the coast.
As soon as you start departing from a standardised profile you are opening the door to any number of further threats and errors.
I have not flown into Skiathos but I have flown into plenty of Greek islands and other locations with short runways in turboprops and jets including various models of Airbus. FCTM technique every time, if the performance figures don’t work, you don’t fly the approach. What you do not do is start making up flying technique ad hoc - trust the FCTM, trust the performance figures, fly the correct technique every time.
In either case it is unsafe in the conventional aircraft operational sense, the approach should have been discontinued before crossing the coast.
As soon as you start departing from a standardised profile you are opening the door to any number of further threats and errors.
I have not flown into Skiathos but I have flown into plenty of Greek islands and other locations with short runways in turboprops and jets including various models of Airbus. FCTM technique every time, if the performance figures don’t work, you don’t fly the approach. What you do not do is start making up flying technique ad hoc - trust the FCTM, trust the performance figures, fly the correct technique every time.
Only half a speed-brake
The downdraft scenario is exactly why one should not fly a shallow profile. And do keep aiming for a standard 30' RA at the threshold. Be observant to err on the low side but not deliberately (much).
Tailwind won't send you over the cliff if the landing was reasonable and braking proper. That's what the 67% reserve is for.
A321 IAE with wing fence is illegal at MLW but that is no news. (1210 + 80 A/THR + 100 ISA20) *5/3 = 2316
Assuming 45 DOW + 4t landing fuel + 19 t full house charter load = LW = 68 t and that is also no dispatch. [(1210-100 Weight) + 80 + 100)]*5/3 = 2150.
Funny that, the A320 classic which I saw operate give: 41 + 4 + 11 (130 pax) = LW = 55 t which is still no dispatch with resulting RLD of 1810. (Technically we could drop the +5 for A/THR but that only is 125 m).
Anyone said 'dispensation' ?
Tailwind won't send you over the cliff if the landing was reasonable and braking proper. That's what the 67% reserve is for.
A321 IAE with wing fence is illegal at MLW but that is no news. (1210 + 80 A/THR + 100 ISA20) *5/3 = 2316
Assuming 45 DOW + 4t landing fuel + 19 t full house charter load = LW = 68 t and that is also no dispatch. [(1210-100 Weight) + 80 + 100)]*5/3 = 2150.
Funny that, the A320 classic which I saw operate give: 41 + 4 + 11 (130 pax) = LW = 55 t which is still no dispatch with resulting RLD of 1810. (Technically we could drop the +5 for A/THR but that only is 125 m).
Anyone said 'dispensation' ?
Last edited by FlightDetent; 11th Aug 2022 at 13:19.
That airport like many that airlines elect to fly aircraft into is fundamentally high risk. It is not a reasonable risk to assume on behalf of the travelling public. The probability of a event and the consequence would in any reasonable analysis lead to upgrading of facilities to assure that MEHT and by association the TCH is safe. It is unreasonable to castigate the crew that are being asked to undertake an approach that is knowingly compromised.
My suggestion to the City is to void insurance on any accident involving a jet aircraft into this airport, and into our favorite scenic spot in the french side of the Caribbean. If we are not going to say no, then perhaps the insurers will step in and say what needs to be said. Perhaps then a PAPI or flight path guidance that will provide an accurate flight path for the crew to at least have a fighting chance.
ICAO puts out glossy documents such as ICAO Doc 9859, the one that says categorically what the airline and regulators and airport are supposed to do to not be a recipient of a lawsuit for wilful negligence or being on the reciving end of a wrongful death suit or proceedings.
My suggestion to the City is to void insurance on any accident involving a jet aircraft into this airport, and into our favorite scenic spot in the french side of the Caribbean. If we are not going to say no, then perhaps the insurers will step in and say what needs to be said. Perhaps then a PAPI or flight path guidance that will provide an accurate flight path for the crew to at least have a fighting chance.
ICAO puts out glossy documents such as ICAO Doc 9859, the one that says categorically what the airline and regulators and airport are supposed to do to not be a recipient of a lawsuit for wilful negligence or being on the reciving end of a wrongful death suit or proceedings.
That airport like many that airlines elect to fly aircraft into is fundamentally high risk. It is not a reasonable risk to assume on behalf of the travelling public. The probability of a event and the consequence would in any reasonable analysis lead to upgrading of facilities to assure that MEHT and by association the TCH is safe. It is unreasonable to castigate the crew that are being asked to undertake an approach that is knowingly compromised.
My suggestion to the City is to void insurance on any accident involving a jet aircraft into this airport, and into our favorite scenic spot in the french side of the Caribbean. If we are not going to say no, then perhaps the insurers will step in and say what needs to be said. Perhaps then a PAPI or flight path guidance that will provide an accurate flight path for the crew to at least have a fighting chance.
ICAO puts out glossy documents such as ICAO Doc 9859, the one that says categorically what the airline and regulators and airport are supposed to do to not be a recipient of a lawsuit for wilful negligence or being on the reciving end of a wrongful death suit or proceedings.
My suggestion to the City is to void insurance on any accident involving a jet aircraft into this airport, and into our favorite scenic spot in the french side of the Caribbean. If we are not going to say no, then perhaps the insurers will step in and say what needs to be said. Perhaps then a PAPI or flight path guidance that will provide an accurate flight path for the crew to at least have a fighting chance.
ICAO puts out glossy documents such as ICAO Doc 9859, the one that says categorically what the airline and regulators and airport are supposed to do to not be a recipient of a lawsuit for wilful negligence or being on the reciving end of a wrongful death suit or proceedings.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: SW1A 2AA
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a basic instrument approach and there are PAPI's at JSI. They are clearly visible and were working well last time I flew there. This shit show occurred on a day that was clearly CAVOK in every meaning of the word. This Condor crew seem to know their stuff. No dramatics, just a well executed approach and landing. You don't need to be an astronaut.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: big green wheely bin
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting quite funny now.
I have been here with some VERY experienced pilots, trainers of all flavours, and even a CAA flight ops inspector on the jump seat. All, to a man, flew an approach fairly close to what you see in that video. And I defy anyone who says they will do something different.
Why? Because you cant. There’s no approach guidance of any use, PAPIS at 3.3, if they are turned on, which they hardly ever are. It’s short, narrow, uphill. It’s also in a valley, with the approach over the sea. Just about every visual illusion you were warned about is ticked by this place. I have yet to see anyone fly a 3.3 degree approach to touch down here.
Kid yourselves if you want to, but you’re not living in reality.
I have been here with some VERY experienced pilots, trainers of all flavours, and even a CAA flight ops inspector on the jump seat. All, to a man, flew an approach fairly close to what you see in that video. And I defy anyone who says they will do something different.
Why? Because you cant. There’s no approach guidance of any use, PAPIS at 3.3, if they are turned on, which they hardly ever are. It’s short, narrow, uphill. It’s also in a valley, with the approach over the sea. Just about every visual illusion you were warned about is ticked by this place. I have yet to see anyone fly a 3.3 degree approach to touch down here.
Kid yourselves if you want to, but you’re not living in reality.
This is getting quite funny now.
I have been here with some VERY experienced pilots, trainers of all flavours, and even a CAA flight ops inspector on the jump seat. All, to a man, flew an approach fairly close to what you see in that video. And I defy anyone who says they will do something different.
Why? Because you cant. There’s no approach guidance of any use, PAPIS at 3.3, if they are turned on, which they hardly ever are. It’s short, narrow, uphill. It’s also in a valley, with the approach over the sea. Just about every visual illusion you were warned about is ticked by this place. I have yet to see anyone fly a 3.3 degree approach to touch down here.
Kid yourselves if you want to, but you’re not living in reality.
I have been here with some VERY experienced pilots, trainers of all flavours, and even a CAA flight ops inspector on the jump seat. All, to a man, flew an approach fairly close to what you see in that video. And I defy anyone who says they will do something different.
Why? Because you cant. There’s no approach guidance of any use, PAPIS at 3.3, if they are turned on, which they hardly ever are. It’s short, narrow, uphill. It’s also in a valley, with the approach over the sea. Just about every visual illusion you were warned about is ticked by this place. I have yet to see anyone fly a 3.3 degree approach to touch down here.
Kid yourselves if you want to, but you’re not living in reality.
Before I went there (A321) we had a dedicated sim visit as it was Cat C. The most challenging part was staying on the 30M pavement with a low speed engine failure. This is where I find the whole argument about "ducking under" ridiculous. An hour after landing at JSI, pilots will refuel and calculate performance which will generate a V1 somewhere around the 130 knot mark. They will then happily take off using it. I'm guessing here, but there is probably around 900M in which to stop from V1 in a much heavier aircraft than the one they landed in just an hour before. Is it just me?
Runway lighting information
The current chart shows papis at 3.0 degrees. Why would they be steeper when there are no obstructions in the approach path?
Last edited by tubby linton; 11th Aug 2022 at 13:57.
Only half a speed-brake
The confusion is a possibility (type dependent) where they are further down, not the case here.
FYI to my memory they used to be notamed U/S anyway.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a video with a larger sample of landings with a variety of aircraft that does suggest that a successful landing can be accomplished without being excessively low:
The papi show from the information above a meht of 14.5m/47.6 ft. I have noticed at many Greek airfields the red lenses of the papi are often sunbleached and look a pinky white, Corfu being a classic example.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have A320’s/ 737’s landing multiple times a day at Jersey EGJJ. Runway 26 is shorter than Skiathos by a few metres. With a sheer cliff at the end of the runway. Most of these aircraft are fully loaded with passengers and with round trip fuel for the next sector.
Yet we don’t have a situation like at Skiathos where aircraft descend below the normal approach path. Have people just got used to the idea this is normal at Skiathos?
Aircraft this size operate with slightly tighter performance margins elsewhere and it’s not ever flagged up. So the idea that aircraft shouldn’t be flying in Skiathos or it’s normal to fly a low approach is nonsense. It just needs to be done as per SOP and performance criteria.
Yet we don’t have a situation like at Skiathos where aircraft descend below the normal approach path. Have people just got used to the idea this is normal at Skiathos?
Aircraft this size operate with slightly tighter performance margins elsewhere and it’s not ever flagged up. So the idea that aircraft shouldn’t be flying in Skiathos or it’s normal to fly a low approach is nonsense. It just needs to be done as per SOP and performance criteria.
