UPS cargo crash near Birmingham AL
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with what you're saying except to note that your profession is not the only one in which this has occurred in the last few decades. Creeping managerialism has had this effect on pretty much every shop-floor role and profession, as the MBA generation try to hammer every business and operations model into one which can be reduced to basic units of work which can be made easily transferrable in order to maximise cost-efficiency and, ultimately, profit.
What I see from some posts on here is somewhat putting the cart before the horse - working backwards from the introduction of automation and improvements in technology to form a theory that management, finance and engineering colluded to throw pilots under the bus. This simply isn't true, as your previous posts have alluded to. The effect on pilots (and other affected professions) is simply a side-effect of the general push towards management-centric operation that I described in the paragraph above.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A squared, thanks for explaining the obvious to lonewolf...obvious to a professional aviator...I salute you and thanks that I don't have to answer it myself.
AND someone pointed out RADAR REQUIRED on an instrument apch...this has NOTHING to do with the Radar on the plane, it MEANS THAT ATC RADAR CONTACT/IDENTIFICATION and VECTORS to the apch course are required and that PILOT NAV is not allowed.
IE , no procedure turn, or arrival sector via airway.
IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU TURN YOUR WEATHER RADAR ON or have a radio /radar altimeter.
By the way, I mentioned in other posts there are non precision apchs that require 5 miles visibility and ceilings (though not reqd) over 2500'
sheesh
AND someone pointed out RADAR REQUIRED on an instrument apch...this has NOTHING to do with the Radar on the plane, it MEANS THAT ATC RADAR CONTACT/IDENTIFICATION and VECTORS to the apch course are required and that PILOT NAV is not allowed.
IE , no procedure turn, or arrival sector via airway.
IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU TURN YOUR WEATHER RADAR ON or have a radio /radar altimeter.
By the way, I mentioned in other posts there are non precision apchs that require 5 miles visibility and ceilings (though not reqd) over 2500'
sheesh
Thank you, A squared, I have flown approaches into VMC from VFR on top, and from in the goo into VMC. I've also flown to mins, had to divert due to wx, and missed approach when runway not found. All the good fun one can have flying IMC.
Flarepilot, I likely taught some of the people you now fly with how to land for the first time in their lives. I taught instruments for enough years, fixed wing and rotary, for long enough to understand the environment.
A squared, you may note that you did not respond to the question I was asking. I was asking why the poster in question was demanding VMC minimums for an INSTRUMENT approach. Question not answered, by you nor by him.
I am aware of the industry preference for stabilized approaches in heavies. It makes sense. What doesn't make sense, unless you make it a company SOP, is to arbitrarily adapt the suggestion I responded to with that question.
Aircraft are far MORE capable now in the IMC environment than they have ever been. That isn't a reason to raise the minimums, unless you don't actually know how to fly your own aircraft, and unless you don't actually know how to fly an instrument approach.
Flarepilot, I likely taught some of the people you now fly with how to land for the first time in their lives. I taught instruments for enough years, fixed wing and rotary, for long enough to understand the environment.
A squared, you may note that you did not respond to the question I was asking. I was asking why the poster in question was demanding VMC minimums for an INSTRUMENT approach. Question not answered, by you nor by him.
I am aware of the industry preference for stabilized approaches in heavies. It makes sense. What doesn't make sense, unless you make it a company SOP, is to arbitrarily adapt the suggestion I responded to with that question.
Aircraft are far MORE capable now in the IMC environment than they have ever been. That isn't a reason to raise the minimums, unless you don't actually know how to fly your own aircraft, and unless you don't actually know how to fly an instrument approach.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 17th Sep 2013 at 19:52.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lonewolf
I truly doubt you taught anyone I know how to fly. I'd almost bet that I got my com/cfi before you.
and dear lonewolf...if you are at 701' and the wx is 1000' and 3, the conditions may be vmc, but you are not vfr (controlled faa, not special)
I truly doubt you taught anyone I know how to fly. I'd almost bet that I got my com/cfi before you.
and dear lonewolf...if you are at 701' and the wx is 1000' and 3, the conditions may be vmc, but you are not vfr (controlled faa, not special)
DW, we're essentially on the same page. I consider "managerialism" a reaction and a response to a move towards a neoliberal political economy but now we're way off topic and I'll stop it at that.
I wouldn't turn the "automation" clock back one second - I thought the L1011, particularly the -500, was a brilliant design at the time and I think the same of all Airbus A320-A333-A343-A345 series aircraft. To my regret I missed the B777 by a few months due retirement but I figure it's every bit as good, having flown earlier Boeings.
But ya gotta know how to use the tools. Period.
Back to lurking and waiting for the Interim Report.
I wouldn't turn the "automation" clock back one second - I thought the L1011, particularly the -500, was a brilliant design at the time and I think the same of all Airbus A320-A333-A343-A345 series aircraft. To my regret I missed the B777 by a few months due retirement but I figure it's every bit as good, having flown earlier Boeings.
But ya gotta know how to use the tools. Period.
Back to lurking and waiting for the Interim Report.
Thank you flare, for your kind response. (Point on cloud clearance taken).
Can you see the ground and can you get to the runway? Isn't that the point at hand here?
Sorry, that's going backwards and ignores fifty years of great advances in both avionics and equipment. (And for that matter, regulation and the increase in radar coverage throughout the CONUS).
Can you see the ground and can you get to the runway? Isn't that the point at hand here?
Why not make all NON PRECISION approaches to(circling or straight in or modified straight in) 1000 feet and 3 miles visibility. (or more in special situations).
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 17th Sep 2013 at 21:45.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago, IL (ORD) USA
Age: 77
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In civilian aircraft there is no radar "scanning ahead". RadAlt and GPWS are downward looking and cannot predict terrain ahead of the aircraft. EGPWS is GPS/computer driven and uses a data base to provide terrain information in the area of the aircraft.
Forward looking radar can be found on some military aircraft designed for low altitude terrain following operations. They come standard with ejection seat(s).
Forward looking radar can be found on some military aircraft designed for low altitude terrain following operations. They come standard with ejection seat(s).
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flarepilot is right about VFR flight requires 500 ft below clouds so 701 ft with 1000 ft ceiling means to be legal you have to descend 201 ft. Now you can not fly over populated areas.
I am sure none of us have bent that rule, have we?
I am sure none of us have bent that rule, have we?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RadAlt and GPWS are downward looking and cannot predict terrain ahead of the aircraft.
Last edited by underfire; 18th Sep 2013 at 22:44.
Originally Posted by Underfire
Do you really think that GPWS has no forward looking capability, or has computations for anticipation? If it warns only for under the aircraft, how is that a warning? (it would be an IS)
As MotCap has alluded to, Enhanced GPWS uses a GPS-based terrain database to predict a dangerous approach to terrain and provide warnings eg "CAUTION TERRAIN, CAUTION TERRAIN". From my understaning of the system, it would not have warned this crew because they were too close to the nominal approach path to trigger anything.
Originally Posted by Lonewolf
Sorry, that's going backwards and ignores fifty years of great advances in both avionics and equipment. (And for that matter, regulation and the increase in radar coverage throughout the CONUS).
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kansas
Age: 85
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everything I've ever heard about the guy tells me that he is very much an engineer of the old-school, meaning that turning in a good product that could save lives was a bigger priority for him than the potential payday.
C. Donald Bateman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do not confuse GPWS or EGPWS with the military terrain following radar, which I recall was a highlight of the F-111 suite. It did indeed look ahead and was pretty successful in permitting very low altitude flight over uncharted, hilly-to-mountainous terrain - over four decades ago.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: N. California
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing how the discussion has strayed somewhat - Having flown various models of the F-111 (F, D ,A, EF) for 10 of my 20 yrs in the AF - the TFR system consisted of a combination of 3 radar antennas in the nose. Terrain vertical sweep and horizontal sweep (actually took into consideration the wing sweep) displayed on an E-scan scope for the pilot to stare at while trying not to wet his pants (night or WX), as well as the "attack" radar the weapons system operator calmly announced whether or not one might clear the next ridge, mountain, telephone lines, or a farmers barbed wire fence. The point is that any radar can paint the terrain. Ever wondered what that little "map" button on the control head was for? One just needs to know how to interpret the returns. Just like painting a thunderhead and wondering if there is another one lurking behind. If one were to, or could, climb another 5,000 ft one could paint that cell too, or clear the ridge going into Cali for example.
Last edited by 749CONNIE; 20th Sep 2013 at 15:22.
"C. Donald Bateman, the primary inventor of both GPWS and EGPWS (along with the patents underpinning both) was very much as much a safety advocate as he was an engineer."
Mr Bateman is a bonafide hero of aviation safety.
There's lot's of pilots and passengers still walking around because of his genious and technical leadership.
EGPWS added "look ahead" terrain alerting that is based, not on radar, but on terrain data and altimetry. Original GPWS, still included in EGPWS, uses radio altitude, inertial sensors and air data to provide terrain and sink rate alerts.
Terrain Following Radar (F-111, etc) was radar-based anticipation of the terrain ahead and flying close but not too close to terrain and yet stay below enemy radar.
Terrain Contour matching (Terrcom) was navigation by matching the changing radio altitude (profile) with terrain data to update and fine-tune on-board inertial navigation - used mostly by long range cruise missiles (before GPS?)
Mr Bateman is a bonafide hero of aviation safety.
There's lot's of pilots and passengers still walking around because of his genious and technical leadership.EGPWS added "look ahead" terrain alerting that is based, not on radar, but on terrain data and altimetry. Original GPWS, still included in EGPWS, uses radio altitude, inertial sensors and air data to provide terrain and sink rate alerts.
Terrain Following Radar (F-111, etc) was radar-based anticipation of the terrain ahead and flying close but not too close to terrain and yet stay below enemy radar.
Terrain Contour matching (Terrcom) was navigation by matching the changing radio altitude (profile) with terrain data to update and fine-tune on-board inertial navigation - used mostly by long range cruise missiles (before GPS?)