Another aspect of this wiffodill is that I bet it wasn't done using the FMS. CFITs have reduced markedly because of GPWS and database approaches. In this case, where the crew or ATC has already ballsed-up the arrival, they are setting themselves up for an even bigger ballsup doing orbits to get down to the glideslope. And no, gittyiigtitiy, I don't have magenta skin and I'm quite happy to fly around in HDG and VS; just not in this scenario.
|
CB, you comment as if the 360 actually took place, and not in an appropriate manner. Do you have any leads in that regard?
I found nothing here: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ls1247 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ls657 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ls123 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ls215 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ls1415 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ls983 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ls519 @giggity please check lingo. Radar Service (Contact) means very differently from Radar Vectors. I fell under the impression you may have interchanged the two recently? The difference between those - in this particular discussion - is essential. |
FD, yes, OK, whatever. Even if they "thought" about doing it they're very norty boys!! := :eek: :ok:
|
The difference between a 360 turn, (or two consecutive 180’s or four consecutive 90’s), and a hold of course is that with a hold you get an outbound one minute straight leg to adjust your tracking (3 x inbound drift) to allow for crosswind, placing you in the right position to roll out correctly on the inbound track. This will help you make sure you are where you think you are. A manual 360 rate one turn does not give you this opportunity for tracking compensation, so the risk is that you might drift over to the non-holding side? Having said that, if you press ‘Immediate exit’ on the FMGC having just flown over the fix, the Airbus FBW FCOM says it will exit the hold when next overflying the fix, and the diagram shows what looks like a 360 turn. So presumably it compensates for wind drift when doing this - by adjusting bank angle? If flying a 360 using heading mode, I guess this compensation would not occur? I have flown this approach into Bodrum quite a few times and you had to watch very carefully where ATC vectored you. |
A Squered
Now , my good Man , You are starting to scare me. That is if You are in the left seat in anything with more then one seat, in IMC!?
. Your first quote of me was brilliant : I say, hypothetical error made : And yes , it is likely it was made at high speed to loose altitude, we dont know. IF it was over 185kts busted protected area , most likely. How do I adjust TRACK in a rasetrack: Depends, Seneca , Time Twist Turn Track,( Talk?) QDM QDR. Magenta line AC. Check it is CORRECT and LNAV. Kind Regards Old and Hairy Cåpt B |
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
(Post 10235292)
The thought of "why the need for such sentence" is rather chilling. It means somebody probably tried, and the company should be lucky not learn from the news.
The 360 is not the problem. The height loss through the turn and the position where executed could be, if ignorant of the underlying safe altitude limits. I said before my first picture: the chart provides enough information to execute a 360 in an organized and well-controlled manner. Exactly that. Adding now: execute both safely and legally, definitely at least the first of the two. Fair enough, on the other side of the ring: The terrain, high temps, wind aloft, and GS angle ALSO provide for a mine-field battleground, where a stupid 360 would turn into an Air Crash Investigators episode faster than one can say "Sink-Rate". Yes, going to the hold would be safer (by doing something published) but I agree with FD, if done properly, taking care of the conditions that affect the manoeuvre (speed limit, safe altitude to descend, not going over to the non-holding side, doing it on the correct distance markers), I can't see anything unsafe with the 360. I will agree with BSU in that speed is a doubt considering they were high. They would need to have the limit in check otherwise they'd surely miss the protected area. |
Are all you naysayers just assuming the heading bug was wanged around without due regard to the wind or position? Perhaps a small amount of credit might be given for a bit or airmanship and the 360 was completed to ensure they stayed within the protected hold area by adjusting the heading and, therefore, the rate of turn accordingly. Either way way you’d have to actually know how and what rather than just pontificating from a position which lacks actual knowledge of the event. |
Originally Posted by Chesty Morgan
(Post 10235897)
Either way way you’d have to actually know how and what rather than just pontificating from a position which lacks actual knowledge of the event. |
Capn. Blogs
That's different: the ATC is actively controlling you. It's his job to keep you clear of terrain. Two hull loses in Rio and a mid air at montpellier.. |
Bind Pew, read the thread, and in particular post 30.
What accidents are you referring to? |
Originally Posted by A Squared
(Post 10235910)
Exactly. Like assuming that they did exceed the published holding speed, despite there being no evidence that they did.
Besides, FR24 has no record of any such 360 taking place. The links I posted above show the history of all J2 city pairs that go to Bodrum/Milas, the only exciting thing to see is that one lucky flight did land on 10. |
185 kt is the restriction for race-track reversal procedure |
CB: thanks for correcting. For the RACE-TRACK.
------ Unconnected to the above correction of terminology, the last chart missing that a pilot would have:https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...a2c70ba961.png |
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
(Post 10236140)
AS you'll enjoy this - come check the chart with me. 185 kt is the restriction for race-track reversal procedure. The holding pattern published over the same position has no speed restrictions at all: so max IAS 280 knots in turbulent conditions is perfectly fine. Allowance for wind mandatory, indeed. :D
Besides, FR24 has no record of any such 360 taking place. The links I posted above show the history of all J2 city pairs that go to Bodrum/Milas, the only exciting thing to see is that one lucky flight did land on 10. It happened, its not an IFR procedure, its not acceptable. I may proceed with CHIRP to get the issue brought into the minds of all Pilots. The CAA and UKFSC continues to provide zero leadership. Thanks to the more professional contributors |
. holding pattern published over the same position has no speed restrictions at all: so max IAS 280 knots All academic discussion of course. No aspersions cast! |
Dogma, please do. Especially if it happened on the final approach stage, as you may have suggested by the title of the thread.
Also please read my sentence again. Saying there's no record of a flight with an orbit on that public, open data, website - which I certainly did, is very different from what you label me with. Show a pair, give us the date. You had the resolve to name the airline. If it happened on a shortened base, under vectors above MRVA 5600' it is perfectly fine, If it happened on the intermediate segment, over the published RACETRACK and NATKU HP(160°L MHA 6000') under severe CAVOK of the last month - different people different tastes, but still fine. (you never said unsafe, that's well observed!) midnight cruiser: Comment noted, PANS-OPS VOL I table I-6-1-1 reviewed for the second time, which is where the number comes from, i.a.w. the "3" index note. Irrelevant to the thread, though I went un-necessarily far for that point. About the distance limits: I think we may not be seeing the same HLDG in our respective paperwork. Cheers. I'd still love to see Jepp / Navtech for that approach. Curious how the vertical profile and MNM altitudes are presented. |
I'd still love to see Jepp / Navtech for that approach. |
If you’ve been left high, it would be good airmanship to ask for some extra track miles in order to lose the height. All about anticipation too. Failing this enter the hold - at least you are at a known position. |
Originally Posted by Paulm1949
(Post 10236475)
If you’ve been left high, it would be good airmanship to ask for some extra track miles in order to lose the height. All about anticipation too. Failing this enter the hold - at least you are at a known position. How often have you been told to hold at the IAF and then, almost immediately "Hold is cancelled, continue the turn onto a heading of..." What's the difference? |
Indeed, I’ll merely offer a general example sometimes heard at somewhere known to be protective of it’s holding airspace “ON reaching XXX, do one orbit, then leave XXX on a heading of”.. (oh, a belated answer to a question somebody asked: yes, ever since 1978...got my first examiners ticket in ‘ 86) |
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:22. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.