Yeah, I remember.
The meta-lesson is to follow an instrument approach procedure at night,
which for most people is the ILS.
This assures obstacle clearance and that you land on the correct runway,
both of which are amazingly unimportant to an incredible number of pilots.
AC Near crash SFO - NOTAMS are a bunch of Garbage and pilot fatigue
-
Eric Janson
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:31 am
[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=9098.msg25003#msg25003 date=1538400664]
Anyways, I have been told by multiple sources that they learned to
pop circuit breakers at appropriate moments, to stop the Airbus from
doing really stupid things.
What a piece of euro-trash.
[/quote]
I'd be curious just what circuit breakers would be getting pulled - the problem is more may be connected to the circuit than what is indicated. This is a very good way to get into real trouble imho!
There are 2 red buttons - one for the autopilot and one for the autothrust. Very easy to take over manually at any point.
Anyways, I have been told by multiple sources that they learned to
pop circuit breakers at appropriate moments, to stop the Airbus from
doing really stupid things.
What a piece of euro-trash.
[/quote]
I'd be curious just what circuit breakers would be getting pulled - the problem is more may be connected to the circuit than what is indicated. This is a very good way to get into real trouble imho!
There are 2 red buttons - one for the autopilot and one for the autothrust. Very easy to take over manually at any point.
-
Eric Janson
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:31 am
[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=9098.msg25020#msg25020 date=1538424688]
Yeah, I remember.
The meta-lesson is to follow an instrument approach procedure at night,
which for most people is the ILS.
This assures obstacle clearance and that you land on the correct runway,
both of which are amazingly unimportant to an incredible number of pilots.
[/quote]
Depends on what you're flying. Not all ILS are the same.
For my aircraft we need the G/S beam at 50' at the threshold. Anything less and we cannot use the ILS. This to ensure adequate main wheel clearance.
The GS antenna is on the nose gear door if I remember correctly and my eye height is 9 feet higher. The main wheels are 27 feet below my eye level. Basically I'm looking down the G/S with the rest of the aircraft below me.
As the aircraft get larger there are a lot of little things you need to start thinking about. Where your wheels are is one of them.
We can't do a 180 on a 150' wide runway either.
Yeah, I remember.
The meta-lesson is to follow an instrument approach procedure at night,
which for most people is the ILS.
This assures obstacle clearance and that you land on the correct runway,
both of which are amazingly unimportant to an incredible number of pilots.
[/quote]
Depends on what you're flying. Not all ILS are the same.
For my aircraft we need the G/S beam at 50' at the threshold. Anything less and we cannot use the ILS. This to ensure adequate main wheel clearance.
The GS antenna is on the nose gear door if I remember correctly and my eye height is 9 feet higher. The main wheels are 27 feet below my eye level. Basically I'm looking down the G/S with the rest of the aircraft below me.
As the aircraft get larger there are a lot of little things you need to start thinking about. Where your wheels are is one of them.
We can't do a 180 on a 150' wide runway either.
-
Nark1
One of the few things that I still have to fight through flying the bus(especially the 321), is lining up off centerline during a crosswind approach. The main gear is so far behind me, I have to fly the approach lined up with the runway edge, not the center line.
On another note:
Did my first operational autoland yesterday (outside of OE and proving run). Vis was 1/8. Landed great.
On another note:
Did my first operational autoland yesterday (outside of OE and proving run). Vis was 1/8. Landed great.
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
Digits, if this was simply a routine go around, (and you have loads of company in that view)
Why did AC feel the need to write their own 30 + page report as a submission to the NTSB?
Just asking all of the multitude of AC fan club.
Why did AC feel the need to write their own 30 + page report as a submission to the NTSB?
Just asking all of the multitude of AC fan club.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
[quote]Digits, if this was simply a routine go around, (and you have loads of company in that view) [/quote]
I am happy I worked in aviation when that kind of thinking was virtually unheard of because even if you might think it was routine you would have been laughed at by your colleagues in aviation.
Good God what is aviation coming to Rookie Pilot, are there many that ignorant of the subject out there?
I am happy I worked in aviation when that kind of thinking was virtually unheard of because even if you might think it was routine you would have been laughed at by your colleagues in aviation.
Good God what is aviation coming to Rookie Pilot, are there many that ignorant of the subject out there?
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
Hard landings. Routine Go Arounds.
Anyone else see a pattern?
Anyone else see a pattern?
-
Chuck Ellsworth
[quote][font=Verdana]Anyone else see a pattern? [/font][/quote][font=Verdana]
The pattern I see tells me if that is the attitude of pilots today, drive don't fly.[/font]
The pattern I see tells me if that is the attitude of pilots today, drive don't fly.[/font]
-
digits
[quote author=Rookie Pilot link=topic=9098.msg25113#msg25113 date=1538954101]
Hard landings. Routine Go Arounds.
Anyone else see a pattern?
[/quote]
Well yeah. There is a culture change going on in aviation where go-arounds are encouraged instead of being avoided at all cost. Most SOPs nowadays also request firm touchdowns instead of trying to grease it on and risk a runway overrun. You're not supposed to damage anything of course, but harder landings are a logical consequence of that.
[quote author=Chuck Ellsworth link=topic=9098.msg25114#msg25114 date=1538957866]
[font=verdana]
The pattern I see tells me if that is the attitude of pilots today, drive don't fly.[/font]
[/quote]
Nice try [i]old man ;)
[/i]
The SFO captain had 20 000 hours. Safe to assume he was closer to your generation than those of the "pilots today"
Hard landings. Routine Go Arounds.
Anyone else see a pattern?
[/quote]
Well yeah. There is a culture change going on in aviation where go-arounds are encouraged instead of being avoided at all cost. Most SOPs nowadays also request firm touchdowns instead of trying to grease it on and risk a runway overrun. You're not supposed to damage anything of course, but harder landings are a logical consequence of that.
[quote author=Chuck Ellsworth link=topic=9098.msg25114#msg25114 date=1538957866]
[font=verdana]
The pattern I see tells me if that is the attitude of pilots today, drive don't fly.[/font]
[/quote]
Nice try [i]old man ;)
[/i]
The SFO captain had 20 000 hours. Safe to assume he was closer to your generation than those of the "pilots today"
-
Chuck Ellsworth
[quote][font=Verdana]Nice try [/font][font=Verdana]old man
[/font][font=Verdana]The SFO captain had 20 000 hours. Safe to assume he was closer to your generation than those of the "pilots today"[/font][/quote][font=Verdana]
There are good pilots and bad pilots in any age group.
My comment was directed at the mindset that tries to whitewash incidents like the SFO very close miss on a visual approach to claim it was an acceptable approach and go around.
That crew were just plain lucky because they had no idea of where they were until they were a second or so from disaster.
Anyone who tries to excuse such incompetence has some serious issues with reality.[/font]
[/font][font=Verdana]The SFO captain had 20 000 hours. Safe to assume he was closer to your generation than those of the "pilots today"[/font][/quote][font=Verdana]
There are good pilots and bad pilots in any age group.
My comment was directed at the mindset that tries to whitewash incidents like the SFO very close miss on a visual approach to claim it was an acceptable approach and go around.
That crew were just plain lucky because they had no idea of where they were until they were a second or so from disaster.
Anyone who tries to excuse such incompetence has some serious issues with reality.[/font]
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 0 Replies
- 898 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
-
- 7 Replies
- 13711 Views
-
Last post by David MacRay
-
- 0 Replies
- 5957 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner
