Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Shuttle Tail Strike

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by MCM View Post
    It depends what you mean by tricky 3WE.

    ...

    Just something to ponder.
    #^#$~!

    I wanted to hear what YOU mean by tricky- I'm just a non-professional outsider "that only plays on MSFS".

    I can go into black and white mode and say that the approach and missed approach is based off of offically-reviewed and officially-approved calculations and adequate safety margins and throw out the TERPS acronym to try to be cool.

    Any instrument-trained and current pilot, using normal skill should be able to handle it...right ?

    Then I can switch to sympathetic-flawed-human mode- To hell with TERPS and safety margins...a little hiccup at 150 MPH and CFIT (that has happened a LOT in the past and will probably happen again in the future).

    As I look at the approach chart and the missed procedure, it looked like you only had to climb a few hundred feet and then make almost a classic teardrop course reversal, it looked like there were no major obstacles above that height within ~5 miles of the airport...and then sort of backtrack and climb to 5000 feet where you clear almost everything. "No big deal, right?"

    OR

    It's mountainous terrain...it would be rough with an engine out (even though that's figured in, right?), and we have operators making self-imposed bans on the Localizer to 18 at Birmingham at night and hard IMC...

    Brief for no go-arond:

    I get what you are saying about engine out stuff. AND I'm thinking it might be wise to brief that we REALLY REALLY REALLY do not WANT to go around (and that's NOT saying, this approach PROHIBITS go arounds nor that still might be times to go around- just that it's wise to avoid go arounds if at all possible.)

    Just trying to read between the lines and pry YOUR opinion out of you

    Is this approach markedly more nasty compared to average?

    Thanks.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by MCM View Post
      It depends what you mean by tricky 3WE.

      You'll see the minima for the approach is 650'. This is very high for an ILS, and could well be due to that height being required to meet the missed approach climb gradient for terrain clearance. Is it for sure? I don't know.

      So what happens when you've continued below the minima (because you are visual), and now at 100' you need to go around? Climbing back into a black hole, from an unknown position (you're now well beyond the missed approach point), and aren't guaranteed of terrain clearance.
      How does that compare to losing an engine on take-off just after V1?
      However unknown the position where you start the missing approach might be, it should not be lower than or forward of the single-engine lift off point.

      While I see that the airline doesn't allow take-offs at night or IMC from this runway either, I guess that terrain clearance would be guaranteed anyway.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #18
        You have a series of "bumps" of the Blue Ridge 6 miles north and again 20 miles west of the airport.
        Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
          You have a series of "bumps" of the Blue Ridge 6 miles north and again 20 miles west of the airport.
          That's not the question.

          The question is if you trust a crew of fully-licensed, current, recurrently-trained, Multi-Engine, IFR, Commercial, ATP, ERJ-type-rated puppy mill-educated pilots to fly paying passengers on an FAA-approved approach with safety buffers for all sorts of contingencies to it in IMC to a mountainous airport in an ERJ which has had hardly no fatal accidents and body count as compared to the more sophisticated 777 and A330.

          The green font is good reason to trust the pilots...

          The red font is a good reason NOT to trust the pilots...

          (Didn't say it was an easy question )
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #20
            I'll try and act as the supervisor and put 3WE and Gabriel's points together - you've already got the answer between you.

            How does that compare to losing an engine on take-off just after V1?
            However unknown the position where you start the missing approach might be, it should not be lower than or forward of the single-engine lift off point.
            Absolutely correct. For a take-off, the airline (/pilot) must have a strategy in place to avoid terrain in the event of an engine failure. So how can you perform a go around from below minima (where you may no longer meet the required climb gradient) but avoid terrain? You guessed it Gabriel - you follow your engine out takeoff plan.

            While I see that the airline doesn't allow take-offs at night or IMC from this runway either
            Penny dropped yet?

            I guess that terrain clearance would be guaranteed anyway.
            The pilot needs to KNOW that if they perform a take off or go around that they will not hit anything. By not allowing Night or IMC takeoffs from this runway the airline has essentially said 'after an engine failure on takeoff on this runway you can only avoid hills by visually manoeuvring around them, and we cannot give you appropriate terrain clearance without visual separation'. How is the go around looking now?

            I can go into black and white mode and say that the approach and missed approach is based off of offically-reviewed and officially-approved calculations and adequate safety margins and throw out the TERPS acronym to try to be cool.

            Any instrument-trained and current pilot, using normal skill should be able to handle it...right ?
            Absolutely. I'll bet these ERJ pilots would have been more than comfortable performing a missed approach at the minima. That missed approach procedure only guarantees you terrain separation from the minima, and only if you meet certain climb gradients.

            Just trying to read between the lines and pry YOUR opinion out of you
            My opinion is that whenever you are flying you need to have a plan in place to avoid terrain. This includes a go around from below the minima, where following the chart no-longer guarantees keeping you away from the hard pointy things. It sounds like this crew did make an assessment, and decided that they could not guarantee terrain separation and therefore would commit to landing below a height they had selected.

            I don't know the airport or the approach, and there may be other options available to them as terrain avoidance strategies. But the missed approach does make it look like there's plenty of hills around.

            Comment


            • #21
              3we, I don't know you, but this rookie almost convinced me (you know what they say about absolute statements).

              That said, I would not be Gabriel if I didn't fight back. Later, I'm busy now, so stay tuned.

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #22
                I must admit that I expected that I would be showing that the regulations are more stringent that what I found they are, particularly regarding the approach.

                Re: Take off:

                (d) No person operating a turbine engine powered airplane may take off that airplane at a weight greater than that listed in the Airplane Flight Manual—

                (1) [...]

                (2) [...] that allows a net takeoff flight path that clears all obstacles either by a height of at least 35 feet vertically, or by at least 200 feet horizontally within the airport boundaries and by at least 300 feet horizontally after passing the boundaries.

                (e) In determining maximum weights, minimum distances, and flight paths under paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, correction must be made for the runway to be used, the elevation of the airport, the effective runway gradient, the ambient temperature and wind component at the time of takeoff [...]

                (f) For the purposes of this section, it is assumed that the airplane is not banked before reaching a height of 50 feet, as shown by the takeoff path or net takeoff flight path data (as appropriate) in the Airplane Flight Manual, and thereafter that the maximum bank is not more than 15 degrees.

                Re: Approach:

                a) No person operating a turbine engine powered airplane may take off that airplane at a weight, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil, that is greater than that which (under the approved, one engine inoperative, en route net flight path data in the Airplane Flight Manual for that airplane) will allow compliance with paragraph (a) (1) or (2) of this section, based on the ambient temperatures expected en route:

                (1) There is a positive slope at an altitude of at least 1,000 feet above all terrain and obstructions within five statute miles on each side of the intended track, and, in addition, if that airplane was certificated after August 29, 1959 (SR 422B) there is a positive slope at 1,500 feet above the airport where the airplane is assumed to land after an engine fails.

                (2) The net flight path allows the airplane to continue flight from the cruising altitude to an airport where a landing can be made under §121.197, clearing all terrain and obstructions within five statute miles of the intended track by at least 2,000 feet vertically and with a positive slope at 1,000 feet above the airport where the airplane lands after an engine fails, or, if that airplane was certificated after September 30, 1958 (SR 422A, 422B), with a positive slope at 1,500 feet above the airport where the airplane lands after an engine fails.


                However, the requirements of the airplane certification for the climb gradient in a go-around are more stringent that those of the operation requirements cited above:

                §25.117 Climb: general.

                Compliance with the requirements of §§25.119 and 25.121 must be shown at each weight, altitude, and ambient temperature within the operational limits established for the airplane and with the most unfavorable center of gravity for each configuration.

                §25.121 Climb: One-engine-inoperative.

                (d) Approach. In a configuration corresponding to the normal all-engines-operating procedure in which VSR for this configuration does not exceed 110 percent of the VSR for the related all-engines-operating landing configuration:

                (1) The steady gradient of climb may not be less than 2.1 percent for two-engine airplanes, 2.4 percent for three-engine airplanes, and 2.7 percent for four-engine airplanes, with—

                (i) The critical engine inoperative, the remaining engines at the go-around power or thrust setting;

                (ii) The maximum landing weight;

                (iii) A climb speed established in connection with normal landing procedures, but not exceeding 1.4 VSR; and

                (iv) Landing gear retracted.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  3WE, I don't know about your question, but this rookie almost convinced me (you know what they say about absolute statements)...
                  In classic ATP fashion, he gave some valuable insight BUT sidestepped my question by saying, I'm not familiar with this airport or approach so I won't compare it to other approaches and comment on whether it's 'more dangerous'. To do so would be an admission that things aren't all black and white with instrument procedures...even though the LOC to 18 at Birmingham meets all requirements with safety buffers, operators often prohibit it.

                  (It's OK, it's what they always do and what he did say was good stuff and is appreciated).

                  So, I did rough figuring. For a true missed approach, you need to climb 307 feet, and for a worst-possible go-around, you have to climb 925 feet. This is 2100 feet MSL and gives you about 500 feet of clearance from MOST of the stuff off to the NNW of the airport except for one 2297 ft peak.



                  Then I went to a mundane, mild-terrain airport between New York and Los Angeles. The terrain has 100 to 200 ft relief, but is littered with a number of TV towers and coal-electric smoke stacks (both of which provide critical support of our need for Reality TV shows).

                  At this airport, to go missed, you must climb 838 feet and for the worst-possible go-around must climb 1037 feet. Interestingly, it seems this gives you about 500 feet of clearance from most of the obstructions (much like it does in VA).

                  Indeed, these obstructions are a lot thinner, so you have a better chance of missing them by luck, and we do lack the equivalent of that single mountaintop that's 200 feet taller than the initial altitude.



                  Perhaps the bigger issue is the second phase of these missed procedures. In VA you have to climb 3200 to 3800 total feet, whereas the other approach only requires 1738 to 1937 total feet feet?

                  I guess I might still question if the extra 600 (3800-3200) feet of climb out for a go-around at Roanoke is all that significant when you have to climb 3000+ total feet for terrain separation...

                  But it's a mushy question and the pro's like to sidestep those.

                  Repeating from above: (It's OK, it's what they always do and what he did say was good stuff and is appreciated).
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    That said, I would not be a parlour-talking-pimple-faced-teenage-flight-simmer if I didn't fight back.
                    Fixed

                    I was wondering if you might put some bold font here and there in the real critical parts of the the FAR's you posted/pasted. As you and Flyboy know, I can read that stuff and the really critical things go in my eyes and straight out my rear without being processed.
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      I was wondering if you might put some bold font here and there in the real critical parts of the the FAR's you posted/pasted. As you and Flyboy know, I can read that stuff and the really critical things go in my eyes and straight out my rear without being processed.
                      Previous post edited as requested.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        Previous post edited as requested.
                        Thanks!

                        All of this is an interesting intersection of rules and reality...and MCM would even seem to imply that the "no-go-around" deal, while not specifically restricted might be a wise rule of thumb that should probably be obeyed.

                        On the other hand, if you aren't at gross weight and it's not 110F and you have good airspeed, is it really that hard to climb that 600 extra feet in time on one engine?

                        And, in spite of a good briefing, good procedures, good CRM and good airmanship, what if a school bus full of nuns pulls on the runway and you sort of really DO need to go around?!?!?

                        WE MUST REWRITE ALL THE RULES!!!!!!!!!
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          Thanks!

                          All of this is an interesting intersection of rules and reality...and MCM would even seem to imply that the "no-go-around" deal, while not specifically restricted might be a wise rule of thumb that should probably be obeyed.

                          On the other hand, if you aren't at gross weight and it's not 110F and you have good airspeed, is it really that hard to climb that 600 extra feet in time on one engine?

                          And, in spite of a good briefing, good procedures, good CRM and good airmanship, what if a school bus full of nuns pulls on the runway and you sort of really DO need to go around?!?!?

                          WE MUST REWRITE ALL THE RULES!!!!!!!!!
                          Well, there are some airports where, beyond a certain point, you are really committed to land or crash. Take Lukla for example. If the bus full of nuns pulls on the RWY just as you are about to touch down, you are free to choose between landing and crashing the bus or going around and crashing the mountain (especially if you are single engine in a twin otter at 10K ft)

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            And, in spite of a good briefing, good procedures, good CRM and good airmanship, what if a school bus full of nuns pulls on the runway and you sort of really DO need to go around?!?!?
                            I think the standing grey area rule is that the immediate threat trumps the potential one. Besides, this is VFR, you can just pull a 180° midfield, cross over the other runway at 50ft RA and clip the treetops on your way out.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              ...just...
                              As I have gotten older and wiser, I have learned to dislike that word almost as much as absolute statements.

                              Remember, it was night time and please review the statistics regarding circling approaches (which have some relevance).

                              Why don't you just try doing a single engine approach and circle to land at night near minimums sometime? You just have to follow the procedures.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Nuns of the Grey Order, Episcopal Nuns or Catholic Felecian Nuns?
                                Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X