Normal FedEx Approach??
11-26-2012 | 05:41 AM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
I'm not a FDX guy, just a bystander, but if 1000 in IMC and 500 in VMC are both considered stabilized approaches, does the FDR know the weather? I fly an ancient airplane with an FDR, but ours doesn't know the weather...this is an honest question, not troll bait. Curious if or how the FDR knows the WX.
11-26-2012 | 05:58 AM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
From: MD11 FO, ANC
I think I'm agreeing with you here, but I just want to clarify...
Yeah. You go around. It's just that easy.
Then you land safely. You debrief and figure out what got you into that position. And then you file an ASAP report when you get to your hotel room so that whatever stupidity put you on an unstable approach can be reviewed so that the next poor bastard walking in your shoes doesn't end up in the same position.
Mistakes happen. Good pilots learn from them.
Yeah. You go around. It's just that easy.
Then you land safely. You debrief and figure out what got you into that position. And then you file an ASAP report when you get to your hotel room so that whatever stupidity put you on an unstable approach can be reviewed so that the next poor bastard walking in your shoes doesn't end up in the same position.
Mistakes happen. Good pilots learn from them.
FOM 6.45 Stabilized Approach Criteria - last sentence - "A go-around shall be initiated."
and in Rock's scenario (go around followed by safe/"stabilized" approach & landing) - your ASAP report would be accepted
my only reason for commenting on this thread in the first place was to attempt to clarify what the ASAP program "is for" and "is not for"
11-26-2012 | 06:46 AM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Likes: 1
I'm not a FDX guy, just a bystander, but if 1000 in IMC and 500 in VMC are both considered stabilized approaches, does the FDR know the weather? I fly an ancient airplane with an FDR, but ours doesn't know the weather...this is an honest question, not troll bait. Curious if or how the FDR knows the WX.
(inside joke...lowslow...not mocking you)
11-26-2012 | 06:49 AM
#94
Tri-tanic operator
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
From: Doggie
Disregarding this particular incident, I see an institutional mentality that the 'target' to shoot for to be stable is 1,000' IMC and 500' VMC. From the perspective of my airplane that has very low approach speeds and a difference of up to 60kts between intermediate and final approach speeds, the time difference between being stable at 1K and at 500' feet is about 15 seconds. We fly hours and hours and then paint ourselves in a corner over 15 seconds? Just dumb.
Best thing said yet !
11-26-2012 | 07:48 AM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,184
Likes: 0
From: leaning to the left
Just curious...and, I'm certainly not condoning that type of approach...But, do you guys really think that approach and landing were unsafe?
For the most part all I've heard on here are references to FOQA and ASAPs. Which leads me to the conclusion you're not really worried about the safety aspect of it...but, more the legality of it.
For the most part all I've heard on here are references to FOQA and ASAPs. Which leads me to the conclusion you're not really worried about the safety aspect of it...but, more the legality of it.
11-26-2012 | 08:59 AM
#96
On Reserve
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
11-26-2012 | 09:09 AM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Just curious...and, I'm certainly not condoning that type of approach...But, do you guys really think that approach and landing were unsafe?
For the most part all I've heard on here are references to FOQA and ASAPs. Which leads me to the conclusion you're not really worried about the safety aspect of it...but, more the legality of it.
For the most part all I've heard on here are references to FOQA and ASAPs. Which leads me to the conclusion you're not really worried about the safety aspect of it...but, more the legality of it.
11-26-2012 | 09:16 AM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
Yes there is doubt they were rushed or gaffed off a checklist. I see an aircraft flown on glidepath on speed. The gear likely came down late rushed/gaffed or more likely distracted. They likely pushed the 500' target and if that is the case they probably should have gone around. In the cockpit they made the decision that the approach was safe and what do you know, they were right.
The rest is between them and the company. None of my business.
The rest is between them and the company. None of my business.
11-26-2012 | 09:22 AM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
I'm not a FDX guy, just a bystander, but if 1000 in IMC and 500 in VMC are both considered stabilized approaches, does the FDR know the weather? I fly an ancient airplane with an FDR, but ours doesn't know the weather...this is an honest question, not troll bait. Curious if or how the FDR knows the WX.
11-26-2012 | 11:35 AM
#100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
According to the FOQA folks there's currently no way to tell if the approach was flown in IMC or VMC, but they will have the ability to tell sometime soon (it may already be in place.) They said the FOQA program will look at old weather reports and compare them with the time stamps they get from the FDR data. It may be more sophisticated than that but this was the dumbed down pilot explanation given to us.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
