Normal FedEx Approach??
11-27-2012 | 02:33 PM
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
Using your logic then I have never messed up because I have always landed safely. If our only benchmarks for success are making sure no one is killed and no metal is bent then this job would be a heck of a lot more fun but also much more dangerous.
You seem to take this personally. Just because those are you coworkers does not mean you need to wear rose-colored glasses. We learn from mistakes whether a stranger, our best friend, or even ourselves make them.
You seem to take this personally. Just because those are you coworkers does not mean you need to wear rose-colored glasses. We learn from mistakes whether a stranger, our best friend, or even ourselves make them.
pssst want to see some I phone video of a guy not wearing his mask when the captain left the cockpit?
Last edited by FDXLAG; 11-27-2012 at 02:50 PM.
11-27-2012 | 02:59 PM
#122
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 93
What logic is there? I dont know when they put down the gear do you? What was their speed? The company has the tapes if they are worried about it I am sure the crew will find out. Not any of my business but I guess it is yours.
pssst want to see some I phone video of a guy not wearing his mask when the captain left the cockpit?
pssst want to see some I phone video of a guy not wearing his mask when the captain left the cockpit?
I don't think this video will hold up in an official investigation, but do you honestly think the gear was down by 500 ft? I know it sucks to be put under the microscope and have our actions over analyzed by people who weren't in the seat, but that is the only way we can discuss safety. Let us say that instead of posting a video, someone just asked your opinion on getting the gear down seconds before you crossed the threshold. That is how I view this thread. You are taking this way too personally.
11-27-2012 | 03:07 PM
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
Wow I am not taking it personally at all. I dont have all the facts, so I dont feel qualified to comment. You obviously do. I have already said if they pushed the 500' stable target they should have gone around after that what more needs to be said? We certainly dont need to go as far as some here have when they figured out from 30 seconds of video outside the cockpit the crews intentions.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 11-27-2012 at 03:19 PM.
11-27-2012 | 03:16 PM
#124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,253
Likes: 0
This story is shrouded in the mists of time, but when they first implemented the 1000' stable rule, a captain I flew with told me he knew the management guys that made the decision.
He said they picked 1000' because of situations like this. Pilots could make a quick recovery and still be stable by 7-800 feet or so.
He said they picked 1000' because of situations like this. Pilots could make a quick recovery and still be stable by 7-800 feet or so.
11-27-2012 | 03:18 PM
#125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 93
Actually, I have not commented on the video at all. I commented on the statement people made claiming if you land the plane without breaking it, you did nothing wrong.
11-27-2012 | 03:20 PM
#126
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
This story is shrouded in the mists of time, but when they first implemented the 1000' stable rule, a captain I flew with told me he knew the management guys that made the decision.
He said they picked 1000' because of situations like this. Pilots could make a quick recovery and still be stable by 7-800 feet or so.
He said they picked 1000' because of situations like this. Pilots could make a quick recovery and still be stable by 7-800 feet or so.
11-27-2012 | 03:23 PM
#127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
And I have only commented on people watching 30 seconds of video outside the cockpit and then pronouncing the crews state of mind and intention. As far as I know the gear was down at 500' and the aircraft was on glidepath and on speed. If not they pay people to determine the facts and I dont want that job.
11-27-2012 | 03:47 PM
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
From: Retired
As anyone who has flown the 757 at FedEx will attest, when we first got the airplane, we were trying to figure out how to slow it down on approach. Plus, we are all nice guys, so we try to do what approach wants. Got asked to do 170 to the marker one night to accomodate an MD following us. Of course we will. No problem. Didn't really pick up on the 15 knot tailwind until about 1500 feet. Gear, boards, flaps 30, open the window and stick my arm out; anything to get stable at 500 feet. Boards stowed, gear down, flaps 30, checklist complete and still slowing to approach speed at 500 feet; Captain says "unstable, airspeed, continue." Everything was in place by 350 feet, normal landing and roll out. Yes, we can still use some judgement (at least we could then).
11-27-2012 | 05:21 PM
#129
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,184
Likes: 0
From: leaning to the left
11-27-2012 | 06:15 PM
#130
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 93
Here you go...
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
