Normal FedEx Approach??
11-24-2012, 01:22 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by DeadHead
Looks like there are a lot of tools out there who like to play amateur FAA inspector on their downtime. 
11-24-2012, 05:45 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B767 Capt.
Posts: 616
And pilots here wonder why we have the reputation for being flying cowboys that we do. Those guys better make their story that they "forgot" to lower the gear, because they are hosed on ASAP if they don't.
11-24-2012, 06:43 PM
#53
gets every day off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Retired MD11 Capt
Posts: 705
Originally Posted by iceman49
AC 120-08 1/20/11 of course it is just an advisory
a. Stabilized Approaches. A stabilized approach is a key feature to a safe approach and landing. Operators are encouraged by the FAA and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to use the stabilized approach concept to help eliminate CFIT. The stabilized approach concept is characterized by maintaining a stable approach speed, descent rate, vertical flightpath, and configuration to the landing touchdown point. Depart the FAF configured for landing and on the proper approach speed, power setting, and flightpath before descending below the minimum stabilized approach height; e.g., 1,000 feet above the airport elevation and at a rate of descent no greater than 1,000 feet per minute (fpm), unless specifically briefed. (See AC 120-71.)
a. Stabilized Approaches. A stabilized approach is a key feature to a safe approach and landing. Operators are encouraged by the FAA and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to use the stabilized approach concept to help eliminate CFIT. The stabilized approach concept is characterized by maintaining a stable approach speed, descent rate, vertical flightpath, and configuration to the landing touchdown point. Depart the FAF configured for landing and on the proper approach speed, power setting, and flightpath before descending below the minimum stabilized approach height; e.g., 1,000 feet above the airport elevation and at a rate of descent no greater than 1,000 feet per minute (fpm), unless specifically briefed. (See AC 120-71.)
Originally Posted by AFW_MD11
From the FedEx ASAP MOU:
4. APPLICABILITY. The FedEx Express ASAP applies to all flight deck crewmember employees of FedEx Express and only to events that occur while acting in that capacity. Reports of events involving apparent noncompliance with 14 CFR that are not inadvertent or that appear to involve an intentional disregard for safety, criminal activity, substance abuse, controlled substances, alcohol, or intentional falsification are excluded from the program.
14 CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations - Title 14: Aeronautics and Space (aka - FAR's)
4. APPLICABILITY. The FedEx Express ASAP applies to all flight deck crewmember employees of FedEx Express and only to events that occur while acting in that capacity. Reports of events involving apparent noncompliance with 14 CFR that are not inadvertent or that appear to involve an intentional disregard for safety, criminal activity, substance abuse, controlled substances, alcohol, or intentional falsification are excluded from the program.
14 CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations - Title 14: Aeronautics and Space (aka - FAR's)
As near as I can tell, this was possibly (probably) a violation of the FedEx FOM, para 6.45, which would be a company issue, but not a violation of any FAR, which would be an FAA issue. Which is not to say that the FAA wouldn't be interested, but I'm not sure it would/could rise to the level of certificate action and the invocation of ASAP/NASA protections.
Of course the FAA could always (and frequently does) fall back on the "careless and reckless operation" clause when they frown on something but don't have the evidence or intellectual integrity to back up a more specific charge.
11-24-2012, 07:47 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD11 FO, ANC
Posts: 1,098
Originally Posted by Nitefrater
As far as I can find, there is no "AC-120-08" listed on the FAA website. There IS an AC 120-108 that contains the para you mention, but that AC is specific guidance for CDA non-precision approaches. I'm not sure (and frankly doubt) that this approach was one of those.
Specifically what part of CFR 14 are you alleging was in noncompliance?
As near as I can tell, this was possibly (probably) a violation of the FedEx FOM, para 6.45, which would be a company issue, but not a violation of any FAR, which would be an FAA issue. Which is not to say that the FAA wouldn't be interested, but I'm not sure it would/could rise to the level of certificate action and the invocation of ASAP/NASA protections.
Of course the FAA could always (and frequently does) fall back on the "careless and reckless operation" clause when they frown on something but don't have the evidence or intellectual integrity to back up a more specific charge.
Specifically what part of CFR 14 are you alleging was in noncompliance?
As near as I can tell, this was possibly (probably) a violation of the FedEx FOM, para 6.45, which would be a company issue, but not a violation of any FAR, which would be an FAA issue. Which is not to say that the FAA wouldn't be interested, but I'm not sure it would/could rise to the level of certificate action and the invocation of ASAP/NASA protections.
Of course the FAA could always (and frequently does) fall back on the "careless and reckless operation" clause when they frown on something but don't have the evidence or intellectual integrity to back up a more specific charge.
The point of the highlighting was to point out to those recommending filing ASAP reports - they probably wouldn't be accepted under the ASAP program due to the "not inadvertent" and/or "intentional disregard for safety" clauses.
Now for my comment since you asked - would you NOT characterize that sequence of events as "careless & reckless"? even if they just "forgot" until the last possible moment to lower the gear? (jailhouse law degree aside that is)
11-24-2012, 08:37 PM
#55
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Pilot
Posts: 46
The irony is that a plane spotter with an iPhone, flight tracker and a youtube account can potentially circumvent both ASAP and FOQA.
Last edited by sprucie; 11-24-2012 at 08:39 PM. Reason: Corrected title and redneck grammar
11-24-2012, 09:15 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by AFW_MD11
The point of the highlighting was to point out to those recommending filing ASAP reports - they probably wouldn't be accepted under the ASAP program due to the "not inadvertent" and/or "intentional disregard for safety" clauses.
, and it may not be who you think. This doesn't mean slips and errors are good, but it's exactly why these systems are in place, to find the "holes" in safety that we don't know about. People that are deliberately unsafe that routinely break rules as planned events are not what the program is really for.
A good resource for this is the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System. Look at planned unsafe acts vs. errors. This would be an error, and why it happened (if it was due to forgetting) would be good to investigate and put some sort of measure in place to prevent or address.
Last edited by JamesNoBrakes; 11-24-2012 at 09:26 PM.
11-24-2012, 10:44 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: 747
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by av8rmike
What was the last name of the guy who wrote "The Count of Monte Cristo"?...
Originally Posted by Chainsaw
I don't get it........
Count of Monte Cristo was written by Alexandre Dumas.
I assume you get it now ... ?
11-25-2012, 05:46 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Bent Over
Posts: 531
Originally Posted by DC8DRIVER
Google is your friend ...
Count of Monte Cristo was written by Alexandre Dumas.
I assume you get it now ... ?
Count of Monte Cristo was written by Alexandre Dumas.
I assume you get it now ... ?
I think you're the one who didn't get it. Related to the author by the way?
11-25-2012, 07:34 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
