Airline Pilot Central Forums - Normal FedEx Approach??

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Cargo (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/)

- - Normal FedEx Approach?? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/71313-normal-fedex-approach.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busboy (Post 1298916)

16 secs is no big deal? Do you often hear what sounds like a panicking ATC calling out, "'(call sign)' slow to final approach speed...", and it's not for you?

No, never. So being at Vapp at 3.2nm from touchdown causes panic in the ATC Tower? Sounds like a "them" problem and not an "us" problem.

Why? Do you accept a lot of "180 or greater until 3nm" requests?

Y'all are a bunch of dorks!

Everybody seriously needs to relax.. The plane landed safely. You all never did a approach that wasnt by the book stabilized? I swear it's like more than half the people posting on this thread are FAA narcs.

So here's a question for ya. You forget the gear, you whitewash the checklist, and then when you go to final flaps you hear the GPWS and you lower the gear.

You utter an expletive, lower the gear, and get three green. Do you go around?

I know my answer. I can tell you with certainty that some (if not all) airplanes do not send FOQA data unless/until you land from an unstabilized approach. Go-around and the data goes to the circular file.

This may not be true for every airplane, but it is certainly food for thought.

Pipe

Quote:

Originally Posted by av8rmike (Post 1298861)

Ok, I'll try again. My point was that there seems to be a normalization of doing descent/decel planning to be stable right at 500' if VMC. If everyone just targeted stable at 1K instead, you wouldn't have this video. The complaint I hear about doing this is "you're slowing down too early!"

If 120kts (Vapp) at 1K instead of 180kts at 1K, what's it really cost in time? Assuming both situations would be 120kts at 500', you have 500' to play with. Also, making the math really simple, I'm assuming an instantaneous decel from 180kts to 120kts right at 500'.

Three degree glide path is 314'/nm, so 500'=1.6nm. Compare the difference in time to travel this 1.6nm at 120kts (48 sec) vs 180kts (32 sec). I just don't get the cavalier attitudes I see regarding stable approaches and the willingness most display to say "close enough". All over less than 16 seconds?... If you routinely target stable at 1K, you've at least got a fighting chance to make it with the Mempho 30kt tailwinds. Fly however you want, it just doesn't make any sense to me.

That's a much better argument and one I agree with. I wasn't disagreeing with your point, just the original math. Your point just got lost in there somewhere. I don't think there's much reason to shoot for being stable below 1000'. I don't know if that's what happened here. My guess is that somewhere the gear got forgotten and the flaps reminded them but who knows. There but for the grace of God...

Quote:

Originally Posted by pipe (Post 1298985)

I can tell you with certainty that some (if not all) airplanes do not send FOQA data unless/until you land from an unstabilized approach.

Pipe

FOQA dudes say they collect data, from those capable, on every flight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver (Post 1298957)

:confused: I'm not sure why you would "imagine" there's not much difference. A single engine approach in an MD-10-10 is a pretty big deal. It can barely get out of its own way with 3 engines. Losing 66% of your available thrust tends to be a big deal on any aircraft, IMO.

With an of the MD-11/-10 family a two-engine out approach is significantly different than just one engine out. It's a slats only approach, airspeeds are significantly higher, no auto-throttles during landing and no go-around option once the gear is down or the aircraft is below 1000' AGL.

Single engine out is a non-event in comparison. Normal flap settings and speeds and auto-land is even an option.

One out of two= I was referring to a twin engine aircraft with one engine out.

The other comments in my post were referring to a three engined aircraft with one engine out ("one out of three").

Maybe you thought I meant one out of three was running? I could see that perhaps. And yes, that would be a pretty big deal. I was trying to say that a one-engine inop in something like a 75 or 76 would be a much bigger deal than having just one engine fail in an MD 11.

You're stating my exact point, with one engine out, it's not much of an event. It's significant, but not a significant change in how you fly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunter (Post 1298998)

FOQA dudes say they collect data, from those capable, on every flight.

I guess I should have worded it differently.

The FOQA data comes from the approach you land out of. Every flight lands -- one way or the other.

PIPE

Quote:

Originally Posted by pipe (Post 1298985)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pipe (Post 1299021)

I guess I should have worded it differently.

The FOQA data comes from the approach you land out of. Every flight lands -- one way or the other.

PIPE

No, all phases of every flight on an airplane with working flight data monitoring is recorded. Period. However, only those flights that are flagged by exceeding a set value are normally reviewed, and stabilized approach is one of those set values. Did you not sit through ground school last year when this was covered?