Tool of the day
09-19-2017 | 03:51 PM
#9791
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,498
Likes: 506
Shy,
Apples vs. oranges. We're talking about ILS approaches. AA 587 was a departure issue where the descending wake vortices ARE an issue. Your other example is low level where the vortices have no ability to descend.
Fly your ILS however you want, just be aware if you do it above the glideslope you're setting the guy behind you up for a "bumpy ride" at a minimum.
Enough said.
Apples vs. oranges. We're talking about ILS approaches. AA 587 was a departure issue where the descending wake vortices ARE an issue. Your other example is low level where the vortices have no ability to descend.
Fly your ILS however you want, just be aware if you do it above the glideslope you're setting the guy behind you up for a "bumpy ride" at a minimum.
Enough said.
AA 587 had descending vortices at almost 250 knots from the 747. At worse, it was a light roll rate of the A300 (a widebody!) that would have been a complete non-event if it wasn't for the immediate and severe over-controlling reaction by the PF.
09-19-2017 | 04:16 PM
#9792
Banned
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,378
Likes: 0
From: 7th green
The way you quoted me with the rolleyes is out of context from what I wrote. Not sure if that was a formatting error on your part or on purpose. I certainly didn't put a rolleyes right after the DC9 crashing below 100 feet.
AA 587 had descending vortices at almost 250 knots from the 747. At worse, it was a light roll rate of the A300 (a widebody!) that would have been a complete non-event if it wasn't for the immediate and severe over-controlling reaction by the PF.
AA 587 had descending vortices at almost 250 knots from the 747. At worse, it was a light roll rate of the A300 (a widebody!) that would have been a complete non-event if it wasn't for the immediate and severe over-controlling reaction by the PF.
Big difference. And, I agree the flight control inputs were to blame, but you have to remember that, at the time, ALL airlines were sim training FULL THROW of flight controls for upset recovery. That theory changed after 587.
09-19-2017 | 04:34 PM
#9793
On Reserve
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
09-20-2017 | 05:48 AM
#9796
Junior Senior
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,851
Likes: 1
From: Whiskey Papa
First off, I appreciate the ride to work this morning.... but the SWA captain that made all of his announcements in a pirate voice starting at 0530 this morning and the flight attendant who followed the whole flight. It got old after the first sentence at the gate and was completely obnoxious by initial descent. Seriously, a whole safety demo in a lame pirate voice... Really? I thought talk like a pirate day was a kid's thing.
09-20-2017 | 07:11 AM
#9797
Banned
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,378
Likes: 0
From: 7th green
09-20-2017 | 12:49 PM
#9798
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 20
Coupled or not, a tailwind is going to cause a problem for the following aircraft.
LAX often has east winds down the final until descending below about 1500-2500 feet, even though the approaches are being flown to the west runways. 10 tailwinds are not unusual at all there, which means that previous jet's wake is likely hanging right on the glideslope, rather than descending below it. Following a Heavy or a Super while at minimum spacing, I'd go a 1/2 dot high too.
LAX often has east winds down the final until descending below about 1500-2500 feet, even though the approaches are being flown to the west runways. 10 tailwinds are not unusual at all there, which means that previous jet's wake is likely hanging right on the glideslope, rather than descending below it. Following a Heavy or a Super while at minimum spacing, I'd go a 1/2 dot high too.
09-25-2017 | 05:17 PM
#9800
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 988
Likes: 0
From: Seat: Vegan friendly faux leather
Shy,
Apples vs. oranges. We're talking about ILS approaches. AA 587 was a departure issue where the descending wake vortices ARE an issue. Your other example is low level where the vortices have no ability to descend.
Fly your ILS however you want, just be aware if you do it above the glideslope you're setting the guy behind you up for a "bumpy ride" at a minimum.
Enough said.
Apples vs. oranges. We're talking about ILS approaches. AA 587 was a departure issue where the descending wake vortices ARE an issue. Your other example is low level where the vortices have no ability to descend.
Fly your ILS however you want, just be aware if you do it above the glideslope you're setting the guy behind you up for a "bumpy ride" at a minimum.
Enough said.
Rolling fully through inverted? Ooohkay....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
