|
Airmanship
So there we was... 30+ kts of wind shear at 300 ft AGL on final, clear and a million day in TX, 15 kts of direct tailwind changing to 15 kts of direct headwind at 300' AGL. The plane ahead of us had already gone around but we figured we were already established on final so we could take a look for ourselves, and of course we also went around.
Airmanship 101 came into play. The plane ahead of us elected to attempt another approach to the same runway, even though the wind shear was not related to a specific weather event such as a storm outflow, mountain wave, anything like that. The winds simply went from a 15 kt tailwind to a 15 kt headwind directly down the runway, at about 300 ft. That triggers go-around criteria for pretty much everyone I think. Thing is, there was a somewhat shorter crossing runway, where the winds would be crossing at about 60 deg from runway heading. So it would go from a 60 deg quartering tailwind to a 60 deg front quartering crosswind, with surface winds still only about 15-20ish kts. That's certainly doable even with the shorter runway length that this crossing runway offered. I guess my point... The crew ahead of us didn't attempt the crossing runway for whatever reason, and ended up diverting which undoubtedly was a "safe" course of action but which also undoubtedly cost thousands of dollars when there was a perfectly safe alternative course of action available in the form of a landing on the crossing runway. Are we failing our current generation of pilots by not teaching them to really think about their alternatives prior to simply re-trying something that didn't work the first time? Yes if the short runway would have had marginal stopping distance or, if for example, the crosswind was in excess of 30 kts then I could totally see picking the conservative course of action and diverting, but it wasn't even close. At touchdown on the crossing runway we had 11ish kts of crosswind component, 5-6 kts headwind component, and it was a clear VFR day with a dry runway. Are we not demanding our pilots learn from day one how to rough-estimate headwind and crosswind components to determine if any particular runway is even an option? Or was it just not these guys' day and they simply didn't think about it? Or perhaps they were afraid to ask to deviate from the runway advertised by ATIS (common student error number 472)? It's been bugging me over the last month since this happened. Those guys had a perfectly safe alternative course of action (landing on the crossing runway) which they didn't ask ATC about, and then they diverted after a second go-around. We gave the crossing runway a shot (after discussing it and getting landing performance data following our go-around) and it was essentially a non-event, going from a left crosswind to a right crosswind at a nice safe 300 ft alt. Yea we had a combined 60+ years of aviation experience between us in the cockpit, but frankly I'm not usually the sharpest pencil in the drawer and it was my idea to try the crossing runway, so if I can think of it I'm pretty sure it's not rocket science. A student pilot ought to be able to consider using another perfectly safe runway when the alternative is another go-around and diversion. Anyhow... Not a rant about the dang kids these days, but I was surprised and that hasn't happened to me in a while so I thought I'd bring it up to see if there's any discussion here. Where was the breakdown? Edit - Before anyone jumps me for second-guessing the crew in the plane and the PIC decision, I'm not questioning their decision. They made a SAFE decision and executed their chosen course of action. However, there was an alternative course of action that they did not attempt, and they did not query ATC about the option of trying the crossing runway. I figure that's a fair discussion point without pointing fingers or being *critical* of a crew for choosing a safe course of action even if in hindsight it may not have been an optimal solution. This isn't 20/20 hindsight pointing fingers, it's a question about what happened and why. Edit 2 - For those wondering, if my memory serves it was CRP. 7510' runway vs. 6080' runway, 50 deg apart. |
Originally Posted by flensr
(Post 3499560)
So there we was... 30+ kts of wind shear at 300 ft AGL on final, clear and a million day in TX, 15 kts of direct tailwind changing to 15 kts of direct headwind at 300' AGL. The plane ahead of us had already gone around but we figured we were already established on final so we could take a look for ourselves, and of course we also went around.
Airmanship 101 came into play. The plane ahead of us elected to attempt another approach to the same runway, even though the wind shear was not related to a specific weather event such as a storm outflow, mountain wave, anything like that. The winds simply went from a 15 kt tailwind to a 15 kt headwind directly down the runway, at about 300 ft. That triggers go-around criteria for pretty much everyone I think. Thing is, there was a somewhat shorter crossing runway, where the winds would be crossing at about 60 deg from runway heading. So it would go from a 60 deg quartering tailwind to a 60 deg front quartering crosswind, with surface winds still only about 15-20ish kts. That's certainly doable even with the shorter runway length that this crossing runway offered. I guess my point... The crew ahead of us didn't attempt the crossing runway for whatever reason, and ended up diverting which undoubtedly was a "safe" course of action but which also undoubtedly cost thousands of dollars when there was a perfectly safe alternative course of action available in the form of a landing on the crossing runway. Are we failing our current generation of pilots by not teaching them to really think about their alternatives prior to simply re-trying something that didn't work the first time? Yes if the short runway would have had marginal stopping distance or, if for example, the crosswind was in excess of 30 kts then I could totally see picking the conservative course of action and diverting, but it wasn't even close. At touchdown on the crossing runway we had 11ish kts of crosswind component, 5-6 kts headwind component, and it was a clear VFR day with a dry runway. Are we not demanding our pilots learn from day one how to rough-estimate headwind and crosswind components to determine if any particular runway is even an option? Or was it just not these guys' day and they simply didn't think about it? Or perhaps they were afraid to ask to deviate from the runway advertised by ATIS (common student error number 472)? It's been bugging me over the last month since this happened. Those guys had a perfectly safe alternative course of action (landing on the crossing runway) which they didn't ask ATC about, and then they diverted after a second go-around. We gave the crossing runway a shot (after discussing it and getting landing performance data following our go-around) and it was essentially a non-event, going from a left crosswind to a right crosswind at a nice safe 300 ft alt. Yea we had a combined 60+ years of aviation experience between us in the cockpit, but frankly I'm not usually the sharpest pencil in the drawer and it was my idea to try the crossing runway, so if I can think of it I'm pretty sure it's not rocket science. A student pilot ought to be able to consider using another perfectly safe runway when the alternative is another go-around and diversion. Anyhow... Not a rant about the dang kids these days, but I was surprised and that hasn't happened to me in a while so I thought I'd bring it up to see if there's any discussion here. Where was the breakdown? Edit - Before anyone jumps me for second-guessing the crew in the plane and the PIC decision, I'm not questioning their decision. They made a SAFE decision and executed their chosen course of action. However, there was an alternative course of action that they did not attempt, and they did not query ATC about the option of trying the crossing runway. I figure that's a fair discussion point without pointing fingers or being *critical* of a crew for choosing a safe course of action even if in hindsight it may not have been an optimal solution. This isn't 20/20 hindsight pointing fingers, it's a question about what happened and why. Do you know what MEL’s they were carrying? Maybe the captain was high minimums? Was it the same equipment you fly? There are half a dozen reasons aside from you being Chuck Yeager and them being idiots. It’s weird that you’re still thinking about this a month later. https://i.imgflip.com/6udy42.jpg |
“Work, work, work, approaches, work, work, work, schedule, work, work, work”
|
Yeah…lots of possible factors that could have been present that would keep me from posting about this in a thinly veiled “I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but then again I’m pretty much the sharpest tool in the shed” kind ow way.
Perhaps umpteenth leg in the last couple days and when crew was borderline fatigued. Maybe decided to just move this risk off their (and their passengers) plates because this time, this day, their experience told them to go conservative. |
I wouldn't try again after two go-arounds, unless I was out of gas.
|
Still feeling good about posting that, OP?
|
Originally Posted by golfandflows
(Post 3499639)
Still feeling good about posting that, OP?
|
I can't remember what happened on my own flight last week let alone be bothered by another pilot's flight a month ago.
|
Erhmegerd!!!! Errrrmensherppppp!!!!
|
FLENSR… The little Senator from SC has met his match when it comes to flip flopping… The crew took a safe option by diverting. But if he could have a made it be it’s with the crossing runway or had better decision making skills. You have some growing up to do chum.
|
Originally Posted by captjns
(Post 3499679)
FLENSR… The little Senator from SC has met his match when it comes to flip flopping… The crew took a safe option by diverting. But if he could have a made it be it’s with the crossing runway or had better decision making skills. You have some growing up to do chum.
Only the unsuccessful were second guessed, and in the news. |
My man said it’s “been bugging me over the last month since this happened” 😂🤦🏼 Wtf. Way, way too much time on your hands buddy.
|
Airmanship
Originally Posted by Aero1900
(Post 3499650)
Whatever. What's the point of this forum if people can't talk about flying? He had a point, it's fine. I don't think we need to shut him down for it.
I don’t know of anyone that talks about flying on this forum. APC is for talking contracts and politics (union and/or national). #TOTD |
I am captain. Not A captain. Just Captain. I had my name changed before upgrade. Consequently I had to change my middle and last name too. My middle name is now "is" and my last name is &@$!nawsome. Call me Mr. Captain &@$!nawsome. Now, if I could fit 16 stripes of my epilates I would. One for every FO I had to take the controls from at 2000ft because they deviated from the ATC directed speed by equal to or greater than 2 knots. Hey, rules are rules. And in Captain &@$!nawsome's world, that chit don't fly. Literaly. And when I say "my airplane" I mean exactly that. I put an "inop" sticker over the banks name on the registration card with my name so there is no confusion who's aircraft it is. You can't argue with that piece of paper, and if you do, you are a terrorist and I will exersize my captain's autority as well as my FFDO authority and remove the "threat" to my position of power. And by "remove" I mean take over and fly single-pilot. In other words, nothing really changes. Now, I don't have a problem leaving my ego at the door when I get on my airplane. Hell, I have no choice as my ego is too big to fit through the door. Litteraly, I have tried. I am forced to vallet it along with my massive balls in the cargo hold, and that is still a tight fit. Luckly for me, I can check on them periodically in flight through the peep hole in the lav while I re-spike my hair and iron my blazer and hat. I digress. My point is, if I am forced back into the right seat, I am still the captain. I will NOT let go of the thrust levers on the roll, I will call for ALL the checklists, I will make 7 minute "welcome" announcements and I will still say "clear left". The right side is not my problem. And I still get to taxi. It's a long reach from the right seat, but it can be done......at least on flight sim. So, send me back to the right seat if you will, but you can NOT send my ego back to the right seat! Ok, have to go. Somewhere, and FO is trying to make a decision on his own. Captain awayyyyyyyyyyyyyy..........hey mom, can I borrow the station wagon. and have you seen my hat?
Originally Posted by crazyjaydawg
(Post 3499783)
I don’t know of anyone that talks about flying on this forum.
APC is for talking contracts and politics (union and/or national). #TOTD |
You should re-title your thread Airmissionship.
|
Originally Posted by flensr
(Post 3499560)
So there we was... 30+ kts of wind shear at 300 ft AGL on final, clear and a million day in TX, 15 kts of direct tailwind changing to 15 kts of direct headwind at 300' AGL. The plane ahead of us had already gone around but we figured we were already established on final so we could take a look for ourselves, and of course we also went around.
Airmanship 101 came into play. The plane ahead of us elected to attempt another approach to the same runway, even though the wind shear was not related to a specific weather event such as a storm outflow, mountain wave, anything like that. The winds simply went from a 15 kt tailwind to a 15 kt headwind directly down the runway, at about 300 ft. That triggers go-around criteria for pretty much everyone I think. Thing is, there was a somewhat shorter crossing runway, where the winds would be crossing at about 60 deg from runway heading. So it would go from a 60 deg quartering tailwind to a 60 deg front quartering crosswind, with surface winds still only about 15-20ish kts. That's certainly doable even with the shorter runway length that this crossing runway offered. I guess my point... The crew ahead of us didn't attempt the crossing runway for whatever reason, and ended up diverting which undoubtedly was a "safe" course of action but which also undoubtedly cost thousands of dollars when there was a perfectly safe alternative course of action available in the form of a landing on the crossing runway. Are we failing our current generation of pilots by not teaching them to really think about their alternatives prior to simply re-trying something that didn't work the first time? Yes if the short runway would have had marginal stopping distance or, if for example, the crosswind was in excess of 30 kts then I could totally see picking the conservative course of action and diverting, but it wasn't even close. At touchdown on the crossing runway we had 11ish kts of crosswind component, 5-6 kts headwind component, and it was a clear VFR day with a dry runway. Are we not demanding our pilots learn from day one how to rough-estimate headwind and crosswind components to determine if any particular runway is even an option? Or was it just not these guys' day and they simply didn't think about it? Or perhaps they were afraid to ask to deviate from the runway advertised by ATIS (common student error number 472)? It's been bugging me over the last month since this happened. Those guys had a perfectly safe alternative course of action (landing on the crossing runway) which they didn't ask ATC about, and then they diverted after a second go-around. We gave the crossing runway a shot (after discussing it and getting landing performance data following our go-around) and it was essentially a non-event, going from a left crosswind to a right crosswind at a nice safe 300 ft alt. Yea we had a combined 60+ years of aviation experience between us in the cockpit, but frankly I'm not usually the sharpest pencil in the drawer and it was my idea to try the crossing runway, so if I can think of it I'm pretty sure it's not rocket science. A student pilot ought to be able to consider using another perfectly safe runway when the alternative is another go-around and diversion. Anyhow... Not a rant about the dang kids these days, but I was surprised and that hasn't happened to me in a while so I thought I'd bring it up to see if there's any discussion here. Where was the breakdown? Edit - Before anyone jumps me for second-guessing the crew in the plane and the PIC decision, I'm not questioning their decision. They made a SAFE decision and executed their chosen course of action. However, there was an alternative course of action that they did not attempt, and they did not query ATC about the option of trying the crossing runway. I figure that's a fair discussion point without pointing fingers or being *critical* of a crew for choosing a safe course of action even if in hindsight it may not have been an optimal solution. This isn't 20/20 hindsight pointing fingers, it's a question about what happened and why. Edit 2 - For those wondering, if my memory serves it was CRP. 7510' runway vs. 6080' runway, 50 deg apart. I'll listen to these all day and not think about it being anything other than it is- a learning experience. Thanks |
So they made more money than you that day. Got it.
|
Originally Posted by drywhitetoast
(Post 3499809)
You should re-title your thread Airmissionship.
...... |
Originally Posted by 01110011
(Post 3499563)
Ok Karen.
Do you know what MEL’s they were carrying? Maybe the captain was high minimums? Was it the same equipment you fly? There are half a dozen reasons aside from you being Chuck Yeager and them being idiots. It’s weird that you’re still thinking about this a month later. https://i.imgflip.com/6udy42.jpg |
Love the irony of a SWA pilot blasting another plane for taking the safest course they felt was appropriate.
|
I have no problem with their decision to try the same runway again. First attempt you gotta already know that it’s gonna go from a tailwind to a headwind at some point. Second attempt you now know when that shift is gonna occur and be able to anticipate it and adjust appropriately to maintain a stabilized approach (whatever that companies criteria is) . I’d take that over flying an approach with a quartering tailwind that shifts to a quartering headwind from the opposite direction. Two different crews can come to different conclusions based on the same info and neither one of them are wrong. To dwell on their decision making longer than a few minutes is beyond me.
|
This is the dummest APC thread I've seen in a long time.
In my best Peter Griffin voice OH... MY... GOD... WHO THE HELL CARES! |
I can't land with a 15 knot headwind....time to throw some shade on the other guy that couldn't either. Wooooord.
|
Seriously though…don’t we all want to divert going into CRP?
|
Originally Posted by flensr
(Post 3499560)
Edit - Before anyone jumps me for second-guessing the crew in the plane and the PIC decision, I'm not questioning their decision. They made a SAFE decision and executed their chosen course of action.
|
Originally Posted by Margaritaville
(Post 3500053)
This is the dummest APC thread I've seen in a long time.
In my best Peter Griffin voice OH... MY... GOD... WHO THE HELL CARES! |
Originally Posted by StallWeezy
(Post 3499841)
So they made more money than you that day. Got it.
|
I don’t think I’ve ever read something so idiotic. If this is the best thing you have to do in your free time then I truly feel sorry for you. Moving on…
|
Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER
(Post 3500552)
Ya wanna know what really grinds my gears?
|
This has to be a troll 💀
|
Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER
(Post 3500552)
Ya wanna know what really grinds my gears?
|
Originally Posted by TransWorld
(Post 3500924)
Improper and ineffective use of a clutch?
I was thinking lack of oil…but clutch does that too. Seriously mods - Delete thread - |
Originally Posted by Cyio
(Post 3500695)
Spelling errors?
|
Originally Posted by 160to4
(Post 3500966)
I was thinking lack of oil…but clutch does that too.
Seriously mods - Delete thread - |
Retitle the thread “Grammerminbshipp”.
|
Originally Posted by flensr
(Post 3499560)
…undoubtedly cost thousands of dollars
It’s not about saving the company thousands, it’s about getting the paying customers to their destination. To me knowing when to bug out vs going for it is it’s what separates regionals from majors. |
Originally Posted by PGTx
(Post 3502302)
I get the post and agree with what you’re trying to say but this line jumped out at me.
It’s not about saving the company thousands, it’s about getting the paying customers to their destination. To me knowing when to bug out vs going for it is it’s what separates regionals from majors. |
"Well, alright now, daddy. Why don't you tell us about when you were a war hero? You flew those pursuit jobs, you could land in a parking lot. Well, I'm settin' down over 200,000 pounds of 707. I want somethin' under my wheels that's plenty long and mighty dry."
|
Originally Posted by Iceberg
(Post 3502472)
Because inexperienced regional crews push in while experienced mainliners go elsewhere? Or because inexperienced regional crews divert while experienced major pilots make it in? Or is it that experienced pilots work at each alongside pilots with less and more experience in equipment with varying degrees of capabilities in dynamic environments that change quickly making it impossible to say, “that was a regional move” or “that was a mainline” move?
he then taught us about hazardous attitudes. |
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3502640)
I had a college prof once who was proud of having flown an entire career at continental and only diverting once.
he then taught us about hazardous attitudes. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:45 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands