Ual 4933

Reply Subscribe

Page 21 of 28

« First

Last »

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

03-23-2019 | 08:52 AM

#201

Excargodog

Perennial Reserve

Joined: Jan 2018

Posts: 14,194

Likes: 240

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacburn

"Radar track data show that the airplane was aligned right of runway 1 during both approaches."

Consistency is good, but accuracy is better....

03-23-2019 | 11:53 AM

#202

Blackhawk

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Mar 2005

Posts: 1,888

Likes: 0

Loc is irrelevant.
FAR 91.176
“3) Visibility and visual reference requirements. No pilot operating under this section or §§121.651, 125.381, or 135.225 of this chapter may continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH and land unless:
...
(A) The pilot must identify the runway threshold using at least one of the following visual references—

(1) The beginning of the runway landing surface;

(2) The threshold lights; or

(3) The runway end identifier lights.

(B) The pilot must identify the touchdown zone using at least one of the following visual references—

(1) The runway touchdown zone landing surface;

(2) The touchdown zone lights;

(3) The touchdown zone markings; or

(4) The runway lights.“

I think it’s safe to say these parameters were not met.

03-23-2019 | 03:35 PM

#203

ninerdriver

Porco Rosso

Joined: Apr 2018

Posts: 2,522

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by pangolin

Prob but if the LOC received or ILS transmitter was having trouble it’s explainable - not excusable.

No, it's not, unless this is a normal set of callouts at the bottom of an ILS:

"Minimums."
"Runway in sight, 10 o'clock."
"Landing."

03-23-2019 | 10:52 PM

#204

John Carr

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2013

Posts: 5,240

Likes: 67

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacburn

The pic in that post does not show the initial touch down spot. Only the second touch down spot after the intersecting runway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacburn

"Radar track data show that the airplane was aligned right of runway 1 during both approaches."

Any more questions or doubts?

Or as Phantomhawk said, reasonable people knew what happened weeks ago...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninerdriver

No, it's not, unless this is a normal set of callouts at the bottom of an ILS:

"Minimums."
"Runway in sight, 10 o'clock."
"Landing."

And then having the runway at 9 o’clock...

03-24-2019 | 07:09 AM

#205

pangolin

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Jul 2017

Posts: 4,083

Likes: 0

From: CRJ9 CA

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninerdriver

No, it's not, unless this is a normal set of callouts at the bottom of an ILS:

"Minimums."
"Runway in sight, 10 o'clock."
"Landing."

You guys reading my messages? I said it’s inexcusable.

03-24-2019 | 07:19 AM

#206

JonGoodsell764

On Reserve

Joined: Feb 2019

Posts: 197

Likes: 1

From: ATL FO

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomHawk

Nobody is going to answer that.

Post was made in jest, I think we all know the answer to that.

03-25-2019 | 07:23 AM

#207

Melit

Banned

Joined: Jul 2018

Posts: 873

Likes: 0

What does United think about this crash?

03-25-2019 | 07:35 AM

#208

Excargodog

Perennial Reserve

Joined: Jan 2018

Posts: 14,194

Likes: 240

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melit

What does United think about this crash?

At a guess? I doubt they are STRONGLY in favor. What would you expect?

Nice that no one was badly hurt though.

03-25-2019 | 01:57 PM

#209

Blackhawk

Gets Weekends Off

Joined: Mar 2005

Posts: 1,888

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melit

What does United think about this crash?

Not one of THEIR airplanes.
Plausible deniability.

03-25-2019 | 07:39 PM

#210

JonGoodsell764

On Reserve

Joined: Feb 2019

Posts: 197

Likes: 1

From: ATL FO

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melit

What does United think about this crash?

Was it United 3407 or Colgan 3407? At the end of the day when the dust settles, the legacies will throw their contractors to the wolves in a heartbeat while doing everything in their power to distance themselves from any sort of culpability.