Don't know who Sooeet.com is, but they lose all credibility with the following statement:

"likely using a combination of engine power to maintain speed, and spoilers to increase descent rate."

yea, thinking the same thing.

Not familiar with the A300-6, but do you get a mstr caution with the thrust levers above idle and the speed brakes/spoilers deployed? Or auto retraction with thrust levers in toga position?

A300-600

No.

No.






.

Thanks tony.

Neglecting, of course, the 2% per thousand difference in indicated versus true airspeeds.

Which you can't do.

Unless you're ignorant.

I don't see an unstable approach at all here. All that matters is below 1000' - or even 500' ....

Passengers, maybe, property, not so much.

The FAA's purpose is to promote commerce, and that boils down to making it possible for airlines to make money. If passengers are too scared to fly, airlines don't make money. Therefore, the FAA will do what it takes to make the public FEEL safe enough to buy tickets.

IF it's cheaper to crash a cargo jet and kill 2 pilots (life may seem precious to you and me, but it represents a cold dollar value to an actuary) than it is to comply with Part 117 Flight and Duty Time Restrictions and Rest Requirements, then it's not in the financial interest of the operator, and therefore it doesn't fit the "promote commerce" purpose of the FAA.

If you can stomach it, take a gander at their "official" Mission, Vision, and Values here. I really like the bit about ethics.

Perhaps the calculus would change if the "little cargo plane" (that's how I heard it described on a major news network since it only carried 2 pilots) had passed through a living room instead of 20 feet above it, or into a shopping center or apartment complex. Until it does, we all know that safety is paramount only in our minds and in our actions -- to them, it's just another item on the big spreadsheet.






.

I'm not sure commercial pilots realize how true this is? For many years I drilled in a Naval Reserve Squadron at Andrews AFB.

Due to our proximity to FAA Headquarters several of the pilots were FAA attorneys during their "day job." It was frequently interesting to ask those guys what they were doing at work. I vividly remember one of them saying he was looking into requiring child safety seats for kids while traveling on airliners. Part of his analysis was considering that "if" families were required to buy an extra seat (to strap their child seat into), how many of them would decide to drive instead and how many of those kids might be killed in car accidents!*?

It's almost 15 years later now, we all know, the FAA never did require child safety safety seats. I guess it wasn't "cost effective"?

My wife thought I was crazy for bringing our car seat and strapping our 2-year-old in on a 737 A few years ago. We had the "safe vs legal" discussion over it, and she came around. The FAA appears to put "expeditious" over "safety" in its air traffic procedures to some degree as well (in my opinion as an ATC).

I've seen coffee shops with a better mission statement than the FAA's. I guess us up front don't count as "travelers".

If they used a word like "occupants, that would imply that the pilots are included.