Originally Posted by drywhitetoast (Post 4032056)

You do not have an electronic glideslope on a RNAV approach which is why we have temperature corrections and restrictions. Be careful blindly following a RNAV glidepath.

Originally Posted by elps (Post 4031997)

The threshold is already displaced 224 feet. How much more do you want to displace it? 1,000 feet on 3º glidepath gets you 52 feet in height. This aircraft was more than 52 feet too low. If anything more displacement could lead to more complacency about being below the glidepath since you know there's runway there if you land short.

Originally Posted by Sliceback (Post 4031734)

What's the flaps blow up speed? 170 kts? Vref max's out around 145 kts? Will a sinker develop from the trailing edge flaps retracting from flaps 30 to flaps 20, while at a minimum speed of Vref+25? Sinker would be more than negated but the increased lift from the gust causing the IAS increase. There's a 3 kt change in stall speed from flaps 15 to flaps 20 (not necessarily 15 or 20 degrees...the actual flap deflections do not match the degrees indicated). There's another 3 kts from flaps 25 to flaps 30. However from flaps 20 to flaps 25 there's a 17 kts stall speed change. A LARGE part of that is due to the change from mid/T.O. leading edge position to the full leading edge droop. With the 'blown flap' retraction only the trailing edge flaps retract. So there might be roughly a total of 6 kts (?) in stall speed reduction with the blow up function? That wouldn't get triggered unless you hit Vref+25 kts? Being that low wasn't caused by the flap blow up function.

Originally Posted by HwkrPlt (Post 4032003)

Can you show us that exact quote, and where it came from?

Originally Posted by JoeBlo (Post 4032091)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/united-...r-pilots-2030/

video version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_4FKMrwcV0



Most of the articles stating it on the United website have been taken down, which is weird.....

Now the important question is, did they (or do they) hire people based on skin color or gender with lower qualifications and experience?

Originally Posted by JoeBlo (Post 4032000)

Well when the airline advertises and makes their mission "hiring 50% women and 50% people based on a certain skin color" Its a legit question to ask.....

Is the gender and appearance more important than other metrics? Experience ? PIC time? How do we know without asking? What about in training events? Does the skin color and gender get judged differently? (I already know the answer)

Originally Posted by CousinEddie (Post 4032039)

Regarding the VD scale on RNAV approaches, I brief that a centered VD on final will not guarantee 2 red / 2 white on the PAPI as you would normally expect on a centered ILS glide slope. Be prepared to make a slight correction visually using the PAPI despite the nicely centered VD indication. Don’t just lock onto the VD scale all the way down. Crosscheck and correct. A recent example was SAN. Centered VD indication on the RNAV was giving a steady 3 whites on the PAPI (737 fleet). That glide path is 3.5 degrees, so correcting for being high on the PAPI can be more of an issue below 1000 feet.

Originally Posted by JackReacher (Post 4032111)

I generally agree with you with one caveat. A ground based glide path (ie ILS GS) is completely different from a GPS based glide path (without WAAS) and will not give you the same thing every time since it’s not baro compensated. As another poster said, you follow the VD path provided by the GPS approach and then adjust accordingly when within the PAPI usable distance, which is 3.4 NM from the threshold, which is about 1000’ on a 3 degree GP. So if the GPS glide path is giving me three white and one red on the PAPI, simply adjust to two red/two white. Be careful of blindly following the GPS based VD pointer.

Originally Posted by WXS15 (Post 4032016)

​​​​​​
https://i.postimg.cc/B6Tcvw9K/united...nej0unmbc1.jpg
https://www.pilotcareernews.com/unit...and-diversity/