Seems that’s the strategy that all the Air Chinas, Air Indias and Singapores do when 29 is in use. Approach control may huff and puff and give the “ok, hold on” with a sigh but it can be done, Now we can call them female genitalia’s all we want and say that they aren’t real pilots but ……….they have not hit a truck on the NJ Turnpike/I-95.

No, the failure was in how the approach was flown. This job involves more than easy straight in ILS approaches to long runways where we kick the autopilot off after the aircraft is fully configured and in trim with the runway in sight. We are expected to be able to properly and safely fly these approaches. We’re paid what we are to be capable of flying visuals to short runways, land in gusty winds at the aircraft limits, and on contaminated runways in reduced visibility. If something unusual makes it unsafe or puts you right at a limitation, by all means refuse, but this approach isn’t it.

Pilots are responsible for risk management… ATC is responsible for getting planes to/from an airport. If 04/22 are actively being used for approaches then no real reason for a WB to accept the clearance to 29… that just helps ATC and increases risk for the airplane… doesn’t matter if the crews are trained for shorter runways and a visual approach… it’s just increases risk unnecessary if all runways being used. Simple.

I’m willing to put $$ on table that the Captain said “29 isn’t a big deal…” during the arrival briefing. Now look at what happened and all the blame will be on him/her… during the investigation question “why did you accept” will be one of the first asked…

Not arguing that point at all. If 22 was available it may have been the better alternative. If the winds and landing performance showed that 29 was perfectly within reason then that was a safe approach as well. My point is that crews should be able to safely fly these type of approaches and fly their aircraft safely within the entire range of performance limitations. This wasn’t a failure of the approach itself or necessarily the judgement of the crew. This was a failure in how that the approach was conducted, not that they elected to accept the clearance.

The airplane can do it, but I can’t. /sarcasm

(we’re not the military. We’re not in combat, most have never taken an airplane to the limits of its performance, nor is that our business… for those that don’t get sarcasm)


It was within the legal and published minimus of the airplane and the FM/FOM.

Their follow up question… “so why did you decide to duck under visual path and ended up striking the pole… you make an error in judgement or not capable to fly the maneuver properly? We show you from video being 35’ low… why did you decide to deviate from SOP?”

What's "caucasian"?

Yeah, ya know, being a pilot and stuff. Which someone early on in this thread stated that ISN'T what we get paid to do.....

Kind of dumb to lean right into DEI as a root cause with no info... the odds of guessing right aren't in your favor.

Can we all stop with the People of Color thing?

Where I grew up, what I was taught, and what I learned, calling people colored is bad mmkay.

How about we're just people? IDGAF what your race is.

The people who post that are the non-pilot wannabes on these boards.