There’s always one in the crowd 😂😬. How do you know it wasn’t a white guy ? Like most of the worst accidents in commercial airline history from the 1970’s to mid 2000’s were at the hands of white male pilots 🤷‍♂️. C’mon bro know your history .

right. Sending traffic elsewhere. If the FAA won’t allow visuals into SFO anymore I’m sure landing on 29 is on the chopping block.

wow, is your reading comprehension that low? I didnt wven say anything about DEI. I blamed it on just being bad pilot. Goodness, but some people such as yourself are just born dumb.

How many would sign up for a gig that guaranteed nothing but straight ins to 12,000 foot runways for half of what they earn now?

Crazy

https://i.ibb.co/S7V3hWy9/1777909009453.jpg

We are not paid highly because of our stick and rudder skills……if that were the case bush pilots would be the big buck earners.

We are paid to get passengers safely from point A to B, and making safe decisions by using strategies including but not limited too: Threat and Error management, not introducing more threats.

In this case, though, I don’t think any more threats were added. Getting low on a TERPS’d approach and hitting a fixed obstacle is a threat that could happen on any approach. Weather that was a shear event or just random pilot error, only time will tell.

bad take IMO. Stick and rudder is the assumed high level baseline. If that’s deteriorating it’s time for some work in that area for the individual. It drifts to and from the forefront of the conversation throughout our industry but it’s the fundamental thing that matters so it’s easy for us to look past it sometimes. The CRM/TEM adds heaps of safety and is more nuanced so we spend a lot of effort there. I’m not speaking to this specific incident but we’ve got to be able to spin a few plates at the same time and stick and rudder is one of them.

Another 10ft lower and this would have been catastrophic. Lucky day for all involved.

Hope we learn more about this. I'm sure we could all gain some knowledge from it and give us some things to think about.

Fly safe out there folks.

Do you have a HUD? If so just look at where the programmed glide path dashed line is. Normally set at 3 degrees. If your 3 degree line is aligned right with the PAPIs and the big white blocks, you're fine. You'll see 4 red, and if I recall a PAPI brings you in at 70' TCH whereas a GS will bring you in at 50' so if you fly 2red 2 white on PAPI you'll generally be high on the GS unless the GS and PAPI are coincident, which at most places is not the case.

HUDs are great tools especially in purely visual type approaches. Too bad most airlines don't invest in them, you know because they'd rather pay some former sportsball star $20million a year to do nothing....

What would Swayne do?

Also recall that a gps based glide path is not baro compensated for us (not sure if any fleets have WAAS), so that could put you slightly high or low depending on conditions. The PAPI guarantees obstacle clearance out to 3.4 NM from the threshold, which on a 3 degree glide path is about 1000’.

There could have been the possibility that they were using flaps 30 and if it was really thet windy yesterday the flaps may have blown back to 25 causing a sinker?
That in conjunction with some shear on the RNAV 29 approach doesnt leave you much room for error.

What would Timmaaaay do?

Another one. What does race have anything to do with it?

Why not?

vvvvvv


​​​​​​​Well, sadly that has proven correct.

Imagine a time when we were hired because we built stick and rudder skills?

However, my take is more along the lines of we don’t get paid for what we do, we get paid for what WE KNOW HOW TO DO.

And being paid pilot SHOULD be in that inventory.

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.

It's not the total percentage that matters. Pre 197x it was 100% male pilots at fault....not because being male was the problem, there just weren't any female major airline pilots to change any statistic. Now a days it's the relative percentage of the group that matters. Let's say there's one group of pilots that's involved in about 10% less than expected of the total accidents/incidents. That's a nice statistic. The problem is if they're 75% of the overall pilot group, but only 65% of the problem, it wouldn't get much attention. People would skip right over that. But what about the other 25%? Now they'd be 35% of the problem. Uh oh...that's 40% HIGHER. They're not 10% more likely, they're 40% above their expected participation.

Good back and look at the Part 121 incidents since 2000. There are groups that are over, and under, represented. That's where any research should be focused.

Under, and over, representation has been a known issue for decades. Don't get all wrapped around the race or gender wars, it showed up in other data well before race or gender was a hot button issue. A simple one is the total time of the PIC in an accident - lower time shows up more frequently vs higher total time.

No it’s not. It’s been around for a decade has an RNAV line selectable approach, and was a pure visual procedure for decades before that, you just have to do pilot stuff. Nothing should be cosmic about a visual approach.


Valid possibility, but still just speculation. For anyone that hasn’t flown the 764, it’s heavy, and doesn’t have a lot of wing. Essentially a WB 739 (non-ER).

But......but......... stick and rudder skills aren't important....

And yet, apparently didn't use all the runway

Ha! Could it be because they touched down in the breakdown lane of I95…. lol

for those who missed it ☝️that there is sarcasm….

What other approaches to runway have a perpendicular interstate with a high volume of traffic with 18 wheelers, light posts and highway direction signs less than 300 feet from the threshold?

Again most highway signs I believe are 17 ft above ground, 18 wheelers are 13…..and the known technique is to be three red. Sure there is margin…….but I am having a hard time recalling any other place like that


let me pose a different question…….do you think something like Kai Tak with all of its environs and approaches would be allowed to be constructed today?
Sure all the “Pilots” did it no sweat (and all of you who did deserve to be in the Hall of Fame)…..…….does that mean it wise?

Good point, EXCELLENT short field technique

Was it "Captain Zulu"? Asking for a friend.

33015G31 at time of landing.

They’ve been emboldened by what our nation’s leadership says and does. Wasn’t one of the first thing out of 47’s mouth something about DEI at DCA after the PSA crash?

If you're hitting the light poles on the Grand Central then you're not surviving.

Indeed. Imagine if in this case, they were slightly lower?

Completely uneventful on the radio. Normalization of deviance for going below the PAPI?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZOmzUYsY3Q

I fly the the thing and had it happen and you definitely do get a good sinker. thats why its prudent to use flaps 25 in really gusty conditions.but who knows what the runway landing data spat out?
im not saying this happened or not but it's definitely in the realm of possibility

Hit the nail … that “technique” is nowhere in the FM; may work fine when you have a displaced threshold, which the turnpike is not.

[QUOTE=11atsomto;4031762]What other approaches to runway have a perpendicular interstate with a high volume of traffic with 18 wheelers, light posts and highway direction signs less than 300 feet from the threshold?

Again most highway signs I believe are 17 ft above ground, 18 wheelers are 13…..and the known technique is to be three red. Sure there is margin…….but I am having a hard time recalling any other place like that.



The plane is supposed to be 50' high over the runway threshold. Obstacles at those heights should not be a problem.
Flown with many pilots coming from an airline out WEST that almost always dip low on short final.
Wonder if that is a factor here.

I doesn’t matter if there was a football field there. If on a TERPS’d approach, you are guaranteed obstabcle clearance by following the procedure. The only way to hit a fixed object would be to be significantly below glide path. (Below 3 red/one white). That could happen anywhere.

How far below eye sight level are the main gear ?


visual aim points of 1500’ for height group 4 can easily result in main gear TCH lower then many imagine. Shorten the aim point to 1000’ and you can easily have 25 ft TCH

One of the posts I read said that the aircraft was 200 ft high at one segment of the approach, (700 ft vs 500ft) perhaps a over correction, down low, and wasn’t able to stabilize it.

As far as the post by SCRAPPY COCOA,
I’m sure DEI had nothing to do with DCA, If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
just look at the facts,
low time pilot, in a VIP squadron, which normally hires very high time, experienced pilots, She worked as a White House ceremonial officer, and filled squares. In the military, people normally don’t fly in those type units unless they have a lot of experience and recommendations.

That approach isn’t a goat rope in any way. It provides a very stable 3 degree glide path all the way to the runway. Same with the RNAV Z 19 in DCA. The only difference in those approaches is that they’re curved rather than straight in, and since they are RNP approaches the autopilot is supposed to be on while on the RF portion. Once the autopilot is turned off you still have that same stable 3 degree glide path all the way to the runway. We’re not supposed to be ducking under. We’re supposed to fly approaches just like an autoland would do and fly the GS all the way down to the flare. The RNAV 29 is safe and stable. Fly the approach on speed, continue the glide path to the runway, land where you’re supposed to, and brake appropriately.

Most autolands touchdown 1500-1800 ft from end of runway.

So do most hand flown approaches. I realize that the braking distance on the landing data assumes landing in the first 1,000 feet, but it also provides autoland additions as well. Incorporate that into your planning, land where you’re supposed to, and brake appropriately, max brakes if needed. This approach is a nonevent. Don’t know what happened here, but the approach as charted is stable and safe if you fly it as trained. If out of position on an approach or of you float on a short runway, just go around.

As he should be paid . He was nearly killed most likely by …..

captain steeeeve uses this incident to push for age 67. check out his latest yu tube video. he has it all figured out.

what about the instructor pilot sitting next to her? So, yeah, I’d like to see your bridge; I’m in the market to take things from horrible people.