My apology. I meant to respond to the comment that you were responding to. Your comment was a good one. Sorry about that .

 

cleared for the light pole semi truck RNAV 29 into Newark .

 

“Do you take drugs Danny?”

“Everyday”

“Good”

https://youtu.be/7TxxBBjXBDQ?si=F600omg_t6nKwtvt

 

Ugleeual,

To a degree, I understand your rational for not landing on 29 in a heavy. . But what if a crew refuses the RNAV 29, and subsequently went off the runway on 22 due to the crosswind? What if the landing distance calculations are more restrictive on 22 with a large crosswind and anpproach speed additives, than the 29 approach with a 30 kt headwind? Would you still land on 22?
I’m not trying to question your skills, as I’ve said before, I have a good friend at Delta who also refuses the 29 approach.

 

This could have happened to any of us. Nothing wrong with refusing 29, and nothing wrong with flying it! A loaded up guppy 900ER is probably the most landing performance limited jet in the fleet… but rivaled by the 764, and it’s amazing how quick it’ll stop with a big headwind on 29. However, being focused on the approach and short runway plus big wind vref addition, I’ve always ducked under “a bit,” honestly without real SA on how close that turnpike is. Won’t do that anymore, and I’m grateful it’s a lesson learned that didn’t cost anyone their lives. Hope the crew involved gets back out on the line soon

 

I’ve never had a problem using auto brakes at 3 on the 767-300/400 with a high crosswind that’s gusty… using F25. Nor have I ever seen landing distances being an issue on 04/22 except during heavy snow events… but wouldn’t be using 29 in those conditions anyway. Captain needs to also decide who will land in these wx conditions… I personally always look at wx forecasts when picking legs to fly… not saying I’m better than the FOs, but I’ll generally fly the more challenging wx legs for sure… and don’t want the FO to lose a landing due to wx (low vis, winds, etc). Risk management.

Your example, If a crew departed the runway due to high crosswinds and misapplication of controls during and after touchdown then it’s on them… maybe should have went around or diverted. But if a known steady state crosswinds were out of limits, or gusting out of limits, on 04/22 then I’d land on 29… but other than 04/22s being closed or unusable due to winds I’d say “unable” and request the straight in on the longer runway. I’ve refused 29 a handful of times and ATC never flinched… just said expect ILS 22.

 

False choice. Because it might be more difficult in a guppie doesn’t make it acceptable for a WB.

 

Widebody with a 35 knot headwind with 4 or 8 extra brake pads and approach speed 15knots less than a guppy on 29 every time, just make a normal landing.

 

Ive done it in the 763, 764, and 787. I’d like to ask the same question.


I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. We don’t know they ducked under. We know, literally nothing about how they wound up where they wound up.

 

got low & didn’t reject?