Originally Posted by madmax757 (Post 4031859)

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

Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo (Post 4031641)

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....

Originally Posted by John Carr (Post 4031753)

And yet, apparently didn't use all the runway

Originally Posted by Hedley (Post 4031834)

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.

Originally Posted by JackReacher (Post 4031932)

The RNAV W 29 is NOT an RNP approach!! No curved segment like the Y. So, at least for the guppy fleet, AP has to be off by 50’ below MDA which is just by the AXELL fix and you fly it visually from there. Adherence to the PAPI is crucial.

Originally Posted by BlueScholar (Post 4031943)

A great example of why we should have the same
landing data app Delta has. It can’t be more expensive than paying FedEx 8 figures to use the same PMR training.

Originally Posted by drywhitetoast (Post 4031552)

There we go. That's the answer. Let's take a challenging short runway that we already fvk up landings and make it shorter. 👍

Originally Posted by Vito (Post 4031831)

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.

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes (Post 4031962)

Yes, to filter out aircraft that should not be attempting it and allow for a precision glidepath w/o object penetration. I assume you already can't land the space shuttle or A-380s on that runway, so it's not like you should be able to land any aircraft on any runway at any time. If you look at other airports, you'll find a lot of crosswind runways are shorter, sometimes much shorter. Alaska lands 737s in Nome and Kotz, 5900 for runway 27 in Kotz. The runways have been shorter at times for construction and projects. Special crew qualifications and they aren't bringing Max-9s in there obviously.

It's unfortunate that they built the runway/tollway like this...but boohoo, either re-route the tollway or displace the threshold. If they displace the threshold, yeah, it might change what aircraft can land there. That's kinda the point. Only aircraft capable of meeting the performance requirements for the distance should be landing there.

Originally Posted by Grease (Post 4031981)

The problem with your argument is that people were trying to blame DEI before we even knew the race and gender of the pilots, just like they did with that runway incursion in DFW, just like the geniuses in this thread are doing right now. That’s why it’s racist and sexist.

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 Milk Man (Post 4031303)

Or just a bad pilot dipping below GS

Originally Posted by HwkrPlt (Post 4032003)

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

Originally Posted by dmeg13021 (Post 4032025)

That's 2500 into Aviate.

But you knew that.

Originally Posted by Hedley (Post 4031952)

It’s still a RNAV approach with a stable 3 degree glide path all the way to the runway. So on this approach you simply turn the autopilot off over AXELL at 880’ and continue to follow the exact same vertical deviation scale pointer down to the flare just like you do on any other RNAV approach. Same thing with following the glide slope to the runway on a straight in ILS. This is just basic pilot stuff and not that difficult. I can see where crews, especially heavy crews that almost exclusively shoot straight in ILS’s to long runways could not be as proficient in RNAV approaches to shorter runways as NB crews, but that is a fault in our training and not the design of the approach.

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 Hedley (Post 4032051)

Just did the RNAV 27 into SAN. Flaps 40, fully configured by the FAF per the ops alert, and flew a centered VD indication all the way to the flare. The path is 3.5 degrees for a reason, so adjust your flare to compensate for the steeper angle. Touched down about 1700’, disengaged the autobrakes at 70 knots, and took the taxiway that I had briefed. We have electronic glide to the runway on RNAV and ILS approaches. People need to use that and stop ducking under.

Originally Posted by Hedley (Post 4032051)

Just did the RNAV 27 into SAN in a Max9. Flaps 40, fully configured by the FAF per the ops alert, and flew a centered VD indication all the way to the flare. The path is 3.5 degrees for a reason, so adjust your flare to compensate for the steeper angle. Touched down about 1700’, disengaged the autobrakes at 70 knots, and took the taxiway that I had briefed. We have electronic glide to the runway on RNAV and ILS approaches. People need to use that and stop ducking under.

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/

Originally Posted by JackReacher (Post 4031932)

Adherence to the PAPI is crucial.

Originally Posted by Hedley (Post 4031952)

This is just basic pilot stuff and not that difficult.

Originally Posted by elps (Post 4031384)

The fix to get a straight-in approach to 29 at EWR is to close LGA. Not happening. If you let the autopilot fly the RNP approach it will take you to 500 feet, runway heading, on the glidepath, that should be good enough.

Originally Posted by Smooth at FL450 (Post 4031525)

How does 29 not have a displaced threshold???

Originally Posted by JackReacher (Post 4031660)

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.

Originally Posted by Grumble (Post 4031747)

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.

Originally Posted by 11atsomto (Post 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?

Originally Posted by Grease (Post 4032162)

I am reading a lot of great inputs to the discussion about glidepaths, PAPIs, RNAV approaches, etc. I would like to pull back for a second. If they hit a truck on the highway, they almost touched down on the highway. That means they likely heard “50, 40, 30” and maybe even “20” before that contact. If I hear “50” and I’m not over the threshold, I hope I would respond with a little power bump and maybe raise the nose a hair so I don’t touch down too early. Monday morning quarterbacking I do acknowledge.

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 ceelo (Post 4032280)

you guys love bringing up DEI every time something like this happens. and every time the crew ends up being old white men suddenly you're quiet. just ****, disrespectfully.

Originally Posted by HwkrPlt (Post 4032141)

As others have said, that is a goal for Aviate, not hiring at United.

If he actually did set that goal, then he would have fired who was in charge of hiring at United long ago, because they are failing miserably