|
Originally Posted by Neosporin
(Post 4031890)
No, the PAPI part, the PAPI or GS guarantee 50’ above threshold, the only way you know the TCH is on the chart for that approach. Many approaches are above 50’, 54’ etc.
|
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
(Post 4032060)
And yet, there are obviously obstructions on this approach/runway that prevent vertical guidance down to 200-250' HAT. So enough to remove the obstructions.
|
Who was flying?
Has anyone seen who was flying, CA or FO?
Wiki says the CA had 15k and FO had 8k. That is a pretty healthy amount of flight time in that cockpit. |
Originally Posted by elps
(Post 4032367)
The lack of an ILS or GLS to 29 is due to airspace conflicts on the extended centerline. No amount of threshold displacement can fix that. Look at the published missed procedure for approaches to 11 for how much airspace EWR has to work with on that side.
|
The approach to 29 is rather tight over the turnpike for a widebody. Here is an Air Canada jet landing on 29. They’re not far from having the same issue as flight 169.
|
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
(Post 4032385)
RNP AR, but if it's not practical to get mins that low, it's not practical. It still seems like the turnpike is danger-close to the runway with very little lee-way, which could be addressed with more displacement. This thread has been a lot of "make it work", which works until it doesn't...
There’s a good video on twitter of the aircraft crossing the turnpike. It’s extremely low. |
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 ShyGuy
(Post 4031373)
True. How many people actually read the chart notes where it says glidepath and VGSI not coincident, PAPI crosses 70 kft above threshold.
I brief it. It’s important for some places like Vegas. Some people try to keep 2 white and 2 red and cross the threshold high. Stay on the ILS GS itself, and you’re fine. We say 3 red 1 white as medium rare, but for every approach with that not coincident note, you’re actually coming in 50 ft above the threshold. |
Originally Posted by JackReacher
(Post 4031288)
That whole RNAV W to 29 is a goat rope. Was a matter of time. Short runway, no electronic glide slope and the NJ turnpike literally 100 feet from the threshold. What could possibly go wrong?!?
|
Originally Posted by FlyPanAm
(Post 4032390)
The approach to 29 is rather tight over the turnpike for a widebody. Here is an Air Canada jet landing on 29. They’re not far from having the same issue as flight 169.
|
Originally Posted by Chimpy
(Post 4032429)
I mean................... Not throwing blame here I don't know what happened but when did a Visual Approach on an almost 7,000ft runway become a "Goat rope".
|
I don’t know anything about the 76, but I doubt it has higher relative target speeds than the 73. I’ve done the approach to 29 many times and it’s not that bad if you’re a half decent stick. You can still use the 1000’ markers as an aim point, brakes max if you really want it and you’ll still exit on W2. All of this in a 9ER. Not difficult.
And I came in a little after the incident aircraft and didn’t find myself having to drag it in over the turnpike. |
Originally Posted by SoFloFlyer
(Post 4032435)
Just goes to show you how tight that approach actually is. It’s bad enough on a NB, I can only imagine a WB. It was bounce to happen
|
Originally Posted by GPullR
(Post 4032462)
It was way way tighter before the RNAV. And yet no problems. Its not the approach, it was the technique .
|
The geometry is interesting.
TCH is 60'. The southbound lane of I-95 is ~630' from the threshold. The PAPI is 3.00°. That puts the center of the PAPI glidepath about 90' above I-95 but that's to the pilot's eye-level. Subtract the 15'-20' that the gear hang under the pilot's eye-level, add the height of the light pole, and you might be down to 50' (20' pole) to 30' (40' pole) of clearance and that's when you're on the center of the PAPI glidepath. I did not know that the margin was so small.
Originally Posted by Chimpy
(Post 4032429)
I mean................... Not throwing blame here I don't know what happened but when did a Visual Approach on an almost 7,000ft runway become a "Goat rope".
|
Originally Posted by Larry in TN
(Post 4032527)
and you might be down to 50' (20' pole) to 30' (40' pole) of clearance and that's when you're on the center of the PAPI glidepath.
|
Originally Posted by Larry in TN
(Post 4032527)
Subtract the 15'-20' that the gear hang under the pilot's eye-level, add the height of the light pole, and you might be down to 50' (20' pole) to 30' (40' pole) of clearance and that's when you're on the center of the PAPI glidepath. I did not know that the margin was so small'. It was bound to happen |
I’ll never get used to landing on shorter than normal runways. I’ve been around the block, but those type of landing never cease to make the heart rate go up.
We have our own challenging airports here at Cowboys Airways. Nothing makes me happier (sarcasm) than landing in MDW, gusty winds, heavy, and a wet runway on an 800 or MAX! We require flaps 40, max autobrakes, with the probility of overspeeding the flaps probably greater than 70%. Fun fun.. But, we do this all the time. After all, there’s no way our crew planners would EVER let us fly just one or two legs per day. So we get a lot of repetition. Which begs the question, do heavy guys/gals get the same in your neck of the woods? Could this be a factor? I truly don’t know and simply speculating.. |
Originally Posted by Rseat
(Post 4032737)
Which begs the question, do heavy guys/gals get the same in your neck of the woods? Could this be a factor?
I'm not sure I understand your question |
Originally Posted by Rseat
(Post 4032737)
I’ll never get used to landing on shorter than normal runways. I’ve been around the block, but those type of landing never cease to make the heart rate go up.
We have our own challenging airports here at Cowboys Airways. Nothing makes me happier (sarcasm) than landing in MDW, gusty winds, heavy, and a wet runway on an 800 or MAX! We require flaps 40, max autobrakes, with the probility of overspeeding the flaps probably greater than 70%. Fun fun.. But, we do this all the time. After all, there’s no way our crew planners would EVER let us fly just one or two legs per day. So we get a lot of repetition. Which begs the question, do heavy guys/gals get the same in your neck of the woods? Could this be a factor? I truly don’t know and simply speculating.. |
Originally Posted by 11atsomto
(Post 4032740)
I understand you are from WN?
I'm not sure I understand your question However, folks that fly heavies may only get a few landings a month. Of those, only a fraction may occur on runways less than 7,000’. Due to the lack of practice (confidence), perhaps the nerves get the brain to deviate from standard and dip a little low, not fully processing the ramifications of those actions. I added the last part. But that’s what I think he’s getting at. |
Originally Posted by SoFloFlyer;[url=tel:4032435
4032435[/url]]Just goes to show you how tight that approach actually is. It’s bad enough on a NB, I can only imagine a WB. It was bounce to happen
Originally Posted by Rseat;[url=tel:4032737
4032737[/url]]I’ll never get used to landing on shorter than normal runways. I’ve been around the block, but those type of landing never cease to make the heart rate go up.
We have our own challenging airports here at Cowboys Airways. Nothing makes me happier (sarcasm) than landing in MDW, gusty winds, heavy, and a wet runway on an 800 or MAX! We require flaps 40, max autobrakes, with the probility of overspeeding the flaps probably greater than 70%. Fun fun.. But, we do this all the time. After all, there’s no way our crew planners would EVER let us fly just one or two legs per day. So we get a lot of repetition. Which begs the question, do heavy guys/gals get the same in your neck of the woods? Could this be a factor? I truly don’t know and simply speculating.. |
Originally Posted by Grumble
(Post 4032757)
30* AOB @ 145kts gives you the same size turn circle whether your plane weighs 100k lbs or 500k lbs. I’ve flown the circle to 29 in every plane UAL has in the inventory. If you follow the procedures it’s the same every time, the Airbus just calls you a “retard” when.
|
Originally Posted by flypanam
(Post 4032816)
apparently the faa was doing some tests on 29 today.
|
You know you can divert right? Why are people landing on bread trucks and hitting light poles. That’s the real problem here, failure was starting the approach.
|
Originally Posted by meahPilot
(Post 4032841)
You know you can divert right? Why are people landing on bread trucks and hitting light poles. That’s the real problem here, failure was starting the approach.
|
Originally Posted by JoeBlo
(Post 4031370)
What in the DEi is going on.....
Maybe less emphasis on gender and sexual orientation and more emphasis on flying the airplane... The crew is all male caucasion. |
Originally Posted by OFFCOURSE
(Post 4032901)
The crew is all male caucasion.
|
Originally Posted by meahPilot
(Post 4032841)
You know you can divert right? Why are people landing on bread trucks and hitting light poles. That’s the real problem here, failure was starting the approach.
|
Originally Posted by OFFCOURSE
(Post 4032901)
The crew is all male caucasion.
Hearsay, unnecessary, and goes against company policy. Good job dipsh1t. See ya at a random subway |
Originally Posted by ugleeual
(Post 4032919)
‘just because ATC clears you doesn’t mean you have to accept it… just say “unable 29” and they’ll give you 04/22… simple. It’s not worth the risk on a WB after a long flight.
|
Originally Posted by meahPilot
(Post 4032841)
You know you can divert right? Why are people landing on bread trucks and hitting light poles. That’s the real problem here, failure was starting the approach.
|
Originally Posted by Hedley
(Post 4032967)
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.
I’m willing to put $$ on table that the Captain said “29 isn’t a big deal…” during the arrival briefing. Now look at what happened and all the blame will be on him/her… during the investigation question “why did you accept” will be one of the first asked… |
Originally Posted by ugleeual
(Post 4033007)
Pilots are responsible for risk management… ATC is responsible for getting planes to/from an airport. If 04/22 are actively being used for approaches then no real reason for a WB to accept the clearance to 29… that just helps ATC and increases risk for the airplane… doesn’t matter if the crews are trained for shorter runways and a visual approach… it’s just increases risk unnecessary if all runways being used. Simple.
I’m willing to put $$ 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… |
Originally Posted by 11atsomto
(Post 4032944)
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.
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)
Originally Posted by ugleeual
(Post 4033007)
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… |
Originally Posted by Grumble
(Post 4033016)
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. |
Originally Posted by OFFCOURSE
(Post 4032901)
The crew is all male caucasion.
Originally Posted by Hedley
(Post 4032967)
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.
|
Originally Posted by OFFCOURSE
(Post 4032901)
The crew is all male caucasion.
|
Originally Posted by Guppydriver95
(Post 4032034)
And, it’s over the course of a decade, so approx 250 ish per year. He also stated it’s a goal, not a hard number. Based on the new hire photos that get put out every week or so, I’d say we haven’t moved the needle much. Looks like the same bunch of white dudes it always has, with a sprinkling of women and POC.
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. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4033027)
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.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:34 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands