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