Captain Toolbox (WARNING! LONG RANT!)

[TonyC]

One, I don't like how you hit *enter* *enter* *enter* *enter* then dot, I like white space between the post and the signature line. If I don't put something (such as a period) after the *enter* *enter* etc (sometimes I get carried away and do it five times ) the vBulletin software just tosses the *enter*s out, and shoves the signature line right under the bottom of the text. Would it be more acceptable if I used a different character, or a smiley of some sort? I chose the period because I think it's the least intrusive character on the keyboard. so I always have to edit when I respond to you, You could leave them in there if the delete task is too much work. and I also don't like how long-winded your responses are, Oops. You got me there - - nobody likes a windbag, huh? I'll try to work on that. and that you quote one line, write a paragraph, quote another, write another paragraph. I believe that's a good way of communicationg exactly what I'm responding to. Since there is often a good deal of time between posts, and most people don't follow them in a real-time fashion anyway, there is often confusion introduced when a remark is disassociated with it's related response. By placing the original thought immediately above the response, the reader doesn't have to wonder, "What is he talking about?" The "what I'm talking about" is conveniently quoted immediately above what I'm saying about it. Of course, there is this other technique that I've seen where the author just types directly in the quote, but uses a different color to distinguish his thoughts from those of the original author. Frankly, THAT method annoys me, so I avoid it. However, I thought I'd try it once to see how you like it. What do you think? If you like this technique better, I'll consider it. It's easier to do than the multiple-quote. I only go to the effort of multiple quote references because I think they're easier to follow. If they're not, I'll spare the effort in the future.

The key to being a good writer is to be succinct That certainly is a key. I'm in favor of whatever is required to clearly communicate. If that requires a few more words, I think that takes precedence.

/I know you didn't ask me, but I'm just griping I'm used to griping.

Oops... I forgot... If I don't add something below the quote, vBulletin considers the length of the post to be zero, and five characters is the minimum.

If I use this method, would you be amenable to me using five periods?

 

[SteveC]

One, I don't like how you hit *enter* *enter* *enter* *enter* then dot, I like white space between the post and the signature line. If I don't put something (such as a period) after the *enter* *enter* etc (sometimes I get carried away and do it five times ) the vBulletin software just tosses the *enter*s out, and shoves the signature line right under the bottom of the text. Would it be more acceptable if I used a different character, or a smiley of some sort? I chose the period because I think it's the least intrusive character on the keyboard.

I do the same thing. It's easy to lose the last line of a response otherwise - blends into the sig line too much. I'm thinking about throwing in random smilies, just for the variety.

so I always have to edit when I respond to you, You could leave them in there if the delete task is too much work. and I also don't like how long-winded your responses are, Oops. You got me there - - nobody likes a windbag, huh? I'll try to work on that. and that you quote one line, write a paragraph, quote another, write another paragraph. I believe that's a good way of communicationg exactly what I'm responding to. Since there is often a good deal of time between posts, and most people don't follow them in a real-time fashion anyway, there is often confusion introduced when a remark is disassociated with it's related response. By placing the original thought immediately above the response, the reader doesn't have to wonder, "What is he talking about?" The "what I'm talking about" is conveniently quoted immediately above what I'm saying about it. Of course, there is this other technique that I've seen where the author just types directly in the quote, but uses a different color to distinguish his thoughts from those of the original author. Frankly, THAT method annoys me, so I avoid it. However, I thought I'd try it once to see how you like it. What do you think? If you like this technique better, I'll consider it. It's easier to do than the multiple-quote. I only go to the effort of multiple quote references because I think they're easier to follow. If they're not, I'll spare the effort in the future.

Multiple quote is much easier to follow.

The key to being a good writer is to be succinct That certainly is a key. I'm in favor of whatever is required to clearly communicate. If that requires a few more words, I think that takes precedence.

yep

/I know you didn't ask me, but I'm just griping I'm used to griping.

Understandable.

 

[TonyC]

yep

Showoff.







+

 

[Mr_Creepy]

Tony when do you flare the 727???

If I flare anything below 30' with the 737 it PLANTS the main gear. And I mean PLANTS!

I guess the main gear are behind the "point of rotation" so I have to level the plane at 30' and let it sink.

I was used to flaring at 10' with the CRJ. Not a good practice with the 737! My first landing, I probably dented 9L at FLL - I hit HARD.

I was also taught to push the yoke FORWARD just prior to touchdown. That made it a little softer landing. (It really did!)

 

[TonyC]

Tony when do you flare the 727???

If I flare anything below 30' with the 737 it PLANTS the main gear. And I mean PLANTS!

I wan't questioning your use of 30', or trying to compare it with a 727. I was simply trying to determine if when you said 30', you meant you flared earlier than normal, or if that WAS normal. For this maneuver, do you flare earlier, or faster, or do you just accept a harder touchdown? In other words, where does the extra sink rate go?

I was also taught to push the yoke FORWARD just prior to touchdown. That made it a little softer landing. (It really did!)

Yes, for several reasons, it does.




.

 

[B767Driver]

OK, so you got me. I'm not confused at all - - I was just trying to be polite. For your sake, I should have said, "You have contradicted yourself. First you say, in describing your version of a 'duckunder', that you are busting a minimum altitude by descending below the DH without adequate visual reference, and then in the next post you claim you have not busted a minimum altitude because you have satisfied the requirements of descending below DH."







.

I'm not sure why I'm responding to this...but I think you are confused. Did this confuse anyone else or just TonyC. If someone else would like clarification I'd be more than happy to expound.

 

[TonyC]

I'm not sure why I'm responding to this...but I think you are confused. Did this confuse anyone else or just TonyC. If someone else would like clarification I'd be more than happy to expound.

Ok, I'll try again...

...being on G/S, below DH, without the necessary visual cues in sight...is a "duck under".

That is not a duckunder. That is violating a minimum altitude.



-

 

[Mr_Creepy]

30' flare was normal. Normal flare!

 

[CapnJim]

OK, so you got me. I'm not confused at all - - I was just trying to be polite. For your sake, I should have said, "You have contradicted yourself. First you say, in describing your version of a 'duckunder', that you are busting a minimum altitude by descending below the DH without adequate visual reference, and then in the next post you claim you have not busted a minimum altitude because you have satisfied the requirements of descending below DH."

I don't see how you don't understand this. It seems so simple, even the 'contradiction' seem intentionally contrived. If you drop below the glideslope or MDA without visual refrence, it's colloquially referred to as a 'duck under', the idea being you're trying to "have a peek". I have never heard of going below glideslope after the MM with visual refrence referred to as a duck under because there is nothing to "duck under", i.e., no clouds and legally, at this point, no PAPI or GS. B767's next post dosen't qualify, because it is clear that having satisfied the altitude requirements at the DH, and hence the MM, the approach is now a visual manuver or alse you would be going around. And being visual, it is therefore legal and safe to use any normal manuvers and descent rates for whatever touchdown point you like, including the numbers.

I should also point out that the original phrase I used was 'dipped below glideslope once the field was assured'. Not knowing how finely we would be splitting these hairs I should have said "Below DH, over the displaced threshold, in visual conditions, I descended below glideslope to maximize the available landing distance". Most people can read between those lines, unless, of course, they're trying to prove something. Then it seems the hair splitting is on like Donkey Kong.

 

[TonyC]

I don't see how you don't understand this. It seems so simple, even the 'contradiction' seem intentionally contrived.

<sigh>

There may be confusion on your part because I'm responding to you about what I said regarding B767Driver's posts.

If you drop below the glideslope or MDA without visual refrence, it's colloquially referred to as a 'duck under', the idea being you're trying to "have a peek".

You can call it whatever you want - - it's violating a minimum altitude. One may not descend below those minimmum altitudes, legally, without adequate visual reference.

I have never heard of going below glideslope after the MM with visual refrence referred to as a duck under because there is nothing to "duck under", i.e., no clouds and legally, at this point, no PAPI or GS.

The 3 degree descent gradient does not disappear, evaporate, or vaporize at the middle marker. Even if the ILS glideslope is NOTAMED unreliable below 200' AGL, even if there is NO VGSI, there is still a 3 degree descent gradient that should be maintained. Going below that normal descent gradient is called "ducking under."

B767's next post dosen't qualify, because it is clear that having satisfied the altitude requirements at the DH, and hence the MM, the approach is now a visual manuver or alse you would be going around.

I'm sorry, I don't know which post was the "next post" and I don't know what you mean by "doesn't qualify."

I do know that he said "being on G/S, below DH, without the necessary visual cues in sight...is a "duck under". Like I just told you, I responded to him that the maneuver he just described constitutes busting a minimum altitude. He answered that such was not busting a minimum altitude, as he had satisfied that at the DH. Of course, that defies logic, since he began by saying that it was descending below the DH without adequate visual reference. Not having "necessary visual cues in sight" does not satisfy the requirement to continue the ILS below DH. In those two remarks, he contradicted himself.

And being visual, it is therefore legal and safe to use any normal manuvers and descent rates for whatever touchdown point you like, including the numbers.

Normal maneuvers, normal descent rates.... ahh, yes... we're back to the question I asked. How does one land on the numbers using normal maneuvers and normal desent rates from the on-glideslope, at Decision Height point? Only Mr_Creepy has ventured a response so far. His method is to lower the nose at DH, make no other adjustments, and flare at the normal point. (I haven't pinned him down yet on whether it's a faster flare or a firmer touchdown.)

Perhaps you'd care to expound on the normal manuevers, normal descent rates to the numbers maneuver.

I should also point out that the original phrase I used was 'dipped below glideslope once the field was assured'. Not knowing how finely we would be splitting these hairs I should have said "Below DH, over the displaced threshold, in visual conditions, I descended below glideslope to maximize the available landing distance". Most people can read between those lines, unless, of course, they're trying to prove something. Then it seems the hair splitting is on like Donkey Kong.

I don't recall taking issue with your phraseology. You might be confused because you asked about my response to B767Driver, and may have mistook my analysis of his posts as an analysis of yours.

There are some aspects of this business that can be described with very precise terminology, and when we begin using that terminology loosely, it can lead to confusion and misunderstandings. I hope you'll understand this is an endeavor to effectively communicate, and not an exercise in splitting hairs. It becomes much harder when we don't have a nice big whiteboard to draw on.



(Still waiting for the "style and delivery" critique. )



.

 

[Chris_Ford]

entire post

Much better at first, but then at the end you got long-winded again .

On the other hand, I do find your rhetoric skills unmatched on this board and dread the day that I get in a real argument with you (not about tipping )

 

[seagull]

I guess the main gear are behind the "point of rotation" so I have to level the plane at 30' and let it sink.

I was also taught to push the yoke FORWARD just prior to touchdown. That made it a little softer landing. (It really did!)

Hmm, find me a tricycle gear aircraft where the gear is NOT behind the "point of rotation" (also known as the CG, incidentally)!

 

[B767Driver]

<sigh>



I do know that he said "being on G/S, below DH, without the necessary visual cues in sight...is a "duck under". Like I just told you, I responded to him that the maneuver he just described constitutes busting a minimum altitude. He answered that such was not busting a minimum altitude, as he had satisfied that at the DH. Of course, that defies logic, since he began by saying that it was descending below the DH without adequate visual reference. Not having "necessary visual cues in sight" does not satisfy the requirement to continue the ILS below DH. In those two remarks, he contradicted himself.




.

This is not what I posted. You may want to re-read my post.

 

[B767Driver]

30' flare was normal. Normal flare!

That seems like an awfully high flare in the 737. I initiate the 767 flare at 30'...the 757 at 20'. The 727, MD80 and 737 were much lower...hard to remember but maybe 15' or so.

As far as the forward push before touchdown...I never felt that necessary for a "nice" touch in the 737....it always rounded out and flared much like a 172. It worked nicely in the 727 and MD80...have never used that technique in the 75/767. After breaking the descent rate...I pretty much hold constant back pressure/pitch attitude until touchdown. In the 757 I feel that I have a very good grasp of "where the ground" is and can tweak the pitch for the last couple of feet...not so for me in the 767. For me it is much more of a "mechanical" landing. But, I don't fly it as much either...probably only once for every 5 757 flights.

 

[TonyC]

This is not what I posted. You may want to re-read my post.

OK. Perhaps we're getting so far beyond what was said that time is beginning to blur things. I'll go back to the source, and do a quick review.

In Post #84 you were talking to Mr_Creepy. You decribed what you thought was a duck under. In Post #90 I told you I think that's busting an altitude, pointing out that you even used that terminology in your description. You answered me in Post #92 by saying that you had NOT busted an altitude, you "satisfied that at the DH."

The way vBulletin software works, when I quote you, the person you quoted before is not automatically included. Some other forum software actually nests the quotes, providing an easily tracable "he said, he said" trail. If we were using such software, the conversation might look like this.

Mr. Creepy,

...

FWIW, I don't like to call this a "duck under" maneuver. To me the term "duck under" implies that I'm at a minimum altitude and I do not have sufficient visual references insight...and I'm busting an altitude to try to see something. For example...being on G/S, below DH, without the necessary visual cues in sight...is a "duck under".

I don't have a textbook definition of "duckunder" handy, but I believe what you're describing is busting a minimum altitude. Ouuu, you even used those words - - busting an altitude.

I haven't busted a minimum altitude. I satisfied that at the DH.

(I attempted to present this same "conversation" in Post #97, but I apparently didn't communicate the thought very well.)


Now, I don't believe I've taken anything out of context by doing this. If you look carefully at Posts #90 and #92, you'll see that I've just combined them, strung them together. #90 quotes #88, and #92 quotes #90 - - I just put all three together, in order. I quoted you and responded, and you quoted me and responded. This is the combination of the two (#90 and #92) without the break in continuity.

It's not my intent to misquote, misrepresent, or even misunderstand you. Please tell me where I went wrong.




At the risk of belaboring this, let me repeat the above, highlighting the words that, in my opinion, constitute a contradiction:

Mr. Creepy,

...

FWIW, I don't like to call this a "duck under" maneuver. To me the term "duck under" implies that I'm at a minimum altitude and I do not have sufficient visual references insight...and I'm busting an altitude to try to see something. For example...being on G/S, below DH, without the necessary visual cues in sight...is a "duck under".

I don't have a textbook definition of "duckunder" handy, but I believe what you're describing is busting a minimum altitude. Ouuu, you even used those words - - busting an altitude.

I haven't busted a minimum altitude. I satisfied that at the DH.

[EDITED to fix the Post links]
.

 

[SteveC]

I think that you guys took different detours at post #84:

FWIW, I don't like to call this a "duck under" maneuver. To me the term "duck under" implies that I'm at a minimum altitude and I do not have sufficient visual references insight...and I'm busting an altitude to try to see something. For example...being on G/S, below DH, without the necessary visual cues in sight...is a "duck under". In my example...I have the necessary visual cues in sight...I'm adjusting my flight patch visually to achieve a certain touchdown objective.

(emphasis added)

From that point on you guys were talking past each other. Tony was referring to the "duck-under", while 767 was talking about a visual maneuver from DH to touchdown. Ships passing in the night and all.

From my reading, you are both in agreement that dropping below DH without necessary visual references is a bust. 767 was saying that he does not call the visual maneuver (dropping below glideslope 1 dot from MM to touchdown) a duck-under.

 

[jtrain609]

Thank God somebody came out and said it.

 

[B767Driver]

When I think of a "duck under" accident...I think of a pilot descending below a minimum altitude without the appropriate visual references in sight in an attempt to "find something"...in order to land.

As such, a pilot on the glideslope, below DH without the required visual references is "ducking under the DH" in hopes of finding the runway. The same on a non-precision approach, where a pilot might descend 50' below MDA in hopes of the same. This is what I think of when somebody uses the term "duck under" in regards to flying.

Now, my point is that a pilot at DH...who has aquired the necessary visual references to continue towards a landing...and adjusts his flight path slightly...maybe 1/2 to 1 dot below the glideslope...to facilitate a slightly earlier touchdown...is not "ducking under"...nor violating a minimum altitude. Since the pilot had the visual references in sight at DH...the pilot had satisfied the requirements to descent below a minimum altitude. Now it is the pilot's responsibility to visually manuever the airplane to the runway.

Now, I understand that a lot of pilots will call leaving the glideslope early once visual after the MM "ducking under" the glideslope. My point is that I don't like this term in this specific situation because it has negative conotations...and a pilot is within his right to maneuver visually to a landing after the MM. But that's just me. If a pilot wants to call this ducking under the glideslope...fine. But to me, I'm not "ducking under the glideslope"...my new path to the runway is a visual one...and one that I'm maneuvering to get to.

Once again...If a pilot elects to "adjust his flight path", or if you'd rather, "duck under the glideslope", after the MM it is a maneuver that must be evaluated, briefed and executed precisely. Under normal conditions, I would always advocate flying the glideslope to touchdown. If demanding runway conditions exist, and the runway length becomes critical...I find it good judgment to adjust the flight path after the MM to land a bit earlier in the touchdown zone. Sometimes 500', maybe 1/2 dot glideslope deviation, can make a huge difference...The difference of touching down at 1200' instead of 1800' to 2000'.

The pilot must be an expert on his aircraft in order to safely do this, however. In the 767, I would never leave the G/S after the MM, because the wheel base height at a TCH of 50' is just not much room. In the -88 or 737, I would not have as much reservation. Every pilot must understand his ship and the tolerances available at the threshold for their wheels and make their own analysis. Leaving the G/S early, willy nilly, is not something that should be acceptable on a routine basis or without examination.

Now I understand that following the G/S to touchdown should enable you to land at 1000'. However, a slight flare and a little float can make your planned touchdown of 1000'....end up being 1800' very easily (and 800' longer than my contaminated performance charts allow). Maybe a good pilot should always be able to execute an on G/S landing at 1000' every time. If so...I don't see many good pilots out there...including me.

My whole point to this post is...that as a professional pilot you are going to find yourself in some very demanding runway critical situations. Even if you have 1000' more runway than the chart says you need to stop...I would be using every bit of pavement afforded to me in order to achieve the objective of using a taxiway to exit the runway instead of the overrun and emergency escape slides.

 

[DE727UPS]

"But, I don't fly it as much either...probably only once for every 5 757 flights."

I didn't know they cross trained you guys at DL. I guess it's just the international guys that only need to know the 767. Domestic needs to know both?

Question for B767 and TonyC.

Does it say in your book not to follow a two bar, 3 degree, VASI if that's all you have? It says that in ours in big bold letters but it's in the pilot training guide, which, strangely enough, isn't read too often unless you're going through transition/upgrade. I don't remember it from the AOM or FOM and certainly haven't run across any Capts that said not to follow it.

This would apply to both the 757 and 767.

 

[DE727UPS]

"adjusts his flight path slightly...maybe 1/2 to 1 dot below the glideslope...to facilitate a slightly earlier touchdown"

Yet, anything a fraction of a dot below 1 degree at any time is unstabilized and is a go around according to the book. Darn books....hehe.