Tony, if you don't see all this as hair-splitting, I dread to think how long your posts will be when you acutally
do get down to splitting hairs. But, just for fun, and to underline the hair-splittedness of the whole thing, I'll try a Tony-style-three-screen-length-quote-and-rebuke post, and pray god the message isn't lost in all the html code. Here goes:
TonyC said:
<sigh>
There may be confusion on your part because I'm responding to you about what I said regarding B767Driver's posts.
There's no confusion on my part whatsoever. I understood perfectly well that by saying
TonyC said:
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."
you were telling me that you were being polite to B767 by feigning confusion, rather than implying that I was saying something I didn't say, which I clearly didn't. That would be confusing. We're totally on the same page there.
TonyC said:
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.
No argument there. It is indeed violating a minimum altitude, and you may not legally do it. We are trying to draw the distinction between 'violating a minimum altitude', shown to be synonymous the aforementioned coloquialism 'ducking under', and going below GS or PAPI past the MM in visual conditions, which is indeed legal. Our only trouble now is to show that it can be safely done with normal manuvers and descent rates, and this argument will be stitched up like a pillow case.
TonyC said:
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."
Here I disagree with you, ref. last paragraph. But really, the point is moot because "ducking under" has no formal definition. You say tomato, I zader matermorts. The essential argument is whether or not it is legal to descend below glideslope or VGSI after the MM. I, and others on this board, contend that is is not only legal, but safe, given normal manuvers and descent rates.
TonyC said:
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."
This is the post I am referring to:
TonyC said:
...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."
And by "dosen't qualify" I am, of course, stating that B767 has not satisfied the requirements for 'ducking under' by his definition and mine. By yours, it may qualify as a duckunder, but as I've already stated this is merely semantics, and at any rate a long way from resolving the question of legality.
TonyC said:
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.
It seemes clear to me that although he did not explicitly spell it out the second part of B767's post assumes visual refrence, otherwise, yes, it would be contradictory.
TonyC said:
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'll give a stab at it, using my original situation as an example: In the ERJ, 3 degree slope is typically maintined at target speed with flaps 45, 2 degrees nose up pitch, and an 64% N1. If you were foolish enough to disregard flaring, maintaining this configuration and attitute all the way down will *firmly* plant the mains on the 1000' markers. Not good, obviously. Per our CFM, transition to Vref (Actuallt, within 5 knots of Vref! Per CFM!!) should occur when crossing the threshold. This, of course, obviates the need for a small reduction in power as well as a pitch change, which will change our touchdown point. At appx. 10 ft., round-out is initiated, with simultaneous smooth reduction to idle thrust, followd by a flare of appx 2-3 degrees of pitch
change(not pitch angle). The airspeed transition, roundout, and flare all conspire to add about 500'-700' to the aim point (1000' markers).
Landing at or before the 1000' markers is therefore academic. Given a displaced threshold of adequate length (which I had-- appx 500' worth) the rate of descent is increased slightly by a small change of pitch and thrust, maintaining Vtgt. This puts you, of course, below both GS and VGSI. At the lower thrust setting, the lapse of time between transition to Vref, roundout, and flare is of course somewhat accelerated, but not to an extent that any pilot of reasonable skill would be unable to contend with. Normal manuvers, normal descent rates, shorter landing, and perfectly legal. You can put a 172 on the numbers easily, an ERJ somewhat more difficulty, a 72 or 73 with even greater difficulty, until you get to a size, speed, and weight that it is
almost impossible with normal manuvers and descent rates. I emphasize almost because it, again, is a question of technique. I'm not a 777 or 747 driver, so I'm at a loss to give you techniqe for those types. But, the argument that it is impossible simply because we don't know how is akin to the argument that bumblebees can't fly just because we can't show mathematically how they do it. As soon as you do, the arument goes out the window. If your argument is that it is always illegal, you're argument is already in the shubbery.
TonyC said:
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.
Again, no confusion whatsoever. The original argument began along the lines of "Going below GS" vs. "Riding the GS to the ground". I was simply clarifying my original statement, in hopes that it wouldn't get mixed up in all the ducking under and busting altitudes.
TonyC said:
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.
)
Good god Tony! If you and I were in a room with a whiteboard and time to kill it would be a nightmare of coffee spills, CFM's, FAR/AIM's, screaming and laughter.
What fun!
I'm reticent to critique your style and delivery; it will almost certainly lead to an argument. But I'll try anyway. Please take it as constructive criticism and not an ego attack. It all stems from your original response to my post...
<insert wavy flashback lines on the T.V. ...>
TonyC said:
Are you sure?
OK, here goes...
Already, were starting off with a little sarcasm. I was asking for advice and professionalism, not a slap in the face. I'm already frowning.
TonyC said:
If you can't fly the glideslope and safely land in the remaining runway, you don't need to be landing.
Now we have presumptuousness and aspersions cast on my abilities.
TonyC said:
There were two egos in the cockpit.
I had adresed that in my original post. Rubbing salt in the would not only weakens your argument, at comes across as needlessly abrasive, and almost seems done to satisfy your own sense of self-gratification at rebuking my post.
TonyC said:
Calling the tower is NOT the way to initiate a Go-Around.
This one has nothing to do with style and delivery, but I put it in anyway because I wanted to comment on it since we're already on a trip down memory lane. I should let you know that this was an interview question when I was hired, and calling the tower was an appropriate response to an unresponsive captain descending below DH without visual refrence. I will agree, however that in my situation it would not be the appropriate way to initiate the go-around as Captain Toolbox was completely responsive, however, it is not as outside the ream of reason as you seem to make it.
TonyC said:
Take your lessons learned and apply them the next time, and every time, you step into the office.
This, after all the rest, seemed to me the pinnacle of condescention. Who are you to teach me lessons? My experience level is greater than that of a lot of people, but if I had advice for them I certainly wouldn't give it to them with so much high-handedness. Why should you? Ego? If you were referring to the lessons I had already stated having learned, then you're again hailing the cab's taillights- seemingly for your own satisfaction. I value your opinion and respect your experience, but you can keep the patronization. You're a good guy, and sharp, but I hope you can understand how some of the comments you make may rub people the wrong way.
The seeming obstinance and selectiveness shown in many of your responses suggest that it's not really so much about precision, as it is about obscuring or diminishing debated points that you presented so imperiously as undisputable fact, for the purpose of saving face. Had you not attcked the issue so superciliously in the first place, we could all concentrate on the crux of the argument rather than on all the he-said-she-said quote-fest.
The sheer mass of this post I have intended to be part of the critique you asked for. If you skipped to the end of all that mess and just read this, you got the point!
