Exciting Approach

Acrofox

All dragon~
Do they put A320s on floats?
I think so ... someone on this very forum has that as their avatar!

But anyway I dunno. I don't get it. Now, if that were an IMC approach to minimums, sure ... but otherwise an airplane is an airplane, and that just looks like flying to me. I think yall big iron pilots must have become spoiled with your 160 mile final approaches. ;>

-Fox
 

CirrusMonkey

No Real Usefulness
Depends on what you fly. I have never flown up in Alaska, unfortunately, and give you guys some serious credit for that. But you have to give these guys some credit for flying that approach at around 130 knots with a need for 5x the runway.
 

FlyingScot

Spanish Proficient
I think so ... someone on this very forum has that as their avatar!

But anyway I dunno. I don't get it. Now, if that were an IMC approach to minimums, sure ... but otherwise an airplane is an airplane, and that just looks like flying to me. I think yall big iron pilots must have become spoiled with your 160 mile final approaches. ;>

-Fox
I have no float or Alaska time, nor flown any heavy metal. I have shot many approaches to mins, not such a big deal after doing it enough. The bigger the plane gets the more likely you want to see the runway above "1000" or have the runway aligned and wings level above 100'. I'm guessing stick and rudder skills are easier at 6000 lbs than 140,000.
 

Acrofox

All dragon~
Depends on what you fly. I have never flown up in Alaska, unfortunately, and give you guys some serious credit for that. But you have to give these guys some credit for flying that approach at around 130 knots with a need for 5x the runway.
Lemme take a -big- step back. I do not fly in Alaska (yet). I have a friend who does and I've ridden with him once or twice and that's all I've done in that regard. I am still too low-time to get hired anywhere, so please take what I'm saying here and salt to taste -- I'm not being 100% serious, either, but neither am I really 100% joking. Maybe I'm missing something, perceptually, as I've never flown anything in my life that's bigger than a Seminole... I'm certainly willing to accept that. However, I don't see much 'exciting' about that approach. It looks like nominally less button pushing and more flying. If it were a 747, I'd be more inclined to be impressed, but I as it is the video just triggers my "Meh." response.

The only reason I made the Alaska comment is that some of the places they go into in a fully loaded beaver involve turning approaches a wingspan from trees on each side into something that looks like a kiddie pool from even 500' up. Calling this video "the most difficult landing in the world" seems a little ... blustery.

I dunno. :> When I make comments such as those, I don't expect or intend for them to be taken with much weight.

~Fox
 

JLF

Well-Known Member
Screw you buddy, I did this one last month: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1208/00610VG13LR.PDF :)
That's a good one... Back in my dispatcher days I did an observation flight in the jumpseat, and had the privilege of being upfront for this approach. It was dusk and the approach came after 15 minutes or so of obligatory P6 SKC JFK holding. The Captain rolled wings level over the threshold for 13L and greased the big barbie jet on. She did a fine job, especially considering she was about to pop a newborn at any minute, and she had to wiz so bad I didn't know if she was going to make it to the terminal! :)
 

Tommay85

Well-Known Member
I've never flown a building, so this is merely conjecture. I imagine that maneuvering is something that can be visually judged pretty easily just like any other airplane. It's the engines that I see as the challenge. They don't respond quickly. Energy management seems to be much more crucial when you get into the big stuff. If you're too slow, it's not going to be corrected as easily as say, a piper cub. I seem to recall that the MD-11 in particular takes more than 5 seconds to spool up from flight idle. I'd take a guess that you'd be smashing into the ground just short of the runway if you got it wrong.
 

dasleben

That's just, like, your opinion, man
I've never flown a building, so this is merely conjecture. I imagine that maneuvering is something that can be visually judged pretty easily just like any other airplane. It's the engines that I see as the challenge. They don't respond quickly. Energy management seems to be much more crucial when you get into the big stuff. If you're too slow, it's not going to be corrected as easily as say, a piper cub. I seem to recall that the MD-11 in particular takes more than 5 seconds to spool up from flight idle. I'd take a guess that you'd be smashing into the ground just short of the runway if you got it wrong.
The actual stick and rudder aspect is, for the most part, straightforward. Bigger aircraft are much more stable, and in my opinion, fly much nicer. The 767 is a cuddly teddy bear while hand flying. Engine spool time is certainly a factor, as is the general effects of momentum. Being on speed is a critical item; too slow, and as Derg put it, you're on an elevator straight to hell. Too fast, you'll eat up runway. Maneuverability, in a general sense, is much reduced compared to smaller aircraft, and excessive sink rates near the ground are harder to detect visually. I think most people would be pleasantly surprised at how well big aircraft handle, but there are a number of very good reasons approaches are stabilized further out.
 
Top