UA169 (VCE-EWR), aircraft or parts of it hit truck on I-95
- Thread starter GypsyPilot
- Start date
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
Told a UAL 767 “caution trucks on the highway contact tower”. They were ah…not amused. Brickyard behind them thought it was hilarious though.
scooter2525
Very well Member
Joke going stale?
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
Not a stale as the bread in that truck
Kingairer
'Tiger Team' Member
Has there been any discussion about limiting ops on 29?
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
If we limited ops every time a pilot screwed something up we wouldn’t have any ops. They did flight check the RNAV w 29 the other day though.
T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
Just remember.
4 red and you’re in the bread.
4 red and you’re in the bread.
Kingairer
'Tiger Team' Member
Just a guess, but I bet you’ll hear more “unable” from heavy’s in the future. Accurate to say from an atc perspective 22L or 29 ops have similar arrival rate?
When I first got to SouthernJets, it was some sort of former USAF thing “I’m ducking under” and I’ve never heard that phrase before or even understood the efficacy of it.
It took us about a decade to work all that out of our lexicon, but it was certainly a thing.
If I saw someone verbalize and then “I’m ducking under” on a line check, it would be a closed door debriefing and a call to crew scheduling for a replacement crew.
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
A bit lower rate with 29, can’t run them as tight cause getting off the runway isn’t as easy. Unable is fine, 22L is always an option when we’re landing 29. It can actually be convenient for us because we can run the guy behind the heavy tighter then since they won’t be behind them for long and the natural curve of the approach builds the space.
It’s not a duck under, that’s when you go below MDA or the GP to try and eek below an undercast to land. It’s an aimpoint shift. To all you to land at about the 1000’ from the threshold, prior to the first set of arresting gear. It’s why in tactical jets, we preferred non-precision over precision approaches, unless Wx drove us to need a precision, as you’d aimpoint shift on descent from the VDP usually, or on short visual final. Done correctly, you’re red over pink on a VASI, and 3 red on a PAPI.
Thing is, this is a maneuver for tactical jets only. It’s not at all intended, nor necessary, for transport category aircraft. It’s for jets that have 40 feet of fuselage behind the cockpit, not 200 feet or more of fuselage behind the aircraft.
100% verboten in the 121 world.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
And yet done so frequently without a single thought to the 100+ feet of aircraft hanging out behind the cockpit. I just had an FO do it to me yesterday despite me telling him not to when he briefed he was going to.
As it should be. Not needed, and no reason for it in transport category aircraft. The specific reasons I cited for doing it, do not apply here. At all. Surprised there’s guys who don’t get that.
Karnage
I-am-a-pirate. I do not need credentials!
When I got hired here almost every captain I flew with as junior reserve FO would call “adjusting aim point” and drop below the G/S and go three and sometimes four red on the PAPI. This was so common even to the point of doing it on 11,000ft long runways.
Get to my first CQ and ask one of the instructors who I had during initial about it and his words were something along the lines of “one of these days someone is gonna drag the gear in the grass and lose their job all because they are afraid of not being able to stop a plane on a 10,000ft runway when the plane is capable of stopping in less than 5,000ft.” He then admonished me to never do it and that I should be calling out this apparently rampant disregard for procedures.
Now whenever an FO pulls that shtick I ask them where in our manuals it tells us that it’s acceptable to intentionally fly below the glide path/VGSI on short final. The conversation inevitably ends with me pointing out the multiple occurrences of the phrase, “do not descend below the visual glide path” in our manuals and the warning that intentional disregard of that warning will end with a phone call to flight standards and the duty pilot and me requesting a new FO. We all dip a little low from time to time, often times it’s from following the ILS or RNAV G/S too long and not switching as appropriate to the PAPI, but it’s a long way from there to intentionally going below just to give yourself 500’ of extra float space to ultimately still plant it onto the runway like Wile. E Coyote falling off a cliff.
Get to my first CQ and ask one of the instructors who I had during initial about it and his words were something along the lines of “one of these days someone is gonna drag the gear in the grass and lose their job all because they are afraid of not being able to stop a plane on a 10,000ft runway when the plane is capable of stopping in less than 5,000ft.” He then admonished me to never do it and that I should be calling out this apparently rampant disregard for procedures.
Now whenever an FO pulls that shtick I ask them where in our manuals it tells us that it’s acceptable to intentionally fly below the glide path/VGSI on short final. The conversation inevitably ends with me pointing out the multiple occurrences of the phrase, “do not descend below the visual glide path” in our manuals and the warning that intentional disregard of that warning will end with a phone call to flight standards and the duty pilot and me requesting a new FO. We all dip a little low from time to time, often times it’s from following the ILS or RNAV G/S too long and not switching as appropriate to the PAPI, but it’s a long way from there to intentionally going below just to give yourself 500’ of extra float space to ultimately still plant it onto the runway like Wile. E Coyote falling off a cliff.
DropTank
Well-Known Member
DE727UPS
Well-Known Member
Since we are talking about it. Keep an eye out of the note "Glidepath and VGSI not coincident" or something like that. I can't remember if it was on the ILS or RNAV into 14L at BFI, but there used to be a note like that on the chart. I don't see it anymore. I remember following the glidepath on a visual and the FO says "Red over red", which was a callout. Nobody ever said it except this one F/O. Damned if he wasn't right. I was on glidepath on the FD but if you look out the window at VGSI, I was low. The note means any time below minimums, you gotta be looking at the VASI or PAPI and not electronic glidepath.
Wardogg
Meat Popsicle
There’s still commercial turbojets flying?
Ever landed one on a 3800 ft runway? Sometimes it’s required.
That's how jets are classified. Most 121 jets aren't authorized to land on that length of a runway anyway and I'd have to ask the operator "does it make sense to dispatch to an airport that short with a 600,000+ gross weight where you sure as heck can't get it out?"
Anything under 9000 feet in the 350 and the drama starts.