newarkblows

It really wasnt flamebait. 6-7 yrs ago my company had ATR's and it wasn't "reguired" to be configured until 500'. Now we are given a more arbitrary 1000' requirement which seems excessive especially in visual conditions. There will always be examples of poor airmanship even with a new 1000' requirement. People landing with power in, floating down the runway trying for a soft touchdown, people being afraid to use thrust reversers, and there will always be people skidding off the end. It happens every winter even with these new rules so why am i ignorant? maybe they should up it to 1500' and then we will be sure no one will go off the end of the runway::sarcasm::.

If the culture at an airline frowns upon going around I see it as more of a threat then being configured by any certain point. We were once required to have judgement and airmanship. We now have rnav departures that REQUIRE the use of an autopilot. Little by little our jobs are losing everything that requires skill. Call me ignorant but i dont like the trend. I fly the book but that doesnt mean i like it.

Hetman

WGAF how you walked through the snow. It's just a good thing you don't have the stick and throttle in your hands.

aviatorhi

Too funny, and who says I don't have a stuck and throttle in my hands? I don't only sit sideways, though that seems to pay my bills lately, I doubt you've done anything other than fly from ILS to ILS your whole life, step aside for people with experience, else you get run over. You've also clearly never flown in a 3+ crew airplane, you'd know an FE is more than a systems operator if you did, but you're clueless, so no fixing that, CML.

I whole-heartedly agree, I'd like to add that an important part of "flying the book" is knowing where "Recommendations" end and "PIC/Crew Authority and Judgment" begins.

shfo

The problem is the people making these policies are people that couldn't fly an airplane or hack it on the line. Our fleet manager has 25 hours in the airplane. He is a "captain" but can only fly with a line checkairman. There are all these bandages for poor airmenship, turning on the autopilot at 500' etc and few people challenge these things. What if you hit wake at 500' what about windsheer, severe turbulence etc? I'd much rather have a human at the controls than try to let a cruddy autopilot try to fly through it.

About the approach criteria. The feds and higher ups at the airlines focus so much on airspeed, but that is just one factor in landing distances. I've seen so many people be on speed and stable above 1000' but they carry too much power and float out of the touchdown zone trying to grease it on. The timing of the roundout, power reduction and flare and much more important than airspeed. I might be a couple of knots fast going over the fence but I hit the 1000' marks. I also find it amusing that the airlines complain about fuel costs but they could save millions a year if pilots could be power off to 500' instead of 1000'.

Also, we are paid to do things that are not in the books. What happens when you are shooting an ILS to 12 in MIA with the departures shut down due to storms east and south of the airport? On 1 mile final the guy who preceded you blows a tire on the rollout. Tower says you can switch to 8L or go around into the storm just southeast of the field. This happened a few weeks ago to us. We landed on 8L. If you cannot do that you have no business being at a 121 airline flying people around.

Randy Babbit has testified to congress that he is recommending pilots to hand fly more often in light of some incidents that have been related to depending too much on automation. His own POIs on the otherhand "recommend" or require depending on the airline the use of automation on these rnav departures. It would be nice if everyone at the FAA was on the same page but they all human and have their own opinions.

forgot to bid

They, as in Part 121 pilots as a group, didn't screw up just one time to create a 1000' rule and right along with it, the be down within the TDZ. They screwed up a lot, not only bending metal and killing people but with the advent of FOQA data airlines learned a lot about what was going on with their line flying that was not accident related.

I think Coex found from FOQA data that 90% or some extremely high number of approaches to PSP were unstabilized. Attention was given to PSP, i.e. new rules. Rules are created and dropped as necessary at every airline I've been at. In reality, there are not that many rules to flying. Its rather very simple and practical.

I've not found anyone, until this thread, that was upset about the 1000' rule at either Delta or Coex before it. It was never even brought up. Do enough approaches and deal with enough pilots and you appreciate the rule.

Now if you're flying a Cessna 185, be as unstabilized as you'd like. Flying a commercial airliner with passengers on board be stabilized where the company tells you to be stabilized.

forgot to bid

The question is, does your company allow you to change runways (not side step) at 300' while on final without briefing it? If so, you're legal.

And if you opt to go around, and TSRA's are sitting south and east of the airport, then a left turn to the north should suffice and you can divert to FLL/PBI or hold and you're paid by the hour. You probably weren't out of fuel as then more questions should be raised as to why you bypassed more suitable alternates prior to reaching a somewhat TSRA surrounded MIA. Nice and simple. You probably can come back around and try 8L then as there is evidently no TSRA's west of the field in this example. I mean you're not a hero for doing a low and close in runway change, its commercial airline flying and not Afghanistan or Iraq here.

I mean AMR 1420 was the classic example, look it up. If you're not stabilized then go around, if you can't be down in the TDZ either give it up and put it down now or go-around.

BTW, in ATL most pilots I fly with brief two approaches per arrival, in case we get the runway you normally want or the one you really want. Briefing close in sucks, so brief and then make an abbreviated brief (about 5 sec) and run two items on the checklist and you're done.

This is really not that hard.

forgot to bid

I'm thinking you were at Coex too (i.e. EWR blows and ERJ FO, right?) then it was 500' VFR and 1000' IFR stabilized. Then it just went to 1000' if I remember right when it was all jet.

I would say people come off the end of the runway every year, quesiton is, did they follow the rules from stabilized approach criteria, land within the TDZ and follow the proper procedure with runway braking actions? A lot of that never gets out. The CLE Coex overrun, from what I remember in class, was a hand flown approach in a white out with strong crosswinds all the way down to minimums and he was on speed and pegging the loc and gs perfectly. Then what happened?

And btw, when the FAA figured out everyone who had shot that approach before and after had done so even though reported vis was below notam'd vis mins for the runway and they wanted to violate everyone before them, I think it was a 30 minute time period where vis was reported by tower and ATIS to below NOTAM mins but above charted mins prior to them commencing the approach. I think CAL, Coex and UsAir and ALPA had to fight that on behalf of their pilots who were legally wrong for having shot the approach.

Here is the bigger quesiton, if you outlawed the 1000' and TDZ rules because it is castrating the good pilots out there, then when a pilot brings a 737-800 in at 25 kts fast and touches 5000' down the runway at DCA, how do you say he did anything wrong? I mean at this point doing what you ought to do is a technique, not a requirement, right?

mooney

So someone didn't want to sidestep. Who the heck cares? were we in the cockpit with him to know all the variables?

I've been behind guys who didn't waive wake turbulence delays so I could get out faster. I didn't complain or ask why....

the list goes on and on.....

The Juice

Thank you. I can not believe there is 3 pages on a topic about why a pilot did not do something that he was not required to do.

Who Cares?

Swedish Blender

I understand fatigue, et al, I was merely asking if the company had something prohibiting a visual. So if there is no navaid, does that mean you can't do a visual to that runway?

As far as briefing, it can't be that hard to brief a visual on a 10,000' runway at a major airport. Land here, take the first high speed, if we go around straight ahead to 3000'. You should have reviewed the paperwork before your departure to check which runways you could operate to. I guess some people never side step.

3 minutes does not make a difference to me. I have a hourly rate but am paid by rig.