gretzky99 Page: 1 of 1

gretzky99
January 31, 2025, 00:53:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11817814

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diff Tail Shim

The aircraft that was on a vectored approach to land. it was night so VMC rules do not apply. it was IMC. Is it standard approach into Reagan on ILS with LOC capture or a free for all? Every aircraft I have ever flown in as a civvy engineer is AP/YD engaged well into DH accepted AP disconnect unless MEL applied. So on a set course and trajectory that is the same everywhere else in the world. Long final, Short final, little difference. Whom gives way?

Sorry, but there is alot wrong with this paragraph.
The aircraft was flying a circling approach off an ILS, not a 'vectored' approach.
VMC & IMC are weather conditions, not flight rules. The weather at the time was absolutely VMC.
It is absolutely normal to disconnect the AP well above DH/MDA, it happens the vast majority of the time, worldwide.

Last edited by gretzky99; 31st January 2025 at 01:21 .

Subjects Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33)

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

14 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

gretzky99
January 31, 2025, 15:55:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11818314

Quote:

Originally Posted by NIBEX2A

Interestingly, if the SMS works in the US the same as everywhere else in the world, procedures should be audited on a regular basis, with a focus on any changes which may have invalidated the original assumptions made about the frequency of hazards and associated risks. These procedure reviews would also take place after receipt of any safety reports where the procedure could have been a contributing factor.

The NASA ASRS database contains safety reports raised over the US. A quick search with the term \x93helicopter\x94 produced 40+ reports with the highlights shown below.. (apologies, to save time these are all copy and pasted) There are more, but I appreciate that most of us have annual eye examinations to pass so didn\x92t want to overdo it!

^^^^^^^^

Wow. That\x92s a pretty damming list of incident reports right there. Seem like a textbook example of Normalisation of Deviance.

Subjects: None

6 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

gretzky99
February 02, 2025, 01:58:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819442

My understanding is that the practice of circling aircraft onto RWY 33 is entirely to increase the arrival rate during peak times. Alternating RWY 33-01 arrivals means that the spacing between aircraft landing only has to be enough to ensure preceding aircraft landing on RWY 33 has crossed RWY 01 before the trailing aircraft can land on RWY 01. Compare this to RWY 01 only ops, which would require extra spacing to allow for a complete landing roll and time to vacate entirely.

It's a symptom of a system operating beyond its capacity.

The fact that this sort of procedure is so normalised that many crew don’t even see this as a threat is quite telling about the safety culture within the US aviation sector. Someone above mentioned that night circling approaches are not approved in many company Ops Manuals, so ATC issue late visual approaches instead, as a means to work around this limitation. This should be ringing alarm bells to all.

This sort of thing wouldn’t even be attempted in most parts of the world, let alone allowed to become normal sop.

Last edited by gretzky99; 2nd February 2025 at 02:42 .

Subjects ATC

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

10 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

gretzky99
February 02, 2025, 03:00:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819475

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr dre

There does seem to be a bit of a \x93we do things differently over here because we\x92re (quote/unquote) better pilots\x94 attitude. Maybe this will be a wake up call, but given the reluctance to change culture I doubt it.

I agree completely.

It almost seems backwards to me. Late runway changes should only be applied in quiet environments, allowing plenty of room for manoeuvring without separation issues. The same for visual separation, where only one or two aircraft in the area make misidentification of traffic an improbability. Unfortunately the reverse is true. The busier and more congested the airspace, the more likely these procedures are to be used. From a risk identification and management perspective, I just don't see how operating like this can ever have been deemed acceptable.

Again though, it's used because it's the only way to squeeze an extra 1% out of an over burdened system. And worst of all, everyone involved, from pilots to ATC, think they're the worlds best for making it "work".

Last edited by gretzky99; 2nd February 2025 at 03:24 .

Subjects ATC Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

5 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

gretzky99
February 02, 2025, 03:10:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819482

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denflnt

If ATC relied solely on the helo to keep from hitting the CRJ, that is a big effing problem.

As soon as the helo reported the traffic in sight, that's exactly what happened, and it's exactly how the system is designed.

Yes it's a "big effing problem". But it's a "big effing problem" of the system, not the specific ATC on duty at the time.

Subjects ATC CRJ Traffic in Sight

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

10 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

gretzky99 January 31, 2025, 00:53:00 GMT permalink Post: 11817814	Quote: Originally Posted by Diff Tail Shim The aircraft that was on a vectored approach to land. it was night so VMC rules do not apply. it was IMC. Is it standard approach into Reagan on ILS with LOC capture or a free for all? Every aircraft I have ever flown in as a civvy engineer is AP/YD engaged well into DH accepted AP disconnect unless MEL applied. So on a set course and trajectory that is the same everywhere else in the world. Long final, Short final, little difference. Whom gives way? Sorry, but there is alot wrong with this paragraph. The aircraft was flying a circling approach off an ILS, not a 'vectored' approach. VMC & IMC are weather conditions, not flight rules. The weather at the time was absolutely VMC. It is absolutely normal to disconnect the AP well above DH/MDA, it happens the vast majority of the time, worldwide. Last edited by gretzky99; 31st January 2025 at 01:21 . Subjects Circle to Land (Deviate to RWY 33) Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 14 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
gretzky99 January 31, 2025, 15:55:00 GMT permalink Post: 11818314	Quote: Originally Posted by NIBEX2A Interestingly, if the SMS works in the US the same as everywhere else in the world, procedures should be audited on a regular basis, with a focus on any changes which may have invalidated the original assumptions made about the frequency of hazards and associated risks. These procedure reviews would also take place after receipt of any safety reports where the procedure could have been a contributing factor. The NASA ASRS database contains safety reports raised over the US. A quick search with the term \x93helicopter\x94 produced 40+ reports with the highlights shown below.. (apologies, to save time these are all copy and pasted) There are more, but I appreciate that most of us have annual eye examinations to pass so didn\x92t want to overdo it! ^^^^^^^^ Wow. That\x92s a pretty damming list of incident reports right there. Seem like a textbook example of Normalisation of Deviance. Subjects: None 6 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
gretzky99 February 02, 2025, 01:58:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819442	My understanding is that the practice of circling aircraft onto RWY 33 is entirely to increase the arrival rate during peak times. Alternating RWY 33-01 arrivals means that the spacing between aircraft landing only has to be enough to ensure preceding aircraft landing on RWY 33 has crossed RWY 01 before the trailing aircraft can land on RWY 01. Compare this to RWY 01 only ops, which would require extra spacing to allow for a complete landing roll and time to vacate entirely. It's a symptom of a system operating beyond its capacity. The fact that this sort of procedure is so normalised that many crew don’t even see this as a threat is quite telling about the safety culture within the US aviation sector. Someone above mentioned that night circling approaches are not approved in many company Ops Manuals, so ATC issue late visual approaches instead, as a means to work around this limitation. This should be ringing alarm bells to all. This sort of thing wouldn’t even be attempted in most parts of the world, let alone allowed to become normal sop. Last edited by gretzky99; 2nd February 2025 at 02:42 . Subjects ATC Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 10 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
gretzky99 February 02, 2025, 03:00:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819475	Quote: Originally Posted by dr dre There does seem to be a bit of a \x93we do things differently over here because we\x92re (quote/unquote) better pilots\x94 attitude. Maybe this will be a wake up call, but given the reluctance to change culture I doubt it. I agree completely. It almost seems backwards to me. Late runway changes should only be applied in quiet environments, allowing plenty of room for manoeuvring without separation issues. The same for visual separation, where only one or two aircraft in the area make misidentification of traffic an improbability. Unfortunately the reverse is true. The busier and more congested the airspace, the more likely these procedures are to be used. From a risk identification and management perspective, I just don't see how operating like this can ever have been deemed acceptable. Again though, it's used because it's the only way to squeeze an extra 1% out of an over burdened system. And worst of all, everyone involved, from pilots to ATC, think they're the worlds best for making it "work". Last edited by gretzky99; 2nd February 2025 at 03:24 . Subjects ATC Separation (ALL) Visual Separation Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 5 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.
gretzky99 February 02, 2025, 03:10:00 GMT permalink Post: 11819482	Quote: Originally Posted by Denflnt If ATC relied solely on the helo to keep from hitting the CRJ, that is a big effing problem. As soon as the helo reported the traffic in sight, that's exactly what happened, and it's exactly how the system is designed. Yes it's a "big effing problem". But it's a "big effing problem" of the system, not the specific ATC on duty at the time. Subjects ATC CRJ Traffic in Sight Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context. 10 recorded likes for this post. Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Posts by user "gretzky99" [Posts: 5 Total up-votes: 45 Page: 1 of 1]¶