Pilots "not well trained" for manual approaches

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I can't see the article, it's asking me to register. What carrier?

Germania.

Is 3.3g really that bad? How many g's does it take to damage the aircraft? I know amusement park rides easily go over 3 g's and some up to 5 g's and people pay for that pleasure, though I suppose they don't expect that when they're flying, but winds don't always cooperate.

Yes. Aircraft generally are built to withstand around 2.5Gs in flight, but slamming onto a runway at 3.3Gs is going to do some kind of damage to the aircraft. It might just cause some damage to the skin, but it's going to do something to the aircraft. It's going to require at a minimum an in-depth inspection of the aircraft, including pulling the skin off and checking the frame underneath it, the landing gear, and other systems around there.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I didn't realize aircraft were that fragile, thanks. So keep it under what, 2 g's on landing for a typical commercial airplane?

I suppose carrier-based craft might be an exception, they are built to take harder landings I think.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

About the only time you're going to see even 2Gs in a commercial plane is if for some reason they bank near 60 degrees. If you're banking that hard, there's a problem and you're probably in trouble.

a reply to: moebius

I was told that the landings at KSFO when both runways are used simultaneously are done VFR. Now does VFR mean manual?

This is only after the cross "the bridge." (San Mateo Hayward)

a reply to: gariac

No. VFR is see and avoid. They usually use autolanding systems, if they have them, down to a certain point of the approach. They're using the ILS, but they're watching for other traffic, the runway, and obstacles in addition to using the systems.

The G,s might seem low but the aircrafts weight is the issue.. A 747-400 is 295.742 metric tonnes..Now times that by 3.3

radar altimiter tells us when to pitch up.....ready to flare....it's a game of get as close as ya can but don't let the main gear hit.....22 or so feet give it pitch up...727 it happens in quick time I swear...then the exponential filling the window view with the edges of the runway is good for conjecturing when you have returned to Earth....he....he......each type needs time in the seat to get used to it

originally posted by: thebozeian
a reply to: F4guy
Yeah Cat IIIc, the wholly grail of autoland. It should be able to automatically land, brake, taxi all the way to the NIGS stop line at the gate. Trouble is, while there are aircraft that have Cat IIIc autoland capability and there are airports that are basically set up for it, as far as I know there are currently no performed Cat IIIc landings performed last I looked. That may have changed but I dont think the Europeans are yet allowing it and although some US airports are capable its not yet happening. I wouldn't mind betting that several pilot associations have a hand in that.

The reasons it hasn't been implemented are many. The landing is not an issue. But if the visibility really is zero, you can't see to taxi. And if there is a problem, the emergency equipment can't see to get to you. Taxiway sensors have not been installed antwhere yet. And it's rare that you have less tha 250 feet RVR (runway visual range) so 3b works. I can tell you that my first Cat3b approach and landing (at London Stansted) was scary as hell.You're doing 160 mph 100 feet above the ground and can't see anything, remembering that the autopilot and autoland software was coded by the lowest bidder.

Not sure about the airlines, but today's corporate aircraft, many or most of them, have synthetic vision systems the work very well. For those aircraft, fog is like something from the past.

a reply to: Zaphod58

My memory could deceive me but I remember very steep banks (certainly above 45-50°, IMHO) on most approaches on Hurghada (Egypt). They would do the loop before approach over sea and I always had a very steep view on the sea, coast and the buildings. Almost top down but of course not 90°.

I wonder if it was really like 30° and if so, what a 60° bank angle must feel like then. Can´t remember such steep bank angles anywhere else on approach. Is 60° that much out of the norm?

Adding to that, I´ve read that airliners normally do not bank higher than 25° so I´m certain it feels/looks way more steep than it actually is.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Zaphod58

My memory could deceive me but I remember very steep banks (certainly above 45-50°, IMHO) on most approaches on Hurghada (Egypt). They would do the loop before approach over sea and I always had a very steep view on the sea, coast and the buildings. Almost top down but of course not 90°.

I wonder if it was really like 30° and if so, what a 60° bank angle must feel like then. Can´t remember such steep bank angles anywhere else on approach. Is 60° that much out of the norm?

60 degrees for an airliner on an instrument approach is not the norm. In the not too distant past, instrument approaches included what was known as a procedure turn. You would fly the approach course outbound (away from the runway for a couple of minutes, the do a standard rate turn to a heading 45 degrees off the outbound course, fly that for one minute, then do a standard rate 180 degree turn and fly that course until you intercepted the final approach course which lined you up with the runway. A standard rate turn is one where you turn 3 degrees per second, so a full 360 turn would take 2 minutes. The bank required increases with speed, so at 100 knots a bank of 15 degrees works. At 200 knots, it takes a 30 degree bank. No commercial airliner has a 400 knot approach speed, which would require a 60 degree bank. At 60 degrees, a level turn results in a 2 g loading and the stall speed will increase by the square root of the load factor +2 (√2), which is approx 1.4. This means that, at 60 degrees angle of bank, the stall speed is increased by 40%. Private Pilot applicants used to be tested on the ability to do a 60 degree banked turn at a constant bank and altitude. The FAA has now reduced that to 45 degrees. For commercial pilots, it's 50 degrees.

a reply to: F4guy

While I mentioned that at 60 degrees bank an aircraft is subjected to a 2 G load factor, I forgot to mention that at 2.5 Gs on some airliners you will start bending stuff and it's probably stuff you need, and if you exceed that by another 1.25 Gs, stuff is going to start breaking. And those load limits are if the pilot is good and keeps the loads symmetrical. If not, see American Flight 587. (en.wikipedia.org...)

Bank angles on commercial planes might seem quite steep sometimes, but I suspect most of them are well within norms. When an airplane performs excessive manoeuvres you will definitely notice.

I studied Aerospace Engineering for a while a long time ago and had the pleasure of being on board a Fokker 50 (55-60 seat turboprop) doing some unusual maneuvering. We did some 60 degrees 2G turns and some rudder only 'flat' turns. I can tell you that was quite the experience!
I myself have flown a Cessna 172 in a 2G turn, but it does not compare in the slightest.
Lets just say it was a not a fun day for everyone on board

a reply to: spaceman42

I had a couple trainers that I'm convinced were either former fighter pilots, or wannabe fighter pilots. One asked us if we wanted to pull 2Gs in a 172, the other would teach us whip stalls in a glider that started with us looking up at the ridge,tail sliding, and flipping nose over tail. Those were FUN though.

I can't speak for the proficiency of commercial pilots, but the USAF is actively focusing on training pilots to get back to "basic" skills such as flying by hand and navigating without GPS. Oddly enough the catalyst for change was enemy threat capability. The new buzz word is A2AD--Anti-Access/Area Denial...it can mean many things but GPS jamming is a prevalent and easy to understand concept. For some details, see this article about C-130s leading the charge:

C-130 A2AD Training

Maybe a good time to reintroduce Link Trainers...

originally posted by: Blackfinger
Maybe a good time to reintroduce Link Trainers...

No, that would only exacerbate the problem. New pilots are great at flying on instruments. What they lack are stick and rudder skills. Flight schools are teaching systems management to the exclusion of positive aircraft control. It is now possible to obtain a type rating, the license needed to captain a turbojet aircraft without ever touching the real aircraft. Train in a simulator, take the type rating checkride in the simulator, and voila, you are a type rated jet pilot.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Arbitrageur

About the only time you're going to see even 2Gs in a commercial plane is if for some reason they bank near 60 degrees. If you're banking that hard, there's a problem and you're probably in trouble.

Here's a video of a bank WAY over 60. It set off every aural warning except pressurization and fire.

vimeo.com...

a reply to: F4guy
Maybe you posted the wrong link? That gives me a video about climbing a rock face.