Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lessons Learned' started by Unregistered, Mar 1, 2012.
If I am not perfectly safe with none of them, I need to hang it up as I'm not fit for duty.
With the history of AF 447 & Colgan, can you demonstrate to me where instruments buy you any safety without having basic resolution skills?
And that's why you learn to recognize failures and how to fly partial panel!
Reductio ad absurdum
Yup! And that's where instrument training is so helpful!
Training to land with a dark panel is great for emergencies. A normal landing is not an emergency.
If your circling at night at minimums, (runway is in sight, so it meets your "no instrument needed for landing" criteria)and you're not looking at the instruments, how do you know that 1) you're not busting minimums, and 2) you're not climbing above MDA to put you back in the clouds??
The issue was not what I wanted, I want SVT & FLIR; the issue is what you need to be safe.
CRM: everything at your disposal should be used.
Stick and Rudder: fly the plane.
Both philosophy's have merritt. The truly skilled pilot knows where the balance is.
You didn't answer my question. On a circle at minimums, where anything lower is a bust and anything higher puts you back in it, how in the world do you stayed nailed to the altitude without the altimeter? Also, how do you're not landing on the wrong runway without the DG??
"That would be an accurate statement, once you see the runway, there is no longer a need for any instrument."
And, you must be the only person on the planet that's not susceptible to spatial disorientation.
I can't understand why someone wouldn't use that big 'ol panel just sitting there in front of them. It's free and it's really easy to look at.
Did you read Tim's "Black Hole" excerpt?? Referencing gauges/runway would help keep you from becoming a statistic..
What part of VFR night have you been missing? You said it cannot safely be done without instruments, I say that many PP candidates did it dark panel during their night training.
I don't resist using a panel, you over reached into idiocy when you said it couldn't be done because that's not true.
As for the above highlighted, there are multiple methods, how many can you think of?
henning: Go do it your way. I really don't care. I hope newbies don't pay attention to your nonsense and their instructors teach them the correct way.
There's a smart way and a dumb way to fly a friggn airplane. One of those ways will get you killed sooner or later.
You said "runway in sight". period. With your "method", what difference does it make??
Also, were you aware that most European countries REQUIRE you to be IR to fly at night??
Hmmmm wonder why??
One more thing, if you don't reference your DG on final, how do you know you're not landing on the wrong runway??
The indecent/accident reports are FULL of "wrong runway" reports. The airlines are known to do it, too.
If i was evaluating you for a job and we were landing at night VFR and if you ignored the panel, you would be packing for your trip home!!
+1 to this. In fact, at unfamiliar airports I do it in day (or especially dusk) VFR as well, just so I'm sure that I'm about to maneuver to line up on the right runway, and don't have to do an "oops, that should be 18, not 21" (which I've done before).
On the rest of it, I'm with those who say to use everything you have. I'm all for training to be able to land with no panel, just like I understand the need to train partial panel for IFR. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it regularly. I've been fooled by the sound of the engine and the pitch attitude before and not realized that I was getting below my target airspeed (typically, when passing through a shear layer). Sure, my sink rate told me something was up, but when I'm going into a black hole and all I have is a 2-PAPI, I want to know enough to be able to correct accurately before I have two reds.
I do NOT go into unfamiliar fields on a dark night without glideslope information.
Nice post, azure.
Someone else gets it.
There are many, many "famous" wrong runway incidents and accidents.
One that comes to mind was Continental at Hobby many years ago. Not only did they land on the wrong runway, they landed over men and equipment working on the approach of the runway!! (one glance at the DG would have prevented this, eh??)
When established on final, (especially at night when you can't see the numbers") take a look at the DG to make sure it matches the runway you planned to land on. (Make sure you adjust for the WCA "crab")
If you're supposed to be landing on 30 and your DG says 270 (corrected for WCA) then something's wrong!!
If you land VFR at night and ignore the panel after "runway in sight", you'll miss this VERY important piece of info!!
I rest my case...lol
How do you think people without DGs manage to land on the right runway? People with em land on the wrong one all the time. Too many runways with very similar headings that will make identifying by DG alone impossible.
The most important thing to landing on the right runway is to constantly ask yourself, "Does this make sense", pay attention to all the details of the airport and the runway and the surrounding city if present. Best way to do that is to look out the damn window.
You're failing to see the point. The OP's problem was that he didn't pay attention to really much of any of the cues that were telling him something was wrong. From the sight picture out teh window, to the indications on the instruments, to the feels of the controls. How do you learn to improve your ability to interpret all that? You come fly with me and I'll take everything away and then you'll learn all the information that is available from every sense and instrument. We'll work our way through all kinds of various panel failures so that you see the resolution you never knew was there. You can tell a lot with nothing but an airspeed indicator and a brain. You can tell your airspeed based on sound. You can know it based on tach and altimeter. You can know it based on control pressure.
If you can't land without your panel on a nice VFR night on a lit runway safely -- you're too dependent on your panel.
A mag compass is required for VFR flight. Look at it for runway verification. (provided you know how to use it correctly)
There are too many wrong runway icedents/accidents and can be avoided with a simple verification that you are actually landing on the correct runway.
I'll bet if you asked anyone that has landed or taken off on a runway they'll tell you that it made sense at the time..
I'll also bet if ask them if they could go back in time and check the DG, they would say "yes"..but, that's just my opinion..
Use everything, and I mean everything, at your disposal to manage the flight safely.
Ignoring the DG on final is not good management..
I'll bet if you asked anyone that has landed or taken off on a wrong runway they'll tell you that it made sense at the time..
Some of you may recall this accident and the probable cause. A pretty good argument for verifying runway with DG or mag compass:
Last updated: 14 March 2012
Status:Final Date:23 DEC 1983 Time:14:60 AST Type:McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 Operator:Korean Air Lines - KAL Registration: HL7339 C/n / msn: 46960/237 First flight: 1977 Engines: 3 General Electric CF6-50C Crew:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 3 Passengers:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0 Total:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 3 Airplane damage: Written off Airplane fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location:Anchorage International Airport, AK (ANC) (United States of America) Phase: Takeoff (TOF) Nature:Cargo Departure airport:Anchorage International Airport, AK (ANC) (ANC/PANC), United States of America Destination airport:Los Angeles International Airport, CA (LAX) (LAX/KLAX), United States of America Flightnumber: 084 Narrative:
While taxiing out in fog, the KAL crew became disoriented and ended up on the wrong runway. During the takeoff run, the aircraft collided head-on with South Central Air Flight 59, a Piper PA-31 which was taking off from runway 06L-24R for a flight to Kenai. The 9 occupants of N35206 were injured. The DC-10 overran the runway by 1434 feet and came to rest 40 feet right of the extended centreline.
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The failure of the pilot of Korean Air Lines Flight 084 to follow accepted procedures during taxi, which caused him to become disoriented while selecting the runway; the failure of the pilot to use the compass to confirm his position; and the decision of the pilot to take off when he was unsure that the aircraft was positioned on the correct runway. Contributing to the accident was the fog, which reduced visibility to a point that the pilot could not ascertain his position visually and the control tower personnel could not assist the pilot. Also contributing to the accident was a lack of legible taxiway and runway signs at several intersections passed by Flight 084 while it was taxiing."
Well that piece solidly shows that having the instrument is not important since even with it the pilots still don't use it.
Your logic is baffling. I've argued (along with others) that during VFR conditions, reference to instruments may be warranted regardless of ceiling and visibility especially during the night. Someone points out an accident where the crew did not reference a basic instrument resulting in an accident and you state that having the instrument is not important since the accident occurred anyway? Duh. Did you miss the point of the crew having to reference the instrument for it to make a difference?
When did you become a troll?
Everyone please note this last sentence. It sums it up in a nutshell. Jesse is NOT saying "If you can't land without your panel on a nice VFR night on a lit runway safely, you're a dangerous pilot in serious need of retraining." He is saying you're too dependent on your panel, and I'd agree. Especially when in the pattern, IMO, most of your flying should be head out the window. Panel is there to help verify what you already know.
I would even argue that things are NOT that different in tough, circle-to-land, right at visibility mins. You still should be able to land without your panel (I guess everything failed right after you popped under), and you should still keep your eyes outside. Yes, you need to use your panel for verification, but in those low-vis, low-flying situations, you REALLY need to keep your eyes on the runway (and be ready to abort).
The day I was told I needed an instrument to land on a VFR night and then when I countered that I keep getting told about IFR situations and situations where if the pilots had proper training and ability in basic stick and rudder skills they could have avoided an accident that they had the "required" instrument for.
You don't need any instruments landing VFR day or night if you have a complete set of basic flying skills, end of story.
All we need do is define "a complete set of basic flying skills" and we'll be all set!
After 183 posts, I hope this really is the end of this story!!!!
I guess all those 10,000 hour ATPs that crashed in the night VFR simulator study lacked basic flying skills. I never posted anything about IFR scenarios, others did. I've always contended that on particularly dark nights in perfect VMC where there aren't a lot of lights on the ground, just seeing the runway lights and never crosschecking your instruments is a recipe for CFIT. You basic stick and rudder skills won't save you if you succumb to a night-time illusion and never realize it until you're a smoking hole in the ground. It's happened to better stick and rudder pilots than you, believe me.
So what you're saying since instruments are not required to land on a VFR night, it's IMPOSSIBLE to be affected by spatial disorientation AND land on the wrong runway..
Interesting excerpt from JFK Jr's "probable cause" report:
According to AC
60-4A, "Pilot's Spatial Disorientation," tests conducted with qualified instrument pilots indicated that it can take as long as 35
seconds to establish full control by instruments after a loss of visual reference of the earth's surface. AC 60-4A further states that
surface references and the natural horizon may become obscured even though visibility may be above VFR minimums and that an inability to
perceive the natural horizon or surface references is common during flights over water, at night, in sparsely populated areas, and in
low-visibility conditions. Examination of the airframe, systems, avionics, and engine did not reveal any evidence of a preimpact
Which is why I use the runway/panel/runway/panel scan I mentioned in earlier posts on all night landings.
But hey, that's just me..
Yes, I think the current batch of ATPs is lacking in basic skills, it's proven over and over, the ones in current contention are Colgan and AF447. The FAA it seems is also coming to this determination. My bet is that if aviation continues in the current vein spins will be required training again within 2 decades.
You can put in the time and practice to learn the visual cues and guard against the "illusions" which are mostly because of unfamiliarity.
The Colgan and AF447 accidents have absolutely nothing to do with night illusions and spatial disorientation. Pilots make errors for a multitude of different reasons, poor stick and rudder skills are only one. The danger of an illusion is your mind is tricked into thinking you know what is happening when you do not. Knowing about them as I do, and having experienced some of them, I know that when visual cues are few, unless you are in the habit of confirming your attitude/condition of flight by referencing the instruments, you will simply believe the illusion and act on it. Everyone has experienced an illusion sitting next to another vehicle and then feeling you're the one moving when in actuality the other vehicle moved. I'm sure knowing about this illusion, you were the only person alive who didn't mash down on their brake pedal to stop your already stationary vehicle. The problem for most is you can't know you were not the vehicle in motion until you could confirm it by seeing past the other vehicle or looking out another window and seeing a motionless frame of reference. The instruments in an airplane provide that "other" frame of reference to counter night time illusions. You may in fact be above the visual glide slope or you may not be, is it an illusion or is it real? VASI, PAPI or a tuned ILS or a simple altimeter crosscheck might confirm what your eyeballs are telling you or it just might confirm you're experiencing an illusion. You won't know until it happens.
No, because the only pilot better than Henning is Jesse, the World's Greatest Pilot!
...but they have everything to do with inadequate skills....
Exactly; and the skill set they have has a hollow base.
I've sprayed pivots in the dark and done plenty of other night flying, the dark does not really give me issues. I've worked the majority of my career at sea in darkness as well. There are techniques in perspective one learns to use to make definite determinations in the face of potential illusions. You don't learn them without practicing though and it helps if the person teaching you knows them as well.
Just turn off the panel lights. I've flown many patterns that way, because that's all we had to do. Even went to different airports, turned off the lights, and flew pattern with many different scenerios. I logged about 20 hours night, because that's the only time I could fly during the week, before my checkride. Even did a bunch of short soft field, engine out, practice with no panel lights. The 360* power off approach to land on a spot, with no instruments, in the pitch black, is interesting.