Dipping under the GS

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Dipping below the GS is for whussies....

Real pilots manage the energy and stay on the GS all the way to the 1000' marker.... Great pilots touchdown at the 1000' foot marker smoothly......

 

[thebest]

Ok, it is official. I am getting old. Questions like this now illicit the response out of me that I would see in my father and grandpappy. Are you stupid are just plain dumb? RTFM! Here is an idea. Instead of taking someone's word for it, who could be wrong be the way, why don't you get off your a$$ and do some research? Start with reading the FAR/AIM maybe....Not only is it a credible source, you might run across a few other things that you didn't know and increase your knowledge base. Imagine that, you could actually accomplish something that your spikey haired, backpack wearing dude friends have yet to undertake, professional continuing education! Taking shortcuts is no way to go through life kid.

Now, I have to go take my geritol, some back pills and try to get my morning BM out of the way before noon.

Hey instead of a dumb answer, like the one you just gave, why not save your breath and help him out!

"(2) A large or turbine-powered airplane approaching to land on a runway served by an instrument landing system (ILS), if the airplane is ILS equipped, shall fly that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide slope between the outer marker (or point of interception of glide slope, if compliance with the applicable distance from cloud criteria requires interception closer in) and the middle marker; and
(3) An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the glide slope until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing"
Found it here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.16&idno=14
FAR 91.129 (e) (2) & (3)

THEBEST

 

[sstearns2]

Nothing quite like hitting the wake off a heavy at 20 feet..... or maybe I'm just a check airman with a thing about glideslopes.

 

[thebest]

Nothing quite like hitting the wake off a heavy at 20 feet..... or maybe I'm just a check airman with a thing about glideslopes.

BUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRBBBBBAAAAANNNNNNKKKKKKK! THEBEST

 

[thebest]

testest

 

[Beanie]

Why this is just easier? It's not like this stuff is brain surgery? Maybe for you though!

Not to mention that the reading would help you in areas of grammar, sentence structure and punctuation.

 

[Beanie]

Hey instead of a dumb answer, like the one you just gave, why not save your breath and help him out!

"(2) A large or turbine-powered airplane approaching to land on a runway served by an instrument landing system (ILS), if the airplane is ILS equipped, shall fly that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide slope between the outer marker (or point of interception of glide slope, if compliance with the applicable distance from cloud criteria requires interception closer in) and the middle marker; and
(3) An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the glide slope until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing"
Found it here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.16&idno=14
FAR 91.129 (e) (2) & (3)

THEBEST

Go look at the last 20 posts of this "pilot" and you will see that you are the one with the dumb answer.

 

[Bubba Dog]

There is no such thing as "glide slope" once you're below decision height. The gauges are meaningless. So, yes, one can transition below glideslope on a 200' ILS if one is below 200', because again, there is no such thing as glideslope below DH.

You're an accident waiting to happen.

 

[oldxfr8dog]

BUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRBBBBBAAAAANNNNNNKKKKKKK! THEBEST

No disrespect to any airline or pilots, but BUR is plenty long enough if you're not ref +40 and touching down at midfield.
There, but for the Grace of God, go I...

 

[ultrarunner]

...Let's take a B767-300. If the aircraft is on glideslope and the radar altimeter indicates we cross the threshold at the recommended 50' our main gear tires are only 22' above the concrete across the threshold...

I thought the RA measured main-gear-height?

What's it measure on the -300?

 

[thebest]

What if the vasi/ils where ots!!! OMG, what if I actually had to do it the old fashion way! THen what if I where on glideslope...or am I on glide slope...HOW DO I TELL!!!!
Fact is, FEDS say it is ok to go below GS.


THEBEST

 

[thebest]

Not to mention that the reading would help you in areas of grammar, sentence structure and punctuation.

The conversation is about going below the GS! THEBEST

 

[Lear70]

In the best "Toolman" tradition:

oh my God, we're all gonna DIE !!

Jeez guys, just learn what's legal and fly the plane, fer crying out loud...

Sometimes I miss the airlinkpilots.com website...

 

[thebest]

testest

 

[Big Beer Belly]

I thought the RA measured main-gear-height?

What's it measure on the -300?

Height above the radar altimeter antenna. Hey, I'm just the messenger. Duck below the non-existent, don't have to follow it below the DA, etc... all you want ... but do so at your peril in a big Boeing.

BBB

 

[ultrarunner]

Interesting. What do your groundshool gurus tell you the reason Boeing didn't calibrate it to measure MLG height?

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Interesting. What do your groundshool gurus tell you the reason Boeing didn't calibrate it to measure MLG height?

In short, I never asked the question and have no clue.

Your question does remind me of something I learned many years ago, though. It will pay you no dividend in life to wish things were different, aircraft were designed differently, procedures were conducted differently, etc... The fact is the designer, manufacturer, owner, FAA or whomever said it was so ... so either learn it the way you're taught and comply with the procedures or endlessly spin your wheels lamenting how things ought to be done "if they were smart".

I admit I am a simple man and that philosophy has brought me inner peace on more than one occasion when questioning what I thought was a poorly designed aspect of some system.

BBB

 

[ivauir]

For the young guys the key to his statement is stay on GS until DH. If fly one Dot low prior to DH, you place yourself at DH farther from the threshold than if you were on GS. This can be a problem if visability is at minimums. If you get to DH one dot low and visibility is at minimums, you will more than likely not be in a position to continue the approach IAW FAR runway environment requirements at DH and at 100ft.

I submit, that FAR's allow you to take-over visually and practically disregard GS on a CAT I. Cat II/III is a whole nother animal.

Fly safe!! Like, you would go out and fly dangerous...

I'm going to weigh in here too. I agree that the FAR's allow it, but I think it is a lousy technique. While there is not a legally binding glidelope below DH why would you choose to modify your glidepath at this critical juncture? You are sacrificing the safty margin built in to the 3 degree glidepath, you are shifting your aimpoint, and you will not make a substantially shorter landing than the pilot who touches down on speed in the touch down zone. Some may argue that last point, but shifting your aimpoint at 200 feet isn't going to change the airplane's energy state by much at all.
Frankly I've done a lot of short field work with big airplanes and a last second "bid" for the runway is a lot of work for not much (if any) gain. Your performance numbers are based on a glidepath, you wouldn't cheat the safty margin in your airspeed, why cheat the safty margin built into your glidepath or touchdown zone?

Be on speed and in the zone.

 

[Lear70]

I'll take 500 feet of gain in MDW all day long and twice on Tuesdays...

Not too many "heavies" to contend with wake turbulence there that I can remember.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[kngarthur]

Ok, it is official. I am getting old. Questions like this now illicit the response out of me that I would see in my father and grandpappy. Are you stupid are just plain dumb? RTFM! Here is an idea. Instead of taking someone's word for it, who could be wrong be the way, why don't you get off your a$$ and do some research? Start with reading the FAR/AIM maybe....Not only is it a credible source, you might run across a few other things that you didn't know and increase your knowledge base. Imagine that, you could actually accomplish something that your spikey haired, backpack wearing dude friends have yet to undertake, professional continuing education! Taking shortcuts is no way to go through life kid.

Now, I have to go take my geritol, some back pills and try to get my morning BM out of the way before noon.

Beano!!! Wasn't so straight forward was it? Next time go beat your wife or kick the dog!

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I'll take 500 feet of gain in MDW all day long and twice on Tuesdays...

Not too many "heavies" to contend with wake turbulence there that I can remember.

Your mileage may vary.

Lear
post #48 explianed it better than I.

The performance numbers at MDW [and every runway] are built in! You don't need an extra 500 if you fly the jet on speed. Guys that go for the extra 500 ft may end up too short.

If a pilot goes for an extra 500ft at MDW then he should go for an extra 500ft at every 6000ft runway.

What you are saying is I don't trust the performance numbers and/or my ability... And this is based on...... emotion.!

Not that you are going to change your mind, but perhaps you should check for grass, mud and approach lights in the gear on postflight!
:beer:

Rezfully yours!

 

[Ty Webb]

Ding! Ding Ding! We have a winner!

. . . . Here is an idea. Instead of taking someone's word for it, who could be wrong be the way, why don't you get off your a$$ and do some research? Start with reading the FAR/AIM maybe....Not only is it a credible source, you might run across a few other things that you didn't know and increase your knowledge base. Imagine that, you could actually accomplish something that your spikey haired, backpack wearing dude friends have yet to undertake, professional continuing education! Taking shortcuts is no way to go through life kid.

Ding! Ding Ding! We have a winner!


.

 

[scrub]

most importantly, what would a judge say in a court of law!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Beanie]

Beano!!! Wasn't so straight forward was it? Next time go beat your wife or kick the dog!

Kngfart/thebreast (whoever you are today), yeah it is straightforward. The reason it is not straightforward to you is because you are easily confused reading a lot of OPINIONS not FACTS, that are suspect at best. Thank you for proving my point about getting regulatory info from an internet board. There have been very few posts that actually give guidance on your question, and YOU are still responsible to verify that the guidance given is valid. The rest of these post are just "Here is what I do" and discussions about radio altimeters. Sound technique is only appropriate when it is embedded within correct procedure. I hope you don't back up your answers to the FAA, a check airman or to an interviewer with "the guys on flightinfo.com said it was legal". Take some responsibility for your education and some accountability to your chosen profession.

Do yourself a favor and read Tony Kern's books "Redefining Airmanship" and "Flight Discipline". Good luck on your journey to being a professional pilot.

 

[rgd]

Excellent counterpoint Beanie....It is a shame that this type of guy will never get it or the pearl of wisdom you just tried to hand him.

BTW, who is checking GS in a "landing flare"? Last time I did a landing flare in transport cat. jet, it wasn't at the MM or DH, it was somewhere at or just before the runway, going for the landing zone. Prior to that, I was looking at the Runway Aiming Point Markers trying to keep the same rate of descent as I had for the last 5 or so miles to hold the GS.

 

[ptarmigan]

Interesting. What do your groundshool gurus tell you the reason Boeing didn't calibrate it to measure MLG height?

MLG height at what body angle? Usually it's calibrated for something inbetween. Don't recall the exact number on the MD11, but it is something around the typical approach body angle, maybe 1.5 or 2 degrees. In the flare, that puts the MLG a fair bit lower than the RA height, probably close to what was described in the 767. Would have to look it up, but that's pretty much my recollection.

 

[Lear70]

The performance numbers at MDW [and every runway] are built in! You don't need an extra 500 if you fly the jet on speed. Guys that go for the extra 500 ft may end up too short.

Tell that to the SWA crew and the kid that died.

EVERY foot counts on a runway as short as MDW. That's my opinion, it's kept me out of trouble, FAA violation, or incident/accident so far, so I think I'll stick with it, thanks.

If a pilot goes for an extra 500ft at MDW then he should go for an extra 500ft at every 6000ft runway.

If it doesn't have a nice level clearway (stopway) at the end of it, absolutely.

What you are saying is I don't trust the performance numbers and/or my ability... And this is based on...... emotion.!

Nope, based on historical fact. The SWA guys had the numbers and, should everything have gone right, they SHOULD have been able to stop the aircraft. They didn't.

Sometimes sh*t happens, and I'd like to have an extra margin for error as long as it is safe and legal. I hope you never need it.

Not that you are going to change your mind, but perhaps you should check for grass, mud and approach lights in the gear on postflight!

I do...

:beer: Rezfully yours!

Right back atcha'...

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Tell that to the SWA crew and the kid that died.

EVERY foot counts on a runway as short as MDW. That's my opinion, it's kept me out of trouble, FAA violation, or incident/accident so far, so I think I'll stick with it, thanks.


If it doesn't have a nice level clearway (stopway) at the end of it, absolutely.


Nope, based on historical fact. The SWA guys had the numbers and, should everything have gone right, they SHOULD have been able to stop the aircraft. They didn't.

Sometimes sh*t happens, and I'd like to have an extra margin for error as long as it is safe and legal. I hope you never need it.


I do...


Right back atcha'...

I knew you'd bring up SWA at MDW but I was hoping (for you) that you'd wait, like the rest of us, for the final report.

Historical fact? Where? Can you clarify. Can I reference that fact? You are still emotion based....

There isn't really even popular techinque to dip below the GS. There certianly isn't any reference to it in credible references...

Just fly the jet as advertised!

 

[Lear70]

There isn't really even popular techinque to dip below the GS.

Ohhh, so now you know everything about every pilot out there and what's popular or not?

Here's a hint, I'm not the only one at both this company and the last two who do this at shorter-runway airports (including Aspen, Teluride, Rifle, and more).

Just fly the jet as advertised!

I do. Exactly as the FAR's and AIM allow me to, as I've previously described.

I'm sorry that you don't like that it's legal AND published as perfectly acceptable to transition to visual cues INCLUDING the VASI (which I never said to go below), and land inside the touchdown zone.

Again, you have no fact on which to base your argument against it, just your "opinion" and "emotional belief" that your way is better, while I have every publication backing up my method.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Legal doesn't mean safe.

Do you have a reference that mainstreams dipping below GS as technique