Gear down 2 miles past GS

[Oakum_Boy]

I reckin one dot BELOW the glidslpoe unless everyone else is intercepting from above??

 

[bart]

I have alot left to learn, but I have learned the value of a stable approach. I flew with a guy much like the one you speak of. I spoke with him about it, with the CP and the DO. None of which got results, so I went to work somewhere else.

A year later he put the gear up on the ground in an airplane for them. I wonder if they reflected back on all the information I shared with them? Who knows...

Glad I wasn't his FO for that stunt.

 

[cl-65link]

cl-65link, did you go to North Dakota?

Yes.

 

[C77MD80]

All the 121 flying that I have done only states that you have to be fully confiigured, on speed and spooled up by either 500 ft VMC or 1000 ft IMC, calling also to be on or above the glide slope. Therefore if on the g/s I will typically hold 250 unitil I have to start configuring. In my experience you could easily slow an MD80 9 miles out, a 727 7 miles out and an ATR 5-6 miles out (been a while) from 250kts. I am typically at 3 degrees on g/s already and am not typically waiting for one dot or one and a half. I say go fast, save your company money and configure to meet the above. Obviously if you feel more comfortable, take more time. A lot of my time is hub flying and we just go with the flow, keeping the speed up when needed.

I've only had one gear problem while landing and that was not something that could have been resolved quickly anyhow; I think we landed after burning off 1.5 hours of fuel.

If everyone added 33 seconds at a busy airport there certainly would be a lot more delays than there already is. I guess I learned from that old hat type; hope I'm not too reckless for y'all.

 

[cvsfly]

"One dot above....one dot below" has always been just a saying and may look ambiguous (sp?). Usually when one says "one dot above" its in reference to where the GS needle is in relation to the aircraft position. You want to intercept the GS from below it and many autopilots have trouble intercepting from above. Gear down at the OM/FAF. Never have heard app or tower ask to keep the speed up inside the OM/FAF. Its usually "speed XXX to the Marker".

 

[100LL... Again!]

This is the type of idiot who won't wear a seat belt in his car because he wants to be thrown clear in case of an accident.

They have a reason for everything, but can rarely explain it.
They like to do everything different because it makes them feel smarter than everyone else. You know the type.

You'll never convince him to listen, let alone change.

He'll probably never kill himself, but the word 'amateur' comes to mind.

 

[enigma]

In general, when flying a turbojet/turbofan airplane, one should be fully configured and stabilized no later than one mile inside the outer marker, assuming IMC. Early in my jet flying career, I would cheat a little, mainly because my department head wouldn't set any standards (he didn't want to paint himself into any corners ). Once I hired on with a good outfit, and was trained properly, I saw the light pertaining to stabilized approaches. Having had the peedoodle scared out of me in my earlier job made it easy to come to this conclusion.

But here is my basic reasoning for stabilized approaches.
First is because stabilized approaches are uniform, i.e., the next one is the same as the last one. It is much easier to recognize error, when you always do the same thing at the same time. Second, a stabilized approach is the best way to recognize windshear. Even when your bird is WAGS equiped, stability is important. Third, it's a heck of alot easier to fly precise approaches when you aren't trying to change speed and/or configuration inside the FAF. Fourth, having the airplane set up frees your mind to concentrate on other more important things, such as what are we going to eat on the layover.

Additionally, If you ever get asked to keep your speed up, don't try and stay clean, go ahead and get dirty. You will burn a little more kerosine, but it's much easier to slow from 180 to 140 by just pulling power than it is to slow by adding drag. Unless your bird has low flap speeds that is; the old Maddog has me spoiled in that compartment and going 180 with landing flaps is no problem.

Non-stabilized approaches are just too much work. Like I said, I'm just lazy.

regards,
enigma

 

[starchkr]

G-200...

That may be true, but look through that database for Airnet lears and then tell me how many you find fitting that description...NONE! 20 years of flying the lear this way and not one incident.

G..lover...

Gear speed 200kts here, and that is our speed at the FAF.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

"I been doing this for 20 years and no wipper snapper gonna tell me any different"

(just messing with you)

I guess I just dont see the point of rushing...yeah, dont hold up the line, but Im just not sharp enough to hurry I guess...

rushing in at 250, then throwing the air brakes and dumping flaps and gear to get it slowed down at the last minute just wouldn't cut it at most of the jobs I have had...might work for freight or the hub raiders but the execs dont seem to dig it....so sad.

 

[Denizen]

Ummmm

That may be true, but look through that database for Airnet lears and then tell me how many you find fitting that description...NONE! 20 years of flying the lear this way and not one incident.

Star checker, ease up on the company kool-aide.

Better check your facts a little better.

"CHI99LA078
On January 28, 1999, at 2318 central standard time, a Gates Learjet 35, N130F, operated by an airline transport pilot as U. S. Check flight 251, sustained substantial damage when during landing."

Ohhh Remember KC

"On January 1, 1997 at 0230 central standard time (cst), a Gates Lear Jet, N8040A, was substantially damaged when the airplane went of the left side, and past the departure end of runway 03, at the Kansas City Downtown Airport, Kansas City, Missouri. The airplane struck two aircraft, and a hanger after departing the runway...<snip>"The last radar data for the accident aircraft showed that at 1,000 feet (six feet above decision height) N8040A had a ground speed of 176 knots.

That is two...both incidents, I am surprised you chose to ignore the facts.

 

[starchkr]

Denizen...

130F was not due to speed on an approach. The pilot stated that when he flared the aircraft it rolled and one of the tip tanks struck the ground. Per the pilot, there was an a/c doing a static runup when he landed which was the cause. Now no-one really knows what happened, except for him, but the a/c before him and right after him had no effect upon landing from a static runup.

The KC a/c i cannot comment upon. We have heard the "story" but we do not mention it. Speed may have been a factor, but that excess speed was apparent during the entire approach and our ops specs were not followed. There were a few other factors which contributed. So maybe you got me once, but not twice. I will ask around tonight and find out more about the KC incident.