[jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Official Add-On Acceleration

  • From: "bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 01:43:31 -0000

In truth Fred I written something like this before in one of my earlier
ramblings. Our older pilots will have had the advantage (or not) of all my
earlier discourses but newer members like yourself will have missed out on a

Most lengthy "mini tutorials" have been about history or operational
matters, flying techniques and theory of flight. Most are the result of an
innocent question being posted here and some replies have been rather
lengthy. Either the crews have run out of questions or they've learned to
keep quiet. <vbg>

Some of the longer replies have ended up as tutorials on my web pages but a
lot are still buried in this email list's archives. It would probably be
impossible to dig these out so maybe it is time for the cycle to come round
again and we start afresh with question and answer sessions. I appreciate
the old timers will get a second dose of tutorials but maybe a refresher
isn't a bad thing.


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fred Stopforth
Sent: 07 November 2007 17:42
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Official Add-On Acceleration

You could've drifted on.Being a newbie I feel like the little kid listening
to the old mariner giving stories of experience and tales.Quite a few have
come out from the group this week.  Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:28 PM
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Official Add-On Acceleration

> I'm sure the British Legion could afford a couple of spike sticks..
> <vbg> Respect seems to be a dying trait in people these days.
> Flying a 3.5 degree approach does indeed look wrong because you are
> higher and see the runway in a slightly more plan view than a 3 degree
> approach. This goes against the visual clues you have developed over
> the years - which allow you to fly a correct approach even at
> airfields without PAPI's. This visual image of a runway - or approach
> lights - can trap the unwary though.
> If a runway has a marked upslope or downslope pilots tend to fly the
> approach using their normal mental picture. The result (proved in
> tests) is that if you are landing on a runway with a marked upslope
> the trend is for pilots to get too low - and fly an approach too high
> for runways with a downslope. This trend is more marked at night when
> local topography isn't visible and runway lighting is the only visual
> clue.
> VASI's and PAPI's help protect against the false clues if pilots trust
> them
> and ignore their gut feelings but it doesn't always work. Back in the
> 1960's
> a Britannia going into an airfield in Yugoslavia (IIRC) with a marked
> upslope on the main runway got too low and flew into a hill about 3nm out
> on
> the approach. In those days it was VASI systems only and the disadvantage
> of
> these is that you get all reds if you are low but no indication as to
> exactly how low you are. PAPI's are graduated over a much greater vertical
> range. Anyway, it was a clear but dark night, there was no alarm raised by
> the crew because they "felt" the approach was right and the next thing was
> the props cutting into tree tops. Very sad.
> Night flying brings other optical dangers to watch out for. Many
> airfields are brightly lit but if away from urban areas the
> countryside around can be very dark. In some cases a departing
> aircraft will be climbing away and, as
> the lights suddenly disappear from view, can give the pilot the impression
> the aircraft has pitched up abruptly. The overwhelming instinct is to
> shove
> the nose down and can be so strong that it overrides the pilot's training
> to
> scan the dials. This effect (known as the Black Hole Effect) was cited as
> the probable cause of a 1-11 accident after investigators could find no
> other rational cause for the accident. It was a UK accident but I can't
> remember where or when.
> A third night time optical illusion has come to light in recent years.
> Aircraft making a visual approach at night to an airfield with little
> lighting around it (usually airfields on the coast) have flown into
> the ground (or sea) whilst on a curved base leg. In all cases the
> weather was perfect with no cloud around - ideal for a visual approach
> but they were also very dark nights. During the turn onto base leg the
> aircraft has the runway in sight but is so far off the centreline that
> no PAPI indication is possible - in other words the only clue to
> flying the approach is the airfield and runway lighting. All seems to
> go well until the turn is made and then the aircraft banks and also
> loses height until impact - the crew not being aware that rapid height
> loss is happening.
> The current theory is that visual clues are fine whilst straight and
> level -
> aircraft seen to position and fly downwind without a problem. As the
> aircraft enters the bank for base leg height perception seems to be lost
> and
> it is during the turn that initial height loss occurs. This doesn't get
> spotted because the crew are looking at the airport, aren't doing the
> usual
> instrument scan (because it's a visual approach) and the descent is masked
> in the turn by the increased G in a turn. In other words it is a phenomena
> caused by a series of effects that fool the crews into thinking all is
> well.
> The above isn't confined to any aircraft size. A Caravelle that flew
> into the sea off Spain was likely the victim of this phenomena - the
> aircraft was perfectly fine and the crew didn't react at all to the
> descent until a fraction of a second before hitting the water. More
> recently a pair of 125's
> flying into Stornoway on a very dark night had the airfield in sight from
> about 50nm away. Both were visual with each other and both elected for
> visual approaches. At some point, not seen by either ATC (no radar at
> or the second aircraft the No1 aircraft flew into the sea. It was only
> when
> No2 aircraft called final that they realised something had gone badly
> wrong.
> I think I'm drifting off topic a bit...
> bones
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Dodds
> Sent: 07 November 2007 13:57
> To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: pdodds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Official Add-On Acceleration
>> but this guy split seven
>> neat cuts right next to each other to give the stone a faceted
>> appearance.
> I had a wooden narrowboat for 16 years and the chap who did some work
> on
> it
> was a really pleasnat guy and loved to talk and demonstrate the skills of
> the old boatbuilders. The boat was caulked with oakum - the caulking irons
> and mallet are beautiful objects in themselves - the mallet is such a
> specialised shape, one wonders why.  He used to talk to me whilst caulking
> the seams and his party trick was to feed the oakum into the seam, tapping
> it gently into place them doubling back and feeding in another row until
> the
> seam was "full", then hitting the caulking iron harder to consolidate the
> oakum in the seam thus rendering the boat watertight.  He could do an
> entire
> run without ever looking at the point at which the mallet was striking, so
> skilled was he at weighing the mass, inertia and trajectory unconsciously
> within his mind.
> Flint making must be a similar skill.
> I was really chuffed recently when on approach into Southend, I
> remarked
> to
> my passenger, another PPL, that although the approach looked good, we had
> 4
> reds on the PAPIs. He agreed, so I reduced the descent rate for a moment
> to
> get 2 reds & 2 whites. I was convinced that we were too high then.  After
> landing he checked in Pooleys to find that the Southend PAPIs are set at
> 3.5
> degrees. So my brain instinctively could identify a difference of half a
> degree in an approach slope.  I must have learned /something/ about
> flying!
> <g>
> These examples illustrate the sort of intuition that no time and
> motion system can ever capture, and why I hate so many of the modern
> world's practices.  They have to do a risk assessment now for the
> British Legion to march to church on the 11th November. They should
> just close the road. The selfish B's who demand to drive past these
> old soldiers during their memories should be sent to rot in the
> trenches!
> Peter
> I have now become a Grumpy Old Man - official.
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.20/1108 - Release Date:
> 03/11/2007 21:42

Other related posts: