Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5830567/

Topic: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: bioyuki
Posted 2013-07-28 21:05:39 and read 23970 times.

SF Gate is reporting:

"All foreign airlines are now being advised to use a GPS system to guide landings onto the main runways at San Francisco International Airport, federal aviation officials said Sunday, a response to concern that some pilots for foreign carriers aren't adept enough at touching down manually."

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...e-GPS-for-SFO-landings-4692348.php

Anybody have the link to the actual press release? I looked on the FAA site but couldn't find it.

[Edited 2013-07-28 21:07:11]

[Edited 2013-07-28 21:09:23]

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-28 21:15:42 and read 23949 times.

Link here that should work:

"All foreign airlines are now being advised to use a GPS system to guide landings onto the main runways at San Francisco International Airport, federal aviation officials said Sunday, a response to concern that some pilots for foreign carriers aren't adept enough at touching down manually.

"The concern over what are known as "visual approaches" - in which pilots do not rely solely on their cockpit instruments - arose after the July 6 crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, which left three people dead and about 180 injured.

"Since then, pilots for the South Korean airline and other foreign carriers have had more aborted landings than usual at SFO while attempting visual approaches, said the Federal Aviation Administration, which did not provide exact numbers."


GPS-for-SFO-landings-4692348.php" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...e-GPS-for-SFO-landings-4692348.php

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-07-28 21:32:10 and read 23756 times.

Very interesting. I guess modern aviation has really changed if visual approaches have become that hard for some.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2013-07-28 21:56:45 and read 23639 times.

If flying visual landings is an issue, here's hoping the EU finds a way to include that in their next blacklist update... The threat of being banned from all EU airports should be enough of an incentive to encourage international carriers to make sure their pilots are not just computer jockeys...

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: wjcandee
Posted 2013-07-29 00:20:28 and read 23111 times.

Pathetic.

If they can't shoot a visual on a clear day with no wind -- or, worse, if they are uncomfortable doing so -- then they shouldn't be in either seat on the flight deck of a transport-category aircraft.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: AA737-823
Posted 2013-07-29 00:42:12 and read 23032 times.

I am always the LAST person to defend a pilot, but maybe we should consider that there might be more to this suggestion than meets the eye...

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-29 03:46:21 and read 22282 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 6):
Interesting that this only applies to "foreign" airlines' pilots. I guess pilots flying for US airlines belong to a different master race

No, UALWN, it's just that you can be pretty confident that US/European pilots have been trained properly, and in particular have done a lot of manual/visual flying. Unfortunately there's plenty of evidence out there that pilots from some other parts of the world are NOT always trained that way, and that a proportion of them are much too dependent on the autopilot and the ILS:-

"As the Asiana Airlines Inc. (020560) jet neared Los Angeles International Airport, Captain Vic Hooper told his Korean co-pilot to make a visual approach, meaning he’d manually fly instead of letting automation do the work.

"The co-pilot froze, leaving them too high and off course, Hooper said about the incident, which occurred several years ago. Hooper said he had to take over the controls to get the Boeing Co. (BA) 777 back on track.

“I don’t need to know this,” Hooper said the co-pilot told him later, explaining why a maneuver that’s second nature to most U.S. airline pilots rattled him. “We just don’t do this.”

"U.S. crash investigators are examining the manual flying skills and cockpit teamwork among the pilots of Asiana Flight 214 as they determine why the 777 crashed in San Francisco on July 6, killing three teenaged girls from China. Two passengers remain in critical condition at San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, according to a statement yesterday."


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...al-flying-former-trainers-say.html

PS the good news is that the ILS at SFO is due to be switched on again on 22nd. August. Let's hope there are no more accidents before then.

[Edited 2013-07-29 03:53:33]

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: jporterfi
Posted 2013-07-29 04:08:36 and read 22014 times.

Quoting bioyuki (Thread starter):
some pilots for foreign carriers aren't adept enough at touching down manually

Are you kidding me? If they mean "some pilots...aren't adept enough at touching down manually at a challenging airport such as SFO" then fine. But for pilots to have trouble with visual approaches on a clear day with all equipment working? It doesn't seem safe, and I don't think foreign airlines would allow this. Something tells me there's more to this story...

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: 0NEWAIR0
Posted 2013-07-29 04:26:28 and read 21807 times.

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 8):
Are you kidding me? If they mean "some pilots...aren't adept enough at touching down manually at a challenging airport such as SFO" then fine.

Sorry but there's nothing challenging about the SFO approach. Yes, the approach is over water so you lose some visual cues but when you have a PAPI to look at on a clear day with no wind there's absolutely nothing challenging about that approach.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-29 04:48:54 and read 21525 times.

Quoting bioyuki (Thread starter):
I looked on the FAA site but couldn't find it.

Pilots do not get press releases. I looked at the current FAA NOATMs, the FAA AIM, and latest chart cycle, I could not see that reference. It might be a directive to the controllers to clear part 129 carriers via the RNAV approach.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 2):
I guess modern aviation has really changed if visual approaches have become that hard for some.

Even US carriers, with FAA pilots go around in SFO.

FYI, in Australian ATC will not offer any US aircraft (91/121, or Military) a visual approach, in fact they offer them to local carriers only.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: HOONS90
Posted 2013-07-29 05:34:08 and read 20933 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 7):
No, UALWN, it's just that you can be pretty confident that US/European pilots have been trained properly, and in particular have done a lot of manual/visual flying. Unfortunately there's plenty of evidence out there that pilots from some other parts of the world are NOT always trained that way, and that a proportion of them are much too dependent on the autopilot and the ILS:-

There are a few airports in Korea that get regular (more than daily) service and are not equipped with ILS, including RKJY and RKNW. Pilots have to land manually there, no? PUS runway 18 has a rather tricky circling approach that has to be done manually as well.

Some other airports that see regular KE or OZ service and have no ILS include VVCR and UHSS.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: pvjin
Posted 2013-07-29 05:49:47 and read 20709 times.

This definitely proves that certain airlines should rethink their policies regarding training and manual flying... I wouldn't want to board any plane which has a crew that can't fly the plane manually anymore.

Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 11):
There are a few airports in Korea that get regular (more than daily) service and are not equipped with ILS, including RKJY and RKNW. Pilots have to land manually there, no? PUS runway 18 has a rather tricky circling approach that has to be done manually as well.
Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 11):
There are a few airports in Korea that get regular (more than daily) service and are not equipped with ILS, including RKJY and RKNW. Pilots have to land manually there, no? PUS runway 18 has a rather tricky circling approach that has to be done manually as well.

However do those airports receive big airliners such as 777, ones that mainly fly to the US and other big longhaul destinations?

I would imagine that some regional pilot who flies into small airports with no ILS in a regular basis probably has better manual flying skills than someone who has flown longhaul airliners for years mainly to destinations with ILS and often long flights, amount of landings compared to flight hours is obviously higher for someone flying short routes too.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: RDUDDJI
Posted 2013-07-29 05:56:18 and read 20592 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 6):
Interesting that this only applies to "foreign" airlines' pilots. I guess pilots flying for US airlines belong to a different master race that can hand land any aircraft in any circumstances... unless they happen to be WN pilots and then they can crash-land their plane on the runway breaking the nose landing gear to pieces...

That's the way the newspaper *reported* that the FAA said it (it's more sensational that way). I suspect what the FAA meant was for pilots "unfamiliar" with the airport to use GPS.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: HOONS90
Posted 2013-07-29 05:57:58 and read 20597 times.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 12):
However do those airports receive big airliners such as 777, ones that mainly fly to the US and other big longhaul destinations?

PUS (RKPK) Runway 18R has no ILS as it requires a circling approach due to the mountain right in front of it. It's the same one involved in the Air China 767 crash in 2002. KE flies several A330s a day into the airport (from Bangkok, Tokyo, Osaka etc). OZ used to send 767s there but now it's mainly Airbus narrowbodies.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2013-07-29 06:08:14 and read 20400 times.

It's worse than this. I flew into SFO yesterday and noticed I had hold fuel added for "flag carrier operations". I called the dispatcher to ask what that meant. He told me that after the Asiana crash and then the Eva incident mere weeks later, where a 777-300 was at 600' around 5nm from the runway, SFO was implementing the following: Side-by-side approaches will be suspended anytime ANY foreign carrier has an arrival, regardless of the weather.

I was in shock. He told me that some pilots don't get to SFO very often and so they may not be familiar with the LOC only type approach. My response was that we aren't talking about a LOC only approach. The side by side approaches in question have been VISUAL approach, with a fully operational PAPI on both runways. He informed me this procedure would be in effect until Aug 22 when the ILS would return.

Is this truly what aviation has come to? Terrifying

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-29 06:31:17 and read 20050 times.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 15):
SFO was implementing the following: Side-by-side approaches will be suspended anytime ANY foreign carrier has an arrival, regardless of the weather.

I was in shock. He told me that some pilots don't get to SFO very often and so they may not be familiar with the LOC only type approach.

Get the feeling that they'll get a pretty 'unprintable' answer if they tell any Qantas or BA captains that they're not fit to carry out 'side by side' visual approaches, mm320cap.  

Mind you, even though the 'accident cause' seems very likely to turn out to be a case of 'insufficient power,' there's no doubt that Asiana 214 wasn't lined up with the runway, either? From the diagrams I've seen they were quite a long way right of track? Indeed, it's at least arguable that the pilots may have been concentrating too hard on lining up, and that's one reason why they missed the problem of inadequate power/speed/altitude until it was too late?

[Edited 2013-07-29 06:34:49]

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2013-07-29 06:46:19 and read 19780 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 16):
Get the feeling that they'll get a pretty 'unprintable' answer if they tell any Qantas or BA captains that they're not fit to carry out 'side by side' visual approaches, mm320cap.  

Mind you, even though the 'accident cause' seems very likely to turn out to be a case of 'insufficient power,' there's no doubt that Asiana 214 wasn't lined up with the runway, either? From the diagrams I've seen they were quite a long way right of track? Indeed, it's at least arguable that the pilots may have been concentrating too hard on lining up, and that's one reason why they missed the problem of inadequate power/speed/altitude until it was too late?

Couldn't agree with you more. This is one of the more ridiculous mandates I've seen come out in some time. To lump the entire foreign world into this category is baffling to me.

With regards to the Asiana crash, I'm really hesitant to speculate until the final report complete with the CVR and FDR data is released.

One thing that I do know, is that the easy answer is just to blame the pilots for being "incompetent". But dismissing the issue so flippantly is dangerous, in my opinion. The real question to me is WHY are some pilots struggling to complete a task which should be as basic as a visual approach with PAPI guidance? And more importantly, how do we fix it..... fast. Turning the ILS back on merely puts a bandaid on a clearly infected wound. It certainly doesn't fix the problem.

[Edited 2013-07-29 06:46:58]

[Edited 2013-07-29 06:47:52]

[Edited 2013-07-29 06:49:28]

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-29 07:00:54 and read 19528 times.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 17):
The real question to me is WHY are some pilots struggling to complete a task which should be as basic as a visual approach with PAPI guidance? And more importantly, how do we fix it..... fast.

I would wager more go-arounds are performed by US carriers in SFO than Part 129 carriers. There is a reason why the NTSB has asked for the historical records from the FAA, they are looking for trends. I suspect the trends will show that the larger the aircraft, the more go-arounds.

A "normal" visual approach that an airliner would perform would be to to join downwind or base at 1500'. It is not normal practice around the world to join downwind at 10,000 ft, and have an ATC speed requirement imposed above the maximum flap speed.

The old saying, one can either go down, or slow down, not both. Also, the slower one is, the less effective speed brake becomes.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: JAAlbert
Posted 2013-07-29 07:25:06 and read 19147 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 10):
FYI, in Australian ATC will not offer any US aircraft (91/121, or Military) a visual approach, in fact they offer them to local carriers only.

Maybe because pilots flying domestic routes land and take off more frequently in a day than do the long haul international pilots.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-29 07:25:17 and read 19156 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 1):
All foreign airlines are now being advised to use a GPS system to guide landings onto the main runways at San Francisco International Airport, federal aviation officials said Sunday, a response to concern that some pilots for foreign carriers aren't adept enough at touching down manually.

Let me ask what may be a stupid question: if using GPS assistance/RNAV approach is easier/safer than a visual (presumeably it is or the FAA wouldn't be asking for it in these circumstances), why isn't it used routinely for everyone when the ILS is down?

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-29 07:32:58 and read 19007 times.

Quoting hivue (Reply 20):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 1):All foreign airlines are now being advised to use a GPS system to guide landings onto the main runways at San Francisco International Airport, federal aviation officials said Sunday, a response to concern that some pilots for foreign carriers aren't adept enough at touching down manually.

Just to protect myself, hivue, it was bioyuki who posted 'reply1,' not me?  

[Edited 2013-07-29 07:36:55]

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-29 07:36:25 and read 18917 times.

.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
Just to protect myself, hivue, it was bioyuki who posted that, not me?

Sorry. I quoted from your quote of the PR. I should have used the original.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-29 07:52:09 and read 18669 times.

Fair enough, hivue, thanks.  

Must admit though that my (limited) flying (mostly sailplanes) included very little of the electronic stuff (just couldn't afford it) - but I at LEAST learned to land an aeroplane. Just a matter of keeping height/speed/direction pretty well right, flaring at the right moment - not too early, not too late, and, in my experience, definitely not too high - and then holding everything steady until she settled.........

These guys had everything in their favour - lots of training, lots of experience, daylight, clear weather, a huge clearly-marked runway, next to no wind..............

How could they possibly have stuffed up on this (fatal) scale? Beats me.........?

[Edited 2013-07-29 08:15:13]

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-29 08:22:17 and read 18160 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 23):
How could they possibly have stuffed up on this (fatal) scale? Beats me.........?

It's sounding like visual approaches in large commercial aircraft into busy airports in good weather may not be the piece of cake it's been made out by some to be --

Quoting zeke (Reply 10):
FYI, in Australian ATC will not offer any US aircraft (91/121, or Military) a visual approach, in fact they offer them to local carriers only.

It would be nice to have the actual wording of the FAA directive. This all sounds very strange to me.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-07-29 08:24:14 and read 18882 times.

The SF Chronicle article cites an FAA "prepared statement" allegedly dated July 28. There is no such statement anywhere on the FAA website.

Quoting zeke (Reply 10):
I looked at the current FAA NOATMs, the FAA AIM, and latest chart cycle, I could not see that reference.

   I also checked the FAA news releases and twitter feed. Nothing. "Foreign airlines" (as quoted in the OP) is not a phrase the FAA would use. None of my AC or NZ contacts who fly into SFO have heard anything of the kind. So unless someone comes up with a real (official) source, I think this story is garbage.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: ZBBYLW
Posted 2013-07-29 08:29:15 and read 19000 times.

So what about a foreign airline that flies something similar to an A320 that does not have GPS on board however has the ability to do the FMS visual to 28R, would that not be allowed anymore?

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-29 08:36:39 and read 19165 times.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 19):
Maybe because pilots flying domestic routes land and take off more frequently in a day than do the long haul international pilots.

More to do with knowing the visual landmarks and what the runway environment look like to determine if one is in fact visual and following the correct procedure. This is the current visual approach chart for RW 28 at SFO http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1308/00375QUIETBRIDGE_VIS28LR.PDF

In Melbourne for example there is the "old" Melbourne airport (Essendon) that has a similar runway alignment to RW 27 at MEL. There were numerous cases of international carriers unfamiliar with the landmarks lined up with the wrong airport.

This has been recognized for a long time, have a look at the NASA webpage dating back 20 years http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/directline/dl3_visual.htm

Quoting hivue (Reply 20):
why isn't it used routinely for everyone when the ILS is down?

It reduces the airport capacity as the aircraft need to be spaced further apart due to the way the approaches are designed. I will leave it up to you to work out who benefits if more aircraft use the facility.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: bioyuki
Posted 2013-07-29 08:49:41 and read 19029 times.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 15):
It's worse than this. I flew into SFO yesterday and noticed I had hold fuel added for "flag carrier operations". I called the dispatcher to ask what that meant. He told me that after the Asiana crash and then the Eva incident mere weeks later, where a 777-300 was at 600' around 5nm from the runway, SFO was implementing the following: Side-by-side approaches will be suspended anytime ANY foreign carrier has an arrival, regardless of the weather.

I was in shock. He told me that some pilots don't get to SFO very often and so they may not be familiar with the LOC only type approach. My response was that we aren't talking about a LOC only approach. The side by side approaches in question have been VISUAL approach, with a fully operational PAPI on both runways. He informed me this procedure would be in effect until Aug 22 when the ILS would return.

Is this truly what aviation has come to? Terrifying

Unbelievable. This will likely lower SFO's arrival rate during peak hours and cause some amount of congestion, no?

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: jfidler
Posted 2013-07-29 09:13:36 and read 18637 times.

Could this extend to other airports? I've heard the DCA Potomac River approach is one of the most difficult in the US. At the same time DCA also sees no scheduled widebodies and just a handful of international flights, so maybe it wouldn't be much of an issue anyway.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-07-29 09:49:43 and read 17899 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 18):
I would wager more go-arounds are performed by US carriers in SFO than Part 129 carriers. There is a reason why the NTSB has asked for the historical records from the FAA, they are looking for trends. I suspect the trends will show that the larger the aircraft, the more go-arounds.

They probably do, but then again there are more US carriers landing at SFO on any given day than foreign carriers by far so your point is moot. That's like saying there are more SF 49er fans in San Francisco than in LA.

I just think every pilot landing at SFO is on High alert and if they don;t like something they'd have dealt with before the OZ accident, they play it safe and initiate a go-around which is perfectly okay.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: jetblueguy22
Posted 2013-07-29 09:54:21 and read 17827 times.

Quoting hivue (Reply 20):
Let me ask what may be a stupid question: if using GPS assistance/RNAV approach is easier/safer than a visual (presumeably it is or the FAA wouldn't be asking for it in these circumstances), why isn't it used routinely for everyone when the ILS is down?

It is safer, but it shouldn't be necessary. Someone who holds an ATP (or the Korean equivalent) should be able to land his or her aircraft visually. It is something you learn from day 1. If the pilot can't land visually they shouldn't be in the flight deck and shouldn't posses those certificates.

Quoting hivue (Reply 24):
It's sounding like visual approaches in large commercial aircraft into busy airports in good weather may not be the piece of cake it's been made out by some to be --

It probably isn't anywhere near as easy as many Private pilots or armchair pilots make it out to be. But at 10,000 hours with an ATP the pilot should be able to land it. Your skills should be high enough to accomplish that landing visually.
Pat

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: GentFromAlaska
Posted 2013-07-29 09:57:38 and read 17783 times.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 4):
If they can't shoot a visual on a clear day with no wind --

In the ten or so times I've flown into SFO I was plagued with the sea layer of fog all but twice. Once as a "Y" pax UA actually shuttled us over to OAK.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 6):
Interesting that this only applies to "foreign" airlines' pilots. I guess pilots flying for US airlines belong to a different master race that can hand land any aircraft in any circumstances.

Don't most domestic carriers use RNP/GPS technology at SFO. I believe SFO was the first airport in the lower 48 to install the ground base portion of the equipment PSP and DCA were close behind.

It is my understanding foreign older airline companies are slow to install it in their older airframes. Although it gets less expensive; down from a million a few years ago to around a half a million today. It is my understanding RNP/GPS is now standard issue on new Boeing aircraft: Airbus, not so much.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2013-07-29 09:58:58 and read 17705 times.

I think its understandable that there is a back-lash as the result of the OZ crash. It's also exposing the fact that many airlines execute only IL approaches. The fewer visual approaches they do over time, the rustier their skill set. If the VNAV approach isn't checked in sim rides (say by OZ, KE etc), those pilots are unlikely to be as proficient at visual flying.

SFO is not a tough approach. There are plenty of cues to work with on the 28s including the PAPI system. This accident though exposed a problem with some airlines lack of VNAV experience and/or training. Its part of the industry's learning process from a major accident.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: freeze3192
Posted 2013-07-29 10:23:01 and read 17274 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 6):
Interesting that this only applies to "foreign" airlines' pilots. I guess pilots flying for US airlines belong to a different master race that can hand land any aircraft in any circumstances...

Damn right we can!

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: freeze3192
Posted 2013-07-29 10:24:11 and read 17203 times.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 33):
I think its understandable that there is a back-lash as the result of the OZ crash. It's also exposing the fact that many airlines execute only IL approaches. The fewer visual approaches they do over time, the rustier their skill set. If the VNAV approach isn't checked in sim rides (say by OZ, KE etc), those pilots are unlikely to be as proficient at visual flying.

SFO is not a tough approach. There are plenty of cues to work with on the 28s including the PAPI system. This accident though exposed a problem with some airlines lack of VNAV experience and/or training. Its part of the industry's learning process from a major accident.

VNAV does not equal visual approach. Two completely different things.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2013-07-29 10:29:43 and read 17090 times.

Quoting freeze3192 (Reply 35):
VNAV does not equal visual approach. Two completely different things

You're correct, my apologies. VFR would be the a more accurate term I believe?

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: cubastar
Posted 2013-07-29 10:34:06 and read 17048 times.

Quoting jfidler (Reply 29):
've heard the DCA Potomac River approach is one of the most difficult in the US. At the same time DCA also sees no scheduled widebodies and just a handful of international flights, so maybe it wouldn't be much of an issue anyway.

I disagree that the River Visual approach is difficult. It is a VISUAL approach and there are landmarks on the Jepp sheet that are easily followed along with altitude recommendations (some mandatory). It is actually a great approach and not at all hard to do. You can even use the autopilot (manually) although that takes all of the fun out of the approach.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 33):
SFO is not a tough approach. There are plenty of cues to work with on the 28s including the PAPI system.

I agree wholeheartedly!

I truly believe that the airlines and the manufacturers have led the pilots down the wrong lane by mandating overuse of automation on almost all occasions. In fact, I have seen an excellent training film (it is available on U tube, I believe) and it is still in use at American Airlines I am told. (No, I did not fly for American)

People on here occasionally use the phrase "Aviate, Navigate, and Communicate". Well, don't ever forget, you can "AVIATE" just as easily flying manually as you can automatically. (No, don't mention Cat III's or some such similar mandated situation.)

That brings to mind also; even if you are doing automatic approaches, you STILL must MONITOR, The latest OZ at SFO comes to mind and also, the Turkish 737 in Amsterdam, (i think)

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-07-29 11:07:39 and read 16451 times.

Quoting freeze3192 (Reply 34):
Damn right we can!

Hey, don't remove the second part of my post. Yep, the one about WN...

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-07-29 11:21:14 and read 16190 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 7):
“I don’t need to know this,” Hooper said the co-pilot told him later, explaining why a maneuver that’s second nature to most U.S. airline pilots rattled him. “We just don’t do this.”

Wow !

I'm not a pilot (yet) but from following many accidents the past few years, it's really not the situation I would find the most difficult to handle. What about airports surrounded by mountains where you have to circle to land at night or in fog or things like that ?

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-07-29 11:28:49 and read 16041 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 10):
FYI, in Australian ATC will not offer any US aircraft (91/121, or Military) a visual approach, in fact they offer them to local carriers only.

Visual approach for hommies only?  

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: bioyuki
Posted 2013-07-29 11:37:33 and read 15855 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 25):
   I also checked the FAA news releases and twitter feed. Nothing. "Foreign airlines" (as quoted in the OP) is not a phrase the FAA would use. None of my AC or NZ contacts who fly into SFO have heard anything of the kind. So unless someone comes up with a real (official) source, I think this story is garbage.

The writer of the story said he got the information from the FAA Public Affairs Office, specifically Ian Gregor of the Western-Pacific region:

http://www.faa.gov/news/contact_information/

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: KPWMSpotter
Posted 2013-07-29 11:40:22 and read 15858 times.

Quoting cubastar (Reply 37):
In fact, I have seen an excellent training film (it is available on U tube, I believe) and it is still in use at American Airlines I am told. (No, I did not fly for American)

Yes, it's still available; "Children of Magenta", it's a film of an American Airlines training session. Very applicable to this issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kREPMzMLk

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: DiamondFlyer
Posted 2013-07-29 12:25:37 and read 15065 times.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 39):
What about airports surrounded by mountains where you have to circle to land at night or in fog or things like that ?

At least in the US, many airlines issue only a VMC only circling limitation on pilot certificates.

-DiamondFlyer

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-07-29 13:20:27 and read 14342 times.

WARNING Speculative post ahead!....

Playing the devil advocate here, my view is that maybe the airport authority in SFO know the CVR and a lot of details of the Asiana Crash, then they instructed some planes to keep their altitude or make a GA, (Eva), and they discovered a trend, and that combined with the posibility that the reason of the Asiana Crash is a blunder or epic proportions, tey are playing it safe, come hell or high water.

I really cant explain or fathom as to why they are going to such measures to "protect" SFO. But I guess that if I discovered something REALLY wrong I would go that route.

I have landed more than 30 times in SFO and more than half on runways 28 (L or R), I have never experienced a GA..so I guess they *may* be overreacting, but since we still dont know the full investigation....I think we can entertain the possibility that the crash as revealed more than just a sequence or mistakes on the cockpit...

/end speculative post

TRB

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: wjcandee
Posted 2013-07-29 15:47:57 and read 12641 times.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 33):
This accident though exposed a problem with some airlines lack of VNAV experience and/or training. Its part of the industry's learning process from a major accident.

This EXACT problem was identified by AA, UA and other US carriers almost 20 years ago, and they implemented courses on how properly to use automation and what automation to use. See, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZDjkIjuHGE in which AA Training Academy's Captain Warren Vanderburgh 'splains it in a way even civilians can understand. (He won a Flight Safety Foundation award for the program of which this automation unit is a part.)

In recent years, I'm guessing that the new geniuses running the operations departments are taking a different course, even at the American carriers. That Captain Dave's blog regularly talks about how the folks in the Schoolhouse are discouraging the use of the stick, rudder and throttles -- Dave, a true stick-and-rudder guy, now sarcastically calls them the "Emergency Flight Controls" -- is an indication of this new/old mode of thinking.

It still amazes me how American culture routinely dismisses history, and fails to embrace hard-learned lessons from the past.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-29 16:40:16 and read 11998 times.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 15):
SFO was implementing the following: Side-by-side approaches will be suspended anytime ANY foreign carrier has an arrival, regardless of the weather.

I looked at the NOTAMS etc, there was not reference to additional delays or suspension of parallel approaches, where is your dispatcher getting their information from ? a.net ?

Quote:

Data Current as of: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 23:30:00 UTC
KSFO SAN FRANCISCO INTL !SFO 07/157 SFO SVC TMPA SEE ATCCC MSG TIL 1307300659 !SFO 07/155 SFO OBST TOWER 1483 (262 AGL) 5.2 NW LGTS OTS (ASR 1010563) WEF 1307291656-1308131656 !SFO 07/151 (KSFO A1481/13) SFO RWY 10R/28L CLSD WEF 1307302200-1307302359 !SFO 07/150 (KSFO A1482/13) SFO TWY L BTN RWY 10L/28R AND RWY 10R/28L CLSD WEF 1307311500-1307312100 !SFO 07/149 SFO TWY P BTN RWY 10L/28R AND RWY 10R/28L CLSD WEF 1307301500-1307302100 !SFO 07/148 (KSFO A1479/13) SFO RWY 1R/19L CLSD WEF 1307300700-1307301300 !SFO 07/134 (KSFO A1458/13) SFO TWY C BTN TWY W AND APCH END RWY 28L CLSD LGTD AND BARRICADED 0700-1500 DLY WEF 1307290700-1308031500 !SFO 07/133 (KSFO A1457/13) SFO TWY P BTN RWY 10R/28L AND TWY C CLSD LGTD AND BARRICADED 0700-1500 DLY WEF 1307290700-1308011500 !SFO 07/132 (KSFO A1456/13) SFO TWY N BTN RWY 10R/28L AND TWY C CLSD LGTD AND BARRICADED 0700-1500 DLY WEF 1307290700-1308011500 !SFO 07/131 (KSFO A1455/13) SFO RWY 28R CLSD TKOF 1500-1900 DLY WEF 1307291500-1308031900 !SFO 07/130 (KSFO A1454/13) SFO RWY 10L/28R CLSD 0700-1500 DLY WEF 1307290700-1308031500 !SFO 07/109 SFO OBST TOWER 1567 (311 AGL) 5.0 NW LGTS OTS (ASR 1205149) WEF 1307210502-1308050502 !SFO 07/101 SFO OBST TOWER 1487 (261 AGL) 5.1 NW LGTS OTS (ASR 1010565) WEF 1307190545-1308030545 !SFO 07/082 SFO OBST TOWER 1810 (976 AGL) 9.1 NNW LGTS OTS (ASR 1001289) WEF 1307151721-1307301721 !SFO 07/076 SFO OBST CRANE UNKN (318 AGL) 1 WNW (373718N1222343W) FLAGGED/LGTD WEF 1307151400-1403020100 !SFO 06/011 (KSFO A1066/13) SFO NAV ILS RWY 28R IM OTS TIL 1308222359 !SFO 06/010 (KSFO A1065/13) SFO NAV LDA RWY 28R GP OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359 !SFO 06/009 (KSFO A1062/13) SFO NAV ILS RWY 28R CAT 2/3 NA WEF 1306011400-1308222359 !SFO 06/008 (KSFO A1064/13) SFO RWY 28R RVRT OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359 !SFO 06/005 (KSFO A1056/13) SFO NAV ILS RWY 28L GP OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359 !SFO 06/004 (KSFO A1053/13) SFO NAV ILS RWY 28R GP OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359 !SFO 06/003 (KSFO A1051/13) SFO RWY 28R ALS OTS WEF 1306011400-1308222359 !SFO 02/067 SFO TWY Z1 NORTHBOUND ENTRANCE CLSD TO RWY 10R TO JET ACFT AND FOUR ENGINE TURBOPROPS WEF 1302282334-1308312300 !SFO 12/040 SFO OBST CRANE 208 (195 AGL) .34 W (373711N1222302W) FLAGGED/LGTD 1500-2359 DLY WEF 1212071500-1310162359 !SFO 11/098 SFO OBST CRANE UNKN (300 AGL) 200 SW ATCT LIGHTED AND FLAGGED WEF 1212011600-1312311600 !SFO 09/056 SFO OBST MULTI CRANE UNKN (230 AGL) 200 SW ATCT LIGHTED AND FLAGGED WEF 1209181400 !SFO 07/027 (KSFO A1190/11) SFO APRON BOARDING AREA E/E60-E67 CLSD !SFO 04/063 (KSFO A0730/11) SFO TWY TAXILANES 5,5A,5B,6,6A,6B CMSD ASPH/UNLGTD !FDC 3/6869 (KSFO A1416/13) SFO FI/T SID SAN FRANCISCO INTL, SAN FRANCISCO, CA. EUGEN SEVEN DEPARTURE... GAP FIVE DEPARTURE... OFF SHORE SIX DEPARTURE... PORTE FOUR DEPARTURE... QUIET FOUR DEPARTURE... REBAS FOUR DEPARTURE... SAN FRANCISCO EIGHT DEPARTURE... MOLEN FOUR DEPARTURE... NOTE: RWY 01R, ANTENNA 230 FT FROM DER, 309 FT LEFT OF CENTERLINE, 20 FT AGL/ 25 FT MSL. ALL OTHER DATA REMAINS AS PUBLISHED. !FDC 3/6864 (KSFO A1415/13) SFO FI/T ODP SAN FRANCISCO INTL, SAN FRANCISCO, CA. TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES AMDT 8... NOTE: RWY 01R, ANTENNA 230 FT FROM DER, 309 FT LEFT OF CENTERLINE, 20 FT AGL/ 25 FT MSL. ALL OTHER DATA REMAINS AS PUBLISHED. !FDC 3/3512 (KSFO A1246/13) SFO FI/T IAP SAN FRANCISCO INTL, SAN FRANCISCO, CA. ILS OR LOC Z RWY 28R, AMDT 11A... ILS RWY 28R CAT II&III, AMDT 11A... ILS OR LOC Z RWY 28L, AMDT 23A... LDA/DME RWY 28R, AMDT 1A... LDA PRM RWY 28R (SIMULTANEOUS CLOSE PARALLEL), AMDT 1A... ILS PRM RWY 28L (SIMULTANEOUS CLOSE PARALLEL), AMDT 2... PROCEDURE NA. !FDC 3/6002 (KSFO A0148/13) SFO FI/T STAR SAN FRANCISCO INTL., SAN FRANCISCO, CA. BIG SUR TWO ARRIVAL... FROM OVER ANJEE INT MINIMUM HOLDING ALTITUDE TO READ: 11,000 !FDC 3/6001 (KSFO A0146/13) SFO FI/T STAR SAN FRANCISCO INTL., SAN FRANCISCO, CA. BIG SUR TWO ARRIVAL... FROM OVER BSR VORTAC TO CARME, THENCE FROM OVER CARME TO ANJEE INT REVISE MINIMUM EN ROUTE ALTITUDE TO READ: 11,000 !FDC 3/5961 (KSFO A0144/13) SFO FI/T STAR SAN FRANCISCO INTL, SAN FRANCISCO, CA. YOSEM ONE ARRIVAL... YOSEM ONE ARRIVAL AVAILABLE VIA ATC ASSIGNMENT ONLY !FDC 1/4624 (KSFO A1863/11) SFO SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE, ESSENTIAL SERVICE BROADCAST. EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 10, 2011. THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) HAS ADOPTED TWO ADS-B DATA LINKS: 1090 MHZ EXTENDED SQUITTER (1090ES) AND 978 MHZ UNIVERSAL ACCESS TRANSCEIVER (UAT). THE TWO LINKS OPERATE SIMILARLY AND SUPPORT TRAFFIC INFORMATION SERVICE-BROADCAST (TIS-B). ADDITIONALLY, THE UAT LINK SUPPORTS FLIGHT INFORMATION SERVICE- BROADCAST (FIS-B). TIS-B SERVICE WILL BE AVAILABLE THROUGHOUT THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) WHERE THERE ARE BOTH ADEQUATE SURVEILLANCE COVERAGE (RADAR) AND ADEQUATE BROADCAST COVERAGE FROM ADS-B GROUND STATIONS. FIS-B SERVICE AVAILABILITY IS EXPECTED THROUGHOUT THE NAS IN 2013, AND IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE WITHIN CERTAIN REGIONS. THIS NOTAM ANNOUNCES THE AVAILABILITY OF THE INITIAL TIS-B AND FIS-B CAPABILITY WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL SFO AIRSPACE. THE FAA IS DEVELOPING POLICY GUIDANCE MATERIAL ON AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE-BROADCAST (ADS-B), ESSENTIAL SERVICES- TIS-B AND FIS-B THAT WILL BE PUBLISHED IN TRADITIONAL SOURCE REFERENCES SUCH AS THE AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL (AIM). REPORTS OF TIS-B AND FIS-B MALFUNCTIONS SHOULD BE REPORTED BY RADIO OR TELEPHONE TO THE NEAREST FLIGHT SERVICE STATION (FSS) FACILITY.
Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 30):
more US carriers landing at SFO on any given day than foreign carriers by far so your point is moot.

When the do the statistics for go-arounds, and it shows more part 91/121 carriers go around than 129 carriers, the myth be propagated by many on here that this is an issue with only part 129 carriers will be busted.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 30):
every pilot landing at SFO is on High alert

Tell me why they have to be on "high alert" when going into SFO, it is being painted by some on here as a walk in the park ?

Quoting bioyuki (Reply 41):
The writer of the story said he got the information from the FAA Public Affairs Office, specifically Ian Gregor of the Western-Pacific region:

There is not a single press release made by his office in 2013, and I checked the central office as well, none of their 2013 releases relate to this.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: dashman
Posted 2013-07-29 18:28:46 and read 10910 times.

What is so hard to fly a visual approach at SFO, Done it enought it ain't rocket science. Use a little professionalism, follow the PAPI, electronic GS, RNAV vertical guidance and it will put you 1000 feet past the the threshold every time, 24 hours a day 7 days a weeks without fail. Maybe hand fly a little and quit using auto pilot auto throttles as a crutch. A little self discipline and maintain proficiency in our profession.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-29 18:35:27 and read 10842 times.

Quoting dashman (Reply 47):

What electronic G/S ?

When was the last time you did it from a 10,000 ft downwind, and asked to maintain 180 kts to 5 nm in a heavy ?

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: usxguy
Posted 2013-07-29 18:41:23 and read 10752 times.

well when you look at the aviation industry in other countries - outside of Mexico, a handful of South American countries, Australia/New Zealand, and most of Europe & Russia - most pilots start out in a flight school setting, become instructors, get into the regional airline industry for a few years, and then progress into a major airline, typically a narrowbody until their seniority can hold a widebody.

In Asia, this same process doesn't quite exist. Friends that have gone over to Asia to help with training have said that some of the FO's he is training should never have gotten their wings - almost every major airline in Asia requires the use of automation when available - which is the exact opposite at a handful of airlines in the US & Europe. Heck, I know for a fact Alaska Airlines wants its pilots to stick-fly when they can and NOT rely on their instruments.

So add in the fact many of our Asian friends don't stick fly much, coupled in with long haul flying - and that's when the differences stick out.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: freeze3192
Posted 2013-07-29 18:44:09 and read 10710 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 48):


What electronic G/S ?

When was the last time you did it from a 10,000 ft downwind, and asked to maintain 180 kts to 5 nm in a heavy ?

Day in, day out.

Shouldn't matter what time of aircraft it is. A plane is a plane, is a plane, is a plane.

If you're sitting in the seat, you should know how to fly the airplane. Period.

If you can't fly a visual approach from a 10,000 ft downwind and do 180 to 5 all on the same approach, you shouldn't be in the seat. The passengers behind you deserve more than that.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: AA94
Posted 2013-07-29 19:18:30 and read 10368 times.

Quoting jfidler (Reply 29):
Could this extend to other airports? I've heard the DCA Potomac River approach is one of the most difficult in the US. At the same time DCA also sees no scheduled widebodies and just a handful of international flights, so maybe it wouldn't be much of an issue anyway.

From a passenger perspective, I'd say that the DCA river visual approach is perhaps more "involved" as it requires some fairly last-minute turns around monuments in order to line up versus a more typical "straight-in" approach. However, as cubastar mentions above, none of the pilots I've talked to have ever called it difficult.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: SKC
Posted 2013-07-29 19:23:23 and read 10301 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 16):
Get the feeling that they'll get a pretty 'unprintable' answer if they tell any Qantas or BA captains that they're not fit to carry out 'side by side' visual approaches, mm320cap.

ATC won't ask them if they'll be insulted or not, they will just vector them into spacing that will prevent side-by-side visuals.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-29 19:39:23 and read 10109 times.

Quoting usxguy (Reply 49):

Using automation is not an "Asian" thing, it is worldwide, including the states.

I do not do a lot of landings, maybe only 3 in every 90 days on each type, or when the Wx is poor. I see typhoons many times a year (sometimes the same one twice in a day), thunderstorms, winshear, smoke, fog, snow, high altitude, close in terrain and a lot of night flying. Our procedures are based upon our operating environment, of which getting conditions conducive to performing a visual approach are rare.

In Europe/UK a lot of the plots are sponsored by airlines. In the former Russian states, most airline pilots were state trained, either by the airline or military.

You comments regarding training and experience is somewhat baseless. The Australian ATSB recently published a report to indicate that experience does not mean that much.

"Safety message
The evidence in this report indicates that the cadet pathway for low-hour pilots is a valid option for airlines. There was no evidence to indicate that cadets or low-hour pilots within the airlines studied were any less competent or proficient than their direct entry and high-hour peers."

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2012/ar-2012-023.aspx

Please note this report is based upon EVIDENCE, not subjective opinion.

Quoting freeze3192 (Reply 50):

Actually, it does matter what is being flown, the larger the aircraft, the more room you need to slow down. Speedbrake is not all that effective below 250 kts.

If your friends passed students they should not have, that says more about your friends than it does about the people they trained. They are the ones that have let the system down.

So do you fly a heavy ? When was the last time you did that sort of approach ?

A lot of grand statements being made on this thread, with little by the way of substance.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2013-07-29 19:55:33 and read 9870 times.

Quoting freeze3192 (Reply 50):
/If you can't fly a visual approach from a 10,000 ft downwind and do 180 to 5 all on the same approach, you shouldn't be in the seat. The passengers behind you deserve more than that.

Really? You're flying 10k downwinds "day in, day out"?? Even if so, I can bet they do not usually come with an x-wind turn to the 7 mi mark that SFO routinely hands out to longhaul arrivals. There's a reason multiple heavy drivers from Europe and Asia have commented negatively on this in recent weeks.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-29 20:14:23 and read 9661 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 27):
This is the current visual approach chart for RW 28 at SFO

That's the CVFP, yes. But that's not necessarily what you'd be flying on a regular visual approach. "visual approach 28L" is not the same as "quiet bridge visual 28L".

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
I looked at the NOTAMS etc, there was not reference to additional delays or suspension of parallel approaches, where is your dispatcher getting their information from ?

Probably from an FAA teleconference or from the information that is distributed to dispatchers. That sort of information won't show up in NOTAMs.

Quoting zeke (Reply 48):
When was the last time you did it from a 10,000 ft downwind, and asked to maintain 180 kts to 5 nm in a heavy ?

180kts to 5nm is quite common at busy airports when VMC prevails.

-Mir

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2013-07-29 20:23:00 and read 9598 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 18):
I would wager more go-arounds are performed by US carriers in SFO than Part 129 carriers. There is a reason why the NTSB has asked for the historical records from the FAA, they are looking for trends. I suspect the trends will show that the larger the aircraft, the more go-arounds.

A "normal" visual approach that an airliner would perform would be to to join downwind or base at 1500'. It is not normal practice around the world to join downwind at 10,000 ft, and have an ATC speed requirement imposed above the maximum flap speed.

The old saying, one can either go down, or slow down, not both. Also, the slower one is, the less effective speed brake becomes.

Hi Zeke,

By percentage of arrivals? I doubt it. But really go-arounds aren't the problem. Neither is being too high. The problem is that in the matter of a few weeks, two 777's got inexplicably low shooting a visual approach to an airport with an operating PAPI. One crashed, and the other successfully went around after ATC pointed out to them exactly how far below the path they were. The common denominator here is that both were Asian carriers. Coincidence? Perhaps. I'm certainly no expert in Asian pilot training and proficiency. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to disparage anybody. The record speaks for itself. Many years back, a problem was uncovered by a 747-400 crew where they almost parked the airplane into San Bruno on takeoff after a compressor stall. The FAA changed the requirements for pilot proficiency here as the pilot flying had been a "bunkie" for an extended period of time and lacked proficiency. As I stated before, the goal isn't to point fingers. The goal is to figure out the problem... the REAL problem... and fix it.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: airtechy
Posted 2013-07-29 20:24:04 and read 9557 times.

Do you really need an approach chart for a "visual approach"? Maybe for the missed approach procedure, radio frequency, etc. I thought these charts ... Jepps...were the province of "instrument approach" procedures.

Having said that, I changed a lot of them when I was maintaining an instrument rating and flying approaches....just not when I got clearance to land visually from the tower.

AT

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2013-07-29 20:25:36 and read 9569 times.

Quoting bioyuki (Reply 28):
Unbelievable. This will likely lower SFO's arrival rate during peak hours and cause some amount of congestion, no?

Indeed it will, and is. They are issuing EDCT times now for SFO on clear weather days due to this restriction.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2013-07-29 20:28:44 and read 9529 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
I looked at the NOTAMS etc, there was not reference to additional delays or suspension of parallel approaches, where is your dispatcher getting their information from ? a.net ?

You make yourself look really bad when you post something like this. Do you think he just made it up, and created an EDCT time for grins?

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-29 21:02:23 and read 9207 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 55):
That's the CVFP, yes. But that's not necessarily what you'd be flying on a regular visual approach. "visual approach 28L" is not the same as "quiet bridge visual 28L".

Don't give someone an idea of what you planning on doing, track miles to run, let them second guess all the time.

Quoting Mir (Reply 55):
Probably from an FAA teleconference or from the information that is distributed to dispatchers. That sort of information won't show up in NOTAMs.

If it is not disseminated via NOTAMs, our dispatchers would never receive it. What is this "legal" process of information being disseminated to dispatched called ? Who manages it ? Why have I never seen it refer to in any accident report even when dispatchers have been implicated ?

Quoting Mir (Reply 55):
180kts to 5nm is quite common at busy airports when VMC prevails.

And that would be an unstable approach for many airlines requiring an mandatory go around. For example Vfe flaps 30 on the 772 is 170 Kts. The A330/A340 and 77W maximum speed with full flap is 180 kt (barbers pole). It is stupid to fly around at the maximum permissible speed just to suit ATC, all you need is a wind change and you have a speed excursion.

Many airlines require their aircraft by their SOPs to be in the landing configuration and landing checklist complete in all conditions by 1500'. 180 to 7/8 and 160/4 are achievable, 180 to 5 is not.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 56):
By percentage of arrivals? I doubt it. But really go-arounds aren't the problem.

Yes by the percentage of arrivals as well. Go-arounds are a indication of the problem, hence the reason I think the NTSB have asked for the data from the FAA.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 59):
You make yourself look really bad when you post something like this. Do you think he just made it up, and created an EDCT time for grins?

Not at all, the concept of dual responsibly of flight between dispatcher and pilots does not really exist outside north america. If I cannot get my hands on this operational information, it means many others who make the operational decisions such as how much fuel should be carried are not getting the information either.

Normally if ATC delays are expected elsewhere in the world, a NOTAM is issued, and everybody knows.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Max Q
Posted 2013-07-29 21:04:41 and read 9178 times.

Pretty insulting and ignorant to imply all 'foreign carriers' are not up to the US standard.


While I think the usual suspects need all the help they can get the Pilots of BA, CX, LH, KLM etc are as good as they come.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: AmericanAirFan
Posted 2013-07-29 21:13:58 and read 9104 times.

Quoting ZBBYLW (Reply 26):
So what about a foreign airline that flies something similar to an A320 that does not have GPS on board however has the ability to do the FMS visual to 28R, would that not be allowed anymore?

Even without GPS, these aircraft have IRS systems which allow them to fly RNAV approaches RNAV/GPS approaches are synonymous.

I hope this puts a lot of pressure on foreign carriers to polish up their pilot's hand flying skills. To be fair not EVERY single pilot is a poor stick, but it seems there is a lot larger number of poor stick & rudder pilots at the overseas carriers.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: jfklganyc
Posted 2013-07-29 21:14:10 and read 9109 times.

I dont understand the uproar.

Today, even at US airlines, if there is a backup approach to use to "aid" in the Visual Approach, airline SOP is to use it.

A couple of months ago, the ILS 22L GS at JFK was out. The approach advertised was LOC 22L. Pilot after pilot at DL, AA and B6 were asking for the RNAV GPS Y to 22L as it follows the same track with GS guidance.


Obviously, a trend has been noted in SFO, and out of abundance of caution, they are responding to this trend until the ILS is back up.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Alias1024
Posted 2013-07-29 21:17:36 and read 9081 times.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 58):


Indeed it will, and is. They are issuing EDCT times now for SFO on clear weather days due to this restriction.


I know the weather this evening said few at 1000 and 10sm, but it was not appropriate conditions for visual approaches. There was a thick haze layer, and we didn't get the runway in sight until just outside the bridge. It looked like LAX on a smoggy evening.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: PassedV1
Posted 2013-07-29 21:19:21 and read 9083 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 53):
You comments regarding training and experience is somewhat baseless. The Australian ATSB recently published a report to indicate that experience does not mean that much.

"Safety message
The evidence in this report indicates that the cadet pathway for low-hour pilots is a valid option for airlines. There was no evidence to indicate that cadets or low-hour pilots within the airlines studied were any less competent or proficient than their direct entry and high-hour peers."

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2012/ar-2012-023.aspx

Please note this report is based upon EVIDENCE, not subjective opinion.


From your link...
" For non-technical metrics, both leadership and situation awareness were significantly different in all three airlines. Although this is understandable given the low experience of cadet and low-hour pilots, focused exposure to those metrics during initial airline training may reduce this difference as was seen in the data for cadets collected at the 5-year mark in one airline."

This is exactly what critics on A-net of these low time hires and cadets are talking about...thanks for pointing this report out it makes our point.

They found no difference in the technical measures...meaning, flying an ILS, landing an airplane, V1 cuts, etc. etc....which is not a surprise. That's all they been flying is that particular simulator.

But they DID find a difference in SITUATIONAL AWARENESS...which is exactly what those on here criticizing cadet/ab-initio programs are talking about.

So to a non-airline pilot who thinks the hard part about being an airline pilot is the landings and the ILSs and the V1 cuts are the important stuff...then I can see how they could come to the conclusion that experience doesn't matter.

But the airline pilots reading this know that SA is THE most important thing to bring to the cockpit. I don't care how good your stall recovery technical skills are...if your SA is so low that you don't KNOW that you are about to stall...you can't show off your fancy recovery techniques.

Also, this study was done in a simulator...the simulator is 10 times easier than real life as far as SA goes...so if they are detecting SA differences in the SIMULATOR...heaven help us with what is happening on the line.

My frustration with A-net on threads on similar subjects that criticize the competence of Ab-initio/Cadet programs has always frustrated me. Those that fly all day everyday, hear the Asianas and the Air Chinas and the KAL's and the Phillipines on the frequency EVERYDAY, flying alongside them, watching their landings, approaches, etc. and many pilots, like me, have come to the conclusion that I, nor my family, will ever be on one of there airplanes. I reached this conclusion long before Asiana in SFO. I don't care how good there cabin service is or how pretty their flight attendants are.

So at the very least, reasonable people should come to the conclusion that at the very least there is some "smoke" that might need to be investigated.

I am not racist...in fact, I am 1/2 Filipino and 1/2 Chinese, it has nothing to do with their race. It has everything to do with their path into the 777. Do I think the average major US Airline 777 crew is more competent than the average Air China 777 crew. ABSOLUTELY. Is the average kid at Stanford smarter than the average kid at ECU?

Now there is "fire"...now maybe someone without a political agenda will finally look at it.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-29 21:22:13 and read 9084 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 61):
While I think the usual suspects need all the help they can get

Probably the 'all foreign carriers' bit was decided on for reasons of 'political correctness,' Max Q. The only alternative would have been to list specific airlines, or even specific nationalities; which would be just about unthinkable?

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2013-07-29 21:25:20 and read 9071 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
Tell me why they have to be on "high alert" when going into SFO, it is being painted by some on here as a walk in the park ?
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 54):
Really? You're flying 10k downwinds "day in, day out"?? Even if so, I can bet they do not usually come with an x-wind turn to the 7 mi mark that SFO routinely hands out to longhaul arrivals. There's a reason multiple heavy drivers from Europe and Asia have commented negatively on this in recent weeks.

This is all well and good. I will grant you that it could be more challenging to heavy drivers than narrow body pilots that fly into SFO all the time. I used to fly heavies into SFO from across the pond, and I personally didn't find the visuals to be anything other than routine, but I'm sure the guys/gals based down in MEX find that approach "routine", and to me it's more challenging. However, you both make reference to the 10k downwind and difficulty in slowing down/getting onto a stable approach. Seems to me that what you are arguing would make you high and fast, not low and slow.

Anytime there is an accident, it behooves us all as pilots to look at what happened, why, and how we can avoid a repeating incident. Whether it is SWA in LGA, or OZ in SFO. All the talking in the world doesn't change the fact that two flights got alarmingly low in good weather in an advanced airplane to a runway with a perfectly functioning PAPI.... one in broad daylight. This is, by definitely, simply unacceptable for professional commercial airline operations. It would behoove us all to put the defensiveness aside, and acknowledge that there seems to be a particular issue here that needs to be addressed. Burying your head in the sand about it doesn't do anything more than reinforce the notion that there is a cultural issue at work here that is contributing to the problem. I don't care whether it's Asia, Russia, the USA, South American, etc. etc. We've all had our moments. The best of us open our minds and learn from these mistakes.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2013-07-29 21:26:32 and read 9076 times.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 64):
I know the weather this evening said few at 1000 and 10sm, but it was not appropriate conditions for visual approaches. There was a thick haze layer, and we didn't get the runway in sight until just outside the bridge. It looked like LAX on a smoggy evening.

It was actually last night, and we ended up shooting a wide open parallel to 28L. Had the bridge from over BSR.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: PassedV1
Posted 2013-07-29 21:27:49 and read 9081 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 60):
Quoting Mir (Reply 55):Probably from an FAA teleconference or from the information that is distributed to dispatchers. That sort of information won't show up in NOTAMs.
If it is not disseminated via NOTAMs, our dispatchers would never receive it. What is this "legal" process of information being disseminated to dispatched called ? Who manages it ? Why have I never seen it refer to in any accident report even when dispatchers have been implicated ?

The US airlines have multiple teleconferences with the FAA everyday. It sounds like they are doing this via the ground delay program so there would not be a NOTAM.

Quoting zeke (Reply 60):
And that would be an unstable approach for many airlines requiring an mandatory go around. For example Vfe flaps 30 on the 772 is 170 Kts. The A330/A340 and 77W maximum speed with full flap is 180 kt (barbers pole). It is stupid to fly around at the maximum permissible speed just to suit ATC, all you need is a wind change and you have a speed excursion.

If that is in fact the case for an operator/airplane then the proper response for the pilots would be to key the mic and say the word "unable". The controller can ask for whatever they want, it is up to the pilots to accept or not accept a clearance.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: mm320cap
Posted 2013-07-29 21:29:57 and read 9072 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 60):
Yes by the percentage of arrivals as well. Go-arounds are a indication of the problem, hence the reason I think the NTSB have asked for the data from the FAA.

Go arounds aren't the problem. It's the fact that they AREN'T going around that is the problem.

Quoting zeke (Reply 60):
Not at all, the concept of dual responsibly of flight between dispatcher and pilots does not really exist outside north america. If I cannot get my hands on this operational information, it means many others who make the operational decisions such as how much fuel should be carried are not getting the information either.

Normally if ATC delays are expected elsewhere in the world, a NOTAM is issued, and everybody knows.

I suggest you call your dispatcher and ask. It is on our flight plan, clear as day. I can't figure out if you are suggesting that I'm lying, or that my dispatcher made it up, but it's the way things are working in SFO. Period.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: wjcandee
Posted 2013-07-29 21:38:44 and read 9024 times.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 56):
The FAA changed the requirements for pilot proficiency here as the pilot flying had been a "bunkie" for an extended period of time and lacked proficiency.

I don't recall whether the guy had been recently a bunkie, but his was a very unusual situation in that on the almost-accident flight, for reasons not publicly-acknowledged (although I recall being told why at the time), the guy had had only one actual takeoff and landing in a 744 in the previous 12 months. IIRC, while the real bunkies were sitting in the jumpseats yelling at him, the PF followed the flight director rather than follow the engine-out procedure, and, most critically, used the stick to compensate for the yaw induced by the failed engine rather than the rudder, a fundamental failure of airmanship. The deployment of the spoilers and ailerons as a result of the stick inputs caused the a/c to slow to the stick shaker. (I think that the the instinct to follow the flight director had a lot to do with his choice of controls.) The bigger concern for me about that incident was the captain's choice not to take prompt control of the aircraft. There are two versions of the story regarding that. The one in the media is that the FO was at the controls when it cleared the mountain; another one I heard, which I tend to credit, is that the CAPT took control around the time the terrain alert sounded, instinctively made the correct rudder inputs, among other things, and thus saved the aircraft by a matter of around 100 feet.

Either way it was bad, and I tend to slot that incident more into the "You don't know what a pilot will do in a real emergency until he has one" school, which would include Sullenberger (yay!) and Colgan (ugh).

I don't know that the FAA's modifications of pilot proficiency regs did anything whatsoever, but I am absolutely confident that the pilot's union and airline management were so horrified by that incident that they treated it like a fatal accident from the point of view of lessons-learned and made damn sure that proper flying in an engine failure scenario (and other emergencies that implicated basic airmanship skill) was even more in the forefront of training, testing, and discussion.

I am still troubled how much the industry seems to be aiming towards an "automation manager" role for pilots, when Cecil Ewell got it right 17 years ago and trained his pilots that "automation managers" ended up crashing aircraft, whereas his pilots were to be pilots and not automation managers, that they were to practice their skills regularly, that they were at all times below cruise to be connected tactily to their controls, and that they were to use the automation as a wonderful aid, but were to turn it off and use their piloting skills when the automation started taking the aircraft off of the intended lateral and vertical flight path.

What surprises me as well is that for people with strong stick-and-rudder skills and strong navigation skills, the automation can be vastly more helpful, because, for example, the nav system can provide a multitude of information that integrates seamlessly with the pilot's mental picture of where he is in time and space, letting him do some nifty stuff; take away the instinctive underlying three-dimensional mental picture born of hundreds of hours of operating under more primitive navigation regimes, and the information is less useful, as is the pilot.

[Edited 2013-07-29 21:51:19]

[Edited 2013-07-29 21:53:11]

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: XFSUgimpLB41X
Posted 2013-07-29 21:42:42 and read 9031 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 48):
When was the last time you did it from a 10,000 ft downwind, and asked to maintain 180 kts to 5 nm in a heavy ?

What is so special about a 10k downwind to 180 to 5nm? That's standard at most major airports...I've done it hundreds of times in everything from props to heavy jets. The fact that you are making it sound like a bid deal is a bit disconcerting. 180 to 5nm is child's play. 210 is pushing it.

Left to your own devices in a widebody, you should be able to hit the far point on the downwind at 350 knots and 12000 feet and be able to make a 5 mile final with stabilization achieved at 1000 AGL. If you cannot do that, you need to work on your energy management.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-29 22:44:54 and read 8825 times.

Quoting airtechy (Reply 57):
Do you really need an approach chart for a "visual approach"? Maybe for the missed approach procedure, radio frequency, etc. I thought these charts ... Jepps...were the province of "instrument approach" procedures.

No, you don't need a chart for a visual approach. However, there are what are known as Charted Visual Flight Procedures (CVFPs) at various airports where the pilots need to fly a prescribed ground track (as opposed to just navigating visually to the runway however they deem appropriate, as one would do on a regular visual approach). Obviously, you need a chart for those in order to see what ground track to fly. The Quiet Bridge visual is such an approach, as it requires maintaining an offset approach course until passing the San Mateo Bridge in order to keep the aircraft over the water for noise abatement reasons.

Quoting zeke (Reply 60):
If it is not disseminated via NOTAMs, our dispatchers would never receive it. What is this "legal" process of information being disseminated to dispatched called ?

There's the OIS, for one - that gives information on current delays and ground stops.

www.fly.faa.gov/ois

There are also lots of teleconferences between the FAA's traffic management people and the airlines' operations people.

Quoting zeke (Reply 60):
And that would be an unstable approach for many airlines requiring an mandatory go around.

Then they should go the go-around and tell ATC why. ATC has no more interest in having them do the go-around than the pilots having in doing it, and they'll figure out an alternative plan.

Quoting zeke (Reply 60):
For example Vfe flaps 30 on the 772 is 170 Kts. The A330/A340 and 77W maximum speed with full flap is 180 kt (barbers pole). It is stupid to fly around at the maximum permissible speed just to suit ATC, all you need is a wind change and you have a speed excursion.

I agree. But you don't necessarily need to be flying around at the max flap speed - it doesn't really help you, as you can only increase drag at that point via speedbrakes, which as you said aren't as effective at lower speeds. Better, IMO, to fly at a lesser flap setting and keep the gear up in order to keep the airplane clean, then at the appropriate point deploy the gear and extend the flaps as soon as practical for each flap setting. That'll slow you down faster without having to reduce power as much. I wouldn't do that in IMC, of course, but that's not the scenario presented.

-Mir

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: XFSUgimpLB41X
Posted 2013-07-29 22:50:15 and read 8808 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 74):
I agree. But you don't necessarily need to be flying around at the max flap speed - it doesn't really help you, as you can only increase drag at that point via speedbrakes, which as you said aren't as effective at lower speeds. Better, IMO, to fly at a lesser flap setting and keep the gear up in order to keep the airplane clean, then at the appropriate point deploy the gear and extend the flaps as soon as practical for each flap setting. That'll slow you down faster without having to reduce power as much. I wouldn't do that in IMC, of course, but that's not the scenario presented.

Bingo. Fly at the flaps setting appropriate for maneuvering with the gear up at 180 knots, at the 5 mile point select final approach speed and configure. No speedbrakes should be needed and you'll easily be on speed, configured and spooled by 1000 AGL. Why that has to be explained to a supposed widebody pilot is quite strange. zeke's comments bring more concern than they dispell anything.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-29 22:58:32 and read 8792 times.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 65):

Read the actual report, not just the executive summary. Your comments do not match the evidence gathered.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 67):

It is commencing the approach from a non standard position.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 69):

That means the operational data is being withheld from part 129 carriers.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 70):

They do go around, in fact Asiania got a FAA please explain for going around too many times.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 72):

It is not "standard", it is not done at lhr, lgw, ams, fra, cdg, jnb, dxb, bah, doh, auh, ruh, bom, mnl, tpe, cgk, sin, kul, bkk, hnd, nrt, icn, hkg, pek, pvg, akl, syd, mel, bne etc, etc.

Quoting usxguy (Reply 73):

That had already been discussed on here, the author asked for it to be removed.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: XFSUgimpLB41X
Posted 2013-07-29 23:44:06 and read 8690 times.

10k AGL downwinds are normal in the states at large airports. Not like they rush you down, though... Asiana had a 17 (!!!) mile final. That is a pile of room. SFO provides a much more challenging situation from an energy management perspective when approach on a dog leg to final from the east.

None of what you stated, zeke, negates that you whined about being assigned 180 to 5 miles like it is something difficult. That is sad and wreaks of extremely poor understanding of energy management of your aircraft.

[Edited 2013-07-30 00:12:34]

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-29 23:59:08 and read 8672 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 76):
It is not "standard", it is not done at lhr, lgw, ams, fra, cdg, jnb, dxb, bah, doh, auh, ruh, bom, mnl, tpe, cgk, sin, kul, bkk, hnd, nrt, icn, hkg, pek, pvg, akl, syd, mel, bne etc, etc.

That may be, but it is not unreasonable to expect pilots to do it. If 160kts to 4DME is acceptable, then 180 to 5DME should be as well - 20kts is not a lot of airspeed to lose over the course of a mile.

It may turn out that the manner in which the aircraft was directed onto final is a contributing factor in the OZ crash, but if that's the case, then the solution should be to train the pilots to deal with such things, not to stop doing them.

-Mir

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2013-07-30 00:52:59 and read 8572 times.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 75):
Why that has to be explained to a supposed widebody pilot is quite strange

Hey now guys, no need to be questioning who is what here. Is that really appropriate?

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 72):
What is so special about a 10k downwind to 180 to 5nm?
Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 77):
SFO provides a much more challenging situation from an energy management perspective when approach on a dog leg to final from the east.

My concern is actually what longhaul pilots on other forums have complained about at SFO - being vectored off the GLDN4 arrival over the city, held at 10K down the bay, and then vectored a base turn @ 7-8 miles out, where the SM bridge is crossed at 6 out with a charted altitude on the visual of 1900'.

The flipside of that coin of course is that pilots can and should simple request an alternative. But that is obviously much easier for someone with strong command of English like LH or KL than BR or CA.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: usxguy
Posted 2013-07-30 01:01:34 and read 8618 times.

So spoke with a friend who is a 767-300 driver for United. Automation IS part of their requirements... and would you believe it.. they have to use Autoland a minimum number of times a month :P Otherwise, its stick fly it on to the piano keys.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-07-30 04:24:59 and read 8352 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 55):
Probably from an FAA teleconference or from the information that is distributed to dispatchers. That sort of information won't show up in NOTAMs.

So what was a Chronicle reporter doing on an FAA operational teleconference?

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 69):
The US airlines have multiple teleconferences with the FAA everyday. It sounds like they are doing this via the ground delay program so there would not be a NOTAM

If this procedure is directed at "foreign airlines", why would the FAA advise U.S. airlines but not advise the airlines to which the procedure is directed. That doesn't make any sense, and the FAA is not stupid.

This story has a distinct barnyard smell.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: NAV20
Posted 2013-07-30 05:03:26 and read 8274 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 81):
If this procedure is directed at "foreign airlines", why would the FAA advise U.S. airlines but not advise the airlines to which the procedure is directed. That doesn't make any sense, and the FAA is not stupid.

As far as I can tell, the decision has been taken to have all 'foreign airliners' land on their own, with no-one else landing on the parallel runway at the same time?

Seems to me that that's a 'non-event' for the 'foreign' crews - there's nothing that they need to be formally notified about? Surely wouldn't make sense for ATC formally to notify them of the absence of other aeroplanes? In fact it would be 'bad practice,' crews should remain alert and 'expect the unexpected' at all times?  

[Edited 2013-07-30 05:25:22]

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: jetfixr757
Posted 2013-07-30 07:58:12 and read 8043 times.

If they can't even fly a visual how do you expect them to use GPS muchless use a portion of the GPS approach??

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-07-30 08:39:21 and read 7951 times.

Quoting usxguy (Reply 79):
and would you believe it.. they have to use Autoland a minimum number of times a month :P

Well, they need to maintain proficiency, right? Plus I think the airplane has to log x number of autolands per y time period as well to make sure the system is working..

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: XFSUgimpLB41X
Posted 2013-07-30 12:30:21 and read 7680 times.

Auto lands are typically once a month for the plane's currency and one every 6 months for the pilot's currency. If you've done one in the simulator it counts toward that. Hardly anything onerous.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-30 12:40:23 and read 7659 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 73):
But you don't necessarily need to be flying around at the max flap speed - it doesn't really help you, as you can only increase drag at that point via speedbrakes, which as you said aren't as effective at lower speeds. Better, IMO, to fly at a lesser flap setting and keep the gear up in order to keep the airplane clean, then at the appropriate point deploy the gear and extend the flaps as soon as practical for each flap setting. That'll slow you down faster without having to reduce power as much. I wouldn't do that in IMC, of course, but that's not the scenario presented.

You would if the SOPs require the aircraft to be fully configured and landing checklist by 1500' AGL.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 74):
Bingo. Fly at the flaps setting appropriate for maneuvering with the gear up at 180 knots, at the 5 mile point select final approach speed and configure. No speedbrakes should be needed and you'll easily be on speed, configured and spooled by 1000 AGL. Why that has to be explained to a supposed widebody pilot is quite strange. zeke's comments bring more concern than they dispell anything.

Not bingo at all, many airlines have the stabilized approach criteria set at 1500' AGL regardless of conditions.

I explained this very clearly before in reply 59......"Many airlines require their aircraft by their SOPs to be in the landing configuration and landing checklist complete in all conditions by 1500'. 180 to 7/8 and 160/4 are achievable, 180 to 5 is not."

The reason being is simple, the visibility reported in many parts of the world is not what is matched by looking out the cockpit window. SOPs are written to cover the entire operation.

I know of crews being asked below 1000' what their minimum visibility for landing is, and then for ATC to state the visibility is that number.I know of cases in the US where turboprops come in on an intercept to a parallel runway that have a higher ground speed (turboprops can decelerate quicker). With the converging heading and speed it triggers a TCAS RA (TCAS does not know there is a parallel approach being flown). The controller asked if they were actually going to follow the RA !!!!

Quoting Mir (Reply 77):
That may be, but it is not unreasonable to expect pilots to do it. If 160kts to 4DME is acceptable, then 180 to 5DME should be as well - 20kts is not a lot of airspeed to lose over the course of a mile.

160 to 4 means the aircraft can achieve full flap, gear down, and landing checklist complete by 1500'.

I have been discussing mainly long haul passenger services which are well below MLW, when they have a freighter coming in at MLW, it is a simple physics problem, 0.5xMxV^2, the kinetic energy goes up with the square of the speed.

This is not news to the FAA, they have the company SOPs in the Part 129 certification.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: airtechy
Posted 2013-07-30 13:25:45 and read 7513 times.

I'm having trouble understanding if Zeke is saying that ATC at SFO is requiring pilots for his airline to execute a procedure that is not possible within their guidelines or is allowed but is only used at airports in the US.

I was under the impression that ATC procedures were standardized worldwide....at least at major airports...but maybe not. Also, it would seem that individual airline procedures and requirements would be checked to see if they can be accomplished within ATC procedures for all the airports they fly to....at least.  Wow!

AT

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-30 14:26:05 and read 7393 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 85):
Not bingo at all, many airlines have the stabilized approach criteria set at 1500' AGL regardless of conditions.

"I explained this very clearly before in reply 59......Many airlines require their aircraft by their SOPs to be in the landing configuration and landing checklist complete in all conditions by 1500'. 180 to 7/8 and 160/4 are achievable, 180 to 5 is not."

4DME would be about 1300' AGL. So unless your approach speed is 140 or greater (which may apply to some larger aircraft, but doesn't for smaller ones), you're not going to be stabilized by 1500' if you hold 160kts to that point (at least by the Flight Safety Foundation criteria - IMO anything greater than 10kts over approach speed isn't really stabilized).

It also begs the question why 1500' and not the more typical 1000'.

Quoting zeke (Reply 85):
The reason being is simple, the visibility reported in many parts of the world is not what is matched by looking out the cockpit window. SOPs are written to cover the entire operation.

That doesn't make sense - reported visibility should have nothing to do with where the stabilized approach criteria takes effect. What matters is what the crew can't or can't see out the window. If I can't see anything out the window, I'm applying IMC criteria even if the tower says it's CAVOK.

Quoting airtechy (Reply 87):
I'm having trouble understanding if Zeke is saying that ATC at SFO is requiring pilots for his airline to execute a procedure that is not possible within their guidelines or is allowed but is only used at airports in the US.

ATC isn't requiring pilots to do anything, they're requesting. If the pilots can't do it because their SOP doesn't allow it, then they should say so and ATC will have to work with them to find an alternative plan (which will probably mean them saying "okay, just give me the best speed you can" and adjusting the spacing of the following aircraft accordingly).

-Mir

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: airtechy
Posted 2013-07-30 15:12:35 and read 7290 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 86):
ATC isn't requiring pilots to do anything, they're requesting. If the pilots can't do it because their SOP doesn't allow it, then they should say so and ATC will have to work with them to find an alternative plan (which will probably mean them saying "okay, just give me the best speed you can" and adjusting the spacing of the following aircraft accordingly).

Thanks...sounds like individual airline SOP has an easy out.

AT

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2013-07-30 15:50:50 and read 7244 times.

Quoting airtechy (Reply 85):
I was under the impression that ATC procedures were standardized

Are you kidding? The most simple of procedures - using standard phrasing, is not even close to achieved worldwide, much less in the US, where ATC often speak at normal speed and in their own style even with longhaul pilots on frequency who are nowhere near ICAO level 4 compliant.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-30 20:06:45 and read 6965 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 86):
So unless your approach speed is 140 or greater (which may apply to some larger aircraft

140-150 is common for a widebody, sometimes even higher at MLW.

Quoting Mir (Reply 86):
It also begs the question why 1500' and not the more typical 1000'.

The SOP requirement is to have the aircraft in the landing configuration and landing checklist complete by 1500', 160 to 4 means the aircraft is fully configured, and can meet the stabilization criteria by 1000'.

Quoting Mir (Reply 86):
That doesn't make sense - reported visibility should have nothing to do with where the stabilized approach criteria takes effect.

Let you answer that yourself, think of approach ban (what is that based upon ?), and when the go-around needs to be commenced. Why do you think TWR is asking for min visibility required by the crew BELOW 1000' ?

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-30 20:27:29 and read 6918 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 89):
Why do you think TWR is asking for min visibility required by the crew BELOW 1000' ?

No idea (it doesn't affect anything at that point), but that shouldn't affect where the stabilized approach criteria takes place - that decision needs to have taken place long before that. And if the visibility is bad enough that the tower needs to ask, then it should be pretty clear that IMC criteria would be in effect.

-Mir

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-07-30 20:47:02 and read 6888 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 90):
No idea (it doesn't affect anything at that point)

If they get the information above 1000' the approach ban would be in effect, go around at 1000', below 1000' they can continue to the published minima.

Quoting Mir (Reply 90):
And if the visibility is bad enough that the tower needs to ask, then it should be pretty clear that IMC criteria would be in effect.

Not at all, a TWR reported visibility that meets VMC requirements, and clear of cloud, does not mean one will see the runway or approach lights at 1000' or even 500'. Places I fly have smoke, haze, pollution, low level inversion layer etc all impact on the ability of the flight crew to see the runway environment. And yet, it is not IMC.

SOPs reflect the operation.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-30 21:27:13 and read 6794 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 91):
If they get the information above 1000' the approach ban would be in effect, go around at 1000', below 1000' they can continue to the published minima.

Exactly (though by US regulations the deciding point is glideslope intercept for a precision approach or the FAF for a non-precision approach). So asking for required visibility below 1000' doesn't do anything - the crew can legally continue to the minimums no matter what the weather is.

Quoting zeke (Reply 91):
Not at all, a TWR reported visibility that meets VMC requirements, and clear of cloud, does not mean one will see the runway or approach lights at 1000' or even 500'. Places I fly have smoke, haze, pollution, low level inversion layer etc all impact on the ability of the flight crew to see the runway environment. And yet, it is not IMC.

If you think it's IMC, then it should be treated as IMC no matter what the tower says. But that's irrelevant if there's no distinction between IMC and VMC as far as the stabilized approach point goes (as it is in your scenario) because you're going to be flying the approach the same way regardless.

My question is if the requirement is to be stabilized by 1000' AGL in all conditions (which is sensible), is the extra requirement of being fully configured at 1500' in all conditions really necessary?

-Mir

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: YYZatcboy
Posted 2013-07-30 22:00:40 and read 6736 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 91):

If they get the information above 1000' the approach ban would be in effect, go around at 1000', below 1000' they can continue to the published minima.

That does not sound familiar to me... Once you are past the FAF inbound you can continue to limits. Nothing about 1000 feet... Where did you find that?

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: dank
Posted 2013-07-30 22:20:26 and read 6695 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 15):
Get the feeling that they'll get a pretty 'unprintable' answer if they tell any Qantas or BA captains that they're not fit to carry out 'side by side' visual approaches, mm320cap.  

The only go around I've ever had was on a BA flight to SFO last weekend.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: usxguy
Posted 2013-07-30 22:35:59 and read 6672 times.

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 83):
Auto lands are typically once a month for the plane's currency and one every 6 months for the pilot's currency. If you've done one in the simulator it counts toward that. Hardly anything onerous.

I was being a bit fecitious here. Friend at a large freight carrier said his friends at "non-US" airlines are trained to let the plane land itself --- compared to the policies at his, and other US Carriers where they prefer pilots to have manual control of the aircraft under 10k feet - yet they should do at least 2 Cat III Autolands a month..

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-07-31 01:48:55 and read 6488 times.

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 93):
That does not sound familiar to me... Once you are past the FAF inbound you can continue to limits. Nothing about 1000 feet... Where did you find that?

It's just one of those differences in the way countries write their rules. The terminology is different as well - you'll never hear "approach ban" in the US, it's just "that rule that says you can't continue an approach past the FAF unless you have the appropriate visibility".

-Mir

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: oly720man
Posted 2013-08-01 02:58:05 and read 5822 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 80):
As far as I can tell, the decision has been taken to have all 'foreign airliners' land on their own, with no-one else landing on the parallel runway at the same time?

That's now being reported as such

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...-11e2-a954-358d90d5d72d_story.html

SAN FRANCISCO — U.S. aviation officials are no longer allowing foreign airlines to land alongside another plane when touching down at San Francisco International Airport in the wake of the deadly Asiana Airlines crash.

The Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement Tuesday it implemented the change “to minimize distractions during a critical phase of flight.”

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-08-01 05:26:55 and read 5689 times.

Quoting oly720man (Reply 97):

SAN FRANCISCO %u2014 U.S. aviation officials are no longer allowing foreign airlines to land alongside another plane when touching down at San Francisco International Airport in the wake of the deadly Asiana Airlines crash.

The Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement Tuesday it implemented the change %u201Cto minimize distractions during a critical phase of flight.%u201D

Can anyone identify an official (FAA) source for these phantom "statements" which have variously been described as issued on Sunday and Tuesday. They are nowhere to be found anywhere on the FAA website. It looks like the media are just quoting each other.

And meanwhile, NZ and AC ("foreign airlines") continue to do parallel approaches.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: jfidler
Posted 2013-08-01 11:15:04 and read 5476 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 98):
Can anyone identify an official (FAA) source for these phantom "statements" which have variously been described as issued on Sunday and Tuesday. They are nowhere to be found anywhere on the FAA website. It looks like the media are just quoting each other.

This is from the AP and not just a blogger, so it's likely they verified their source and did fact-checking. My guess would be it came from a press conference.

I would also like to see more information on this, but my point is that AP probably did some fact-checking so there's a good chance this report is indeed true.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-08-01 11:26:18 and read 5444 times.

Quoting jfidler (Reply 99):
My guess would be it came from a press conference.

FAA press conferences always have a press release. There's nothing.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: StuckInCA
Posted 2013-08-01 13:25:30 and read 5368 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 100):
FAA press conferences always have a press release. There's nothing.

It's being reported as news, and nothing about it sounds like speculation.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...dings-in-wake-of-crash-4696669.php

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-08-02 01:00:25 and read 5147 times.

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 93):
That does not sound familiar to me... Once you are past the FAF inbound you can continue to limits. Nothing about 1000 feet... Where did you find that?

It comes from ICAO Annex 6 and EU OPS. The country of your flag, Canada also has the approach ban procedure in the CARs. US carriers operating into Europe would need to follow this as well, e,g,

"For non-EU-OPS operators and those exempt from EU OPS 1.405:
Under U.K. Legislation an aircraft, when making a
descent to an aerodrome, shall not descend from a
height of 1000ft or more above the aerodrome to a
height less than 1000ft above the aerodrome if the
relevant RVR at the aerodrome is at the time less than
the specified minimum for landing, or

a. continue an “approach to landing” at any aerodrome
by flying below the relevant specified DH,
or

b. descend below the relevant specified MD
unless, in either case, from such height the
specified visual reference for landing is established
and is maintained."

The EU ops text

EU OPS/JAR-OPS 1.405 Commencement And Continuation Of Approach
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued below 1 000 ft above the aerodrome on the final approach segment, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values may be derived by converting the reported visibility in accordance with Appendix 1 to EU OPS/JAR-OPS 1.430, sub-paragraph (h).
(c) If, after passing 1 000 ft above the aerodrome on the final approach segment] in accordance with (a) above, the reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.
(d) If the MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the aerodrome or less than 500 feet below, the operator shall establish a height, for each approach procedure, below which the approach shall not be continued if the RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima.
(e) The approach may be continued below DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed provided that the required visual reference is established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is maintained.
(f) The touchdown zone RVR is always controlling. If reported and relevant, the mid point and stop end RVR are also controlling. The minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 125 m or the RVR required for the touchdown zone if less, and 75 m for the stop-end. For aeroplanes equipped with a rollout guidance or control system, the minimum RVR value for the mid-point is 75 m.

Our operation follows EU OPS, however not based in Europe.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2013-08-02 01:22:04 and read 5122 times.

While some may see it as insulting, the only carriers who will routinely fly large aircraft into SFO are foreign airlines, UA and HA. UA and HA pilots will be far more familiar with SFO than foreign pilots.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: YYZatcboy
Posted 2013-08-02 01:22:39 and read 5125 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 102):
The country of your flag, Canada also has the approach ban procedure in the CARs. US carriers operating into Europe would need to follow this as well, e,g,

Yes. I am very familiar with the approach bans here and in the USA. (I'm a licensed dispatcher).

There is no 1000 ft reference anywhere that I have found in the FARs or the CARS. My airline does not fly to Europe so I am not familiar with your ref, so thanks for posting it. It is very interesting. I wonder if it would apply to non EU airlines. (for example would a UAL flight follow the FAR approach ban policy or do they have a separate one for Europe?) For us we follow the CARS limits for alternates/visibility requirements except for in the USA where we follow the FAR ones. The FAR requirements seem less restrictive generally.

As you can see below we make reference to position relative to the FAF or final approach course. Once you are past the FAF you can continue down to minimums regardless of what the visibility does.

#

705.48 (1) For the purposes of subsections (2) to (4), the visibility with respect to an aeroplane is less than the minimum visibility required for a non-precision approach, an APV or a CAT I precision approach if, in respect of the advisory visibility specified in the Canada Air Pilot and set out in column I of an item in the table to this section,

*

(a) where the RVR is measured by RVR “A” and RVR “B”, the RVR measured by RVR “A” for the runway of intended approach is less than the visibility set out in column II of the item for the approach conducted;
*

(b) where the RVR is measured by only one of RVR “A” and RVR “B”, the RVR for the runway of intended approach is less than the visibility set out in column II of the item for the approach conducted;
*

(c) where no RVR for the runway of intended approach is available, the runway visibility is less than the visibility set out in column II of the item for the approach conducted; or
*

(d) where the aerodrome is located south of the 60th parallel of north latitude and no RVR or runway visibility for the runway of intended approach is available, the ground visibility at the aerodrome where the runway is located is less than the visibility set out in column II of the item for the approach conducted.

#

(2) No person shall continue a non-precision approach or an APV unless

*

(a) the air operator is authorized to do so in its air operator certificate;
*

(b) the aeroplane is equipped with
o

(i) if the flight crew does not use pilot-monitored-approach procedures, an autopilot capable of conducting a non-precision approach or an APV to 400 feet AGL or lower, or
o

(ii) a HUD capable of conducting a non-precision approach or an APV to 400 feet AGL or lower;
*

(c) the instrument approach procedure is conducted to straight-in minima; and
*

(d) a visibility report indicates that
o

(i) the visibility is equal to or greater than that set out in subsection (1),
o

(ii) the RVR is varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum RVR set out in subsection (1), or
o

(iii) the visibility is less than the minimum visibility set out in subsection (1) and, at the time the visibility report is received, the aeroplane has passed the FAF inbound or, where there is no FAF, the point where the final approach course is intercepted

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-08-02 03:59:11 and read 5039 times.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 101):

It's being reported as news, and nothing about it sounds like speculation.

1) It's being reported as a "prepared statement" by the FAA, but there's absolutely no evidence anywhere of such a statement.
2) To my knowledge, NZ and AC (both "foreign carriers") are still flying parallel approaches into SFO.

I'll believe it when I see an official source, instead of reporters quoting each other.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 103):
UA and HA pilots will be far more familiar with SFO than foreign pilots.

A gross generalization. I know NZ crew who do 80+ take-offs and landings a year in SFO.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: ah414211
Posted 2013-08-02 05:51:30 and read 4964 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 98):
And meanwhile, NZ and AC ("foreign airlines") continue to do parallel approaches.

Do you have an "official" source for this?

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-08-02 08:24:13 and read 4848 times.

Quoting ah414211 (Reply 106):

Crew members who've flown into SFO in the last week.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-08-03 07:29:33 and read 4511 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 105):
A gross generalization. I know NZ crew who do 80+ take-offs and landings a year in SFO.

How many hours a month do NZ crew fly? AKL-SFO-AKL is about 25 block hours, and that's only one take off and landing. Someone who flies only to SFO and roughly as many hours as US crews fly is only going to be in the aircraft, never mind flying, for 6-8 takeoffs and landings per month, or 72-96 per year.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Mir
Posted 2013-08-03 07:37:03 and read 4489 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 108):
Someone who flies only to SFO and roughly as many hours as US crews fly is only going to be in the aircraft, never mind flying, for 6-8 takeoffs and landings per month, or 72-96 per year.

Which makes 80+ takeoffs and landings a year at SFO entirely plausible.

-Mir

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-08-03 07:41:18 and read 4491 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 108):
72-96 per year.

   About 50 hours per month. Right now, the remaining 744s (and crews) are only flying AKL-SFO.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-08-03 08:15:08 and read 4432 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 109):
Which makes 80+ takeoffs and landings a year at SFO entirely plausible.

No, not if they are only at 50 hours per month. That's only two SFO roundtrips, or 48 takeoffs/landings per year in the airplane (and I have no idea if the captain flies all takeoffs and landings at NZ longhaul or not).

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-08-04 03:02:38 and read 4113 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 111):
48 takeoffs/landings per year

48+48=96

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-08-04 06:05:04 and read 3970 times.

Quoting YYZatcboy (Reply 104):
I wonder if it would apply to non EU airlines. (for example would a UAL flight follow the FAR approach ban policy or do they have a separate one for Europe?)

Yes, they have to follow the more restrictive of the state limits. AWO operations have a lot of minor differences in limits that can catch people out.

Topic: RE: FAA Advises All Foreign Carriers To Use GPS At SFO
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-08-04 12:22:48 and read 3731 times.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 112):
48+48=96

1 25 hour SFO turn is 1 takeoff and 1 landing (=2).

Per your post that NZ pilots fly 50 hours per month, they are going to SFO twice a month (=4).

There are 12 months in a year (=48).


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/