Re: Go-Around Limitations?
stephen phillips (s.phillips_at_cowan.edu.au)
Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:46:40 +0800
Keith Hendy wrote:
>
> RE>>Go-Around Limitations? 8/20/97
>
> If that is the 747 pic can anyone vouch for it's authenticity :-) ?
>
> Keith Hendy
>
> DCIEM, North York, ON
> Canada
>
> --------------------------------------
> Date: 8/20/97 10:19 AM
> To: Keith Hendy
> From: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
> Received: by gatormail with SMTP;20 Aug 1997 10:17:11 U
> Received: (from majordom_at_localhost) by smtp.db.erau.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) id
> KAA25861 for crm-devel-outgoing; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:06:39 -0400
> X-Authentication-Warning: smtp.db.erau.edu: majordom set sender to
> owner-crm-devel using -f
> Received: from TheWall.navcanada.ca (nc.navcanada.ca [207.216.54.65]) by
> smtp.db.erau.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA25857 for
> <crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu>; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:06:34 -0400
> Received: from gatewaysrv.navcanada.ca (gatewaysrv.navcanada.ca
> [172.20.7.142])
> by TheWall with SMTP (DuhMail/3.0)
> id KAA28891; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:00:14 -0400
> Received: by gatewaysrv.navcanada.ca with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server
> Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63)
> id <01BCAD50.C83EA970_at_gatewaysrv.navcanada.ca>; Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:06:52
> -0400
> Message-ID:
> <c=CA%a=_%p=NAVCANADA%l=NAVCANADA/NCR/0009B463_at_gatewaysrv.navcanada.ca>
> From: "Breen, John" <IMCEAMS-TRANSPORT_WESTHQ1_BREENJO_at_NAVCANADA.CA>
> To: "crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu" <crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu>
> Subject: RE: Go-Around Limitations?
> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 10:07:06 -0400
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version
> 4.0.994.63
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Sender: owner-crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
> X-Organization: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
> X-List: CRM Development List
> X-Listserver: Majordomo 1.93
>
> Good Morning Gang:
> Through the CRMDEEN posting, I was reminded of a photo I had been shown
> in the spring.
> When I learned to fly, one of my best instructors told me to remember:
> "There ain't no landing worth saving." - a rule I've kept stored in my
> instant recall file for those days when things aren't as pretty as they
> should be. The photo came to me some twenty years after that instructor
> gave me that useful warning.
> Have a look at http://visualatours.com/cail/45degree.htm
> This one photo sure brings it home for me.
>
> Still having fun...
>
> John G Breen
> NAV CANADA
> ATS-Team Resource Management
> >----------
> >From: CRMDEEN_at_aol.com[SMTP:CRMDEEN_at_aol.com]
> >Sent: August 19, 1997 11:43 AM
> >To: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
> >Subject: Go-Around Limitations?
> >
> >Hi gang,
> > Yesterday in a CRM refresher class I was asking the students why a
> >co-pilot would not tell the other pilot to go-around from a poor final
> >approach. One of the answers I got was "we are allowed only one go-around."
> >
> > Explanation: When a pilot is receiving a flight check, he is allowed
> >to take himself around on the first attempt at landing. If his second
> >attempt at landing results in a go-around, he fails the landing skill portion
> >of the evaluation.
> > How many "go-arounds" do the flying organizations on this net allow?
> > Is this really a hidden signal to the pilots? Should this really be the
> >excuse for allowing a poor final approach to continue through to a failed
> >landing?
> > Tell me it ain't so!
> >
> >Greg Deen
> >HTI
> >
Keith,
my system would not pick up the image refered to
however, if it shows a 747 at an unusual angle some way down the runway
at a large airport then it is authentic. the frightening part is that
the PIC elected to continue and flew the next sector before the aircraft
was checked?????
Steve Phillips