Air Berlin Pilot buzzes Tower

martinsvi

Negative_G wrote: »

Your rather dramatic recount of events is not what I would call a "more modern way of navigating".

my what now? that's not even a sentence!

Negative_G wrote: »

The entire procedure could've been flown aided by the flight directer. Computers don't have a mind of their own, they operate within specific parameter's. Basic tech type will tell you that. Unless of course you haven't done tech type on that aircraft.

buddy, I have 10 years and a degree behind me in software engineering, trust me when I tell you I know how computers work. It takes one know-it-all in front of a pc to make the entire organization lose their infrastructure in a matter of minutes. But we're not talking about computers here. We're talking about that 777 incident in SFO where the captain thought he had it but he didn't. We're talking about the Air France demo flight that ended up in the trees.. and the Lufthansa A320 in the stormy day that clipped the wing simply because of undocumented feature

Negative_G wrote: »

I'm not taking a stab at someone who had completed ATPL's. Sitting the ATPL exams is one thing. Having real life operational experience is another. Perhaps when you have the latter you may change your outlook a little.

yeah no mate, you're all cool, like in that statement alone not a tiny hint of a w@nkery

Irish Steve

Cool it. We really don't need handbags swinging over a missed approach procedure that had clearly been planned, discussed, talked about and everyone that needed to know about it did.

It wasn't dangerous, or even close to the limits of the airframe envelope, even more so given that this was the end of the flight, so the aircraft was light and well able to cope with a lot more than it was asked to

Skerries

will somebody not think of the 20 minutes!!!!

smurfjed

@martinsvi, I'm curious, where are you getting the 400 foot rule from?

smurfjed

This is the missed approach that Negative_G was talking about, it leads you into going over the airport and the town at 500 feet, certainly not my favourite missed approach.

Negative_G

smurfjed wrote: »

This is the missed approach that Negative_G was talking about, it leads you into going over the airport and the town at 500 feet, certainly not my favourite missed approach.

You can say that again.

Flying it on raw data is eventful!

martinsvi

smurfjed wrote: »

@martinsvi, I'm curious, where are you getting the 400 foot rule from?

JAR–OPS 1.495 or as it is now called - CAT.POL.A.210 Take-off obstacle clearance:

(2) Track changes shall not be allowed up to the point at which the net take-off
flight path has achieved a height equal to one half the wingspan but not less
than 50 ft above the elevation of the end of the TORA. Thereafter, up to a
height of 400 ft it is assumed that the aeroplane is banked by no more than
15°. Above 400 ft height bank angles greater than 15°, but not more than
25° may be scheduled.

smurfjed

@martinsvi.... thanks for digging that out, it wouldn't apply to a missed approach.

martinsvi

smurfjed wrote: »

@martinsvi.... thanks for digging that out, it wouldn't apply to a missed approach.

you're right. Had to dig out the ICAO Doc 8168: PANS-OPS for this one, couple of relevant points there:

6.3.2 The intermediate missed approach track may be changed by a maximum of 15° from that of the initial
missed approach phase.

6.4.4 Turn parameters
The following parameters are specific to turning missed approaches:
a) bank angle: 15° average achieved;

faoiarvok

martinsvi wrote: »

you're right. Had to dig out the ICAO Doc 8168: PANS-OPS for this one, couple of relevant points there: ...

Not a pilot and genuinely don't know the answers to these questions:

Do these procedures apply to visual approaches or only instrument ones?
If the pilot did not intend to land on this occasion, is it still a missed approach?

smurfjed

Do these procedures apply to visual approaches or only instrument ones?

Excellent question, PAN OPS and/or TERPS only apply to instrument approaches. The crew can call visual and all of these requirements no longer apply.
@martinsvi, 8168 is for instrument procedures, JAR25 is for aircraft design procedures, OM-A (AOM) will have the airline requirements, the fun part is that sometimes none of these coincide with each other. For example an instrument departure begins at 394 feet, under part 25, the minimum acceleration height is 400 feet, but some OM-A's may only permit a turn above 500 feet.
I would be very surprised if the German authorities found fault with these crew, but if they do, then it will be media driven rather than airmanship.

martinsvi

faoiarvok wrote: »

Not a pilot and genuinely don't know the answers to these questions:

Do these procedures apply to visual approaches or only instrument ones?
If the pilot did not intend to land on this occasion, is it still a missed approach?

generally the term "missed approach" applies to instrument approaches. VFR fliers use a "go-around". In either case pilot should fly the runway heading until a safe altitude is obtained.

If the pilot did not intend to land, he has no business being below 500ft

martinsvi

smurfjed wrote: »

Excellent question, PAN OPS and/or TERPS only apply to instrument approaches. The crew can call visual and all of these requirements no longer apply.
@martinsvi, 8168 is for instrument procedures, JAR25 is for aircraft design procedures, OM-A (AOM) will have the airline requirements, the fun part is that sometimes none of these coincide with each other. For example an instrument departure begins at 394 feet, under part 25, the minimum acceleration height is 400 feet, but some OM-A's may only permit a turn above 500 feet.
I would be very surprised if the German authorities found fault with these crew, but if they do, then it will be media driven rather than airmanship.

either way, the airline, albeit bankrupt, was not impressed and suspended pilots, which kind of indicates that some SOPs might have been broken. If you break SOPs that might in return trigger the authorities. Could go either way really, personally I don't blame them, I just think that it is virtually impossible to cover your butt legally and fully when doing a stunt like this. Even if no law or regulation was broken I think the authorities might still exercise their own "judgement"

goingnowhere

Pilots cleared of any wrong doing by the authorities