Don Hudson

Donating Member
  • Content count

    5,213
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    121

Don Hudson last won the day on November 22 2017

Don Hudson had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

669 Excellent

6 Followers

About Don Hudson

  • Rank
    7

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,446 profile views
  1. For those who flew the DC8 - TCA, 1964

    You're so welcome Blues - it was such a memory-filled video - had to show it to everyone!
  2. For those who flew the DC8 - TCA, 1964

    All's well indeed Vs. I liked your remarks regarding retirement. There was no choice when I joined in '73, but I signed up for 'age 60' and that was that; - now into my eleventh year and thoroughly enjoying it all. I highly recommend it!
  3. For those who flew the DC8 - TCA, 1964

    Grandbabies keep ya busy!!
  4. . . . or for those who never flew it and want to know what airline flying was like, waayyy back! https://www.nfb.ca/film/jet-pilot/ Now this takes one back . . . With thanks to a colleague for sending this on.
  5. Hi Felix - I've always strongly believed in recommendation 19! The more familiarity with each others' jobs, the better. I've always felt that controllers should get fam rides. I'm not sure whether the regs permit that today but they should. The recommendation regarding communication with the flight is also a good one. From pilots' perspective it permits concentrating on the correct execution of the go-around. SOPs I'm familiar with require a verbal call from the PM, (pilot monitoring) of "positive rate" before the gear can be selected up. If an interruption occurs at that point, then the call may be omitted and the gear left down until the noise level catches the attention of the crew. Once the call for the go-around is made, (normally by the captain), the execution, (performance) of the go-around involves four immediate things: thrust increase, (manual or automatic) to TO/GA setting; pitch change, normally to 15deg up; flap retraction to the go-around setting, (on command of the PF); "positive rate" call followed by gear retraction, (on command of the PF) The pitch and thrust settings vary according to circumstances. A go-around from minimums would follow the above sequence. A go-around from altitude, say near the FAF, would be handled differently - probably lower thrust, lower pitch. (On the Airbus, the thrust levers must be set to "TO/GA" to initiate the go-around mode for the engines and the FMS; they are then brought back either to the Climb detent or operated manually). Some companies are moving beyond the "formula-based" stabilized approach towards the decision-making process expressed in the Report. That means that an approach which might be characterized as unstable-by-snapshot, (going through the red light at the 500ft "gate" for example), ultimately becomes stable when examining the data; - for example when high tailwinds exceeding the certification limits of the aircraft reduce to slight headwinds in the last few hundred feet. If the airport is a high altitude one and it's a hot day, the groundspeed (and energy level of the "mass" on approach) obviously can be very high. But if the crew has knowledge that the wind reduces or turns to a headwind, should a go-around be conducted? I think the 300ft point discussed in the Report helps resolve the decision and a go-around can be executed at that time if the energy level of the aircraft remains too high for a safe landing and stopping. Perhaps the thinking and the SOP could be, "below 1000ft, be prepared to go-around at any time an instability of the approach exceeds the ability of the crew to return to stability, the limit being 300ft which would be the mandatory go-around point if unstable according to the usual targets. If one has good GPS data, one can then reliably set the touchdown point (both longitudinally and laterally), and then determine a required deceleration rate from which a calculation of say, "runway remaining at 70kts" can be made. I know this works; as a variation, one can also determine risk levels if the airplane is above a certain groundspeed with 1000ft remaining, etc., etc.
  6. Hi Felix - yes, I'm really looking forward to a discussion on this. With statistics like those in the article including the low-compliance stats, we have the opportunity to substantially reduce ALA's, (approach-landing accidents). Just to quote the stats being referred to: Re, " Have we been looking in the wrong place all along? " Yes, I think so. I've done flight data work for a long time and that question always nagged me...I saw lots of unstable approaches and uneventful landings and saw some "interesting" outcomes to very pretty right-on-the-numbers approaches. It begged the question: If unstable approaches were a problem, where were the incidents and accidents? So it had to be the wrong metric (the stable-approach standard), and the wrong question to ask. The Report recognizes the very low rate of compliance among professional, highly-qualified, experienced crews. Why is this the case? I think both our own experience, and perhaps the FDA/FDM data may tell us why: 99% of landings were/are successful, with no apparent (to FDA), elevation of risk. So the traditional "mandate" to go-around if unstable falls away to experience of long histories of successful "re-stabilization" of the approach. In short, there isn't a "red light"...it could be the amber light all the way down to 500ft, (and in not-rare cases, lower), and a successful landing is the outcome. That doesn't mean we should downplay the importance of the stabilized approach and the mandated go-around of course. But it's one of the questions that I think is really (really!) worthwhile discussing, mainly because the actual rate of compliance must improve AND the pilots must have reasonable, rational mandates which accommodate an approach which was a mess to begin with but "eventually" became stabilized. That means that the word, "eventually" must be defined, and I think this Report tries to do that. That said, this isn't final and the Report acknowledges that this is an evolving shift in requirements. To me, the most important parts of the Report are the first section which defines the issues, and the last sections where the stabilized approach criteria are redefined with a very rich discussion and points made. I think there are some controversial statements as well, and I think they should be challenged for thought and discussion. Example: To me anyway, the Report is saying that if you're not on the runway by 400m, you should go-around. In my view, except on 5000ft runways and shorter, particularly contaminated runways, a go-around from post-touchdown is a higher risk maneuver for an airline crew than staying on the ground and using heavy braking, but that is just an opinion for discussion and is not based in anything or any data. The proposal is to create a new point at 300ft for the decision-making process. I think the Report explains the rationale quite well but again, discussion is required. As I say, well worth reading, discussing and even studying.
  7. Hi Moon - doing great. lurking and reading - focused on flight data work mainly and grandchildren - two-and-a-half, and 4 months! - delightful. Sending the doc to ops people is great - there's some very valuable information and thinking in the study. There's also some things that I think warrant discussion!
  8. The Flight Safety Foundation has published a 54-page document / study on go-arounds. It's well worth downloading and reading, mostly for pilots but I think many here would find it interesting and educational. Our ATC and F/A members I'm sure would be interested. From the introduction: For those with FDA/FDM/FOQA programs, the study encourages use of data of examine the quality of the go-around for positive feedback to crews when flown well, and for trends where go-around pitch, flap & gear targets show as not quite being met. The Report acknowledges that the go-around itself does carry some risk. Some interesting statements are made in the Report regarding when to go around, and I'll leave it up to others to find them and possibly discuss - there are some points made that will not be uncontroversial in my view. https://flightsafety.org/toolkits-resources/go-around-project-final-report/ - FSF Project website https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Go-around-study_final.pdf - PDF Document
  9. Van Zetter, re: Baro altitude is corrected at the FAF etc, but the air is cold all the way down to the runway. If the airplane doesn't have GPS or temperature-compensating baro-VNAV, then a selected FPA must be steeper because colder-than-standard air reduces the pressure gradient, reducing the change in baro-altitude reading, and the FPA profile thereby ends up being a bit too shallow and a bit high approaching the threshold. If the airplane has the necessary equipment, (position sensing, etc), the calculation is internally correct, and can be flown as a Managed approach, whether flown manually (following the flight directors!), or using auto flight. "Selected" has to be corrected because, as Vsplat has stated a few times, it isn't "anchored".
  10. B.C. has an election coming up. We'll see how our politicians handle this possibility.
  11. Trump Wins

    Jaydee; Wouldn't you agree that there are some circumstances when the rules should be broken? It's not a "simple question" by any means. Trying to jam our response into the George Bush "Either/Or Box" method of debate forestalls thought and response and it is the latter qualities that the U.S. is increasingly in need of at the moment. It is consideration, not he-man macho action that may avoid the approaching Republican cliff. BTW, why would you ever watch CNN? They don't know who they are anymore. Fox/MSNBC are of greater interest! ;-) Re, " So the Republican majority not allowing the truth to be told is 'fake news'? " Yes. The new easy-peasy. When someone doesn't like how something is reported or how it sounds, it's now fake news. QED. Warren was reading into the record the words of MLK's wife. She was stopped by McConnell who said the words were "offensive". She correctly persisted because the words weren't hers as they had already been accepted into the Congressional Record years ago. There was nothing wrong or procedurally incorrect about what she said and was doing, until McConnell and the Republican Party formally silenced the member on the basis of what she was reading was "offensive". Debate is a democratic process. The Republicans do this at their peril, but they are unable to place country before their narrow, power politics. They are aiding and abetting the degradation of the Constitution. It will probably work, until the country is beyond repair. If some want to play the game "What if the Democrats had ______, etc., ask yourself what the Republicans would have done if the Democrats had invoked the same procedure while, say, McConnell was speaking? All hell would break loose, (as it rightly should). She was censored, not censured. But I'm not trying to win an argument; we are well and truly far beyond that - it is awareness and history that are now key elements. This shouldn't be a partisan issue but it is and it is the country and quite possibly the world, not the Democrats who lose. Concerns over the U.S. economy will gradually join other side issues as this President and his senior staff continue to blow up the Constitution, taking the country with them. If we met someone as rash and unstable as this in the cockpit, we'd stop the operation and have the captain replaced. Some members close to the President are now leaking their concerns: Leaks Suggest Trump’s Own Team Is Alarmed By His Conduct. - White House leaks are common, but leakers suggesting the president might be unfit for office are not. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-administration-leaks_us_589a45f1e4b04061313a1fbb, "Meet the men who could topple Donald Trump - The retired generals Mattis and Kelly will stand up to the president if he pushes them too far. Were they to resign, Congress would likely desert him too ": https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/06/general-mattis-kelly-donald-trump This is dangerous stuff and not merely debating points. As I say, what's this going to look like in a month, let alone a year. If he lasts that long. But as we read, to each his own despite mounting evidence to the contrary, until what Elizabeth Warren did is gradually no longer permitted. The silencing of a Senator is an inviting, slippery slope for power-hungry Republicans who know they will get away with it. 2018 is already going to be a watershed, hopefully proving that Aldous Huxley wrong.
  12. Trump Wins

    Yes, Gumbi, really. Spicer steamrolled over media questions as he tried to explain this one, and this was early in his tutelage of the media. He has grown much more hazardous to intellectual health since then; Sean "Stockholm" Spicer. This is what happens when people ride off in all directions with half-truths, lies, minds disconnected from reality and an unconscionable presidential edict telling government officials of all levels that all Muslims are now officially dangerous. You just never know what your people will do when you have given them permission to believe that racist behaviour is the new "security level". Unbelievable. Or is it? What's this going to look like in a month?
  13. Canada is not the only country which sees the new opportunities for enticing skilled, technical, engineering and science personnel...
  14. Trump Wins

    Hi Airband; First, please don't labour any further under the impression that I am an uncritical Obama fan - I am not, nor am I a Clinton fan as my contributions to these discussions since early last year testify. That said, it appears to me that the major difference between the DACA Program and what the current President has tried to do is in Obama's case, to keep families together while their status gets sorted out, and in the current President's case, to prevent certain religious or racial groups from entering the United States under the historical "America First" policy; (such springboard policies come and go, calling as they do on isolationism, nationalism, & populism. This one too, will go eventually go away when the extensive damage done by turning even further inwards is recognized by the electorate). I'm in no position to re-litigate the merits of either executive action. The courts slapped Obama's actions down with reasons. As the article you've provided a link to, (Politico.com...good/reliable news source as are these news outlets) states, one section of Obama's E.O. was not legal in the eyes of the Justice Department. From the first page of the Memorandum, the DOJ rules: And in summary: This is a very great distance from what the current President has proposed in his "Ban" E.O., and the DOJ is once again doing its job. To provide some context to this response, below I quote some parts of the article to which you provided the link above. But really, it is a stretch to compare the two presidents, isn't it? More to the point, what does stating that Obama (and previous presidents) tried the same thing mean? That somehow the current President has been treated unfairly? I don't think so at all and clearly, millions don't think so either. As the current President is discovering, his hero Alexander Hamilton's impatient utterance that, "...the people is a great beast", is once again proving true. The mess that is the current White House seems to be grounded in behaviours and actions and not words. In fact many are now picking up on that theme. Judging someone by words is a superficiality; judging them by their behaviours and their deeds is far more legitimate. The tweet-a-rama that is the President shows no signs of new learning, nor does the puppeteer. Ideology sustains one's political legitimacy and power only so long before day-to-day realities of governing set in and thwart even the most talented and gifted Caesars.
  15. Trump Wins

    Airband, thanks for the links; reading.