Don Hudson

Donating Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Don Hudson last won the day on November 11 2016

Don Hudson had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

664 Excellent


About Don Hudson

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,330 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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" 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.
  3. 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!
  4. 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. - FSF Project website - PDF Document
  5. 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".
  6. B.C. has an election coming up. We'll see how our politicians handle this possibility.
  7. 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., "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 ": 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.
  8. 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?
  9. Canada is not the only country which sees the new opportunities for enticing skilled, technical, engineering and science personnel...
  10. 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, ( 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.
  11. Trump Wins

    Airband, thanks for the links; reading.
  12. Trump Wins

    Airband; I have read in numerous sources that the two E.O's were materially different and that the processes were qualitatively different. Most concur with the opinion that the Trump E.O. was wrongly conceived, badly executed, done in secret without coordination or communication with those responsible for enacting the order, no staff were made aware, and there was the likelihood that the E.O. unconstitutional. That is cause to stay the process while it is examined. These are career people, not partisan appointees doing this work. They know their stuff. The willingness of the Trump administration to engender mistrust in long-standing, proven democratic institutions, (no matter what country), is a warning that should elicite heightened attention. As far as I am aware, the Justice Department had no cause to respond to or comment upon the Obama E.O.s. Let me know if there were any and I'll be happy to modify the post.
  13. Trump Wins

    Good question in one context, irrelevant in another. The tussle between traditional "progressive" notions and the current dose of strong rightist notions show the weaknesses of both, and the dysfunction of any lack of cooperation and compromise. Sometimes things have to go to their bookends before it is realized that both arenas, so to speak, have something to offer the human condition, which a radical hardness cannot. History tells us that this has to run its course. Who knows what this course will be. I'm not an adherent to the notion that we are actually moving towards "fascism" even as some saw these signs during the second Nixon term and we certainly have that fetid scent in the air from some of the individual actions, commentary and silly pouty tweets over the past two-and-a-bit-weeks of this president's administration. No nations are immune to such descents into fascism (or communism), if the signs are ignored and the institutions that guard democracy are permitted to disappear. The signs are there but I think they only look like "fascism" - they're really just the way he used to be a CEO. Nevertheless, I think it is unwise to dismiss out of hand such visions from those who actually lived a real rise of fascism until we know where this Trump presidency is going to take the nation. I think Bannon-Trump will take absolutely everything they can wherever weakness, lack of unity or inattention exists and what was once private behaviour will become an attractive way to run the country. None of us are in a position to pre-suppose or deny such a potential at this point in time. The increasingly-visible strings from above/behind Trump are worrisome. I think it is encouraging that the courts have stood their ground and I hope they continue to do so. His outbursts are probably nothing more than how he reacted when in the same circumstances of the courts thwarting his business plans. If his presidency is to survive, let alone remain intact, the inexperience as a public servant and not a CEO accustomed to ordering people around must give way to normal legislative procedures. If he wants to enact his agenda legally and intelligently, he must accept that the limitations he is experiencing are not for him, they are for all presidents. As DEFCON has suggested, the President's team should get their act together, stop doing things in a rush and in secret, and craft an immigration legislation which is then suitably presented to Congress where the Republicans with their majority can extremely-vett their law and then put their hand and signature on Mr. Trump's "immigration" plan. Let it survive not on the merits of one man, but on the process with which every previous President has had to come to terms. The courts don't make policy, but they do make sure that due process is adhered to in times of very high stress, emotion and confusion in the White House. This check on Presidential powers must remain strong. If so, perhaps this President may even survive his own actions and words in his first year in office. If not, and the Judiciary branch of government is ignored then eunuched, that would be a sign that fascism is not just a distant stockyard stench.
  14. Trump Wins

    The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor Meanwhile in Canada … Things Are Just as Bad TORONTO — When Justin Trudeau was elected prime minister of Canada — with a majority Liberal government, no less — it marked the hopeful end of nearly a decade of Conservative rule. “Sunny ways,” Mr. Trudeau said in his acceptance speech. “This is what positive politics can do.” His victory received fawning international coverage: The son of another popular prime minister, and conventionally good-looking, he managed to say all the right things about climate change and feminism. Remember when he achieved gender parity with his cabinet appointments? Swoon. The stereotype, inside and outside of Canada, is that Canadians are so polite and accepting that nothing like the bitter populism of Donald J. Trump could ever flourish here. Canadians say “sorry” all the time, but we say it “soary,” and we are happy to pay for our neighbor’s health insurance through higher taxes. We even add an extra “u” in neighbor. Canadians just are that generous. This impression is so widely accepted that the Canadian immigration website crashed in the hours after America’s presidential election, thanks to a fivefold spike in the number of visitors. But the belief that Canada is a liberal utopia holds only if you have no concept of Canadian history and little knowledge of current events, and only if you walk through its cities and towns without speaking to anyone who isn’t white, middle class or male. On Jan. 29, six people were killed in a Quebec City mosque by a gunman. The suspect’s social media use suggests support for white supremacist ideas and the Trump movement. That event, though jarring and terrifying, was neither new nor unpredictable, especially for Canada’s Muslim citizens. The idea that Canada is a safe space is a lie — and an easy one to catch for anyone who has actually lived here as part of a minority group and watched how the country chooses to forget about you. At least Mr. Trump’s presidency will rip that falsehood open. Canada has two Trump-like candidates running for the federal Conservative leadership on platforms very similar to those that have nudged the United States and parts of Europe into the embrace of white nationalism. After the American election, a member of Parliament named Kellie Leitch sent out an email blast calling Mr. Trump’s win “an exciting message and one that we need delivered in Canada as well.” Before this, she attempted to establish a tip line for “barbaric cultural practices,” a blatant attempt to curry favor with racists and Islamophobes under the guise of protecting women and children. Ads for Ms. Leitch run on our version of Breitbart, the adorably named The Rebel, a site that traffics in hate speech. Earlier this week, The Rebel wondered if the Quebec City shooter was actually a Muslim extremist rather than a white nationalist. Meanwhile, Kevin O’Leary, a fame-hungry “Shark Tank” judge who has been living in Boston and refers to himself as “Mr. Wonderful,” is the latest to announce he’s running for the Conservative leadership. He has also argued that the 85 wealthiest people in the world having as much money as the 3.5 billion poorest is a good thing. “It inspires everybody to get some motivation,” he said. “Of course I applaud it.” Finally, a reality show narcissist with too much money and zero government experience of our very own! And then there’s Mr. Trudeau himself, a colossal disappointment for liberals and conservatives alike, despite his Superman-style coiffure. He has made no attempt to publicly condemn Mr. Trump’s race-baiting and politics of fear, presumably because he’d worry that calling your largest trade partner a racist would hurt the aforementioned trade. In November, our eco-friendly prime minister approved the expansion of the Kinder Morgan Trans-Atlantic pipeline, a big step backward for the environment. Worse, last month he shouted down activists who were protesting the pipeline development. He was upset that they were interrupting him; they were upset that indigenous people across Canada continue to live in third-world conditions. As Toronto’s crack-smoking former mayor Rob Ford once said, “Everything is fine.” This wave of political reaction is nothing new. Toronto has a history of police performing street-checks on black men at far higher rates than they do on white men. Quebec in particular has a lamentable record of anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies. In 2013, the province proposed banning the wearing of religious symbols — namely, hijabs, turbans, kippas and niqabs — by people who work in the public sector. In September, the University of Alberta was plastered with posters that read “[Expletive] Your Turban.” On criminal justice, as well, Canada is hardly a progressive champion. In Ontario, Adam Capay, a 24-year-old First Nations man, has been kept in solitary confinement for the last four years. Charged with killing a fellow inmate in a prison altercation, he has still not gone to trial. Comparing Canada with the United States is reasonable — we’re close enough, and share a similar history and geography — but suggesting that Canada has figured something out that other nations haven’t is not. True, everything the United States does is louder than in Canada: America’s food is radioactive, its television is more aggressive (and, well, objectively better), so it makes sense that America’s politics are more overtly noxious. But that hardly makes Canada a refuge. There’s a meme circulating on Twitter and Facebook that you see more than ever now that people are arguing that Canada’s politics are such a stark contrast to America’s. It involves posting a link to a goofy Canadian story — often involving a moose, why not? — with accompanying text that reads, “Meanwhile in Canada.” While America burns, Canadians calmly shovel their driveways and buy bagged milk for their kids. It’s like being considered the gentler, kinder sibling. In reality, we’re just more passive-aggressive, too frightened to acknowledge how we fail our citizens day after day. There is no Canadian exceptionalism. What’s happening here now has been happening for decades: Bias and discrimination are rooted in our history and government. All that’s true about America’s broken system is true, too, of Canada’s. The only real difference is the illusion that Canada is intrinsically better. America has elected a dangerous demagogue to its highest office. In Canada, we’re just one election away from falling into the same trap.
  15. Trump Wins

    Hi DEFCON; In employing the "reflection in a mirror" metaphor are you thinking of Trump's statement comparing the U.S. with Russia that the United States is "not so innocent"?, (compared to Russia) ed to add: Re your comment, "The Whitehouse ought...", etc., the Wall Street Journal concurs, with qualifications: And as we all knew, they're finally encountering reality: