Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

What your instructor never taught you. Continuing your education and learning from others. Flight safety topics and accident/incident discussions.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Mauler
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9604
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 4:52 pm
Closest Airfield: Vans
Location: Tarlton

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby Mauler » Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:05 pm

tanglefoot wrote:Just for us uninformed types please?

I can't find any reference to G/S? What is it?
...
Thanks Chris: G/S is the ILS glide slope.

Yep. Here is a piece of the IFR chart. The ridge is about 10nm from the threshold of runway 07.

Image
Airwayfreak
Taxiing to Clubhouse
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:56 am
Closest Airfield: FAJS
Location: Johannesburg

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby Airwayfreak » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:18 am

Mauler wrote:They do sometimes come very low, especially in poor weather conditions when they are on a visual approach.


:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Visual approach in poor weather conditions, yeah right !!!

I cannot believe that this is the understanding of how airlines operate.
User avatar
Mike Gough
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 786
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:36 am
Location: home, airport, hotel..

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby Mike Gough » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:28 am

Good grief Chris. You totally ignored what I said, and then admonish me for teaching my students about this and that....

Really.

Reminds me why I don't post that often here. :evil:

In case you genuinely didn't understand, irrespective of whether a visual or IF approach is flown, in airliners we follow the same vertical profile. We don't fly lower because we are visual. We also only do visual approaches when its VMC. That probably contributes in some way to our vastly better safety stats than GA.
User avatar
Mauler
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9604
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 4:52 pm
Closest Airfield: Vans
Location: Tarlton

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby Mauler » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:10 am

Sorry, Mike. But I stand by what I said. I've been a passenger several times as well when there is a bit of cloud about - and it certainly seems to me that the crews will push the limits of the GS a little to stay visual. This has also been the subject of debate.

However, it is not particularly relevant. The area is one where self-important squishy bits in the front of airliners and the squishy less-important bits in light aircraft need to be alert to their close proximities, in weather or in clear.
User avatar
apollo11
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2219
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:59 pm
Closest Airfield: FAGM
Location: JHB

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby apollo11 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:04 pm

I seriously doubt that airline crews will descend below the GS in VMC and especially marginal VMC, as Mike pointed out they fly the required slope no matter and they really do not care about seeing the ground until DH anyhow... so why should they risk colliding with higher terrain? Perhaps to a passenger looking out, it feels like they are lower than they should be but that is most likely pure perception. The airline procedures are pretty rigid, deviating from could result in a loss of career.
Straighten up and fly right!
Perry
flyinghighno2
Cows on Runway - doing go around
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 12:10 pm
Closest Airfield: grand central

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby flyinghighno2 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:17 am

Hee hee just watch Aircraft Investigation
One wonders about some crews ?.?
User avatar
apollo11
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2219
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:59 pm
Closest Airfield: FAGM
Location: JHB

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby apollo11 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:08 am

Sure not all airline pilots are infallible, but in the way main their operations and briefs are geared to low risk.
Straighten up and fly right!
Perry
Airwayfreak
Taxiing to Clubhouse
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:56 am
Closest Airfield: FAJS
Location: Johannesburg

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby Airwayfreak » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:18 am

flyinghighno2 wrote:Hee hee just watch Aircraft Investigation
One wonders about some crews ?.?


So glad South African Airlines come out on top of the pile in terms of South African aviation safety, followed by the SAAF with GA right at the bottom. Makes one think about the levels of training and professionalism.
User avatar
savas
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:18 pm
Closest Airfield: FABB
Location: Benoni

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby savas » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:48 am

Airwayfreak wrote:
flyinghighno2 wrote:Hee hee just watch Aircraft Investigation
One wonders about some crews ?.?


So glad South African Airlines come out on top of the pile in terms of South African aviation safety, followed by the SAAF with GA right at the bottom. Makes one think about the levels of training and professionalism.

Really :lol: not sure about that with SAAF, with weekends SAAF chopper into wires, DAK flying below MSA is a few on top of my mind.
Im not doubting GA stats, but check ur facts carefully
Airwayfreak
Taxiing to Clubhouse
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:56 am
Closest Airfield: FAJS
Location: Johannesburg

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby Airwayfreak » Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:38 am

savas wrote:
Airwayfreak wrote:
flyinghighno2 wrote:Hee hee just watch Aircraft Investigation
One wonders about some crews ?.?


So glad South African Airlines come out on top of the pile in terms of South African aviation safety, followed by the SAAF with GA right at the bottom. Makes one think about the levels of training and professionalism.

Really :lol: not sure about that with SAAF, with weekends SAAF chopper into wires, DAK flying below MSA is a few on top of my mind.
Im not doubting GA stats, but check ur facts carefully


Lets remove airlines from the discussion because we know that the airline safety record in SA is impeccable.

That only leave two sectors of aviation in SA namely military and General aviation. Are you seriously suggesting that the SAAF's safety record is worse or even on par with GA?

I suggest that GA has the worse record by far in terms of aviation safety.
User avatar
V5 - LEO
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3603
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:18 pm
Closest Airfield: FYWH
Location: Namibia

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby V5 - LEO » Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:23 pm

Airwayfreak wrote:I suggest that GA has the worse record by far in terms of aviation safety.


......I would second your sentiments BUT, we would very quickly be told to compare apples with apples and that it must be man in relation to hours flown and what missions and and and.....the sad thing is that the human mind strive on perception and that one incident / accident from a renowned and revered organization such as SAAF will overwhelm the true figures.

...my guess is that GA in relation to pilots vs incidents / accidents is less than the SAAF ( see guess right in the beginning of the sentence)
In God I trust. The masses are never right, the minority are sometimes right, but the truth is always right.
“One good teacher in a lifetime may sometimes change a delinquent into a solid citizen.” — Philip Wylie
User avatar
Deanw
Fife Thousand feet
Fife Thousand feet
Posts: 5477
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:37 pm
Closest Airfield: FACT

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby Deanw » Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:14 pm

What a useless exercise it is to argue the relative safety aspects of civilian vs SAAF!

The SAAF trains as it fights and thus by its very nature the SAAF will fly far more closely to the limits of both aircraft and crew. The average GA pilot should never be playing around at low level or on the minima of weather. For the military, operational demands may require flight in just these scenarios and they train for it. When you operate in those conditions, you're bound to be caught out every now and then.

But comparing the GA safety record to the military safety record is like comparing apples to oranges.
How come every time my ship comes in I'm at the airport?

http://www.SAairforce.co.za
User avatar
Lood
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3857
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 11:45 am

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby Lood » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:19 pm

Airwayfreak wrote:...I suggest that GA has the worse record by far in terms of aviation safety.


Well, I would surely hope so and I have to agree with others, that this is a rather ridiculous comparison to make ...
"An airplane might disappoint any pilot, but it'll never surprise a good one." — Len Morgan
Airwayfreak
Taxiing to Clubhouse
Posts: 427
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:56 am
Closest Airfield: FAJS
Location: Johannesburg

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby Airwayfreak » Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:07 pm

Deanw wrote:What a useless exercise it is to argue the relative safety aspects of civilian vs SAAF! .


Just as well we are all entitled to our opinions. For the record, aviation safety is a direct function of the levels of training pilots receive as well as the degree of sophistication of external resources that are available. Perhaps if you give it some thought in this context you might understand what my point is. Ditto for Lood.
User avatar
Mauler
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9604
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 4:52 pm
Closest Airfield: Vans
Location: Tarlton

Re: Bad Timing - (Low-Level C172 Ruimsig)

Unread postby Mauler » Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:17 pm

apollo11 wrote:I seriously doubt that airline crews will descend below the GS

As I have stated, this subject has been debated ad nauseam years ago.

Airline pilots who fly this approach explained that, even if they are 500ft below the glideslope over the ridge, they are still well within legal limits, which is correct.

We are pleased that Mike and his students can fly the glideslope with zero deviation from that line, but unfortunately not everyone is perfect, not even airline or SAAF pilots. :lol:

There is a legitimate and accepted safety concern about the airspace design in the area which bottlenecks VFR traffic into unacceptably small gaps. As an alternative, it was proposed that VFR routes be established through FALA and FAOR controlled airspaces, which are then at acceptable altitudes and can be easily monitored by ATC for compliance.

The problem stems from the fact that Lanseria developed from being a smallish GA airfield into accommodating larger jets today. Its location is such that the ground rises by 1500ft to the south west and 1000ft to the north east. If it had been planned for heavy aircraft, it may have been designed with the main runway heading turned a few degrees, which would have alleviated the problem considerably. However, this became impractical since there are ground limitations with a steep drop to the Crocodile River on one end and the R512 road on the other, as well as a steepish slope and established buildings etc. This also would further limit the runway length, which is already tightish for B737s and excludes most larger aircraft.

Unfortunately, commercial interests have been catered to to the detriment of VFR traffic in the entire Gauteng area, also creating a bottleneck on the Kyalami Blue Route between the Lanseria, Grand Central and Tambo airspaces. That particular bottleneck is made even more frightening by repositioning flights between those airports crossing the route at right angles - often without making timeous radio calls when crossing between those controlled airspaces.



Return to “Academy & Flight Safety”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Flying Oxwagon, Jacques Le Roux, Judge, N4810Y, Nyx, vgmiles, waynesavy and 1 guest