All 9 aboard U.S. Navy plane that overshot runway escape injury, Hawaii official says
- Thread starter GON
- Start date
The new Hunt for Red October is going to be awesome!
If it’s pilot error I’d imagine they won’t be flying for awhile and be transferred elsewhere assuming it’s not due to gross negligence, if something broke I’d imagine they’d be “in the clear” and continue flying.
Glad no one killed but attrition of aircraft/accidents seems to be almost expected for all the branches.
This plane, an osprey near Japan recently and month ago a Blackhawk sadly killing all crew members. They all strive but must train.
This plane, an osprey near Japan recently and month ago a Blackhawk sadly killing all crew members. They all strive but must train.
What exactly is an "Unstable approach"? Is it one particular parameter or one of or a combination of many?
Stable is roughly defined as:
1. fully configured
2. within +10/-5 knots of target airspeed
3. on lateral course/runway aligned (within one dot localizer)
4. on vertical path +/- one dot on glideslope
5. normal descent rate (within +/- 300 feet/minute of rate to maintain vertical path -not to exceed 1,200 feet/minute)
6. engines spooled up to approach idle or better.
It is listed in the documents I linked. Any one parameter exceedence = unstable.
The goal is to be stable by 1,000, you must be stable by 500 or a go around should be performed.
Last edited:
Gotcha, thank you.
It's now out of the water:
Isnt this a P-8A Poseidon?
Rare and extremely expensive?
Also not sure how relevant this is, but the month prior the Navy was celebrating this crew for being all-female in its blog posts.
Rare and extremely expensive?
Also not sure how relevant this is, but the month prior the Navy was celebrating this crew for being all-female in its blog posts.
Yes, it’s a P-8A Poseidon.
And appropriately named as Poseidon is The King of the Seas. Literally, in the above picture.
Rare? Well, it’s a very specialized version of the 737-8 that has been modified to meet the Navy’s requirements for an anti-submarine aircraft.
There are roughly 158 in service currently, most of which are with the USN, but other nations including Australia, India, Norway, Germany and a couple of others are deploying them for ASW work.
Extremely expensive? Well, it is a government contract, so get real! I’m guessing about $175 million per aircraft.
And lastly, in terms of an all female crew, any relevance would have to take into consideration the number of times an all male crew landed long, potentially with a tailwind component, then tried to stop on a dime versus going around and/or diverting to another suitable airport.
I don’t use any sports betting apps but if I did, I’d be willing to bet that the number of times this happened to “cockpit crews” versus “box office” crews is probably in the neighborhood of 97 to 1.
And appropriately named as Poseidon is The King of the Seas. Literally, in the above picture.
Rare? Well, it’s a very specialized version of the 737-8 that has been modified to meet the Navy’s requirements for an anti-submarine aircraft.
There are roughly 158 in service currently, most of which are with the USN, but other nations including Australia, India, Norway, Germany and a couple of others are deploying them for ASW work.
Extremely expensive? Well, it is a government contract, so get real! I’m guessing about $175 million per aircraft.
And lastly, in terms of an all female crew, any relevance would have to take into consideration the number of times an all male crew landed long, potentially with a tailwind component, then tried to stop on a dime versus going around and/or diverting to another suitable airport.
I don’t use any sports betting apps but if I did, I’d be willing to bet that the number of times this happened to “cockpit crews” versus “box office” crews is probably in the neighborhood of 97 to 1.
Bad analogy. You would have to use the rate of bad landings to total landings. One bad landing by an all female crew could skew the rate to 1000 times the rate of an all male crew because of the relative low total number of landings by females.
It may not be 1000 times, but I'll bet the rate is a large multiple. That being said, I have seen no information that indicates this crew wasn't fully qualified and that this landing was no more than an anomaly.
It may not be 1000 times, but I'll bet the rate is a large multiple. That being said, I have seen no information that indicates this crew wasn't fully qualified and that this landing was no more than an anomaly.
I’m quite certain that rumor mongering is not relevant. The “All Female Crew“ rumor is unsupported.
Yes, a different squadron flew a mission with an all female crew the month prior.
A different squadron.
So, there is no evidence of any kind, yet, to support that this crew was either male, or female, exclusively.
By the way, here is how well an all-male USAF crew did when taking off in an AWACS. A much more expensive airplane. Nothing wrong with the jet, the pilot in command aborted a take off above V1, couldn’t stop, and wrecked the airplane. 100% pilot error.
Bad decisions in the cockpit don’t belong to just one gender.
That'll buff out.
Ouch. Have you ever been in a situation where you were forced to continue takeoff while experiencing some sort of systems failure? Having to continue after having some sort of engine fire/failure must be really unpleasant.
I’ve not had to reject, or continue, a takeoff as a result of a major malfunction, in actual operations.
Hundreds of training events in the simulator, of course. Some problems have happened in flight. Mentioned a few in my F-14 thread.
But the takeoff performance calculation, from which derive our V speeds, makes the decision relatively clear. V1 is takeoff decision speed. It’s a go/stop decision point. V2 is takeoff safety speed (the speed we maintain after liftoff in the event of an engine failure).
The takeoff decision process looks like this:
Below 100 knots, reject for system failures, like a hydraulic loss (but not for minor annoyances, like a low hydraulic reservoir quantity, which can be addressed airborne).
Above 100 knots, but below V1, reject only for a fire, engine failure, windshear, or a condition which makes the airplane unsafe/unable to fly (a runway incursion would be included in this).
Above V1 - you go. There is no assurance that you can stop on the runway above V1.
Lose both engines to a flock of seagulls, well, best you can do is try and stop, but a catastrophic failure of just one engine at that speed or faster = take it airborne.
Last edited: