Quote:
Originally Posted by greglepore
He was flying the RNAV. Not only is it a difficult circling approach but the runway in question is very marginal in length for a 767ER. It was in use due to the crosswinds gusting 30ish across the main runways, but that's within the limits of the 767ER. Pilot flying was likely trying to stick it right on the end of the runway and got a below glideslope.
Agree its almost certainly pilot error, beginning with accepting the runway 29 approach in the first place. Lots of pilots with type experience in that aircraft have commented on social media, for whatever that's worth, that he should have simply said "unable" and used the longer runway with the safer approach
|
It wasn't an ER, it was a 767-400. Reasonably bigger/heavier than a 767ER. He was flying the Stadium Visual RWY 29 approach which has zero VNAV guidance. Assuming that was assigned to them, they should have requested the RNAV W or the RNP Y, both of which almost mirror the Stadium Visual but have LNAV and VNAV guidance but not sure that would have mattered as they still needed to dive down according to the numbers. RWY 29 does not have an ILS. Don't know what their landing weight was but using MAX Auto Brakes and flaps 30, their book landing distance would have been around 6,400 ft and normal landing is flaps 25 and auto brakes 3 which would have been @ 7,400 and the RWY 29 available landing distance on glide path is 5,541 and 6,501 beyond the threshold, so if they ran the numbers, they were definitely trying to get it on the deck quickly. (those numbers are the legal numbers, they can usually be less using pilot techniques like max manual braking etc.