Melbourne FL airport -- approach

[Tim923]

I don't have an aviation background but was just curious. It seemed
that during the approach into Melbourne, FL we were relatively quite
low to the ground/water (as compared to other airports). Do planes
fly low into Melbourne?

[Jim Macklin]

Airline or large or turbojet aircraft that are required to
fly at an altitude that is 1500 feet above the runway,
unless a lower altitude is required. Furthermore, if the
runway has an ILS or VASI system, the pilot is required to
use the glide slope.

If you were in a general aviation, non-turbojet aircraft
smaller than 12,500 pounds, the pilot is required only to
fly at a safe altitude. Over water obstacle clearance is
not a big problem and simply avoiding boats by 500 feet is
all that is required.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Tim923" > wrote in message
...
|I don't have an aviation background but was just curious.
It seemed
| that during the approach into Melbourne, FL we were
relatively quite
| low to the ground/water (as compared to other airports).
Do planes
| fly low into Melbourne?

[Peter Duniho]

"Tim923" > wrote in message
...
>I don't have an aviation background but was just curious. It seemed
> that during the approach into Melbourne, FL we were relatively quite
> low to the ground/water (as compared to other airports). Do planes
> fly low into Melbourne?

How did you measure you height above the water? How did you measure your
distance from the runway threshold?

Assuming you used reliable means to make those two measurements, you can
easily calculate the flight path angle remaining to the runway and compare
it to the usual glideslope used (typically 3 degrees, but it does vary a
little from one airport to another).

Until you have a documented discrepancy, it seems to me it's a bit premature
to ask whether planes typically fly low into Melbourne.

For what it's worth, the ILS glideslope at Melbourne is 2.8 degrees. At a
distance of 1 nautical mile from the runway threshold, this translates into
a height above the ground that is 21 feet lower than what one would find
using the standard 3 degree glideslope. A passenger inside an airliner
would not be able to notice this small a difference.

Of course, the ILS glideslope is relevant only when it's actually being used
for landing guidance, which is not true in every landing situation anyway.

The airplane in which you were riding may or may not have been lower than
normal. But "normal" at KMLB isn't significantly different from "normal" at
any other commercial airport.

Pete

[Tim923]

It was a Delta commerical flight. Looking out the window, it appeared
that we were so close to the ocean we were going to hit it before we
circled around to land on the runway.

So, I was curious whether it was just error in perception, or if we
really were close to the ground/water. Melbourne is near the ocean,
and there are hardly any tall buildings in the area. The approach was
a loop or circle over the ocean and bay to the runway.

Just curious.

[Peter Duniho]

"Tim923" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> So, I was curious whether it was just error in perception, or if we
> really were close to the ground/water. Melbourne is near the ocean,
> and there are hardly any tall buildings in the area. The approach was
> a loop or circle over the ocean and bay to the runway.

Especially if you were not on final approach, then I assure you any
perception that you "were so close to the ocean [you] were going to hit it"
was incorrect. As Jim points out, minimum altitudes prior to commencement
of the final approach are on the order of a thousand feet above the ground
or more. For example, at KMLB depending on the particular approach being
used, minimum altitudes are 1600, 1700, or 2000 feet for landings to the
west (runways 27L and 27R).

I suspect that a combination of very clear weather and particular water
conditions (higher, wide-spaced waves) may have led you to believe you were
much closer to the ground than you actually were.

I cannot rule out 100% that the airplane in which you were riding nearly
crashed, but that's only because I wasn't there and have no access to any
specific records regarding the flight. Even without that information, the
likelihood that the situation was as you perceived it to be is exceedingly
small (to the point of irrelevance).

Pete

[Tim923]

Thanks for responses.

It was a very clear day. I just had trouble judging the distance and
speed over the ocean as a non-pilot/aviation-layman. I'm sure we were
at a safe height and I've learned not to trust those perceptions and
didn't worry.

It surprised me how slow planes appear to land and takeoff from a
distance. It looks like about 15-30mph, just barely moving along, but
I know it's much faster.

[Peter Duniho]

"Tim923" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> It surprised me how slow planes appear to land and takeoff from a
> distance. It looks like about 15-30mph, just barely moving along, but
> I know it's much faster.

Yup. Something that might be helpful to know is that your brain perceives
the speed of a moving object as relative to the size of the object. At a
given speed, a smaller object traverses a distance equal to its length more
quickly than a larger object does. So, at a given speed, your brain will
perceive the smaller object as being faster than the larger object.
Conversely, larger objects appear to be going more slowly.

In spite of knowing of this illusion, one of my favorite things is to watch
especially large airplanes (747 and larger) on final approach. I just love
watching how they seem to just hang in the air in such an improbable way.

Pete

[Jim Macklin]

Over clear water that does not have a strong wave pattern
and or solid objects on the surface [boats] or near the
shore line, all pilots have trouble judging altitude.
Seaplane pilots are taught to do a "glassy water" landing
when the surface is ripple free by setting up a landing
attitude and speed over the shore or near boats and then
doing a slow let down under power rather than trying to do a
"normal" landing and flare.

From a porthole window on an airliner, over the ocean,
judging altitude would be very difficult.

Instrument approach procedures for a circling approach
establish minimum circling altitudes so many feet above
known obstacles within an area. The faster the airplane,
the higher the approach category [A,B,C,D and E] and the
larger the turn radius. But if there are no obstacles
within the quadrant in which the airplane is circling to
land, the altitude can be quite low. Many airlines will not
do a circling approach at night, some won't do them at all.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Tim923" > wrote in message
...
| Thanks for responses.
|
| It was a very clear day. I just had trouble judging the
distance and
| speed over the ocean as a non-pilot/aviation-layman. I'm
sure we were
| at a safe height and I've learned not to trust those
perceptions and
| didn't worry.
|
| It surprised me how slow planes appear to land and takeoff
from a
| distance. It looks like about 15-30mph, just barely
moving along, but
| I know it's much faster.

[Brien K. Meehan]

Tim, this is an excellent observation!

Every pilot is trained on how to deal with a number of common optical
illusions. Flying over water is one of them - it's often quite
difficult to tell how high you are over it, and you are often "tricked"
into thinking that you're lower.

Floatplane pilots account for this effect by keeping the aircraft in a
landing attitude (nose-up) from their approach until they reach the
surface (search for "glassy water" and you'll see). Land-based
airplane pilots use the same technique when performing an emergency
landing in the water.

Your plane wasn't landing in the water, but you caught one of the
optical illusions!

[muff528]

During our training as skydivers we are instructed to release our
canopy from the harness only after entering the water if we are
making a water landing precisely because of this optical illusion.
(rather than cutting away and dropping into the water. We would
release the canopy to avoid becoming entangled in the suspension
lines.) The ocean pretty much looks the same from 10 ft. as it does from
much higher. I suppose it's got something to do with "fractals" and
such.

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Tim, this is an excellent observation!
>
> Every pilot is trained on how to deal with a number of common optical
> illusions. Flying over water is one of them - it's often quite
> difficult to tell how high you are over it, and you are often "tricked"
> into thinking that you're lower.
>
> Floatplane pilots account for this effect by keeping the aircraft in a
> landing attitude (nose-up) from their approach until they reach the
> surface (search for "glassy water" and you'll see). Land-based
> airplane pilots use the same technique when performing an emergency
> landing in the water.
>
> Your plane wasn't landing in the water, but you caught one of the
> optical illusions!
>

[Tim923]

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote:
>Every pilot is trained on how to deal with a number of common optical
>illusions.

What are some other aviation optical illusions?

[George Patterson]

Tim923 wrote:

> What are some other aviation optical illusions?

Here's a couple --

There's a phenomenon at night called the "black hole" approach. If all you can
see are the runway lights, it appears that you're higher than you actually are.

Distant lights on the ground often create a "false horizon" at night.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[John Gaquin]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:kFotf.2261$uv.1145@trnddc06...
>
> There's a phenomenon at night called the "black hole" approach. If all you
> can see are the runway lights, it appears that you're higher than you
> actually are.

And this runway foreshortening can be severly accentuated by rain on the
windshield. (ref PanAm at Pago Pago)

[Jay Beckman]

"Tim923" > wrote in message
...
> "Brien K. Meehan" wrote:
>>Every pilot is trained on how to deal with a number of common optical
>>illusions.
>
> What are some other aviation optical illusions?

- Runway Width
- Runway / Terrain Slope
- Distance / Depth Perception due to haze, fog or rain
- Black Hole
- Featurless Terrain
- False Horizon
- Ground Light Patterns
- Autokenesis

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
AZ Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

[Jim Macklin]

Sloped runways, black hole and white out.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Tim923" > wrote in message
...
| "Brien K. Meehan" wrote:
| >Every pilot is trained on how to deal with a number of
common optical
| >illusions.
|
| What are some other aviation optical illusions?

[Grumman-581]

"George Patterson" wrote in message news:kFotf.2261$uv.1145@trnddc06...
> Distant lights on the ground often create a "false horizon" at night.

I was flying back to Houston from Oshkosh a few years ago... I was somewhere
over Arkansas at the time... The lights on the ground gave me the impression
that there might be mountains around there... I was on flight following at
the time, so I asked what the maximum height of the Ozarks were around
there... The controller informed me that I was nowhere near the Ozarks and
there was no mountains that would be at my altitude... Very strange visual
effect...

[Jim Macklin]

On more than one occasion, on a moonless night, over
sparsely populated areas, with lots of stars in the sky and
a similar number of lights on the ground, with those lights
reflecting on the windshield, you can lose all visual sense
of right side up unless you fly by the instruments. This
was a real problem on night coming out eastbound from Denver
Stapleton (long time ago, single pilot demo flight in a
pre-84 P68 Baron). It was totally clear, visibility was
over 100 miles and even though I was IFR, I was being given
traffic at all altitudes, some was participating, some had
transponders and encoding, some didn't. I tried to hand fly
the departure for about 3 or 4 minutes. It was very
difficult, since ATC was forcing me to look outside and
there was nothing outside to see but aircraft lights above,
below and level, all moving. Finally learned to turn the
autopilot ON and let it do the flying while I looked 90% of
the time for the traffic, and monitored the AP with quick
glances.

You get the same loss of visual reference over water with
just a few stars and boats on the water. [JFKjr may have had
this problem]

There is at least one area in NW Arkansas that has a radio
warning about rising terrain.


--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin
"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message ...
| "George Patterson" wrote in message
news:kFotf.2261$uv.1145@trnddc06...
| > Distant lights on the ground often create a "false
horizon" at night.
|
| I was flying back to Houston from Oshkosh a few years
ago... I was somewhere
| over Arkansas at the time... The lights on the ground gave
me the impression
| that there might be mountains around there... I was on
flight following at
| the time, so I asked what the maximum height of the Ozarks
were around
| there... The controller informed me that I was nowhere
near the Ozarks and
| there was no mountains that would be at my altitude...
Very strange visual
| effect...
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

P58 Baron
"Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:t%Jtf.38733$QW2.32700@dukeread08...
| On more than one occasion, on a moonless night, over
| sparsely populated areas, with lots of stars in the sky
and
| a similar number of lights on the ground, with those
lights
| reflecting on the windshield, you can lose all visual
sense
| of right side up unless you fly by the instruments. This
| was a real problem on night coming out eastbound from
Denver
| Stapleton (long time ago, single pilot demo flight in a
| pre-84 P68 Baron). It was totally clear, visibility was
| over 100 miles and even though I was IFR, I was being
given
| traffic at all altitudes, some was participating, some had
| transponders and encoding, some didn't. I tried to hand
fly
| the departure for about 3 or 4 minutes. It was very
| difficult, since ATC was forcing me to look outside and
| there was nothing outside to see but aircraft lights
above,
| below and level, all moving. Finally learned to turn the
| autopilot ON and let it do the flying while I looked 90%
of
| the time for the traffic, and monitored the AP with quick
| glances.
|
| You get the same loss of visual reference over water with
| just a few stars and boats on the water. [JFKjr may have
had
| this problem]
|
| There is at least one area in NW Arkansas that has a radio
| warning about rising terrain.
|
|
| --
| Merry Christmas
| Have a Safe and Happy New Year
| Live Long and Prosper
| Jim Macklin
| "Grumman-581" >
wrote
| in message
...
|| "George Patterson" wrote in message
| news:kFotf.2261$uv.1145@trnddc06...
|| > Distant lights on the ground often create a "false
| horizon" at night.
||
|| I was flying back to Houston from Oshkosh a few years
| ago... I was somewhere
|| over Arkansas at the time... The lights on the ground
gave
| me the impression
|| that there might be mountains around there... I was on
| flight following at
|| the time, so I asked what the maximum height of the
Ozarks
| were around
|| there... The controller informed me that I was nowhere
| near the Ozarks and
|| there was no mountains that would be at my altitude...
| Very strange visual
|| effect...
||
||
|
|

[Grumman-581]

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message news:t%Jtf.38733$QW2.32700@dukeread08...
> There is at least one area in NW Arkansas that has a radio
> warning about rising terrain.

Looking back at it, I was well above even the highest mountain in the state
even if there was a 1000 ft tower on top of it... The highest point in the
state is less than 3000 ft MSL... The illusion was definitely there
though... Enough so that even after ATC told me that I didn't have anything
to worry about, I still paid quite a bit of attention to see if the lights
were getting closer... Kind of wierd how that works out sometimes...

[Jim Macklin]

The eye just gathers light, the mind sees.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:t%Jtf.38733$QW2.32700@dukeread08...
| > There is at least one area in NW Arkansas that has a
radio
| > warning about rising terrain.
|
| Looking back at it, I was well above even the highest
mountain in the state
| even if there was a 1000 ft tower on top of it... The
highest point in the
| state is less than 3000 ft MSL... The illusion was
definitely there
| though... Enough so that even after ATC told me that I
didn't have anything
| to worry about, I still paid quite a bit of attention to
see if the lights
| were getting closer... Kind of wierd how that works out
sometimes...
|
|

[John Gaquin]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message

>... [JFKjr may have had
> this problem]

Perhaps in the inverse. Your scenario is one where you can see a lot, but
you don't realize it is still not enough. His problem was that he could see
very little, but thought it was enough. Both pilots are wrong.

[Bush]

Capt. Bob Moore can attest to this, however most large airports on the
East coast have approaches over water. Most of these airports were
WWII fields or products of since they were originally setup for
training, and was cheap real estate at the time. I always take 91.3,
if I take fery good care of myself, everyone in the back will be fine.

Bush

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:35:28 -0500, Tim923 >
wrote:

>I don't have an aviation background but was just curious. It seemed
>that during the approach into Melbourne, FL we were relatively quite
>low to the ground/water (as compared to other airports). Do planes
>fly low into Melbourne?

[Bob Moore]

Bush >wrote

> Capt. Bob Moore can attest to this, however most large airports
> on the East coast have approaches over water. Most of these
> airports were WWII fields or products of since they were
> originally setup for training, and was cheap real estate at the
> time. I always take 91.3, if I take fery good care of myself,
> everyone in the back will be fine.

Seems as if almost all of PanAm's worldwide destinations were
served by seaside airports. But then, I had spent most of my 10
years of Navy flying (P-2 P-3) at 100'-200' over water both night
and IMC. Hand flying a P-2 Neptune for 12 hours at 100' at night
could very well test one's mettle.

Bob Moore
VP-21 1959-1962
VP-46 1965-1967

[Dan Foster]

In article >, Bob Moore > wrote:
> Bush >wrote
>
>> Capt. Bob Moore can attest to this, however most large airports
>> on the East coast have approaches over water. Most of these
>> airports were WWII fields or products of since they were
>> originally setup for training, and was cheap real estate at the
>> time. I always take 91.3, if I take fery good care of myself,
>> everyone in the back will be fine.
>
> Seems as if almost all of PanAm's worldwide destinations were
> served by seaside airports. But then, I had spent most of my 10
> years of Navy flying (P-2 P-3) at 100'-200' over water both night
> and IMC. Hand flying a P-2 Neptune for 12 hours at 100' at night
> could very well test one's mettle.

Can only imagine! That sounds pretty challenging, to maintain that level
of proficiency for so long and not get trapped by various risk factors.

Just out of sheer curiosity, what made 100' AGL suitable, but not higher
altitudes? Climb performance, density altitude, weight limits?

-Dan

[Bob Moore]

Dan Foster >wrote

> Just out of sheer curiosity, what made 100' AGL suitable, but
> not higher altitudes? Climb performance, density altitude,
> weight limits?

A lot of the time, it was the limited range of the Magnetic
Detection equipment for tracking a submerged submarine. The
lower you flew. the better your chances of maintaining contact.
Hell....the S-2Fs were flying lower than we were, but they
only had a 4-6 hour mission. :-) Airline flying was a Piece of
Cake compared to anti-submarine work. I thought that I had
died and gone to heaven when I joined PanAm. :-)

Bob Moore

[Jim Macklin]

Looking for submarines magnetic signature would be my guess.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Dan Foster" > wrote in message
...
| In article
>, Bob
Moore > wrote:
| > Bush >wrote
| >
| >> Capt. Bob Moore can attest to this, however most large
airports
| >> on the East coast have approaches over water. Most of
these
| >> airports were WWII fields or products of since they
were
| >> originally setup for training, and was cheap real
estate at the
| >> time. I always take 91.3, if I take fery good care of
myself,
| >> everyone in the back will be fine.
| >
| > Seems as if almost all of PanAm's worldwide destinations
were
| > served by seaside airports. But then, I had spent most
of my 10
| > years of Navy flying (P-2 P-3) at 100'-200' over water
both night
| > and IMC. Hand flying a P-2 Neptune for 12 hours at 100'
at night
| > could very well test one's mettle.
|
| Can only imagine! That sounds pretty challenging, to
maintain that level
| of proficiency for so long and not get trapped by various
risk factors.
|
| Just out of sheer curiosity, what made 100' AGL suitable,
but not higher
| altitudes? Climb performance, density altitude, weight
limits?
|
| -Dan

[Jay Beckman]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> Bush >wrote
>
>> Capt. Bob Moore can attest to this, however most large airports
>> on the East coast have approaches over water. Most of these
>> airports were WWII fields or products of since they were
>> originally setup for training, and was cheap real estate at the
>> time. I always take 91.3, if I take fery good care of myself,
>> everyone in the back will be fine.
>
> Seems as if almost all of PanAm's worldwide destinations were
> served by seaside airports. But then, I had spent most of my 10
> years of Navy flying (P-2 P-3) at 100'-200' over water both night
> and IMC. Hand flying a P-2 Neptune for 12 hours at 100' at night
> could very well test one's mettle.
>
> Bob Moore
> VP-21 1959-1962
> VP-46 1965-1967

Bob,

Did you guys ever feather the inboards for extended loiter time?

Seems I've seen pics of this.

Jay B

[Bob Moore]

"Jay Beckman" >wrote

> Did you guys ever feather the inboards for extended loiter time?
> Seems I've seen pics of this.

Nope! But we did shutdown the "outboard" engines. :-)

Bob

[George Patterson]

Bob Moore wrote:

> Seems as if almost all of PanAm's worldwide destinations were
> served by seaside airports.

PanAm started service to most of these places before there were airports there.
They flew seaplanes in. People eventually built airports in the same cities.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Jay Beckman]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> "Jay Beckman" >wrote
>
>> Did you guys ever feather the inboards for extended loiter time?
>> Seems I've seen pics of this.
>
> Nope! But we did shutdown the "outboard" engines. :-)
>
> Bob

Ah, ok. Just as long as it was one on *each* side...

Jay B

[Morgans]

"Bob Moore" > wrote

> But then, I had spent most of my 10
> years of Navy flying (P-2 P-3) at 100'-200' over water both night
> and IMC. Hand flying a P-2 Neptune for 12 hours at 100' at night
> could very well test one's mettle.

Did you have a radar altimeter, or any other means of fine tuning your
altitude, other than barometric altimeter?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Bob Moore" > wrote
>
> Nope! But we did shutdown the "outboard" engines. :-)

Yeah, you wanted to save the "outboard engine" for when you were "on" the
water, for trolling (fishing) and such, right? <ducking, running>
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Moore]

"Morgans" >wrote

> Did you have a radar altimeter, or any other means of fine
> tuning your altitude, other than barometric altimeter?

YES. And in the P-3 Orion, we had a "control wheel steering"
mode for the autopilot that would allow us to lock the altitude
hold function to the radar altimeter and just "drive" the ailerons
with the control wheel. Wherever you put the control wheel, the
autopilot kept it there. Controlwheel steering also worked for the
elevator axis if the altitude hold function was not engaged.

Bob

[.Blueskies.]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message . 122...
> "Morgans" >wrote
>
>> Did you have a radar altimeter, or any other means of fine
>> tuning your altitude, other than barometric altimeter?
>
> YES. And in the P-3 Orion, we had a "control wheel steering"
> mode for the autopilot that would allow us to lock the altitude
> hold function to the radar altimeter and just "drive" the ailerons
> with the control wheel. Wherever you put the control wheel, the
> autopilot kept it there. Controlwheel steering also worked for the
> elevator axis if the altitude hold function was not engaged.
>
> Bob
>

....and that is what put that L1011 into the swamp down in Florida way back when. They bumped the yoke which put the
plane in a very gradual descent ~100 FPM while they were all looking at the landing gear light...
--
Dan DeVillers
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..

[John Gaquin]

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
>
> ...and that is what put that L1011 into the swamp down in Florida way back
> when.

Well, technically, yes, but no one could ever definitively explain how the
change from Command mode to CWS was effected. The true culprits were the
design criteria in effect at the time 35+ years ago. In today's aircraft,
1) a substantial control input force (something on the order of 20lbs, iirc)
is required to disengage the autopilot, and 2) a loud tone sounds upon
autopilot disengagement from whatever source. These two design factors have
been incorporated at least in part because of the EA401 crash.