Fact or satirical fiction?

Someone mailed me the following incident the other day. I suspect it's
a satirical work, not factual - I mean, it can't happen real-time like
this ) Is there a way of verifying the extent of the jest? Here's
what was mailed:

NASA ASRS Incident #294800, Atlanta, GA (ATL):
------------------------------------
Crew: Two-man crew, Captain (CAPT) and First Officer (FO); report
submitted
by FO
Aircraft: MDT (Medium Transport, 30,001 - 60,000 lbs); large turboprop
Flight Conditions: IMC; apparent ceiling 200 ft
ILS Approach Min: 200 ft ceiling and 3/8 mi visibility

CAPT was PF (pilot flying). On Approach (APCH) into ATL, the aircraft
was
stabilized one mile outside Final Approach Fix (FAF) at 2,700 ft MSL.
Aircraft flew through the Localizer (LOC), overcompensated and flew
through
the LOC again at the Marker. Once the Marker light illuminated the Gear
Down/Landing Checklist, to the line, was called. FO proceeded with the
Landing Checklist and called out the major deviations.
* FO: several "wild excursions" ensued.
* At 400 ft AGL, FO stated: "We were full-scale Right of LOC and on
Glide
Slope (GS)."
* At a point above 200 ft AGL, FO called Go-Around (GAR).
* At 200 ft AGL, FO: "We broke out well Right of the Runway (RWY) and
adjacent to the Touchdown Zone (TDZ).
* The CAPT called for GAR; FO pushed up the Power.
* CAPT called: "No, I got the RWY made."
Landing (LNDG) was made after "several wild banks and ensuing jest by
the
Tower (TWR)."
FO self-evaluation:
* "I should have been more assertive as an FO"; and
* I never should have allowed the APCH to pass the first deviation
after
missing the LOC."


Ramapriya

wrote in message
ups.com...
Someone mailed me the following incident the other day. I suspect it's
a satirical work, not factual - I mean, it can't happen real-time like
this ) Is there a way of verifying the extent of the jest?

Are you asking about the "ensuing jest" being broadcast on the radio? I
don't see anything in the narrative that claims the "ensuing jest" was
broadcast on the radio. I don't see any good reason to rule that out, but
it would certainly be unusual for the tower to transmit critique of a
landing pilot during the landing. However, it could well be that the
narrative simply refers to comments made in the tower itself, among the
controllers and not transmitted on the radio.

As far as verifying it goes, well...if it wasn't transmitted on the radio,
you'd have to ask the people who were in the tower at the time. Presumably
that's what the author of the narrative did.

Pete

Many years ago I was parked in my car near the approach (ILS
Rwy 4 at SPI) with the weather at about 400-1. I saw an ANG
F84F fighter breakout at 400 feet, well to the side of the
runway in a 50 degree bank.

Just go to the NASA website and look up the incident by case
number. Sounds like a general and possible screwup. A
missed approach on an ILS should always be done if the
needle even reaches the full scale, because you have no idea
how far off scale you are at that point.


http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/


--
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.


wrote in message
ups.com...
| Someone mailed me the following incident the other day. I
suspect it's
| a satirical work, not factual - I mean, it can't happen
real-time like
| this ) Is there a way of verifying the extent of the
jest? Here's
| what was mailed:
|
| NASA ASRS Incident #294800, Atlanta, GA (ATL):
| ------------------------------------
| Crew: Two-man crew, Captain (CAPT) and First Officer (FO);
report
| submitted
| by FO
| Aircraft: MDT (Medium Transport, 30,001 - 60,000 lbs);
large turboprop
| Flight Conditions: IMC; apparent ceiling 200 ft
| ILS Approach Min: 200 ft ceiling and 3/8 mi visibility
|
| CAPT was PF (pilot flying). On Approach (APCH) into ATL,
the aircraft
| was
| stabilized one mile outside Final Approach Fix (FAF) at
2,700 ft MSL.
| Aircraft flew through the Localizer (LOC), overcompensated
and flew
| through
| the LOC again at the Marker. Once the Marker light
illuminated the Gear
| Down/Landing Checklist, to the line, was called. FO
proceeded with the
| Landing Checklist and called out the major deviations.
| * FO: several "wild excursions" ensued.
| * At 400 ft AGL, FO stated: "We were full-scale Right of
LOC and on
| Glide
| Slope (GS)."
| * At a point above 200 ft AGL, FO called Go-Around (GAR).
| * At 200 ft AGL, FO: "We broke out well Right of the
Runway (RWY) and
| adjacent to the Touchdown Zone (TDZ).
| * The CAPT called for GAR; FO pushed up the Power.
| * CAPT called: "No, I got the RWY made."
| Landing (LNDG) was made after "several wild banks and
ensuing jest by
| the
| Tower (TWR)."
| FO self-evaluation:
| * "I should have been more assertive as an FO"; and
| * I never should have allowed the APCH to pass the first
deviation
| after
| missing the LOC."
|
|
| Ramapriya
|

It seems realistic to me. I don't see anything here that might suggest
it is fictional.


wrote:
Someone mailed me the following incident the other day. I suspect it's
a satirical work, not factual - I mean, it can't happen real-time like
this ) Is there a way of verifying the extent of the jest? Here's
what was mailed:

NASA ASRS Incident #294800, Atlanta, GA (ATL):
------------------------------------
Crew: Two-man crew, Captain (CAPT) and First Officer (FO); report
submitted
by FO
Aircraft: MDT (Medium Transport, 30,001 - 60,000 lbs); large turboprop
Flight Conditions: IMC; apparent ceiling 200 ft
ILS Approach Min: 200 ft ceiling and 3/8 mi visibility

CAPT was PF (pilot flying). On Approach (APCH) into ATL, the aircraft
was
stabilized one mile outside Final Approach Fix (FAF) at 2,700 ft MSL.
Aircraft flew through the Localizer (LOC), overcompensated and flew
through
the LOC again at the Marker. Once the Marker light illuminated the Gear
Down/Landing Checklist, to the line, was called. FO proceeded with the
Landing Checklist and called out the major deviations.
* FO: several "wild excursions" ensued.
* At 400 ft AGL, FO stated: "We were full-scale Right of LOC and on
Glide
Slope (GS)."
* At a point above 200 ft AGL, FO called Go-Around (GAR).
* At 200 ft AGL, FO: "We broke out well Right of the Runway (RWY) and
adjacent to the Touchdown Zone (TDZ).
* The CAPT called for GAR; FO pushed up the Power.
* CAPT called: "No, I got the RWY made."
Landing (LNDG) was made after "several wild banks and ensuing jest by
the
Tower (TWR)."
FO self-evaluation:
* "I should have been more assertive as an FO"; and
* I never should have allowed the APCH to pass the first deviation
after
missing the LOC."


Ramapriya

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
ups.com...
It seems realistic to me. I don't see anything here that might suggest
it is fictional.

It's not:
https://extranet.nasdac.faa.gov/pls/portal/STAGE.ASRS_BRIEF_REPORT?RPT_NBR=294800&AC_VAR=TRUE &RPRT_VAR=TRUE&ANMLY_VAR=TRUE&SYN_VAR=TRUE&NARR_VA R=TRUE&NARR_SRCH=''


wrote:
Someone mailed me the following incident the other day. I suspect it's
a satirical work, not factual - I mean, it can't happen real-time like
this ) Is there a way of verifying the extent of the jest? Here's
what was mailed:

NASA ASRS Incident #294800, Atlanta, GA (ATL):
------------------------------------
Crew: Two-man crew, Captain (CAPT) and First Officer (FO); report
submitted
by FO
Aircraft: MDT (Medium Transport, 30,001 - 60,000 lbs); large turboprop
Flight Conditions: IMC; apparent ceiling 200 ft
ILS Approach Min: 200 ft ceiling and 3/8 mi visibility

CAPT was PF (pilot flying). On Approach (APCH) into ATL, the aircraft
was
stabilized one mile outside Final Approach Fix (FAF) at 2,700 ft MSL.
Aircraft flew through the Localizer (LOC), overcompensated and flew
through
the LOC again at the Marker. Once the Marker light illuminated the Gear
Down/Landing Checklist, to the line, was called. FO proceeded with the
Landing Checklist and called out the major deviations.
* FO: several "wild excursions" ensued.
* At 400 ft AGL, FO stated: "We were full-scale Right of LOC and on
Glide
Slope (GS)."
* At a point above 200 ft AGL, FO called Go-Around (GAR).
* At 200 ft AGL, FO: "We broke out well Right of the Runway (RWY) and
adjacent to the Touchdown Zone (TDZ).
* The CAPT called for GAR; FO pushed up the Power.
* CAPT called: "No, I got the RWY made."
Landing (LNDG) was made after "several wild banks and ensuing jest by
the
Tower (TWR)."
FO self-evaluation:
* "I should have been more assertive as an FO"; and
* I never should have allowed the APCH to pass the first deviation
after
missing the LOC."


Ramapriya

On 25 Mar 2006 08:47:33 -0800, wrote:

CAPT was PF (pilot flying).

PF?

Sounds to me like a (weak) satire on flying acronyms.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 05:01:10 -0500, Cub Driver usenet AT danford DOT
net wrote:

On 25 Mar 2006 08:47:33 -0800, wrote:

CAPT was PF (pilot flying).

PF?

Sounds to me like a (weak) satire on flying acronyms.

I thought PF and PNF (Pilot Flying/Pilot Not Flying) was one way
airlines designate who's actually manipulating the controls in their
procedures since the captain is PIC regardless of who's leg it is?

Cub Driver wrote:
On 25 Mar 2006 08:47:33 -0800, wrote:


CAPT was PF (pilot flying).


PF?

Sounds to me like a (weak) satire on flying acronyms.

Not at all. In fact, the FAA encourages us airline types to re-do all
our manuals and checklists to include references to PF and PNF, as
opposed to Captain and First Officer, in situations that describe who is
actually manipulating the flight controls.

Happy Flying(or Not Flying)!
Scott Skylane

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 10:18:04 -0900, Scott Skylane
wrote:

Not at all. In fact, the FAA encourages us airline types to re-do all
our manuals and checklists to include references to PF and PNF, as
opposed to Captain and First Officer, in situations that describe who is
actually manipulating the flight controls.

And when solo, am I both PF and PNF?

Happy Flying(or Not Flying)!

Surely that should be HF and HNF!

What surprised (and dismayed) me most about going back to aviation
after fifty years was the insane proliferation of acronyms.

That, and spelling "mike" as "mic".

That, and pronouncing Baker as Bravo. (Alpha didn't bother me somehow,
nor Delta; perhaps I was Aristotle in a previous incarnation.)


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

I guess it's time to repost this:

(A recent update to the British Airways Flight Operations Manual)
Flight Operations Department Notice, Operational
Origin: Operational Standards Group to: All fleets - long and short haul.
Eff. Date: 01-05-95.
Subject: Pilot Role Reversal During PICUS.

There appears to be some confusion over the new pilot role titles. This
notice hopefully will clear up any misunderstandings.

The titles P1, P2 and copilot will now cease to have any meaning within the
BA operations manuals. They are to be replaced by Handling Pilot,
Non-Handling Pilot, Handling Landing Pilot, Non-Handling Landing Pilot,
Handling Non-Landing Pilot and Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot.

The Landing Pilot is initially the Handling Pilot and will handle the
takeoff and landing, except in role reversal when he is the Non-Handling
Pilot for taxi until the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to
the Landing Pilot at 80 knots.

The Non-Landing (Non-Handling, since the Landing Pilot is handling) pilot
reads the checklists to the Handling Landing Pilot until after the Before
Descent Checklist completion, when the Handling Landing Pilot hands the
handling to the Non-Handling Non-Landing Pilot who then becomes the Handling
Non-Landing Pilot.

The Landing Pilot is the Non-Handling Pilot until the "Decision Altitude"
call, when the Handling Non-Landing Pilot hands the handling to the
Non-Handling Landing Pilot, unless the latter calls "Go Around," in which
case the Handling Non-Landing Pilot continues handling and the Non-Handling
Landing Pilot continues non-handling until the next call of "Land" or "Go
Around," as appropriate.

In view of recent confusion over these roles, it was deemed necessary to
restate them clearly.

Authority: Operational Standards Group S 4220 H3 TBA,OPS12/A34/0595