Radio altimeter fault triggered Turkish Airlines crash

On Mar 4, 11:21*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Musicrab writes:
What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left and
right hand altimeters don't match?

It surely points out that working altimeters are required for an automated
approach. *The airline flew with broken altimeters, and after tempting fate
several times, it finally caught up with them.

You are talking about standard altitude altimeters or RAs? From
reading the it appears that the concern is about the RA's not the
altimeters. No plane is going to flare as a result of a reading from a
pressure altimeter.

-Robret

In article ,
says...


On Mar 4, 11:21*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Musicrab writes:
What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left and
right hand altimeters don't match?

It surely points out that working altimeters are required for an automated
approach. *The airline flew with broken altimeters, and after tempting fate
several times, it finally caught up with them.

You are talking about standard altitude altimeters or RAs? From
reading the it appears that the concern is about the RA's not the
altimeters. No plane is going to flare as a result of a reading from a
pressure altimeter.

-Robret

Technicalities. MXS is talking about FATE - that's his explanation for the
crash. If the NTSB disagrees, it simply means they are wrong, and their staff
are dangerous pilots.

"-b-" wrote in message
...
In article
,
says...


On Mar 4, 11:21 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Musicrab writes:
What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left
and
right hand altimeters don't match?

It surely points out that working altimeters are required for an
automated
approach. The airline flew with broken altimeters, and after tempting
fate
several times, it finally caught up with them.

You are talking about standard altitude altimeters or RAs? From
reading the it appears that the concern is about the RA's not the
altimeters. No plane is going to flare as a result of a reading from a
pressure altimeter.

-Robret

Technicalities. MXS is talking about FATE - that's his explanation for the
crash. If the NTSB disagrees, it simply means they are wrong, and their
staff
are dangerous pilots.


with poor attitudes and high testosterone levels.

Robert M. Gary writes:

You are talking about standard altitude altimeters or RAs?

RAs. One of them had malfunctioned on several previous flights, according to
the flight data recorders. The airline had not bothered to fix it, even
though it is essential for autoland (perhaps the airline expected its pilots
to be alert and hard-working enough to fly landings by hand, although that's
not really an excuse).

No plane is going to flare as a result of a reading from a
pressure altimeter.

But it probably will if the RA says that it's 7 feet below the runway.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Robert M. Gary writes:

You are talking about standard altitude altimeters or RAs?

RAs. One of them had malfunctioned on several previous flights, according
to
the flight data recorders. The airline had not bothered to fix it, even
though it is essential for autoland (perhaps the airline expected its
pilots
to be alert and hard-working enough to fly landings by hand, although
that's
not really an excuse).

No plane is going to flare as a result of a reading from a
pressure altimeter.

But it probably will if the RA says that it's 7 feet below the runway.

What a dumb ass.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert M. Gary writes:

You are talking about standard altitude altimeters or RAs?

RAs. One of them had malfunctioned on several previous flights, according to
the flight data recorders. The airline had not bothered to fix it, even
though it is essential for autoland (perhaps the airline expected its pilots
to be alert and hard-working enough to fly landings by hand, although that's
not really an excuse).

Babble.

Where is your data on airline SOP with regard to doing an autoland all
the way to the ground?

Where is your data on the percentage of landings that do an autoland
all the way to the ground?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Where is your data on airline SOP with regard to doing an autoland all
the way to the ground?

Every autoland is all the way to the ground.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Where is your data on airline SOP with regard to doing an autoland all
the way to the ground?

Every autoland is all the way to the ground.

Where in the world did you come up with that rediculous statement?

What percentage of landings are done with autoland and what is your
source of information?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Where in the world did you come up with that rediculous statement?

If the autopilot isn't taking the aircraft to touchdown, it's not an autoland.
That's what autoland means: automatic landing. No control inputs required.
Autopilot engaged all the way up to touchdown and beyond.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Where in the world did you come up with that rediculous statement?

If the autopilot isn't taking the aircraft to touchdown, it's not an autoland.
That's what autoland means: automatic landing. No control inputs required.
Autopilot engaged all the way up to touchdown and beyond.

Yeah, right.

The word "autoland" refers to a system in aircraft.

If you are going to post to real aviation groups, learn the language
of real aviation.

It is routine to turn on autoland during approach and turn it off just
before touchdown.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.