אתר זה משתמש בקוקיות. המשך השימוש והניווט שלך באתר מביע את הסכמתך לכך.
סגור
האם ידעת שמעקב הטיסות של FlightAware נתמך על ידי פרסום?
תוכל לעזור לנו לוודא ש-FlightAware יישאר חינמי בכך שתאשר קבלת מודעות מ-flightaware.com. אנו מתאמצים מאוד להקפיד על כך שהמודעות שלנו יהיו רלוונטיות ולא מטרידות כדי ליצור עבורך חוויית משתמש מעולה. מהיר וקל לכלול את המודעות של FlightAware ברשימה הלבנה ואפשר גם לשקול את האפשרות ליצור חשבונות פרמיום.
סגור
Back to Squawk list
  • 32

Emirates A388 at JFK Dec 4th 2017 at about 200 feet in turn to runway 13L

נשלח לפני
 
There is some question on the actual altitude. ATC alerted flightcrew which initiated go around. How low would that put the lower wingtip? (avherald.com) עוד...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


ms06877
ms06877 3
It all comes down to AIRMANSHIP, no matter the size of the plane. And that approach requires just that.
chrisrobey
CHRIS ROBEY 2
To put this into perspective, 200 feet is a lot less than the wingspan on an A380.
Strange that the TWR needed to alert the crew, as if they would not have been acutely aware of all the parameters. Who do people think monitors at an airfield where there is no local ATC?? or there is a Tower, but ATC have gone home for the day...
taterhed1
taterhed1 1
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/A6EEU/history/20171204/1100Z/OMDB/KJFK/tracklog

Hmmmmm
watkinssusan
mary susan watkins 1
yikes! I live about 18 miles from our major international airport ,but I am in the flight path..emirates used to fly very,very low over my home on approach to the airport,to the point the very large letters saying EMIRATES ,on the bottom of the aircraft was easily readable.i have not seen their planes for a while,so I don know if they still serve the airport near me...
quiksilverz24
Matt Mohr 1
Interesting that FlightAware has "Lost" all of the flight data for the flight. The arc traveled along with altitude and speed is not available. This is for all instances of this flight.
whherron
William Herron 2
Try tail number A6-EEU or UAE5KP.
TWA55
TWA55 0
May be a matter of policy to pull radar data etc. for any incident or accident? I don't know if this meets the criteria for an incident (a MAP).I think that ATC requires crew explanation of the MAP which probably requires a report.
royhunte92
Roy Hunte 1
I reckon the lower wingtip would then have been anywhere between 175 to 190 feet above ground, give or take
wedgeclose
steve jenney 1
well..i can remember some 25 or so years ago a delta flight ATL-JAX DC-9 I think..last flight of the day....heavy thunderstoms JAX...cockpit door open (yes I said that) heavy right turn on final...looked out the window and runway was 25 ft. from wingtip in bank..hit the ground so hard i thought my bridge was falling out of my mouth. Great flying guys!
TWA55
TWA55 0
Not familiar with JFK, however, this sort of approach as it is described by a plane which in my view needs to set up a long approach for more reaction time should not be flown like a mid size jet. AS for ATC, I would suggest they review their procedures for super heavies in such busy airspace and in an area of potential heavy loss of life should an accident occur. Their is no excuse for treating this plane like a sports car. 200ft AGL, wow
whherron
William Herron 1
It is not Air Traffic Control's responsibility to decide if a given aircraft is capable of flying a given approach. Aircraft are cleared to the current approach in use. If the pilot in command can't execute that approach, he's expected to say as much and another approach will be given.

Emirates may want to consider rejecting the Canarsie approach, or may want to provide additional training to their aircrews. But ATC doesn't need to "review their procedures" on this matter. Canarsie is not a new approach, and thousands of aircraft of all sizes have flown it successfully.

Don't drag ATC into this. The pilots screwed up.

כניסה לאתר

עדיין אין לך חשבון? הירשם כעת (ללא תשלום) כדי ליהנות מתכונות מותאמות-אישית, מהתראות טיסה ועוד!