曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

was a microburst on Runway 27. About one mile out, we
encountered moderate rain for about 15 seconds. I thought
the previous aircraft had landed, so I continued as no
turbulence or wind shear conditions were being
experienced.... I elected to leave flaps at 15 degrees in case
a go around was conducted (normal landing is 30 degrees
flaps). Just as I flared for landing, we began to experience
a strong crosswind from the right.... The aircraft wanted to
drift left during rollout. As we slowed, control was
regained and we taxied off the runway to the ramp. Later,
another company pilot (who was waiting to take off) told
me that the preceding and following aircraft had gone
around. As mentioned, I believed the preceding aircraft
had landed. In hindsight, I should have gone around and
waited for better weather conditions.... This incident
(although turning out OK) could have been serious.... The
safer course would have been to go around. All I can say is,
I regret my actions and will not hesitate performing a goaround
next time....
All’s Well That Ends Well- This Time
■ My pre-solo student and I...were instructed by ATC to
enter a right downwind for Runway 18. After noticing that
we were slightly high on base, I called for a power
reduction and lowering of the nose. Our descent angle was
slightly steep and we were gaining some airspeed. After
flaring on the centerline of the runway, we floated for an
unusually long distance and eventually touched down. As
the student applied brakes the tires started to skid, I
realized that the throttle was not all the way back to idle
and we were attempting to stop with power on. I suggested
a go around, however the student remained on the brakes
with the tires skidding. At this time I took the controls.
Due to insufficient runway remaining, I reassessed the
situation and, with the throttle fully out to idle, I
attempted a turn onto the taxiway at the end of the
runway. There was too much momentum to stop, resulting
in a blown tire and the aircraft skidding onto the grass. No
additional damage occurred. I should have gone around
after missing the first third of the runway.
A Noteworthy Landing
While the proximity of a parallel taxiway saved this C152
pilot from an expensive lesson about distractions on final,
a go-around would have prevented any need for an
alternate landing area.
■ On final approach for Runway 5, I was looking down
at my notes to see where the FBO (Fixed Base Operator)
was and what ground frequency I had to use once I
landed. When I looked up, I noticed that I was drifting to
the right side of the runway. Instead of landing on the edge
of the runway and on top of the runway lights, I added full
power and raised the nose up a little. I continued to drift
to the right and landed on the taxiway. I should have gone
around. Lesson learned: land the airplane first, then check
the ground frequency and FBO.
The vast majority of
approaches lead to
uneventful landings, but
occasionally a go-around is
the right decision. Delaying
the go-around to the last
minute or, worse yet, attempting to “salvage” a bad
approach, can lead to trouble. Generally speaking,
if a go-around is a consideration, it is probably
warranted. When in doubt, take it around.
Although the circumstances were different in each
of the following reports to ASRS, one phrase is
common to all of them— “I should have gone
around.”
Dysfunctional Dialog
Following Instructions
Although they were not specifically “cleared” for a visual
approach, this B737 flight crew was led astray by a
clearance that left some room for interpretation.
■ Approach asked if we had [destination] in sight. The
First Officer (pilot flying) pointed to the airport. I told
Approach that the airport was in sight. The controller then
asked if we had visual contact with another air carrier at
our one o’clock position, six miles. The First Officer
pointed to the traffic and said, “In sight.” I saw the traffic
and reported, “Traffic in sight” to Approach. The controller
then said, “[Company flight number], follow the traffic for
the visual to Runway 29.” As we started out of our
assigned altitude, Approach issued a clearance to 5,000
feet. My response was, “I thought you cleared us for the
visual to Runway 29.” The controller pointed out that he
wanted us to follow the other carrier. Since our altitude
had not really changed before the descent clearance was
issued, we did not deviate from our clearance. However, we
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：CALL BACK 2(51)