Water approaches / Any Navy pilots here?

A

AirHare

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 20, 2021
Messages
52
Display Name
Display name:
AirHare
Any tips/tricks for landing on a runway surrounded by water and visually gauging height?

I recently did my "long" solo cross country flight, with KSPG being one of the stops. Winds were variable and gusty. Tower advertised RWY 36 as the active. PAPIs were out of service and completely turned off. For those unfamiliar with the airport, RWY 36 is almost a pier in the water, surrounded by water on 3 sides without much of a buffer zone. Not wanting to repeat an Air Asiana incident, my first attempt had me coming in with a bit too much altitude and the gusts weren't helping with tower giving me 3 separate wind change updates on my final approach; didn't like it, went around. I had a difficult time judging my height based off the water below me. It was my first time with a water approach like this. I'm assuming it gets better with practice? or is water just one of those things not to be trusted?

I made the second approach with flaps 20 instead of 30, a bit slower and lower. Still gusty but got the mains on the ground and I was a happy camper. Tower ended up giving the plane behind me RWY 07 while I was still on the ground roll. In hindsight, RWY 07 would have been a much better choice. PAPIs worked, approach is over the ground in an area I'm very familiar with.

Lesson learned: Don't be afraid to ask for a particular runway, especially if it's longer, better-equipped, and would make life easier.
 
The main problem with gauging height with water is when it is dead calm. And you get "glassy water."

A BIG deal when flying seaplanes. My first seaplane lesson we had real glassy water, which I felt was a perfect start to learning to fly a seaplane.
 
AirHare said:
Any tips/tricks for landing on a runway surrounded by water and visually gauging height?

I recently did my "long" solo cross country flight, with KSPG being one of the stops. Winds were variable and gusty. Tower advertised RWY 36 as the active. PAPIs were out of service and completely turned off. For those unfamiliar with the airport, RWY 36 is almost a pier in the water, surrounded by water on 3 sides without much of a buffer zone. Not wanting to repeat an Air Asiana incident, my first attempt had me coming in with a bit too much altitude and the gusts weren't helping with tower giving me 3 separate wind change updates on my final approach; didn't like it, went around. I had a difficult time judging my height based off the water below me. It was my first time with a water approach like this. I'm assuming it gets better with practice? or is water just one of those things not to be trusted?

I made the second approach with flaps 20 instead of 30, a bit slower and lower. Still gusty but got the mains on the ground and I was a happy camper. Tower ended up giving the plane behind me RWY 07 while I was still on the ground roll. In hindsight, RWY 07 would have been a much better choice. PAPIs worked, approach is over the ground in an area I'm very familiar with.

Lesson learned: Don't be afraid to ask for a particular runway, especially if it's longer, better-equipped, and would make life easier.
Click to expand...
I've done a lot of over the water landings. I don't recall ever trying to gauge my height over the water. It's the sight picture of the runway I use.
 
luvflyin said:
I've done a lot of over the water landings. I don't recall ever trying to gauge my height over the water. It's the sight picture of the runway I use.
Click to expand...

Yep. No different than landing at night with no lights other than the runway. I still don't see what the issue is with the OP.
 
AirHare said:
Any tips/tricks for landing on a runway surrounded by water and visually gauging height?

I recently did my "long" solo cross country flight, with KSPG being one of the stops. Winds were variable and gusty. Tower advertised RWY 36 as the active. PAPIs were out of service and completely turned off. For those unfamiliar with the airport, RWY 36 is almost a pier in the water, surrounded by water on 3 sides without much of a buffer zone. Not wanting to repeat an Air Asiana incident, my first attempt had me coming in with a bit too much altitude and the gusts weren't helping with tower giving me 3 separate wind change updates on my final approach; didn't like it, went around. I had a difficult time judging my height based off the water below me. It was my first time with a water approach like this. I'm assuming it gets better with practice? or is water just one of those things not to be trusted?

I made the second approach with flaps 20 instead of 30, a bit slower and lower. Still gusty but got the mains on the ground and I was a happy camper. Tower ended up giving the plane behind me RWY 07 while I was still on the ground roll. In hindsight, RWY 07 would have been a much better choice. PAPIs worked, approach is over the ground in an area I'm very familiar with.

Lesson learned: Don't be afraid to ask for a particular runway, especially if it's longer, better-equipped, and would make life easier.
Click to expand...

Learn to count on your fingers.

For every airplane, in every setting, an approximate 3 degree glide slope will keep you safe on a visual approach (unless unusual aerodrome or terrain require a steeper glide slope) until you can pick up your normal landing cues.

Know your distance from the threshold. Know the field elevation. At 20 miles, you should see 6000 feet plus field elevation (important going into KBIL, or similar). At 10 miles, 3000 feet plus, 5 miles, 1500 feet plus, etc. Keep a running tab throughout your approach to the field. Disclaimer: depending on distance from the field, some may need to fly barefoot.

It always works, but you must ensure that you are properly configured and on speed for your aircraft. That will take knowledge of winds, and, of course, your airspeed.

It never lies.

It is Mark-proof, even at 0-dark-thirty. It works over land. It works over water. It even works during your turn to final. Distance is distance; you simply vary (or temporarily stop) your descent in the turn-in to maintain that 3 degrees. You needn’t be on a straight-in to use this method.

Whatever method you use, fly safe.

p.s.- I’m not a squid.
 
Asiana didn’t crash because they were too low. They crashed because they didn’t understand how to put their aiming point in the windshield and properly keep it there.

@orca64 clearly does jet checkrides in a simulator. ;) most of these pilots do way too much math inside of 5 miles for my taste. Once you’ve got the proper glide path established, go back to your aiming point in the windshield.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Asiana didn’t crash because they were too low. They crashed because they didn’t understand how to put their aiming point in the windshield and properly keep it there.

@orca64 clearly does jet checkrides in a simulator. ;) most of these pilots do way too much math inside of 5 miles for my taste. Once you’ve got the proper glide path established, go back to your aiming point in the windshield.
Click to expand...

Unless they hit another plane, at some point they had to be too low. ;)
 
MauleSkinner said:
Asiana didn’t crash because they were too low. They crashed because they didn’t understand how to put their aiming point in the windshield and properly keep it there.

@orca64 clearly does jet checkrides in a simulator. ;) most of these pilots do way too much math inside of 5 miles for my taste. Once you’ve got the proper glide path established, go back to your aiming point in the windshield.
Click to expand...

No, he doesn’t.

But he has been hand flying visual approaches in everything from a Cessna 152 to a Boeing 777 using this method as a simple and always reliable method of backing up what his eyes are telling him about his aim point. For over 45 years.

Of course, He can do the math in his head.

I’m guessing you fly barefoot a lot.
 
orca64 said:
No, he doesn’t.

But he has been hand flying visual approaches in everything from a Cessna 152 to a Boeing 777 using this method as a simple and always reliable method of backing up what his eyes are telling him about his aim point. For over 45 years.

Of course, He can do the math in his head.

I’m guessing you fly barefoot a lot.
Click to expand...
So you did all of your jet checkrides in the airplane?

most of the guys I see in the simulator can do math in their heads, too…when they cross 5 miles, 4 miles, 3 miles, 2 miles, 1 mile, AND 1/2 mile from the threshold. And they still look like a drunk trying to fly an approach because they ignore their aiming point.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
So you did all of your jet checkrides in the airplane?

most of the guys I see in the simulator can do math in their heads, too…when they cross 5 miles, 4 miles, 3 miles, 2 miles, 1 mile, AND 1/2 mile from the threshold. And they still look like a drunk trying to fly an approach because they ignore their aiming point.
Click to expand...

You seem to have some strange focus on “jet checkrides”.

I flew the simulator the same way I flew the aircraft, not the other way around.

I am a dinosaur; I hand flew all of my arrivals and approaches in the Airbus, the Boeings and the Rockwell, unless I was required to use the autopilot due to weather or op spec or it was just too busy in my cockpit. I also hand flew all of my approaches in the simulator, on checkrides. How about you?

I am not a push button pilot, like those “guys” you saw in the simulator butchering their approaches. My cross check is excellent. So are my approaches.

Perhaps you’d let us know who you fly for, though. You’re awfully critical of your own colleagues. If the majority of your pilots can’t hand fly an approach without looking like they’re drunk, I’d like to know before I buy my next ticket.
 
Everyone says they are better than average.
 
The OP wants to gauge height visually.

The 1-mile 300-feet rule sounds helpful if that’s the best guidance available, but it sounds like it requires a navaid to get the distance to threshold. GPS or DME. Not visual.
 
orca64 said:
You seem to have some strange focus on “jet checkrides”.

I flew the simulator the same way I flew the aircraft, not the other way around.

I am a dinosaur; I hand flew all of my arrivals and approaches in the Airbus, the Boeings and the Rockwell, unless I was required to use the autopilot due to weather or op spec or it was just too busy in my cockpit. I also hand flew all of my approaches in the simulator, on checkrides. How about you?
Click to expand...
If I hand flew all of my approaches in he sim, I wouldn’t be able to pass a checkride because the checkride requires two coupled approaches. But I pick one day in the sim for no autopilot or flight director, and I have had my share of the pilots I flew with complain that I didn’t use the autopilot enough on the line.

I am not a push button pilot, like those “guys” you saw in the simulator butchering their approaches. My cross check is excellent. So are my approaches.
Click to expand...
good for you.

Perhaps you’d let us know who you fly for, though. You’re awfully critical of your own colleagues. If the majority of your pilots can’t hand fly an approach without looking like they’re drunk, I’d like to know before I buy my next ticket.
Click to expand...
Since I didn’t say anything about hand flown approaches in that discussion, it appears you’re not comprehending my posts, so I’ll stop responding now.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Asiana didn’t crash because they were too low. They crashed because they didn’t understand how to put their aiming point in the windshield and properly keep it there.
Click to expand...

Asiana crashed because they mis-used, mis-understood, and/or mis-trusted the automation. They failed to monitor their airspeed expecting the automation to take care of it. The automation did what it was told to do.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Asiana crashed because they mis-used, mis-understood, and/or mis-trusted the automation. They failed to monitor their airspeed expecting the automation to take care of it. The automation did what it was told to do.
Click to expand...
I’m other words, they couldn’t properly use their automation to keep their aiming point in the windshield and keep it there.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’m other words, they couldn’t properly use their automation to keep their aiming point in the windshield and keep it there.
Click to expand...

My guess, they didn't even have an aiming point because of over reliance on the automation. "This plane will land itself."

As to the OP's post, I've never had an issue gauging height over water on final in similar situations, probably because I'm looking at the airport and the runway, not the water, cornfield, trees, underneath me. At night, I'd be aware of the black hole effect that could be caused, but daylight should be a non issue.
 
I've operated helicopters over water for a bit. BTW, there was no formal training for over water landings. You just did it. Some approaches were at sea and to a small deck on the stern of a seismic survey boat. These are about 300 feet long with a landing pad about fifteen feet above sea level. I found that the method that worked for me was to exclude everything from my field of vision and just focus on the boat. I enjoyed an excellent safety record.

Similar and easier is landing to the south at KNEW (New Orleans Lakefront). That rw juts out about a thousand feet into Lake Ponchartrain. Same technique but with a VASI.
 
Last edited:
Landing on a runway, whether surrounded by water or not, should not be hard. As MauleSkinner pointed out, you need to learn how to keep the aiming point in the correct spot. Having a runway, especially one with markings on it makes it easy.

Landing off airport, whether on water or hard surface can be more challenging in some circumstances because the landing area and the area surrounding it may look the same. The concept remains the same as when there is a runway in front of you however, keep the aiming point in the correct spot and it will go okay.
 
Over water for landing should not make a difference, to any sort of runway.

Sight picture probably the biggest thing. A self contained approach (3:1, the math, etc) is good but not critical.

It matters for screwing around, your altitude is difficult to gauge. We used the radar altimeter a LOT under a thousand feet. Dorking around at 200’ dropping sonobuoys, it was critical. Even more so at night.

Not so much for landing.
 
I'm not sure where judging height over terrain ahead of the runway comes in (other than not hitting it). There are certainly tons of runways that sit on the tops of mountains that look sort of like landing on aircraft carriers. Others have lower or higher terrain off the ends of the runways. MGW has the approach lights way up on towers to get them even with the runway, for instance. My own airport drops 100' to the lake on one side and about half that high on the other end of the runway (at least we're getting rid of the telephone pole).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top