Exercise 5

.docx

School

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

420

Subject

Aerospace Engineering

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CommodoreMeerkatMaster286

1. Evaluate the data from Maneuver 5.1 to create a baseline. Summarize such things as the length of time it took from the initiation of the go-around until a positive rate of climb was attained, and how much altitude was lost during the go around. When going through the data, a descent down to the runway of about 831 ft/min is established, and then executed the go around at 100ft. In total, I lost about 30 ft in the go around and the go around took a total of 3.848 seconds. 2. Evaluate the data from Maneuver 5.2. Maneuver 5.1 was about 50% heavier than Maneuver 5. Compare the altitude lost in 5.2 versus 5.1. Why do you think the difference was or was not significant? In maneuver 5.2, I established a vertical descent rate of approximately 680 ft/min. A go- around was executed around 100ft. Ii the go-around, lost only about 10 ft and the go around took a total of 2.8 seconds. In comparison to Maneuver 5.1, time is not significantly different; however, altitude lost in 5.2 is only a third of that in maneuver 5.1. 3. Before reviewing the data from Maneuver 5.3 using a reduced flap setting of 25 degrees, which would you expect to have a greater altitude loss, 25 degrees or 30 degrees? I think 30 degree flaps have a greater loss in altitude. This is because increasing the flaps typically increases the aircraft's drag, which can lead to a steeper descent angle at a given airspeed. 4. Evaluate the data from Maneuver 5.3 compared to 5.1. Was the altitude loss encountered with the reduced flap setting in Maneuver 5.3 what your intuition caused you to postulate in Evaluation Discussion 3? Why do you think there was or was not a significant difference between the two? This fits my hypothesis mentioned in question 3. In maneuver 5.3, there was a vertical descent rate of about 840 ft/min and executed a go around at approximately 100 ft. In total, I lost 12 ft in the go around and the go around took 2.8 seconds. I think this is because only changing the flap setting by 5 degrees has a small change on the aerodynamics of the airplane especially when considering the difference between flaps settings at higher ones instead of lower ones. 5. Consider the overall go-around maneuver, not just to the point of positive rate of climb. What do you postulate would be a performance advantage of having a reduced flap setting on approach (i.e. 25 degrees rather than 30 degrees)? Having a lower flap setting would cause the go around to be faster, allowing the airplane

to have a better climb performance. Essentially, the climb rate would be higher with a lower flaps setting versus a higher flap setting. 6. Evaluate the data from Maneuver 5.4. It makes logical sense that delaying the go-around decision will cause a greater loss of altitude by continuing the descent for a longer period of time. How much altitude was lost during the 2 seconds of delay in initiating the go-around? Looking at the overall loss of altitude when comparing the data from Maneuver 5.1 and the delayed go-around decision in Maneuver 5.4, was the increase in the amount of altitude lost in Maneuver 5.4 simply explained by the extra altitude lost during the 2 second delay before the go-around? In maneuver 5.4, established a vertical descent rate of about 740 ft/min. With the two second delay, I lost a total of about 37 ft. The go around took 4.2 seconds to complete. The go-around decreased the airplane's altitude by 37 ft which is only a small difference to in maneuver 5.1. Even though this was a greater loss of altitude, there was a very small difference in altitude. 7. Consider making a Category II or Category III instrument approach. What is your conclusion concerning the importance of making a timely decision to abort the approach and landing when below 200 feet above touchdown zone elevation? Making a go around decision on time for approaches such as a CATII or CAT III are crucial. These approaches have extremely low minimums such as 100 ft which get the airplane even closer to the ground. When the minimums for the approach decrease and get closer to the ground a loss of 20-30 ft in a go-around is very significant to the safety of the go-around. 8. Discuss the effects of density altitude on go around procedures. As density altitude relates to performance we can directly relate it to the aircrafts climb performance within the go around procedure. A higher density altitude would mean a decreased rate of climb on the climbout portion of the go around, a lower density altitude would be the opposite. 9. Discuss the significance of the above accidents from the readings in this exercise. What were the main problems associated with each and where may have the crew gone wrong with each situation? For American Airlines Flight 331, the airplane landed on a runway that had a tail wind of 14kts. Additionally the runway was contaminated. Both these factors would cause the landing distance to be increased significantly. With that being said the crew did not select a suitable auto-brake setting for landing in these conditions. The crew selected the autobrake setting of 3 which is standard for dry clear days and a headwind on a

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help