WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

An open discussion of aviation safety related issues.

Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore

User avatar
Not_Karl
Previously banned for not socially distancing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
Location: Bona Nitogena y otra gaso, Argentina

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby Not_Karl » Wed Apr 13, 2016 4:39 pm

Well, I respect both Flyboy and Gabriel, enjoy their contributions a lot and would really like to see everyone coexisting in peace in our beloved AD.info :).

Please? :cry:
International Ban ALL Aeroplanies Association, founder and president.

"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8141
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby 3WE » Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:36 pm

I...would really like to see everyone coexisting in peace in our beloved AD.info :)
Concur.

It will require something other than black and white thinking- which, of course, is a reason I like the concept.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby PurduePilot » Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:54 am

Gabriel, where do you get the idea that you can go below 200 ft on a single channel?
For example, same link as before. Where do you get the idea that you can't? Or, at what altitude do you suggest that the single AP flying the ILS approach in solid IMC would or should self disengage? I would not see that as a good idea either.
it would be in violation of the Airplane Flight Manual to go below 200 ft on a single channel approach mode.

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby PurduePilot » Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:02 am

Gabriel, where do you get the idea that you can go below 200 ft on a single channel?
For example, same link as before. Where do you get the idea that you can't? Or, at what altitude do you suggest that the single AP flying the ILS approach in solid IMC would or should self disengage? I would not see that as a good idea either.
Brad (and Gabe):

Don't get hung up over 200 feet vs. 50 feet...

At issue is that (according to Gabe's link) if you hit TOGA below 2000 (that's two thousand) and you are only on one autopilot, it will disconnect.

There seems to be at least some lack of logic to that- If one autopilot will do an ILS to whatever altitude (500 feet just for argument), what's so damn tricky about a healthy transition from an 800 fpm descent to a 2000 fpm climb with a 500 or 1000 or 1,500 ft buffer?

There's an unsubstantiated parlour talk speculation theory that the AP switched off when the Flydubious pilots hit TOGA and they either missed it and/or it tripped them up / into disorientation and loss of control.
Thanks. Interesting theory. I'm not sure why it is the way it is, but I trust there's a good reason. But it's moot because any autopilot disconnect results in the autopilot disconnect siren sounding and a master warning until the crew actively clears it.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8141
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby 3WE » Thu Apr 14, 2016 2:30 pm

...I'm not sure why it is the way it is, but I trust there's a good reason...
Either you don't know the recent context on this question, or you DO know the recent context and are razzing us. (If so, well played.)

Sooo...."we" snot-nosed outsiders think that's bad logic, and while we are unworthy to think that and question the logic, we are, unfortunately, curious.

We love what you insiders do: building and flying big jets, and would really really love to know what that "good reason" is.

If you (or Verbie or flyoldman2541m) stumble onto information or you already know it (flyoldman2541m), we'd genuinely love to know.

It will make us feel important, and would be fun to know....WHY

Thanks for your consideration. :D
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8141
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby 3WE » Thu Apr 14, 2016 3:05 pm

But it's moot because any autopilot disconnect results in the autopilot disconnect siren sounding and a master warning until the crew actively clears it"
...the theory involves some fatigue aspects...I don't doubt they silenced it, but...

...in the process of hand flying did they succumb to one of Evan's $20 disorientations?

...did PNF hit silence and PF assumed he ALSO turned the AP back on / several permutations of this?

...would the pilots simply not screwed up by whatever mechanism if they pilots could have hit TOGA and let Otto handle it all?

(Lots of grasping and speculation because planes/pilots shouldn't going into steep dives)
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby flyboy2548m » Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:04 am

Because if it is that nobody can express their opinion, or that nobody cares about anybody's opinion, then I don't see the point.
Spare me the innocent-sounding bullshit. You were never interested in expressing opinions, you just want a pulpit, so you can preach your malarkey. That was the case back in Amy days, it's the case still. In the time I've been reading your nonsense, I've amassed nearly 7,000 hours, earned 4 type ratings, been with three airlines, and traversed the Americas from Edmonton to Lima. The only thing I've learned is that I know next to nothing about aviation. On the other hand, we have your worthless behind with an "aerodynamics" degree you never got to use, a few hours in a Tomahawk and one day of wrenching a Pucara, playing the guru. And you want me to take you seriously? You want respect? For what, for existing? Sorry, no dice. No wonder you're so smitten with your buddy Tweedledumb on the other forum with his treasury of knowledge made up of two-decades-old FCOMs. You're both the same kind of jackass.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby Gabriel » Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:08 am

Spare me the innocent-sounding bullshit. You were never interested in expressing opinions, you just want a pulpit, so you can preach your malarkey. That was the case back in Amy days, it's the case still. In the time I've been reading your nonsense, I've amassed nearly 7,000 hours, earned 4 type ratings, been with three airlines, and traversed the Americas from Edmonton to Lima. The only thing I've learned is that I know next to nothing about aviation. On the other hand, we have your worthless behind with an "aerodynamics" degree you never got to use, a few hours in a Tomahawk and one day of wrenching a Pucara, playing the guru. And you want me to take you seriously? You want respect? For what, for existing? Sorry, no dice. No wonder you're so smitten with your buddy Tweedledumb on the other forum with his treasury of knowledge made up of two-decades-old FCOMs. You're both the same kind of jackass.
You are wrong: I never wrenched a Pucará.

This is my philosophy, that you probably don't care, and I don;t care that you don;t care, but if you feel like knowing it, here it is, and it is not the first time that I say it.

I don't buy into title imposition. People (me included) can be smart or stupid, right or wrong, constructive or destructive, regardless of the title they hold (among many other "regardless of...").

If I started to list the unbelievable mistakes done or said by incredible smart and officially qualified people that also has a lot of experience, I would never end. The other side of the coin is that clueless people sometimes is right.

I don take what others say (and would hope that other's don't take what I say) in the light of their titles and experience only. I pay much more attention to the content of what they say. If I don;t agree with something, I say it, I explain why I don't agree, I explain my version, and I explain why I think my version is better. That's a constructive discussion. And I would love others to to the same with what I say.

Yes, I do tend to have firm opinions, and that is at least partially because my opinions many times based not so much in believes but in what I think is knowledge, information, and otherwise data. So I am not convinced AT ALL by doctors in their field with 800 years of hands-on experience saying YOU WRONG - ME RIGHT // YOU STUPID JERK - ME SUPER GENIUS OF THE MILLENNIUM. Now, I am easy to convince that I am wrong with faced with good info that shows that.

So, I love to have people with a lot of knowledge and experience in aviation, like you. Of course, yo, me and everybody, we know nothing, compared with what we don't know. That doesn't mean that we cannot have a constructive conversation. You just would have to tell me "the autopilot does this because of that" or perhaps "I really don't know, but I think that it could be because of that" instead of, well, your normal reaction.

Experience, certifications, "official knowledge" IS important, but only if it backed by the content. If not, it's just an nice box but empty (at least regarding sharing knowledge and discussing with others because, alas, this is a DISCUSSION FORUM, not an aviation examination room).

So, who cares if I am an aeronautical engineering and if I was teacher in Physics and Aerodynamics and if I am a Tomahawk pilot with barely 180 hours and who has not logged an hour in the last 15 years or so? If I say something right, it is right. If I say something wrong, it is wrong. Same with you. More important that my titles, I am an aviation enthusiasm, especially an aviation safety enthusiasm. And I love to discuss, being right, being wrong, being corrected, learn...

I think that discussing, exchanging opinions, even at times trying to think together, is fun and constructive. Others don't think so. I am ok with that. (well, not so ok, I wish it worked different, but it doesn't, there is nothing I can do really, so I am ok).

Good flights.

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby PurduePilot » Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:47 am

But it's moot because any autopilot disconnect results in the autopilot disconnect siren sounding and a master warning until the crew actively clears it"
...the theory involves some fatigue aspects...I don't doubt they silenced it, but...

...in the process of hand flying did they succumb to one of Evan's $20 disorientations?

...did PNF hit silence and PF assumed he ALSO turned the AP back on / several permutations of this?

...would the pilots simply not screwed up by whatever mechanism if they pilots could have hit TOGA and let Otto handle it all?

(Lots of grasping and speculation because planes/pilots shouldn't going into steep dives)
Stupider things have happened...

http://youtu.be/2hMn7ZweF6s

"I wish that annoying beeper would shut up!"

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby flyboy2548m » Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:35 pm

Stupider things have happened...

http://youtu.be/2hMn7ZweF6s

"I wish that annoying beeper would shut up!"
Stand by for a fascinating lecture from Gabriel (with his 0 time in RG aircraft) on how to avoid gear-up landings. It promises to be constructive and fun.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8141
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby 3WE » Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:48 pm

Stupider things have happened...

http://youtu.be/2hMn7ZweF6s

"I wish that annoying beeper would shut up!"
Stand by for a fascinating lecture from Gabriel (with his 0 time in RG aircraft) on how to avoid gear-up landings. It promises to be constructive and fun.
I'm guessing that adherence to procedure, CRM and memory checklists might be part of it.

(No RG time here, just articles in that magazine).
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby Gabriel » Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:02 am

Stand by for a fascinating lecture from Gabriel (with his 0 time in RG aircraft) on how to avoid gear-up landings. It promises to be constructive and fun.
Well, according to some unconfirmed report, the pilot in the left seat was sitting for his commercial licence and the one on the right seat was the examiner, both with a bunch of hours in RG aircraft. Unlike Gabriel.

User avatar
Not_Karl
Previously banned for not socially distancing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
Location: Bona Nitogena y otra gaso, Argentina

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby Not_Karl » Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:23 am

Stand by for a fascinating lecture from Gabriel (with his 0 time in RG aircraft) on how to avoid gear-up landings. It promises to be constructive and fun.
My first step would be to kill that annoying alarm.

-Not_Karl, 0 hours in anything with an engine.
International Ban ALL Aeroplanies Association, founder and president.

"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby Gabriel » Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:04 pm

-Not_Karl, 0 hours in anything with an engine.
Gliders then? Note that many gliders are RG.

User avatar
Not_Karl
Previously banned for not socially distancing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
Location: Bona Nitogena y otra gaso, Argentina

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby Not_Karl » Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:39 pm

Gliders then? Note that many gliders are RG.
Good point.
-Not_Karl, 0 hours in anything but his bicycle.
Fixed.

(And no, I did not install wings to it... yet :mrgreen: )
International Ban ALL Aeroplanies Association, founder and president.

"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby PurduePilot » Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:46 pm

Anyway the reason two autopilot channels are required to transition from approach mode to go around is that when you advance the thrust for the go around there is a very large pitch up moment and a single channel would have insufficient nose down elevator authority to counter it until sufficient nose down elevator trim has been put in.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby Gabriel » Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:38 am

Anyway the reason two autopilot channels are required to transition from approach mode to go around is that when you advance the thrust for the go around there is a very large pitch up moment and a single channel would have insufficient nose down elevator authority to counter it until sufficient nose down elevator trim has been put in.
Are you sure of that?

My guess (that Flyboy could not care any less about) would be that dual channel doesn't have any more elevator authority than single channel, and the difference lays in cross-checking, fault detection, and redundancy, as to detect and kill a faulty channel while the other one keeps flying in a circumstance where unexpectedly quitting transferring the controls to a human pilot may be critical in terms of reaction time available.

If I am correct, hence my surprise (that Flyboy could not care any less about) to find that this applies to a go-around at 1500ft but not to an approach in solid IMC at 250ft.

If you are correct, then that explains why dual channel is required for go-around but this just shifts the question: Why would a single channel have any less elevator authority than dual channel?

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8141
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby 3WE » Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:09 pm

...a single channel would have insufficient nose down elevator authority...
...Are you sure of that?...

...Flyboy could not care any less about...
Oh, I have a sneaking suspicion that flyboy KNOWS all about it and that any lack of care (moderate- not the extreme you describe) would be that it does not apply to his Bus. I imagine he's continuing to get a good laugh at us.

It's too bad Evan can't get beyond his blind love of procedure, or I'm sure he would have found a paragraph somewhere to explain this...As Evan and Brad say, "I'm sure they have very good reasons"...LOL and :twisted:

Brad- Like Gabe, I'm surprised...I imagined an autopilot being an electronic black box that sent an electronic signal that said "move the control stick forward 2"...and that when two autopilots were running the order was still "move it two inches" and that the system would not be summing things up where 2 + 2 = 4....and ditto that we thought "you need two for double checking, not control authority".

Of course, we need to remember that we are outsiders...
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby flyboy2548m » Tue Apr 26, 2016 2:40 pm

Are you sure of that?

My guess (that Flyboy could not care any less about) would be that dual channel doesn't have any more elevator authority than single channel...
Between you and the guy who works for the aircraft manufacturer in question, I'll go with the latter.

No hard feelings, Gabe. Keep on keeping on.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby Gabriel » Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:42 pm

Between you and the guy who works for the aircraft manufacturer in question, I'll go with the latter.
First point, it is not "between me". I don't have a position here. Just something that I don't understand I am trying to do so.
Second, as I said, I don't care about titles. I can 100% assure you that there are far more persons working for the aircraft manufacturer that don't know the answer to this question than they do. So I would like the aircraft manufacturer to shed more light on the issue.

Finally, lacking said understanding, I would (if I was a pilot) by now blindly believe in the FCOM and expect the AP to self disconnect if I attempt a GA on single channel at 200ft, with the belief (if not conviction) that there is a good reason for that which is known to Boeing but not to me. That said, I would (if I was a pilot) rather UNDERSTAND what I am doing and why rather than blindly following procedures.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 8141
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby 3WE » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:18 pm

Finally, lacking said understanding, I would (if I was a pilot) by now blindly believe in the FCOM and expect the AP to self disconnect if I attempt a GA on single channel at 200ft, with the belief (if not conviction) that there is a good reason for that which is known to Boeing but not to me. That said, I would (if I was a pilot) rather UNDERSTAND what I am doing and why rather than blindly following procedures.
:-)

When you land your airline job and get assigned to a 737 (beware- they seem to be sticking folks on Busses), please ask (and keep asking) until you get an answer and then report back to this board.

Or perhaps, when that happens, you will decide that you want to keep that insider knowledge to yourself.

;)

Thanks for your last sentence, I was worried you were spending too much time with Evan.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby flyboy2548m » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:45 pm

First point, it is not "between me". I don't have a position here.
That's a boldfaced lie. You obviously do have a position here.
Second, as I said, I don't care about titles. I can 100% assure you that there are far more persons working for the aircraft manufacturer that don't know the answer to this question than they do. So I would like the aircraft manufacturer to shed more light on the issue.
That one is at best a half-truth. Had what Bradley posted agreed with your "position" (which you would have me believe you don't have), you'd have no problem using his "title" to back said position.

Gosh, I sure hope you don't feel bullied, that would be a tragedy.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby Gabriel » Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:15 am

First point, it is not "between me". I don't have a position here.
That's a boldfaced lie. You obviously do have a position here.
I don't. I do believe that there is a reason, unknown to me, for this logic.
I do believe that it is my ignorance on the subject what makes me perceive this logic as illogical.
I suspect that Bradley was just telling us his thought or speculating (as I have been doing here, and so has he), no speaking with specific knowledge or information.
And, whether you believe me or not, I could not care any less.
Second, as I said, I don't care about titles. I can 100% assure you that there are far more persons working for the aircraft manufacturer that don't know the answer to this question than they do. So I would like the aircraft manufacturer to shed more light on the issue.
That one is at best a half-truth. Had what Bradley posted agreed with your "position" (which you would have me believe you don't have), you'd have no problem using his "title" to back said position.
That's not true, I thought that you knew me better.

If Brad tells me that he got that info from a Boeing manual, or he asked an SME at Boeing, or that he has been working himself on this system, I would believe that the AP has less elevator authority in single channel than in dual channel (then, again, that would shift the question to why is that the case, but that's another subject). That's the reason why I am asking him if he is sure (I would not expect a simple "yes" answer without further explanation regarding the source of his certainty)

On the other hand, if he told me simply "Gabe you are right" (whatever that means, because I don't have a position that can be right here, or tell me what it is), then I would not believe by default or "title" either. Rather, I would request information again.

Have you red the first posts of this thread? Did you see how the sequence of posts evolved? It doesn't look like you did.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4383
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby flyboy2548m » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:35 pm

If Brad tells me that he got that info from a Boeing manual, or he asked an SME at Boeing, or that he has been working himself on this system, I would believe that the AP has less elevator authority in single channel than in dual channel (then, again, that would shift the question to why is that the case, but that's another subject). That's the reason why I am asking him if he is sure (I would not expect a simple "yes" answer without further explanation regarding the source of his certainty)
Actually, he did mention the AFM, not that you would consider that an authority either. Not as long as it disagrees with your position. Which you don't have.

Out of curiosity, what or whom WOULD you consider an authority?
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: WHY are two autopilots required for a go-around...

Postby Gabriel » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:31 pm

Actually, he did mention the AFM, not that you would consider that an authority either. Not as long as it disagrees with your position. Which you don't have.
Flyboy, are you actually reading the posts here?

I did believe him when he stated that the AFM tell you not to go below 200ft on a single-channel AP approach, ans it seems like a reasonable procedure. However, the AP will NOT self-disengage and will go on with the approach down to a very hard landing (because it will not flare in single channel AP) if you don't manually and humanly disengage it yourself. Now, click the go-around switch while on a single-channel AP approach, and it will self-disparage no matter if you do it at 50 ft (where the AP technically lets you but the AFM forbids being on single-channel approach), at 200 ft (the procedural limit for the single-channel AP approach), or at 1999 ft. I don't need that you agree with me, but I see a strange logic in the design of this logic. And I do think that this logic has a good reason, only that I don't know what it is.

Brad proposed that it is because, unlike a double-channel AP, a single-channel AP lacks enough elevator authority to counteract the nose-up when the thrust in the underslung engines is increased for the go-around. Again, I would be surprised if that's the case (don't worry, it would not be the first time that I am surprised because things are not as I expected, supposed or guessed, I am ok with that, even if you don't believe it). Unlike wen he mention the 200ft procedural restriction. Brad didn't mention any source for that information, so I asked if he is sure, and I am still waiting for an answer that I expect will be more than a simple "yes" as mentioned above.
Out of curiosity, what or whom WOULD you consider an authority?
In these matters*? Nobody by default. Everybody potentially. Just show me the data. It is called science. Data is the authority.

I think you don't understand or believe me that I am perfectly ok with being wrong, it is a learning opportunity. Just convince me with something more than "because I say so", no matter who "I" is.

*I do accept authority when it relates with persons having an authority defined by the law or their job descriptions. For example, the PIC has authority to deviate from any procedure or regulation as long as he deems it necessary to ensure the safety of the flight. The police has authority to arrest you if there is a probable cause, or to temporarily detain you if there is reasonable suspicion. And so on.


Return to “Aviation Safety Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests