PDA

View Full Version : A320 Incident - FD failure makes landings "difficult". They must be kidding!


Centaurus
3rd Dec 2009, 09:45
This report from India when a check pilot pulled a radio altimeter circuit breaker during an ILS. While clearly this was not a wise move, what amazed me was the spokesman who said: "A pilot can do the job of an autopilot - he can land albeit with difficulty without the help of a flight director".
God help us all if todays airline pilots are so automatics dependant that landing with the FD off is considered "difficult" and by inference fraught with danger.

Recent accidents such as Turkish Airlines B737 that crashed in Amsterdam is proof positive that this headlong push to avoid manual flying at all costs is breeding a different type of airline pilot - one that is apprehensive of touching the controls unless forced to in a dire emergency. One has only to read the accident report on the Flash Air B737 that crashed into the sea with the captain still screaming for the autopilot to be engaged.

Here is the extract from the Indian A320 incident:


When the commander was interrogated, he said (and gave it in writing) that after the aircraft landed, the ACM revealed to him that he had pulled out the circuit-breaker on Radio Altimeter 1 ``just to see his reaction to failures''.



The incident took place on October 20 on flight 9W 332 around 8.50am, during the morning peak hour. The check pilot was flying as an additional crew member (ACM) in the jump seat located behind the pilots' seats. An ACM's status is that of a passenger and s/he is not supposed to touch the flight controls. ``The aircraft was established on the Instrument Landing System (ILS) for runway 27,'' an official said, implying the aircraft was coming in to land from the east and was about 3,700 feet high and had got visual guidance to help it descend and touch down on the runway 27 centre line.

``At that instant, the autopilot tripped and the flight director disappeared,'' he added. A flight director gives visual cues to the pilot who follows it by, say, turning left or right or pitching the aircraft up or down to take it to its destination.



So, with both vital navigation instruments failing, the commander took over the flight controls to bring in the plane for landing entirely manually. ``But the aircraft started sinking fast. It was going down faster than 1000 feet a minute, the maximum prescribed descent rate. It was a dangerous situation as the approach to runway 27 was over hilly terrain,'' the official said.

When an aircraft has a higher-than-normal descent rate, the enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS) blares out a loud aural warning, ``sink rate whoop whoop pull up'' continuously till the descent rate is slowed down.



But no such alarm went off in this cockpit. ``A pilot can do the job of an autopilot; he can land, albeit with difficulty, without the help of a flight director. But neither can he nor any other instrument in the cockpit do the job of an EGPWS,'' said the source.

It is such a critical equipment to prevent crashes that the International Civil Aviation Organisation mandates that no passenger aircraft should fly without a functioning EGPWS. Jet Airways confirmed that the EGPWS warning was not received. This confirms a system malfunction or a deactivation of the system.



``Since the sink rate was very high, the Digital Flight Data Recorder showed up an `exceedance report', which was picked up by the airline's flight safety department after the aircraft landed,'' said the source.

``It is a very dangerous thing to do as pulling out a C/B can render unintended systems to fail, like the EGPWS failure in this case. No pilot would want to fly without an EGPWS,'' an official said. Aircraft manufacturers are so careful about C/Bs that these switches are not installed at locations easily accessible or even viewable from the pilot's seat. It is located behind the seat as Airbus and Boeing did not consider the possibility of an ACM pulling out a C/B.

IndAir967
3rd Dec 2009, 10:10
Not an A320 .. must be an 737..
9W does not operate A320.
Cheers !

DC-ATE
3rd Dec 2009, 12:12
Doesn't matter WHAT kind of airplane it is/was; the point Centaurus was making, I think, is that pilots these days have become so dependent on all the automatic stuff, they don't know how to hand fly an airplane using just raw data and feel.

Airbus_a321
3rd Dec 2009, 16:24
...and feel..... yes..feel...in the Bus.. perfect..:confused: which kind of feeling you mean :confused:... the artifical feel...:confused:

DC-ATE
3rd Dec 2009, 16:41
The old fashined kind.....seat of the pants.

Denti
3rd Dec 2009, 17:16
I do understand Centaurus point, however there are two different issues here. Of course any pilot should be able to fly without flight director and autopilot and in my opinion that is actually the best response to automation problems: switch it all off and fly the old fashioned way. And therefore the reaction of those pilots should raise some concerns.

The other issue though is pulling CBs on normal revenue flights which is a big no-no if not advised by any procedure (normal or non-normal procedure). And therefore it is absolutely correct to revoke the priviliges of that check airman. In todays aircraft which have heavy interdependent functions (well, the 737 is quite simple, but the bus is not) a lot of surprising things can happen if you pull one circuit breaker and therefore it is best tried on the ground or in the simulator if you're curious about it.

His dudeness
3rd Dec 2009, 17:46
And what should happen to the crew APPARENTLY unable to fly a raw data approach? Revoke their IFR? Or the TR?

The ACM admitted pulling the CB. At least that should give him some credit, if heŽd just had kept it to himself a poor avinics guy would work his butt off to find a failure.

Airbus Girl
3rd Dec 2009, 19:08
Although with the loss of both RAs and the gear down, the Airbus goes into Direct Law, you can't arm the Approach mode, you lose both Autopilots, GPWS and auto callouts. That could make it a bit more interesting than "just flying without the FDs".

Denti
3rd Dec 2009, 19:20
@His Dudeness: yes, in my company at least the crew would receive first CISM and then additional simulator training and checks up to company standard. So that would be basicly revoking the privileges of their license until they can prove they are up to scratch again.

The avionics guy wouldn't lose much sweat over that anyway to be honest, read out the failure log of the RA, do a ground test, write it off again, all in all 10 to 15 minutes.

As Airbusgirl showed, you can get quite interesting results just by pulling one circuit breaker in todays highly integrated airplanes.

HAWK21M
3rd Dec 2009, 20:03
It was on a B739.
Secondly no one is permitted to Pull out a CB in air.
CB is pulled out on ground for Mx purposes only.

On the point of Pilots being dependent on automation.I agree,too much dependance on automation is not good,hence depending on company SOPs,manual flying is also considered part of trainings.

regds
MEL.

airborneforever
11th Dec 2009, 15:02
alright, for all the folks, not flying into Bombay.
the glide is a bit steep at 3.3 degrees, it was close to MLW with aprox 5-7 knots of tailwinds, we usually get vertical speeds of around 900 to a 1000 fpm on the glide path.
when he lost the fd's and autopilots tripped, he took a few seconds before recovering controls, and thats where the exceedance happened. unfortunate but it would have happened to any of us if we were going down that fast and the autopilots tripped just a second after adding some down trim and we took a couple of seconds to realize what had happened!
the whole brouhaha is just that, brouhaha.
cheers,
Airborneforever

Centaurus
12th Dec 2009, 12:03
but it would have happened to any of us if we were going down that fast and the autopilots tripped just a second after adding some down trim and we took a couple of seconds to realize what had happened!
the whole brouhaha is just that, brouhaha.
cheers,

A touching but flawed defence Your Honour. In my military days it would have been called slow reaction on the part of the instructor. To say it would have happened to any of us is rubbish.

Microburst2002
12th Dec 2009, 18:25
I wouldn't say "it's rubbish".

Many people, in many different proffessional fields, tend to make theirs the unfortunate NASA's motto: "Failure is not an option".

Except a few, gifted and lucky, most of them eventually commit a mistake or error or fail to react properly or timely in a given situation. Even men who have reacted promptly and wisely in a difficult situation can make a serious mistake in another different one.
If you believe you are af invulnerable pilot and that you will always react promptly and correctly in any situation... You are making yourself more vulnerable.

I don't know if this incident was caused by negligent or unskilled pilots or if it could happen to any of us. But I always think that, unfortunately errors are not only an option, but inevitable. So I try to make as few as possible and to catch the ones I make before things get dangerous.

Tmbstory
13th Dec 2009, 07:50
Centaurus:

The statement about the loss of FD makes landing difficult, is certainly rubbish.

Automation is here to stay, however the loss of manual flying skills is a growing problem and steps must be taken to improve the situation.

Tmb

Microburst2002
14th Dec 2009, 08:52
I totally agree.

I want to see in the FCOMs that we should carry out a few No FD take offs and approaches every month, circumstances permitting.

This would effectively improve operations safety. The problem is the lawyers.

misd-agin
15th Dec 2009, 04:17
Nothing forces you to blindly follow the FD commands. You can always have the FD 'on' while flying the a/c without using the FD's.