Real Men Don't Go-Around. A tragic result.
Thread Starter
Real Men Don't Go-Around. A tragic result.
Ten years ago, in March 2007, a Garuda Indonesia Boeing 737 crashed after the captain attempted to land from an unstable approach at Yogyakarta Airport, Indonesia. The aircraft touched down at 221 knots with only Flap 5 extended. This was 87 knots in excess of the correct Vref speed. The aircraft bounced twice and the nose-wheel broke away before the 737 overran the runway into a field. It caught fire, trapping 21 occupants while the remainder of 119 on board survived. The survivors included the captain and first officer.
Following the crash of Flight 200, the European Union banned Garuda and all Indonesian airlines from flying into the EU.
The Boeing 737 FCTM published Stabilised Approach Requirements state that maintaining a stable speed, descent rate, and vertical/lateral flight path in landing configuration is commonly referred to as the stabilised approach concept. It adds, Note: Do not attempt to land from an unstable approach.
Reading through the numerous reports of this accident it is hard to imagine a more gross demonstration of an unstable approach by the captain of this flight. Worse still, his deliberate decision to avoid going around despite numerous opportunities to do so, defies belief. A culture of "Real Men don't go-around" permeated his whole approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda...sia_Flight_200
Final Report: https://web.archive.org/web/20110928...%20Release.pdf
Following the crash of Flight 200, the European Union banned Garuda and all Indonesian airlines from flying into the EU.
The Boeing 737 FCTM published Stabilised Approach Requirements state that maintaining a stable speed, descent rate, and vertical/lateral flight path in landing configuration is commonly referred to as the stabilised approach concept. It adds, Note: Do not attempt to land from an unstable approach.
Reading through the numerous reports of this accident it is hard to imagine a more gross demonstration of an unstable approach by the captain of this flight. Worse still, his deliberate decision to avoid going around despite numerous opportunities to do so, defies belief. A culture of "Real Men don't go-around" permeated his whole approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda...sia_Flight_200
Final Report: https://web.archive.org/web/20110928...%20Release.pdf
'In The Day'..... I had posted on the Club notice board, the drawing from the 'ole' Safety Digest of the goldfish in the bowl, and the caption read.....
"He doesn't mind going around again, so why should YOU".....
(Large fish....small bowl...)
And instilled this in the students, in the event of 'that' unstable approach.
Cheers and 'Thanks Mr C'.....
"He doesn't mind going around again, so why should YOU".....
(Large fish....small bowl...)
And instilled this in the students, in the event of 'that' unstable approach.
Cheers and 'Thanks Mr C'.....
What's even worse is that there have been several other similar incidents at JOG since!
RWY overruns or underuns......
RWY overruns or underuns......
Thread Starter
Land, go around, abort go around.
Megan. I have never seen that report before. Thanks for the above link to the mind-blowing 727 accident above.
For those readers whose eyes may glaze over and decide they can't be bothered to open and spend a few minutes studying the link such as that sent by Megan, then think again; for the information supplied by the NTSB in that report could be invaluable.
Nowadays the only aircraft accident flight safety information available to newly graduated CPL holders is usually from Flight Safety Australia magazine available on-line only and of a general nature among the flashy graphics.
That said, there is a whole host of other flight safety accident investigation reports available with a modicum of browsing on applicable internet websites. They don't necessarily have to apply to the specific type you are flying.
The NTSB investigation stated: According to the captain (of the crashed 727) he preferred to operate visually whenever he could. He indicated he had more faith in his eyes than he did in the electronic guidance devices provided for his use.
Thread Starter
the 'ole' Safety Digest
The title was A Distorted Vision
A student pilot on his first solo flight at Archerfield in a DH82 (Tiger Moth) touched down on the main wheels and bounced some two or three feet into the air. Believing that he had bounced much higher than this he pushed the stick forward and opened the throttle with the intention of landing again further down the strip. The aircraft struck the ground again and turned over on its back.
Although this student had had little difficulty in reaching the required standard during the dual training period, his instructor was at a loss to explain such a poor performance even on first solo. The training school was on the point of dismissing it as another case of first solo nerves when it was discovered that the students goggles had correcting lenses although his vision was normal. The effect of wearing these goggles was to cause a big change in depth perception and, considering this handicap, it is amazing that the student did so well in his earlier training.
The goggles had been purchased as a disposals item and were RAF MK.X issue fitted with angular lenses, the front lenses containing a correction and the side ones being normal. The student had noticed their effect on his vision but was reluctant to blame the goggles for his training difficulties fearing that this complaint would be regarded as a weak excuse. There is little doubt, however, that his misconception of the height to which the aircraft bounced in this landing was due to the effect of these unsuitable goggles.
Although more than one incident of this nature is not likely in a lifetime, this occurrence points very strongly to the continuing need for an instructor's interest in his students flying equipment to ensure that it is both adequate and safe.
............................................................ ..........................................
Except for a stroke of luck, Yours Truly would have struck this very problem at Darwin in 1953 during an SAR attachment to Darwin flying Lincoln bombers. These aircraft are high off the ground. The RAAF had just started to issue "glasses anti-glare" to aircrew and other ranks and were available at the clothing store on base. They looked real cool and as I had never worn sun glasses before I hastened to sign for a pair.
Walking from the store into the strong Darwin sunlight with my new sun glasses on, I immediately tripped over. I then discovered it was like walking on stilts. I felt six feet tall despite being a short arse. The tarmac seemed an unusually long way below me and I found myself prancing like Bambi. I took the sun glasses back to the Sergeant at the store and asked for another pair. These were OK. In retrospect, it was lucky that I hadn't used the faulty sun glasses while landing a Lincoln; then trying to explain to the subsequent Court of Inquiry why I had pranged Her Majesty's bomber
