PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 3rd May 2012, 03:54   #41 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 2,476
The distraction itself is not the problem, but the way he mishandled it. He should have said his "Aw $#1+!" or whatever, and gotten back to flying the airplane.
Intruder is offline   Reply
Old 3rd May 2012, 04:52   #42 (permalink)
PPRuNe supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,662
Exactly, but the job of the FO is to take control if the CA is not responding, in this case, he failed.
Dream Land is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2012, 01:05   #43 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5 above the Equator, 75 left of Greenwich
Posts: 176
Quote:
Exactly, but the job of the FO is to take control if the CA is not responding, in this case, he failed.
He failed at both taking control and also trying to get the captain back into the loop
Escape Path is offline   Reply
Old 4th May 2012, 21:59   #44 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 2,476
I disagree. He didn't fail at trying; he just didn't succeed before the GPWS did.

Whether or not he should have initiated a go-around is subject to debate. It is a serious step to take when the Captain was allegedly the handling pilot, and was probably warranted in this case. However, I can't blame him for being reticent, at least to the point of the GPWS alarm or missed approach altitude, as long as the airplane was otherwise stable.
Intruder is offline   Reply
Old 5th May 2012, 00:35   #45 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: South Africa
Age: 47
Posts: 64
Quote:
I disagree. He didn't fail at trying; he just didn't succeed before the GPWS did.

Whether or not he should have initiated a go-around is subject to debate. It is a serious step to take when the Captain was allegedly the handling pilot, and was probably warranted in this case. However, I can't blame him for being reticent, at least to the point of the GPWS alarm or missed approach altitude, as long as the airplane was otherwise stable.
Wow, if it had been a co-pilot from the third world, there would have been deafening condemnation. Hypocrites you guys, aren't you? There would have been clarion calls for both pilots to be summarily sacked. Sheesh, what double standards!
kinteafrokunta is offline   Reply
Old 5th May 2012, 20:31   #46 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5 above the Equator, 75 left of Greenwich
Posts: 176
Quote:
I disagree. He didn't fail at trying; he just didn't succeed before the GPWS did.

Whether or not he should have initiated a go-around is subject to debate. It is a serious step to take when the Captain was allegedly the handling pilot, and was probably warranted in this case.
He didn't get the captain's attention back into the situation, he didn't do anything actually, regarding that matter. He also didn't successfully regain control of the airplane timely: Given the case he had tried to take control, he failed to have to airplane properly configured to land, not just the gear, but the whole lot: flaps, autobrakes, spoilers (as per the report) and both also failed to fly the go-around in a proper way; there was nothing but chaos from the point they discovered the gear wasn't down all the way up to almost the missed approach altitude.

FO was PF by the way. He didn't fail at trying, he and the captain failed altogether at conducting proper CRM
Escape Path is offline   Reply
Old 6th May 2012, 20:31   #47 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 2,476
Where/when did the info come out that the FO was PF? I hadn't noticed that in here.
Intruder is offline   Reply
Old 6th May 2012, 22:32   #48 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5 above the Equator, 75 left of Greenwich
Posts: 176
Quote:
Where/when did the info come out that the FO was PF? I hadn't noticed that in here.
Post #4 has a link to the report:

Quote:
The ATSB report can be found by following this link.
...adding to the fact that the thread talks about the FO asking the captain to set the missed approach altitude as a sort of a "trigger event", meaning he was PF and captain PM
Escape Path is offline   Reply
Old 7th May 2012, 07:54   #49 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 791
There,s a lot of reference to the F/O being PF but you have to read the report and not rely on PPRuNe to tell you. The F/O was PF not PIC. This whole Incident would not have happened if the Captain had been doing his job and monitoring the progress of the flight.
Lookleft is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 11:16.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network