BA762 report released (cowl doors openning)
Juan
Thanks for the info.
FWIW if I recall the last missive on this from the Boeing side of the operation correctly the logic was, to paraphrase, that using A/T allowed us mere mortals to fly to touchdown more accurately, which led to fewer "long"/hot landings and therefore reduced achieved touchdown dispersion, all this being a good thing since it supposedly reduces the chance of a runway excursion.
As you say the consequences of de-skilling the workforce seem to have been ignored.
...I wonder what the chances are of this policy being "revisited"
in the light of this recent report?
Thanks for the info.
FWIW if I recall the last missive on this from the Boeing side of the operation correctly the logic was, to paraphrase, that using A/T allowed us mere mortals to fly to touchdown more accurately, which led to fewer "long"/hot landings and therefore reduced achieved touchdown dispersion, all this being a good thing since it supposedly reduces the chance of a runway excursion.
As you say the consequences of de-skilling the workforce seem to have been ignored.
...I wonder what the chances are of this policy being "revisited"
in the light of this recent report?
Last edited by wiggy; 17th Jul 2015 at 08:49.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA762 report released (cowl doors openning)
Wiggy,
The problem is that now the workforce have been well and truly deskilled any relaxation that allowed manual thrust handling would lead to an increase in the number of 'events', thus "proving" the management were correct all along!
I can almost see the logic of the original decision were it not for the fact that a U/S auto thrust remains a dispatchable snag
The problem is that now the workforce have been well and truly deskilled any relaxation that allowed manual thrust handling would lead to an increase in the number of 'events', thus "proving" the management were correct all along!
I can almost see the logic of the original decision were it not for the fact that a U/S auto thrust remains a dispatchable snag
ASRAAM
You're right..I suspect in the interests of not turning the supertanker around and/or causing red faces in the office the best we'll see is an increase in manual handling in the sim.
I suspect the lawyers are quite happy as long as we cover everything in the safety plan ("wagon wheel") in every brief, because then we're bound to have a safe flight - right
You're right..I suspect in the interests of not turning the supertanker around and/or causing red faces in the office the best we'll see is an increase in manual handling in the sim.
I suspect the lawyers are quite happy as long as we cover everything in the safety plan ("wagon wheel") in every brief, because then we're bound to have a safe flight - right
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mud Island
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too many holes not enough cheese?
The thread seems to be drifting away from the problem in discussing autoflight and tired flight engineers.
Being tired is fairly normal for many professions working long and difficult hours. You learn to live with it and recognise when you are vulnerable. Being fatigued is a different matter for discussion between pilot groups, management and authority. Too often we wave the tired / fatigue flag as soon as we make a mistake.
Standard procedures are your friend when you are tired and need to be adhered to even more vigorously. If the captain had ascertained that his aircraft really was safe to fly before scribbling his signature on the tech log and if the F/O had properly supported his captain by performing a proper pre-flight inspection then none of this would have happened.
Highly unprofessional.
Being tired is fairly normal for many professions working long and difficult hours. You learn to live with it and recognise when you are vulnerable. Being fatigued is a different matter for discussion between pilot groups, management and authority. Too often we wave the tired / fatigue flag as soon as we make a mistake.
Standard procedures are your friend when you are tired and need to be adhered to even more vigorously. If the captain had ascertained that his aircraft really was safe to fly before scribbling his signature on the tech log and if the F/O had properly supported his captain by performing a proper pre-flight inspection then none of this would have happened.
Highly unprofessional.
BA requirement is 777/787/Airbus pilots to practice manual thrust management once every three years in the sim
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the shipping world it took a major disaster before they really sorted the doors open problem..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Her...ree_Enterprise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Her...ree_Enterprise
If the captain had ascertained that his aircraft really was safe to fly before scribbling his signature on the tech log....
Last edited by wiggy; 17th Jul 2015 at 14:03.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quote 'The formal pre-flight acceptance in the Aircraft Technical Log by the designated aircraft commander that both the aircraft and the Aircraft Technical Log have been inspected and found to be, respectively, fit for flight and in order.' from Captain's Aircraft Acceptance - SKYbrary Aviation Safety.
As Groucho found these words are not written lightly. At the end of this definition are the words ' It is evident from the above that the first flight of the day and/or the first flight to be undertaken by a new aircraft commander are likely to require more activity prior to the acceptance signature.'.
That seems reasonable to me.
Wiggy's concern about the level of detailed inspection carried out before signing is belittling the role of the commander. Responsibility is about being sure, and not complacent. You do not depart before checking that the departure and route information is correctly entered and set up, for example, even though the company has provided the aircraft with that information. Why? Because mistakes can be made. On first issue or amendment of routing data, a new route, a new destination you will be particularly careful. Over the years how many static ports have been found to have masking tape over them during a walk-round? A walk round is a means of reasonably ascertaining that the aircraft is fit to do what is intended, opening and shutting some hatches may well be part of that task. If it all looks good, based on your experience and knowledge of the type, and knowledge of aviation and what can go wrong, then as a commander you have reasonably ascertained that the aircraft is fit ...etc. First flight, especially after someone has interfered with the aircraft's documented airworthiness, is a time to be especially vigilant. A walk round in these conditions, by the person with final responsibility to make sure that the holes are not lined up, may not be something to be done by others without that experience.
As Groucho found these words are not written lightly. At the end of this definition are the words ' It is evident from the above that the first flight of the day and/or the first flight to be undertaken by a new aircraft commander are likely to require more activity prior to the acceptance signature.'.
That seems reasonable to me.
Wiggy's concern about the level of detailed inspection carried out before signing is belittling the role of the commander. Responsibility is about being sure, and not complacent. You do not depart before checking that the departure and route information is correctly entered and set up, for example, even though the company has provided the aircraft with that information. Why? Because mistakes can be made. On first issue or amendment of routing data, a new route, a new destination you will be particularly careful. Over the years how many static ports have been found to have masking tape over them during a walk-round? A walk round is a means of reasonably ascertaining that the aircraft is fit to do what is intended, opening and shutting some hatches may well be part of that task. If it all looks good, based on your experience and knowledge of the type, and knowledge of aviation and what can go wrong, then as a commander you have reasonably ascertained that the aircraft is fit ...etc. First flight, especially after someone has interfered with the aircraft's documented airworthiness, is a time to be especially vigilant. A walk round in these conditions, by the person with final responsibility to make sure that the holes are not lined up, may not be something to be done by others without that experience.
And anyway the AAIB's recommendation isn't for that, it's for an unlatched condition
@DavidReidUK
I think the AAIB recommendation has merit.
The notion of a Start-up lockout could work, but my point is that it further complicates the engine system, leaving an opening for unintended consequences, perhaps imperfect statement of requirements and all that. If done perfectly, of course, it's fine. But if we proliferate "fixes" like this we can add all sorts of new failure modes, and the eventual need to "fix" those too.
Just my philosophy, your mileage may vary.
I think the AAIB recommendation has merit.
The notion of a Start-up lockout could work, but my point is that it further complicates the engine system, leaving an opening for unintended consequences, perhaps imperfect statement of requirements and all that. If done perfectly, of course, it's fine. But if we proliferate "fixes" like this we can add all sorts of new failure modes, and the eventual need to "fix" those too.
Just my philosophy, your mileage may vary.
Surely the simple answer is a latch which can only be opened or locked with a tool that has 6' of 'COWL IS UNLATCHED' red tape on it, and can only be removed if the cowl is locked??
Let's call it a 'key'...
Even my automatic car has an interlock on the ignition key, it won't come out the lock unless the handbrake is on and the gear selector in 'Park'...
Let's call it a 'key'...
Even my automatic car has an interlock on the ignition key, it won't come out the lock unless the handbrake is on and the gear selector in 'Park'...
Wiggy's concern about the level of detailed inspection carried out before signing is belittling the role of the commander.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yours was a valid question and I am interested in the responses. However, it seemed to me that you were almost advocating signing for the aircraft as long as everyone else has done what they signed for....
Also, you say that you are happy to arrive at the aircraft and delegate the walk round - and that is what concerns me with the actions taken in this case and the AAIB report. Do BA (or other operator's) Captains routinely delegate first flight walk rounds? Why? The AAIB report did not consider the pros and cons of those actions (preferring to concentrate on shortcomings in engineering management, which do need addressing) - I think they should have. My opinion - I am interested in what others think about it.
Also, you say that you are happy to arrive at the aircraft and delegate the walk round - and that is what concerns me with the actions taken in this case and the AAIB report. Do BA (or other operator's) Captains routinely delegate first flight walk rounds? Why? The AAIB report did not consider the pros and cons of those actions (preferring to concentrate on shortcomings in engineering management, which do need addressing) - I think they should have. My opinion - I am interested in what others think about it.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The First Officer is as qualified as me to an external inspection of the ship. In some respects more so as he does more of them than me. When I was an FO I had a few skippers shadow me on walk arounds mumbling about how an FO got them in trouble by missing something 10 years ago blah blah blah. I understand that the Captain signs the log and its legal ramifications but we also have a reasonable expectation that others employed by the airline, either directly or by contract to perform their duties are trained a qualified to do so. So where do we draw the line? If I inspected everyone else's tasks to my total and verifiable satisfaction the jet would never move. When dispatched under a DDG, I read the specific deferral, confirm it is the appropriate deferral for the issue ( caught a few of them over the years) and if FD CB's should be pulled and collared the I verify they were done. I don't climb into the E and E compartment or open the APU cowl to inspect engineering tasks performed there. RESONABLE EXPECTATION.
Last edited by flite idol; 17th Jul 2015 at 16:06.
Interestingly enough, I flew for my last company for 19 very successful years. The SOP was that the captain ALWAYS did the external and there was many a night that I froze my balls off doing walk rounds whilst the F/O was nicely tucked up in a warm cockpit.
Funnily enough, for the previous 25 years I had had the benefit of a stalwart flight engineer who normally looked after this inspection for me but now that he wasn't there any more, it seemed reasonable to adopt this responsibility and to do it myself. Most of the time I found very little wrong but on occasion, I found cowlings not done up properly.
Certainly, if I had been flying an aircraft that already had 34 reported occasions of getting airborne with unlocked cowlings then I can absolutely assure you that this item would have been very high in my hit list - EVEN IF IT MEANT GETTING MY KNEES WET IN THE PROCESS.
This whole episode smacks of complacency.
Who comes out of it well?
I simply cannot believe that pilots on a multi-crew flight deck are still shutting engines down without involving the other pilot. It is simply incredible.
As to not having been allowed to use manual thrust for years and years. That is a fantastic concept to me.
The whole thing was a bloody shambles.
They were very lucky.
From an operational point of view they managed to close both runways at Heathrow and that must have impressed the rest of the aviation world who were trying to land at the time including their own brethern.
In fact, it makes me wonder about the BA habit of "committing" to Heathrow on the basis that it has two runways when one of their own tribe can shut the whole place down in minutes.
Am I alone or can someone out there tell me that they actually did well?
Funnily enough, for the previous 25 years I had had the benefit of a stalwart flight engineer who normally looked after this inspection for me but now that he wasn't there any more, it seemed reasonable to adopt this responsibility and to do it myself. Most of the time I found very little wrong but on occasion, I found cowlings not done up properly.
Certainly, if I had been flying an aircraft that already had 34 reported occasions of getting airborne with unlocked cowlings then I can absolutely assure you that this item would have been very high in my hit list - EVEN IF IT MEANT GETTING MY KNEES WET IN THE PROCESS.
This whole episode smacks of complacency.
Who comes out of it well?
I simply cannot believe that pilots on a multi-crew flight deck are still shutting engines down without involving the other pilot. It is simply incredible.
As to not having been allowed to use manual thrust for years and years. That is a fantastic concept to me.
The whole thing was a bloody shambles.
They were very lucky.
From an operational point of view they managed to close both runways at Heathrow and that must have impressed the rest of the aviation world who were trying to land at the time including their own brethern.
In fact, it makes me wonder about the BA habit of "committing" to Heathrow on the basis that it has two runways when one of their own tribe can shut the whole place down in minutes.
Am I alone or can someone out there tell me that they actually did well?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW - you aren't alone!
As for the fact that the FO knows most about the walk round because s/he does more of them - that is worrying. But so is shadowing FOs (or engineers, or cabin crew), except when brand new and under training, or suspicious.
As for the fact that the FO knows most about the walk round because s/he does more of them - that is worrying. But so is shadowing FOs (or engineers, or cabin crew), except when brand new and under training, or suspicious.
It does seem incredible that in spite of the spate of accidents worldwide caused by pilot mishandling, that BA Training Management promote this practice of de-skilling their pilots.
It seems the only pilots in BA allowed to maintain their manual flying practice en route, where it matters, are on the B744.
It seems the only pilots in BA allowed to maintain their manual flying practice en route, where it matters, are on the B744.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA762 report released (cowl doors openning)
Ok, for those of you who think the Capt should ALWAYS do the walk round, here's a question.
The jetty has been the removed and you are about to push back when the purser tells you the toilet tank is full. You contact the handlers on the radio to arrange for it to be emptied.
When the task has been completed do you ask for the jetty to be re-attached so you can go down and personally make sure the flap has been closed or do you take it on trust even though no signatures are involved.
As many have said, you have to trust the rest of the operation to achieve its tasks. I do find it interesting though that there are those here who were prepared to trust a Flight Engineer to do the walk round but not the First Officer
The jetty has been the removed and you are about to push back when the purser tells you the toilet tank is full. You contact the handlers on the radio to arrange for it to be emptied.
When the task has been completed do you ask for the jetty to be re-attached so you can go down and personally make sure the flap has been closed or do you take it on trust even though no signatures are involved.
As many have said, you have to trust the rest of the operation to achieve its tasks. I do find it interesting though that there are those here who were prepared to trust a Flight Engineer to do the walk round but not the First Officer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA762 report released (cowl doors openning)
The point I am attempting to make is that it is not possible or realistic for the Captain to check all work carried out on the aircraft. It is also reasonable to delegate jobs to the F/O, especially since the F/O holds a P1 rating on the aircraft. I used the toilet servicing as a practical and reasonable example, it could have been all manner of other tasks
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASRAAM, noone expects the Captain to be single pilot on a multi-crew aircraft. Delegation is part of the Captain's remit - when safe. Arguably there are times, like first flight, flight after maintenance (in this case BOTH of these), or even inexperienced FO when it could be prudent and responsible for the Captain to ensure that he does the walk round. Experience levels may even be similar but ultimately the Captain carries the can, not the FO. If the Captain does not have the combination of knowledge, experience and ability s/he should not be signing for the aircraft. Blaming engineers, engineering, management or FOs is passing the buck and not what the Captain is paid for.
However, you are right - the deicing process is one example where there are opportunities for aircraft to attempt to get airborne without the crew, let alone the Captain, being able to verify, if they wanted to, that what is supposed to have been done has in fact been done.
Another post mentions contractors - this is relevant to deicing. A contractor owes allegiance to a different company and will be under different pressures. The contractor does not fly on the aircraft .....
There are many opportunities for serious problems that are only fully recognised after serious incidents - my argument is that it is the Captain who can and should do his best to stop the holes lining up as s/he is the last link. Delegation may be the way to do this - but surely not when on the ground, with no emergencies unfolding, with no alarms going off...
However, you are right - the deicing process is one example where there are opportunities for aircraft to attempt to get airborne without the crew, let alone the Captain, being able to verify, if they wanted to, that what is supposed to have been done has in fact been done.
Another post mentions contractors - this is relevant to deicing. A contractor owes allegiance to a different company and will be under different pressures. The contractor does not fly on the aircraft .....
There are many opportunities for serious problems that are only fully recognised after serious incidents - my argument is that it is the Captain who can and should do his best to stop the holes lining up as s/he is the last link. Delegation may be the way to do this - but surely not when on the ground, with no emergencies unfolding, with no alarms going off...