Diversion - Did Manchester Shrink in the Rain?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the aviation industry is headed nowhere good if we have come to this point.
This is not aimed at a specific type of a/c, but a general comment on what we can expect from future computer systems. In early 1980's LNAV/VNAV glass cockpits were introduced and is now standard even flight school single propellor a/c. Thus I expect this land/no land system will be standard on airliners in 10 years.
What do you do if, at destination. it says you can not land. SOP says you divert. You arrive at ALTN, shorter runway, and it says you can not land, but fuel says you are going to sooner rather than later. You are now in a worse situation than you were originally when your GUT instinct said plonk it on terra firms, but SOP said you will be summoned if you do.
Where has Captaincy gone? Why have one if all trained monkeys are the same?
This is not aimed at a specific type of a/c, but a general comment on what we can expect from future computer systems. In early 1980's LNAV/VNAV glass cockpits were introduced and is now standard even flight school single propellor a/c. Thus I expect this land/no land system will be standard on airliners in 10 years.
What do you do if, at destination. it says you can not land. SOP says you divert. You arrive at ALTN, shorter runway, and it says you can not land, but fuel says you are going to sooner rather than later. You are now in a worse situation than you were originally when your GUT instinct said plonk it on terra firms, but SOP said you will be summoned if you do.
Where has Captaincy gone? Why have one if all trained monkeys are the same?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Company culture is not the same at every airline, for the bette or the worst. I believe that, would this happen to most of the A380 operators, we would have a couple of go-arounds, some head-scratching, some LDA calculation, and a landing at destination. Report filed, problem investigated by the manufacturer and eventually solved.
Looks like the company culture at EK does not allow this.
Looks like the company culture at EK does not allow this.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
2 Posts
RAT5. In 10 years time there will be at least 1 airfield with a runway 5km long within 1.5 hours of anywhere. If the system says NO LAND then G/A, select the ALTN page and the GoTo prompt and confirm. Select APPR and 2nd A/P and sit back, relax and give the dog next to you a treat for not biting you when you touched something.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
2 Posts
Lighthearted reply over I still think the crew did the right thing. Many moons ago a colleague used to finish his emergency brief with the line "and then we will take the least career limiting option". This is what they seemingly did and who can blame them. You may not completely agree but if the train set owner says do that then you do it unless a greater emergency exists AND you can justify it.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think AvHerald added one zero too many. "1300 feet". More like 130 feet which would mean that this thread can now be closed.
They took the only option open to them as EK would have made them pay if they did not.
This flight is very similar to the FZ that crashed. Both took off with lots of fuel. Both did multiple approaches. This flight diverted after three (!) go arounds, and I suspect the FZ flight would have done the same if things did not go bad during the second approach.
Pressure to get in. And pressure not to land even if you know you can.
The ME is a weird and dangerous world.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny old world Manada : In my day, some times, there was pressure on landing even if you knew you shouldn't ! Again, we have bought this insanity on ourselves. We have handed over Command Authority to the bean counters. Did so quite a while ago, actually. Reap the results ! Sit back, press the buttons & take the money. Not a bad job actually !
Correct Landflap, its not the Capt's problem that the aircraft and its pax end up in the wrong place. Off to the hotel for a sleep whilst the company sorts out the mess it brings on itself.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 senior EK pilots who both are excellent operators (know them personally). Not standing up for them here but, if the aircraft is telling you not to land at the current airfield, company procedures (and tech info) state that a diversion is the best possible consideration, fuel is not an issue and is paid for by the company.......then why not do what the company pays you to do, follow their rules! Do what you are paid to do and let the company worry about either the technical issues, company policy or otherwise.
The crew did what they were told (paid) to do to get paid their salary and that's exactly what good pilots would do, simple, straight forward, end of..
J
The crew did what they were told (paid) to do to get paid their salary and that's exactly what good pilots would do, simple, straight forward, end of..
J
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this was good airmanship?
That can only mean every landing with an EK A380 in MAN when it's wet and windy is a very risky enterprise.
So why continue to fly this aircraft into MAN when it is clearly unsuitable for the airport?
That can only mean every landing with an EK A380 in MAN when it's wet and windy is a very risky enterprise.
So why continue to fly this aircraft into MAN when it is clearly unsuitable for the airport?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That can only mean every landing with an EK A380 in MAN when it's wet and windy is a very risky enterprise.
So why continue to fly this aircraft into MAN when it is clearly unsuitable for the airport?
So why continue to fly this aircraft into MAN when it is clearly unsuitable for the airport?
As any rational review of the circumstances would show, this was a computer malfunction followed by a decision to follow SOPs either by the crew alone or under direction from Ops.
Poor Mana. On one thread he is discussing if his little Boeing will ALT capture the MCP altitude in a go around, and here he makes statements about a professional crew....seems a bit duplicitous.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
donpizmeov said
Poor Mana. On one thread he is discussing if his little Boeing will ALT capture the MCP altitude in a go around, and here he makes statements about a professional crew....seems a bit duplicitous.
Airmanship is related to the aircraft size? Or type?
Lets talk airmanship. Emirates OM-A does not say something like this: A second approach should only be done if conditions have improved considerably. A third approach should only be done if landing is highly probable?
Your company has stated that this diversion was due to a storm that was not there.
Flydubai has the same owners as Emirates. Can we expect the same level of thruth from Flydubai when it comes to information relating to the Rostov accident?
Last edited by ManaAdaSystem; 4th Apr 2016 at 08:17.
What information did the crew gain from their maintenance department while holding before the last approach? If you don't know, which from your comments it would seem you don't, how can you question their airmanship?
Spotters opinion really can be distracting on this forum. How you can have such forthright opinion on an event you have no understanding about, while not understanding how your aircraft behaves when conducting a missed approach. This would reflect more poorly upon yourself than this crew.
This crew had nothing to do with what the company says. They just did their job.
Spotters opinion really can be distracting on this forum. How you can have such forthright opinion on an event you have no understanding about, while not understanding how your aircraft behaves when conducting a missed approach. This would reflect more poorly upon yourself than this crew.
This crew had nothing to do with what the company says. They just did their job.
I really don't know why you are bothering with some of the opinions of the less well versed individuals who post here. Whatever you say they will not change their point of view. But that doesn't matter since they don't seem to be in a position to hazard any passengers and don't seem to be willing to learn.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spotters opinion really can be distracting on this forum. How you can have such forthright opinion on an event you have no understanding about, while not understanding how your aircraft behaves when conducting a missed approach. This would reflect more poorly upon yourself than this crew.
Nowhere have I said I don't know how my aircraft behaves in a missed approach. That was not what the discussion was about.
No need to degrade other pilots just because you are used to getting that treament from you own management.
Stick to the topic. Three approaches are unusual, no?
Not landing on a runway that is more than long enough for the aircraft type is not normal practice. If it is not long enough, then the airport is not suitable for the type. Wet and windy is not unusual for MAN.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crew did what they were told (paid) to do to get paid their salary and that's exactly what good pilots would do, simple, straight forward, end of..
They should do anything the company tells them to do, because they're paid by them.
They should heed any advice by maintenance, because they have the bigger picture from their office.
They should fly any fatiguing roster up to 100h a month without complaining, because the FRMS team says that their calculator shows only minor fatiguing sectors.
They should go into any discretion, up to any limit, because the company says its legal.
Simple, straight forward, end of story and we all can give back the fourth stripe.
If you really mean the above, you're dangerous aviators.
