With Teutonic thoroughness
Well, as long as the pilot had fun (and he had no nervous flyers sitting by the portside windows looking virtually straight down at the apron) it really doesn't matter at all that at least one of the women in the terminal clearly thought, for a few seconds, that she was going to be on the receiving end of an airliner coming through the window in front of her, does it? 
I've also listened to the Captain's announcement earlier mentioned in the thread and, if it's a complete record of what he said, he doesn't mention that there's going to be a go-around (let alone that it would be of the type he then did).
I've also listened to the Captain's announcement earlier mentioned in the thread and, if it's a complete record of what he said, he doesn't mention that there's going to be a go-around (let alone that it would be of the type he then did).
Last edited by Captivep; 18th Oct 2017 at 11:36.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Bremen
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aero.de article linked in post #1 cites Air Berlin as saying that it hasn't received any passenger complaints.
I expect the LBA is investigating because the manouvre has been all over the media; it remains to be seen if that is merely a formality or something more serious. The Berliner Zeitung is reporting today that the LBA has asked Air Berlin for a statement/explanation, and that Air Berlin has suspended the crew from service, as is standard procedure when an investigation is ongoing.
I expect the LBA is investigating because the manouvre has been all over the media; it remains to be seen if that is merely a formality or something more serious. The Berliner Zeitung is reporting today that the LBA has asked Air Berlin for a statement/explanation, and that Air Berlin has suspended the crew from service, as is standard procedure when an investigation is ongoing.
German media reports that the cockpit crew of this flight has been suspended due to the pending investigation.
It is rather hard to blame the two colleagues for anything based on what is known at the moment. Checking the requirements for visual turns after departure or go around both in the AB regulations and at EDDL airport would be required, as would be knowledge about the communication between the flight and ATC and also the clearances that may or may not have been given.
Although it was probably a non-standard maneuver, it may well have been covered by all relevant books - and the desire to perform it is also understandable. And an investigation may well come up with the result that nothing untoward has occured.
In dubio pro reo...
It is rather hard to blame the two colleagues for anything based on what is known at the moment. Checking the requirements for visual turns after departure or go around both in the AB regulations and at EDDL airport would be required, as would be knowledge about the communication between the flight and ATC and also the clearances that may or may not have been given.
Although it was probably a non-standard maneuver, it may well have been covered by all relevant books - and the desire to perform it is also understandable. And an investigation may well come up with the result that nothing untoward has occured.
In dubio pro reo...
Last edited by Tu.114; 18th Oct 2017 at 17:56.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checking the requirements for visual turns after departure or go around both in the AB regulations and at EDDL airport would be required
A further objection appears to be based on the go-around being approved following an 'understanding' between tower ATC and the crew on the basis of a spurious undercarriage 'issue'.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to gossip on airliners.net, published go-around procedure is straight-ahead for two miles and then a right turn. Unsurprisingly not an immediate left turn over the terminal and other fuelled airliners.
A further objection appears to be based on the go-around being approved following an 'understanding' between tower ATC and the crew on the basis of a spurious undercarriage 'issue'.
A further objection appears to be based on the go-around being approved following an 'understanding' between tower ATC and the crew on the basis of a spurious undercarriage 'issue'.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can think of several, perhaps quieter, airfields where I would brief and plan the same - join the pattern after a go-around in CAVOK conditions, in preference over following a lengthy MISAP to another lengthy approach. No turns below 400ft, and comply with any local noise abatement requirements. Safe, legal, and commercially sensible.
If it was found that an approach to land had been deliberately abandoned for the sake of a sightseeing trip, I would expect comeuppance, however.
If it was found that an approach to land had been deliberately abandoned for the sake of a sightseeing trip, I would expect comeuppance, however.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sort of a worrying trend on the forum that this is "just good fun".
Yes he may have been within aircraft limits or operating manuals. At my own outfit it would be illegal (clearly turned too low), can't comment on 330 because I don't fly it.
But other questions. Was this properly briefed/trained for/approved? How recent is the pilot in doing this sort of manoeuvre? How recent is your colleague in monitoring (comfortable) it? Not exactly a fresh rested air display pilot having just operated home overnight?
The actual fly by itself, low, right over the top of a pan which anyone familiar with dus Knows is always full of other fueled and loaded aircraft. Suddenly if you get it wrong you've just involved countless other people who had no input on your bit of "fun".
What would have happened with an engine failure? Ok unlikely, but every other part of our operation is built with so many margins and layers of safety, where did you account for this?
Wingtip clearance wasn't that great, would love to know if he had a little heart stopping moment?
Yes he may have been within aircraft limits or operating manuals. At my own outfit it would be illegal (clearly turned too low), can't comment on 330 because I don't fly it.
But other questions. Was this properly briefed/trained for/approved? How recent is the pilot in doing this sort of manoeuvre? How recent is your colleague in monitoring (comfortable) it? Not exactly a fresh rested air display pilot having just operated home overnight?
The actual fly by itself, low, right over the top of a pan which anyone familiar with dus Knows is always full of other fueled and loaded aircraft. Suddenly if you get it wrong you've just involved countless other people who had no input on your bit of "fun".
What would have happened with an engine failure? Ok unlikely, but every other part of our operation is built with so many margins and layers of safety, where did you account for this?
Wingtip clearance wasn't that great, would love to know if he had a little heart stopping moment?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AB OM/A specifically mentions only the first turn after take off (no lower than 400 ft), there is no other limit for turns in the manual. Visual patterns are normal training items during simulator training, visual approaches are flown whenever possible.
And as airberlin does only operate in MFF (A320/A330) each pilot usually has quite a bit more recency in approaches and visual approaches than your run of the mill pure longhaul pilot. Manual flight without autothrust is the norm for approach, raw data heavily encouraged and quite often used. Just checking over the last month or so i have around 35 to 40% of my approaches with FDs on, only one with autohrust and that was a CAT IIIb approach.
And as airberlin does only operate in MFF (A320/A330) each pilot usually has quite a bit more recency in approaches and visual approaches than your run of the mill pure longhaul pilot. Manual flight without autothrust is the norm for approach, raw data heavily encouraged and quite often used. Just checking over the last month or so i have around 35 to 40% of my approaches with FDs on, only one with autohrust and that was a CAT IIIb approach.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine failure. Maybe the pilot knows how to fly so it wouldn’t have been a problem. Seem to remember Concord having a very early turn out of New York for noise. Gosh what if it had an engine failure in the turn. Get real.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Berlin
Age: 56
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
German television ZDF reported Friday that according to investigation documents seen by reporters, PF was the First Officer and this was her yearly line check. A second senior Air Berlin Captain was present on the flight deck as well.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed it did, briefed for and practised in the Sim. Unlike this stunt, at the end of a long haul sector.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did my patterns for the type rating on the 737 25+ years ago, every turn was like that one to save time and money for the company. if, the procedure was approved by ATC, not knowing the A330, I don't see any dangerous action by the flight crew, camera angles are misleading.
Of course I do know that all the armchair and super procedure newbies know it better!
Of course I do know that all the armchair and super procedure newbies know it better!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: OO-KAY
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without the proliferation of camera phones and social mee-jah, very, very few of us would have been aware of this. Did this sort of 'incident' ever happen before the invention of in-phone cameras I wonder?
