PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Turkish airliner crashes at Schiphol
View Single Post
Old 8th May 2010, 14:02
  #2739 (permalink)  
RAT 5
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Please do not let undue emphasis be given to "intercepting the G/S from above." In years gone by this was not uncommon. Agreed ATC should not do it; usually it is LOC & G/S together. Some airfields were expert at that, whilst asking for min clean as well. Interesting if medium length finals. If ATC was going to give an above interept, and I was based at AMS for many years, they should ask first if you ready and able to accept a shortened turn in. On an EFIS a/c there is so much information to agree/disagree such an offer. When self-positioning to expedite an arrival it was quite common to turn in and intercept G/S at OM. It took good judgement, and the A/P could be used to good effect if necessary. Manually was no big deal either; depended if you were VMC or not.
In doing so, intercepting from above, it heightened your situational awareness and made you MORE alert, not less. This is the mystery to me. I've not yet read the report and wonder if the CVR gives us a clue.
What will be interesting to see, considering this, and the Buffalo crash, is the response of the authorities and airlines to manual flying skills and tests. I know of airlines, where due to their large number of sectors each month, the general expectation of our colleagues is that those pilots must be skilled in manual handling, short rwys, numerous circlings, NPA's and visual circuits. Due to the emphasis and encouragement of using automatics, and an active discouragement of visual approaches, the opposite is true. "Use of automtics make for a safer opertaion". They even get nervous landing on Rwys with no G/S references. What ever happended to basic parameters and Mk.1 eyeball?
I still say that the pilots are the last insurance policy for the company & pax. Use of the automatics for all reasons stated, safety, fuel, comfort, is fine. The insurance is needed when they muck up. If they, the crew, are not fit for purpose when needed then something sure ain't right; even worse if it is the mis-handling of those safety enhancing automatics that started the cataclysmic chain of events.
RAT 5 is offline