Originally Posted by
Hummingfrog
Perhaps it is time to put to bed the differences in basic training and using different techniques to control height/speed.
We are assuming that, as the serviceability of the SP seems to have been OK, that there has been some form of procedural/pilot error. So how did this happen?
We have 2 experienced pilots flying a relatively simple IFR approach, in IMC, as cloud was probably scattered at 200ft, broken at 300ft. They knew the MDH was 300ft so would be trying to fly as accurately as possible to achieve the required visual clues at, or just before, the MAP. Yet the airspeed was allowed to decay to such an extent that the a/c developed a RoD which was high enough for the a/c to enter the water?
The NHP would have his eyes clued to the instruments while the HP would certainly be monitoring them while looking up to see if he had the required visual parameters to land. His scan in/out would increasingly be out as he neared MDH and probably fully out by the 100ft to go call.
The AIB full report will make very interesting reading especially looking at the casual factors such as training/autopilot approach SOPs/management philosophy on the use of the autopilot. Then the human factors as to why 2 pilots didn't recover from a low speed U/P before they entered the water. Then any technical faults which may have confused or misled the crew into thinking they were in control.
HF
Fair enough, but just to add that i am in agreement with other posters who say that for an NPA, it would never be best practice to be coupled to VS alone. Ideally 4 axis but failing that, couple to IAS. An ILS is perhaps different because the most important parameter is GS, with IAS being not that important PROVIDED its kept somewhere reasonable.
In other words, being of the view that in general the autopilot is better at flying than the pilot (certainly in the case of the 225 anyway) I would rather have the AP doing the more critical bit and the pilot the less critical bit, though to be honest I can't remember how well the L2 copes with cyclic coupled to GS in turbulence etc.