@it'snothatbloodyhard:
For me, what it's about is being able to take the opportunity to save the odd few minutes and few hundred kilos of fuel - and more importantly, exercising some basic skills which can easily atrophy if we spend our lives coupled up to an electronic glideslope and flight director. Skills which might've come in handy when Aseana tried to land that 777 in SFO.
Like I said, in this instance, the time this crew were to save, could have been an eternity.
I agree. However, I argue, that in some visual approach scenarios it's not actually
prudent to 'take the opportunity' to practice etc (especially considering there are 100-300-400 people on board your aeroplane who are along for the ride on your visual approach practice). The Aseana into KSFO is on the face of it a botched landing, and I'll keep this courteous, there are plenty of reasons behind that, beyond lack of ability or currency.
@Keg
Or may come in handy on the day when you've got issues and there is no ILS available.
I am sure Qantas pilots are more than able to fly a visual approch into anywhere - all things being equal. Infact, I will expand that to Australian airline pilots in general.
@The Green Goblin
The aeroplane doesn't know it's day, night an ILS or visual approach. The physics of flight does not change one iota.
Ahh, that ol' chestnut.
You're right! BUT, the HUMAN operating the machine
does, and in fact, the human's ability to operate in various environment varies, and often, deteriorates. I won't get into how we react in a dynamic environment and cope with short term targets at the expense of the long term goals. The ILS in GA days was considered a harder approach, because we hardly did them. So, we are talking about deteriorating skill-sets, and hopefully, an airlines Check & Training System will give guys training and plenty of opportunity to keep those visual approach skills to a safe level before releasing a pilot to the line. BUT - again, I argue, the JET, is a machine to get the punters from A to B, not a place for you to be practicing an eroded skill, if it has, in fact, eroded. I am sure, anyone who ended up in the same position as the investigation crew (or even if they FOQA busted or got unstable) would, if they could turn back time, let the 'automaton' fly the ILS approach, and both pilots would be actively monitoring the flightpath - leaving plenty of brain space for increased SA.
@The Green Goblin
If you feel you are less safe on a visual approach than an ILS approach, you shouldn't be flying an aeroplane.
Like I said, it's not a pissing competition, and the jet i command is not the place for me to display my huge cajones.
In the operation I fly, I do a mixture of all types of instrument and visual approaches, many times a week
so currency is not an issue. (Some of my hot-shot FO's might argue that my level of skill may be an issue
).I still pick my fights so to speak. And the scenario that these Qantas guys found themselves in, is one that rings alarm bells in my head, especially into Melbourne. Why doesn't YSSY or YBBN or other major TMA's have the same level of incidents as YMML?
Ok, on the face of it, a VISAPP into YMML16 should be 'easy'. But there are plenty of underlying snags, and when you add it all up..... stupid CTA steps that aren't a defined DME distance or arc, late track shortening, increased track shortening on an ATC opportunity basis, being held high by ATC above your already tight profile, that screw with your now decreasing options to manage the aircraft energy reduction requirements and company FOQA speed limits, flap speeds, speedbrake availability, elevation considerations when calculating your profile, and the looking out the window bit where you are looking into haze, tracking to a visual aim point that is a faarking paddock all the while looking at 60m runway with terrain sloping back up at you. The SHEED arrival, on the other hand, although a pain in the arse with the profile, can be PLANNED and a strategy can be briefed, flown and MONITORED.
I am sure these guys were skilled pilots & quite capable of flying a visual approach in their aircraft. Hell, I'll even bet a fiver they were able to multiply DTR x 3 + 480' for profile!! However, in my view, things were stacking against them in terms of how they felt, and the
increase of crew workload at low level, late in the approach, and the things I have stated above and in my previous post.
Finally, although this is a polite and good discussion, I must admit that I feel somewhat disappointed that professional pilots on here, who face the same thing daily, feel they are somehow immune from all the factors that trapped these guys, and are quick to blame our colleagues.