_._._._, "non event", certainly not.
All events are important; their significance depends on what individuals are willing to learn.
The first approach could have been an unusual deviation within normal operations, towards the accepted boundary of procedural approach systems and/or human performance.
We should remind ourselves that NPAs still involve significant risk which although often masked by precision-like systems, still depend on human monitoring and recovery. Thus a GA is 'normal', an approved response to a deviation. Celebrate, and learn from the success of human intervention.
Alternatively there was an unexpected or undetected external disturbance, where crews are again expected to compensate for deviation or error; the crew did, well done.
What we must learn is how the crew performed to achieve this success, or at least how they managed to do their best in the perceived situation.
We could understand how the situation developed, hopefully to identify similar occasions and avoid the circumstances. Of greater importance, we need to understand how the crew recovered the situation, because this behaviour could help in similar misjudged situations and a range of other 'normal' situations which require detection and recovery from operational variability.
Flying is not a narrow band, straight line operation. It is necessary for operational / human deviations in order to achieve objectives, - safety and economics. The skill in flying involves how we manage those deviations, our awareness, adaptability, and knowledge of safe boundaries; what we should learn from this event could help improve these aspects.
If the industry can achieve more successes ( recovery / adaptation ) in normal variable operation, then there should be fewer occasions where the outcome is less than we expect.
Last edited by safetypee; 24th Mar 2017 at 13:25.
Reason: Generic