Airmanship

[RoyHudd]

Qatar Airways crew. Go learn about the topic. No evidence of understanding so far. LGW ATC can validate.

[faheel]

Roy, what a complete waste of bandwidth:*
If you are going to post something at the very least offer up a rumour not some crap like this.

I cannot believe I am bothering to reply to this I must be bored :confused:

[SilentHandover]

I assume RoyHudd is talking about a Qatari flight yesterday morning, aircraft landed long on a wet runway and rolled to H to vacate the runway, it wasn't super quick vacating (but H is not a RET) necessitating a My Travel A330 to go-around behind.

Edited to add: Not commenting on the first post just trying to add some details to what RoyHudd may be talking about.

[eal401]

So what did QR do wrong then? :confused:

Forgive the assumption, but "landing long" on a wet runway doesn't sound much like poor airmanship to me. Can someone explain?

[Right Way Up]

eal401,
I am assuming that you are not a pilot (at least on big stuff). Landing long means not touching down in the touchdown zone, and therefore having a lot less runway to use after touchdown. Very poor airmanship especially on a wet runway.
Any ATCers at LGW know who the light turboprop was coming in last night. I mistook his callsign for a Kestrel one and assumed early on that we were following a normal arrival. However having spotted his low level arrival (do CDAs count for turboprops?), we started to be a bit more wary and already started to slown down before asked by ATC (the joys of TCAS!). I was very impressed at the coolness of the tower controller, which most definately saved a go-around!

[M.Mouse]

Landing long means not touching down in the touchdown zone, and therefore having a lot less runway to use after touchdown. Very poor airmanship especially on a wet runway.

You forgot to add that the rest of us don't do this, ever, because we are all perfect.

What a pathetic thread.

[eal401]

Thanks, Right Way Up, all is understood now.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<already started to slown down before asked by ATC (the joys of TCAS!). >>

If you do things like that too often you will defintely get your fingers very seriously burned...

[Right Way Up]

M.Mouse,
There is landing long and then there is landing long. And where exactly did I say that I had not done it before. It still means it is bad airmanship. If you do not like a thread don't read it, its a free world after all. :hmm:
HD, don't worry I do not ignore ATC speed requests. It was late at night and we had no speed control. My colleague on the flight deck rather than steaming in, selected sensible speeds which with the ATC request to slown down to Min App speed saved a definite go-around.

[757operator]

If we are looking at airmanship, how about China Eastern (Flight International 19-25 April, p8)?

Serious tailstrike on takeoff from Heathrow, told about it by ATC, QRH says don't pressurise - but they fly it all the way to Shanghai!

With damage to the pressure hull, it could have split open like a banana at any time.

[exvicar]

So someone lands long & is slow to vacate, hardly fair to condemn the entire workforce of Qatar. Having had to Go-around twice at LHR recently (on separate occasions), both due to aircraft being slow to exit the runway, I cannot see what your point is. Go arounds are a fact of life, poor airmanship would be landing with one still on! Oh & the airlines that were slow to vacate were BA & BMI, while you are at it why don't you condemn all of their work forces as well!

[10 DME ARC]

I agree with the vicar, you don't know the reasoning behind the Qatar landing long, could have had a problem on short finals or during the landing roll!
I have seen much worse airmanship that that!

[RoyHudd]

I was not criticising the whole QR pilot workforce, just the people who unnecessarily caused another wide-body back into some unpleasant weather at the end of a long flight, with consequent waste of fuel and time. Plus causing problems for other arriving traffic and ATC at a busy period. Plus decreasing safety margins for all involved.

Autobrake MED, coupled with a touchdown in the correct zone would have prevented this, and enabled the said a/c (Airbus) to vacate at the first high-speed turn-off.

Granted, the China A340 was another classic example of poor airmanship. And yes, we all have made mistakes, but it is a good thing if we are informed of our errors and learn from them, especially in this unforgiving environment. I have no time for political correctness in aviation, nor uninformed comments from many of the "contributors" to this thread.

And I am curious why the QR PNF should announce "Oh, good" in reply to London ATC when informed of a r/w change from 08R to 26L when about 100nm's out. Hardly professional in any sense.

[fireflybob]

Maybe the handling pilot was very new to type and/or they were training?

How do you define "long" - surely you need some hard facts before making any judgements?

How do you define "Airmanship"?

[away from home]

The reason the Qatari gave for his lack of expedition(!) was due to breaking action being 'medium'. However the next arrival, a B777, stated that he thought the breaking action was fine.
The landing itself was interesting-well past the TDZ and mostly on one set of wheels!
quote -
"a touchdown in the correct zone would have prevented this, and enabled the said a/c (Airbus) to vacate at the first high-speed turn-off."

- if it had even made the 3rd exit (GR), i think it would probably have worked! But hey, that's life!

(PS-Haven't ever had any great problems with that airline either):ok:

AFH

[Jerricho]

just the people who unnecessarily caused another wide-body back into some unpleasant weather at the end of a long flight

Roy you're displaying a lack of airmanship yourself, questioning another aviator in a situation like this. You're not the only bloody airplane in the sky. For whatever reason the driver of that aircraft decided to land as such. A go-around by the following was executed. What's the big deal?

Why not have a go at ATC for not providing extra spacing if the conditions were such? When I grow up I want to be as perfect as you mate. :rolleyes:

[gingernut]

Roy Hudd's a fine one to talk about airmanship.

You would have thought he'd take his emu with him when fixing the arial.

Or was that Rod Hull ?

[Inuksuk]

Ah yes, the brethern of aviators supporting each other with differing and measured views. Meowwwwwwwww...

We've all screwed up a landing in less than perfect conditions, and in my early days attempting to plop down a big aluminium tube (744), I totally overcooked it, with the ear bashing from the left hand seat, and no doubt rolling eyes, and shaking heads at the EGLL tower...I believe i just about made the TDZ....j u s t...

If however, we are saying there is a generic problem in Qatar or elsewhere, regarding competence and/or training or anything else affecting safe operations, then that's something to get out in the open...any takers lads and/or lassies ?

:ok:

P.S. Gingernut: fair point - and emus can't fly...so much for their airmanship

I believe Roy Hudd is a comedian, not the one with his arm shoved in the carcass of feathered poultry

[Max Angle]

My view would be that having performed what was perhaps not the best landing in his career he then exercised GOOD airmanship by not trying to rush a big airliner off a wet runway at high speed just to suit ATC and the aircraft behind him. If they had ended up in the grass at the side of the turn-off there would have been a hell of lot more than one go-around.

[Rockhound]

Away from home,
Give us a break! Since nothing broke on touchdown or during rollout, maybe the Moderator can put the brakes on this thread, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere. (I totally agree with M. Mouse).
Rockhound

[away from home]

Rockhound- i think if you re-read my post you will find that i was not slagging the pilot off, but just stating the actual FACTS of the landing. I did also say that i have never had any problems with this airline.
Not being a pilot myself, I don't question why a pilot does or doesn't make a certain RET in the type of conditions of yesterday morning and believe me i don't rush aircraft anywhere in crap weather.! Go-arounds happen.:\
AFH

[hobie]

I believe Roy Hudd is a comedian
Spot on GN ..... here's the man ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/profiles/images/roy_hudd.jpg

[Rockhound]

AFH,
Sorry, you didn't catch why I put in my two cents-worth. I was trying to be funny. Never mind, not important.
Rockhound

[away from home]

Rockhound
Yip, didn't quite catch the humour on your post-clearly my spelling/grammar isn't "grate"!!!!;)
AFH

[Scrubbed]

Now, now, J, landing long in the rain with following traffic is either a deliberate act (bad airmanship) or poor flying skill (bad airmanship).

No non-normal I can think of that dictates landing halfway down the runway.

The word "unstabilised" comes to mind.

Truth is, some people were never meant to be pilots.

Fireflyknob wanted a definition of airmanship. Ronny, as I recall, defined it as:

"The safe and efficient handling of the aircraft both in the air and on the ground."

There's a start.

[411A]

Poor airmanship or not, the Commander of the aircraft on the runway decides what is...and is not, proper, when deciding to exit.
Not the tower controller.
Not so called spotters.
No one but the guy (or gal) in charge.
Period.

I often wonder why 'others' think that this is not good enough.:yuk:

[Scrubbed]

Commander of the aircraft on the runway decides what is...and is not, proper, when deciding to exit. Especially if he's made a hash of it......

[exvicar]

Scrubbed

Now, now, J, landing long in the rain with following traffic is either a deliberate act (bad airmanship) or poor flying skill (bad airmanship).

B****cks


Most of the time when you land you have following traffic. Landing on the piano keys may look great in topgun but will not win any prizes in big jet flying. Most long haul crews landing after a long days work with time zone changes and minimum rest are more than likely knackered when they land. Gust of wind or turbulence or heaven forbid misjudgement, as we are afterall human, equals landing in the undershoot. That is poor airmanship! Turning off at 60kts on one wheel in the wet equals poor airmanship. Missing a turn but staying off the grass and causing the following traffic to go around is a fact of life! Just because some one lands long shouldn't mean they are condemned to being poor airmen for the rest of their lives. I do not work for Qatar but I do get annoyed as this is just the sort of clap trap that ends up as a 2 page spread in the Sun with peoples 'near death experiences'. Fatigue in flying is far more prevelant than the one in a zillion case of alcohol & flying. Qatar mate lands long...........big deal. His next landing will probably be perfect.

[Jerricho]

is either a deliberate act

Ah, my dear Scrubbed. Yes, a deliberate act with reasons that you, me or any other person around aside from those who were in the cockpit will know. Yet as always, the worse is assumed. We could speculate for hours and not even come close. Sounds like weather wasn't the best (typical for Blighty eh?), that could be just one of thousands of reasons. Christ, I have lost count of the number of go arounds I had come back to me because the one ahead landed long, rolled to the end, missed their turn off (in both crap weather and 8/8ths of blue). When I grow up I want to be as perfect as Roy AND you.

To insinuate (and in fact level a generalisation at a WHOLE airline) a lack of airmanship based on a situation like this just smells of a soiled nappy.
(One notes you haven't started childishly changing people's usernames that disagree with you here.........yet)

Everyone here will have to forgive Scrubbed. Deep down, he just wants to be loved.

[Right Way Up]

The difficulty about this thread is that it is based on one observers account, and everyone is taking their own slant on that account. I like many others were not witness to the event so cannot comment on it. Although the go-around is inconvenient, and I can only imagine the language on the A330 flight deck, the worrying thing to me on this thread is the lax attitude towards landing long. Yes it does happen, (I am not innocent!), but for the majority to claim that it not a problem is troubling. On another thread the question is asked whether there has been an accident attributed to pilot inebriation. Apart from drugs I believe the answer is no or probably negligible. However when you talk about landing long there have been many accidents including fatalities. The more high-profile include the Southwest at Burbank, the Qantas (probably spelt wrong) at Bangkok. We are classed as "professional" pilots and should not makes excuses for our failings, if it looks wrong, go around!

[Jerricho]

Actually Fireflybob has hit the nail on the head......

How do you define "long" - surely you need some hard facts before making any judgements?

But then again, this is a rumour network, isn't it ;)

[Helen49]

AFH

If the aircraft was 'breaking'....it really did have a problem! Or perhaps you intended to say 'braking'??

H49

[fly bhoy]

Ahhh...

And now the really pedantic posts abusing people's spelling or grammar start!!!

Or is this another tongue in cheek attempt at humour?!?

FB:ok:

[Scrubbed]

Yes I did, J........

As for a definition of "long"...

I'm not sure if it is an official term but, as previously mentioned, a "long landing" is generally held to be when you shift your aim-point or carry power through the flare to touch down beyond the touchdown-zone.

Normally this is requested for reasons of, for EXAMPLE, reducing taxi-time because the desired exit is at the other end of a very long runway. I have only heard of pistons and turbo-props making such a request and only ever in cavok, dry weather.

As for this incident, I suspect (since as J pointed out we weren't there) that it was not a "LONG" landing but a landing which probably was intended to take place in the touchdown zone, as usual for jets (especially on wet runway and with high traffic density) but which went wrong... ie lengthy float due high threshold speed or incorect aimpoint. ie unstabilised approach.

There, was that so hard???

No, we're not all perfect. I've done it myself and there's a simple answer which is generally referred to as a "go-around". AIRMANSHIP also demands this be solution be carried out.

Either you do it or, as we saw here, the guy behind might have to.

The facts, to a large extent, speak for themselves.

[bantios]

Landing long in the wet? The Airbus should have gone around once they passed the TDZ and realised they were too high. I understand the frustration you have Roy. After a long flight you're tired and dont want to deal with the extra work load of a go around. But get over it. It happens and thats life. Maybe the ATC spaced you out too close? Maybe the pilot was new to the type? You could make up a million reasons.

[alf5071h]

Airmanship requires judgment, situation awareness, which in turn relies on knowledge, and all of these are dependant on self discipline.

Who recalls (knowledge) that the ICAO definition of ‘medium’ braking action (code 4 or 3) represents a mu of about 0.4 to 0.3, where a dry runway would have a mu in excess of 0.75 ? The ICAO ‘good’ braking action code 5, is relative to a wet runway, i.e braking is good for wet conditions, which already require a factored distance beyond the dry landing distance.
Also, one of the assumptions made in landing performance is that although in ‘medium / good’ conditions (mu 0.4) and more braking is available than will be used in an average airline type deceleration, if a maximum energy stop were attempted (wet), some distance in excess of certified stopping distance would be expected.
In ‘medium / fair’ conditions (mu 0.3) the assumptions are that sufficient braking force is available for a well-flown approach and landing, however, excess speed or long touchdown would result in an extremely low safety factor depending on runway length and crosswind component. Careful planning and good judgment are required.

Most crew’s will have difficulty in gaining an understanding of the actual runway state (situation awareness) based on a single source of information, particularly from other aircraft. Even same type aircraft may have differing characteristics, brake / tire wear, etc, and amount of braking / reverse used. One man’s reported judgment is another’s failure.

Finally, discipline requires safety based actions. By all means consider the following traffic, but he/she will not thank you for your overrun causing his/her aircraft to divert. Discipline also requires resistance to peer pressure, not aided by some of the attitudes shown in this topic. This pressure also applies to a go around; there is nothing wrong in going around from the threshold if a long landing is inevitable, it is not a failure of the individual which should be blamed, but more a refection on the circumstances that the person found themselves in. Who are we to judge another pilot’s action when we can all make mistakes in similar circumstances?

Airmanship during approach and landing requires getting your aircraft down on the runway at the right place, correct speed, and stopping it by use of a level of braking consistent with maximizing safety. Equally, good airmanship is flying a timely go around.

[bantios]

Well said alf5071h. Who do you fly for? PM me.

[Scrubbed]

I'll PM you too.... since I said exactly the same thing in fewer words and shifted the entire direction of the thread..... :ok:

[eal401]

I wonder if those who criticise the pilots for not going around have any awareness of the management culture in Qatar Airways? Might put a different slant on things.

[Jerricho]

No, we're not all perfect. I've done it myself

Hypocrisy
(noun)

When someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time:

eg: There's one rule for her and another rule for everyone else and it's sheer hypocrisy.

[Scrubbed]

HAHAHAHAHAAAAA........!!! :ok:

I had to read that about 6 times to figure what you meant.

You don't really think that, do you?? But if you do, well my friend, I'm flattered you have such a high opinion of me...


Hey there's one thing no one has considered here with this landing:

Maybe it was Aloha's will.

[scanscanscan]

I think ATC today run aircraft too close for the old runway system that has limited and very short high speed turnoffs placed close to taxiways designed for past generation narrowbodied aircraft.
The tower instruction "Cleared to land" has become "Land after" ( Basically bloody good luck to you as you are nolonger my responsibility do what you like we do not care as we are in the clear legally if there are two or three of you on the runway.)
I consider it poor airmanship to be fixated in making a nearly impossible turn off in the wet and ATC who never issue a MU reading and can avoid liability by asking a prop pilot what the braking action is for a landing jumbo is a totally stupid blind leading the blind system.
I agree with 411A that if you make the runway it is yours until you are satisfied you are at a safe speed to turn off.
ATC telling you to expidite as you flare for landing or killing the ILS on you during an autoland flare is to be deplored and ignored if doing so you would endanger your aircraft.
ATC was a service now it is more like a Control and getting to the point of orders to be followed into danger.
Follow LHR speed instructions to the letter and you will have several go arounds. There is a time lag on their instructions (if they have not forgotten about you) and there is a further time lag as the pilot adjusts speed and it takes effect. This eats up the reduced safety margins and gaurantees a goodly number of ATC accepable goarounds.This situation may stop when enough people die, but do not hold your breath.

[Jerricho]

Follow LHR speed instructions to the letter and you will have several go arounds

WTF?


a goodly number of ATC accepable goarounds.


Double WTF??

Have you actually been to West Drayton and sat and watched the Approach guys and gals? :rolleyes:

(Did ya like that one Scrubbed ;) )

[Scrubbed]

Indeed.

I'm a big fan of irony.

[brain fade]

Talking about Airmanship.........

Seems to me that there are loads of folk who either can't or wont fly a visual approach. Now I know theres loads of times and places where it would not be appropriate either to ask for or accept one. Equally there are loads of opportunities to expedite your own flight and also the one behind you.

Discuss.:ok:

[Right Way Up]

Very true Brain Fade,
EDI 24, AGP 32 to name but a few. As you say in the right circumstances.

[Del Prado]

ATC was a service now it is more like a Control

And the reason ? So more aircraft per hour can use the runway, so the airlines can make more money.
Atc are under an enormous amount of pressure to use the runway as efficiently as possible. ALL this pressure comes from the airlines.

Take Heathrow as an example where the landing rate can be around 40 per hour.
If ATC reduces the inbound spacing by a quarter of a mile, over one hour they save 10 miles-that's three extra movements. If the tight spacing causes one go around per hour the landing rate is still ahead by two.
If you're the unlucky one that gets the go-around, you might come on here and bemoan the airmanship of the one ahead or the spacing from radar but the truth is go-arounds are unavoidable if we are to achieve the runway utilisation demanded by airlines.

[Jerricho]

go-arounds are unavoidable

And Del, if I may, go-arounds can be instigated by ATC OR the driver, once again fro a multitude of reasons.

I still want to know WTF this means...............

a goodly number of ATC accepable goarounds

:rolleyes:

One thinks Roy doesn't want to play anymore........

[brain fade]

Right way up

I agree. 24 at EDI is a prime example.

Del Prado.
My point precisely.
If more folk could take/ asked for/ were offered/ would fly a 'visual', it would take some of the heat off ATC. Seems to be the queue that builds up is simply to make sure you're kept clear of the one ahead. But if the one ahead went viz there would be less of a need for seperation and less of a queue would build.
Thats what 'airmanship' used to be about.

[fly bhoy]

scanscanscan

The tower instruction "Cleared to land" has become "Land after" ( Basically bloody good luck to you as you are nolonger my responsibility do what you like we do not care as we are in the clear legally if there are two or three of you on the runway.)

What complete rubbish. I would never issue a straight out landing clearance if there was something on the runway. I might use the "after the landing" clearance, but there are safeguards put in place to ensure safety.

And if I were to consider issuing a "land after" clearance, then yes, the burden of responsibility does pass to the aircraft commander, but as we controllers are so often told, the final arbiter for the safety of the aircraft is...you've guessed it, the aircraft commander.

With this instruction (because it IS an instruction not actually a clearance!) I am NOT saying, "i'm going to look the other way and let you think its safe to land on an occupied runway", what I am saying in this instance is "if you feel that, with your experience and judgement, you can safely land your aircraft and stop it with the distance you can SEE you have (hence the necessity to ask if you're visual with the preceeding traffic) then you can attempt it. If you don't think you can then you initiate a missed approach". Its that simple. All we are doing is saying, rather than automatically send you around we'll give you a choice, one which I'd like to point out I have never seen refused.

And as for...

ATC was a service now it is more like a Control and getting to the point of orders to be followed into danger

I would like to point out that the "C" in ATC stands for "CONTROL"

I also find it disgusting that you would suggest that we controllers would do something on purpose to endanger your aircraft. If you feel that an instruction puts you in danger then by all means question it, but only if you feel it puts you and your pax at risk. Otherwise, trust us to look after you and try to provide the best service we can.

FB:ok:

[AIRWAY]

Come on guys, i think this is turning into one of those debates Pilots Vs ATC, apart from a few comments i was/am enjoying reading/learning the information from both sides :ok:

[hangten]

well said fly bhoy!

i would never issue a 'after the landing (a/c) cleared to land (rwy)' unless i am absolutely certain that by the time your aircraft crosses the threshold the preceding lander has vacated. i don't consider the alternative, the more widely used 'land after the' (note the lack of cleared) as viable because if i cannot guarantee your separation when it's my responsibility i am not going to dust my hands of it - instead i'm afraid you're going for a radar circuit...

unfortunately commercial pressure is such that the temptation to let safety lapse for it is there. such instances are obviously not acceptable. a serious accident will do much more to damage the industry than a few thousand quids worth of fuel here and there.

finally, if you are ever cleared to land in a situation where you think it's unsafe, you are not under any obligation to do so. it's been mentioned before, the commander has final responsibility for the safety of his aircraft. if you aren't happy, go-around. please.

[Sunfish]

With the greatest of respect, at a little country airport yesterday an old guy I met said: "Its better to be explaining why you went around than why you didn't".

I wonder if this saying is applicable?

[shortly]

The title of this thread is 'Airmanship'. A good old expression not much in use these days as the trick cyclists have taken over our HF training and replaced it with jingoism and bullsh*t. I shudder to read that we would even consider landing 300 odd tons of metal at Mirage landing speeds on a runway already occupied by a hunk of metal and flesh. I agree with Sunfish. I also am sorry that the post has degenerated into a bash ATC opportunity. Re- the original slow exit from the runway, well even an old salt such as me has been there, braking problems or technical failures towards the end of the landing ground roll can get your attention, taking the smile right off your puss. Then you assume those behind will demonstrate good airmanship and make a safe go around realising that you wouldn't screw them on purpose. Why as aircrew are we always the first to shove the dirk into our contemporaries? Strange breed we are, when we do decide to stick together we inevitably choose the wrong reason at the wrong time and get the bat shoved right up it. Happy flying guys and gals.

[exvicar]

Point & case. Remaining on the runway for longer than expected rather than taking an exit at 60 kts and putting a wheel in the grass = good 'airmanship'. Going around because the aforementioned aircraft is still on the runway = good 'airmanship'. LHR ATC, on the whole you guys & girls are great. Sometimes circumstance is against you & or us. Devils advocate, a go around costs a bit of fuel, so what, it is a lot better than crashing! (Bad airmanship)!

[VH-Cheer Up]

Summary

Bad Airmanship
Crashing.
Being key witness at investigation after nearly crashing, no matter how positive the attitude and how mild the plea bargain...
Severely embarrassing less fortunate others.
Leaving yourself open to someone else's stupidity or their skill/experience deficit.
Breaking something and handing it back without saying anything.
Being glass-jawed.
Not being prepared for the unexpected.

Good Airmanship
Not crashing
Not being investigated
Not making SLF sick
Returning the equipment in a condition and manner in which you would be pleased to find it.
Being prepared for unusual, unexpected and undesirable situations.
Having the capacity to roll with the punches.

VHCU

[Rananim]

I hate to see pilots disrespect controllers...they are our lifeblood

[Maxrev]

Max Angle got it right.

We've all done clangers: landed long, too fast, too slow, off the centreline, out of the TDZ, held it off a bit too long, left the power on a bit too late, pulled it off too early - we're only human.

After one of those, in the wet, A330 up your chuff, you're thinking 'whoops' and the natural tendency would be to steam round the (non-high speed) turnoff and get off quick, thereby greatly increasing your chances of putting the thing in the long grass if you make a horlicks of it.

Better that they slowed it down and got off in one piece, on the black stuff, with nothing hurt but a little pride.

Poor airmanship maybe, but the drama didn't become a crisis because of a cool head, at least.