flyBe GPWS incident (rumour) [Archive]

alf5071h

16th Jan 2007, 18:34

A pedantic but serious safety point is that modern aircraft are fitted with Enhanced GPWS (EGPWS); the continuing use of ‘GPWS’ can be misleading and may result in crews failing to understand the important differences between systems. There are several important improvements with the new EGPWS (TAWS) and the older GPWS (egpws,com). In addition to advancing the alerts and warnings and providing graphic displays, EGPWS is much more reliable, up to 100 times better. See “The last line of Defence” (www.flightsafety.org/pubs/asw_2007.html) and the previous articles on near CFIT accidents in last years issues of Aero Safety World. The original paper is available here – ‘TAWS Saves’ (http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/alf5071h.htm).

Was the approach to PGF non-precision? It will be interesting to see if this incident contains similar error provoking items and situations as those in the CFIT paper. Also would some of the defenses have helped; i.e. at least one pilot selecting EGPWS terrain display for all approaches, which should minimize the shock of a surprise warning.

akerosid

16th Jan 2007, 19:04

Wait till the report on their ORK incident comes out. Makes Knock look like a hiccup.

Can you give a more detailed account of this (and I realise there are limitations to what you can say, before the report comes out, but just in general terms)? All I've heard is that they went too low on finals and came close to a hill, but would be curious to know more ...

PhoenixRising

16th Jan 2007, 19:19

Can you give a more detailed account of this (and I realise there are limitations to what you can say, before the report comes out, but just in general terms)? All I've heard is that they went too low on finals and came close to a hill, but would be curious to know more ...

Story I heard was they were way too high on finals, decided to do a descending orbit, got well below the runway and had to climb up to the runway to land, getting quite close to a few chimney pots while doing so.

Cork airport is perched on top of a hill for those not familiar with it.

Smokie

16th Jan 2007, 21:18

flybe.com, you are probably correct about PGF, but after the approach to the other airfield the Captain was most definitely sacked.

And another has been asked to fall on his sword!

GBNPY

16th Jan 2007, 22:25

If these incidents keep happening then surely there is a training problem?:ugh:

flybe.com

17th Jan 2007, 00:31

Smokie - I see. I hadn't heard about the CMF incident where both were sacked, was that on the 400 or 146?

.....and from what incident did the Captain falling on his sword arise?

As GBNPY indicates, there's got to be a common factor behind all this.

Hudson Bay

17th Jan 2007, 17:08

Idiot for orbiting on final. Why did he not carry out a standard go around?

Snigs

18th Jan 2007, 12:10

Removed pending the AAIB report

Snigs

19th Jan 2007, 07:01

Removed pending the AAIB report

Croqueteer

19th Jan 2007, 07:35

:= Do not wash your company's dirty linen in public.

Snigs

19th Jan 2007, 10:17

It seems that this place never changes! :ugh: Don't know why I came back. :ouch:
All I am trying to do, possible naively, is to prevent two separate stories getting mixed up. Shoot me for trying. :*

Hudson Bay

19th Jan 2007, 12:56

BRUpax

19th Jan 2007, 14:13

So, as one who flies BEE from time to time, should I still consider them to be a safe operation? What with CMF, PGF, ORK, not to mention bits falling of their aeroplanes etc., sounds to me as if this airline is heading down the slippery slope! :}

StudentInDebt

19th Jan 2007, 14:26

highflyin
You don't need hind sight to know that taking up an orbit on final is bang out of order. This sector was a public transport flight in a heavy turbo prop aircraft with passengers on board. It was NOT a Cessna 150 on a Sunday afternoon jolly. Many CFIT accidents are due to non standard ops the most recent being a 737 taking up an orbit on final at Bristol. Another idiot in command. A standard go around was required nothing else.
Hind sight is good and we can learn a lot from it but certain incidents are unforgivable. This is one of them and it scares me that it could of been me sitting in the cabin with a sub standard crew that are oblivious to dangerous manoeuvres such as this.
Um, as I read Snig's posting about it no-one was "taking up an orbit" on final approach. They actually (allegedly) conducted a rather unorthadox circling approach - a procedure which is an approved method for aligning any aircraft, from a C150 to a 747, with a runway that has no instrument approach. Whilst it is certainly a demanding procedure (especially when IMC :eek: ) it is not a dangerous one.
I must have missed the "recent" headlines about a 737 hitting a hill on final at Bristol!

StudentInDebt

19th Jan 2007, 14:34

I'll try to avoid irony in future Mike

malcarr

20th Jan 2007, 18:12

Just a tiny, humble, pedantic correction, with respect, from an infrequent flying SLF:-

Perfect hindsight should perhaps be referred to as '6/6'; it's metric now, and the Imperial 20 ft has been replaced by French 6 metres.

Just check with your Opthalmic Optician on your next check-up.

sud747

20th Jan 2007, 18:51

Hudson Bay

Well said or written for that matter. Because it has been tried before or it is always working doesn't mean it is safe. Too many pilots have this attitude today, just because they (just) made it into a cockpit because of lower standarts doesn't mean you should throw away SOP's or common sence. And that is it, only to be polite.:E

Hudson Bay

21st Jan 2007, 17:25

Studentindebt

I never said circling was a dangerous manoeuvre, I stated that orbiting on final should never happen on a commercial flight with pax on board. By the wording on some of the previous posts I understood that the aircraft was orbiting to loose altitude.

As for circling in IMC, I wouldn't of thought this was the case. There are minimum met requirements to begin a procedure that must be adhered to. As Mike says carrying out a procedure such as this in IMC would make it extremely dangerous. I would of thought it would be impossible. The aircraft sounds like it entered IMC during the procedure. If this was the case there are clear and precise procedures for the go around.

I didn't think there was a circling procedure at PGF anyway. I think you will find it is an indirect approach. A different procedure all together.

The Bristol incident can be found here. Please take time to read it. It highlights some of the potential problems of "doing your own thing". This incident was not the first of it's kind and it won't be the last. Just don't let it happen to you.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/november_bulletin/boeing_737_76n__g_strh.cfm

Nil further

21st Jan 2007, 18:56

SUD 747

i note what you write , if you look at the example Hudson has quoted, the Commander was 57 , had 15,000hrs and 7500 on type !

Just proves it can happen to anyone.

Having said that . you are correct in what you write , there are people in the cockpit today who have purchased their place there and whose ability to do the job is second to their ability (or their parents) to pay.

A lamentable state of affairs.

Indeed i believe the carrier on this incident is one of those that allows First Officers to pay to fly , if only the public knew .

wes_wall

22nd Jan 2007, 03:05

It seems that this place never changes! :ugh: Don't know why I came back. :ouch:
.

It has been a while since I last visited, and I agree with you. Not much has changed.

flyingbug

22nd Jan 2007, 15:42

sud747

22nd Jan 2007, 16:21

flying bug

You critize, but you don't even give an explanation. Pease have the courage of explaning why it wasn't an orbit, insead of hiding behind a pseudo.:E

StudentInDebt

22nd Jan 2007, 16:47

The Bristol incident can be found here. Please take time to read it. It highlights some of the potential problems of "doing your own thing". This incident was not the first of it's kind and it won't be the last. Just don't let it happen to you.
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/november_bulletin/boeing_737_76n__g_strh.cfmThanks, I read through that but I think you have quoted the wrong report as there is no mention of the aircraft impacting the ground in line with your previous comment
Many CFIT accidents are due to non standard ops the most recent being a 737 taking up an orbit on final at Bristol.
Let me know when you find the right one.
flying bug
You critize, but you don't even give an explanation. Pease have the courage of explaning why it wasn't an orbit, insead of hiding behind a pseudo.:EPerhaps if you read the whole topic, in particular Snigs' and flybe.coms' alleged accounts of the incident in question, you might see why it wasn't an orbit :ugh:

Snigs

23rd Jan 2007, 15:24

flybe.com

Point taken, there may have been embelishments, how do I know?

I expect that the fdm parameters will contain enough information for the AAIB investigation to at least plot the profiles of the approaches. As we know, there is no way of knowing the actual met conditions, just the METAR at the time.

fortuna76

23rd Jan 2007, 16:29

So how is an orbit per definition out of order?? I saw a KLM 737 do it the other day in ams with no problems. Yes I know the highest pole in holland is 1300 feet and nowhere near the airport, but still the statement that you should be sacked for making an orbit is incorrect. It depends on where you are. If its VMC over flat terrain and with ATC approval..... big deal :E

Hudson Bay

23rd Jan 2007, 18:50

fortuna76

Just because you see somebody else do something does it make it right? It is a big deal if it is a non SOP procedure. There is no Airline in the world that would approve such a manoeuvre. Do it on your own in your own airplane if you want to fly like a cowboy.

earnest

23rd Jan 2007, 19:13

Just a tiny, humble, pedantic correction, with respect, from an infrequent flying SLF:-
Malcarr, don't be modest, we all have something to contribute.
Perfect hindsight should perhaps be referred to as '6/6'; it's metric now, and the Imperial 20 ft has been replaced by French 6 metres.
Ah, but not in one of the major flying nations of the world, ie the USA, which still uses 20:20. Besides, hindsight is always "20:20" because it is a turn of phrase, not an SI measurement.
Just check with your Opthalmic Optician on your next check-up.
Well, seeing as we're being pedantic, it's ophthalmic, not opthalmic. Have a good look at his sign when you visit yours on your next check up.
Welcome to pprune.

Centaurus

23rd Jan 2007, 19:37

If these incidents keep happening then surely there is a training problem?

Not all stuff ups can be sheeted back to the company training department. More often than not the pilot has displayed poor airmanship. It is all too easy for arm-chair detectives to shift the blame for some accidents and close calls on to the trainers. This conveniently disregards the fact that some pilots regardless of experience, will make rash decisions in the air but rarely when under observation in the simulator.

The Manual of Political Correctness demands reference to Swiss cheeses and all the lined up hole therein, but understandably there is a limit to what trainers can do to prevent suspect individuals getting through the system.

eghi r20

24th Jan 2007, 12:43

When companies recruit f/o’s straight out of schools with 200hrs, airmanship I guess is a work in progress. Good luck to those who get in, but there are other air taxi or FI’s out there who may have more to bring to the table. I know too much of one thing is bad, just hoping for a bit of a mixed bag with regard to recruitment.

Chesty Morgan

24th Jan 2007, 15:15

There is nothing wrong with making an aeroplane fly in a circle, after all they are not designed to just fly in a straight line. I've done lots. Straight into Southampton from the north you're regularly kept high because of airspace restrictions. You either get a radar vectored orbit, or you do one yourself, to lose height. Going into Dublin, runway 28, over the sea we were asked to make an orbit, for spacing, as we were visual we did. And yes, in Amsterdam several times.

Granted there is no instrument procedure for one, not that I know of anyway. So assuming you are visual or under radar control, above the MSA, or if not, certain you will maintain ground separation then what is the problem?

workmatters

24th Jan 2007, 23:34

Its been several years since I have flown into PGF but for those not familiar there is high terrain coming in from the NW. Followed by a procedural let down via the VOR to the ILS or if I remember right a DME ARC procedure to the ILS for the Northerly runway which I have to say that on a few occasions "ATC” pushed as the preferred arrival; coupled usually on a late hand over from Bordeaux at FL 080 with 15/20 nm's to run to the VOR. They were never happy when I insisted on taking it via the overhead via a let down in the hold on the VOR procedure to the ILS. Again English isn't the first language and sometimes things are genuinely lost in translation.
The departure was quite busy as well as the northerly runway again was the preferred runway even with a tail wind. The local weather in the main was fine with CB's late afternoon during late spring/summer but low cloud was always prevalent DEC/JAN with strong winds from the NE which was usually accompanied with moderate turbulence which might throw some light to not getting the height off during the let down and out of position and low on the final approach. Hope this helps from my experience as I say no judgment being made here, just a little topographical from my time there.

Golf Charlie Charlie

24th Jan 2007, 23:41

Some of this discussion vaguely reminds me of the Air Ferry DC-4, which crashed into a mountain near PGF 40 years ago this year, which some of the oldies here may recall. Sorry for slight thread drift.

TyroPicard

25th Jan 2007, 00:18

Mike Jenvey.. Hudson Bay..
If you are circling IMC you may well be perfectly legal and not in danger. Perhaps you are confusing being in IMC with flying in cloud?
Pedant mode off.
TP

Hudson Bay

25th Jan 2007, 09:01

Tyro

Using the term IMC was for the uninitiated. The term is generally used as a description for flying without visual reference, however the correct description is for conditions less than the requirements for Visual meteorological conditions.

Thumperdown

25th Jan 2007, 14:52

Tyro
If you are IMC then you are either in cloud or not sufficiently clear of it to satisfy the requirements of VMC. If you are IFR you may or may not be in cloud. You can be
IFR in IMC
IFR in VMC
VFR in VMC
but not VFR in IMC
I think!
You are correct in that "If you are circling IMC you may well be perfectly legal and not in danger" .
Thumper ;)

jarjam

25th Jan 2007, 18:05

It appears I have made myself unpopular by putting this post on pprune, I stand by my comments although I appreciate I do not hold all the facts it was merely an individual point of view as pprune is supposed to be anonymous and also a rumour forum.

Chesty Morgan

25th Jan 2007, 18:20

I witnessed several "odd" and non SOP events whilst working with him myself including non stabilised approaches, very high approaches and dangerously deep landings

With a disfunctional training/safety system like that is it any suprise that the incident at PGF happened I think not.

It doesn't matter how good or bad the training system is, and it aint dysfunctional, when you get a Captain such as you have described. You can train all you like but he or she will still do their own thing. Sounds to me like he was to blame and NOT the training.

I know of a pilot who was promoted to captain on minimum hours who had only flown within the UK during his time at flybe (NOT EVEN TO FRANCE!!) He was rostered to fly 78 people over the Alps to Burn in Switzerland which is surrounded by mountains in the middle of winter!

Following the minmum time on type during which he will, more than likely, have flown to France, and following a full brief and simulator session AND a jump seat ride to Berne to observe.

the majority of flying is about being steered onto an ILS at whatever speed you like follow the needles and land

Err...you mean like the majority of other airlines in the UK? And I have done more full procedures, and hand flying, since I've been at Flybe than I have anywhere else.

Facts dear boy facts!

Nil further

25th Jan 2007, 18:33

Chesty , why didnt they sack this guy if he was no good , training also includes testing !

In my time at Flybe i had the mis-fortune to fly with guys who i would not have given command of a wheelbarrow to , by the sound of it nothing has changed.

You got the hours/seniority you got promoted simple as that. I once positioned in a Dash8 which did two RTO's .The total combined flight time of the flightdeck was less than 2000 hrs.

Incidents such as the PGF one are bound to happen when there is pressure on the training dept to "get people through"

There are incidentally some very fine , experienced guys and gals at Flybe whose boots i am not fit to lace , so lets not tar them all with the same brush.

Seems to me that a solution that asks "the Capt to leave" is really ignoring the big picture of why it happenened in the first place.

I would have thought the CAA will start to get very interested if there is much more of this.

Chesty Morgan

25th Jan 2007, 18:47

Nil Further. Dunno! I never met the guy and I never flew with him so I don't know how 'bad' he was. Perhaps there was a lack of evidence. Maybe there were too many F/O's who would rather not speak up or file an ASR when he did do something nonstandard, odd or dangerous. Perhaps Jarjam can enlighten us.

I agree that sweeping the incident and the Skipper under the carpet wont resolve the issue...if there really is one. Suffice to say that all the F/O's I've flown with recently wouldn't have allowed themselves to get into such a situation and neither would I. I genuinely think that the training is very good. But, there are always going to be a few bad apples that nadger the reputation of the training department and their colleagues! And we all know, from sharing sim sessions with them, that these people CAN do the job correctly, they just choose not too.

Thumperdown

25th Jan 2007, 19:10

I-Ford
You are quite correct! :ok: Post amended!

ZeBedie

25th Jan 2007, 20:02

So you can have a command at FlyBe with < 2000 hours. How many hours before becoming a trainer? Please tell me it's not a case of captains with 2000 hours being taught by trainers with 2500 hours?

Torycanyon

25th Jan 2007, 20:42

Said Captain was a War hero with a few baddies uder his belt.
As you say, probably performed faualtlessly in SIM and line checks.

It would appear the company gave him a sword to fall on.

Weary

26th Jan 2007, 00:03

Hudson Bay -
May I assume when you say something is non-S0P, you mean that it is a specifically non-approved procedure? I have never read an Ops manual that even mentions an orbit manoeuvre, yet it is one of those things which, on the very odd occasion, is just the right tool for the job.
I can't see that they are inherently dangerous - I personally rate them as less challenging than a circling approach or a visual approach - or don't you do those either! A competent pilot should have both the skill to be able to execute an orbit safely, and the good sense to know when it is appropriate and when it is not. It is worth considering that compared to a go-around they save a tremendous amount of fuel and you don't lose your position in the queue...
Anyway, I've only been doing this job for a quarter of a century so I am still learning.
Over to you.......

bcflyer

26th Jan 2007, 04:16

Here's a thought. Hire more experienced pilots. Yes the captain apparently had quite a bit of time but if the F/O had been either A) more experienced or B) more forceful in speaking out (which usually comes with experience) this whole incident may have been avoided. I have flown the Dash-8 in and out of very challenging mountainous approaches in Canada for almost 5 yrs (alot of them being circling approaches) and have never heard of any of our planes having a problem. Of course we have 5000- 9000hr F/O's instead of 200hr wonders that paid for their type rating.

Hudson Bay

26th Jan 2007, 11:25

I-Ford. Show me an OP's manual that approves orbits on final approach?

Weary. Are you doing your own thing again? You are one of the lucky ones that has got away it. Making things up as you go along is not the way to fly an aircraft.

I am sure you have the ability to turn an aircraft through 360 degrees but I think you should ask yourself if you should be carrying out such a manoeuvre.

Think about the Eire Jet that landed at Ballykelly Airport instead of Londonderry. Maybe if he hadn't taken up an orbit on final approach he wouldn't have landed at the wrong airport.

Maybe the 737 at Bristol wouldn't have come within 300 feet of the ground if he hadn't of made an orbit on Final.

Do you need more examples? Do you know more than your company?

Follow your company procedures and you won't go far wrong.

ZeBedie

26th Jan 2007, 11:34

Maybe the A320 at BAH wouldn't have flown into the sea at BAH if he didn't do an orbit on finals...

Artificial Horizon

26th Jan 2007, 11:51

What is the point of doing an orbit on Finals???? why not just do a standard go-around. Yes modern aircraft are indeed capable of carrying out an orbit, they are also capable of doing negative 'g' pushovers, zoom climbs, stalls, operating with one engine shutdown. Does not mean that I would attempt any of these with fare paying passengers on board!! Safest way is quite simply go around and fly the approach again.

StudentInDebt

26th Jan 2007, 12:29

Think about the Eire Jet that landed at Ballykelly Airport instead of Londonderry. Maybe if he hadn't taken up an orbit on final approach he wouldn't have landed at the wrong airport.Maybe but then the commander said the following according to the incident report (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Airbus%20A320,%20EI-DIJ%2001-07.pdf)Knowing that the runway at LDY was relatively short, he concentrated on flying an accurate approach to ensure that he landed on the threshold at the correct speed. He stated that, once he was visual with BKL, and not knowing there was another airfield in the vicinity, his mind-set was that this must be his destination airfield. At no time did the commander see LDY in the distance and the perceived problem with the ILS and the presence of the ILS calibrator aircraft all reinforced his perception that this was the correct, and only, airfield.
Maybe the 737 at Bristol wouldn't have come within 300 feet of the ground if he hadn't of made an orbit on Final.Is this the 737 you claimed had a CFIT or the one that was in the report you provided previously? In either case you are wrong, had it had a CFIT then it would have come within 0 feet of the ground and the aircraft in the incident you provided a link for had a minimum height of 1272 agl.

Why let the truth get in the way of a good rant eh?

Chesty Morgan

26th Jan 2007, 12:38

I-Ford. Show me an OP's manual that approves orbits on final approach?

Show me an Ops manual that covers every eventuality and show me an Ops manual that specifically says DO NOT ORBIT ON FINAL! When you can I will stop orbiting on final.

It's called thinking for yourself if you need to.

Hudson Bay

26th Jan 2007, 13:29

Chesty

If you thought for yourself you wouldn't be orbiting on final approach.

Why not carry out a standard go-around? I forgot you want to save fuel.

Student in debt

You have a lot to learn. Read the full article before you comment.

There are many instances of orbiting on final approach where it's ended in disaster. Why do you not learn from other peoples mistakes? Sad and worrying.

StudentInDebt

26th Jan 2007, 15:07

Why do you not learn from other peoples mistakes? Sad and worrying.
Which of your mistakes do you suggest I learn from? I think that I've already learnt not to use hyperbole and misinformation to try to reinforce my argument when the basic premis of that argument is cogent.

Chesty Morgan

26th Jan 2007, 18:32

Hudson. Yep you're quite correct, and I do, as do 99% of pilots.

However, when ATC leave you high (for any number of reasons) are you telling me that you are going to carry out a standard go around from 10 miles or so? Or will you accept a vectored or visual orbit as a more commercial and very safe means to get on the ground? Bearing in mind that nine times out of ten a standard go around will end up as a vectored orbit, of sorts, from ATC so they can slot you back into the flow.

Maude Charlie, I think I'd enjoy flying with you:ok:

StudentInDebt I don't think Hudson makes any mistakes, do you?:hmm:

StudentInDebt

26th Jan 2007, 20:24

StudentInDebt I don't think Hudson makes any mistakes, do you?Well, I started reading this thread... :rolleyes:

Snigs

27th Jan 2007, 10:05

I don't know why I'm entering the fray again, but as this thread has crept beyond all recognition, here's an example. Me FO, me PF, GLA to BHD, tailwind, misjudged the ROD, ATC asks if I have enough track miles, red faced I have to admit not, OK they say, turn left, the long way around onto hdg xxx to intercept loc. Is that not an orbit? Not quite on final, but as near as dammit, after all I could see the chimney, but just couldn't get down in time!

ZeBedie

27th Jan 2007, 10:21

Orbit at MSA = OK

Orbit below MSA = Cowboy stuff

RAT 5

27th Jan 2007, 14:03

Zebedie & others.
I know of 1 company which prohibits orbits closer then 10nm from runway, + other criteria concerning weather & configuration. If not possible then standard G/A is required. It's a blanket rule, sounds safe, but there are occaisions where other options are equally safe, and considering fuel state, perhaps safer.
MSA calculates out to 25nm and is not always relevant, even IMC, if over the airfield. Many runways have beacons, or other waypoint, around 4nm from threshold. Often there is a published hold there with a MHA. Often there is also a published procedure for making a procedural approach from that beacon, either teardrop or extending the hold. I can not see anything unsafe about descending in this hold and intercepting the G/S at the correct published altitude. I can think of GRO, AGP, and other mountainous approaches where this manoeuvre can be performed, safely, inside 10nm and below MSA. It just takes good airmanship to decide if it's appropriate.
I will agree that an orbit on short finals is perhaps a bit late to be making adjusments to what was likely to be a known problem much further away. ATC can box you in, agreed, or perhaps another a/c has a cancelled takeoff clearance and blocks the runway. If this is known at the OM, a hold can be more efficient for everyone than a full G/A. Once past this point, surely a full G/A or into the circuit would be the only options.

Remember the skillful pilot is one who avoids the situations where they need their skill to escape.

On a lighter note there was a friend inbound to XYZ and was asked at the last minute to orbit at the OM to allow a backtrack. He did so. Radar were confused as his trace did not move, but he lost time. He was in a chipmunk and who said the orbit had to be horizontal.

lamina

27th Jan 2007, 14:41

Am I the only one who finds this thread disturbing, in that facts seem thin on the ground (no report published yet), and yet some contributers seem quite happy to spout character assasinations of the operating crew!:(

BusterHot

27th Jan 2007, 21:22

Said Captain was a War hero with a few baddies uder his belt.
As you say, probably performed faualtlessly in SIM and line checks.

Er, I don't think so. Not unless he hit them with a torque wrench!

Snigs

28th Jan 2007, 21:00

Removed pending the AAIB report

Telstar

29th Jan 2007, 09:54

Chesty Morgan
show me an Ops manual that specifically says DO NOT ORBIT ON FINAL!
Perhaps you are a little institutionalised at some big airline and you have become a little too cosy and think your airlines way of doing things is the only way? I can tell you for a fact that the OPS manual of a large Jet Aircraft operating airline bans exactly such a thing. In the case you refer to earlier, yes, at 10 miles you are required to carry out the full published missed approach proceedure or get vectors for a new approach. Why? because a cowboy orbit at low level almost resulted in a large smoking hole 2 dme before the threshold.

29th Jan 2007, 10:55

For example, you ask why the Captain left the F/O alone for so long given the F/O's inexperience in European Ops. Well, those of us who do have experience of European Ops (which includes you) know that once you enter French airspace the first controller will usually give you clearance direct to a waypoint hundreds of miles ahead, and then all goes quiet for long periods of time with the exception of an occasional frequency change. It was at just such a point that the Captain left the flightdeck (with the F/O's permission) to go to the loo, eat some breakfast, and have a cup of tea. I make no judgement on whether he was right or wrong to do that, but that was the crew's third sector, and the first opportunity for the flightdeck to take a break in what was rostered to be a 10 hour day. The Captain returned to the flightdeck 25-30 minutes later, so you're effectively saying that the F/O was incapable of manning the ship alone for that length of time.

I find that astonishing, and frankly alarming. Leaving the flight deck to eat breakfast and have a cup of tea for only 25-30 minutes :ugh: So what if it's 10 day. I regularly do 10 hour days but wouldn't dream of doing the above. Is this a regualar practice at Flybe?

A4

Fullback

29th Jan 2007, 11:48

Absolutely not!!!!

The great majority of our sectors are within the 1 hour timeframe.

If you do need a toilet break, always get the cabin crew in to watch over.

A 30 minute break seems excessive in the circumstances to me.

SIDSTAR

29th Jan 2007, 12:35

Sweet Jesus!! Orbits/IMC circling at low level below the MSA etc etc. Out of the flight deck for 25 - 30 mins having brekkie no less!! If even a fraction of the above is true, this must be the biggest cowboy outfit in Europe and all under the jurisdictioon of our beloved CAA. Remind me to keep my distance.

Chesty Morgan

29th Jan 2007, 13:14

Telstar

Fair enough. And if I worked for said airline I wouldn't be orbiting on final. But until this airline bans them I will keep doing them if I think it's safe and useful. I'm not institutionalised and I'm certainly no cowboy either but my airlines way of doing things is the only way I can do them.

If an orbit in visual conditions almost resulted in a large smoking hole and lots of coffins then I would, without knowledge of the incident, suggest a certain lack of situational awareness and skill!

"A rule book is made of paper, it will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal"

Make of that what you will.

Nil further

29th Jan 2007, 14:05

Flybe.com

says it all doesnt it "out of the flight deck for 30 mins" beyond belief really.Quite how you can defend anyone who conducts themself in this manner is beyond belief , it appears that things have gotten even worse than they were.

Hopefully your new colleagues from Connect will bring some sanity before there is a smoking hole somewhere !

Dont know how your accountable mangagers can sleep at night with this sort of thing going on.

NF

Maude Charlee

29th Jan 2007, 15:49

Regardless of how much truth there may or may not be behind the numerous versions of events of this particular incident, it is NOT indicative of the general attitude or standards of the vast majority of the crews at Flybe.

There are an increasingly dwindling number of old hands at certain bases who have a slightly more relaxed approach shall we say to SOPs than others, but we have a management team determined (rightly or wrongly) to winkle them out of the business.

Please don't take one incident and tar us all with the same brush.

Thank you.

L/D

30th Jan 2007, 01:03

Snigs, get a life! I've flown with the Captain you're referring to and have never had a problem with him. I've always found him to be professional, relaxed and approachable, and until reading your posts, didn't know you had issues. Easy to bad mouth someone who no longer works with you!!

I notice you haven't said one bad word about the F/O involved in the incident. Is that because you did your course together? Is she not partially to blame? Afterall, its about working together as a team. :hmm:

I always found the Captain willing to allow the F/O to make decisions and develop as a pilot, but never at the expense of safe operations. However it would appear on this occasion that his trust was slightly misplaced.

You need the strength of character to speak up for yourself if you're not happy. Since the F/O was PF, she had the option to do this at anytime and when the EGPWS went off, they went around. No orbits. End of story.

We continue to learn in this profession, and if you've learnt all there is to know, I wouldn't want to fly with you anymore! If you can honestly say that you've never made a mistake, I take my hat off to you.

Be careful of throwing stones in glasshouses.

Sink Rate

30th Jan 2007, 05:16

Hudson Bay,

I'm afraid I shall have to disagree with your millitant stance regarding the crew being "idiots".

I have never seen an Ops manual that prohibits circling on final, indeed, if carefully flown it can be very useful to lose height/create time/increase separation.

The problem is not the manouvre, it is the application. It shouldn't be attempted (just like anything else) unless the crew are sure of their ability to accurately and safely complete the manouvre within the rules). Pilots are trained profesionals that should be capable of making their own decisions. Sure we can legislate for the lowest common denominator but that would be a real shame, and an insult to many.

If you wish to teach that any crew that doesn't go around is an idiot then that is your choice, however you are using the term idiot to clump together those that should go around as well some very accomplished and experienced aviators who would have no trouble with such a manouvre.

Careful, thorough, consideration and rigour is the key to being a good pilot. Know your limits, admit to yourself weaknesses and don't be afraid to throw away the approach if things are not going as planned. Orbitting is fine. Orbitting out of control is not. Calling other aviators idiots for not obeying your personnal Ops Manual is churlish and embarassing to us professionals.

Joe le Taxi

30th Jan 2007, 08:02

Following this from the sidelines, but really guys - this is basic stuff -
Orbiting is prohibited because below MSA, one needs to either be under positive and precise radar control, or following a published instrument procedure. Basic airmanship also precludes it, and I'm frankly alarmed that, because the ops manual doesn't spell it out, so many people think its perfectly OK!

However, I can't see a huge problem with leaving the flight deck for 25-30 mins. I dont know of any rules against it, the aeroplane is designed and certified to fly with just one pilot at the controls, and to pop out for a morning dump and stretch of legs, and a bit of CRMing with the CC would take that long. Many long haul airlines now permit a half hour snooze in the cruise.

puddle-jumper2

30th Jan 2007, 08:38

I have been a Capt. with FlyBe for many years now, and find it quite offensive that some people here are keen to tar us all with the same brush.
In my 15+ years with FlyBe I have NEVER flown with anyone who has even contemplated 'going down the back for 30 mins' - F/O's and Capt's. This is a very rare event and if this Capt. was doing this on a regular basis it should have been dealt with ages ago. It is most definitely NOT 'general FlyBe practice'.
FlyBe.com - you may well know this Capt. but quite frankly you must admit that this practise is VERY wrong for several reasons - particularly after Sept. 11th. It doesn't matter how much of a direct routing you get or how quiet you think ATC are, you are being paid to do a job, not to be a passenger.:mad: We're not talking about 10 hour long haul flights here, we are talking of 2-3 hours. By all means answer the call of nature but whilst doing so get one of the cabin crew to stay in the cockpit with the F/O and the cockpit door locked - standard FlyBe practise.

If you do not have time to eat then after you land, extend the turn-around to eat something and if necessary delay the flight. I have done so on many occasions. If the managers don't like the delay - stuff 'em - safety first.:ok:
This incident is a regrettable one and as you have read here the person in question has decided to jump before being pushed.

Sink Rate

30th Jan 2007, 09:53

Joe le Taxi,

I agree with your statement but you are forgetting that descent below MSA including manouvring below MSA is perfectly fine when visual (if you want a full description of what that means by day and night then I'll hapily oblige).

So we proffessional pilots are still allowed to fly the aeroplane...sometimes without using the guidance of HDG SEL or LNAV......GASP!!!! :ooh:

Fly the aeroplane within the rule book and within your own abilities, never oustside either. If anyone disagrees with that then see me after class.

Telstar

30th Jan 2007, 10:16

Chesty Morgan

Ironic we are talking about this today. This just published:

http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/8770-0.pdf

There are oodles more reports like this, and I have made it a personal SOP never to do orbits on finals in Jet Aircraft as it ends in tears. Note the Capt and PF was a 12,000 hr pilot. There for the grace of god go I...........

Sink Rate

30th Jan 2007, 10:28

Now if people are asking about "best practice" then perhaps I shall concede that visual manouvring a heavy jet isn't easy and requires a great deal of care and attention. If you are going to then ensure you and your colleague know what you a are doing - set bottom lines, gates, and communicate.

When I am flying into airfields into the states I personnally decline clearance that ask me to visually "follow" the aircraft ahead. Judging sufficient separation between "heavies" is tough (can you accurately judge 2 or 4nm range to another aircraft?).

But I am not saying that it should become a rule that we don't do it. I am saying that it is outside MY comfort envelope and should a colleague ask to do it I would express my concerns but evaluate each case on its indidual merits (ie carry out a risk analysis).:suspect:

Snigs

30th Jan 2007, 10:29

Removed pending the AAIB report

Joe le Taxi

30th Jan 2007, 10:58

Joe le Taxi,
I agree with your statement but you are forgetting that descent below MSA including manouvring below MSA is perfectly fine when visual

Even in VMC, self manoevering within mountainous terrain has to be done with extreme care, as the turn radius can easily exceed the spacing from a mountain if you're not careful.

Hudson Bay

30th Jan 2007, 11:07

We know that the Flybe EGPWS incident is not linked to the orbiting on final issue. There are 2 threads running in one. The moderators like this situation and that is why they haven't split them.

Chesty Morgan

Take note of Telstar and the latest report of orbiting on final approach. How many more reports do you want or are you a more superior pilot that does his own thing and no matter what you read you refuse to learn?. You are why CRM was invented.

Saving fuel and time is no excuse to start orbiting on final approach. Do it on a line check and see what happens.

With regards to the flybe incident leaving the flight deck for 20 mins seems a bit long considering the present security situation. It was common place pre 9-11 but not today. I do know one F/O who takes a little longer than normal because he has a problem with constipation but even he would be 15 mins maximum.

Sink Rate

30th Jan 2007, 11:08

Agreed Joe le Taxi.

I wasn't referring to individual cases, just expressing my concern that some forumites call proffessional pilots idiots for choosing to visually manouvre their aircraft. In the case of being IMC then "visually" manouvreing (self positioning) below MSA certainly isn't appropriate.

I just hate to see legislation real or imagined precluding proffessional using their proffessional judgement.

Sink Rate

30th Jan 2007, 11:13

Are we starting a third thread with reference pilot constipation?

I said THIRD thread! ;)

JCB 1

30th Jan 2007, 11:35

If you do not have time to eat then after you land, extend the turn-around to eat something and if necessary delay the flight. I have done so on many occasions. If the managers don't like the delay - stuff 'em - safety first

So this Captain decided to leave the flightdeck to eat, (don't see a problem with that but that's just my personal opinion) and you elect to delay flights, thereby inconveniencing fare-paying passengers. My point is - does Flybe not give its staff any breaks?? It sounds as though the CAA and HSE should be looking at that. :=

puddle-jumper2

30th Jan 2007, 12:21

JCB 1,

My personal opinion is that I would rather delay the passengers boarding for 15 mins rather than getting away on time and then sitting in the cabin for 30 mins eating my meal.

I think if you ask the passengers what they would rather see most would vote for the latter, I know I would.

As for the CAA looking into turn-around times and making sure we get time to eat - I couldn't agree more. :D

biddedout

30th Jan 2007, 12:33

Quote:
If said FO can't cope, then said FO should be sacked!
Yes, I agree, and from what I’ve heard this is beginning to happen at OPC/LPC

What do you mean by this Snigs, are you suggesting that OPC/LPC's being used to sack people according to a pre-determined plan in your company? Struth! we managed to lose this sort of system years ago. Heaven help the rashers if any of them arrive. Can't seem any staying if this is how it works.

Chesty Morgan

30th Jan 2007, 12:54

Telstar, thanks for the link. It's interesting to note where they started their orbit - On very short final, pretty much over the threshold AND in full landing config. At that point I would be following the standard missed approach. Allowing the aircraft to descend in the orbit, over banking, flying the orbit in the landing config, ignoring PNF's altitude warnings - Not good for a commercial pilot of any experience let alone a Captain with 8000hrs on type! Had they started the orbit further away and therefore at a greater height, not allowed the aircraft to descend and flown the effing aeroplane that report wouldn't exist.

Hudson

or are you a more superior pilot that does his own thing and no matter what you read

No.

You are why CRM was invented.

Laughable dear chap. Having never flown with me and having never met me that comment is arrogant in the extreme. Do you have proof?

Do it on a line check and see what happens

Funny you should say that. In fact many line checks ago I did. I was congratulated by a then very senior LTC for my actions! I think he mentioned "Good situational awareness, adaptability, good CRM etc.." Shall I go on?

Regarding the reports you love so much. How many reports of orbiting on final are there when it has worked perfectly?

Joe Le Taxi

Just a point of interest. Our company doesn't allow us to descend below MSA unless we are; Under Radar Control, Procedural OR visual.

AlphaCharlie

30th Jan 2007, 13:32

Was going to stay out of this but ...

Its disgraceful the way people are airing the dirting washing in public about this sensitive topic. Let's wait til the AAIB report is realeased and the facts, details and independent professional opinion can comment on the incident.

L/D ... at no time had anyone else mentioned the sex of either pilot involved. You have now narrowed the F/O down from 180 possibles to about 10 possibles - you may as well have just given the 2 peoples names! Shame on you!

Hudson Bay

30th Jan 2007, 13:38

Chesty Morgan

Decending below MSA just because you can see the ground!! I hope that was a typo!!

Snigs

30th Jan 2007, 13:48

No no no absolutely no!

Maude Charlee

30th Jan 2007, 13:51

Do we have to wait for the AAIB? I was planning to wait for the report in the Sun.

;)

As for the meal break issue, for those who have been asking, Flybe do usually build an additional 15 minutes into a turnaround during the day when crew meals are provided, but where the duty day involves sectors over 90 mins (I think), then meals are expected to be taken in flight. Many of the trips into central or southern France on the Q400 fall into that category.

It's far from ideal, especially for the cabin crew on the Q400, and it does mean that effectively the a/c is single pilot and single CC operation for the 30 minutes that 2 seperate breaks would require. The reality is that the CC very rarely ever have a break (and on a full flight to somewhere like PGF, they often don't get the chance even if they wanted to), and the flight deck eat together in the cruise with their workload split as required.

I have to say I have never heard of any FD taking a meal break in the cabin, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be happy to agree to that situation on a short haul flight. That said, I'm equally sure many people would never do any of the dumb things that I have done in my career. There but for the grace of God and all that jazz.......:)

Chesty Morgan

30th Jan 2007, 14:42

Hudson. Nope!!!! They're the rules and that's why we have windows. I suppose there's something wrong with looking outside to avoid things?

Sink Rate wrote: ...descent below MSA including manouvring below MSA is perfectly fine when visual (if you want a full description of what that means by day and night then I'll hapily oblige).

Seems I'm not the only one who reads the Ops manual.

Descending below MDA/H or DH is different. Perhaps you are confused.

Hudson Bay

30th Jan 2007, 15:02

Sorry but I have never seen rules that state I can decend below MSA just because I am visual. Under VFR yes, IFR the rules are crystal clear.

V2+ A Little

30th Jan 2007, 15:05

How do you ever get on the ground then? :rolleyes:

Chesty Morgan

30th Jan 2007, 15:21

Hudson. In that case perhaps you should stop commenting on other airlines procedures/Ops manuals.

I think you used to work for Flybe, you seem to have a personal problem with anything and anyone associated with them, so maybe you should have read the Flybe Ops manual when you had the chance.

Would you like to address any of the other points in my post #98? Or have we moved on from orbiting to looking outside?

V2+. Maybe he keeps his eyes closed :ugh:

StudentInDebt

30th Jan 2007, 16:16

Sorry but I have never seen rules that state I can decend below MSA just because I am visual. Under VFR yes, IFR the rules are crystal clear.Yes they are crystal clear and they allow an aircraft to descend below 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 5NM of the aircraft if it is flying below 3000 feet amsl and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. :=

bbe.ditzy

30th Jan 2007, 16:19

Enough already ..

L/D ... at no time had anyone else mentioned the sex of either pilot involved. You have now narrowed the F/O down from 180 possibles to about 10 possibles - you may as well have just given the 2 peoples names! Shame on you!

AlphaCharlie - Please don't reduce this into a sexist debate, if you actually re-read the thread the Captain has quite clearly (on numerous occasions) been identified as being of male orrientation.

Why should it matter if the FO was male or female? - at the end of the day we are all pilots, we are all human (well most of us!) and we certainly have all make mistakes along the way.

I can only imagine that this incident was distressing enough for both of the pilots concerned, without subjecting them to this character assasination.:bored:

Sink Rate

30th Jan 2007, 16:26

Sorry student in debt, that's not exactly true either!

They're the rules for remaining VFR, which isn't the same. Sory, I haven't time right now to expand upon that - am late for a train (the only civilised way to travel!). ;)

StudentInDebt

30th Jan 2007, 16:32

Sorry Sinkrate, it is true and it has nothing to do with VFR. Since I have got the time I've reproduced Rule 29 here
Minimum height
29 Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 5, in order to comply with the Instrument
Flight Rules an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1000 feet above the highest
obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless:
(a) it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;
(b) the aircraft is flying on a route notified for the purposes of this rule;
(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority; or
(d) the aircraft is flying at an altitude not exceeding 3000 feet above mean sea level
and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

Hudson Bay

30th Jan 2007, 18:06

Chesty Morgan

You wrote

Our company doesn't allow us to descend below MSA unless we are visual.

I think you are taking that statement out of context ie. for the purposes of landing, visual approach etc. but I thought that was obvious.

What you are implying is that you will descend just because you are visual with the ground regardless of altitude or phase of flight.

Like I said the rules are crystal. They are there for YOUR safety.

30th Jan 2007, 19:04

http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/8770-0.pdf

Link to report of RYR into Cork.

Orbit on short final..........

A4

Chesty Morgan

31st Jan 2007, 00:17

Hudson. Come on man. What is this thread, or part of it, about? Why else would you or I be on a FINAL APPROACH if we weren't landing? Why would you presume that I will descend, for instance, in the cruise just because I could see the ground? The cruise being ...[a] phase of flight.

In your very first post on this thread you stated Idiot for orbiting on final. Why did he not carry out a standard go around?

A go around from what? Ahh yes, a final approach!

I-Ford. Show me an OP's manual that approves orbits on final approach?

If you thought for yourself you wouldn't be orbiting on final approach.

Take note of Telstar and the latest report of orbiting on final approach

And yes, regardless of phase of flight, well not really - We usually do it in the descent - our company allows us to descend below MSA if we are either: under Radar Control; Procedural or VISUAL!

If you can prove otherwise, as I have stated before, I will happily stop doing it. Swallowing my words never gave me indigestion. Maybe you need an antacid or two.

flyingbug

31st Jan 2007, 09:07

Chesty,

the trouble with Hudson Bay is that he is so determined to "have a go" at Flybe, it clouds his judgement.
He quotes "sources at Exeter" then states drivel, he attacks Jim French and critises pilots at every opportunity.
Don't rise to his pathetic bait, best ignored I think.:oh: :oh:

kellykelpie

31st Jan 2007, 09:52

Regarding comments about orbiting not being in any ops manual - we have it in ours.

SOPs chapter "Orbits and similar manoeuvres used to correct vertical offsets at low altitude are a threat to flight safety, particularly at night or in conditions of reduced visibility. The preferred method to correct a verical offset is to request additional track miles from ATC or, in Class G airspace, descend in a published holding pattern.

Descending orbits are not permitted below 3,000ft AGL. Above 3,000ft AGL, they should only be contemplated after due consideration is given to surrounding terrain and in flight meteorological conditions. Autopilot and autothrust should be used".

Sink Rate

31st Jan 2007, 14:24

Kellykelpie,

They are wise words in your ops manual. It doesn't say MUST NOT, just offers sage words of advice.

StudentInDebt - Good point well made - I shall get back to you with further - standby!

ollycopter

2nd Feb 2007, 10:30

The trouble with the industry is that use of common sense is being ignored for Standard ops.. We are becoming lemmings and quite frankly I am bored of it.. An orbit on final is perfectly exceptable if space and height permit. Try flying to Africa to places like Port Harcourt or Liberville... You cant just go in there like a robot.. If you are thinking ahead then things will work out.. Its all these robotic SOPs that mean when something out of the ordinary happens, pilots in Airlines get lost and do stupid things.. We worked long and hard to get here and they try and turn us into machines.. Screen for common sense, not ability to follow a Furer....:}

Chesty Morgan

2nd Feb 2007, 12:09

Flyingbug, I think he's given up anyway:}

Ollycopter, well said sir!

Tyreplug

2nd Feb 2007, 17:30

Ollycopter - I am normally a great advocate of SOP's. However you do raise a very good point. Having had a deal of experience of 'bush' type flying and a deal of convential commercial flying I have seen that as soon as anything 'out of the box' occurs the wheel starts to wobble if not fall off in the latter.

ollycopter

2nd Feb 2007, 18:45

Dont get me wrong guys, there has to be SOPs to an extent and I am not saying plan to 360 on final as a first resort.. I just think we need to be free to improvise if need be. Is a go around better then a 360 really? More fuel consumed, possible diversion if flying with minimum block, passengers will be scared anyway if you hit the TOGAs so why not scan the Tcas, observe the Terrain, look out the window and gently roll into a bank?

Blackcap

2nd Feb 2007, 23:23

I think the more experienced appreciate the difficulties - trouble is we are more and more often flying with 200 hr Jerez/Oxford cadets (yes I know we all have to start somewhere), who are often excellent when everything is on the rails - but some rapidly lose the plot when something out of the usual happens. Often leaving the flight deck as almost a one man/woman band. Or worse than that - interfering (not that they necessarily realise). And this is augmented by some very rigid SOP's which don't allow any free thought any more :uhoh: Airmanship becomes a thing of the past :uhoh: It is by the book - else your "friendly" FO with 200 hrs reports you to your Manager for not complying with xyz. No room for any original thought or common sense (airmanship is now a dirty word). What is the world coming to?

Sink Rate

3rd Feb 2007, 01:25

I agree that airmanship needs to be taught better nowadays. That's not to say we disregard SOPs - far from it. SOPs are there for everyone's safety but airmanship saves our bacon for times when there is no SOP.

Free thought and what if thinkers welcome....

RAT 5

3rd Feb 2007, 07:26

Sink Rate & Black Cap:

We are between a rock and a hard place. Firmly stuffed into a no-win situation. You deviate from SOP's and risk the wrath of 'them upstairs', the armchair captains and desk jockeys. You stick rigidly to SOP's when the moment is not suitable, when some airmanship judgement is required, and you risk the wrath of ...............! "What were you thinking? Why didn't you realise what was going on and do...........?"

I believe in SOP's but not to the point of deteriorating airmanship. There have been many cases where the cowboy captain has been 'single crewing' it because the 2nd officer hadn't a clue what was going on. Rightly or wrongly they had faith that 'himself' knew what he was doing. Surely 10.000hrs knows better than 1000?
It is difficult; and how many of us have seen the C.P change and the SOP change. It's now his trainset and he wants to let everyone know. The disappointing time is when SOP's change with no explanation why. Where is the education in that? Understanding why encourages better compliance, especially with modifications. I flew with an airline that introduced a new procedure and no-one could understand the thinking behind it. Indeed, it seemed without reason, but we had to do it, disgruntly.
I hear that RYR are putting bank angle at 10 at high FL's, yet my friend doesn't know why. Another buddy flying the same type for another airline doesn't do this. There is a big ? here and that is not so healthy, as some guys will be tempted to ignore the change because they can see no reason for it.
The captain can always deviate from SOP's for safety reasons and to meet the requirements at the time. That necessitates some airmanship, courage and good understanding of our a/c and enviroment. It also necessaitates a good reason when questioned about it. With a good briefing (if time) and good CRM, the rest of the crew should follow common sense leadership. Isn't that one of the attributes we are expected to have?

Willy nilly disregard of SOP's is a waste of energy. 99% of them are liveable with. It is just not possible to cover every scenario, and those who try are fooling themselves and no-one else. That can lead to the perhaps worse situation where a captain, when quesioned why he was doing xyz, replied "where is it written I can't?" Many accidents have happened in subtle circumstances where there were no SOP's to cover the scenario. There was no QRH to give guidance. The failures were inoccuous and obtuse with a creeping result. That is when we depend on airmanship and it needs to be a seed kept alive not dismissed as irrelevant in the modern age, but to be used wisely.