A late-ish stabilisation

[miles offtarget]

I witnessed a Spanish registered 737 conduct a visual approach to RW 10 in ALC yesterday, and by my TCAS he became stable, (by our company definition) at somewhere between 100 and 200 ft, but closer to 100ft.

Just wondered if anyone else saw it; or what was the latest you had seen anyone stabilise.

Hope the pax enjoyed the aeros.

MoT

[Navigator33]

Jut curious to what your TCAS and company consider to be stabilized?

[alcorfr]

Please post date, flight number, adress and bank account of the crew now...:}

[harry the cod]

miles offtarget ( Mmm......:suspect: )

You can judge another Aircrafts parameters by using the TCAS?

Jeeze man, you're wasted as a Pilot. You should apply to NASA. Numpty!

Harry

[Callsign Kilo]

Was this the same Spanish 737 operator that had an episode at BFS last year? I think a bit of aeros went on there too (after they attempted to land at the wrong airfield!)

[miles offtarget]

Oh dear Harry, I assume that your post is supposed to be funny (?)

I judged the stabilisation of the approach by the fact that the 737 had obviously crossed the airfield perimeter, I was stationary at the holding point perhaps 200 meters away, my TCAS was in TA/RA and showed it as a yellow circle with +100ft appended and his wings were far from level.

Did I need to go through all of this ? Anyway, sufficient subjective evidence I feel.

My employer, NASA or otherwise is irrelevant.

Love to you all,

MoT

[J.O.]

The devil's in the details. I think they all assumed you were talking about stabilised in terms of thrust, airspeed and configuration, as opposed to bank angle. Rolling out on final at 100 to 200 ft is pretty low, I'd agree.

[A4]

Miles.....

I didn't see the approach you're referring to but I have seen very similar at ALC, IBZ and AGP (all Spanish carriers- no I'm not xenophobic..... just stating a fact). I don't see what the "Cod" is getting worked up about - the events I witnessed it was blindingly obvious that the aircraft was WAY above profile just by looking at it - TCAS backed up / confirmed this. The AGP approach I saw had +15 with a range of about 3D - and it looked like it as well :ugh: If the thrust came above idle, I'll eat my hat, so he/she never did stabilise......... The IBZ A320 touched down about half way down the runway..... Seen some "interesting" visual approaches at LEMH/MHN(?) by DC-9/MD83 too.

All aircraft and operators are required to carry and operate a FDM (Flight Data Monitoring) Program so I'm amazed that crew still think it's ok to fly such an approach - unless of course they know that they won't be questioned about it, so just do it regardless :ugh:

One day we'll read about one where it didn't work.

A4

[Huck]

I know you won't believe me, but my company didn't have any accidents for 25 years. Then we instituted stable approach criteria, and had 7 major landing accidents in the next 10 years.....

[blueloo]

Maybe they should tighten up the stable approach criterea a bit.............:E

[Farrell]

"I know you won't believe me, but my company didn't have any accidents for 25 years. Then we instituted stable approach criteria, and had 7 major landing accidents in the next 10 years....."

There's a very important point in that statement. I know it's there but I just don't have the experience yet to put it into the right words. I think he's hit the nail on the head.

[sevenstrokeroll]

hey huck, did you fly for the same place I flew? was one of those crashes known as the alliquipa flippa?

as far as rolling wings level at low altitude try KDCA landing south.

[Huck]

I'm going to say some things. They're going to be heretical. (Forgive me Jesus, and be with the pygmies in New Guinea....)

When I was a young pup I flew for a regional carrier. Most of our approaches were visual, and maybe 30% of those were at night.

When I was cleared for a visual approach, I reached down and closed my Jepp book. Or I pulled up the ground chart - but only if I'd never been there before.

Then I flew my aircraft based on my view of the runway. I turned final somewhere around 400', somewhere near my target speed, and maybe at full flaps, maybe not. My only requirement: a smooth touchdown in the touchdown zone. Everything else was up to me.

What aircraft? Everything up to and including the BAe-146.

Flash forward: now - at 1000 feet - I have to be on speed, on glidepath, fully configured, engines stable at approach setting, checklists completed, sterile cockpit, and if there is an IFR approach available (and there always is, and it's always an ILS) I have to brief it and fly it. Autopilot use is encouraged, autothrottle use is damn near mandatory.

Sounds conservative, right? Safer? The proper way to ensure zero accidents?

Here's my little secret: I was ten times the pilot back in the old days. I could make my aircraft walk and talk. I knew the difference in power settings on final between a heavy landing and just a middling one. I could take my crab out at 10 feet in the flare and kiss the ground with the upwind wheel. I FLEW MY AIRCRAFT - I didn't just watch it fly.

Not the most politically correct view of stabilized approaches, I know, but I'm a bad bad boy.

So... did the guy make a smooth landing? Was he in the touchdown zone? Maybe he's a little bit of a rebel too.....

[Farrell]

Thanks Huck

I think that's what I was wanting to put into words.

[411A]

You can judge another Aircrafts parameters by using the TCAS?

Jeeze man, you're wasted as a Pilot. You should apply to NASA. Numpty!



Have to agree with Harry, here.
'Numpty' about sums it up.

As for NASA...naw, they wouldn't have him.:rolleyes:

[120.4]

Huck

Great Post. You're forgiven.

.4

[Hand Solo]

Thats fine, you can do that in aircraft up to BAe146. Unfortunately you can't do that sort of flying into busy controlled airports in a big jet. There's too much traffic and the aircraft isn't manouvreable enough. Try turning final at 400 ft in a 747 and you'd better have it right first time because there's no time to correct if you haven't. So what can we do to enhance safety when that sort of flying isn't available? Stabilised approaches are a proven way to reduce accident rates. If you get it right you should never get below 500 feet without being in the slot, and you should certainly have your approach (and hence workload) under control before you go below 1000 feet. If the introduction of stabilised approaches caused an increase in landing accidents I'd be more inclined to look at the training standards and the level of consistency in the flying. Maybe some previous dubious approaches had been masked by some extreme hand flying, undesirably high/low rates of descent or excessive manouvering on final? If applying more conservative approach criteria leads to an increase in accidents you've got to wonder what was being masked when people had carte blanche to do what they liked.

[oceancrosser]

Has anyone here ever done the canarsie approach onto runway 13 at JFK. Following the lead in lights results in you rolling wings level at around 200ft.

When 13 is in use you'll see a similar approach to the one described every other minute.

Yep, and with southerly 20-25 kts rain and low ceilings is where it gets interesting...:ugh:

[Hand Solo]

Done lots of those, which is why I am most defintely not an advocate of rolling wings level at 200 feet! If you are rolling wings level at 200 feet on the Canarsie you've cut the corner.:ok:

[GearDown&Locked]

yeah...you should try rwy05 at FNC sometime for good fun, specially when it's gusting. :eek:

[IGh]

Studying the industry's efforts in the ALAR [Approach and Landing Accident Reduction], and the evolving "stabilized approach" concept, you can find general agreement.

But a few years back, one analyst gave a paper that points-out some of the counter-intuitive perceptions mentioned above (eg, an active-PF might get a smooth touch-down from a very steep high speed turning "approach"). Here are excerpts from that observer's paper from '04:

= = = \/ = = = EXCERPT = = = \/ = = =


http://www.isasi.org/pg_seminar.html (Entire ’04 Proceedings ~ 10.6 MB pdf.)
Wischmeyer, Ed, “The Myth of the Unstable Approach”; ISASI 2004 Proceedings, Session IX, pp 152-5.

“... while unstable approaches may increase the risk of a bad landing outcome, that risk is still so low that the concept of unstable approach can only rarely, if ever, be meaningfully used in accident and incident causal analysis....”

“... bad landings ... were frequently observed from stable approaches, and good landings were frequently observed from unstable approaches — and these initial, poorly understood observations were unsettling....”

“... other phenomenon present ... “pilot involvement factor” ... if the pilot who was flying was highly involved in flightpath control, then appropriate skill and experience would be applied and the landing outcome would be successful regardless of approach stability. Conversely, if the pilot were inattentive or not completely in the loop, this state of low involvement could manifest itself in a bad landing outcome, regardless of the approach stability.

“... a go-around by at least 500 feet ... if the approach was not stable, those definitions effectively ended at 500 feet. Yet, ASRS data ... indicated that significant atmospheric effects would be encountered at 300 feet ... and below. The perturbations caused by these low-level atmospheric effects would affect landing outcome statistics but would be encountered regardless of approach stability....”

“... data ... show that statistics generated on approach are very poorly correlated with statistics generated on landing, if at all....”

“... Five sub-phases to replace approach and landing ... superficially ... grouping approach and landing ... groups flight sub-phases with greatly differing characteristics. The five sub-phases are listed below ... The goal of each sub-phase is to position the aircraft ...

Flight Sub-Phase
-- Outside the FAF -- Radio navigation ... or radar vectors.
-- Inside the FAF
-- Final visual alignment
-- Flare and touchdown
-- Rollout and turnoff

“... research suggests that more meaningful analysis may be possible if events are first sorted by kind of event (e.g., touchdown, using the five flight sub-phases), and secondarily by severity of outcome (excellent, acceptable, unacceptable, incident, accident).

“... a common misperception that incidents are precursors to accidents in the sense that if only one more event were present in an error chain, there would have been an accident ... However, incidents frequently had all the ingredients to be accidents, but a defense (in the sense of Reason’s model) mitigated the event. In the case of unstable approaches, it seems likely that the pilot involvement factor hypothesized above may be a common “defense” against adverse consequences of unstable approaches.”

= = = /\ = = = END excerpt = = = /\ = = =

[Avman]

Taking away the technical pros and cons let me just say this type of tight visual approach by MD-80/B737/CRJ may be seen dozens of times per day at Spanish airports (other than MAD BCN AGP) where traffic permits. Seen it personally at PMI loads and loads of times during the less busy times. Done it myself (as pax) loads of times in the AVIACO DC-9 days. Yep, it's called FLYING!

[miles offtarget]

Hand Solo is exactly right, a BAe 146/RJ isn't a big jet; and therefore is much more forgiving. It has huge speedbrakes and of course much less momentum than a Boeing.

I am very surprised by a couple of posts here.

Flying is only as safe as it is today because these rules and profiles have evolved out of the analysis of hundreds of accidents and incidents, mainly since 1945. (These people may indeed work for NASA, Harry the Cod).

Surely a good pilot is one who uses their co-ordination and judgement to consistently fly the correct profile and thereby increasing his/her chances of achieving a successful outcome of the flight. There are reasons why you are selected and PAID to do that by the airline; it's safer, we make more money for my pension fund and kill fewer people.

During 9 years of military flying I saw many of those 'natural pilot' guys just get it slightly wrong once and they paid the price very soon afterwards; although thankfully killing only one person (other than themselves) rather than 148.

Would you be so content with a surgeon operating on you choosing to ignore the established medical protocols, but choosing instead keep his 'hand in' with the scalpel and laser ! ... 'well... I know it's not the safest way to do a heart bypass, but it seemed to work last time, and it really makes me feel as though I'm a much better surgeon '

Therefore, whilst there may be a place for it in extremis, if you need to prove to yourself how co-ordinated and natural pilot you are, with an inventive approach leading to a smooth touchdown; fly during the weekend in a rented 172, but please not with my wife and 15 month old daughter in the back.

MoT

PS: who is this Wishmeyer bloke, is that really an academic and peer reviewed research paper !

[A4]

Seconded Miles.

Happy Christmas to you all.

A4

[sarah737]

Miles, A4,
I would rather have the life of my kids in the hands of these stick and rudder guys than in the hands of guys who almost stall when autothrust/autothrottle are inop!

[miles offtarget]

Sarah,

That's a false dichotomy.

Merry christmas,

MoT

[A4]

Hello Sarah,

I think we are at cross purposes here. I totally agree that "stick and rudder", AP and A/THR off are a good idea - under the right circumstances (Qantas B747 at Bangkok being a goodexample of when not to do it.)

What we are talking about here is stable approaches. It is perfectly possible to fly a fully manual, raw data ILS to minima and be stable. What we are talking about here is a commercial jet making an approach, screwing up the profile which results in a low power / higher sink rate scenario from which there is very little room for manouver if it starts to go wrong big style.

So I would rather have my family flown around by someone who flies every approach stabilised - be it visual, IFR, Autopilot, Manual or Circling.

A4

I thought a dichotomy was the surgical removal of a Welshman! (Radio 4 - I'm sorry I haven't a Clue - Graham Garden)

4

[WindSheer]

Have to agree with Harry, here.
'Numpty' about sums it up.

As for NASA...naw, they wouldn't have him.

Takes one to know one I suppose....

Whilst I can not possibly offer my opinion, surely you guys are able enough to look at an aircraft on short final and think...'bloody hell he looks fairly unstable'.......followed by a cursory glance at the TCAS elevation.

Obviously what this chap saw from the holding point was slightly un-normal given the weather conditions, which prompted this post to query the SOP of the carrier concerned!
A bit harsh me thinks.....now go and stand in the corner...:suspect:

[miles offtarget]

Thanks for your support WindSheer,

Have had a couple of rude PMs this afternoon that confuse professionalism with testosterone for some reason.

MoT

[captjns]

Anyone know where my company can purhcase one of those special TCAS's that can indicate when another aircraft is stabilized or not. Hey we can do like a.... yeah... a landing signal officer on an aircraft carrier and wave off the offending airman with maybe our special secret flare system stored in the marzel vane.

[Hand Solo]

You don't need one, you simply use your TCAS altitude readout on the target aircraft in conjunction with your eyes and brain.

[Huck]

Please don't get me wrong... my current aircraft (MD-11) has the highest approach speeds in the world, now that the Concorde's retired. I feel totally comfortable in always meeting stabilized approach criteria at 1000' in that beast.

And 95% of our approaches ARE to congested, big, ILS-equipped runways. But 5% are not. We've balled up, by my count, 110 million dollars worth of aluminum in Subic Bay in the last ten years.

My humble opinion (and the company is actually starting to come around to this): we need to keep our aviator tools sharp - even if they're constantly at the bottom of our toolbox. That means click it off - at least when there's no other excuse but laziness. And I mean click it off on downwind and fly it like you used to, back when skills were skills.

I'm just trying to make a feeble defense of a guy that looked a little wild on final. Remember - you only bend metal at zero radio altitude.......

[GearDown&Locked]

a landing signal officer on an aircraft carrier and wave off the offending airman
ooooh that's so like "Top Gun" ; oh and when they call the ball ... :}

Huck :ok:

By the way things are right now airplanes should return to the 3 crew config... 1 System Admin Senior as captain + 1 System Engineer (the backup power user), the 3rd being a Lawyer.

:=

[hetfield]

Can anybody tell me a website where physicians accuse other physicians about possible mistakes without any thread to health of anyone?

[111boy]

gone from a 737 (200) to a swept up 800. Used to enjoy visual approaches, Won't even touch them now, am i a better pilot? nope, button pushing idiot these days. Company SOP's litigate against one being able to actually fly

[puddle-jumper2]

From my own personal experience I would have to agree with Huck on this one.
Since converting on to a new 'all singing & dancing' type and having been told by the boss man not to do any visual's for the first 6 months, I was amazed at how poor my flying skills became.

After just 2 months of auto-pilot + auto-throttle, I carried out a required circling approach and couldn't fly for S**t even when leaving the A/T in.:ugh::{

The bottom line is 15+ years of hand flying an older similar size jet on tight visual approaches has counted for sweet nothing.

Now, when the weather is nice I force myself to fly it all manually. End of problem.:ok:

[pulseair]

If you are lucky enough to be at a holding point in Honolulu as an operating tech crew, watching some Aloha Airlines B737 getting stabilised on finals is a bit of a spectacle to watch.....at what altitude?...I guess its open to how good one is good at estimating how high one is. The front seat view makes it even better....only if there is no incident/accident happening.

[Right Way Up]

Have just read the airbus report into the Iberia Quito accident. As good a recommendation for stabilised approaches as you could ask for. As for the comments that the antics that precipitated the thread were the signs of a good stick & rudder pilot.....bull! Its just a sign of someone c0cking-up the approach & having to manoeuvre late to rectify it.

[Georgeablelovehowindia]

Whilst a neat, tightly flown visual circuit, perhaps at a 'challenging' airfield, is all good professional stuff, what isn't is Stuka diving at the runway, engines unspooled, and crunching on, half way down. That is what some of these jokers are up to. I think that is what the originator of this thread was getting at.
This reminds me of the foggy morning at the holding point for 26L at Berlin Tegel. PanAm has won the 06:00 Le Mans start to be No 1, followed by BA, EuroBerlin, and TWA (during their brief appearance). The first inbound Clipper from Frankfurt calls visual left base over Alexandraplaz. Gosh! Anyway, the 727 duly appears out of the clag, violently correcting, PILES on, and vanishes into the murk, leaving a mushroom cloud of blue tyre smoke.
After a suitable interval, the lead Clipper at the holding point transmits:
"Thet you, Hank?"
"Yup."
"Anybody hurt?"
"Nope."
:uhoh:

[411A]

That means click it off - at least when there's no other excuse but laziness. And I mean click it off on downwind and fly it like you used to, back when skills were skills.


That would work quite well, Huck, the problem is with many new(er) guys...they never learned how in the fist place, and their respective companies generally have no idea, either. Even the fleet managers.
Flying skills today are reduced, in many cases, and especially with larger companies, to the lowest common denominator, and when these folks notice someone who actually can fly a short approach in a skilled manner, they many times throw up their hands in disbelief.

Should we be surprised?
Of course not, these 'observers' simply don't know any better.
And never learned.

Just make the suggestion of hand flying, for example, and see the panic that results.:}

[Right Way Up]

who actually can fly a short approach in a skilled manner

I don't think flapping your wings at 100ft to get on the centreline is a very skilled manoeuvre. Doesn't impress me much!

[rogerg]

I don't think flapping your wings at 100ft to get on the centreline is a very skilled manoeuvre. Doesn't impress me much!

If its planned and executed correctly it is. Who's a grumpy old man then!!

[Right Way Up]

Might be grumpy Roger, but not sure I would be quite termed an old man yet.

Rocking your wings at 100 ft to get stabilised is not a sign of superior piloting. Watch the airshow guys do it & it is a slick fluid movement just prior to landing. What has been described is a pilot who has overestimated his/her own ability!
Whichever way it has no place in professional airline operations. If a pilot wants to trump up their ego, go buy a Pitts!

[Right Way Up]

For those who think stabilised approaches are a bad thing, an excerpt from the manufacturers memo regarding the Iberia A340 accident in Quito.

The CVR records confirm the crew intent was initially to follow the ILS until sufficient visual references were available, then to leave the Glide Slope to visually capture and follow the PAPI path and use the full runway for landing.
The approach was performed with both AP1&2 engaged in LOC and GLIDE track modes, A/THR engaged in managed speed mode. Till touchdown, A/THR maintained the VAPP. For final approach, the aircraft was configured to land (gear down, auto-brake set to HIGH, ground spoilers armed, flaps fully extended). Landing weight was 249t, Vapp 151 kt. Given the altitude and the tailwind, the True Air Speed was 181kt and the Ground Speed 189kt.
While AP 1+2 were engaged, the aircraft remained stabilized on the LOC and GLIDE.
Runway 35 was in sight just prior to minimum, DA(H) being 9850ft(652ft).
AP 1+2 were disconnected at the minimum. The PF applied nose-down stick inputs to reach the PAPI flight path. This resulted into an increased rate of descent above 1400ft/mn between 450ft and 150ft radio-altitude. The GPWS "SINK RATE" warning was triggered at 270ft radio-altitude, it was followed by transient nose-up inputs from the PF.
The "SINK RATE" warning was triggered again below 50ft AGL.
The touch-down occurred at about 200m after the full runway threshold (remaining distance was 2920 m).
The landing was extremely hard (more than 3g vertical acceleration, about 19ft/sec 1100ft/mn), which lead to:
- Breakage of the lower articulation link of both Main Landing Gear (MLG);
- Abrupt derotation of both bogie beams;
- Burst at impact of all 4 MLG front wheels;
- And damage of the wiring looms of RH and LH boogie proximity sensors that are
used to detect the GROUND condition hence allowing engine thrust reversers deployment.

[Tankengine]

Right way up :
From your exerp the aircraft WAS stable right up until minima!

What is your point?:confused:

[Hand Solo]

Nah, he's just showing superior airmanship with a late 'duck under' manouevre.

Tankengine - the point is that the Iberia crew deliberately departed from the stabilised approach in order to try to put the aircraft down earlier, got too great a RoD and crashed the thing into the runway. If they'd stuck with the stable approach this would just have been another unremarkable flight.

[Right Way Up]

Tankeng,
What about the fact they purposely destabilised an approach, and the aircraft is now in pieces. Being stabilised is not just about being ok at the relevant gate. It lasts until the aircraft is under control on the runway.

[OCEANIC CLEARANCE]

Hans solo you have no idea about Quito....if u follow the ILS GP it brings you to half the runway...all the aircrafts must forget the GP on minimums and sink the aircraft to follow the PAPI lights, wich will bring you to the threshold.

The problem was that doing that after 9 or 10 hours of flight, with not a sunny day and with an A340-600 is not an easy deal....

[Huck]

Quito is exactly what I'm talking about.

And I've been in there many times, MD-11 and DC-10, almost always at night.

If all you do on all your normal approaches is click off the autopilot at 500', I would argue you are absolutely not qualified to go into Quito.

That last minute PAPI descent requires maximum skill and control, a feel for pitch-power-airspeed, and a good visual scan. Your aviator skills need to be sharp and bright. And I would add - taken out of the toolbox early. No way would I click off the autopilot at 600' on THAT approach - that's like sitting down to a piano and banging out flight of the bumblebee without even cracking your knuckles.....

[despegue]

hand Solo,

Ever been to Quito?!
Obviously not, or you would know that ducking under the ILS to follow the PAPI is the only way to land a heavy safely at that airport. Any airline that doesn't let their pilots "fly" the plane has no business there. It was a very demanding day with a considerable tailwind, rain and IB is now investigating wether windshear was a factor.

Flying skills are getting eroded more and more, on a perfect sunny day, I notice more and more aircraft following the ILS instead of just asking a visual with a 3nm. final. And that does NOT enhance safety, it reduces it.

[Fokker28]

One where it didn't work? Check with our friends at SWA...

[Farrell]

milesofftarget

Sorry to hear that you have been attacked by PM. This is just typical of the way threads that start out with tentative data and speculation, end up as mud slinging matches and probably with sods being thrown by some who have never been out of their armchairs.

I may not agree totally with the ins and outs of a "stabilised" approach, however, aviation is supposed to be a gentleman's career. At least it was when I was growing up and looking up to those I aspired to be.

A cull is required around here and has been for a while now.

[411A]

Don't fret, Farrell, this is what MoT sent me...unsolicited
411A
Oh dear, you too 411A. If you read my post carefully you will see what I mean..... don't need TCAS to recognise a 737 200m away....numpty!
I suspect that most of your colleagues may actually call you 911 !With an attitude like that they'll be calling the emergency services on to standby as you walk up the aircraft steps !
Interesting that it's our north American friends that think that flying is a manual skill.
Too much testosterone, too little gray stuff perhaps.
Just a thought.
MoT

Seems the numpty is alive and kicking, in the form of...MoT:ugh::rolleyes:

[Chris777]

"Calm, measured, restrained, polite, professional" are a few of the adjectives many would use to describe airline pilots.

Are you guys representative of your profession as a whole?

[Right Way Up]

Chris777,
Airline pilots are like that at work........this is our therapy!:O

[hetfield]

@Chris

Very good question.

[Chris777]

Right Way Up: well, that's fair enough.

Just to be clear, my question is not at all meant to be bitchy/sarcastic.

[PJ2]

Chris777;

Don't confuse passion and bluntness with irrationality.

It is these qualities, along with other "milder" forms of communications, skill and experience, that keeps the business safe. In today's bottom-line-driven airline industry the few that put that priority first including operations people are always looked at askance as perhaps not being "members of the team". It is against such outlandish thinking driven as it is by purely commercial pressures and priorities, that airline pilots must constantly fight.

Instead, be thankful there is the passion, the willingness to engage and disagree, even "substantially", among professional airmen. The only difference is, we have taken the unusual step of actually discussing that which motivates us most strongly, in a public forum. An even more blunt and passionate dialogue almost certainly exists in private among all professionals and not just airline pilots. We at the pointy end know this best and know that even as unpleasant and unseemly as it appears to non-pilots or non-professional airmen, it is the shortest route to the best answer in aviation. Bluntness is a skill like any other and it is honed here every day.

PJ2

[alf5071h]

OCEAN et al, re #50, you should re read the Airbus report on the Quito accident.

Although the ILS at Quito has a displaced origin, it still provides a landing distance of 2610m (not half way down the runway). The operator used the reduced distance to calculate the landing performance. Note that the ILS charts and PAPI information at Quito is inconsistent with world standards.
The report suggests that the crew deliberately flew a duck under maneuver (unstabilized) even though it was not necessary for the conditions. This could be due to misconceptions about the planning or hearsay of other’s practices (as in this thread) which in regulatory terms are incorrect.

However, we should continue to be cautious, an approach to a displaced ILS origin provides opportunity for error, particularly as it appears attractive to use the full length of runway. At Quito the tailwind may have contributed to the high rate of decent, which together with a higher than usual VS due to the altitude (even higher GS) the pilot’s recognition for the flare point could have been a demanding task.

The link between Quito and this thread is in stabilization and the ability to detect change from the established norm.
If an operation routinely requires a steep curved approach due to terrain or other constraint, then a crew’s proficiency can be sufficiently high to enable routine operations. The difference between this and more standard approaches is that the steep curved approach has less margin for error than a stabilized straight in approach would have. Where non stabilized operations are the norm any additional risk can be mitigated with crew training, proficiency, or limitation, often resulting from the operation being semi routine e.g. 5.5 deg @ LCY.

One objective of the stabilized approach concept is to provide ‘a norm’ at the centre of the safety envelope, which enable crews to detect any changes which might add risk to the operation.
When flying an unstable steep / curved approach the crew can be exposed to opportunities for error, particularly as the norm might be a changing flight path to start with. The risks could be even higher due to the increased physical and mental workload which pilot’s might not be familiar with.
In situations where pilots are reluctant to fly a stabilized approach, or unable to detect flight-path errors, then an alerting warning is required. This should come from the pilot monitoring, but there are situations where s/he cannot detect the change (illusion, rapid windshear), or they suffer aspects of human behavior resulting in no communication. In these instances, technology (installation of alerting systems) should be used to reinstate the required level of safety degraded by human weakness e.g. EGPWS, SAM (#51).
For info – related issues of NPA vs Precision approaches, see the new Airbus Briefing Note - Industry Safety Initiative -
From Non-Precision to Precision-like Approaches. (www.airbus.com/en/corporate/ethics/safety_lib/index.html)

P2J :ok:

[barit1]

I rode jump seat a few years ago in an RJ 1011 - we made what can only be called a classic 180 from downwind to AMM rwy 09R, rolling to wings level right over the numbers, and touchdown 3 sec. later.

A joy to behold. It was a well-practiced manuver, obviously. :D:D:)

[Centaurus]

Miles, A4,
I would rather have the life of my kids in the hands of these stick and rudder guys than in the hands of guys who almost stall when autothrust/autothrottle are inop

Or those stalwarts with four stripes who practically have a fit if you suggest turning off the flight director in sunny CAVOK..

[bushbolox]

I dont understand the point of this thread.
I dont subscribe to the urban myth of loosing flying skills. When you switch of the fd and ap and fly a scratchy circuit or departure Maybe just maybe they werent as sharp as you thought they were in the first place?
I fly stable approaches of all kinds except where the parameters are exempted or different. Samos, chambrey ils sink rate and Circling, skiathos etc.
Now I dont get many of these in a season but guess what my fyling skills are just fine at samos, my short field skills at skiathos and my 5* ils followed by a circle in terrain higher than the circling height in 3000m to a short airport with a lake at the end just fine.
Maybe thats because they were developed in an appropiate enviroment as a bush pilot before jets and not some snotty cadet straight out of school onto a jet and five years down the line we get threads like this. How many of you moaning on about skills acepted the jet job without a murmur. Well that included some conditions. Fly it as required. Not as you see fit.
I would suggest that those who hype on about loss of flying skills take a long look at themselves and a constant need to prove themselves as stick and rudder men.Exactly why we have fdm to watch the insecure guys proving something.
Oh and by the way when is the last time a boeing had a stick or you used the rudder outside the flare.
CRM the middle letter stand for resource. the automatics are a resource. Your ego and need to prove things to yourself or colleagues.Its not JUST about being nice to cabin crew
Grow up its not flight school.:ok:

[Rananim]

bushbolox,
Yes,generally you're correct.Automatics are a good resource and company SOP's are not to be wilfully ignored.
No two pilots are the same,although the Company may write the book as though we all are.Theres company limitations and then theres your own limitations.A pilot must know his own limitations.The Company tailor the book to the lowest common denominator.They might mandate a max crosswind of 10 knots on a contaminated runway,or even five.Many pilots have the ability to land with fifteen or twenty.Does this mean they should?Many pilots can execute a perfectly safe landing having bust all the company's VMC stabilization criteria.Does it mean they should?
How much leeway does an airline pilot have?Those who say none are talking on the record.Officially,there's very little leeway,other than in an emergency.Unofficially,its a different matter.The truth of the matter is while the CP wants his rules adhered to,he also wants his Captains to exercise their judgement and discretion when the situation warrrants or allows such discretion..I would argue that the VMC(not the IMC) stabilization criteria is a good example.However,if you do exercise your discretion and screw it up,he'll cross you off his xmas card list,so be warned.Its a fine line and judging where the line is drawn is a real art.

[Huck]

I dont subscribe to the urban myth of loosing flying skills.

Classic.

How many hard/long landing incidents would it take to change your mind? I can show you five on the front page of Rumour and News currently.....

[PJ2]

Centaurus;

Or those stalwarts with four stripes who practically have a fit if you suggest turning off the flight director in sunny CAVOK..

Yes, I hear that from F/O's I used to fly with - it always bothered me because I could tell people were losing basic skills. FWIW, I fully agree with Huck, above, because I know that these are outcomes of reduced skill levels.

Early on, I chose to be one of the other kind of skippers who insisted on hand-flying every chance I got, both on the 320 series and 340 series a/c and that my F/O's do the same when comfortable, and that I would be happy to do the a/p settings. I insisted on (and taught) use of manual thrust when appropriate, so the autothrust system was understood, (for some reason, there is a great fear of both disconnecting the a/t and actually how to do it without causing a mess or a runaway airplane - I've seen it). The goal was to teach relationships between the autothrust, flight director, autoflight and FMGC systems because it is impossible to learn from the AOM and sim time is difficult to come by.

The barebones training and abnormals-driven sim sessions never catered to how to fly the airplane and instead focussed on ECAM discipline, reading checklists, getting the more complex abnormals "comfortable", (EMER Elect Config, two hydraulic system failure, slat-flap jams, CATIII's etc). Manual thrust and hand flying especially with the f/d's off and raw ILS data was never taught but it was sometimes tested as were steep turns and stall recoveries. I hand-flew the 320 and 340 every leg I had until the company quietly but unmistakably indicated that hand-flying was only to be "encouraged", (meaning if anything happened, you were on the carpet) under very specific conditions which would be extremely benign to some posters here who have expressed opinions and who who see, like I do, the exceptional value of staying in touch with the airplane as opposed to "managing" the airplane through secondary "intellectual vice artistic" modes, (another thread...). The standard used when teaching was, if the candidate could, in all flight regimes, move from fully automated flight to fully manual flight and back again without the passengers "knowing", I felt there was sufficient understanding of the Airbus autoflight system to be safe. I have seen enough outcomes of misunderstanding autoflight regimes that I consider manual flight essential and not merely something to be practised when there isn't a bird in a clear-blue sky. This issue was raised almost two decades ago and still has not been addressed by the airlines nor by the regulator. A thorough balance between the two - automation & actual flying an airplane, is key, using both regimes but right now the balance is way too far towards automation and as such is becoming a self-fulfilling "prophecy". Automation can subtlely create a "veil" between crew and aircraft as, especially in the Airbus, the feedback loops (speed and sound, pressure on the stick, a/c speed and trim), are incomplete.

Don't mistake these expressions as eschewing automation and it's contributions to flight safety. Undoubtedly automation is safer, used appropriately and with comprehension. I fully embrace automatic flight - but, like the "MCPL panacea" that is fast becoming the new fad with airline managements, IATA and even ICAO, managements who do not fly regularly and bean-counters who figure automation can reduce costs and Operations departments who loath manual flight because of the "higher fuel costs", (heard it, been told), need to reassess what a pilot actually does and who can now rightly call themselves an aviator and who cannot.

[bushbolox]

Huck , Ill re emphasise my point. The incidents you mention happen in non automated and automated regimes.The flying skills require to fly the last 500 feet are not that hard.
They are the result of poor flying skills period. They dont deterioate. THAT is the marker of a true aviator. The ability to fly not to pay for a career.
There are many doctors but not many surgeons:ok:

[Hand Solo]

We seem to have been sidelined into the 'all pilots are c*** unless they did bush flying' debate. Well if you wish to blow sunshine up your own ass then please be my guest. I fly with guys who've done bush flying, instructing, night mail runs, fast jets, low level multi engine stuff and world renowned air racing, and apart from the last category I really can't tell much difference between them, either doing manual flying or non-normals in the sim. The only discriminator is how often they practice manual flying.

THAT is the marker of a true aviator. The ability to fly not to pay for a career.

I think comments like that reveal your true agenda.

[Jaxon]

It may not have been exactly polite, but there is certainly a valid point in there, agenda or no.

[GlueBall]

"...Thats fine, you can do that in aircraft up to BAe146. Unfortunately you can't do that sort of flying into busy controlled airports in a big jet. There's too much traffic and the aircraft isn't manouvreable enough. Try turning final at 400 ft in a 747 and you'd better have it right first time because there's no time to correct if you haven't."

Well, Captain "Hand Solo," . . . we've been having to do just that for many, many, moons at the former Kai Tak airport [HKG] on the IGS-13 approach. Have you ever been there? And if ever you get to do a circling approach to Rwy-17 at UIO/SEQU [Quito, Ecuador] you'd be having to do just that on a two mile final. :ooh:

[Hand Solo]

Well thanks for the post Glueball but Kai Tak has been closed for quite some time now and for most crews it required specific simulator training so you can hardly claim it relied on pure airmanship skills. Never been to Quito and I'm sure the extreme density altitude conditions make it an almost uniquely challenging approach, but how many airlines will send a crew in there without either simulator training or special crew briefing? You are pulling examples from the very extremes of airline flying and trying to apply them across the spectrum.


I don't buy Jaxons/Bushbolox idea that those who have 'paid' for their career are somehow worse. Everybody in their appropriate seat of a UK airliner has passed the appropriate tests and are thus qualified for their position. Some will be average, some will be above average, some below, but all will be qualified. The idea that those who've done the bush flying will automatically be above average is hooey, I've seen them fly and they are no better or worse as a group than people from any other background. In my experience once anybody has been removed from their previous job by 5 years all bets are off. The flying skill from the previous job has gone and all that remains is a sentimental attachment to skills they once had, and usually an egotistical desire to profess how good they are to others.

[calypso]

It must be nice to be a born aviator sent down to earth by God himself. Unfortunately for the rest of us is all about practice, practice, practice.

[Jaxon]

"Well thanks for the post Glueball but Kai Tak has been closed for quite some time now and for most crews it required specific simulator training so you can hardly claim it relied on pure airmanship skills.

Wow, there's a bit of nonsense that slipped out - airmanship skills by definition resulted from training. Practicing is part of training, and doing is also practicing... get the picture? Skills are learned.

"I don't buy Jaxons/Bushbolox idea that those who have 'paid' for their career are somehow worse. Everybody in their appropriate seat of a UK airliner has passed the appropriate tests and are thus qualified for their position.

You missed the point, the suggestion was that being a "true aviator" comes with experience and cannot be purchased. Meeting the minimum standards for certification is one thing, but it does not say much about experience, does it? The point is obvious as that is precisely why command has a minimum experience requirement in addition to simply passing the tests.

[Jaxon]

"In my experience once anybody has been removed from their previous job by 5 years all bets are off. The flying skill from the previous job has gone and all that remains is a sentimental attachment to skills they once had, and usually an egotistical desire to profess how good they are to others."

Your theory is very easily disproved. I used to ride a unicycle quite a bit in my younger days. How much would you like to wager that I still can?

If you go visit the retirement home and drag two 70 year old farts down to the airport and make them each fly a circuit in a 737 I'll bet the one who used to do it for a living will return a useable airframe.

[Frosty Hoar]

Arguably the ability to hand fly is largely irrelevant to the modern airline pilot,like it or not.The aircraft will fly itself better than we can anway.Of more relevance is the ability to manage resources-for instance fuel/people/systems, particularly as aircraft become larger and commercial pressures higher.

Interestingly the management side of the pilot job is seldom discussed or alluded to.

[411A]

Arguably the ability to hand fly is largely irrelevant to the modern airline pilot,like it or not.

Except when it all goes pear-shaped....:}


Hmmm. lets see, Azores A330, AC B767, LH A320...come to mind.:rolleyes:

[Jaxon]

"Arguably the ability to hand fly is largely irrelevant to the modern airline pilot,like it or not."

I'd say its more accurate to say that the ability to hand fly is becoming more and more degraded as more reliance on automation is accepted. Its only accepted because the automation is 'good enough' to help produce acceptable fatality statistics. Its not that the skill is not needed, its that the number of deaths attributed to that degraded skill level is acceptable thanks to all the modern gadgets.

Management skills are no more or less necessary in the modern cockpit, they are just all thats left to do and now include a longer and rather mindless bit of button pushing.

[Right Way Up]

411a,
Those incidents were arguably caused by mismanagement issues. Still good examples of very good handling skills. There is no reason why people should not practice those skills regularly. I fear the common reason is a lack of confidence in the LHS, which restricts not just themselves but the development of the f/o as well.
Back to the thread topic, turning final at 100 ft in a passenger jet airliner is not on. I have seen 3 unstable incidents this year from the same national carrier. There was no skill involved in these approaches which is backed up by the large control inputs near to the ground.

[Frosty Hoar]

411a

Azores glider and AC were resultant from poor management.

A better example of handling skills would have been the DC10 hyd failure.:hmm:

[Right Way Up]

Frost Hoar, if 411a means the LH crosswired event, then that would be mismanagement as well. Who did the control check?

[Frosty Hoar]

RWU, if so agreed. wasnt familiar with the incident.:8

[miles offtarget]

This thread has migrated somewhat since my initial post; it's very interesting, but I feel that some of us are being led astray.

As professional pilots we are simply paid to operate a complex piece of machinery as safely as possible. And we confuse the issue if we indulge ourselves in the romanticism of flying around the bush, or believe the tired old stereotypes found in WW2 films.

A component part of operating this modern machinery is hand flying, but it's only a small component. Ultimately, airline flying only as safe as it is, BECAUSE of the automation that we have spent billions of dollars/euros in developing.

The improvement in human factor accident rates since the 1930's, where it was all stick and rudder illustrates this, and I refer you all to the surgeon analogy that I used earlier in the thread.

There may be very rare occasions where manual flying skills are required (DC10 hyd failure for one), but they are much more rare than the runway overruns, heavy landings, CFIT etc that result from trying to fly an airliner rather than operate it.

I'm not saying for a second that we should let manual flying skills atrophy to nothing, obviously we should have the capability to fly the aircraft, there is a place for that, but generally it's automation rather than stick and rudder that will see us into retirement.

Therefore, whilst don't have the data to hand, I feel that on balance we are much more likely to create our own problems by hand flying the sort of homemade approach that I witnessed in ALC last week, than letting some of our sharpest reactions dull a little.

We don't need the reactions of an F4 pilot to be a good B737 pilot. It's a different discipline entirely.

[BScaler]

I read once that...
A Superior Pilot is one who uses his Superior Judgement to avoid situations which may require the use of his Superior Skill.
And...
There are Old Pilots and Bold Pilots, but no Old Bold Pilots.
Perhaps some elements of each of these two sayings apply here.

[Huck]

Arguably the ability to hand fly is largely irrelevant to the modern airline pilot,like it or not.The aircraft will fly itself better than we can anway

This is the scariest thing I've read in awhile.

Take a gander:

On December 18, 2003, about 1226 central standard time, Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) flight 647, a Boeing MD-10-10F (MD-10), N364FE, crashed while landing at Memphis International Airport (MEM), Memphis, Tennessee. The right main landing gear collapsed after touchdown on runway 36R, and the airplane veered off the right side of the runway. After the gear collapsed, a fire developed on the right side of the airplane. Of the two flight crewmembers and five nonrevenue FedEx pilots on board the airplane, the first officer and one nonrevenue pilot received minor injuries during the evacuation. The postcrash fire destroyed the airplane's right wing and portions of the right side of the fuselage. Flight 647 departed from Metropolitan Oakland International Airport (OAK), Oakland, California, about 0832 (0632 Pacific standard time) and was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121 on an instrument flight rules flight plan.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
1) the first officer's failure to properly apply crosswind landing techniques to align the airplane with the runway centerline and to properly arrest the airplane's descent rate (flare) before the airplane touched down; and 2) the captain's failure to adequately monitor the first officer's performance and command or initiate corrective action during the final approach and landing.

I've flown with several pilots who knew/flew with the accident first officer. Let's say her views of automation were remarkably similar to Frosty Hoar's "hand-flying is irrelevant" comment.

Bottom line: wind components were out of limits for autoland.
Somebody's got to put the beast on the runway. Two people are sitting at the pointy end of it, making large sums of money. They're there for their skills. No "management" required on short final - just (dare I say it) stick and rudder skills. Skills weren't there, and a ~45 million dollar aircraft and 120,000 pounds of high-priority Christmas freight were a total loss.
Oh, and if it'd been a pax plane it would have killed hundreds. The wreckage was leaning so far that all slides were rendered inop.

[411A]

I think you and I are beating a dead horse here, Huck...the new(er) boys and girls at the pointy end are (seemingly) right and truly convinced that automation is the be all, end all, of modern day flight operations.
I sincerely hope that one day they are not in a situation when so-called automation will not dig them out of a hole they might find themselves into....:uhoh:

[A and C]

I do like a good bun fight and this one sees the guys who "manage" the aircraft using all the tools that the aircraft has to offer vs the people who reguarly hand fly the aircraft.

Surely what we need is appropriate use of the aircraft systems not de-skilling by automatics, I hand fly the aircraft as much as I can so as to retain my skills however a busy night at CGD is not the place for this just as a gusty day at Funchal is not the place to have the autopilot in more than half way dounwind.

As to wings level as long as you are speed stable and configerd for landing I can see nothing wrong with rolling the wings level at 500ft AAL as long as you are on the correct vertical profile.

The aircraft "managers" will no doubt disagree.

[Frosty Hoar]

Huck-

Fedex capt failed to monitor the approach correctly and consider the handling skills of the f/o combined with the wx. No awareness,no teamwork -poor management and airmanship. :ugh:

No questions,your witness.

411a

Happy fishing.

A+C

I concur.

[Huck]

Fedex capt failed to monitor the approach correctly and consider the handling skills of the f/o combined with the wx. No awareness,no teamwork -poor management and airmanship.

O.K. Point taken.

One small defense of him - she was getting a line check. Otherwise it obviously would have been his landing.....

[Right Way Up]

One small defense of him - she was getting a line check. Otherwise it obviously would have been his landing.....
Not much of an excuse, so what if its a line check. The Captain's responsibility is the safe operation of his/her aircraft. Reroster the line check if need be!

[Two's in]

There may be very rare occasions where manual flying skills are required (DC10 hyd failure for one), but they are much more rare than the runway overruns, heavy landings, CFIT etc that result from trying to fly an airliner rather than operate it.


There seems to be some confusion over the probability of an event occuring against the requirement to be able to deal with it. Just because it's unlikely to happen doesn't mean you don't have to know how to recover the situation. Automation and Standardized techniques (such as stabilized approaches) will keep the aircraft operating within a well-defined envelope, and accordingly going outside of that envelope should either be (a) a conscious decision within revised, but well understood operating parameters , (such as a modified visual approach) or (b) something that can be recovered using the skills of the crew.

So you either elect to use those skills to operate the aircraft in a safe and effective manner, or you suddenly find yourself needing those skills to recover from an unexpected situation. In the case of the original poster it appears that local pilots with local knowledge are using these skills to expedite airport operations: in the examples quoted by 411A, those pilots used them to save the day, regardless of how they got themselves in that position.

In the Military you expect to have really bad things happen to the aircraft at any time, so the training emphasis is on handling emergencies and losing all and any automated systems that were helping you up until the point when the bad news arrived. Flying the aircraft must be second nature and most emergencies require memorized and instinctive actions. The only difference with commercial flying is the probability of an event occuring.

Standardization is great; and undoubtedly prevents accidents, but whether you consciously or unexpectedly go outside the envelope, somebody on board better know what the new plan is.

[Jaxon]

There may be very rare occasions where manual flying skills are required (DC10 hyd failure for one), but they are much more rare than the runway overruns, heavy landings, CFIT etc that result from trying to fly an airliner rather than operate it.

I don't use the red tabbed part of my QRH that often but I'm very pleased to have it with me - every flight.

You seem to be glossing over some very salient points here. Do you suppose safety is enhanced or degraded as flying skills and experience are increased? I suggest that perhaps it is the heavy reliance on the automation to coddle you in a blanket of safety that has the modern flightdeck manager in trouble with runway overruns, etc. when he either turns off the autopilot or is forced to not use it and finds that modern "flight deck manager" does not exactly equal "skilled pilot". There is no doubt that automation enhances safety, all other things being equal. But automation also removes the ability to frequently exercise real pilot skills and just as your tail plane provides "negative lift" so does the effective degradation of those real pilot skills to safety.

I've flown with a large number of the "new age flightdeck managers" and come to realize from direct and exciting experience that unless the automation advances significantly the retirement of actual pilot skills from the cockpit will drive those statistics in the direction which forces a renewed emphasis on stick and rudder. I can hear the indignant moaning ten years from now when the flightdeck manager complains about all the manual maneuvers and approaches s/he was required to perform in the sim.

[Huck]

I can hear the indignant moaning ten years from now when the flightdeck manager complains about all the manual maneuvers and approaches s/he was required to perform in the sim.

It's already happening at my place. My PT was this month, and the FIRST maneuver was a handflown, autothrottle off departure procedure out of LAX, vectors back to a non-PROF localizer approach to a full stop. AT and AP stayed off the whole time. This was in an MD-11 sim.

I loved it - but I would have failed the flight director as well.....

[con-pilot]

It's already happening at my place. My PT was this month, and the FIRST maneuver was a handflown, autothrottle off departure procedure out of LAX, vectors back to a non-PROF localizer approach to a full stop. AT and AP stayed off the whole time. This was in an MD-11 sim.

Did have you all three engines working? Easy then. :p

Some people on this thread would have made a mess in their pants if they had seen some of our departures and visual approaches in the 72 back in my USMS days. We use to practice rolling wings level on the PAPI or GS at a 100 feet from a constant descending turn from downwind. We also had a rather unique visual departure profile we used to ,er, calm down our 'passengers'. That was a lot of fun.

[Jaxon]

Huck, good on ya. I know that there is a wide range of variation existing across the industry in simulator training and evaluating. Some places are still hammering in the basic pilot skills, and some places... not so much ;)

[PrettyBoy]

When reading through this thread it seems that you either have "good hands" OR the ability to "manage" aircraft through the use of automation. It seems to me that a balance of both is required to be a modern professional pilot. There is no room for "hot dogs" nor the pilots who is unable to manipulate the controls when the automation is turned off. I'm amazed at some of the comments here....

[miles offtarget]

This might be a good time to point out that my initial post described a ( I assume) servicable 737 becoming wings level at somewhere between 100 and 200 ft AGL after a homemade approach into a major airport on a CAVOK day.

The debate as whether we sould or should not be able to fly the aircraft is a fatuous one...we all should be able to, and if we can't then shame on us.

My point is/was that I was surprised to see professional pilots shamelessly flying an airliner with up to 148 people on board like a 172.

Merry Christmas

MoT

[Bigmouth]

the new(er) boys and girls at the pointy end are (seemingly) right and truly convinced that automation is the be all, end all, of modern day flight operations.
That's because they are being taught that way. And it's reinforced at every 6 month checkride.
Many more aircraft in the sky means many more pilots than just a few years ago. Naturally the skill level of the average pilot is being diluted with every expansion. And in this business the training is geared towards the lowest common denominator. SOP's and commonality are key, and very unfortunately Joe-super-pilot is forced to fly like to Joe-shoulda-washed-out's standards.
The big killer today, and more so in the future is going to be complacency. And complacency is caused by automation as well as the modern marvels of engineering that our aircraft are.

[miles offtarget]

Sorry Bigmouth, I have been flying since 1986 in both the air force and airlines and still think automation is (usually) the key to safe flying.

Lots of friends killed in pointy grey things the air force (little or no automation), few if any killed flying perf A airliners, lots of automation.

Ergo, new(er) pilots taught correctly...automation (within the bounds of reason)...good.

MoT

[Bigmouth]

Pointy grey things type flying hardly compares to the shiny snub nosed kind, now does it.

[Ralph Cramden]

411A You are right, we are beating a dead horse here. I don't often visit PPRUNE much anymore. Too depressing.

What you are trying to do is describe a rainbow to a room full of people who were born blind; describe Beethoven's 5th to deaf mutes. You are trying to communicate with people who cannot hear you as it is outside their experience.

Back in the olden days when I was flying automation was there for my convenience. If I wanted to use it, I did. If not, I didn't. The point being that I could get my A/C safely on the ground with or without. I hand flew almost all approaches throughout my career. If the WX was bad, I did it to get the practice, if the WX was good, I did it for the sheer joy of it.

Of course you have to use the automation in modern A/C. That's Plan "A". Where is Plan "B"? When you run out of options in avaition, you are in a very deep, dark hole.

[411A]

Of course you have to use the automation in modern A/C. That's Plan "A". Where is Plan "B"? When you run out of options in avaition, you are in a very deep, dark hole.

Indeed so, Ralph.
The airplane I fly now (and have for the last twenty seven years in Command, the Lockheed L1011) was the first really automated wide-body aeroplane.
Its automatic approach/land capabilities are second to none (even today, as a few of my friends who fly the B777 will agree) sadly the younger folks many times will never enjoy the pleasure of flying a manual approach in nasty weather.
How very sad.:{

[ICEMAN757200]

You Are Welcome To Iceland Any Time My Friend!:)
No Autoland Capability When We Have 45g65 And Sn + 2000m Ovc008.
You Are Damm Right That´s Fun And A Real Pleasure Too Man!!:)
As A Good Practise Mnl Flt Is Encouraged By Mr. Boeing(in Low Density Airports Of Course)

[rogerg]

45g65 And Sn + 2000m Ovc008
Sounds like a bit too much fun.

[despegue]

The company I work for has us doing during all OPC/LPC's one-engine raw-data ILS'es until minima with normally 15-30kts crosswind. Left and right seat. Our entry check includes step turns, stalls etc.
This is flying B737F's for an airline in the Icelandair-Group...,

Most normal approaches are flown raw-data too, at least among Belgians.:D

Use automatics when needed and fly the aircraft when possible. Not the other way around.

[stator vane]

where can we apply?

[stator vane]

we should MAKE the first officers handfly--within reason. and take away the flight directors and closer in (abeam or base) take away their map.

i watch the early part of the flight and see if there is the basic potential-- and within the company rules, (not into LON TMA, wx) i will often reach up and turn off the auto pilot and tell the first officer that is has failed.

after their initial shock, they always thank me when it is finished. i know that sense of actually having done something.

and it is a handfull even in good weather if you don't do it often.

i remember the 737-500 estonia that lost all his air data not long ago and was told they have the same air data boxes that our -800's use.

so we must take the initiative and give them the opportunity/challenge.

if that makes me a rebel and a dinosaur, so be it.

[Right Way Up]

Manual flying with everything switched off should be actively encouraged & I do so with all my f/os.
However handflying is not the point of the thread. Whether you are the ace of the base of the lowest common denominator, turning finals at 100ft is unprofessional.
As an aside imho one thing more dangerous than lack of manual flying skill, is a lack of skill in using the automation.

[yakmadrid]

Hi guys,
The other day I saw a british registered A-320 with a crybaby on the right seat, he was so busy looking inside that he diddn´t realize it was a sunny day outside, poor thing.

[Jaxon]

Hi guys,
The other day I saw a british registered A-320 with a crybaby on the right seat, he was so busy looking inside that he diddn´t realize it was a sunny day outside, poor thing.

Too funny!

Perhaps the other thread has you a little bit aggitated at those british copilots, huh?

Like these guys have been saying, I have to add that I and many, many of my colleagues have been mystified for a number of years now that the most difficult thing for the newly minted copilot is a visual approach! This is a simulator observation as well as on line. The by the numbers training worked wonderfully and they've got the whole routine down well (as in robotic and rote) for the instrument approach procedure but it is one hell of a good laugh to watch one of these organized SOP spouting, training program experts have no clue how to just look at a runway from a downwind leg and actually fly it to the runway! It says great things about the training but oh so clearly points out where some basic emphasis is needed and where the experience becomes priceless.

[rogerg]

OAT teach visual approaches from the downwind during the MCC/JOT course. Most airlines expect you to be able to fly raw data for the assessment for employment. All airlines I have flown for encourage you to develop hand flying skills, and test you in the sim by flying circling approaches etc. however in some third world airlines it only the automatics that stop them from killing all the passengers. This was a comment in Flight some years ago by a training captain from one such airline. I should add that the comment probably includes first world airlines these days.

[Right Way Up]

Jaxon, but the thing about visual approaches is that even that is done by numbers. Faro is a golden example. People program up FMGC and try to fly a visual through the automatics and map display. They then forget how close in they are and go-around because they are too fast. I wonder some times why the manufacturers bother putting windows in the flight deck!

[PJ2]

People program up FMGC and try to fly a visual through the automatics and map display.

Up to the point where I've seen guys try to program the visual on 31 in LaGuardia - not a good idea.

Apropos another thread, we do not permit night visuals in designated mountainous terrain for a good reason.

That said, a well-flown visual from a mile or two outside the marker, (4 to 6 miles back), when in the slot can save fuel and time but I agree with Jaxon - the ability to fly a visual approach simply by looking outside is a disappearing art. Disconnecting the a/p and a/t below 10 and hand-flying a visual is a good way to get everyone's close attention in the cockpit, first because many have never seen it done...:ugh:

With elementary use (not reliant-use) of the map feature one can maintain situational awareness while employing the one-in-three rule for altitude and using the groundspeed-divided-by-2 method that yields the rate-of-descent to maintain for a rough 3-deg visual "g/s" all the way down, keeping in mind how much distance it takes to slow down and get configured. It's simple and everyone who's spent any time hand-flying (when appropriate), and not merely "managing" the airplane all the time knows this like the back of their hand but, along with the go-around maneuver, a visual approach can be one of the most cocked-up maneuvers seen, even in the data.

On a matter related to risk, I have heard it said that the go-around maneuver may not always be the preferred "out" to an approach that has become destabilized, (not necessarily referencing the Air France 358 TSB Report here). To me that's nonsense because the maneuver is (or ought to be) basic toolkit stuff, but the observation was made and deserved some thought about accidents related to the go-around maneuver. The context was, whether go-arounds ought to always be encouraged when an approach becomes destabilized. I couldn't really believe my ears but there it was.

One that comes to mind both in the go-around and then poorly-executed visual approach(es) was the Gulfair A320 accident at Bahrain in August, 2000. There have been several "mode-confusion" go-around accidents since then which may have had a vestibular disorientation component. Training issues emerge as well.

Perhaps this is for another thread, (admin?, & if there is indeed any interest in the question), but what sense is there that a go-around can approach the riskiness of continuing a highly unstable approach?

[Smudger]

Miles, get a life you snitch. We all strive to be stabilised, otherwise (with my company anyway) it's a mandatory go-around. Get your own house in order and leave all the professionals to get on with the job without being snooped on by onlookers.

[JW411]

I am simply incredulous that any so-called professional pilot should consider that doing a visual circuit in a large aeroplane is in any way difficult.

I speak as one who has done thousands of touch and gos in four-engined aeroplanes whilst training new pilots over 40 years until I retired last year.

I am still teaching this exercise in the simulator.

[Hand Solo]

It's easy when you've done thousands of them in the simulator and see them every week. When there's nowhere on your operating network where you can do a 1500 ft visual circuit, hence you only get to try them twice a year in the simulator, it's a different matter.

[PJ2]

JW411; I am simply incredulous that any so-called professional pilot should consider that doing a visual circuit in a large aeroplane is in any way difficult.

Fully concur - it is such a basic tool in the kit for every pilot that it is indeed hard to believe.

But it has been trained out of the profession partly due to a misplaced infatuation with automation and it's capabilities. I have seen company responses where a visual gets badly messed up with the result that the operations people have clamped down on "doing visuals" rather than emphasizing fixing the issue in training. One can do visuals "by the numbers" in the sense that judging when to turn base is usually a 45" run plus some seconds added/subtracted for wind but the energy management of a heavy four-engine aircraft is the same as any machine when one understands the need for an effective scan, aircraft mass & energy and swept-wing aerodynamics and can use the wonderful amount of information at hand on both the Primary Flight Displays and Nav Displays, the absence all of which is the chief problem in disappearing skills.

Using automation well and appropriately is like hand-flying appropriately - it is a tool and there is a time, (most of the time, in my view) to use the designed systems to their full capacity. But when one is in a machine which ultimately may require manual intervention either in anger or "in fun", it had better be anticipated and competent. There are plenty of abnormal circumstances where, through various system faults, (speaking of Airbus here), a degraded autoflight system requires such skills - it's just part of the profession, even though it is reducing in importance as autoflight becomes more sophisticated.

[Jaxon]

Jaxon, but the thing about visual approaches is that even that is done by numbers.... I wonder some times why the manufacturers bother putting windows in the flight deck!

Ah yes! I have seen first hand and live the effort to direct the aircraft to fly itself from a downwind to a tight final. We really seem to be two very distinct groups - one trying to maintain relevancy and the left seat, the other trying to declare the old guy irrelevant and cockpit management something new.

[Tmbstory]

stator vane:

Post #108, very good sense, thank you.

Any pilot should be capable of flying manually to and from the cruising level equal to the standard that the autopilot produces. During the climb or descent, without prior warning, put your hand over the HSI information and ask what exact heading was being flown. Good for a beer or two and it enforces the basic of Command Heading.

Tmb

[FullWings]

I am simply incredulous that any so-called professional pilot should consider that doing a visual circuit in a large aeroplane is in any way difficult.
Easy to say, slightly more tricky to justify.

How DO you fly a "visual circuit" in a heavy jet in a (possibly uncooprative) busy ATC environment?

I don't count the sim - after all, it has to be flown by numbers (like a circling approach) unless you're in a 360deg vis. military jobbo. If, like most sensible airlines, you have stabilised approach criteria, then there are limits to what you can do when you "go visual" in terms of RoD, bank angle, height of final turn, etc. Not to mention the other traffic that is attempting to do the same thing onto the same runway - as it is with many operators now, I must keep TCAS on TA/RA unless a QRH item allows its inhibition.

Visual circuits are easy - until you take away the DME, reduce the vis., send you at the airport from a strange direction, keep you high/low/under speed control, put lots of conflicting traffic into the equation. Oh, not to mention being after 12hrs in the air too..

I am all for the practice and perpetuation of hand-flying skills but I will stand up and say that today, a (competent) visual circuit is one of the more demanding manoeuvres that you can fly in large aeroplane. And this is from a glider pilot with 3,000+ hrs without an engine, who has to get it right on every visual circuit as there is no go-around.

[dash6]

It must be a 411 skill. After a long night on the ocean. I try not to show my (considerable) handling skills,lest I screw up. The autopilot won't call me a wimp,will it? Or is the airbus more intelligent than I thought?:8:8

[PJ2]

FullWings, Dash6;

The trick in justifying hand-flying is determining when it is appropriate and when automation is appropriate. A busy (eg, LAX, LHR, FRA, etc) terminal is no place to be hand-flying any transport, large or small, with the other pilot focussed on making the hdg/alt window changes as well as monitoring the a/c and doing ATC. ATC expectations are high accuracy and quick compliance so I would think that the margins are too narrow/small for altitude and heading error and heads-inside in such terminals.

A visual is demanding in relation to the other maneuvers required but, along with steep turns while climbing, descending and in level flight, all on raw instruments, it's part of the skill-set. After a long overseas is no time to be "demonstrating" one's hand-flying skills. Unless adrenaline has been added, they just aren't there and neither is the thinking required.

The sim absolutely does not count. Manipulating electrons and flying molecules are two entirely different endeavours even in a simulator with visual and CATIII certification. It can help with the basics but it's not the same.

All this said, there is no more fun than an L1011 and a Canarsie on the right side...

[Jaxon]

FullWings, oddly enough I guess the visual pattern and any modification thereof is a relative challenge, I guess they've just been so basic and so natural for so long that its hard to relate to the "wham bam certify me ma'am" crowd. That said, did I mention they were "basic"?

Relative inexperience is being supported by modern technology AND the "real pilot" skills mainly possessed by the older crowd raised in a different aviation environment. Unless something changes in the mix, the fatality statistics will increase as the pre-flightdeck manager era pilot retires. Maybe the automation will improve enough to better justify the deterioration of the pay and the skills of the modern flightdeck manager, I guess we shall all see. (Well most of us, some of us are going to die first.)

[ZQA297/30]

All this said, there is no more fun than an L1011 and a Canarsie on the right side...
With 800' bkn, and wind 190/15G25
Ahh Canasty, a true test of pilot skills. But the L-10 made it easy.

[PJ2]

Yessir...and in an '8 -63 series as well but that was real work! There's only a couple of other ways to have more fun, one of them being in an airplane (I am told...never done it), skimming through the Alps or parts of Arizona...

[Coyote44]

Been there, done that, and got the T-shirt. Way back, when WE flew the kite and things went wrong, handling the A/C was no problem and you could always get in knowing you knew and could fly to the limits if need be. BUT today, imagine getting that bad gust, strong x-wind, etc, without the regular hands-on practice !!!! maybe I was a naughty boy like Huck, but it sure has paid off on many occasions.

Wiley

[Basil]

Any pilot should be capable of flying manually to and from the cruising level equal to the standard that the autopilot produces.
I don't think so.:hmm:

People who insist on hand flying in a busy TMA are a pain in the butt.
The PNH is working like a one-armed paper-hanger whilst the PH is doing sod all but follow the director. Monitoring, accuracy and safety are degraded.

Why do most respectable majors suggest that the automatics are used? May I suggest because the vast majority of their experienced training captains know that this is the safe way to operate a public transport aircraft.

If you want to be a prima donna then either spend some extra time in the sim or hire an aeroplane; either way you are not compromising the security of a passenger flight.

[Tmbstory]

Basil:

My statement was that a pilot should be "capable" of hand flying to and from cruising level.

It does not mean that it has to be flown that way.

Tmb

[puddle-jumper2]

If you want to be a prima donna then either spend some extra time in the sim or hire an aeroplane; either way you are not compromising the security of a passenger flight.

Unless of course the Autopilot is u/s and the MEL says you can continue without it for the rest of the long day.

Now you wish you had been practising 'hands on' as you now have a VERY steep learning curve and are ' compromising the security of a passenger flight' because you are out of practise.:=

Practise when the time is right, as for turning finals at 200'.........err I don't think so.:eek:

[JW411]

pj2:

I couldn't agree more; a few months before I retired, I did 5 sectors one night without an autopilot or flight directors. Neither were required as per the MEL.

I can also remember flying one of Fred's DC-10s from LGW to LAX without a working autopilot.

I can't see that happening nowadays. Some of them have forgotten how to fly or so it would appear.

[barit1]

Does that mean that a working autopilot is required per some carriers' dispatch rules? :rolleyes:

[Kasual Observer]

Does that mean that a working autopilot is required per some carriers' dispatch rules?

It does if you want to get above FL290 into MNPS airspace!
With the ever more precise GPS centreline navigation and reduced vertical separation minima, you require the accuracy that your autopilot provides.
In the "olden days" I'm sure it was a lot easier to handle the heavy jets. You know when, the was nowhere near as much traffic at the major airports, navigation was by VOR or, heavens forbid, NDB.

When push comes to shove, we are all examined in our proficiency to handle a visual circuit just in case we have no other option. Flying a descent from cruise to circuit height is not that much of a challenge either. However, once inside the radar vectoring area of somewhere like JFK or LHR, the workload increases exponentially. Anyone hand flying a heavy in that environment "for fun" needs their head examined.

A hand flown visual circuit to a relatively quiet Caribbean island is a different matter. We all know that 411A believes he is a flying god but his days are over and the era that he flew in is just that... another era!

[PJ2]

basil,
If you want to be a prima donna then either spend some extra time in the sim or hire an aeroplane; either way you are not compromising the security of a passenger flight.
There is some subtlety in the discussion which does not lend itself to portrayals of the argument in "either/or polarities. I don't think many here equate hand-flying with primadonna-ness or macho-hero flying. Clearly, there are circumstances where competent hand-flying skills are required and I think the argument has been sufficiently made now for a balance between the two on an as-appropriate basis. I doubt very much whether anyone here who is a professional airline pilot would counter by saying automated airplanes should be hand-flown in busy terminals just for the practise.

In short, those who rely solely upon automation with minimal practise at and who eschew hand-flying at appropriate times as passé and unneccessary are in my view perhaps "compromising the security of a passenger flight" albeit on arguably rare occasions which are almost always associated either with MEL issues or with abnormalities which developed enroute.

Let me argue the case for appropriate hand-flying skills further: I know from personal experience that hand-flying skills on an A330 came in exeedingly handy on an aircraft compromised by a hydraulic failure with a possible loss of a second (out of 3, - enroute), manual thrust levers (MEL'd), partial/slow flaps (due hyd failure which also led to alternate braking, free-falling the gear, no reverser on one side and no nose-wheel steering). The requirements of completing the flight without result illustrated far more clearly than any discussion on the matter, that hand-flying skills both have their place in training syllabi and in practical application and in this case were a contribution to the safety of the flight. Having seen the results of competent hand-flying in an abnormal circumstance in an extremely sophisticated autoflight design, there are no arguments which can convince otherwise of the necessity to mandate hand-flying as part of a training curriculum.

I use this example purely as an illustration that the full toolkit includes fully-manual-to-fully-automated-flight skills, nothing more, nothing less. When used intelligently and with training and supported by company policies of appropriate levels of manual and managed flight, hand-flying has it's place and should be both trained and practised regularly. This does not preclude nor de-emphasize the primary means of flying today's airliners and that is using the autoflight/FMC systems to full advantage.

[Huck]

[T]he full toolkit includes fully-manual-to-fully-automated-flight skills, nothing more, nothing less.

The moral of the thread.....

[Jaxon]

In the "olden days" I'm sure it was a lot easier to handle the heavy jets. You know when, the was nowhere near as much traffic at the major airports, navigation was by VOR or, heavens forbid, NDB.

When push comes to shove, we are all examined in our proficiency to handle a visual circuit just in case we have no other option. Flying a descent from cruise to circuit height is not that much of a challenge either. However, once inside the radar vectoring area of somewhere like JFK or LHR, the workload increases exponentially. Anyone hand flying a heavy in that environment "for fun" needs their head examined.

A hand flown visual circuit to a relatively quiet Caribbean island is a different matter. We all know that 411A believes he is a flying god but his days are over and the era that he flew in is just that... another era!

Wow! You can only wish it used to be a lot easier and that you are the pinnacle of the modern profession! Ignorance is bliss!

I am curious, exactly where is the flying pilot's attention when you are in this busy terminal environment, and does your aircraft type still require the designation of a "flying pilot"? I know in my aircraft we are required to designate a "flying pilot" and he is supposed to dedicate his attention to aircraft control. It doesn't normally much matter whether the autopilot is ON or OFF as the flying pilot's attention must be acutely focused on the aircraft and the surrounding airspace. The briefings and preparation were done before reaching the terminal environment and we are down to simply one pilot at the controls and one pilot at the radios and supporting the flying pilot. How do YOU do it?

I've noticed that not one damn thing has changed in the last 28 years with regard to the fact that at least one guy must dedicate his attention to the aircraft and its control when in your (busy) terminal environments. Autopilot ON or OFF changes exactly NOTHING of where a good pilot's attention is SUPPOSED to be at this time. It used to be that the autopilot served to relieve some workload from the fatigued pilot, now it sounds like it serves to replace lost (or never had) competency. You may not understand how its possible to effectively and safely fly an aircraft in to JFK or LHR but rest assured it is for some of us even if its fewer and fewer every day. Understand this: just as its true that modern automation is relaxing the daily necessity of what you call the pilot skills of a bygone era, that era actually is not gone yet and those pilots with those skills are better and safer pilots than you. In other words, fortunately for the flying public modern automation is picking up your slack while its only backing up the pilots you think come from another era. We are safe without an autopilot and safer with it, you are only safe with it, correct?

[411A]

People who insist on hand flying in a busy TMA are a pain in the butt.
The PNH is working like a one-armed paper-hanger whilst the PH is doing sod all but follow the director. Monitoring, accuracy and safety are degraded.

Really?
Hmmm, how strange.
In my aeroplane, as the flying pilot flying manually, make all the necessary flight director/heading changes, with the exception of the altitude alert...only because it is way across the glareshield panel.
It would appear that many here, being shall we say, unseasoned, fail to realise that in years gone past, each individual pilot had to make his own selections (shock..horror!) as there was no 'central' way of doing so.
In the "olden days" I'm sure it was a lot easier to handle the heavy jets. You know when, the was nowhere near as much traffic at the major airports, navigation was by VOR or, heavens forbid, NDB.

Ah well, as I suspect the poster is rather 'new' to civil aviation, and further knows very little (if anything) about older swept-wing jet transports, he would be quite wrong.
Not his fault, just not been around long enough.:rolleyes:
Some of them have forgotten how to fly or so it would appear.
More than likely...never knew how in the first place.:uhoh:
And, whose fault is this?
The specific airlines training department, that's who.
Lowest common denominator, again.
Instead of training properly, train to the lowest barely acceptable standard.
What a shame.:sad:

[Basil]

411A,
the flying pilot flying manually, make all the necessary flight director/heading changes, with the exception of the altitude alert...only because it is way across the glareshield panel.

The majors for whom I've flown require MCP selections to be made by PNF when the aircraft is being hand flown by PF so, for them, it would be a breach of SOPs to make one's own selections.

The IGS at Kai Tak had to be hand flown from the start of the turn; Ovda (757) and Sumburgh (VC8) and other places where we flew a circling approach, yes, even in the big jumbo were hand flown Some serious combinations of structural damage and engine failure in the sim had to be hand flown.

The only time I've seen all the main tyres burst was when my captain decided to ignore SOPs and hand fly on a dark and dirty night. Perhaps, as some of you say, he should have had more practice ;)

[DFC]

I was stationary at the holding point perhaps 200 meters away, my TCAS was in TA/RA and showed it as a yellow circle with +100ft appended

Don't know if this has been asked already...........but why did an aircraft sitting at the hold have it's transponder in TARA?

Regards,

DFC

[JW411]

I expect because it is in his SOPs. Our TCAS is set to TARA in the line-up checks.

[Kasual Observer]

Oh come on 411A. You really should try to get with the times, even in your geriatric state.

I'm sure that if Ernest K Gann were around today and he were listening to your perpetual put downs and bragging of how good you were, he'd be doing the same to you.

Things change and technology advances. You retired from airline flying, how long ago? Exactly!

I have no doubt that the ratio of cr@p pilots to Supremo's like you is still exactly the same. The problem with you is that you just can't help yourself by taking derogatory snipes whilst blowing an old and faded trumpet.

Get over it. You had your era. You are now an old f@rt with a lot of hours in some classic aeroplanes. Today's pilots, young and old (like me) are more than capable of handling our modern, highly computerised and automated jets both manually and with the autopilots.

The main difference is that, unlike you, we have evolved. The evolution is in SOP's and better understanding. The proof is in the accident rate. In your era it was much worse than it is now. In EKG's era it was worse than yours.

It is comments about how you single handed used to set your own MCP whilst hand flying that show how out of touch with modern aviation you really are. SOP's at just about every major western carrier now dictate that the PNF operates the MCP and everything else whilst the PF does just that, flies the aircraft. The notion of 411A being the macho heavy jet pilot hand flying through CB's whilst manoeuvring for an approach to a busy parallel approach and reaching out to set his own MCP is, today, frowned upon. Why? Because lessons learnt over the decades show that it is safer to have the PNF make those changes and for the PF to concentrate 100% on flying.

So 411A, try taking off the condescension hat and just tell us the stories without the sad throws of a geriatric who hasn't figured out that times have changed and everything progresses and changes, invariably for the better.

I'm off to fly my B744. I think I'll hand fly to cruise level today. Then again, I may not and I may decide to practice my use of the automatics. Choices, choices! :rolleyes:

[411A]

You retired from airline flying, how long ago? Exactly!


Haven't retired yet, KO, still have a couple of years to go...:E
And, strangly enough, I know quite a few older pilots that share my opinions, exactly.

Sorry to disappoint...:}

[JW411]

Well, I most certainly do not teach pilots to be one-armed bandits nor is that the way things are laid down in our SOPs. When the automatics are engaged then the PF should programme the MCP. When hand flying then the PNF should programme the MCP.

Let me tell you that not everyone in Arizona is a one-armed bandit. I have trained many young men who have come out of the SABENA Academy at Scottsdale and they have all been very good.

I think we just have to be grateful that the chances of having to share the sky with an L1011 driven by the ancient mariner is so small as to be almost negligible.

Having said that, programming the MCP and doing the radio at the same time is hardly arduous for the PNF and certainly is not exactly what I would call demanding.

[miles offtarget]

TCAS to TA/RA is a checklist item when cleared to line up, as well as the strobes and terrain mode etc; and we were cleared to line up behind the landing 737.

I concurr exactly with KO in his reply above, and that was precisely my point when initiating this thread.

The home-made approach that I witnessed at ALC did not impress, smooth touchdown and exceptional handling skills or otherwise, it appalled.

I too had hoped that those days were over.

MOT

[DFC]

TCAS to TA/RA is a checklist item when cleared to line up, as well as the strobes and terrain mode etc; and we were cleared to line up behind the landing 737.

Does your SOP require a check to be completed Before Line Up or When Lining Up or When Cleared to Line-Up

Just interested because taking the strobes as an example, we keep them off during ground operation to avoid dazzle and distraction. Seems to defeat that objective if you turn them on while stationary at the holding point with a clearance of behind the aircraft on 4 nm final line-up. After all, you are going to sit there for a few minutes watching them come down the final.

We will hold the check and on release of the parking brake to enter the runway, complete the check.

Just wondering if there is a reason for linking it with the clearance (which in extremis could be received on the apron) rather than the entry to the runway.

Regards,

DFC

[Fly3]

411A
"A couple of years to go to retirement"
I'm sure a few FO's are looking forward to that day.

[Jaxon]

The home-made approach that I witnessed at ALC did not impress, smooth touchdown and exceptional handling skills or otherwise, it appalled.

I too had hoped that those days were over.

MOT

By "those days" do you mean when stupid people flew?
Judging by what I read here and other threads I think I can sum up that today we have greater technology coupled with more and more rules created to protect the public from the lesser skilled, lesser experienced, younger crowd just strapping in and looking to pay down the flight school debt.

You were appalled. Was this because you felt this pilot was unsafe or his tie was not on?

[miles offtarget]

Jaxon,

Your last post added very little to the debate, but thank you anyway.

MOT

[Jaxon]

Well then, let me try harder.

As unnecessary as your victims' display of coordination and skill was, I find it appalling that so much vitriol and over-dramatization be directed his way. (I thought I did rather nicely, myself.)

[courtney]

The hands on brigade have cost a lot more lives than the aircraft systems failing. Hopefully we will soon move into totally automated aircraft that can avoid running of runways, flying into the sea and or terrain ot even each other. You don't need to practice hand flying 'skills', just another myth.

[411A]

You don't need to practice hand flying 'skills', just another myth.

Gotta laugh at this one....:}

One wonders just what courtney's flying experience is...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Hand Solo]

I guess Courtney isn't a real pilot then. How any autopilots have flown obediently into mountains? Quite a lot you'll find. Back to your copy of MS Flight Simulator boy!

[GearDown&Locked]

Back to your copy of MS Flight Simulator boy

[geek mode]
And you think it is easy?! Try doing a circuit on MSFS like the ones you do on a real sim, but try not to "crash" the "plane" :E:}
[/geek mode]

john_tullamarine, mod on Pprune's Tech Forum:Except, perhaps, for those infrequently encountered gifted souls who seem to have been born with a joystick in hand (I have encountered just two such pilots .. and don't they make mere mortals such as me envious) .. the majority of us have to work hard at acquiring and maintaining skills
(...)
When it all turns to custard we are not looking for elegance (except from the aforementioned gifted pilots) .. rather a workmanlike and repeatable way of recovering from the situation.
(...)


GD&L:ok: