A little Non-standard, but way more fun

[Admiral346]

Accident: Trans States E145 at St. Louis on Aug 14th 2008, tail strike on landing

By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Dec 16th 2008 18:58Z, last updated Tuesday, Dec 16th 2008 18:58ZA Trans States Airlines Embraer ERJ-145LR, registration N814HK performing flight AX5506 from Jacksonville,FL to St. Louis,MO (USA) with 36 people on board, was enroute, when the first officer told the captain, that his 45 degrees flaps landings are a "litte bit extreme" continuing, that the landings are a "little non-standard, but it's way more fun". The first officer increased the pitch angle starting at 34 feet AGL to a pitch angle of 13 degrees nose up (angle of attack 17 degrees), the stick shaker activated a few seconds before ground contact, then the airplane's tail section contacted the runway. There were no injuries.

The NTSB did not state the damage. Their (very brief) report can be found at: DFW08CA215 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081003X17330&key=1)

from the Aviation Herald: The Aviation Herald (http://avherald.com/h?article=411d5354&opt=0)

Now this one I find "a bit extreme", and I wonder what kind of flying culture allows one to even attempt this severe breachof ops procedures, or let it slip from the Captains side.

Nic

[Mercenary Pilot]

I wonder what kind of flying culture allows one to even attempt this severe breachof ops procedures

One that pays their pilots $19,793 per year I expect.

[Admiral346]

Well, I don't think that little pay is an excuse for endangering passengers life whatsoever!

Nic

[Capn Bloggs]

Ya pay peanuts, ya get monkeys! :=

[merlinxx]

The FO's a total and absolute :mad:, apologies I doubt if the Feds or NTSB would phrase it that way, but what the heck, I'm just an old shagged out dispatcher (real one):E

[PAXboy]

Let me take the counter intuitive route ... this is a very GOOD event.

1) No one was hurt (even if the FO should subsequently be taken round the back of the fuel dump and given a good kicking!)

2) The carrier will have learnt a valuable lesson. It should ensure that ALL their flight crews smarten up their act and start following the rules. Thus preventing an experiment becoming a truly big smash.

3) It might (just) have an effect upon the FAA. Certainly other carriers in the world can use this as a free example of why there are rules.

[hauxdeu]

Capt Bloggs has it right. If you want a quality product, be prepared to pay for it. Serious managers know this and act accordingly. Avoid the airline!

[Mungo Man]

First tailstrike I've heard of in the EMB 145, apart from one where the whole tail broke off. Stick shaker is inhibited below 5ft AGL so must have been holding off a bit high.

[spanner the cat]

Would have been even more interesting if the stick pusher had pushed :}

:ugh:

[Huck]

When I started flying for a regional carrier in 1995, I made 15k a year. It was, therefore, a "hobby" and I worked a second job as well.

But it was okay, because I could expect to upgrade in 2-3 years to a decent salary when I made captain.

Then had a decent chance to get on with a major carrier within 5-10 years. A few more years there and I'd be making well into the 6 figures. I could retire at 60 a rich man with a six figure pension.

I have absolutely no idea why anybody would joining the U.S. airline business right now.

Which is the end goal, I believe, of all U.S. carriers: "We just can't find enough Americans to fill these jobs....."

[Mshamba]

Most of all crashes start with words like "look, i show you how this works" :E

[411A]

The FO's a total and absolute :mad:...

Yup, would agree, and should be shown the don't come Monday letter, straight away.
The Captain?
Back to the RHS for awhile for showing such poor judgement in allowing the co-pilot to perform such antics.

[BOAC]

I think I need phsycotherapy.:eek: I agree!:)

[Cyclone733]

Hope the FO's loss of licence insurance covered mental illness

Never enjoy hearing "the book says this, but this works better", but to phrase it as "little non-standard, but it's way more fun" rings alarm bells

[noosariver]

Perhaps what he should have done, is to approach his tech manager with a view to changing the procedures, if he thought he had a better way to do it.

[CptRegionalJet]

Admiral,from your profile I assume we are sitting in a similar boat.
Happens everywhere.Ever witnessed some landings in FRA?
Same sh..;different airline(one you would not expect it from)
So for me this is not dependend on salary,more like "It`s your attitude,Maverick....."

Greetings
CptRegionalJet

[Engine3firehandle]

What is this ?

Captain Regional Jet - Are you trying to start a mobbing campaign ?
Is there a possibility you are unhappy because you are stuck at the regional carrier ?

You are flying the bird without slats and have no idea about landing the A300.

Please calm your voice before starting a mobbing campaign against fellow pilots from the same company, accusing them, of not being able to land that thing.

" You know, the guys from the regionals, they can not fly, that is why they are not flying the big birds ! "

Sounds stupid, when I say something like that, Or ?

That is, why you will never hear it from me...

Have save trips...

[CptRegionalJet]

Engine3firehandle,
neither do I want to start a mobbing campain against fellow colleagues nor am I unhappy with my present position:=.So there is no reason for your agressive comment.
I simply want to point out that things like this do happen everywhere- when people don`t have the right attitude.Just look at the foreword in the last flight safety Info.
Yes,I belive I can distinguish between a normal landing an one where you pull the yoke.You don`t have to be type rated on that thing to tell the difference.
By the way,CRJ-700 and 900`s do have slats just like real airplanes:eek:

Safe flights to you too

[captjns]

This is not the first time where you have had an inadequate captain in the left seat and the first officer running the show… and it won’t be the last time either.

I’m sure the carpet dance in the chief pilot’s office will be their farewell waltz.

[Dani]

Well, why is there a 45° flap position if it leads to tail strike? Of course this FO is plain dumb, but there must be more to the story. I guess the tailstrake hasn't solely happened because of the flap setting but also because of poor landing technique and too low air speed.

Let us wait for the accident report.

Dani

[ShotOne]

I totally agree, 737. Its no wonder some of us don't get paid as much as we ought to if this is how we express ourselves in public.

Can I ask somone to explain to a non-145 driver exactly what "gross breach of ops procedures" this fellow committed? Of course nobody WANTS a tailstrike -but is flap 45 a non-standard setting?

[changeover]

Flew the plane over 5 years. Flaps 45 was the standard flap setting we did for years. My old operator then got permission to us a Flaps 22, or flaps 45 for landing. Hope that helps ya out buddy.

[aewanabe]

:ugh::ugh::ugh:
Greetings all, first post from a former 145 captain with 5K hours in the airplane. Flaps 45 IS the standard config for almost all landings.

No slats, so normal pitch attitude is 0-1 degrees nose-up with a normal flare attitude of 3-5 degrees nose up; having the jet's nose 10 degrees in the air is nowhere near the standard. Tailstrike occurs at between 11-13 degrees body angle. To say this FO was an idiot and the Captain was not any better is an understatement.

Unfortunately the pay offered by US regionals, coupled by the experience requirements for hiring that were ridiculously low for a few years, has led to a situation where you have many 22-23 year old kids straight from the "me generation" who have not worked for the position, and view the jet as a big Nintendo game to entertain themselves with. Most of them then decide that since the company will not pay them as professionals they have no personal desire or obligation to fly or conduct themselves as such! (end or rant)

[captjns]

Perhaps the F/O’s skills were not up to par. However, the captain was the one who was given the keys to the jet. All he had to say was three words… “I’ve got control.”

[Sobelena]

aewanabe does not say that all are "stupid". In fact he/she doesn't even mention the word "stupid". He/She implies that this particular F/O was an "idiot". I think aewanabe is not far off the mark and I certainly wouldn't regard what he/she says as being applicable to all young F/Os out there.

Allow's response however displays a remarkable lack of maturity and probably does more damage to the reputation of young FOs than aewanabe's post!

[Jet Fuel Addict]

Sobelena I agree with you on that one, although I wasn't too sure if ALLOW's post was serious or not. I hope it was all sarcastic because otherwise it would indeed be bad publicity for guys my age.

(I'm professional though, seriously I am!! :8)

[aewanabe]

Allow: I surely didn't mean ALL guys/gals in their early 20s are stupid or unsafe; indeed I've flown with several excellent aviators across all age spectrums. However, I heard the arguments about "they don't pay me to be professional, so why should I act that way" far more often from young guys than old'uns. Usually from a guy who knew all about the latest 5 reality shows on MTV but hadn't read the last months' worth of change notices, couldn't find non-standard ops in the QRH for me, etc.

If not wanting my FOs to put the jet in a dangerous position for their own entertainment means I'm an oldfart, then I'll wear that badge proudly! (Come to think of it, my hair has a noticeable amount of grey after a few years in the left seat...). Note that I put just as much blame on the Captain, truthfully most should lie with the PIC.

Do you have a way to justify landing a transport jet at tail-strike attitude for the fun of it? I surely hope not. In the meantime I'm fortunately moved to better things where guys with 3 times my experience are once again viewing me as the whippersnapper, so no worries about me treading on your sensitive toes with my poor CRM.

[captainspeaking]

My first flight instructor when I started out (in 1963) was in his early 20s. The grounding I received from him in airmanship, basic pilotage (if the word exists) and absolute attention to detail was amongst the best I ever recived. It has kept me safe (well, alive) for 45 years. The most dangerous instructor I ever had was well into hos 40s - jaded, careless and dismissive. In my experience, the attitude of flight crews often reflect the attitude of their instructors / training captains.

[42psi]

As this seems to have moved off towards a discussion on attitude......


Surely professionalism has nothing at all to do with remuneration.


It has everything to do with personal integrity.

Operating safely and in accordance within the requirements demonstrates integrity.

Maturity can (but not always) have an impact on integrity.

[Semu]

Interestingly, when the Cargo B 747 had their tailstrike a few months ago, I don't recall anyone bringing up inexperiance or youth as likely contributing factors. Any airline with any equipment, if badly managed and if standards are badly enforced will likely bend metal at some point, regardless of what the crew are paid. (No implication about Cargo B or Trans State there, I have not seen the reports yet) If the truth were known, the FO probably has a history of poor decision making, and his captains and chief pilot failed to fill out the paperwork and apply discipline. Probably.

It is always amused me that I can foul up a radio call in JFK in 747 and they will repeat the clearance, while the RJ behind me can do the same thing and get yelled out. Difference being that the RJ driver probably is more experianced than I am.

[Dani]

And the guys with the biggest power in the air, the air force pilots, are mostly in their 20s. They are being handed over the power of killing. If they handle their weapon unresponsible, big numbers of innocent people die.

Maturity, professionalism and abilities are never a question of age. It's a question of if it's the right guy with the right set of training.

Dani

[WeekendFlyer]

What I don't get is how the FO got his qualifications without gaining an understanding the likely consequences of his actions in this case!

Surely is is fairly obvious that a deliberately slow approach raises the risk of a tailstrike? Talk about blatantly ignoring the flight manual...

...which of course is not really an important document - heck, it has only been written after lots of approaches by very experienced test pilots during hte aircraft certification stage. :ugh:

I'm sure I once heard a saying about there being no old, bold pilots :rolleyes:

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

I've got 5,000 hours in the 145.

Back when I was a F/O a Skipper of mine used to do these high body angle touchdowns.

Personally, I was rather bemused. HE thought it quite clever-me? I looked out the side window.

Did no harm.

As usual, I know learn that it was **** practice.

Moral? "Thought it was ****, but said nowt-Should have spoken up"

Every day, a schoolday:ok:

[FlexibleResponse]

Aviation safety relys largely upon commonsense...

Commonsense is a gift.
Not everybody shares that gift.
The gift is independent of age.

[Dani]

Agree.

But where did this youngster get his sense of responsibility from? Of course from his trainier, superiors and line captains. You as a young pilot cannot know how much is good enough and what is already below standard. You all get teached it somehow from an older guy.

I'm sure this FO just did a "little non-standard" because some captain did something very similar earlier and explained it in the exact same wording!

Dani

[B737-pilot]

When something like that comes into conversation my reply is :" i believe you can do it, you are the best no argue about that but let's try it someother time, ok?"; end of story.

[Admiral346]

Barbiesboyfriend:

I can absolutely see what you are talking about, and I very much agree with your last statement:

Moral? "Thought it was ****, but said nowt-Should have spoken up"

Many thinks made me think that way... afterwards. How hard is it to speak up right at that moment!
Now adding to the age discussion, that is why more accidents occure with the CPT being PF (pilot flying), not because the old one flies worse, but because the Fo has a (naturally) harder time to speak up.

But in the incident quoted in the title, the FO indicated a voluntary breach of SOP's , even beforehand, and that needs immediate reaction from the left side.

Let's not forget that it is only two lines I quoted from the herald, so it is hard to judge what really went on - I would love to see the CVR transcript of this flight !

If anybody finds more information on this, please post itor pm me - to me this is such an interessting CRM case, way more interessting than many other incidents reported here.

I believe it is an attitude problem (yes, airplane and pilot attitude), that smells of some "Cowboy" mixed with, and here I agree with some of the above, youthful inability to foresee the consequences of one's actions being paired with weekness from the left seat. But as I said, we know too little to judge.

Nic

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Admiral 346

When I got a 145 command I never even though about doing what that skipper did.

If a F/O had suggested what that F/O had suggested, my alarm bells would be jangling.

The best advice I had from a (lady) jet pilot- given to me when I was a turboprop F/O, was 'don't **** about with the jets- you'll never figure out all the angles, so just don't'. I listened.

Great plane, the 145. They've built over 1,000 Barbies now and yet to lose a passenger.

Brilliant!:ok:

[Jimmy Do Little]

I have a few questions about this.

1. Is Flap 45 an approved Landing Flap configuration for this aircraft?
2. If yes, are there any limitations imposed on Flaps 45 landings?
3. Is so, were any of those limits violated?
4. Does the comapny training program train the pilots for Flaps 45 landings under normal conditions?
5. Does the SOP allow for non-standard flap settings during normal landings?

I'm just trying to get a btter understanding of what really happened.

[Deep and fast]

Flap 45 is a normal landing flap setting. Only real limit is flap limit speed (145kts).
Now our normal setting for landing is 22 but this is a fuel saving measure. Has a slightly higher nose attitude, lower thrust setting and an extra few knots on the speed. Always check performance though!! Wouldn't want a :\.

The bottom line is Vref at 50 feet smooth thrust reduction and speed will decay maybe -5kts in the flare and down in the touchdown zone. If you want to :mad: about, buy your own barbie or do it in the sim if you are so good you have some spare time left.

You'll have to fly like a real :mad: to hit the tail on the jungle jet.

D and F :8

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Jimmy

1. Yes. Flap 45 is the normal landing config.

2. I don't remember any special limitations.

3. So no.

4. Of course.

5. Other alternative landing config is Flap 22. Only used in LV Ops.

;)

[captplaystation]

Captain not acting in accordance with his job description. Nuff said.

[AirRabbit]

Let me take the counter intuitive route ... this is a very GOOD event.
1) No one was hurt (even if the FO should subsequently be taken round the back of the fuel dump and given a good kicking!)
2) The carrier will have learnt a valuable lesson. It should ensure that ALL their flight crews smarten up their act and start following the rules. Thus preventing an experiment becoming a truly big smash.
3) It might (just) have an effect upon the FAA. Certainly other carriers in the world can use this as a free example of why there are rules.
As surprising as it may sound, I agree with you … at least in part … actually the first 2 parts!

It seems to me that the regulatory authorities around the world all pretty much insist that a pilot fly the airplane the way the manufacturer’s procedures describe … and, at least in the US, the Flight Operations Evaluation Board and the Flight Standardization Board evaluates the manufacturer’s procedures to see if any adjustments might be necessary – this includes approaches and landings. This being the case, what kind of effect do you think this circumstance will or should have on the FAA, as you describe in the 3rd part of your justification for this being a good event?

[Jimmy Do Little]

1. Yes. Flap 45 is the normal landing config.

2. I don't remember any special limitations.

3. So no.

4. Of course.

5. Other alternative landing config is Flap 22. Only used in LV Ops.

http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

It would appear - as I see it - that there was no vilolation of SOP or limitations.

In the adsence of an atmospheric issue (Windshear, thermal, etc) , it seems that this can be chaulked up to an "Ooops" on the crews behalf.

I'll wait over here while the jury deliberates. :rolleyes:

ps: Can I assume that the LV ops requirement of flaps 22 is to satisfy go-around climb performance?

[PAXboy]

AirRabbitwhat kind of effect do you think this circumstance will or should have on the FAA, as you describe in the 3rd part of your justification for this being a good event?Good question and please bear in mind that I am SLF so am probably speaking through my hat!

Having heard a lot about the laissez-faire attitude of many CAAs [a French noun meaning a policy of non-interference, especially abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market] I wondered if the FAA might be shocked into trying to implement their own rules more strongly. If air crew, ATC and others involved, felt that someone was going to kick their backside - then rules might be followed.

I realise, of course, that the chances of this happening are effectively zero. I know that CAAs around the world have not got the money and people to even begin to hold the tiger by the tail. In this specific case, I hope that all the staff of the carrier will have got a very nasty shock and that the crew will be made an exhibition. The FAA ought to be jumping on them to see why their Cpt failed and what other procedures of theirs might be failing. They won't of course and I know that this ideal is from an old fashioned world!

So, apart from my wishful thinking about the FAA, this carrier is luckier than they deserve and all their pax can travel in the knowledge that this carrier is now SAFER than it was before.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Jimmy

Truthfully I'm not 100% sure why it was flap 22 for the CAT II landings, but yes, G/A perf must have been a part of it. Flap 45 just added a lot of drag.

While these guys didn't breach a SOP with their very high bodyangle on touchdown, that is not really the point.

There is no SOP, for example, that says you mustn't land upside down either.

[RVF750]

Daft New Year's Question....

Should we still call the 145 a Barbie Jet, now that Ken is flying the big'un?

[Mungo Man]

5. Other alternative landing config is Flap 22. Only used in LV Ops.

Actually it depends on the operator, as stated previously:

Now our normal setting for landing is 22

My company now states Flap 22 as the preferred landing configuration in all conditions, not just LVPs, by which I think you mean a CAT II approach. Flap 45 reserved for those who have not yet been trained in Flap 22 / don't like it / performance limiting...etc

[AirRabbit]

If air crew, ATC and others involved, felt that someone was going to kick their backside - then rules might be followed.
I realise, of course, that the chances of this happening are effectively zero. I know that CAAs around the world have not got the money and people to even begin to hold the tiger by the tail. In this specific case, I hope that all the staff of the carrier will have got a very nasty shock and that the crew will be made an exhibition. The FAA ought to be jumping on them to see why their Cpt failed and what other procedures of theirs might be failing. They won't of course and I know that this ideal is from an old fashioned world!
Well, I wouldn’t be so sure of that outcome. While I’m sure to many observers it seems like the National Aviation Authority (NAA) for a particular country either does too much or not enough on any given situation … probably the curse of all regulators. But here, I think I’m on fairly solid ground saying that the regulator in any state would look at this type of occurrence as something that warrants additional scrutiny. As this occurred in the US, this incident (perhaps “accident” depending on the dollar value of any damage) will likely have the FAA focusing a lot of interest in not only the training background of the pilots involved (notice the plural) but on their respective operating backgrounds as well. Additionally, I would be quite surprised to learn that there was not a review of what that specific airline trains their pilots regarding flare and flare attitude and what, if anything, these pilots are told regarding any differences with less or more flaps during final through the flare and touchdown. Additionally, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn there was an “informal” discussion encouraged between the assigned Principal Operations Inspector (POI) and each respective US certificated airline regarding the same training issues. The FAA Flight Standards personnel are mostly pretty competent chaps who know that an airplane lands most safely and surely from a level flight attitude – which, while varying from airplane to airplane, almost never exceeds 4 to 6 degrees of positive pitch attitude for any airplane. I certainly wouldn’t want to be the next US airline training manager to have a pilot flare an airplane to 13 degrees of pitch attitude (17 degrees AoA) and then allow the airplane to settle on its tail!

[Jimmy Do Little]

There is no SOP, for example, that says you mustn't land upside down either.
Quite an excellent point, I do agree.

[Admiral346]

Well, all the planes I have flown so far came with books mentioning the landing technique. It also contaied a graph showing bank and pitch limitations and the combination thereof...

I would very much take this one as a nonadherence to SOP - I forget the official classification, wether it was H1 or H2 or whatever, but the definition said something like "intentional breach of SOPs".

Nic

[AirRabbit]

But in the incident quoted in the title, the FO indicated a voluntary breach of SOP's , even beforehand, and that needs immediate reaction from the left side.
Bit harsh to hang the guy because of a couple of sentences in written form, especially not knowing the context in which it was said.

If Flap45 landings are normal then it appears to me this FO might be guilty of no more than a bad landing. Not everyone's a test pilot. Seems like he flared high, then held it off trying to make a good landing instead of putting it down regardless.

"Seems" - from what's written there. Maybe you are in possession of more facts? Or did I miss something?
Well, some here don’t believe it’s too harsh to acknowledge what happened. What happened was that the aircraft landed and then struck the tail … or … it landed on its tail (the facts will be obtained after reading the FDR), and there was substantial damage to the aircraft … to the extent that the NTSB has classified this as an aircraft accident rather than an aircraft incident.

The F/O was operating the aircraft … of that there is little doubt. The Captain is in charge of what goes on in his aircraft … of that there is little doubt as well. According to the information available, the F/O made the incredible statement to the NTSB, that he briefed on the fact that his landing technique was not in accordance with standard procedures. That isn’t speculation – that is what the F/O said. On that basis alone, the questions being asked are the basic questions that should be asked at some point - at least in my opinion. 1) Why did the Captain not question the F/O as to what it was he was describing that was considered “non-standard” before allowing him to fly the landing approach? 2) Why did the F/O think it was acceptable to hold the aircraft off the runway until the stick shaker sounded? 3) Why did the Captain not take the aircraft away from the F/O at the first sign that he was raising the nose beyond that which is necessary to safely land the airplane?

[Admiral346]

YoDawg, all the information available to me is what I posted from the Herald at the start of the thread. Of course I don't know everything and can only judge from these few lines.
You might feel this is inappropriate, and you may be right. But then we couldn't discuss anything on here.
I did ask, and am doing it again at this point, for anyone who knows more of this incident to share the information, I am highly interessted.

I do uphold my opinion though, this kind of announced "I'll show you something" is not acceptable and had demanded oposition from the other side of the cockpit, no matter who says sucha thing.
My company pays me to fly safe, safe and also safe, and if I have some time left over, they are happy to see me be on time and give the passengers a comfortable ride!

Nic

[Admiral346]

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The flying pilot's excessive angle of attack during the landing flare resulting in abnormal runway contact.

from: DFW08CA215 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20081003X17330&key=1)

Nic

[pilotbear]

Flap 22 for CAT II is so that in the few seconds after becoming visual at 100' the change into attitude for touchdown or flare is less and if you are on speed you can pretty much fly to the runway as it is. Also, helps with less sink on flap retraction in the go-around.:ok: