Thai 777 NDB into MEL

[1a sound asleep]

:confused::}Thai 777 seriously stuffs up approach into MEL

ATSB REPORT-
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...eports/2007/AAIR/pdf/AO2007055.pdf (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/AAIR/pdf/AO2007055.pdf)

"The aircraft was approximately 6.25 DME (7 km) and descending through 1,544 ft, which was 556 ft below the 2,100 ft segment minimum safe altitude. The lowest altitude recorded during the manoeuvre was 1,247 ft, which was 513 ft above ground level (AGL)"

"Neither the PIC nor copilot had conducted an NDB approach in the aircraft or simulator in the last 18 months. The crew did not conduct a ‘go-around’ as was required by the operator’s procedures when the aircraft was 1,000ft above terrain with a high rate of descent."

I will try not to comment too harshly. Let me just say - nothing beats good training. This had the potential to be a VERY serious accident. At 1,000 ft above ground level, the aircraft was still in cloud with a descent rate in excess of 1,000 feet per minute, which did not comply with the stabilised approach criteria. In that situation, the flight crew were required to carry out a missed approach and position the aircraft for another approach and landing

The fact that the crew failed to initiate an immediate go around and let the a/c continue below the correct descent profile I find alarming. If a crew hears two EPGWS aural terrain alert ‘TOO LOW TERRAIN' warnings and still dont go around I have to seriously question the safety or the airline and/or operating crew

[Buster Hyman]

Hmmm, runway 16 is not in our area, but we'd have been called as support to that if it went pear shaped.

Cup day too! Can't see Flemington from that height!:=

[Transition Layer]

Is this the same one where they were trying to do a VNAV approach using FLCH? I think the ILS on 16 was out for maintenance at the time, about 18 months ago.

It was kept very quiet in the media wasn't it...could have easily ended up in tears.

[doubleu-anker]

Why was the ILS not available? Australia supposed to be a developed country yet it couldn't provide a precision approach when needed. You would expect this sort of thing from a banana republic.

If it was out for maintenance why was it not carried out at a more favourable time and wx? If it isn't broke, why fix it?

Asking a new generation crew to perform an NDB approach is asking for trouble, as most of them don't get the practise and that is a fact. If you have seen what i have in a simulator, you would agree.

Haven't read the report as I am unable to down load it.

[Capt Kremin]

Maybe you shouldn't comment until you can download the report? It will make your comments look less silly.

[blueloo]

Why was the ILS not available? Australia supposed to be a developed country yet it couldn't provide a precision approach when needed. You would expect this sort of thing from a banana republic.


Couldn't agree more.

Having said that, it doesn't excuse the crew from not being able to fly what they are supposedly endorsed to be able to do.

No modern jets, in fact I don't think anyone should have to rely on a 1930's navigation aid. Absolutely ridiculous. I should imagine this must boost insurance premiums too.

[AlJassmi]

From the report:

Unavailability of the runway 16ILS
In September 2007, work commenced on the Melbourne runway 16 ILS to permit the installation of new equipment. That work was part of a navigation aid replacement program that Airservices Australia had announced to the aviation industry in October 2005. A Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) was issued by the Australian NOTAM Office on 4 October 2007 to inform appropriate personnel of the planned unavailability of the runway 16 ILS. The NOTAM advised that the ILS would be unavailable from 0900 local time on 8 October to 1700 on 22 November 2007.

[mince]

No modern jets, in fact I don't think anyone should have to rely on a 1930's navigation aid. Absolutely ridiculous.

If it's in the data base, punch it into the fms and watch it happen.
Not that hard. IF it's in the fms data base.

[slamer.]

Ummm...whats a "new generation crew"....?

[woftam]

Posted by doubleu-ankerWhy was the ILS not available? Australia supposed to be a developed country yet it couldn't provide a precision approach when needed. You would expect this sort of thing from a banana republic.

I see you are from DBX. One reason recently why the YMML 16 ILS was not available was because an A/C from your region took the installation out!!!!! :ugh:

[Sand Man]

I find it hard to believe that at Australia's second busiest airport there are only the following approaches available:

ILS 16, 27
VOR 09, 27, 34
NDB 16
RNAV 09, 34

That fact there is only an ILS available to 16 and not to 34 is crazy. As happened recently with the Emirates incident, when ILS 16 is not available and wind is not a factor but cloud is the only option you have is to land on 27 (7500' rwy). This is not a great option for heavy aircraft.

You could even take this argument further and ask why there is not at least one CATII/III approach into Mel (or for that fact any airport in Aust).

[doubleu-anker]

Haha!

Took you a while to pick that up. No it wasn't me that took the ILS out at MEL, BTW.

New generation crew I would describe as a crew that have come straight out of flying school, and straight into the airlines. Not such a bad thing I guess and is unavoidable in some regions. They have possibly never seen the "light of day" outside an airline environment and have probably never carried out a non precision approach in real IMC. This is where over all experience in differing environments can be beneficial and safer.

I know as well as you all do, the crew are expected to be competent in all approaches they are expected to use. However, in the real world this is not the case. You won't be able to change this state of affairs and neither will I.

Also worth remembering, certain regions of the world, candidates are not selected on merit. need I say more?

So taking the above into consideration would it not be wise to have the approaches (precision) in place to include the "lowest denominator"? I would have thought safety would dictate this.

[Obie]

Why is an incident that occurred 2yrs ago being regurgitated?

This is old,old news!

BORING!!

[1a sound asleep]

The ATSB report was only released today..... so it's NEW, unless you knew all the facts somehow before

[neville_nobody]

The question really is how come a Captain with 23000 hours and some 9000 on type couldn't either load up the approach in the FMC or build one in it?

The 16 NDB is not exactly difficult.

[Capn Bloggs]

or build one in it?
Now that will get you into strife! :=

Sound Asleep,
The ATSB report was only released today..... so it's NEW, unless you knew all the facts somehow before
I s'pose you were sound asleep when this Prune thread was running (note link to ATSB prelim report):
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/312341-thai-air-b777-melbourne-ndb-approach.html :ok:

[Shot Nancy]

Oh Bloggsy, relax.
Build a plan for the LNAV and then V/S the vertical whilst monitoring the needles.

[Capn Bloggs]

I find it very odd that the ATSB made no comment at all on the missing 7DME and 6DME steps on the Lido profile table. Granted the 6DME profile altitude is shown on the profile diagram, but it would have been much easier for the PNF to just look in the same spot for the whole approach, ala AIP, especially when they were so high initially and diving down onto the desired slope.

The investigation was unable to determine whether the NDB runway 16 approach was loaded into the aircraft’s FMC.
That's pretty shabby too; my old databases are kept until the next one is loaded, so even if the ATSB didn't "grab" the aircraft on the day, it should still have been able to confirm if the approach was actually in the FMS database within a reasonable time after the event. If I had had an incident like that, I would have been screaming from the rooftops that the approach wasn't in the database.

or build one in it?
They did, but weren't able to use the VNAV because they started off too high.

I wish the ATSB would publish their PDFs with links and Bookmarks. :D

[blueloo]

If it's in the data base, punch it into the fms and watch it happen.
Not that hard. IF it's in the fms data base.

agree with that too.

....but if you can code it in the database - why not get it appropriately approved and call it a GPS approach - or better yet get an RNP approach - dispense with the NDB and VOR. (get GLS and we can get rid of the ILS too)

[fire wall]

Mince et al,
It may very well be in the data base but the latest 744's we (not Thai) have got come from Seattle without ADF's fitted. With my company there is a requirement to monitor the performance of the FMS on a non precision approach so no ADF = no NDB approach.
As to the gent who suggested Australia was supposed to be a developed country, I put to you that every other country I fly into does not have all their major gateways (note plural) restricted to CAT 1 minimas only.

[man on the ground]

You could even take this argument further and ask why there is not at least one CATII/III approach into Mel (or for that fact any airport in Aust).

well, we nearly had the cat III ready, but then someone ran over it, so we had to start it all again! :cool:

[Capt Fathom]

no ADF = no NDB approach


The Clayton's NBD Approach making a comeback :uhoh:

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Sand Man,

Perhaps a little local knowledge will help with this:
ILS 16, 27
VOR 09, 27, 34
NDB 16
RNAV 09, 34

That fact there is only an ILS available to 16 and not to 34 is crazy.

Mate, if using RWY 34 in MEL, you will obviously have a wind from the north:), with a wind from the north, coming over the hills, there is bugger all chance of VIZ/base getting down to the levels that an ILS would be useful. Therefore there is no need for an ILS approach to 34. There are three other approaches to 34, VOR, RNAV and mmm, visual!

You might have noticed that when 34 is in use, it is usually a windy day in MEL, and VIZ/CLD base are not an issue.

If you can't let your aircraft fly you onto either an RNAV or VOR for 34, then you need some more SIM time.

Really p's me off that people always complain about having to 'fly' anything other than an ILS....

Safe Flying

[neville_nobody]

How hard is it to make a runway extension and a 3 degree slope in the FMC really??

[blueloo]

Therefore there is no need for an ILS approach to 34.

Bollucks. Having done the 34 VOR into Mel at night in windy ****ty wet weather on a few occasions, the last thing you want is some poxy offset VOR approach.

Melbourne is a major gateway it should have an ILS on every runway including the crappy 09 which is used only once a year.

Luckily aircraft manufacturers and airlines are progressing with RNP/GLS because airports and their respective owners be they govt or private are to cheap to put in appropriate infrastructure.


How hard is it to make a runway extension and a 3 degree slope in the FMC really??

Generally not that hard, but some major airlines refuse to upgrade their FMCs to allow this, let alone put GPSs in for accurate vertical and lateral profiles. --> this is where CASA need to get their act together.

[nick2007]

A poor workman blames his tools.

[Capn Bloggs]

Generally not that hard, but some major airlines refuse to upgrade their FMCs to allow this, let alone put GPSs in for accurate vertical and lateral profiles. --> this is where CASA need to get their act together.
I suspect the reason CASA does not allow all the FMS whizzz-kids to start using build-your-own approaches (in the heat of the moment; "****! It's not in the DB! Gimme a 3° slope to runway quick!") into the weeds in IMC is because the number of prangs would increase significantly! "Oh poo, I thought it looked OK..." :cool:

[By George]

Easy to pick all the "domestic aces" with their contempt for the poor blokes who got caught out. Try flying all night to arrive at your destination so tired all you want to do is fall down the ILS and go to bed. NDB's are no big deal, but require a higher level of alertness. Even India is at least CAT II. In the US there are no NDB's. As an Australian working offshore it always embarasses me to fly into my own country with third world facilities. All this talk of "building the approach" makes my blood run cold, too easy to make a mistake. All you need is ROC on 1 and BOL on 2 and a black coffee.

[neville_nobody]

For the record I wasn't suggest people build approaches and fly them in IMC I was referring to doing visual approaches onto 34.

Unfortunately in Australia airports are political minefields so that is why progress is never made. Just have a look at what is going on at Canberra Airport at the moment it typifies what you're battling against.

[blueloo]

A poor workman blames his tools.

Therefore we should still live in the stone age ...........

[Metro man]

How hard is it to make a runway extension and a 3 degree slope in the FMC really??

Airbus can do managed VOR approaches on the autopilot, but there additional requirements regarding checking and approvals which we haven't gone for. We do it manually on the AP in TRACK/FPA.

Can the 777 fly a full NBD procedure on the autopilot ?

[Tempo]

How about the simple fact that the guys simply f*%ked up.....it does happen from time to time.

[worked to death]

Just off the thread a little. I'm surprised that the back up approach for the primary instrumented runway at Melbourne is a twin NDB approach with a ridiculously high minina. All the other runways have VOR approaches published with reasonable MDAs. Whay can't such an approach be designed for runway 16? It would enable a non FMS coupled lateral approach so more attention could be given to profile monitoring. It would also allow the NDBs to be decommissined there by paying for the new approach design, & ultimately, saving money on maintence, replacement etc.

[Capn Bloggs]

Worked to Death,
All the other runways have VOR approaches published with reasonable MDAs. Whay can't such an approach be designed for runway 16?
I suspect that it is because the VOR is laterally offset too much. Because of the track difference, you'd have to have the MDA so high that it would be of no benefit as an approach. I'm sure AsA would have designed it if they could have.

[Sand Man]

allthecoolnamesarego
Therefore there is no need for an ILS approach to 34. There are three other approaches to 34, VOR, RNAV and mmm, visual!


So on a windless night with low cloud (<400'agl) in a heavy aircraft at the end of a long haul flight with ILS16 U/S you would be happy to land on 27 when there is a much longer rwy available?
There is a difference between what we (pilots) should be able to do and what would be the smart thing to do. As far as I'm concerned I would take an ILS over a VOR with low cloud around any day but I would also like that to be onto a runway that is not length critical.

[Ramjager]

Pretty typical we blame the crew totally...
A crew who spend 99.9% of there time flying into well infrastructured airports with multiple ILS appoaches on pretty much all runways.
Then send them on a 9.5 Hr back of the clock flight into an airport they may not have been into for ages and yep its all there fault.
Never mind the fact that the airport wants to claim to be Australias second gateway and and we cant even get an ILS onto the the second most used runway. Then throw in a side step at the bottome which the RNAV doesnt have to make life more interesting.
Having flown that approach in 45kt gusting winds after 9 hr flights home from Bangkok its a f***up waiting to happen again.
Totally the last thing you need after 10 hours and cant imagine how the QF guys from LAX put up with either that crap high sink rate approach over Essendon or a sidestep VOR after maybe 15 hours on the job.
Like the Goldcoast cheapskate airport owners who wont put in the facilities to cater for the crowd they want to attract and again we the professional pilot community carry the can for accountants putting safety a sad fifteenth place.
What a disgrace....
Pity we cant get our s**t together and get rid of this crap.
An aviation backwater we have become...

[Outtahere]

Think of the outdated Npa onto 34 as an appropriate introduction to Australian aviation. Tiba airspace, poor terminals, rude Ciq staff, Cat 1 only Ils's. The Npa onto 34 is simply part of a below average system.

[Capn Bloggs]

You jet jockey princesses need to harden up a little. It's called Affordable Safety! None of you would have jobs if we had spent the money a world-class aviation system! :}

[halas]

Wow, the 380 doesn't have "NDB" fitted :confused:
Sounds fishy

With regard to the offset problem....why not install another VOR or two?

Some airports are literally littered with VOR's. Have one on the extended centre line of each runway. No offset and lower minima, with a back-up if another aerial gets wiped out.

halas

[mingalababya]

ILS 16, 27
VOR 09, 27, 34
NDB 16
RNAV 09, 34

That fact there is only an ILS available to 16 and not to 34 is crazy.

How easy is it for Air Services Australia to publish a 16 VOR approach in the event that the ILS is US? Surely VORs are more accurate and much more preferred over NDBs?

[schlong hauler]

RNAV/RNP AR and GBAS are the way of the future. Get rid of all this radio nav aid sh t.
Totally agree about our third world aviation status. Why do we continue to turn ILS systems off all the time for techs to play with. How about the stupid visual approach onto 34 from overhead Essendon. No wonder they're called the bombers. "Cleared for a visual approach" yet the ILS if available is always used to a couple of hundred feet regardless. ATC don't get it or just don't understand how an airliner is operated.

[rmcdonal]

"Cleared for a visual approach" yet the ILS if available is always used to a couple of hundred feet regardless. ATC don't get it or just don't understand how an airliner is operated
ATC clear for visual appchs to reduce separation standards in order to increase flow, in Sydney that why you have to call runway in sight so they can stack another one on final beside you, if everyone was cleared ILS then they would need the full IF separation standards all the time, and you would complain about delays.

[Keg]

Given the location of the ML VOR a 16 VOR approach probably isn't feasible. Minima (on the extended centerline) would probably be too low not to mention the turn required.

Besides that, a properly executed TWIN LOC approach on 16 YMML runway is always going to have you set up better than the VOR approach. On most airliner nav displays you can get just as good accuracy with the two needles as you can with the VOR bar.

Is there a problem with the 34 visual from Essendon? I've flow that off the back of a flight from LAX (into a hot, blustery 40 knot northerly as well as 290/10 on a fine, mild day) and it's a doddle.

If wind calm and cloud low then why not 27 ILS? A 744 at moderate weights (diversion fuel to SYD for example) won't have too many dramas with it. Sure it'd be nice to slide on down 16 but I don't see a drama with 27 as long as you know your go around point if you fluff the approach and landing.

[Capt Kremin]

Most of the QF A330's don't have an ADF fitted either... not sure what they did on the JQ "stolen generation" though...

[Bumpfoh]

You could even take this argument further and ask why there is not at least one CATII/III approach into Mel

Reading a current APAM (Airports Aus, MEL) publication today it states that "later this year the airport will be capable of CAT IIIB approaches".
The article revolved more around ground surveillance radar for vehicles operating on taxiways and runways having transponder equipment fitted for low vis ops.

A quick search of the APAM website revealed no info though.

[Tee Emm]

Asking a new generation crew to perform an NDB approach is asking for trouble, as most of them don't get the practise and that is a fact. If you have seen what i have in a simulator, you would agree.


I guess it all depends if their pilots licence instrument rating is certified that they have been tested and found competent to conduct an NDB approach.

If it is - and the company fail to provide the necessary simulator training to ensure currency at using that aid, then heads should be chopped at management level. Having said that, there is nothing to stop a keen pilot from practicing NDB approaches on a home PC. After all, we are all keen pilots - aren't we...

On the other hand, if the pilot has not been certified to conduct an NDB approach, he should not be a crew member on routes where use of an NDB may be required and that includes an alternate airport.

[Sand Man]

Keg


Is there a problem with the 34 visual from Essendon? I've flow that off the back of a flight from LAX (into a hot, blustery 40 knot northerly as well as 290/10 on a fine, mild day) and it's a doddle.

You must be a reaaaallly good pilot if everything is a doddle for you:}
Just imaging if every pilot was as good as you, we would not have any more accidents/incidents (or would we have more).

[Maggott17]

I think you guys are not only showing your lack of knowledge of the procedures that you fly you are missing the point to make a separate point.

It does not matter what type of approach you fly, if you get too high above the descent profile you are screwed and need to start again.

A DIRTY DIVE TO TRY TO REGAIN THE PROFILE PUTS YOU IN A CFIT SITUATION REAL QUICK, and that's what this crew did, regardless of the lack of 1st world facilities at Australian airports or the lack of REQUIRED navigation aids installed in airliners by AIRLINE MANAGEMENT.:oh:

As for any pilot designing his own 3 degree profile on his aircraft's FMC while he is airborne and then flying it in IMC.......mmmmm....even 3rd world cowboys don't let you do that, do they?;)

[Dog One]

Does the 777 have a vertical profile display available on the MFD?

[A Comfy Chair]

Keg,

Whilst I agree with you that the 34 Essendon Visual isn't particulally difficult, it is probably unnecessarily tight for the bigger jets.

When it was developed you flew down the EN LOC before the turn - now it isn't defined by the LOC, but just waypoints.

What would you think about moving SHEED a couple of miles to the left, now that the LOC isn't used? It wouldn't slow down the flow, and just gives everyone a few hundred feet more on final, which would just make it a little less "tight".

Only a thought :D

Ramjager - the 34 VOR approach is only a "sidestep" because of the incorrect coding (and now depiction) of the original VOR approach. The left turn at the FF34 point to the THRESHOLD instead of continuing straight to the VOR is the reason for it.

A.C.C

[Keg]

Comfy chair, it's probably a good idea and would make the approach more user friendly. I'm not sure what the 'No Essendon Airport group' would think when we suddenly appear regularly a couple of miles to the south over houses and so on! ;)

[Going Boeing]

The tracking via the the IEN 26 LLZ (& now Sheed) for RWY34 in Melbourne was originally designed so that there would be no conflict with arrivals for the Northerly runway at Essendon. Moving the track 2NM south would cause problems for ATC slotting Esendon arrivals between Tulla arrivals.

[Giuseppe Giovanni]

I've been on the 777 for nearly a decade now with a very well respected International airline.

In that 10 years, I've never flown an NDB approach in the simulator or real life. We simply don't do them. They're obsolete on the World stage.

I recall flying in Oz, whereby you needed to fly an NDB/VOR approach every 3 months to remain current. Like most things, if you don't practice, you become very sloppy, very quickly. Having said that, although the Captain and First Officer onboard Thai had many hours, I'm sure like most International Airlines, they never practice them because they're simply never flow.

Having said that, both sides need to be looked at here, not simply from the perspective of Pilots who only fly within Australian Airspace. I can certainly understand how this could have happened.

So why didn't they ask for a visual approach, you may ask. Again, on the World stage, unfortunately, they are very rarely given. With the odd exception of flying into the US. In my previous life flying within OZ, visual approaches was my 'bread and butter'. They where flown without much thought. In the last 10 years, I've been offered a visual approach maybe 3 times and I can tell you how shocking it is with how sloppy you become. Again, we rarely train for this in the simulator because basically, they're never given.

The Thai crew were most likely faced with a rather difficult decision. Fly the NDB approach that they've quite possibly haven't done this century or secondly, fly a visual approach that they've done probably a hand full of times over the same period. Combine this with what "By George" said, that being they'd been flying all night with possibly 2 crew and this simply adds another 'complication' to the incident.

[inandout]

Metro man, you can fly an NDB app using the Auto Pilot by
1, An ILS coded overlay
2, If ILS not avaliable (GP) can use LOC or LNAV and either VNAV or VS/FPA.

Dog one, yes the 777 has a vertical profile for VNAV on the ND Display.

However we always use an ILS if avaliable.

[7x7]

Wow, the 380 doesn't have "NDB" fittedApologies for the slight thread drift, but there wouldn't be an NDB in Australia today if some nameless bureaucrat in the Defence Department hadn't screwed up right royally (and very, very expensivily for the hapless Australian taxpayer) over the specs for the 'J' model Herc. The GPS(?) fitted to the Herc wasn't certified for terminal approaches, so the C130J needs ADF for some of its likely diversion fields within Australia, as was illustrated when one had to divert to some regional airport with (was it?) a fire a year or two ago.

I've heard the figure of $20 million a year quoted as what it costs to maintain NDBs in Australia because of that one civilian bureaucrat in the Defence Department. If he'd done his homework on the Herc buy, they'd have been withdrawn some years ago, as they have been on other countries like the USA. Still, $20mill is pocket money when you look at some of the other screwups in Defence, like Seasprite and the Collins subs.

[Spanner Turner]

Halas said,

Wow, the 380 doesn't have "NDB" fitted
Sounds fishy



A380-800 driver said,

Halas- You are quite correct- No ADFs fitted.


Careful there, maybe the 380's that YOU are familiar with don't have an ADF system fitted.
However, this doesn't translate that ALL A380's are devoid of ADF. The 380's that I'M familiar with, most certainly have an ADF installation.

Just as some 380's are fitted with passenger showers and EA engines, this doesn't mean that ALL 380's have showers and EA engines.

:ok:


.

[illusion]

I would not throw stones in a glass house at "foreign crews".

The reality is that there have been a number of quite concerning incidents in Australia, in Australian registered aircraft, flown by Australian (Anglo saxon) crew stuggling with automation. The includes 6 stick-shaker incidents by one company in a 12 month period. One on climb above F300, the other in the circuit area at a regional airport below 1000' AGL on landing.

Go sit in the simulator and watch a crew attempt to do a manually flown visual day circuit with no auto-thrust- you will be shocked at the loss of manipulative flying skills

[Capt Fathom]

Go sit in the simulator and watch a crew attempt to do a manually flown visual day circuit with no auto-thrust- you will be shocked at the loss of manipulative flying skills


Hmmm...otherwise known as landing! Very tricky indeed!

[Wiley]

Capt Fathom, I'd have to agree with the comments in the quote in your post. When I first moved overseas almost twenty years ago now (perhaps that should read "was moved overseas"), I was more than a little surprised at the vastly different attitude pilots trained in Europe and Asia had to visual approaches than to those from Australia. Where the Australians saw a visual as a relaxing exercise (along the lines of "Oh good, let's turn off all those flight director/autothrust thingies and enjoy actually flying the aeroplane"), most pilots trained in Europe and Asia saw a visual as a very steep increase in workload and something to be approached with some caution.

Twenty years later, much of it spent flying for an airline that insists I use the highest level of automation possible at all times and whose SVP of Flying Ops once issued a memorable document to crews stating (and I quote) that "the line is no place to practise your flying skills", I can see that the European pilots were probably more correct than we were in treating a visual as something to be treated with some (perhaps a lot of) caution.

The vast majority of Australian pilots back then had spent four or five years flying (perhaps that should be written as "actually flying") light twins in the demanding environment of GA in Australia or PNG before they even were considered acceptable for an airline, operating into bare bone fields, many of which had no glideslope indications and certainly no precision approach aids.

The Europeans, very well trained for what they did and also very good at what they did - operating big jets - had no such GA background to fall back on.

I'm first to say that my manipulative skills today are a pale shadow of what they were twenty years ago (i.e., I no longer approach a visual as an easier, more relaxing exercise than an ILS - as I once did). I think it would be safe to say there'd be few pilots in today's environment who fly only airliners (i.e., who don't fly privately for recreation) whose actual flying skills have improved or even been maintained over what they were capable of in their initial training.

The major difference is that old farts of my age can usually dredge up some semblance of the flying skills we once possessed should the automatics have a brain freeze, as they still sometimes do. Too many younger pilots who went straight from initial training straight into airline flying - particularly if in the Airbus FBW product - without those incredibly valuable few years of tooling around remote strips in the demanding GA environment find themselves in an environment they’ve never really experienced before should they be called upon to actually manipulate the airframe for something more than the two minutes from rotate to autopilot on and from 200’ to touchdown.

I’m first to accept that I’ve generalised enormously in the above comments and accept that there are many exceptions to what I have said. I also hasten to say that the younger generation of pilots are not lesser pilots than the older generation. It’s just that they are trained in other skills without necessarily being asked to first develop and hone skills that were once demanded of anyone before he or she found themselves in the right seat of an airliner.