PDA

View Full Version : Gulf Air changes since GF072


InitRef
12th Apr 2001, 00:44
Apologies for the lengthy cut and paste from Aviationnow.com, but it contains excerpts from the factual report.

Bahrain Probe Triggers Changes At Gulf Air
By Sean Broderick
10-Apr-2001 4:24 PM U.S. EDT

Gulf Air changed key training and flight operations guidelines after investigators found that events preceding the August 2000 crash of a Gulf Air A320 in Bahrain included several procedural errors by the plane's crew as it attempted a go-around, a preliminary report on the crash revealed.

The airline made several changes to its pilot training programs and criteria, issued several new A320 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), including banning 360-degree turns as part of a go-around, and stopped hiring "ab-initio" pilot candidates pending a review of its training programs.

Gulf Air altered several training programs to make them reflect line operations more closely, the report said. For example, its simulator program will include more sessions with captain trainees in the left seat and first-officer trainees in the right seat, rather than placing trainees who are on the same level in the cockpit together. A similar initiative was put into place in Gulf Air's Command Line Training program that gives prospective captains about 20 added cycles with a first officer in the right seat.

The airline also began screening rising first officers "to assess their suitability for command," the report said. Similar tests already had been done on new hires.

Other new instruction initiatives include more go-around scenarios in the recurrent training program, and a cockpit crew resource management (CRM) program that started Nov. 1. CRM training was supposed to be under way when the accident happened but was delayed because of "contract negotiations" between the pilots and management, according to the report. All Gulf Air pilots are expected to complete initial CRM training by July.

In October, Gulf Air modified its A320 SOPs, limiting speed to 250 knots below 10,000 feet (FL100) "for normal operations." An exception can be made at air traffic control's (ATC) request, but the limit must be observed below 5,000 feet and at "higher altitude airports."

The carrier also barred "360-degree turns and other maneuvers for descent profile adjustment" once the plane is on final approach.

The SOP mandate also "assured" Gulf Air pilots "that no disciplinary action whatsoever will be taken" for crews that elect to go-around "for safety-related reasons, including inability...to stabilize an approach by the applicable minimum height."

Gulf Air is looking at its ab initio training program, especially the simulator phase, the report said, "in order to assess it against industry standards and recent changes to regulatory requirements."

Several safety officials praised Gulf Air's actions in the wake of the tragedy. "This is the best thing that can come out of an accident investigation," one official told AviationNow.com. "If potential deficiencies are identified and the responsible organization takes the initiative to address them, that shows the aviation safety process works."

Missed Approach
Gulf Air Flight 072 crashed after missing an approach to Bahrain International Airport (BAH) on Aug. 23 at about 1930 local time. The flight, carrying 135 passengers and eight crewmembers including the pilot and first officer, was en route to Bahrain from Cairo. All 143 people on the plane died.

Weather at the time of the crash was clear, with a visibility of at least 10 kilometers and few, if any, clouds. Sunset on Aug. 23 in the area of the island of Bahrain was at 1806. Moonrise was 2345 local time, meaning there was no moon in the sky at the time of the crash.

At 1921:48, Flight 072 was cleared for a "self-navigation" approach to BAH Runway 12 using the strip's VOR/DME (very-high-frequency omnidirectional range/distance measuring equipment) when the aircraft was at 14,000 feet and some 30 nautical miles from the airport. The first officer was the pilot flying.

During the next five minutes, the plane descended to 1,000 feet as it approached Runway 12, flying as fast as 313 knots after descending through 2,000 feet above ground level (AGL), the flight data recorder (FDR) showed.

At 1927:06, with the A320 about 2 nm from the runway threshold and at an altitude of about 600 feet, the plane's cockpit voice recorder (CVR) tape revealed that the captain told the first officer, "We're not going to make it." The captain told the first officer to do a 360-degree left turn and line the plane up for another approach attempt.

The plane began its left turn at 584 AGL. It banked away from the shoreline lights of BAH, turned to the northeast, over the Persian Gulf, and back around. During the turn, the plane's altitude was as high as 965 AGL and as low as 332 AGL. The minimum altitude for the maneuver based on Gulf Air procedures was 1,000 feet AGL, the report said.

The maximum bank angle during the circle was 36 degrees, and flap settings went from two to three and then to full. About halfway through the turn, the first officer said, "Landing checklist completed."


Go-Around
At 1928:57, as Flight 072 was coming out of the circle heading southwest and approaching the Runway 12 centerline, the captain said, "We overshot it." The A320 then began another left turn, and 10 seconds later, the captain said to the first officer, "tell him [ATC] going around" as the engine thrust increased to maximum takeoff/go-around (TOGA).

Gulf Air's SOPs indicate the first four steps for A320 two-engine go-arounds are to set thrust levers to TOGA, issue a verbal call for flaps to be retracted one step, retract flaps one step, and rotate the plane to a 15-degree nose-up attitude.

When the go-around was announced, ATC told the first officer to fly "heading three zero zero" and climb to 2,500 feet on the go-around. The first officer acknowledged the transmission. "During this time, the flaps were retracted to position 'three,'" the report said.

At 19:29:41, with the A320 flying at 191 knots and 1054 feet AGL, the aural master warning sounded, indicating a flap overspeed condition. Maximum speed for an A320 in "flaps-three" configuration is 185 knots, the report noted.

Two seconds after the warning, the FDR showed that the captain's sidestick moved forward and was held there for about 11 seconds. Maximum forward deflection during that time was 9.7 degrees, the report said. (The A320 sidestick can be moved a maximum of 16 degrees fore and aft.) With the sidestick pushed forward, the plane's pitch angle changed from about five degrees nose-up to 15.5 degrees nose down.

At 1929:51, with the plane descending through 1000 feet AGL and flying at 221 knots, the ground proximity warning system (GPWS) sounded an aural "sink rate" warning, indicating an excessive rate of descent, followed by a "whoop, whoop, pull up" warning that would continue until the CVR tape ended. By this time, the A320 had circled back over the runway and was facing northeast with the airport and the island of Bahrain behind it, and nothing but the Persian Gulf ahead and below.


GPWS Procedures
At about 1929:53, the captain's sidestick moved aft of neutral, reaching a maximum aft position of 11.7 degrees. "However, the FDR data showed that this nose-up command was not maintained and that subsequent movements never exceeded 50% of full-aft availability," or eight degrees, the report said. FDR data showed the first officer's sidestick did not move during this sequence, the report said.

Gulf Air's procedures for response to a GPWS warning call for "full back stick...to be employed and maintained, and that during night conditions, the response should be immediate," the report noted.

At 1929:59, the captain called for "flaps all the way," and the first officer verified the command. FDR data showed that at 1930:00, Flight 072 was 105 feet from the Persian Gulf's surface, traveling at 282 knots with a nose-down attitude of 6 degrees. Two seconds later, the CVR stopped.

Investigators seem to be looking at several aspects of the accident to analyze what happened, the report indicated. The nighttime, moonless conditions at the time of the crash meant Flight 072's pilots had few visual clues to lean on once they broke off their first approach, so several sets of flight tests were done to determine what a crew would feel during maneuvers like those done by the Gulf Air pilots after the first missed landing attempt.

Investigators also monitored an Airbus Industrie flight test crew in an A320 simulator set up to recreate Flight 072's final moments, with an emphasis on the GPWS warning.

In one scenario, the captain pulled back fully on the sidestick (16-degree aft deflection) when the warning sounded and was able to recover the simulator after 300 feet of altitude loss. The same scenario with half-back stick (eight-degree aft deflection) allowed the simulator to recover after 650 feet of altitude loss.

A third scenario called for the first officer to take over after realizing the captain was not responding to the GPWS warning. The first officer took control of the simulator and, using full aft deflection, pulled it out of its dive with 400 feet of altitude loss.

A review of Gulf Air's controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) training showed that briefings are done during conversion and initial simulator CFIT training, and simulator work is done during recurrent training. "The content of the CFIT simulator training is left to the discretion of the instructor," the report said. "There was no detailed syllabus for CFIT training."

The manufacturer's course syllabus for the A320 includes a GPWS "pull-up demonstration," the report said, but the carrier's A320 flight training manager "indicated that there was no similar syllabus for Gulf Air, and no requirement to execute such demonstration" for A320 pilots.

The factual report on the crash, released late last month, contains no analysis of the findings. The probe is being led by a Bahrain accident investigation board, with assistance from a dozen or so other organizations and companies, including France's Bureau Enquetes-Accidents (BEA) and the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). A representative from the U.S. body is acting as the investigator-in-charge.

6000PIC
12th Apr 2001, 10:38
If the end result of a tragedy such as this is more thorough training for the pilots, then that`s a good thing. Let`s hope that GF will maintain this and not revert to the way things were apparently done beforehand.
Knowing " the right people " should get you the interview, it should not get you the upgade or keep a deficient pilot employed when otherwise they would not be. Good luck GF.

ExSimGuy
12th Apr 2001, 10:50
Well done GF! Sounds like positive action, rather than the "meadow muffins" some people expected.

But what about that approach over Dammam/Dahran when coming into BAH from the South - wasn't that a probable factor in the initial "hot & high" approach? Not much been said about it, and I realise that many flights each day must come in this way, but is there no alternative? (even a "Carnarsie" into JFK sounds less fraught than clearing Dammam at high altitude before landing at BAH which is only a few minutes flying time away)

jerrytumbler
12th Apr 2001, 11:03
Good thing they're starting CRM-courses as well.
Good luck.

MissChief
12th Apr 2001, 11:43
CRM in the gulf airlines? (Not just Gulf Air) Believe it when you see it, folks..the safer airlines in the region employ plenty of expatriates, at all levels. But the policy of many gulf companies has been to employ as many Nationals as possible. Gulf Air are proud of this policy, and proclaim in many pieces of literature that they employ the highest percentage of gulf state nationals.
Yet CRM is almost directly opposed to the prevailing culture which emphasises respect for seniority and one's elders. Exceptions to this culture (Islam)are not tolerated, not even marginally in Saudi. How can CRM be implemented effectively and fast here. Courses haven't started in Gulf Air, and the crash was not yesterday! Pessimistic.

Flight Safety
12th Apr 2001, 13:28
I've read most of the preliminary report for GF072, and I've been shocked by what I've read. The following is a link to that report:

http://www.bahrainairport.com/gf072factualinformation.htm

The most interesting information refers to the detailed events as they occurred, and figure 2 which shows an overhead view of the flight trajectory with time stamped inserts of various FDR, CVR, and ATC communication events.

What were these guys thinking?

It seems to me that the training information for both the captain and FO in the report, speak volumes about what may have been wrong within Gulf Air's training culture, that in my opinion set the stage for this accident. The deficiencies noted for the captain during recurrent and proficiency checks were small, but there were numerous deficiencies noted for the FO. I also noted that the FO had only 608 total flight hours.

In all of this I'm not blaming the pilots, but why would this aircrew be allowed to fly with the noted deficiencies? Why weren't the defeciencies addressed with additional training?

This accident in my view also argues strongly in favor of the FAA requirement for a minimum of 1500 hours to get an ATPL. In my opinion the FO was having problems in so many areas precisely because he was a low time pilot. I don't see how anyone can be expected to be proficient in all of the required tasks for an airline FO, with only 608 hours of total flight time.

The approach was fairly uncomplicated, there was minimal distractions with other traffic or ATC commands, and even though it was night the weather was good. It seems to me the pilots simply blew the first approach of their own accord, then blew the second approach, and got "overwhelmed" with events (which were not very complicated in themselves) trying to get postioned for a third approach.

This accident NEVER should have happened.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

goingdown
12th Apr 2001, 19:27
Strongly agree with flight safety.I was reading in FI that the FO had 608 tt and 408 on the 320.So he got 200 hours when he got his arse in a FBW aircraft.I just can't believe it.The bloke was probably lookin'out the window instead of monitoring what the PF was doing.I don't care what the others might think but EXPERIENCE is the best pilot's asset,and when you have it you can tell the captain that we should have a different course of action.That is the reason why we are 2 guys in the office,and preferably experienced.

Frederic
13th Apr 2001, 16:32
Going down and Safety,

Sorry guys, can't agree with what you're saying. In my opinion the cause of the accident lies in the personality of the F/O, the culture of hierachy, and the apparant lack of decent training. We fly with low hour First Officers and from our safety record I can only conclude they're doing a great job. But that is because they had a training that was encouraging them to state their opinion at all times and take action when things go wrong, no matter how many hours or years they have sitting besides them. I do believe that you need a high cumulative total experience in the cockpit and you need good training to "dampen" the effect of lack of experience. Looking down on people with lower experience is exactly the reason why they don't dare to say or do their thing when things go wrong...

ia1166
14th Apr 2001, 01:36
Sorry, frederic, but the captain makes a complete f@@k up of the approach and the subsequent go around and you blame the F/O? are you wired to the moon or what. at the very least a captain should be able to execute this simple manoeuvre completely unaided. that's why we are captains for gods sake

Frederic
16th Apr 2001, 13:45
Negative ia166. First of all I'm not BLAMING anyone. This is a human factors accident. Maybe they both had the same funny looking fish for dinner, who knows. I'm not saying I would have done a better job. But captains are people. People make mistakes or can suffer optical illusions or have whatever human factors problem. From what I understood the captain suffered vertigo maybe without even realising it. If he would have looked at his instruments he might have recovered.One of the reasons why there are two people in a cockpit is redundancy. If the captian fails to do his job for whatever reason the F/O takes over. Basic CRM buddy...

2high
16th Apr 2001, 15:16
Frederic - you really must be wired to the moon and eating a few magic mushrooms to boot. "Basic CRM buddy..." Come on you can do better than that. And to say that you may not have done a better job!!! I bloody well hope you can do a better job, 'cos you best give it up if you can't.

exeng
16th Apr 2001, 16:52
I believe I can see where Frederic is coming from.

ia1166 & 2high it surprises me that you don't believe airline Captains are capable of making such basic errors. Given enough exposure to risk it is inevitable that at times individuals will make errors. Through training and self discipline we try to minimise that risk. Each crew member in the flight deck has the responsibility to ensure that individual errors are not allowed to develop into the kind of tragedy that was GF072. Frederic sounds exactly like the sort of person I would like to see in the left hand seat of an airliner.

Incidentally a lot of airlines now take on F/O's who have been given only 200 hrs. However these people are generally put through a very rigorous selection and are given very thorough training. C.R.M. is a vital part of that training. My experience of these F/O's is very positive.


Regards
Exeng

Airbubba
16th Apr 2001, 17:31
>>The SOP mandate also "assured" Gulf Air pilots "that no disciplinary action whatsoever will be taken" for crews that elect to go-around "for safety-related reasons, including inability...to stabilize an approach by the applicable minimum height."<<

Verbiage to this effect has been in the ops manuals of most U.S. airlines for years now, one of the lessons written in blood. Asian and Middle Eastern carriers will darn near crash a plane before they will go around, no matter how bad the approach, from my past experience.

A written report is required at many places on a go around and we all know how hard we try to keep our names off negative paperwork. This policy coupled with low experience levels is a formula for disaster.

five percent
16th Apr 2001, 22:13
Is it necessary to raise ethnic/culture backgrounds into question each time GF072 is discussed?

When TV crews in the UK highlighted pilots drinking within hours people on this site attacked the press but very few brought drinking within hours to the forefront of convseration and used it as generalisation about British crews.

Yes there are some arrogant pilots in the middle east who demand respect - there are also an equal number of expatriate pilots who do the same! There are also equal numbers of the latter who will have the odd drink within hours because they know they can handle it!!

Other airlines in this are may have better safety records and more expatriate flight crews and many of them have a much shorter history than this company! They also have less economic pressures for nationalisation due to employment factors and demands for profit returns from the company.

The facts are nice to hear and mistakes may have been made all around which are being dealt with investigations and management in many ways.

It would be nice to think that other airlines will also follow the lessons that have been learnt by GF!

Airbubba
16th Apr 2001, 22:53
>>Is it necessary to raise ethnic/culture backgrounds into question each time GF072 is discussed?<<

When discussing the dynamics of a go around, CRM and cultural factors are quite significant in my opinion. I've flown with crews of many nationalities over the years and yes, there is a difference in approach to information sharing, cockpit culture and other human factors issues.

Remember China Airlines' two A-300-600 crashes? The local authorities speculated in the second accident report that the Airbus automation philosophy might not be compatible with the Asian mentality and to this day the remaining CI A-300-600's are flown by expat crews. While this sounds a little extreme, the role of cultural differences is often acknowleged in accident investigations.

Cultural differences are a sensitive issue but I think we would be foolish to assume that they are not important in human factors issues in aviation.

Flight Safety
17th Apr 2001, 01:30
I have several comments related to low time F/Os...

Frederic said:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">From what I understood the captain suffered vertigo maybe without even realising it. If he would have looked at his instruments he might have recovered. One of the reasons why there are two people in a cockpit is redundancy. If the captian fails to do his job for whatever reason the F/O takes over. Basic CRM buddy...</font>

Agreed, the F/Os job is to protect both the aircraft and his captain if he sees a problem with his captain. But how easy is this for a low time F/O to accomplish?

Misschief Said:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Gulf Air are proud of this policy, and proclaim in many pieces of literature that they employ the highest percentage of gulf state nationals. Yet CRM is almost directly opposed to the prevailing culture which emphasises respect for seniority and one's elders.</font>

Frederic said:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">I do believe that you need a high cumulative total experience in the cockpit and you need good training to "dampen" the effect of lack of experience. Looking down on people with lower experience is exactly the reason why they don't dare to say or do their thing when things go wrong...</font>

The low time F/O is faced with challenging his captain is the event the captain "losses it" for some reason. But in some cultures that would not be easy.

Furthermore, he's a low time pilot and his confidence cannot be that high due to his low time. If, as was the case for the F/O in this accident, a low time F/O has several deficiencies written up about him during his last recurrency checks, what level of confidence can he honestly expect to rely upon, to challenge his much more experienced captain, if he makes a mistake?

Exeng said:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Incidentally a lot of airlines now take on F/O's who have been given only 200 hrs. However these people are generally put through a very rigorous selection and are given very thorough training. C.R.M. is a vital part of that training. My experience of these F/O's is very positive.</font>

OK maybe so, but any "hole" in this "rigorous selection" process, or any "hole" in this "thorough training", will by it's nature leave "deficiencies" in the low time F/O's abilities. In my opinion that's an accident waiting to happen.

I went by an aviation school the other day and stopped in for a few minutes. Their "mission" in life is to get young low time men and women into the right seat of an airliner (regional or major) as fast as possible, with a non-US carrier of course. There's really big money in this type of training, and schools all over are taking advantage of the current climate of allowing low time F/Os into the right seat.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 16 April 2001).]

Belgique
17th Apr 2001, 14:14
Somatogravic Illusions - the False Pitch-up Illusion

It is quite possible for two pilots to simultaneously suffer from this powerful illusion. In that case CRM is of no use. It may well have been the case in this accident.

From Belgique post of 08 Oct 00
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/010349.html


http://www.ozemail.com.au/%7Eaupa/PDF_files/A&L.pdf

http://www.gretmar.com/webdoctor/dnt.html
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/History/x-15_speech/x15-3spch.html
http://wwwsam.brooks.af.mil/af/files/fsguide/HTML/Chapter_04.html
http://whittsflying.com/Pagea7Hood%20flying%20and%20illusions.htm
http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/reports/air/1996/ea96c0002.html
http://john.berkeley.edu/Projects/linearAccelTxt.html
http://www.vnh.org/FSManual/03/05Vestibular.html
http://www.avmed.org.nz/am20fill.htm
http://www.najaco.com/Books/Indestructible%20Pilot/Book/Medical/Medical.htm
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/ENG/reports/air/1997/a97c0236/ea97c0236.html
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~dxw/dnt.html

scanscanscan
18th Apr 2001, 00:53
Belgique. In your experiance is 224kts at 5.2 miles and 207 kts at 2.8 miles a common feature in this illusion?

------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?

[This message has been edited by scanscanscan (edited 18 April 2001).]

exeng
18th Apr 2001, 03:45
Scan times 3,
A very good point.

Flight safety,

Your statement, &lt;OK maybe so, but any "hole" in this "rigorous selection" process, or any "hole" in this "thorough training", will by it's nature leave "deficiencies" in the low time F/O's abilities. In my opinion that's an accident waiting to happen.&gt;

There is no such thing as any selection procedure without holes or any training procedure without holes. The fact is that there are no peple without 'holes'. I'm riddled with them!

As must be obvious my company employ low time F/O's. These people have been very well selected and trained. I would have to say that they are 'very' assertive. They seem to have no problem whatsoever in letting me know that I have made yet another 'admin error'.

Believe me, if the selection and training is up to scratch then the chances of a GF072 are very much reduced. Of course you can never eradicate all risk.

Safe flying.


Regards
Exeng

Belgique
19th Apr 2001, 04:35
Scan Scan Scan
Not sure what your point is - but are you perhaps saying that it was not evidently the illusion in question that finally did them in. i.e. notwithstanding that it was their travelling goat act approach that first put them in the go-around and (then) the missed approach sin bin.

scanscanscan
19th Apr 2001, 17:32
Belgique.I am sorry there was no real point concerning your valid theory, which assumes the pilot knows where he is at, and can fly instruments in the first place.
I was angry about these 153 deaths. I was a GF pilot for 26 years and had observed this type of thing being manufactured. I was annoyed, as it appeared to me this captains brain remained so far behind his aircraft that he was even more unlikely to perform a black hole instrument goaround safely let alone get on the gauges to over come your theory.
I had also just read the CVR and observed his comments to his FO.and that the option
of useing the 30 ILS was not even requested.
Precisely because of two other crashes onto RW12 and numerous goarounds it was a Gulf Air sop as far back as 1974 to always request the ILS when within limits at any airport. I had also been told I was "Too nervous" by this captain when he was my FO on the 767 when arriveing from Saudi and doing this ILS option, my explanation was considered an "Old pilot idea".
I would like to see Star Arrival "Old Pilot" published for Saudi/ Bahrain VorRW12.


------------------
We will do the drill according to the amendments to the amendments I er think?