Nice bit of airmanship

[Algie]

Qantas 767 MEL-SYD this afternoon-landing in dodgy conditons (X-wind, turbulence,gusts etc). All got worse last 50 ft before TD and at wheel touch it wasn't specially pretty so they gave it away and after a few minutes and a calming PA, did it again.

How many (if they lived) pilots who went off the far end will go to their last days wishing they had made such a good decision.

Well done. All the fine regs and SMSs and MBA driven management will never take the place of a couple of folks up the front who know how to make good decisions.

[VH-FTS]

Ah, but those behind the regs, SMS and CRM will all claim they contributed to such a fine display of threat and error management.

[SeeBee]

Yes, I can assure you that various instructors over the years have contributed to the decision making of the pilot flying - however, having been involved in the 'system' for over 3 decades I can be absolutely certain that the management and regulation of aviation in Australia have, not only the inability, but also no intention of providing any meaningful input in to the operation of a multi crewed modern jet.

[SeeBee]

Oh and by the way - great to hear a pilot has made a good decision.....

[ChrisJ800]

It happens more often at windy places like Wellington or Hobart.

[Capn Bloggs]

Keg must be getting twitchy in his old age. Landed with plenty of fuel, I hope! :E

[dodo whirlygig]

Well, I'll be bu##ered, pilots doing their job, pure and simple.

And all the SMS bull sh#t had nought input into their doing their job, and doing it well.

The industry is full of academic wa%&ers with their brains full of theory, but no experience - and they are the ones calling the shots. God help us all!!!

Threat and Error management - it's mostly rubbish, it's about ability and experience.

I'm with you SeeBee:-

the management and regulation of aviation in Australia have, not only the inability, but also no intention of providing any meaningful input in to the operation of a multi crewed modern jet.

[Wally Mk2]

'DoDo' all the class room stuff we have to endure like SMS, CRM, SEP's TEM courses etc etc etc are all 'feel good' lessons & a whole industry has been built around them but at the end of the day despite all the good intentions you will never make 10 pilots the same as you can 10 airframes, the human mind is very unpredictable at times (bit like an Airbus)
What's that saying Airlines like us to use after a briefing?..........."it's okay to go-around"....& that my friends takes balls sometimes:)

Still we need to have all of the above purely for the legal side of things.


Wmk2

[Keg]

Keg must be getting twitchy in his old age. Landed with plenty of fuel, I hope! :E


Pfft. It was fairly benign when I landed 16L just before 2100 local. 210/25G35 if I recall and half decent vis. A decent shower had gone through about 20 minutes before. :ok:

Is landing with 100 minutes of fuel enough to keep the PPRUNE crowd off my back? The flight plan had me landing with 65. :p :cool:

[ejectx3]

Went around landing 16r in the flare entering turbulent air from late departing a330 in still air few years ago. Reckon we would have scraped a pod if we'd continued. Tower almost had kittens. We were turning right before their hasty heading instructions that's for sure !

Fun for the whole family

[601]

I wonder if ATC have in the back of their minds that any landing aircraft at any time may go-around.

The reason may not be initially obvious to the tower - e.g, an un-stabilised approach; turtle on the runway.

[C441]

All got worse last 50 ft before TD and at wheel touch it wasn't specially pretty so they gave it away

You blokes/blokettes are kidding yourselves.

Next decade's pilotless 787 would have foreseen the shear and turbulence and gone around long before 50ft or compensated such that another "greaser" was successfully rolled on! :rolleyes:

[holdingagain]

Last Brisbane figures I saw were something like
58,000 movements / 44 go rounds ( 20 pilot initiated, 18 separation, 6 runway blocked or maybe that turtle again )
Don't know what Sydney was

[ChrisJ800]

20 pilot initiated, 18 separation, 6 runway blocked or maybe that turtle again

Are you calling the BAe146 a turtle? :ooh:

[Keg]

Are you calling the BAe146 a turtle?

If the boot fits.... :E

[sunnySA]

I wonder if ATC have in the back of their minds that any landing aircraft at any time may go-around.

A landing aircraft will not be permitted to cross the threshold of the runway on its final approach until:
a. a preceding departing aircraft using the same runway:
(1) is airborne, and
-has commenced a turn; or
-is beyond the point on the runway at which the landing aircraft could be expected to complete its landing roll and there is sufficient distance to manoeuvre safely in the event of a missed approach

Yes, ATCs do have in the back of their minds that any landing aircraft at any time may go-around, although the reported 'late' go-around is not that common.

The thing about the bolded wording of the separation standard (sufficient distance to manoeuvre safely in the event of a missed approach) is that it is never tested when the aircraft lands.

[gaunty]

Say what you like about the SMS, CRM et al it is all responsible for the end result in most safe operations COM that REQUIRES a go round from an unstabilised approach even unto wheel touch. It assumes the PNF is monitoring the defined stabilised approach parameters for the PF. And gives the pilot permission to exercise what you have called airmanship but Is part of the deal between him and the operator.

That mindset has not always been thus.

C441 gets it:ok:

G'day Keg me old.

Airmanship? Suggests something it was IMHO not. Help me out with the right word.

[fl610]

Dare I say..........common sense!!!

[parabellum]

Airmanship? Suggests something it was IMHO not. Help me out with the right
word.

How about two words? 'Self Preservation'!;)

[Keg]

Good to see you back Gaunty..... or did you never leave and have just been lurking in other forums? :ok:

[tail wheel]

As distinct from this incident: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/516182-cebu-overrun.html

Caused, or so we are told, by a defective wiper! :hmm:

[b55]

fl610
The best definition for common sense comes from Albert Einstein.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices that you acquire by the age of eighteen."
Your common sense is not my common sense or the guy you happen to be sitting next to on the flight deck. We all come from different back grounds and experiences.

For a pilot, Knowledge leads to Experience, which gives Intuitive Judgement (look it up), which gives good pilot behaviours, which is commonly called Airmanship. The learning comes from somewhere, usually self discovery, what works and what doesn't (our own mistakes and near misses) or very close (flight deck) observation of others. However, all the C.R.M. theory awareness courses go no where and are useless if it isn't changed into the good pilot behaviours. Most airline C.R.M. courses are just there to "tick" the box for the airline and don't give the direction to the changes of behaviours (airmanship) and the vast majority of pilots aren't able to knowingly do it for themselves. Just check all the current airline pilot studies/surveys and airline accident reports from around the world.

[Wally Mk2]

'b55' that's well put:ok:
There's nothing 'common' in the word commonsense:-)

I agree about with yr analogy re CRM, almost a waste of time & a whole industry has been built around it as I have said earlier so it does one thing I guess, keeps some people in a job but that's about it!.



Wmk2

[The Green Goblin]

The only people who don't like CRM are the ones who guys don't like to fly with.

I've Learnt a lot about myself and various behaviours to expect in the flight deck from CRM. When I make a mistake now (generally every flight) I analyse how I made it. I can usually find a cause (ATC distractions, cabin crew last minute requests, PF of PNF asking for unexpected inputs, threats that lead to errors etc etc. Where as a GA Pilot under the mentality you're a poor pilot if you make a mistake, to the airline mentality (a threat lead to an error) etc etc I see the absolute value in it.

Every time you ask the other guy, can I? Would you like, if its okay with you, I'd like, or even just relaying information to the other guy (there's a strong tailwind on base), you're using CRM.

We use this stuff everyday knowingly or otherwise.

"What's the difference John between a copilot and a duck?"

"I told you John" :D

[Wally Mk2]

Interesting 'GG' I guess the other 100 or so pilots that I have anything to do with don't like flying with me 'cause I think CRM is a waste of time, you could be right there though but if that's the case then I hope they never change their minds as I enjoy being disliked:ok:

Look we have all been doing CRM in a multi-crew environment from day one (even SP Ops, which I found odd!) it's just that someone coined the phrase (so 2 speak) & has never looked back full knowing it's money for jam!:-)

Each to their own I guess but I do it (CRM training) as I have to & simply don't have a choice!


Wmk2

[framer]

Don't you ever learn anything at a CRM class that helps you become better at your job?
I'm with GG on this. I often take a wee gem of information away with me that helps me make slightly less mistakes on the line or slightly better decisions. Surely you get something sometimes?

[Keg]

B55 may not post all that often but that one's a gem! :D

My biggest lament with most CRM courses is that whilst learning how others stuffed up is useful, working out how and why I stuff up is priceless. Sadly most CRM courses never go close to that sort of territory. It's time consuming, labour intensive, professionally confronting and difficult to 'measure' as outcomes vary between exercises. Heck, sometimes the lessons that come out of an exercise isn't even related to the person in charge of the exercise but someone else who was a 'team mate' or crew member who couldn't cope, thought something was trivial so didn't take it seriously- and adversely impacted on everyone else, etc.

Finally, when an airline does more CRM than is mandated by the regulator, then I'll know that they take the topic seriously. A couple of hours a year is just tokenism.

[framer]

I agree with you Keg that most CRM courses are just cut and pastes from other courses and after you've seen a few you have taken most of the lessons from the mistakes discussed.
I think that the decision to go round could well have it's genesis in good CRM in that making decisions that are unpalatable is often difficult to do and is something that a pilot can get better at as their career progresses.it may not be the case here, but it could be. For some pilots ( myself included) it is very easy to be given a theoretical situation at the bar and make the correct decision but in the heat of the moment the " task completion bias" etc makes it less likely they will do the right thing. Just having an understanding of that helps me to at least consider being conservative in the heat of the moment. Having had it explained to me in the classroom has sort of pre- loaded me in the right direction.
Not everyone is affected to the same degree and so some might think that that sounds like tosh, but for me it is helpful. Another way that CRM could have played a role is that if it was briefed that a go round might be on the cards then both pilots tend to ' take it in their stride' a bit better. I've flown with airlines where an approach brief may or may not happen at all and I've flown in airlines where irrelevant things are briefed ad nausium by rote. Not briefing at all was the worst.

[Mach E Avelli]

Agreed that good CRM would include the possibility of a missed approach being discussed. Hopefully, well before the approach actually commences, when hopefully a plan B (diversion if appropriate) will be agreed upon. And agreed that any briefing should be relevant to the particular situation and not be padded out with a whole lot of unlikely scenarios. A simple briefing for a visual approach may take 20 seconds to deliver. A more detailed briefing for a complex weather/approach situation may take a minute. If it takes longer, someone is probably talking too much and someone is probably no longer absorbing the essential details.

But methinks a decision to go-around is not something that one analyses or discusses at the time, and hence does this action really belong in the CRM basket (or to coin current yuckspeak: 'CRM toolbox')?
A go-around is a drill which hopefully is automatic at least to the extent that both pilots simply react to the situation requiring it and get on with it.

CRM should not be confused with CDF.

[framer]

Yeah I agree with that.
One thing I think needs to be acknowledged is that much of CRM IS CDF. Not all of it, but much of it. Trying to separate it out into something stand alone just creates backlash from people who have known much of it for decades. They think....." I know this stuff, it's just CDF and experience, what are these pricks on about? " and then they switch off and miss the one or two things that could have improved their ability to safely operate. Even bob Hoover and Chuck can always improve.

[Mach E Avelli]

Yep, a bit like keeping briefings short and to the point. If CRM refresher courses are mandated every two years, fer Chrissakes don't make them last two days just to satisfy some CASA whim that it need be so.
Summarise what has been learned by the industry in the past two years - stuff that we will find interesting and useful - feed it to us, give us an exam to ensure that we do indeed 'get it' and let us go home with the feeling that we did actually learn something new.
If that can be achieved in four hours, great. Short and to the point works for this cynical old man.

[Wally Mk2]

Gee 'Mach' I must get you on to our CRM Dept, get them to think along the lines you suggest & you'll be my hero!:ok:

Wmk2

[VH-FTS]

Or hopefully your organisation will do what the real CRM experts suggest - capture data about your company's, and similar airline's, incidents and use them as a means of evaluating and improving CRM content and training. This is where SMS can actually be helpful and, again, not just some CASA box that needs to be ticked. LOSA is another option for data capture and was used to good effect by Air New Zealand a few years back.

[Keg]

LOSA tells you 'what'. It doesn't tell you 'why'. More importantly, it doesn't tell you 'why pilot X will do that but pilot y won't'. It doesn't tell ME whether the way I do business will open me up to that sort of 'what' or whether there is a different sort of 'what' that I may be prone to.

Mach, agree to a point. The issue is that there is no set thing of what needs to be covered in CRM. IE there is no 'building blocks' approach to it. There is certainly ver little ongoing professional development for it. We're so busy ensuring that we can fly an V1 cut +5/ -0 knots that we forget that there are a bunch of other things that go towards making a competent crew member.

[Oakape]

We're so busy ensuring that we can fly an V1 cut +5/ -0 knots that we forget that there are a bunch of other things that go towards making a competent crew member.

Excellent point & right on the money!

There doesn't seem to be much development in crew training these days, after the initial rapid development of CRM & the like. Perhaps they are busy trying to design the pilot right out of the flight deck now & don't want to tell us about it. :E

[VH-FTS]

LOSA tells you 'what'. It doesn't tell you 'why'. More importantly, it doesn't tell you 'why pilot X will do that but pilot y won't'. It doesn't tell ME whether the way I do business will open me up to that sort of 'what' or whether there is a different sort of 'what' that I may be prone to.

Correct, to an extent. As I said, it is part of data gathering to try to find out "why", and hopefully lead to improved SOPs and training (including CRM training).

[b55]

CRM courses.....yep, that's good....

BUT courses aren't the end all,...this MUST lead to CRM learning(even those little bits and pieces you don't already have in your mind)...yep, even better....

BUT this learning isn't the end all of it....it MUST be converted into your normal, real (Airmanship) Behaviours....the ULTIMATE goal of all this "stuff"...
if it isn't, then yes ,it is pretty much a waste of time. And the courses don't teach you how to make it a behaviour for you. It is up to you to figure it out. A very big challenge indeed.

BUT IF these behaviours aren't part of YOU DAILY, day in and day out, year after year,
where will you be when those good behaviours are ultimately needed that ONE day in your career when you REALLY need them?

Changing our behaviours is challenging...but can be done. We learned to fly the damn thing! The same with "Airmanship". For example, like doing a go around after touching down when you know it is the best, and safest thing to do.

So IF you are the best you can be at safety /situational awareness, IF you are the best Communicator you can be, IF you are the best Team Player you can be, IF you are the best Leader (PIC/Captain) you can be, then yes, CRM courses aren't going to do much more for you personally any more.
BUT, there is another factor here. You are part of a very specific sub-culture that is your airline group of pilots. That new F/O that sees you there in the CRM class and already knows you to be a very good captain to fly with and that F/O sees you participating, he will be influenced by your behaviour to do better too at all this "stuff". Just possibly that very "bad" day that happens for you, that very F/O will be there with you. At the end of it, he turns to you and says, "WTF, how did we ever manage to get through that?!"
The latest example, is Sullenberger again saying in the newspaper, New York Daily News, June 5th, it was the Teamwork (made up of communications, leadership, positive, supportive attitudes,etc,etc) on the flight deck that gave them the outcome on the Hudson River ditching.

[Mach E Avelli]

The problem for small operators is the CASA insistence that all changes to their CAR 217 Check & Training Manuals go through an official 'approval' process. Of course CASA charges money for this.

To get a manual approved in the first place usually involves a lot of plagiarism and 'padding out' with extensive course syllabi, so that the CASA people can tick lots of their little compliance boxes.

Nearly every C & T Manual I have seen has its genesis in old Ansett stuff that has been around for 40 years now. It may have been good in its time, but now it is oh-so-stale. In the real world, the small operator does not have the means, the time or the will to deliver all this stuff anyway. It is rarely taught in the first place and never updated.

How I would love to be in the business of chucking out all the stale old CRM and cyclic training that bores everyone sh!tless and update it with other operators' recent experiences. For example, if there have been no recorded failures at V1 in the past five years on a particular aircraft type, dump the requirement for a V1 cut on every simulator check on that type. Use the simulator time saved to put in scenarios that have actually occurred, or are more likely to occur, on that type. To satisfy certification get CASA to agree that a V1 failure is included once in a two year cyclic program. But try and sell that to CASA.....and not have to pay for the sale. For a start they would have to amend their CAOs (or whatever they are calling them now).

If only CASA would butt out of the process.

[framer]

Good luck getting someone at CASA to put their name down as " the guy who stopped V1 cut training" . That would involve making a big call and then taking responsibility for the call. Much easier to count the years until retirement. It will happen eventually however it will be on the back of ICAO EBT and therefore nobody at CASA will have to take responsibility.
Would the CRM situation be better if NASA produced an annual 4 hr CRM course that was endorsed by ICAO and taught to all ICAO state aircrew by their airline ground instructors. That way a ' building block' approach could be taken, everyone would be learning the same stuff each year and after a decade you would at least know that everyone has the basics. Make it a 3 hr course and each airline can add an hour of material specific to their operation at the end.

[Compylot]

My generation have grown up a lot more sensitive and emotionally in touch than previous generations. We understand and can read other peoples feelings a lot better and are also more accepting of concepts such as gay marriage and equality, refugee rights and indigenous welfare.

I have found that as a result, people of my generation can accept and understand the concepts behind CRM better than some of the older people here.

I find that crew synergy flows more harmoniously when I work with people closer to my generation.

I always give the cabin crew little hugs or air kisses at the beginning of the day and often bring in little gifts like chocolates or sweets for everyone to enjoy. I always say please or thank you and 99% of the time I can tell if a fellow crew member is a little stressed which is when I may offer a quick shoulder massage.

Being emotionally in tune is the first and most important step in effective CRM. As I mentioned before not everyone gets that, especially some of the older boys and they sometimes don't appreciate my offers of a gentle back rub (I can work out quickly who does and doesn't!) but I guess as these guys retire there will be more of my generation on board and it can only lead to more effective CRM! :)

[amos2]

Hmmm...shoulder massage...back rub
...anything else on offer, luv?

[Ollie Onion]

First CRM course was interesting, second one was alright, now I dread them because we constantly rehash the same stuff year after year with the poor old instructors trying to find new ways to say the same thing e.g. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate became Plane, Path, People....... WOW!! what a revelation.

The best CRM course I ever attended was 3 hours of watching radar traces with ATC recordings from 'near misses' and accident reconstructions for about 3 hours followed by lively discussions of where we thought the CRM had broken down or infact been very good. I gained more out of that session that I ever have from years of having the 'reason' model explained to the class time and time again.

[Mach E Avelli]

Some of the early CRM courses were good because they involved various team exercises that had an element of competition about them. A personality profile was done before allocating people to the various teams. Management and staff from all disciplines were in attendance.
The facilitator was careful to ensure that the teams had a cross-section of personalities - weak, strong, aggressive, passive, introvert, extrovert (smart? stupid? - possibly, if the prior tests could reveal this - we will never know.).
Setting up a course involving so many obviously took time to organise and came at considerable cost.
Nowadays, typically this stuff is web-based. The participant clicks boxes until the 'exam' has been passed. The end-game being to generate a certificate to add to the crewmember's training file. Too easy.

Anything that insults the intelligence is unlikely to be effective, and anyway, if CRM is all about 'team' a computer terminal is surely the very antithesis of that concept.

The idea that NASA could come up with internationally-accepted web-based material is good, but an element of classroom interaction with other humans is still needed.

[fl610]

Mach. :ok:

[Angle of Attack]

Plane, Path, People? Oh FFS that sounds like a MBA 20's something speak... God forbid, it has to be Aviate,Navigate, Communicate, try telling Plane, Path, People ,to a Pilot with a burning engine after takeoff, I will tell you it wont resonate!

Plane... yeah Im in a Damn plane!
Path .... Fu$k the vnavpath!
People... Keep us all alive!

Aviate ... maintain control of this beast...
Navigate... Control established, fly it without hitting anything
Communicate... Tell the people that need to know what is needed, pax,atc fire service

[Wally Mk2]

"AoA" it's now Fly, Navigate & Communicate, the old 'Aviate' encompasses all of the above so they had to divy it up a little better:ok:
Ya gotta get with the program buddy the world is being overtaken by Gen Y & Z's all with politically correctness as their main driver:)

Surely C-lot is pulling our legs here:ugh:Save us from their generation !

Wmk2

[framer]

The idea that NASA could come up with internationally-accepted web-based material is good, but an element of classroom interaction with other humans is still needed
Sorry, I didn't explain that idea very well. What I meant was that NASA creates a course ( power point, group exercise, case study) etc, and the participating ICAO State airlines simply download it along with a facilitators guide and then run the class as they normally would. For an airline to build their annual CRM course must cost them $1000 or so I imagine in the form of getting someone into the office to do it. The results are only as good as the individual chosen to create it. NASA could charge $500 USD, make an absolute killing, and the airline would not be out of pocket. The main benefit of doing this though would be a 'building block' approach as someone pointed out earlier.
The first year could be an intro to the 5 or 6 basic subjects and then subsequent years could tick through them one by one with an emphasis on current industry issues. After a decade the industry pilot group would have a known knowledge base of CRM and have not lost their ability to tailor the last hour or two specifically to their own needs.

[framer]

Further thought; with the technical resources available between NASA and UT and the teaching experts within their midst the courses would be of an extremely high standard and could be designed to hold people's interest ( bit of humour, bit of wow factor, bit of ' I can't believe it' element) even if they are sceptical of the chances of learning anything. We could test the first one on Wally :E

[Mach E Avelli]

Framer, good idea in principle. But the very operators that would benefit most from this training are probably the same ones who would never pay for it themselves. Cheapskate operators expect pilots to come with these mandatory 'bolt-on' courses (like DGs) already paid for. The real bottom feeders even expect pilots to fund their own Insrument Rating renewals.

Some tinpot mob with 10 pilots would really baulk at $500 a head for CRM, which the boss probably thinks is a crock anyway. They get round paying for this stuff by employing so-called 'casuals' who, of course, have to come with all necessary accreditations to be legal do the work.

You are probably right to estimate that $500 a head is about what NASA would want. Or do you think they would flog what is effectively a copyright for a grand total of $500 regardless of number of participants? Altruism suggests they should, but would they? The DGs people have got their courses all stitched up and certainly charge by the head.

[Wally Mk2]

Go 4 it 'framer' use me as a test bed:ok:
If anyone can 'show me the way' they'll have broken thru common sense & destroyed one of the last few whom don't need CRM to stay alive 'cause after all pilots have been practicing CRM even though they didn't know it from the day Wilbur or Orville (can't recall which one) went up with the very first Pax & probably asked him can you see which way the trees are blowing for Ldg, the very birthplace of CRM! :)

Just for the record & no one heard this from me I have just completed my CRM course 2 days ago & believe it or not I didn't fall asleep in class:ok:


Wmk2

[framer]

Heh heh, thanks for the offer Wally :)
I'll PM you if the Dean of UT gets back to me.
I was actually thinking $500USD per airline per annum but I don't know a thing about how NASA works. It would have to be driven from on high, ie the Flight Safety Foundation, ICAO, FAA, JAA etc would have to endorse it and if the safety benefits were there then the funding of it could be arranged. I only suggested NASA / UT because they appear to be the leaders in CRM but if the decision was made then I am sure other reputable universities would tender for it.