Below the GS at SFO again [Archive]

Coagie

26th Jul 2013, 17:18

Maybe what should be looked at is what constitutes a "qualified pilot" these days? In the past, at least here in the US, the airlines had many military trained pilots, who had to meet a high standard, both mentally and physically, to even begin their training, which was vigorous and thorough, especially in the basics of flying. Now, because of demand, and more military pilots staying in the military, instead of getting out to work for the airlines, we may not always get the quality of person, with the quality of training, that we used to get. I notice when this is brought up in forums, the non-military trained pilots (which most or them are for the airlines now, I think) get pretty defensive, but I'm not saying all the non-military trained pilots are bad, or even more than a small percentage. I'm just saying, the likelihood of incompetence has gone up. Luckily, it's offset, by better aircraft and automation, making flying still safer, than it was. I say, make the changes in screening and training that are needed, for airline pilots, and raise the pay accordingly. There's just not enough former military pilots to go around any longer. Whether the industry realized it or not, they were using former military pilots in place of having good, in house training and screening. Maybe the training would be a "Back to Basics" continuing education course or test on basic airmanship, including stall and recovery, cross wind landing, etc. and would only need to use a Piper Cherokee or Cessna 172, so maybe, it wouldn't cost so much, risk passengers or a high dollar aircraft? Many airline pilots are part a union. You have leverage to help dictate your compensation, etc. Why not use it to dictate qualification and training, when contract time comes up?. Otherwise, the bean counters will only spend enough to stay in "legal" compliance on qualification and training.

a2thej

26th Jul 2013, 17:25

KSFO RNAV (GPS) RWY 28L (IAP) ? FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KSFO/IAP/RNAV+%28GPS%29+RWY+28L)

:ugh:

Lonewolf_50

26th Jul 2013, 18:04

Let's see:

They were low, waved off, came back around, and landed safely.

In a generic sense, they did what was needed. Perhaps the "29.97" alert from the controller put a finger on what was wrong; perhaps they needed a 'poke' to get back into the game, perhaps something else was going on.

As it works out, what should have happened did: low on approach, wave off, come back and do it right.

That's why there are so many pieces to the puzzle: planes, pilots, lights, navaids, radios, controllers, etc. Extra slices of cheese block the holes from lining up, so to speak.

If the controller saved the day, a tip of the cap to him.

He may have made the call about when the crew realized "this is AFU, let's go around" ... hard to say without input from the crew on what they saw.

How one gets that low on approach that close in is another question.

fireflybob

26th Jul 2013, 18:08

Why no RNAV GNSS? Might help out the visual approach fearing crews. Gives you an aircraft 2 reds 2 whites on glide on centreline at under 2 miles to run generally.

Because the ILS approach would be in the FMC database and this could be used for guidance on a visual approach.

Coagie

26th Jul 2013, 18:21

Let's see:

They were low, waved off, came back around, and landed safely. Good you pointed that out. At least they did the right thing by going around. There may be to many pilots, who think they'll get demerits for going around. I say we shouldn't try to discourage "do-overs". This wouldn't have made news, if there wasn't an "Asian" association, so soon after the Asiana 214 incident. Why, "going around" may be a pilots only opportunity for repetitive practice, in the modern, bean counter run, airline!

Dynasty Trash Hauler

26th Jul 2013, 18:24

"it is incomprehensible that two qualified pilots allow a normal situation to deteriorate to this point."

I have flown for 4 different airlines in Asia and to me it is TOTALLY comprehensible that this has occurred again.

The training is not good and the adherence to any standard is non existent.

The only amazement I have is that some of these airlines manage to avoid crashing more often.

Una Due Tfc

26th Jul 2013, 18:40

We are supposed to be the safest industry in the world. From what I'm reading from you flyboys and flygirls, alot more training needs to be given on handflying, fair enough. But we need to cater for the weakest links too, and to have no ILS and no PAPIs for that length of time is unacceptable. More handflying training and tighter regulation on how long you can have the landing aids o/o/s are needed IMO. Surely they could have found a way of installing the new ILS without having to take the old one out? Or use 28L for departures only and 28R for arrivals until the new ILS is up and running?

fireflybob

26th Jul 2013, 18:50

But we need to cater for the weakest links too, and to have no ILS and no PAPIs for that length of time is unacceptable.

The issue of PAPIs was thoroughly aired on the Asiana thread. For the Asiana approach the PAPIs were serviceable.

Are you saying they the PAPIs were not serviceable for this approach?

Coagie

26th Jul 2013, 18:51

Spoffo

26th Jul 2013, 18:52

This happened around 9 PM local. If the PAPI was indeed O/S, this guy was essentially flying a black hole visual to the runway lights with some skylight above. Not the total piece of cake some of the comments here suggest.

beamer

26th Jul 2013, 19:01

Without getting too deep into the age-old Mil/Civ debate, Coagie actually makes some sound points.

Too few pilots have any real handling skills these days and that includes a great many training Captains. How many pilots have actually shut down engines on anything bigger than a light twin ? How many have any time in
practice or simulated asymmetric flight. How many have made approaches using restricted airfield lighting in either an aircraft of simulator ? How many take the opportunity to make a visual approach when the situation arises albeit with instrument back-up.........................etcetc

Una Due Tfc

26th Jul 2013, 19:03

Ah, If the PAPI's were in service for the AAR then I stand corrected, last time I dipped into that thread they were described as O/O/S.

But I stand by my point that you shouldn't be allowed take out your ILS for that amount of time without having to restrict use of that runway for arrivals, especially if there is a parrallel runway.

Lord Spandex Masher

26th Jul 2013, 19:04

Sorry to say ... being 600 ft below GS 3.5nm out is far beyond visual approach incompetence, it's sheer absolute incompetence. No excuse at all for this. :ugh:

Only if it wasn't intentional. Nothing technically wrong with a low flat approach provided it is managed correctly. Granted not that efficient though.

I take it the GS is still u/s though so how were they below it?

stilton

26th Jul 2013, 19:13

Many of the KAL crashes were at the hands of the 'Military trained pilots'

Having flown with plenty of them over the years my experience is they can be just as good or bad as their civilian trained counterparts.

Some of the ex fighter type's can be a real liability with their lack of crew skills.

777AV8R

26th Jul 2013, 19:18

This whole thing reeks of total inexperience, lack of traing and poor airmanship. Good gosh, any experienced pilot flying this machine should be expected to manually input a visual centerline and fix for any runway. It is in the database. At 3 miles, the aircraft should be at 1000 feet. It doesn't stop there.

The flight director system has a 'Flight Path Vector' which is a function of the ADIRU. IF.....IF the crew were trained properly or just had interest in observing this aid during normal flight, they would know that keeping the vertical tail just slightly on the horizon, would provide a near 3 degree slope. The -200 and -300 FPV placement differ somewhat.

When I am training my candidates I make sure that those whom I teach, have a thorough understanding of how the system works.

As for black-hole syndrome, I disagree. There is enough peripheral lighting at KSFO and if the flight crew had properly set their systems to give decent situational awareness, things could have been different.

The problem will only continue to get worse as carriers grapple to find pilots to fill the hardware that is on order. Operators who rely on 'cadets' to fill seats can only expect the risk factor within their operations to increase. Yet, it is those carriers who invite well experienced and highly qualified personnel to interviews, only to tell them that they aren't wanted..no reasons given, in favor of taking some of the 250 hour wonders and turning them through the pilot mill.

Only time will tell

Mr Optimistic

26th Jul 2013, 19:41

Would there be any warnings/alarms on the flight deck descending through 600ft? Please tell me yes!

cldrvr

26th Jul 2013, 19:45

in favor of taking some of the 250 hour wonders and turning them through the pilot mill.

They are hired for their ability to pay, not for their ability to fly. There have been countless threads here on pprune highlighting the dangers of these 250 hour kids, but they get all swarmed by the wannabees and the training providers to lead to any form of meaningful discussion.

I have been going on about this for a long time, all we really need is a few smoking holes in the country side and we will see the same changes here in Europe and in Asia as the FAA has now gotten through.

You cannot make up for experience, no matter how much money you bring.

Our flight department has strict rules for positioning flights, we will not use any of these training airlines, and neither will the parent company with thousands of employees worldwide. I know of a few German multinationals that will not use them either for their employee flights. There are more and more companies in the Far East and on the sub continent with those restrictions now. I would like to see more people take that stand, but too many expect their 29 euro flight to the sun and don't care what cost get cut to give them that low cost flight.

eaglespar

26th Jul 2013, 20:15

At very beginning Pilot (PIC) seems to throw his hands in the air when given
a visual clearance on 28L but did something get edited out as they later
get ILS clearance on 28R, They still did a manual landing it appears
after auto thrust disable and auto pilot disable.

Critique please, it seemed very professional to me an SLF except for the
first exasperated keyboard slam.

A380 first landing at SFO
This is pretty interesting to watch.
The pilots sit away from everything, no yoke, etc. Captain pulls up a keyboard once in a while to enter info but the plane does most of the work.....
The humongous A380 makes its first landing at San Francisco airport. It seems extensively automated. The air traffic controller gives them heading, altitude and speed, and they dial it in. Pretty interesting.
For best results go "full screen" on your monitor. It will seem like you are in the cockpit.

Pilot's View: Airbus A380 approach and landing at San Francisco. [VIDEO] (http://www.wimp.com/approachlanding/)

Contacttower

26th Jul 2013, 20:18

I have been going on about this for a long time, all we really need is a few smoking holes in the country side and we will see the same changes here in Europe and in Asia as the FAA has now gotten through.

Well both easyJet and Ryanair have been doing it for almost 20 years now and I don't see them making too many smoking holes...

I always find this "cadet bashing" that occurs after pretty much every accident (regardless of whether cadets were involved or not) a bit bizarre.

Everyone was a 250 hour pilot once and speaking from a European perspective if you have 250hrs and have been through the integrated flight training system the chances are that you will be flying an A320 pretty soon after that. There does not seem to be an inherent problem with this from a safety point of view.

Outside of the USA the question of the experience is also rapidly changing. In most of the world it is no longer realistic to expect many new first officers to have significant flying experience before airline flying. Air forces are getting smaller and GA operations that low houred pilots might once have done have largely disappeared. It is also not always desirable for instructing to become a hour building process either because it often leads to poor instruction and the blind leading the blind so to speak.

One way or another airlines have to face up to the fact that more of their pilots will be low experience. This has to be dealt with by rigorous training and experience development within the airline environment. That is possibly where the Asian carriers are going wrong.

What also strikes me is that a lot of the pilots involved in these handling accidents, loss of control, CFIT etc are actually usually very experienced, they are not usually cadets. In fact I can't think of a major accident in which a 'cadet' was to blame. Incompetence among experienced crews seems much more common. Often probably experienced pilots who have become 'magenta line' sinners themselves after years of routine that rarely changes are the victim of sudden challenges which cause them to lose the plot.

Airline recurrent training is almost certainly not dealing with this issue well enough at the moment - this far more important than whether the pilot started out as a cadet or with a thousand hours GA or whatever five or ten years down the line.

DozyWannabe

26th Jul 2013, 20:22

@eaglespar:

I know this video. Look closely, and you'll see that it was the First Officer who was the PF for this approach - his hand is on the sidestick from start to finish. I don't think there's an edit - I suspect SFO approach control decided to switch them to an ILS on 28R of their own volition. The Captain as PNF was calling up the procedures for visual approach, then when the reassignment to ILS was given, he throws up his hands (though not aggressively) and puts the keyboard away.

Cows getting bigger

26th Jul 2013, 20:35

I have some difficulty with some of the xenophobia here. There seems to be a lot of criticism of Asian piloting skills and how they can't even handle a simple visual approach. At the same time, we appear to have an occurrence where a 100% American airline (and one can assume pilot) manages to stuff a 737 in nose first with the following discussion being remarkably 'light'.

Now, I'm not into a willy-wave about us and them. All I am saying that none of us are perfect and we should be learning each others' lessons.

Chronic Snoozer

26th Jul 2013, 20:51

But we need to cater for the weakest links too

Isn't that the problem with this industry that's apparently supposed to be the safest...in the world :confused:

Raise the bar, don't lower it.

olasek

26th Jul 2013, 20:53

All I am saying that none of us are perfectAnd who said anybody is perfect?
But there are some inescapable facts - Asia-Pacific airlines still fall short in the air safety compared to other continents, of course they are still much better than Africa or Russia but North America remains the safest place on Earth to fly, even safer than Europe. And since Korean's pilots training was in the spotlight years ago and for a good reason current comments should be no surprise...

Cows getting bigger

26th Jul 2013, 21:00

Coagie

26th Jul 2013, 21:47

Many of the KAL crashes were at the hands of the 'Military trained pilots' Defensive, just as expected!
Stilton, C'mon, in a lot of cases, newer airline pilots have never even flown a real stall and recovery!
I can't fly for you, because of a bout of madness, and what I did to that village, during the war.
Anyway, I did qualify my statement with "here in the US" or something like that, meaning the US military. There's going to be exceptions on both sides. You guys figure it out. When I wrote "Police Yourselves" I meant police yourselves, or you'll continue to atrophy from a heroic profession, to a mundane profession.

Coagie

26th Jul 2013, 21:53

Without getting too deep into the age-old Mil/Civ debate, Coagie actually makes some sound points. Thanks Beamer! Even a broken clock is right twice in a 24 hour period!

DozyWannabe

26th Jul 2013, 21:59

Stilton, C'mon, in a lot of cases, newer airline pilots have never even flown a real stall and recovery!

Are you sure? Last time I checked it was impossible to get your PPL without having done so...

That said - up until recently, the industry had been lax on *recurrent* training regarding stalls, but as I understand it that's changing in the wake of recent events.

Coagie

26th Jul 2013, 22:07

Not necessarily disagreeing. But it is equally true that North America could be safer. Stuffing the nose wheel through the front of an aircraft is the sort of thing you expect from the occasional PPL student in a 172. The lack of 'pilotage skill' is on a par with someone who can't manage the aircraft's energy properly at 2-3 miles.

Of course most of us are, at best, making educated guesses about a number of issues.

Yep USA may be safer, but it could do better. I've been in aviation long enough to know that 'good enough' isn't good enough.Cows getting bigger, Airline piloting skills have gone down world wide. I don't know the Southwest 737 pilot's background, whether she was ex-military or not. But we had the Colgan Air crash in New York State, and that craft was flown by pilots, who were not only non-military background, but didn't even make the wage of rookie ditch digger. I'm the last to say we don't have problems over here, as well. I think that Korea, and possibly other Asian nations, excepting Japan (I think some fine pilots there), has "cultural education" issues, where they learn everything by rote, rather than figuring it out real time, that may hold them back, but the rest of us aren't far behind!

Una Due Tfc

26th Jul 2013, 22:11

I'm not trying to make excuses for clowns who can't do a visual landing on a cavok day, don't get me wrong, I'm just of the opinion that we need as much redundancy as possible

ice2x01

26th Jul 2013, 22:26

I know this video. Look closely, and you'll see that it was the First Officer who was the PF for this approach - his hand is on the sidestick from start to finish. I don't think there's an edit - I suspect SFO approach control decided to switch them to an ILS on 28R of their own volition. The Captain as PNF was calling up the procedures for visual approach, then when the reassignment to ILS was given, he throws up his hands (though not aggressively) and puts the keyboard away.

I believe the captain is the PF: Auto-pilot 1 is engaged, he calls configuration commands, and the first officer is handling communication (PNF Duty). The first officer's hand is over the side-stick because he is using the PTT button located on the stick.

DozyWannabe

26th Jul 2013, 22:42

I believe the captain is the PF: Auto-pilot 1 is engaged, he calls configuration commands, and the first officer is handling communication (PNF Duty). The first officer's hand is over the side-stick because he is using the PTT button located on the stick.

You could be right, I'm not familiar with LH's procedures, but calling up checklists as the Captain seems to be doing is a bit incongruous for PF, is it not?

Coagie

26th Jul 2013, 22:47

Are you sure? Last time I checked it was impossible to get your PPL without having done so.. DozzyWannabee, No, I don't know for sure, but last time I checked, years ago, not sure how many, the stall and recovery requirement for a PPL, was taken out, because the private aircraft industry, thought, if they made it easier, or less frightening, to become a private pilot, they'd be more private pilots to buy private aircraft, so they used their influence, to accomplish this change. I don't know what all countries may have changed, but I'm thinking of the US. Does anyone on the forum have current or more accurate info on this issue? Maybe it's the madness coming back?

Una Due Tfc

26th Jul 2013, 23:21

I did quite a few hours towards my ppl in Europe about 2 years ago and stall recovery was definitely part of the training i.e. you deliberately stalled the aircraft and recovered

ice2x01

26th Jul 2013, 23:25

You could be right, I'm not familiar with LH's procedures, but calling up checklists as the Captain seems to be doing is a bit incongruous for PF, is it not?

If by calling up you mean requesting, then no... it is perfectly normal for PF to request a checklist and the PNF to read said checklist, then PF to confirm.

captplaystation

26th Jul 2013, 23:31

Some have said "unbelievable", unfortunately it is way TOO believable.

Most of the improvement in the safety record of carriers like EVA/Korean / Asiana (yes, feel free to lambast me as a racist, I don't give a
"flying - - - -" ) . . . have come courtesy of the "ease of operation" (in "normal" ops ) achieved by Boeing/Airbus & maybe (just maybe ) a little due to the influx of foreigners in the cockpit - mandated by the insurance companies.

Remove the "foreigners -onboard" & Boeing /Airbus safety net . . and here we are gentlemen "another night in Shanghai". . sorry, politically incorrect it may be, but that is the fact of the matter. Same logic applies to African/Arabic/ Former USSR/ S. American etc etc carriers. . c'mon guys, don't be afraid to tell it like it is. . . . we all have a squint at the carrier when we buy an airticket right ? :hmm:

Yes Air France (OK I will stop there) BA /Lufthansa etc have something on the slate, but it doesn't take a Masters Degree in risk reduction (merely a cursory glance at the accident database of the last 10 years ) to realise that none of this should be either a surprise , or "off bounds". . it sure as hell isn't in any bar-discussion between pilots, so lets stop pussying around & tell it like it is. Oh BTW, what the hell were those "Rednecks" in SWA doing last week ? :D

WHBM

26th Jul 2013, 23:38

the stall and recovery requirement for a PPL...... I don't know what all countries may have changed, but I'm thinking of the US.
UK PPL skill test requires three types of stall, plus of course all the training for these.

It's appropriate to be writing about PPL, because if SFO have taken away the ILS and the PAPIs on this runway for the summer, they have effectively put it back to the level of a grass field - or worse, because my own PPL field has PAPIs. I know there are those on this thread sniggering up their sleeves at others who have difficulty with the approach, but it reminds me of people who despise seat belts in their cars because they feel they are "good drivers".

It is surely inappropriate for the FAA to be making any comment on this, when it is the same FAA's plan for runway works which decided to withdraw the landing aids on this runway for seemingly the whole summer, and then carry on using it as if nothing had changed. Do they really believe that landing aids are somehow a waste of money ?

Finally, if we are going to write about professionalism, we can also ask the SFO fire team how they managed with all their training and world-beating equipment to run over and kill, with a fire truck, one of the pax who had just evacuated from the Asiana aircraft, during their whoop-de-do, gung-ho response to the incident, which I can't recall ever happening at any aircraft accident scene before - see here :

BBC News - Asiana flight 214 victim killed by fire engine (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23385333)

slacktide

26th Jul 2013, 23:42

I don't know for sure, but last time I checked, years ago, not sure how many, the stall and recovery requirement for a PPL, was taken out....Entry into, and recovery from fully developed Power-On and Power-Off stalls is a PTS requirement in the US. Should include accelerated stalls as well, as the base-to-final turning stall is most likely to kill a PPL.

www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test.../FAA-S-8081-14B.pdf‎ (http://www.pprune.org/www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test.../FAA-S-8081-14B.pdf‎)

Task B: Power-Off Stalls (ASEL and ASES)
References: FAA-H-8083-3; AC 61-67; POH/AFM.
Objective: To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits satisfactory knowledge of the elements related to power-off stalls.
2. Selects an entry altitude that allows the task to be completed no lower than 1,500 feet AGL.
3. Establishes a stabilized descent in the approach or landing configuration, as specified by the examiner.
4. Transitions smoothly from the approach or landing attitude to a pitch attitude that will induce a stall.
5. Maintains a specified heading, ±10°, if in straight flight; maintains a specified angle of bank not to exceed 20°, ±10°; if in turning flight, while inducing the stall.
6. Recognizes and recovers promptly after a fully developed stall occurs.
7. Retracts the flaps to the recommended setting; retracts the landing gear, if retractable, after a positive rate of climb is established.
8. Accelerates to VX or VY speed before the final flap retraction; returns to the altitude, heading, and airspeed specified by the examiner.

Task C: Power-On Stalls (ASEL and ASES)
NOTE: In some high performance airplanes, the power setting may have to be reduced below the practical test standards guideline power setting to prevent excessively high pitch attitudes (greater than 30° nose up).
References: FAA-H-8083-3; AC 61-67; POH/AFM.
Objective: To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits satisfactory knowledge of the elements related to power-on stalls.
2. Selects an entry altitude that allows the task to be completed no lower than 1,500 feet AGL.
3. Establishes the takeoff or departure configuration as specified by the examiner. Sets power to no less than 65 percent available power.
4. Transitions smoothly from the takeoff or departure attitude to the pitch attitude that will induce a stall.
5. Maintains a specified heading, ±10°, if in straight flight; maintains a specified angle of bank not to exceed 20°, ±10°, if in turning flight, while inducing the stall.
6. Recognizes and recovers promptly after a fully developed stall occurs.
7. Retracts the flaps to the recommended setting; retracts the landing gear if retractable, after a positive rate of climb is established.
8. Accelerates to VX or VY speed before the final flap retraction; returns to the altitude, heading, and airspeed specified by the examiner.

JRBarrett

26th Jul 2013, 23:45

DozzyWannabee, No, I don't know for sure, but last time I checked, years ago, not sure how many, the stall and recovery requirement for a PPL, was taken out, because the private aircraft industry, thought, if they made it easier, or less frightening, to become a private pilot, they'd be more private pilots to buy private aircraft, so they used their influence, to accomplish this change. I don't know what all countries may have changed, but I'm thinking of the US. Does anyone on the forum have current or more accurate info on this issue? Maybe it's the madness coming back?

At present, stalls are definitely still part of the U.S. PPL training syllabus - power off, power on and accelerated stalls must be logged/practiced in training, and demonstrated on the check ride.

You may be thinking of spin training, which was indeed eliminated from the U.S. PPL training regimen quite a few years ago.

DozyWannabe

26th Jul 2013, 23:45

...because if SFO have taken away the ILS and the PAPIs on this runway for the summer...

I think things have been a bit garbled. As I understood it, the PAPIs were in service until the Asiana B777 took them out. I'd be surprised if they hadn't been replaced before the runway was allowed to re-open.

Contacttower

26th Jul 2013, 23:54

The Ancient Geek

27th Jul 2013, 00:05

You may be thinking of spin training, which was indeed eliminated from the U.S. PPL training regimen quite a few years ago.

Intentional spins were removed from the UK PPL sylabus after the CAA figured out that more pilots were killed in spin training than in unintentional spins. Nowadays training only goes as far as recognition and recovery from an incipient spin. With, of course, a heavy dose of "never get into this situation".

Intentional spins are an aerobatic manoever and part of aerobatics training.

Coagie

27th Jul 2013, 00:27

I did quite a few hours towards my ppl in Europe about 2 years ago and stall recovery was definitely part of the training i.e. you deliberately stalled the aircraft and recovered Una Due tfc, I'm relieved to hear that! I know you did because, how could you forget? Thanks.

perantau

27th Jul 2013, 00:38

Real pilots don't need aids. Real ATC achieve high traffic flow rates. Real airports are for real pilots & ATC. ICAO & the rest of us are amatuers.

Coagie

27th Jul 2013, 00:39

To my knowledge full stall and recovery have never been taken out of the US PPL or indeed any other country's. No idea where that idea came from...

Spin has been taken out yes but I don't think anyone could really argue for its reintroduction.

Accelerated stall is in the US commercial test. Contacttower, I must be mixed up with spin. Isn't that just let go, and it will right itself? Anyway, I remember there was some controversy, and certainly, more students killed by it, than pilots, is a pretty good argument against it. As hard as it is to imagine, stall and recovery being taken out, isn't that far fetched, when you think of lobbiests, politicians, and bureaucrats, are the ones making up the rules! I guess AF447 made me think it wasn't part of the commercial, shake and bake, pilot training any longer. Was it on France's commercial pilot training just prior to AF447?

barit1

27th Jul 2013, 01:00

Coagie:...the airlines had many military trained pilots, who had to meet a high standard, both mentally and physically, to even begin their training, which was vigorous and thorough, especially in the basics of flying. Now, because of demand, and more military pilots staying in the military, instead of getting out to work for the airlines, we may not always get the quality of person, with the quality of training, that we used to get.

Interestingly, just today I heard the opposite point being made on a US network. Sequestration is cutting into mil. flying hours, causing enthusiastic pilots to look around for more flight time. At the same time, US carriers have their crew minimum hours raised from 250 to 1500 hours, thanks to Colgan etc.

Does truth lie somewhere in between? :confused:

Auberon

27th Jul 2013, 01:16

Can we stop with the disinformation regarding the SFO 28L PAPI already? It was in service for Asiana. They crashed into it and it was out of service while the runway was closed. It was repaired before the runway reopened. It was in service for EVA. It is in service right now.

Coagie

27th Jul 2013, 01:28

Does truth lie somewhere in between? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif Barit1, probably, but, even though passenger aviation is getting safer, I think, most would agree, it's from technology, not quality of the pilots. A typical airline passenger wouldn't know Bernoulli's Principle, from Principal Bernoulli, at the local primary school, so they put their confidence in the square jawed, confident and competent, pilot flying the plane, that, they presume, knows Bernoulli's Principle from Principal Bernoulli, and put themselves in that person's charge. They may have to, at times, but, they don't want to find themselves in some slack jawed, mealy mouthed, pimple faced, goofball's aircraft. Humans want to feel comfortable, so, in the absence of the understanding of science, technology, or other factors, they'll go with, who they have confidence in. So the image of commercial pilots, is of commercial importance. No matter how safe the technology gets, as long as the flying public expects to have pilots, that know how to fly, operating the aircraft they are traveling on, human error will erode their confidence in air travel. Otherwise, passenger airplanes might as well be those driverless trains, that take you from terminal A to B to C to D, etc.

Coagie

27th Jul 2013, 01:43

By the way, EVA employ quite a few western pilots so before you lambast Asian crews, just make sure this crew is Asian maybe. Armchairpilot94116, you could be right. Dependence on automation is a worldwide problem in commercial passenger aviation. No nationality or race is exempt. It does seem, sometimes, that some Asian education cultures emphasize rote memory at the expense of intuition, and, maybe, that's where Californian's joke about DWA instead of DWI (Driving While Asian, instead of, Driving While Intoxicated) began. If you just try to memorize every scenerio the vehicle might get into, and the proper response, rather than knowing why this and why that, you're probably not going to be a good driver or pilot. I think it's a cultural education thing, rather than a racial thing, as I haven't noticed it with 3rd or longer generation Asians in the US. Also, I think the Japanese do a good job driving and flying. Maybe it was some pretty good piloting that kept that 747, with the broken tail, up so long, a while back.

junebug172

27th Jul 2013, 01:46

Kids nowadays don't know how to fly visual approaches any more without aids.

The issue is not the ILS/PAPI OTS, the issue is the lack of actual flying experience by these jockeys......

Basic stick and rudder skills then learn automation. Most are learning right into automation and have nothing to fall back on when it fails.

olbob

27th Jul 2013, 04:32

I worked with and flew with Ernie. He and I collaborated on a series of historical aviation stories with my illustrations in " Flying Magazine" in the 70's. We then put them together with some additions into a book entitled, " Ernest K. Gann's Flying Circus" . He was from the old school of crusty and demanding aviators, much like the instructors that I was fortunate to have when I was a student. I can offer prints of all the paintings that were in the book plus many more. I have a website but I don't know if I am at liberty to post it here.

PURPLE PITOT

27th Jul 2013, 04:35

Landed 28R this afternoon. European accent and tail number. Briefed for the visual as per the atis. 1st norcal clears us for the rnav 28R. Next says intercept the radial. (sounds like a vis coming up and we can see the airport). Next says cleared for the vis. Number one (flying), does the "click click, click click' thing, tea and medals all round. Told to reduce to approach speed at about 8 miles. Looks like atc are being a bit more careful if you're not a regular.

Had a good look at the NTSB workings as we crossed the sea wall. There were a number of trucks, but the thing that stuck out was the burger van.:ok:

God bless america.

claser111

27th Jul 2013, 05:52

"Dependence on automation is a worldwide problem in commercial passenger aviation. No nationality or race is exempt."

Yes, the point is that most of the new guys learn to fly in a small cessna up to 200hrs then they jump into the RH seat of a 777, landing once a month after a fully automated approach, A/P goes OFF at 500ft and your job is just to flare to avoid an hard landing!

Take a Cpt that has started his career as cadet in the X Airline on a shiny modern widebody, assuming that after 11 years he has 10.000hrs (900hrs/year) and, if he is lucky, he can land 3 times a month (very lucky) always using full automation...it means 10.000hrs=396 landings...and how many of that are on Visual Approach or manual flight???

In US or Europe usually you start your career flying a small/medium jet then, once senior FO, jump on a widebody RH seat, for your command training you will comeback on a small plane and at the end of your career maybe you will get the chance to fly the big jet as a Captain.

I think this should be the way, the training, the experience and the old school.

Gretchenfrage

27th Jul 2013, 06:52

Dependence on automation is a worldwide problem in commercial passenger aviation

No, it is not a problem. It is an accepted fact. It's all about cost reduction for higher returns and cheaper tickets and each and every remedy to the above fact is instantly rejected if it implies more cost. No one in the driver seats is interested in a solution. The companies want to pay less for pilots, the industry complies with ever more automated jets and the slogans that anything that has a heartbeat can fly it, the regulators are in a tight grip by the politicians that install them, so they blabber whatever being told, the politicians are in a tight grip by the industry that pays them, the media love scoops and airline disasters provide them, the grand public is lured to believe that all of the above defend their interest and they just loooove the cheap tickets.
Nothing is going to happen, no one is pointing at the huge white Elephant in the room. They will all try to pull nice curtains around it, to build a remote little annex room to hide it, install nice little gadgets that helps it eat, drink and take a dump. That's all way cheaper than to train it to be able to live in the real jungle.

Modern pilots depend on automation, we have to accept the fact. They lack the basic training and basic experience the earlier generation had to go through. The industry needs cheap pilots now, so it generates the children of the magenta. Unfortunately the airplanes and the airports are not completely redundant and their automation is far from fool-proof. Evidently a pilot is still needed to fill the eventual gaps. That's the theory. Most of the new pilots can produce such gap-filling to a minimal degree in the sim, were tha program is know in advance and the trainers are from the new breed as well, so they pass even abysmal performances because that's about what they know.

Until the industry can come up with a almost perfect automated solution we have to accept such real life performances we see recently and it's cynicism. It's the calculated risk of todays world!
We can stop inquiring about the hows and whys, everyone knows what's going on, if we are absolutely honest.

moosp

27th Jul 2013, 07:01

Good post Gretch. Five pages of wanderings distilled into the facts of the matter.

TacomaSailor

27th Jul 2013, 07:12

KSAN 27 services 95% of the landings and has only a LOC and RNAV approach. The landing area is about 7950'. As far as I can tell there has never been an ILS available for 27.

DL, BA, HA, FedEx, UPS, DHL, JAL all fly 767, 777, 787, DC10 equipment into KSAN on a daily basis with no difficulty.

I listen to many Visual approaches to 27 on a daily basis.

Why is it acceptable and easily accomplished at KSAN (JAL, DL, BA are all over 10 hour flights) while many complain about the lack of ILS at KSFO where there was almost 4,000' more landing area and no terrain during the approach?

Why is it standard practice to land heavy jets at KSAN with no ILS yet seemingly difficult at KSFO?

I am not a pilot so I guess I am missing something here!

T-21

27th Jul 2013, 07:24

Quoting from "Handling The Big Jets" 1970 ! edition by D.P Davies. "The autopilot is a great comfort,so are the flight director and the approach coupler. But do not get into the position where you need these devices to complete the flight. Keep in practice in raw I.L.S,particularly in crosswinds. Keep in practice in hand-flying the aeroplane at altitude and in making purely visual approaches."

I find it very disturbing that modern pilots seem to have lost basic flying skills and too much reliance on automation and computers . Start on gliders then light aircraft as part of the training you will be a far better stick/rudder pilot.:ok:

fireflybob

27th Jul 2013, 07:28

The dilution of standards is happening at all levels. If you learned to fly in the 1950/60s the vast majority of the instructors were experienced ex wartime military instructors and what's more the basic training aircraft were aerobatic (I know because my father instructed during WW2 and continued teaching until he was 81 years!)

Any new instructors were supervised and mentored by the "oldies" and woe betide if you did things like start the engine with the tail facing towards an open hangar door! When you learned to fly you almost certainly did some basic aerobatics and certainly stalling and spinning before going solo! This produced a much more robust pilot.

Fast forward to today - modern training aircraft are (rarely) cleared for aerobatics, have benign handling characteristics and training has resorted to the "tick the box" mentality with minimal depth of understanding.

IF the airlines want to up the standards we need a "centre of excellence" along the lines of Hamble or Oxford which are not run for commercial reasons but to produce the airline pilots and commanders that the industry needs worldwide rather than contracting out to agencies and then washing their hands of any responsibility. Am not holding my breath!

framer

27th Jul 2013, 07:30

It's not dangerous or difficult to land a jet without an ILS, it gets done hundreds of times a day ( maybe thousands).
It is dangerous to have pilots who don't have a solid background in manually flying aircraft being asked to do it once a year or less. (Ie when an ILS becomes u/s)
Training is the only answer to this burgeoning problem.
Training costs money.
The only solution is to mandate by law that the required training takes place, that way all airlines face the cost and simply pass it on to the passengers without losing any competitive ability.
It's that simple. Installing ILS's everywhere won't help. The same flying skills that carry out a visual approach are needed in other situations as well such as AF447.

fireflybob

27th Jul 2013, 08:11

The same flying skills that carry out a visual approach are needed in other situations as well such as AF447.

Quite - one wonders how some crews would cope with an uncontrollable fire in the cabin and having to land asap at the nearest airport (which has no or minimal landing aids or might even be closed - military?) in day visual conditions.

tilnextime

27th Jul 2013, 08:11

I can only speak for one military branch, but I would suggest that the "benefit" that arrived with some (US) military aviators is the breadth of tasks that they are called upon to perform as compared to what one experiences in airline flying. You didn't "bid" the types of flying you did based on seniority, you had to be capable of whatever your unit of assignment's mission happened to be, day, night (lighted and unlighted runway), IFR, VFR, improved airfield, dirt strip, ship's deck, single aircraft, multi-aircraft and so forth.

Are military aviators "better"? No idea - I've never performed a flight eval of a civilian pilot. Are military aviators required to maintain proficiency in a wider range of aviation and flying tasks? Absolutely.

roulishollandais

27th Jul 2013, 09:13

The industry needs cheap pilots no
The French first Minister just came back from South Korea : Discount to sell Airbuses is difficult, but they may give for free type qualification and a key ring:} Some decades ago they did the same to sell deltaplanes : They organized poor training to do the guy addict, and as soon he was ready the pay the bird, they took the money and the "instructor"/procuror :E was soloing the fool buyer, saying him he was high qualified on this wonderbird. Many crashes followed.
Airbus and Boeing seem to do the same with their crazy autotrim (depending on C*law,trimming for Nz=1 not for attitude/speed) and FLCH/On Des gadgets:suspect:
That is how that crime industry works (Insurance companies help to do the crimes money valuable with raw reckoning...)

A-3TWENTY

27th Jul 2013, 10:45

Why is this kind of incidents more likely to happen in an asian carrier??

Easy.

In Asia QARs are used to punish. If you exceed any QAR parameter, a hard QAR , which in some cases is very easy to happen, you are punished with money, possibly downgraded and still have to lose your face seeing your name published in the company`s web page.

For this reason NO ONE flies manually. 100% of the pilots disconnect the AP , when the approach is full stabilized , between 1000-1500ft.

In China , FO`s are not allowed to be PFs unless when flying with instructors. And it`s not always. Only when they are assigned to. It means they might be scheduled to fly with an instructor without beeing PF because that flight is not an instruction one.

With around 3000 hours , in some companies 2700 hours, they move up to the LHS.

As Captains , they will keep flying only below 1500 ft , aircraft fully configured in an ILS approach. And PAPI.

I can see in their faces when for some reason an ILS is U/S and they have to make a NPA. The stress takes place.Imagine a visual approach !!!

When they are required to fly a visual app , without any aid , they simply don`t know how to do it.

In the airbus they can even fly the bird as a reference to keep the 3º. Not to talk about the lifetime 3º times distance rule.

It`s a complete lack of the most basic skills and airmanship.

I completely disagree with those who say this is an airport fault.

sabenaboy

27th Jul 2013, 13:07

I've written a few posts about basic flying skills which I think would add to the discussion in this topic.

Perhaps you would care to read what I have to say about it.
(Just the opinion of someone with more the 11 yrs and almost 9000 hrs experience on the A320 alone)

Maintaining Manual Flying Skills (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/519908-maintaining-manual-flying-skills.html)
Why would using automation be safer then manual flight? (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/506383-how-many-sectors-do-you-handfly-3.html#post7957170)
Why would flying with automatics on be more cost effective? (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/519746-automation-vs-seat-pants-flying-talking-devils-advocate-so-no-abuse-plea.html#post7956095)
Low time cadets are not dangerous if your airline has a good training department and SOP's! (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/506383-how-many-sectors-do-you-handfly-2.html#post7662835)

bugg smasher

27th Jul 2013, 13:56

the children of the magenta

Very nicely put, Gretchen. That would also be a great name for a rock band, or a SciFi movie, or a....:)

By the way, visual approaches to the 28's require you to be at 1900' at the San Mateo bridge. That's the long metal thingy, just before the airport, going from right to left, or left to right, as you prefer, all the way across the bay, lots of shiny cars going back and forth, really hard to miss, unless your head is buried in the cockpit, or up somewhere else.

SAN MATEO BRIDGE, 1900 OR ABOVE, if you forget all else, at least remember that.

sabenaboy

27th Jul 2013, 14:11

bugg smasher,
Just wanted to let you know that "children of magenta" was not invented by Gretchenfrage, but a long time ago by some guy with American airlines. Since several years this term is commonly used in discussions about auto-flight addiction. Check out this video (http://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjZDjkIjuHGE&ei=UNTzUcSnE47MPYvzgJAI&usg=AFQjCNGtZvUZZJ0ndwrxKCKVV-YcPbKASA&sig2=Ml-U0pSCJEbOLvHRrD1i8Q&bvm=bv.49784469,d.ZWU&cad=rja) if you don't know it already!

BOAC

27th Jul 2013, 14:42

require you to be at 1900' - to avoid misinformation, please note that '1900' to the bridge' is 'recommended' and not mandatory.

safetypee

27th Jul 2013, 19:27

“A Black-Hole Approach Illusion can happen during a final approach at night, with no stars or moonlight, over water or unlighted terrain to a lighted runway beyond which the horizon is not visible. When peripheral visual cues are not available to help you orient yourself relative to the earth, you may perceive the runway to be tilted left and up sloping.
In the example [circa 2003], the final approach fix (FAF) was at 5nm, but to fly a 3-deg flight path the descent should be delayed until 4.3nm.
An early descent from the FAF creates a shallow approach, and if the standard descent rate is used the aircraft will descend below the ideal flight path.
The VOR/DME is 0.4 nm before the runway threshold, thus some effort is required to cross check altitude against range to monitor the approach.
The approach chart used variable range scaling that indicated the DME displacement at approximately 1.5nm instead of 0.4nm, this might have encourage an early descent. The chart did not have an altitude – range table for the non-precision approach.
The analysis considered incorrect FMS programming, an early 3 degree approach, and a deliberate ‘dive and drive’ procedure.
However, none of the scenarios matched the recorded flight path.”

“A long straight-in final. A runway in a remote location, few lights in the local area, but with a town in the distance beyond the airport or to the side.”

Slides 7-10 ‘Understanding Visual Illusions And Disorientation.’ (www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/756.ppt )

For the TEM gurus, how many 'threats' in this scenario?

bugg smasher

27th Jul 2013, 19:50

- to avoid misinformation, please note that '1900' to the bridge' is 'recommended' and not mandatory.

Well, yes, the charts for the Quiet Bridge Visuals do use the word 'recommended'. From the Tipp Toe Visual to 28L however, I offer the following verbiage:

"Aircraft should cross the OAK VOR R-151/16.1 DME (Menlo Int) at or above 5000 and the San Mateo Bridge at or above 1900."

Duly noted the word 'should', is still not as conclusive as the word 'mandatory'.

There are a few very good reasons for this altitude, it keeps you inside of Class B Airspace, which keeps you away from the light aircraft traffic operating out of San Carlos Airport, and it puts you very nicely on a 3 degree-ish glide path. EVA may consider themselves lucky not to have near-missed, or worse. They were not where they should have been.

I leave it to the common sensibilities of most pilots to determine whether this altitude should be mandatory or not; in my cockpit, it most certainly is.

737Jock

27th Jul 2013, 20:56

lonewolf...How one gets that low on approach that close in is another question.

Rather how one gets that low on approach so far out is another question.

When I approach an airport I get dangerously low when I cross the threshold of the runway, about 50ft.:ok:

olasek

27th Jul 2013, 22:51

That's why I'd take a kid with 4 years of commuter flying over a mil guy if I had to choose between the two. I agree. There is no more demanding flying job than scheduled commuter passenger service - frequent takeoff/landings, lower cruise altitudes and operating out/into often marginally equipped secondary airports.

Oilhead

28th Jul 2013, 01:48

FWIW I just landed my bird at SFO on 28L on a visual approach off the Big Sur arrival which comes in rom the LA direction to the south. This has you join final approach at around 10 to 15 miles - depending on ATC

There are no ground based radio aids "up" for the 28's except the SFO VOR. The PAPI's are up for both 28L and R - based on the new displaced threshold.

3 to 1 works great. This is not a difficult approach if you just stop worrying about what mode to operate your FD or AP in. Turn the whole lot off and look out the window. Your PM should be keeping a watchful eye out for red flags...

OH

Capn Bloggs

28th Jul 2013, 02:46

"Aircraft should cross the OAK VOR R-151/16.1 DME (Menlo Int) at or above 5000 and the San Mateo Bridge at or above 1900."

and it puts you very nicely on a 3 degree-ish glide path. EVA may consider themselves lucky not to have near-missed, or worse.
No it doesn't. The bridge is 5nm or so from the 28 thresholds. That's 1650ft for 3°, 1500ft for 3 to one, not 1900. Worse, because it's way above the 3 times profile, the crew would probably be holding the nose up to make the "recommendation", making the subsequent dive for the dirt/water even more challenging. Hardly desirable for those who are not good at visual approaches anyway.

Willit Run

28th Jul 2013, 02:59

Its not a race issue, its a an educational issue. Its a cultural training issue.

When, as a kid you are exposed to rote learning as the norm, it can have its downfalls. Looking at geometry or algebra, or the oddities of various languages, rote learning has its place. Rote learning has its place in emergency memory items.
Aviation is far too complex to throw a rote learned individual into an imperfect world where we have to be very flexible at a moments notice.

99% of the time, they will do OK. Its the final 1% that causes issues. Now, put two of those folks together in the same cockpit...............

bubbers44

28th Jul 2013, 03:13

28L visual to SFO is so easy. No glide slope is required. They had a papi the last asian aircraft took out and was replaced and operative. We need to tighten up our standards so all airlines can perform visual approaches because we can with no problem. Last I flew you couldn't do an autoland unless you had a sterile approach so GS and LOC were protected. We can't slow down our system for the lowest common denominator so they have to speed up. I was landing on 9 at MIA one day and at 50 ft had full localizer deflection because an aircraft on a crossing runway deflected the localizer full left and right so autolands were out of the question.

Visual approaches are easy so either learn how to do them or don't fly to the US. Your choice. We don't want pilots flying into our airports that risk our airlines like last time. United could have been lost if they had crashed slightly to their side instead of the other.

willissimo

28th Jul 2013, 03:34

I don't get it. 50,000 flights a day, 5 million people carried per day. 1,000 deaths per year. 2+1 guys stuffed a VFR approach in a heavy jet after 12 hours overnight flying into a complex ATC/aerodrome environment with no navaids at their disposal on a training flight. Surely this factors into anyone's risk calculations, is it not a statistical certainty? If there was no sea wall they would have missed the runway by 50-100 feet or so, and probably landed just short. Interesting reading, but not many people are above having a sub par day at the office, ask the fire truck driver. Many holes lined up for this one, Korean command gradients, and rote learning/training are just a couple of them...

BuzzBox

28th Jul 2013, 04:10

Bubbers,

Rightly or wrongly, visual approaches are a fast dying art in the long-haul world. It's an area where international airlines of all descriptions need to provide better training. Long haul pilots only fly 3-4 sectors a month (if they're lucky) and simply don't get the opportunity to do visual approaches on a regular basis.

It's very different for you, flogging around in your 737 or MD80 all day, every day, as it were. Even those of us that came from a background where visual approaches were the norm find it hard to stay up to speed after moving to long haul. I can only imagine what it must be like for the poor sods that come through airline cadet programs and never get a chance to develop some of the basic skills you and I take for granted. Unfortunately, that is the way the airline world is moving, and piloting skills & standards are declining in some areas.

Like it or not, a visual approach is a significant threat at the end of a 12-14 hour long haul flight, when you're at the back of your body clock, haven't done a landing for several weeks, and haven't done a visual approach for several months, if not longer.

olasek

28th Jul 2013, 04:24

If there was no sea wall they would have missed the runway by 50-100 feet or so, and probably landed just short.Well, not exactly, the aiming point is somewhere 1000 feet down the runway so they were already that much off. So they could have a sub-par day and land say 500 feet down the runway, or even make it a very, very sub-par day, touch down say 200 feet downstream from the sea wall, the airplane would still be in one piece but them "missing" the runway by over 1000 feet that's pretty extreme, landing is not like shooting darts into a target, you miss or not, landing is a prolonged event and you have multiple chances to make corrections, they never took advantage of them.

Ka6crpe

28th Jul 2013, 04:28

"2+1 guys stuffed a VFR approach in a heavy jet after 12 hours
overnight flying into a complex ATC/aerodrome environment with no navaids at their disposal on a training flight."

Willisimo. All navaids were available except the iLS, which is probably the one that any pilot needed the least in such perfect conditions.

RatherBeFlying

28th Jul 2013, 05:09

In North America, experience is gained flying bush or checks, then twins piston to turbine followed by small jets in commuter airlines with lots of crummy weather in the Northeast.

And guess what: a number of these up and coming pilots end up in fatal accidents along with a small number of passengers behind them.

By the time a North American pilot makes it to a widebody command, he or she has survived the winnowing that has taken out some of his or her aspiring colleagues.

The Asian airlines do not have this pool of pilots who have ( paid their dues / survived lower tier carriers ); so have to use a cadet system if they want to hire their own nationals.

A cadet system can work very well. It does in the military where pilots end up with serious commands in a few hundred hours.

But if all you train is button pushing, that's all you're going to get.

catpinsan

28th Jul 2013, 05:53

777 FMC'S have an option for a visual final along with the option of a pilot specified RW EXTENSION of upto 25 nm. The FMC then provides a path with a nominal 3 degree GlidePath angle working back from 50ft over the threshold. Alternatively the GlidePath angle can be set within a range of between approx 2.5 to 3.4 degrees.

catpinsan

28th Jul 2013, 06:06

. . . And I would venture to add that wide body/longer body airplanes can have a recommended Aim Point of 1500 to 2500 ft.

Capn Bloggs

28th Jul 2013, 06:24

777 FMC'S have an option for a visual final along with the option of a pilot specified RW EXTENSION of upto 25 nm.
Other aircraft do to. But then plop in a waypoint at 5nm and not below 1900ft and the setup becomes a bit messy, especially at night, with the aircraft diving down afterward to get back on the 3° slope.

Check Airman

28th Jul 2013, 07:06

catpinsan

28th Jul 2013, 07:11

Had a dekko at the SFO Jepps. I see what you mean, San Mateo bridge alt xing recommendation. Hate to say it, but slowly this accident is becoming believable in a sense.

epc

28th Jul 2013, 08:44

bubbers44 wrote:

After the Asiana crash into our rocks on approach to 28L at SFO I was called a racist saying Asian airlines should be able to do visual approaches as well as American pilots or be banned until they can into US airports. Now it happened again. If we have another Asian wide body crash at SFO on 28L does that take me off the racist list? Probably not but please do not fly to our airports until you can do a simple visual looking out the window approach. We all can. Why can't you?You would be off the racist list, if you threw some of your righteous indignation at the American pilot that face-planted a 737 in LGA in daylight.

More than 1 of you have said, in one breath, that Asian pilots are awful due to the rote learning education system, but except the Japanese pilots; they are quite good. The Japanese education system is just as rote learning as any country you pick in the Far East. So this rote learning education system is either a cause or it isn't.

stratofactor

28th Jul 2013, 10:15

Quit making excuses for these pilots, “no ILS glide path, cross San Mateo Bridge at xxxx, set up a GNSS approach” blah, blah, blah. Any pilot should be able to perform a visual approach, period. There are two, three, or four pilots up in the front monitoring the approach and any of them can easily say “too low, airspeed, right of course, sink rate, go-around, my controls,” before the situation is out of control.

God forbid, if ATC was giving you a “slam dunk approach” you could always say “unable”.

At least one of the three pilots of the 214 crash observed unstable approach criteria (which are spelled out clearly in their operating manuals), they just wouldn’t speak up or act in a timely manner. I am sure at least one of the pilots in this latest incident also observed unstable approach criteria and didn’t speak up soon enough.

A little extra time in the sim doing visuals and practicing unstable approach calls would go a long way to fixing these problems. We have already seen the results of not addressing the problem.

bugg smasher

28th Jul 2013, 12:46

No it doesn't. The bridge is 5nm or so from the 28 thresholds. That's 1650ft for 3°, 1500ft for 3 to one, not 1900. Worse, because it's way above the 3 times profile, the crew would probably be holding the nose up to make the "recommendation", making the subsequent dive for the dirt/water even more challenging. Hardly desirable for those who are not good at visual approaches anyway.

So, by your own reckoning, 250' above the 3 degree path, 5 miles out, and that's challenging? Requires a 'dive for the dirt/water'?

Not good at visual approaches? You are fired.

Holding the nose up to make the recommendation?

I smell an MS Sim jockey here...

fireflybob

28th Jul 2013, 15:18

I think it is a little disingenuous to compare the Asiana accident at SFO to the Southwest 737 accident at LaGuardia.

If Asian had just thumped it in on the nosewheel after a relatively normal approach I don't think we'd be having the sort of discussion we are having here.

There is a big difference between getting circa 20-30 kts below minimum speed on the approach together with a stall warning having (apparently) missed traditional approach gates compared to a mishandled flare (not saying this is good of course!).

It's not so much the actual accidents but the reasons why each of them happens.

BARKINGMAD

28th Jul 2013, 20:20

The interesting part is WHY…

AF447 THY@AMS LIONAIR ASIANA@SFO & now EVA@SFO.

Unashamedly cut and pasted from posting #2375 on the Asiana thred.

IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE LISTENING TO DOG-TIRED AVIATION PROFESSIONALS?

Reams of speculation about autopilots, autothrottles, PFDs, speed tapes, AoA probes, deck angles, alpha-floor protections and all the other widgets and bells and whistles which help to make the machine safer have filled these pages.

Then the discussion of full automatics versus part automatics versus clickety click "I have control" but somehow the pilot(s) involved manage to foul up bigtime.

My copy of the UKs CHIRP still regularly features flight crews, cabin crews and engineers and ATC operators complaining about the adverse effects of the modern thrusting dynamic push for productivity and stretching and sweating the assets.

I then have to watch the arrival of the EASA FTLs which are even more corporate-friendly than their predecessors whilst having observed the abuse of CAP371 by numerous UK airlines. Not a single pilot apparently on the bunch of Eurocrat http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gifs who've dreamt up this recipe for disaster.

How wonderful it would be to have the contributory cause of these apparently inexplicable accidents shouted from the rooftops as F A T I G U E.

But that will never happen, will it? The elephant in the room will be shuffled out to the yard and those higher in the food chain responsible for such a supervisory regime will retire and sleep easy without the prospect of a corporate manslaughter charge, prison sentence and the confiscation of all their assets disturbing their corporate psychotic sleep!

So carry on discussing trivia like HOW to perform an iexplicable CFIT but on no account give these unfortunate crews the excuse of dog-tiredness where ALL of us have been during our careers. :ugh:

t211

28th Jul 2013, 20:58

Here Here, Spotty Dog well said that man In my view they all need to get back to basic Flying. And also really good monitoring Like we used to Operate In DA & we had our fair share Prangs But that all changed when Dick Spurrell wrote that wonderfull Manual:D:

bugg smasher

28th Jul 2013, 22:50

Will agree wholeheartedly Barking, here in our neck o' the woods, the brand new FAR117 rules take effect in January to address such issues, but, as is the corporate game, lots of pencil sharpening in progress to devise crafty ways around that silly, and ultimately very expensive, bottom-line compromising need for proper crew rest.

That is what happens when you sell tickets from New York to San Francisco for $99. Six hour sector, gotta recoup those costs somewhere.

Still some very gentle folk flying our cabins, but all manner of cringingly entitled 99-dollar yobbos aboard as well to make our collective lives a living, flying hell.

Cap doffed, to the all the cabin crews out there, who willingly put up with this insanity on a daily basis. Anyone wanna hear about last week?

fotoguzzi

29th Jul 2013, 04:08

WhatsaLizad?

29th Jul 2013, 04:33

Buzzbox,

You need to find another career instead of finding excuses for you and your under experienced cadets.

BuzzBox

29th Jul 2013, 04:48

Gee, and here's me thinking the dinosaurs died out long ago...:rolleyes:

ironbutt57

29th Jul 2013, 04:54

slowto280

29th Jul 2013, 06:07

Iron, hear, hear to that!

Check Airman

29th Jul 2013, 06:25

[Not a pilot:] Looks as if the FAA has a quick fix for this problem:

Foreign airlines urged to use GPS for SFO landings - SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Foreign-airlines-urged-to-use-GPS-for-SFO-landings-4692348.php)

Not sure how exactly the FAA is "urging" pilots to do anything. I just checked the SFO NOTAMs. Nothing of the sort is mentioned.

nolimitholdem

29th Jul 2013, 10:27

Approaches are not generally assigned via NOTAM.

I'm guessing the Arrival controllers are clearing a/c for RNAV approaches instead of visuals. Especially if the flights originate from certain overseas destinations.

What's the saying again? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, maybe we better not try hand-flying anymore?!"

junebug172

29th Jul 2013, 12:12

Whatsalizard....yahhh I rather fly with the highly experienced ones...that forget to set flaps for take-off, land at wrong....airports, runways, taxiways, state, country,.....seems nobody is perfect are they, while I find the 777 accident very disturbing, it happens to people of all colours, cultures, countries...incapacity or neglect is an equal opportunity employer..

Not at the rates it happens to foreign carriers. To compare our accident rates to theirs per flights flown - not even close.

Ex:

Asiana 'go-around' rate at SFO raises concern - San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Asiana-go-around-rate-at-SFO-raises-concern-4691099.php?t=4a606d037b47b02379)

sb_sfo

29th Jul 2013, 15:24

With regard to Asiana 'go-around' rate at SFO raises concern - San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Asiana-go-around-rate-at-SFO-raises-concern-4691099.php?t=4a606d037b47b02379)
I find this disturbing on a couple of levels.

1) I believe the Airports Director has jurisdiction over how an aircraft may be operated and parked on his airfield, after they've arrived. I'm not sure if he has the authority to insist that other airlines supply crews.

2) Senator Feinstein has much to answer for in the NSA mess, she should probably keep her nose out of aviation.

3) An international outfit I am reasonably familiar with used to do about 1 G/A per month, with one flight per day into SFO, and at least half of them were due to TCAS RAs due to spacing.

4) I wonder if Asiana has a POI assigned by the FAA, and what is he doing these days? All the boxes ticked on his once-per-month visits?

BOAC

29th Jul 2013, 15:50

If the assumption of RNAV approaches instead of 'visusl' is correct, how are they going to cope with the Class B airspace traffic? Stop it?

armchairpilot94116

29th Jul 2013, 15:59

Wonder what they are doing about this at EVA headquarters. Especially since the FAA is apparently looking at this incident as well.

jack11111

29th Jul 2013, 16:34

I smell an Korean-American bru-ha-ha baking in the aft oven.

WhatsaLizad?

29th Jul 2013, 16:41

Ironbutt,

I said nothing about forgiving those mistakes by US airline pilots nor them striving for excellence in efforts in the future in avoiding seemingly simple mistakes in airmanship and command of the aircraft.

I am equal opportunity in expecting a high standard of pilots from any nationality, race, creed, culture or religion or belief. I have also served in the 3 seats of analog and glass cockpits up to the B777. I am also well educated on the problems of maintaining currency as a long haul relief pilot on the 777.

RAT 5

29th Jul 2013, 17:23

Now I admit I know nothing of the required training or checking of a cruise ship/tanker skipper when being up-graded to command; but I suspect there are some very interesting practical manoeuvres to be assessed. I would expect them to be assessed docking a large boat with difficult tide & wind elements and perhaps at night. All good mark 1 eyeball stuff with a 'touch' for the task. If I was a CP/DFO etc. I would like to think my captains could be put 30nm out on finals, visual, 7000', 250kts being kind I'd allow a DME and I'd expect them to make a CDA to land. I'd also expect them to be overhead 4000' 210kts and make a visual descending circuit with no PAPI's etc.again as CDA. If you can't do the most basic of manoeuvres I don't want you in command of one of my a/c: you are not a true pilot.
Many years ago I knew of such CP/DFO's. I never rose to the lofty heights, preferring training, but I loved working for those guys. Those days are long gone. WHY? Someone quoted the analogy of the trainee track driver and reversing an 'artic' into the loading bay at night after the auto-parking system was u/s. Spot on. Some else quoted that the automatics are there to reduce workload not replace you. Spot on.
It's sad when I met some cadets, privileged, going to the national airline flight school. I sensed their motivation as not for flying, but easy bucks at an early age; a guaranteed easy-ish life with bigger bucks and a luscious pension quite early in life. They would be great SOP disciples, flashing fingers on the CDU, charmers of the cabin crew and pax, and good ambassadors for the company. Pilots when the chips were down; suspect. It made me question the selection criteria. When I read the parameters on an application form for a national legacy carrier it makes me cringe. They're are asking for the wrong people.
NASA says modern pilots are finding difficulties in adapting to being monitors of automatics. One answer might be to change the type of person sitting up front. It is not necessary to be a university wizz-kid, super people manager, to be a pilot. There are much more basic elements required. Have they lost the plot? The training/checking standards need re-assessing, but perhaps there is more to consider.

junebug172

29th Jul 2013, 17:31

Monitoring automation is easy. It's when it fails or does something you don't expect that the trouble starts.

RAT 5

29th Jul 2013, 18:32

Monitoring automation is easy. It's when it fails or does something you don't expect that the trouble starts.

Firstly, NASA disagrees with the first comment, so they are researching other solutions, but perhaps in the wrong direction: the second brings me back to the requirements of basic training, both simulator & LT. Simulator should focus on learning to FLY the BEAST and a bit of operating; LT should be focused on OPERATING the BEAST and consolidating some of the flying skills.

The TQ training and LT training has removed too much of the flying bit and airmanship has all but disappeared. SOP's have replaced airmanship. There needs to be a quantum shift. What will be the motivating factor, and who will bite the bullet?

BOAC

29th Jul 2013, 18:35

The bridge is the logical landmark to prescribe a recommended altitude on a visual to clear the 1500' top, in this case by at least 400'. It is a convenient guideline.- thank you for a detailed post. I agree with what you say, but I still feel the restriction on the 'visual' is unnecessary. I asked a similar question of SFO ATC on the ATC forum but received no answer. I cannot see why 400' clearance is required on a visual but not on an RNAV. The 'assessed' collision risk must be the same, surely?

The RNAV plots 1800 at 5.5 from touchdown, (the bridge is around 5, so logically about 1650 at the bridge) but the visual for some reason asks for 1900 at the bridge. Why?

I actually think the charts are bizarre. A 2.85 slope (RNAV) crosses DUYET (given as 5.7 from threshold) while the ILS (3 degrees) crosses DUYET INT at 1800' at 5.5 miles from touchdown, so one assumes DUYET and DUYET INT are not the same point. Just to make it real fun, the visual suggests I-SFO (loc/DME) for vertical guidance (at 3 degrees, which 1900 isn't) and then charts SFO DME.....:ugh:

Was there some sort of 'recreational' event going on when these were drawn up? San Franciso, and all that.........................

olasek

29th Jul 2013, 18:46

for some reason asks for 1900 at the bridge. Why?
Simple - it is done for noise abatement.
The idea is that if you fly in visual conditions you can endure slightly steeper approach and reduce noise footprint.

BOAC

29th Jul 2013, 18:50

Not what the chart says!

RAT 5

29th Jul 2013, 18:54

Simple - it is done for noise abatement.

If you fly an idle thrust CDA low noise, low fuel, low drag what difference does a hundred feet make. Red herring.

OK465

29th Jul 2013, 18:57

A 2.85 slope (RNAV) crosses DUYET (given as 5.7 from threshold) while the ILS (3 degrees) crosses DUYET INT at 1800' at 5.5 miles from touchdown,

I noticed this also.

If you look at the chart Amendment dates, perhaps the RNAV distance has been updated for the new threshold and the ILS hasn't since it won't be serviceable until 22 Aug.

The 1900' doesn't bother me....but I'm not easily bothered. :)

BOAC

29th Jul 2013, 21:38

OK - Close, but no cigar...... runway lengths unchanged? The 1900' doesn't bother me....but I'm not easily bothered. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif - me neither, except for 'why'?

bugg smasher

29th Jul 2013, 22:18

BOAC, if you examine the VFR sectional chart for the area, you will see San Carlos airport just to the south of the San Mateo bridge. It is a reasonably busy general aviation strip, its traffic pattern altitude is listed as 805' MSL.

1900' puts you a rounded-up 1000' above the San Carlos traffic pattern, which complies with the 3-mile lateral/1000' vertical approach separation criteria.

White None

29th Jul 2013, 22:55

Thanks Junebug for your:-

Monitoring automation is easy
Now that you've explained it, no doubt NASA will publish your studies? OR maybe you mean ... WATCHING automation is easy, which is of course the whole point ;)

aviatorhi

29th Jul 2013, 23:40

I'm gonna say the 90 degree right turn requires more coordination than the 20 degree left turn.

olasek

29th Jul 2013, 23:51

This is not about the number of degrees, it is about how much space/time you have left. A 10 degree turn in this case would not be much easier. If you were a real pilot you would appreciate the difficulty.

bubbers44

30th Jul 2013, 04:48

Unforturnately real pilots are retiring now.

westhawk

30th Jul 2013, 05:48

Every generation has said that Bubbers!

I started out in a /A Westwind and flew via airways, NDB and VOR NPAs by the "dive and drive" method but never got to fly a four course approach. Then I flew glass and GPS with direct anywhere and approaches with baro VNAV. We flew into some pretty fun mountain airports along with the routine ones and often enough in some interesting conditions. Never boring and every flight a new adventure. When you're long gone my generation will be saying the same as you and then it'll be my turn. Then the next guys. Keeps going, progress I guess...

T-21

30th Jul 2013, 05:57

All this about certain heights over bridges increasing the workload. On a visual approach fundamental piloting skills No.1 Am I going to make the runway touch down point ? check height/speed, keep checking back to gliding days. Simples

BOAC

30th Jul 2013, 07:02

which complies with the 3-mile lateral/1000' vertical approach separation - yes, but what happens to that on an RNAV-visual?

White None

30th Jul 2013, 08:56

Lotta talk about bridges on plates various. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I absolutely acknowledge that I may be), but unless at SFO you are specifically told to fly the Quiet Bridge, (Night) or the Tip Toe, there's no actual legal procedural requirement to adhere to any height. Clearly the three times table approach is what one should then do and I've only been "Cleared for the Visual" from a position approximating a decent descent profile but I really think the guys with Micrometers, Slide Rules and Whizzwheels are acting on a false assumption. I Viz approached to 28L a week after Asiana and the ATIS just said Expect Viz Appr RWY 28L/R, none of the CVAs mentioned, although I have on occasion seen/heard it. Thoughts?

Capn Bloggs

30th Jul 2013, 09:06

From 1900' this equates to about a 3.4 degree approach slope, not some unmanageable 'dive' that Bloggs equated it to. Your folks and others do this every week at San Diego....with a 3.5 degree PAPI.

Don't misquote me: I didn't say it was unmanageable. If you have the skills and training, it would be perfectly manageable. You aces can't understand what may have been going through their heads, can you? Bla Bla bla much wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth useless Asians etc etc etc but not much "gee, maybe there were factors which made this hard for them... ".

One possibility is that, if they were using a 3 x profile (or had set up a 3° visual slope in their FMS) then come up to the bridge/5, 5.4-whatever nm and remembered they'd have to maintain 1900ft until passing the bridge, they would naturally have to reduce the descent rate until passing it, therefore going high. 3.4° (OK465's number) is at least 3 whites on the PAPI, going into 4 if they didn't immediately clip that 1900ft step. Is it any wonder they ended up low at 3.8nm, trying to correct back to two whites?

The relevance of San Diego's 3.5° PAPI to an EVA crew would be what exactly? I used to do 400ft/nm NPAs in a jet. Do I get a medal too?

I stand to be corrected on this (I'm on the other side of the world) but another possible factor is the sun. If they approached at 2100 PDT, the sun at that time was about... 3.8° above the horizon bearing 278°. They would have been battling to see much at all on final, let alone the runway or the PAPI.

Bugg, thank you for your kind comments. I've probably done more visual approaches than you've had breakfasts. And I don't own MS Flight Sim.

BARKINGMAD

30th Jul 2013, 13:55

RAT5 posting 121 and later, I totally agree!

Would there be a connection between some of our current woes regarding pilot suitability and that awful day when HR (Human Remains) took over the selection of aircrew, having wrested control away from those who knew something about the profession.

The inmates are running the asylum, and even wore news is that they've got the keys to the pharmacy?!!

Any chance of reversing this awful trend and how do we regain control over what types will function in the flight decks of the future?

SMOC

30th Jul 2013, 16:52

FAA bans visual approaches by foreign airlines at San Francisco airport

By: STEPHEN TRIMBLE WASHINGTON DC

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has banned foreign pilots from making visual approaches to San Francisco airport runways 28 left and right.

The move follows the crash of a Asiana Airlines Boeing 777-200ER that killed three people on 6 July, a low approach by an Eva Air 777-300ER on 23 July that prompted a go-around command by the airport tower, and several missed approaches by pilots of foreign airlines since 1 June.

In all of the recent incidents, the foreign pilots were making visual approaches to Runway 28 left or right. The glideslope indicator that enables a stabilised approach to the runways has been deactivated since 1 June, forcing pilots making certain approaches to fly the aircraft visually.

"Until that [stabilised] approach is again available in late August, the FAA is assigning alternate instrument approaches to all foreign carriers," the agency says. "The FAA took this action after noticing an increase in go-arounds at [San Francisco airport] by some foreign carriers that were flying visual approaches into the airport."

The probable cause of the Asiana 777 crash remains under investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board. It is known that the crew failed to keep the aircraft on the proper glidepath, coming in too low and slow and clipping the main landing gear on the seawall at the runway threshold.

The Eva 777 flight crew also was flying a visual approach on 23 July when the tower directed the crew to fly a go-around. The air traffic controller alerted the pilots that they were approaching the runway at a "lower than normal altitude", the FAA says.

"Go-arounds are important safety tools for both pilot sand air traffic controllers", the FAA says. "They are routine, standardised procedures and can occur once a day or more at busy airports for various reasons."

The glideslope indicator on Runway is deactivated until late August for the airport to complete a construction project at the other end of the runway. The construction is part of the FAA's runway safety area improvement programme.

Read more expert analysis by David Learmount of aircraft accidents and incidents on his eponymous blog

I suppose it's politically incorrect to ban "certain airlines"

Yancey Slide

30th Jul 2013, 17:02

Sourced from "Flightglobal" that got it from some blogger posting on "ProNews"?

Quick check of the FAA website doesn't have this in a NOTAM. I call shenanigans.

TowerDog

30th Jul 2013, 17:06

Probable Hoax..:sad:

4468

30th Jul 2013, 17:08

Read more expert analysis by David Learmount
I couldn't agree more. Definitely a hoax !!

Foxcotte

30th Jul 2013, 17:12

Surely it must be April 1st?? ..... it's not??

Then I'm truly staggered that officialdom seems to saying that foreign pilots can no longer be trusted to fly a perfectly airworthy, fully functioning aircraft on sunny day to a landing at an international airport. What gives? So the only way in which a foreign aircraft can land at SFO is to rely mostly on automation? Isnt this an extreme case of removing the (foreign) Human Factor from (American) flying?

So if I read this right, humans can't be trusted to safely pilot an aircraft, so lets insist on more automation in the cockpit, have the crew to do less and less apart from system monitoring, less hands on experience so they are less capable... anyone else see where this is going? We need more hands on piloting skills - not less.

And before anyone thinks or says it - I'm not advocating training at the risk of passengers, but this is one step I never thought I'd see. Not sure this is the way things in aviation should be heading .... Will be interested to see what develops.

Cows getting bigger

30th Jul 2013, 17:19

Suits me, sir. I'll have an IFR approach all the way please.

Metro man

30th Jul 2013, 17:28

It sounds perfectly reasonable, if an airline cannot train it's pilots to perform a visual approach safely then they shouldn't be flying them. Some would argue if this is the case then they shouldn't be flying at all.

To ensure safety either increase piloting standards or reduce the level to which they need to perform. Obviously the first option is preferable but if not practical then restrict them to coupled ILS approaches on long runways with higher minima and leave the non precision approaches in poor weather to pilots competent to fly them.

BOAC

30th Jul 2013, 17:33

It does smack of exceedingly poor journalism. All ATC need to do is to allocate an RNAV approach and 'decline' a request for a visual. No need for a 'ban'.

Sqwak7700

30th Jul 2013, 18:59

It sounds perfectly reasonable, if an airline cannot train it's pilots to perform a visual approach safely then they shouldn't be flying them. Some would argue if this is the case then they shouldn't be flying at all.

I agree, I fly for an Asian carrier, and ours tries to teach visual approaches using HDG Select and VS mode while on autopilot. They even teach using the clock to time your downwind leg FFS! I'm glad I knew how to fly visuals before I came here, otherwise I might end up like Asiana 214.

The FAA already mandates this for LAHSO, so I don't see it as such a drastic step for them to take. Foreign carriers are excluded from that program as well.

Besides, American carriers rarely get fuel/time saving visuals in Asia, so why should the same courtesy be extended to Asian carriers in the US? When Air China or China Southern check into bay approach, they should be vectored out to 25 mile final, at 1500 feet, just like the Chinese do to all carriers going into Shanghai. :ok:

aa73

30th Jul 2013, 19:22

Couldn't agree more.... Any airline pilot who is not capable of flying a visual approach without autopilot, auto throttles and FDs should not be flying pax. I mean, come on guys! How basic do we have to get? This is embarrassing beyond belief.

Just about 99% of my approaches on 757/767 here at AA flying the Caribbean out of Miami are done visually, and i typically switch off the automation and hand fly them from 10,000ft and below.

You DON'T need Heading select and vertical speed to fly a visual! Just fly the Vasis/Papis...heck you don't even need them, just keep the 1000ft fixed distance markers on the correct point on the windshield and you got it made.

I weep for the profession...

RAT 5

30th Jul 2013, 20:48

FAA bans visual approaches by foreign airlines at San Francisco airport

Surely racial discrimination.

Speed of Sound

30th Jul 2013, 20:57

So are they saying only native Americans can make visual approaches to 28L & 28R? :confused:

junebug172

30th Jul 2013, 21:11

Now that you've explained it, no doubt NASA will publish your studies? OR maybe you mean ... WATCHING automation is easy, which is of course the whole point

No, I meant monitoring.

What exactly is it about monitoring that's so hard?

And I'm still waiting for that NASA report

ExSp33db1rd

30th Jul 2013, 21:37

What exactly is it about monitoring that's so hard?

Knowing, and understanding, just what it is that the magic box is supposed to be doing, so that one knows when it is going wrong - seems like the pilots that we are discussing just "watched" it without knowing enough to correct a diverging glide slope? If you don't understand what the magic box is doing, better to throw the whole thing away and just fly the beast.

Auto-land automation in aviation came along to help pilots land in low visibility, to reduce the number of weather related diversions, I doubt it was originally intended to take over the whole task ?

Bu having said that, I believe Eddie Rickenbacker refused to put auto-pilots in Eastern aircraft, saying something like - these guys are paid to fly, let them fly - until ..... it was proved to him that steady flight control and throttle inputs in the cruise ......... wait for it .... saved him money !!

When you're long gone my generation will be saying the same as you and then it'll be my turn. Then the next guys. Keeps going, progress I guess...

circa 1957. A Nav.instructor once told me that I'd never make a navigator so long as I had a hole in my a**** until I'd been over Berlin with the shells coming through the cockpit as I tried to work out a 3 -wind drift calculation looking through the drift sight. I never had to.

Later, as a Nav. instructor myself, I felt similarly about my own pupils trying to cope with the sextant in a bit of turbulence, but then along came INS ( and now GPS )and they never had to.

A friend lent me an iPhone the other day, couldn't even work out how to make a simple call - but then I rarely have to, little is so immediately important that it can't wait until I get home to my - large button - desktop landline.

But ... if the present, and future, generation of pilots are forced to use this offshoot of Bill Gates' warped imagination, the very least they can do is learn how to use it - properly.

Is that too much to expect ?

I now get new, young, students, admittedly only flying LSA's, who can't even correct an ETA mentally, and have to pull out an iPad, and if I ever cover up the flight instruments and ask them to maintain height and heading visually ........... don't start me.

World's Gone Mad.

QED.

Another_CFI

30th Jul 2013, 22:38

I agree with AA73.

When I teach ab-initio students to fly circuits I expect them to be able to fly a visual approach with no external aids such as PAPIs before sending them first solo. If a student with less than twenty hours of total flying can achieve this then surely professional pilots can do the same.

If not they should go back to flight school.

Capn Bloggs

30th Jul 2013, 23:31

Sunset at KSFO on July 23 was 2026
PDT or PST?

bugg smasher

30th Jul 2013, 23:43

Well, my brothers and sisters in aviation, I personally fly this visual several times a month, and we don't find it an unusual challenge of any kind, in fact, my colleagues at Southwest, United, Jet Blue, American etc etc, do this to the tune of several hundred times every day.

Dare I say, even Cathay has it sorted! :)

What is all this teeth-gnashing hand-wringing stuff about anyways?

Are there no real pilots out there anymore?

Metro man

30th Jul 2013, 23:46

Australian controllers give visual approaches to Australian aircraft on clear days without being asked. Foreign aircraft would be kept on an instrument procedure unless specifically requesting a visual.

bugg smasher

31st Jul 2013, 00:00

- yes, but what happens to that on an RNAV-visua

BOAC, I will make a point of visiting the ATC facility in San Francisco sometime the next month or so, probably a good excuse not to consort with our lovely cabin crew at the hotel pub, which in any case my dear missus would object to, gotta be careful to say the least, see if I can provide some definitive guidance here.

The SFO airspace is intensely complicated, San Jose, Oakland, closely spaced runways at SFO that generate restrictions, resulting in GDP delays of many, many hours, throw all of the GA stuff into that mix, well, it's a dog's breakfast, for lack of a better descriptor.

Standby all y'all, answers on the way.

bubbers44

31st Jul 2013, 00:51

Buggs, going to a visual from an RNAV visual would be very easy unless you can not hand fly.

Capn Bloggs

31st Jul 2013, 02:05

- yes, but what happens to that on an RNAV-visua

Probably just the same thing that happens off the end of an ILS in visual conditions...

Bans? What bans? You guys ever heard of sub-editors?

The article said:
the FAA is assigning alternate instrument approaches to all foreign carriers
which sounds eminently suitable in the circumstances.... and doesn't sound like a ban to me.

bubbers44

31st Jul 2013, 03:25

Ban visual approaches doesn't mean you can't do a full instrument approach.

Mark in CA

31st Jul 2013, 08:21

The FAA tightened up on "foreign" carriers another notch, no longer allowing them to land alongside another plane at KSFO "to minimize distractions during a critical phase of flight."

FAA puts more restrictions on foreign jets at SFO (http://news.yahoo.com/faa-puts-more-restrictions-foreign-jets-sfo-045136447.html)

BuzzBox

31st Jul 2013, 08:39

What distractions? Oh, that's right, that annoying TCAS RA thingy...

VinRouge

31st Jul 2013, 08:44

Is it true that at one stage, certain carriers were only permitted to land in continental USA if they had a western pilot on the crew? Or is this a myth?

Loopdeloop

31st Jul 2013, 09:16

BRE

31st Jul 2013, 09:26

Is this misunderstood PC at work, applying the changes to all foreign airlines? I am sure there are plenty of foreign airlines that have no issues at all with those visual approaches.

Some maybe more sensible ways to still be PC:

- apply the restrictions per airline bases on statistics of past landings
- apply the restrictions on all flights from east Asia (including US carriers) based on the notion that it must be early morning for the pilots' body clocks (whereas it would be around midnight for flights coming in from Europe)

Metro man

31st Jul 2013, 09:40

Is it true that at one stage, certain carriers were only permitted to land in continental USA if they had a western pilot on the crew? Or is this a myth?

I heard the same thing a few years ago, I think it was due to the poor level of English displayed by pilots from certain airlines rather than the standard of flying.

aa73

31st Jul 2013, 15:20

After reading some commentary on our union board about the differences in cockpit culture between USA and some other countries, it is clear the difficulties with the visual approaches are the result of that very cockpit culture.

I read from a colleague in Japan, that visual approaches are not issued over there: rather, a visual approach is an FMC procedure that is required to be flown with remarkable precision - on the magenta line, that is. 1500AGL on downwind. Flaps must be at 15 and gear down at the midpoint. Flaps 30 when abeam the end, and clock is started. Base turn not started until 35 seconds on the clock. Do not descend below 1500 or the calculation changes. Turn trend indicator must align with the extended centerline. At that point, one can finally look outside and make adjustments.

Reading this stuff, it is no surprise then that these folks have a difficult time here in the US with, "Cleared for the visual, maintain 170 or greater to 5 miles, call tower at the marker, see ya."

It appears that the training there tends to focus more on automation, whereas here we are conditioned from day one to "fly the plane" with automation as a good backup. My personal opinion is that some of these foreign airlines are hiring very young/inexperienced cadets and believe that using the automation makes up for the inexperience... Whereas your typical US major airline candidate already has thousands of hours of airline/military/civilian flying.

That said, I must point out that, despite our training differences, we've had more than our share of pilot error botched approaches/landings/CFIT accidents even with all the experience and "hands-on" philosophy. Hence my constant signature line, It can happen to any of us!

Ultra Glide

31st Jul 2013, 15:21

ATC can't force a visual on you. You have to have the preceding traffic or, if there is no preceding traffic, the airport in sight. If you don't want a visual, don't say you have it in sight.

It's a lot of fun to play with ATC if you know how. For example, if cleared for a GPS approach, and it offends you as a professional because you know it is only because you're a foreign airline, simply accept the GPS approach but fly the final approach visually. There's no way ATC will be any the wiser.

Similarly, if you know ATC is just ITCHING to give you a visual, when he asks if you have XYZ in sight, say "negative" and if he says, "report it in sight," say, "Roger," and just wait, sooner or later he has to clear for some sort of instrument approach.

Another thing, if cleared for a visual, there's nothing that says you can't use an approach in your box.

I understand getting all sweaty if you're running out of gas or there's a whole bunch of bad weather all around or something, but sweating because of a clearance??? I don't get it.

If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong.

WhatsaLizad?

31st Jul 2013, 15:38

Unforturnately real pilots are retiring now.

Not quite yet Bubbers, you're going to have to wait at least 16 more years before you get rid of someone who has looked out left in the base turn at TGU to see if black or red beans was being served for lunch, has been dispatched to a VOR and then see if it was VFR to land (no operating approaches), has done NDB to minimums with a circle to land and two runway changes at at a 8500' airport
in a wide body, pulled the power to idle at FL350 and energy managed with a beautiful pass down 7 mile beach until finally adding power to stabilize on the glide path at 1000 afl ( any legal sedatives for you automation lovers reading this? ), and also doing the same with a 777 with the FD, AP or AT.

There is a problem maintaining VFR bfm skills with many wide body crews. Many obviously operate only to places like LHR, JFK or NRT where hand flying is basically very tough to practice safely outside short final. Despite my rant above, I surely never practiced hand flying in the hold at Ockham after being awake all night with a Speedbird heavy above and a Virgin heavy below.

Dunno what the course of action should be in the future,but the status quo much be changed.

Linktrained

31st Jul 2013, 16:44

# 144

" Coming in too low and slow and clipping the main gear on the seawall at the runway threshold ..."

Not yet the official report, but...

Just how frangible is the seawall at SFO ?

IIRC most runways do not have (or need) a seawall but tend to have a flat surface (which one ought not to land on).

Tidal and storm surges ? Someone more local must have information.

IF the aircraft had been "...Too slow..." then the rear fuselage would have hit a "solid ?" seawall, not one which might have been designed to collapse.

( In 1954 a Constellation hit the seawall at Kallang. I expect that there have been others, elsewhere.( Crew fatigue was a factor, then.) And a little earlier it was usual to have a rather primitive version of a PAPI set up for each night-flying detail when using just goose-neck flares.)

Mark in CA

31st Jul 2013, 17:32

Linktrained, not a pilot, but I've landed at SFO many times (live there). Seawall is probably not really descriptive, as I do not believe it is a wall that rises above the plane of the runway. Rather, it is a sloped edge down to the water with large rocks that essentially prevents erosion of the area due to wave motion in the bay. The bay, being sheltered, does not really ever get high waves, but it can get pretty choppy when the wind picks up and the tide is in.

You can see it pretty clearly in this Google Maps image: http://goo.gl/maps/j26Rq

Linktrained

31st Jul 2013, 18:28

Mark,

Thank you, much clearer now. One day I will have a look on the ground ! It was their calling it a sea wall...

Had me worried for a bit.

silverstrata

31st Jul 2013, 19:35

7700:

I agree, I fly for an Asian carrier, and ours tries to teach visual approaches using HDG Select and VS mode while on autopilot. They even teach using the clock to time your downwind leg FFS!

Don't crow too much, the same autopilot-visual is becomming prevelant in the UK too, especially amongst Low Standards airlines. And the entire 'visual' approach is flown on the map display. The problem being that nobody is looking outside, to see the big picture, and the approach becomes more of a video game with no 'reset' button.

Perhaps that is what these crews were looking for - the big red 'reset to 10nm' button.

tony montana

31st Jul 2013, 20:02

we are pilot, so we fly the a/c, anybody unable to do visual, or that doesn t know his pitch attitude, scan, attitude vs distance and visual reference should consider himself unfit to fly.

CFIT is a great threat on the industry but now we have cavok CFIT or CFIT marginally avoid...i give you a advice :mad: look outside what s going on, so easy. I recently had to recover situation because FO doesn t look outside.

no children of magenta, no FD monkeys, fly the a/c everything off every time wx, workload permits on SID, STAR ETC... then the day you will really need it, you will be confident on your skills

if the other pilot say than A/P will do a better job than you... may be but you can tell him that it doesn t mean you are doing a good and safe job.

what will think passengers our passengers if they know thate pratically the pilots at the front don t know how to fly the a/c.

it is everyday challenge to all of us to force us to challenge our hand flying skills, if you don t practice you losose your skills

a pilot is a pilot, it s what we are, it s what we like , let s keep it like this

and please look outside check inside when you are visual

MANTHRUST

31st Jul 2013, 20:07

Silver
UK low standard airlines?
Given your location I wonder to whom you are referring and with what authority!
Maybe you should start a new thread or a fight behind the hangar.

bugg smasher

31st Jul 2013, 21:41

Good practice, in my opinion anyways, at least several times a month, disconnect the AP/AT and fly the approach full manual. I find if I don't do that, the airspeed indicator gradually falls out of my scan, exactly because the auto throttles do such a good job of maintaining it. Human nature, what doesn't need attention, doesn't get it, we form very lazy habits, and do so quickly.

It's clearly a case, especially for the Airbus folks, of taking control of the airplane back from the automatics, and religiously maintaining that proficiency. As trite as this may sound, and as often as you've heard it, it does need repeating; if you don't fly the airplane, it will end up flying you.

To places that have recently been in the news.

Those of you who fly for the Asian carriers, is that even allowed?

Jet Jockey A4

31st Jul 2013, 23:00

At last the FAA are getting it, something SFO ATC and you guys who fly in there regularly don't:
If you send a couple of pilots in a widebody across the Pacific for 13 hours being rattled to death by turbulence so you can't sleep, then send them in high on the glide at 90 deg to the runway, head to head with a puddle jumper for 28R and say cleared the visual 28L, stay behind the learjet 2 miles in front, what's going to happen?
999 times out of 1000, the pilot will get a bit hot and sweaty - it's his first visual for 2 years and only his 20th landing in the last 12 months but he'll get the job done with a landing we can all walk away from. Once in a hundred there'll be a few more holes in the cheese (1st time into SFO / minimal hours on type etc) and he won't. It's the sort of challenge I'd relish at the end of a 2 hour daylight sector but at the end of a long haul it's a significant threat.
SFO have been carrying on business as usual so the regulator have had to step in, it's about time IMHO.
With all due respect to you sir I don't agree with your statement and that of many others that think along the same lines.

The facts are they crashed a perfectly serviceable aircraft short of the runway on a beautiful VFR day.

I do not blame the airport authorities and/or their controllers on the way they manage their traffic in and out of the airport.

I will agree that many factors are probably involved in the crash but most if not all of them are pilot related.

Maybe we can include the “Asian Culture” as a role in the accident (not the first time). Maybe fatigued played a role in the accident although there were two crews aboard for this flight. Maybe we can blame Asiana the company in the way they train their pilot. Maybe we can blame Asiana’s SOPs for not being thorough or stringent enough.

Companies that I flew for had restrictions on new crews (whether co-pilot or captains). You needed a certain amount of hours on type in the aircraft before you were released from line indoc.

You needed a certain amount of time and takeoffs before being able to conduct low RVR takeoffs and the same applied to lower than CAT 1 minimums. Perhaps Asiana should also have a minimum hours on type prior to accepting visual approaches.

In the end the buck stops here… It is the pilot’s decision to accept any kind of approach and in accepting a visual you have to understand the rules that go along with it.

If this new captain on type did not feel right or felt he was under pressure by accepting a visual in SFO and continued on what seems to be an unstable approach with perhaps some of the electronics not properly set up (auto throttles) then it proves he wasn’t ready to man the ship as a captain.

And what are we to say about the training captain in the right seat who let the situation go way beyond acceptable. The same can be said about the third pilot in the jump seat. In both cases was that the “Asian Culture” thing going on?

Regardless if a pilot(s) cannot fly on a beautiful VFR day a B777 to a runway with a functioning LOC and PAPI, then perhaps he should not be flying at all.

At any time prior to the approach clearance if he felt uncomfortable with a visual approach or even after they had accepted it he could have done a G/A and ask for radar vectors back in using an instrument approach (The RNAV GPS approach was available).

Less than 10 days prior to the crash I flew into SFO under similar conditions (not as nice). The choices were a visual to both 28s, a LOC only with PAPIs or the RNAV GPS (LPV) approaches.

In the end because I had only been to SFO a couple of times I told the PNF that I wanted the RNAV GPS (LPV) approach… It was a command decision which I thought was the safe way to go to have vertical and lateral guidance.

To this day I don’t understand why a new and low time pilot on type would not want and ask for a stable type approach like a RNAV GPS (LPV) approach to runway 28L… To me it shows poor command decision.

My only 2 cents I intend to say on this subject and crash.

olasek

31st Jul 2013, 23:19

(The RNAV GPS LPV approach was available).
I don't think typical airliners are equipped/certified for an LPV approach, airlines don't want to invest money in hardware and/or pilot training, so I doubt they could have a GP (glide path) available to them through WAAS-GPS though apparently 777 is capable of generating its own 3 deg. glide path.

But your other points are right on the mark - it is not airport's business to anticipate poorly trained crews who can't execute simplest visual approach. If a crew accepts an approach - it means they accept responsibility to execute it.

Dream Land

1st Aug 2013, 00:08

I like the guys that are proud of themselves for doing the SFO visual procedure several times a month, how bout getting a reality check. The ILS should have been working.

olasek

1st Aug 2013, 00:26

The ILS should have been working.
NO.
There are many airports that accept daily transport category aircraft filled with passengers that never had ILS. This is your reality check :bored:

Capn Bloggs

1st Aug 2013, 00:42

JRBarrett

1st Aug 2013, 01:18

I like the guys that are proud of themselves for doing the SFO visual procedure several times a month, how bout getting a reality check. The ILS should have been working.

The glide slope was (and still is) out of service because there is extensive runway construction work underway, right at the location where the glide slope transmitter and antenna array is (was) located. You cannot undertake that kind of work and keep a functional glide slope system at the same time - it would be like trying to change the oil and spark plugs on your car's engine while at the same time, driving it on the highway.

Even after all the construction work is done, and a new glide slope antenna is installed, it will still take many days, (or even weeks) of testing, and multiple approaches by the FAA's highly-instrumented Flight Check aircraft, before the glide slope can be given a clean bill of health, and the new ILS officially commissioned.

ALL reconstruction work must be fully complete before that can happen. We just went through this very scenario last summer at my local airport, where the ILS runway was extended by 1000 feet.

They did, at least, maintain the functionality of the runway 28L localizer, (the antenna of which is located at the far end of the runway, well away from the construction work), and the PAPI, (until Asiana plowed through the light array and destroyed it.)

The only argument that could be made, I suppose, would be that only one of the two parallel 28 runways at SFO should have been rebuilt at one time, leaving the other runway with a fully functional ILS, but that may not have been feasible, financially or otherwise.

ExSp33db1rd

1st Aug 2013, 01:36

NO.There are many airports that accept daily transport category aircraft
filled with passengers that never had ILS. This is your reality check

Landing a Boeing 747 in the Maldives, ( which is just a runway surrounded by water, after getting off the aircraft you get in a BOAT to your hotel ) at night with the ILS out, was not an experience I enjoyed, and said so - and a quiet voice from the jump seat said - now you know what it's like landing on a carrier at night !!

and how was one supposed to get an ILS into Rwy. 13 at Kai Tak ( Hong Kong ) ? The IGS only got you to a position where you made a right turn, fairly close in, from base leg to final -the rest was VISUAL and MANUAL.

( maybe in the last few years of that airport the Magic Box and Magenta Line and GPS concocted some sort of auto assisted approach - dunno ? )

Jet Jockey A4

1st Aug 2013, 01:53

I don't think typical airliners are equipped/certified for an LPV approach, airlines don't want to invest money in hardware and/or pilot training, so I doubt they could have a GP (glide path) available to them through WAAS-GPS though apparently 777 is capable of generating its own 3 deg. glide path.

I find hard to believe that airlines wouldn't spec out a GPS WAAS sensor for their aircrafts (especially one worth $250M). With so many airports now with LPV types approaches it makes sense to have your aircraft equipped with it but in any case the RNAV GPS approach to 28L in SFO does not require WAAS GPS to do the approach unless you want the lower minimums.

The GPS approach to 28L accommodates both LNAV and LNAV/VNAV minimums too. Although higher than the LPV minimums you still get a 2.85 degree flight path down to the runway... Why not use it to make your approach stable instead of a "dive and drive" type approach?

BuzzBox

1st Aug 2013, 02:00

( maybe in the last few years of that airport the Magic Box and Magenta Line and GPS concocted some sort of auto assisted approach - dunno ? )

Nope, nothing changed in the last few years of Kai Tak's operation. You had to be visual before the turn and the turn always had to be flown manually. No two approaches were ever the same and it was great 'fun' with a howling crosswind from the south!

Capn Bloggs

1st Aug 2013, 02:04

They even teach using the clock to time your downwind leg FFS!
How else do you propose knowing when to turn base? Craning your neck over your shoulder to see the runway hiding under the wing/engine? Or does the FO get the captain to call out "turn now!"

1500AGL on downwind. Flaps must be at 15 and gear down at the midpoint. Flaps 30 when abeam the end, and clock is started. Base turn not started until 35 seconds on the clock.
That is an eminently sensible way to fly a circuit in a jet. Just don't do it on the autopilot. There is little point looking outside on the initial part of the base turn, for the runway at least, until half way round anyway.

I don't think typical airliners are equipped/certified for an LPV approach, airlines don't want to invest money in hardware and/or pilot training, so I doubt they could have a GP (glide path) available to them through WAAS-GPS though apparently 777 is capable of generating its own 3 deg. glide path.
Need to catch up with technology, methinks. LPV is not necessary to provide a pseudo glideslope; any basic GPS/RNAV/RNP-LNAV approach will provide that, and any modern jet can do them. No WAAS required. Crew training and approval is pretty basic as well.

Mr.Bloggs

1st Aug 2013, 02:20

Given the Asiana crew messed up badly, I read some ignorant and critical comments from people who clearly do not fly frequent long-haul. It is much more difficult than other forms of flying simply because of the tiredness and disorientation that is normal after a long night without proper sleep followed by a stressful approach. It is not anything like the same as landing after a 4- hour flight period.

I see some people claiming to be experienced pilots have no idea about the back end of a long haul flight. And as for private pilots, their remarks here are worthless.

bubbers44

1st Aug 2013, 02:59

If doing a visual after a long haul as we also do is so difficult have a second crew rested to do it. We have no problem with a visual so why should you?

Maybe you could have the competent pilots take off, let the incompetent pilots fly the enroute portion and hand it back to the good guys for the landing.

framer

1st Aug 2013, 03:18

I would like to put my name down for the good team please. I bet the B team don't even get invited to the bar.
At the end of the day if every pilot had to manually fly two visual approaches with no Flight Directors or auto throttle at their 6 month sim session, this wouldn't happen. Off you go NTSB/FAA.......make it happen.

olbob

1st Aug 2013, 03:24

That makes sense to me and I am not even a hot shot pilot.

BuzzBox

1st Aug 2013, 03:35

I read some ignorant and critical comments from people who clearly do not fly frequent long-haul.

I couldn't agree more. I don't dispute that the Asiana guys appear to have messed up big time, but I'm betting the NTSB will highlight a number of other factors in their final report, including training, recency and fatigue. Some of the short-haul jet jocks that have commented appear to have little experience outside their own bubble.

It'll be interesting to read the comments the next time a US airline runs off the end of a runway following an unstable approach. But it could never happen, could it? Oh, hang on a minute...

As someone commented on another thread:

We should never become complacent about our operation as to do so is fraught with danger.

Jet Jockey A4

1st Aug 2013, 03:35

In reply to Mr.Bloggs...

"Given the Asiana crew messed up badly",

That's an understatement if I ever heard one.

"I read some ignorant and critical comments from people who clearly do not fly frequent long-haul".

Yes, yes not every pilot flies long-haul... Can you relate to us some of those ignorant and critical comments you don't like.

"It is much more difficult than other forms of flying simply because of the tiredness and disorientation that is normal after a long night without proper sleep followed by a stressful approach".

Yes we know about the biological clock and the circadian rhythm and how the body is affected by weird flying hours going through multiple time zones. Fortunately today's aircrafts offer an environment to help with these problems and with multiple crews flying these long sectors it is better than ever.

As for the stressful approaches well that's why there is that automation to help out (if you know how to use it). Personally I don't think a visual approach on a clear day in VFR conditions is stressful but hey I could be wrong. If I'm tired and don't feel up to par after a long flight, I don't accept an approach I'm uncomfortable with and get vectored in on an approach where I can let the automation do most of the work. Also there is nothing wrong with passing the controls to your mate in the next seat if he feels sharper.

I think a regional pilot flying a Dash 8 or regional jet in the low to mid altitudes in the summer with thunderstorms and turbulence or in the winter with all sorts of icing conditions on a 8 sector day with long duty days for multiple consecutive days in the northeast corridor between Boston, New York, Philly and Washington is a lot more stressful than your long-haul multi crew flying.

"And as for private pilots, their remarks here are worthless."

So only long-haul pilots should have an opinion on this matter. How do you know there are "private pilots" giving their opinions on this subject anyway?

Dream Land

1st Aug 2013, 05:20

There are many airports that accept daily transport category aircraft filled with passengers that never had ILS. This is your reality check by olasek sir, I'm assuming that you pretty much have been operating only in domestic setting (let's not count CUN), and not in a wide body aircraft with a worldwide route structure, that's why I made the rebuttal about short haul guys proud that they are accomplished at the Bridge Visual, of course the are!

BOAC

1st Aug 2013, 06:57

If this long-haul/circadian/bunk rest/lack of 'handling' issue is that bad, we should surely question the whole ethos of the way it is being done? How would the same crew cope with an emergency on finals? Would they be too 'tired' to handle it properly? This problem is only going to get worse as range/flight times increase.

scotbill

1st Aug 2013, 07:15

It is much more difficult than other forms of flying simply because of the tiredness and disorientation that is normal after a long night without proper sleep followed by a stressful approach. It is not anything like the same as landing after a 4- hour flight period. And you think shorthaul pilots don't fly at night? More than one sector? Try Gatwick - Canary Islands return for example.

Few of us can enjoy flying in the dark when the body wants to be in bed - but personally found one sector long haul flying much more relaxed than multi-sector Europe with numerous crack-of-dawn starts.

bugg smasher

1st Aug 2013, 11:32

Proud that they are accomplished at the Bridge Visual?

No, it is a maneuver requiring nothing more than average airmanship, something you should have when you occupy a seat in an airliner cockpit.

There are those of us who work for airlines that have both short, and long haul fleets, and have done a good deal of both in our careers. With a proper sharing of rest and duty periods, given appropriate rest facilities aboard the aircraft, fatigue is eminently manageable.

This argument, in relation to the SFO events, is a red herring.

aterpster

1st Aug 2013, 13:28

Dream:

I like the guys that are proud of themselves for doing the SFO visual procedure several times a month, how bout getting a reality check. The ILS should have been working.

They have a major construction project going on. On nice, clear ultra-VFR days they take the ILS out of service so the workers can do their work, which would interfere with the ILS signals if it were left on.

Jet Jockey A4

1st Aug 2013, 14:17

It seems some on here want a functioning ILS to every runway at every airport where airliners fly into which in my own experience is far from the reality.

In any case and I'll repeat what I said before, at SFO on that day for the approach to that runway there were two instrument approaches available...

- LOC with a functioning PAPI.

-RNAV GPS with LPV minimums for those equipped with *WAAS GPS.

* For those not equipped with WAAS GPS a LNAV/VNAV approach was still available with higher minimums but with the same 2.85 degree flight path down to the runway.

Also mentioned by B777 pilots was the fact that the aircraft's FMS (like many other aircrafts with modern FMS) could provide a "visual" type approach with a 3.0 degree slope.

How many more excuses do you need? They had all the tools at their disposal and used none of them.

Yes there are many factors that lead to an accident but the bottom line here is that 3 pilots in the cockpit of this B777 allowed a perfectly functioning aircraft hit the ground short of the runway on a clear day!

JW411

1st Aug 2013, 14:24

I did a lot of longhaul flying. In my day, there were three of us on the flight deck; two pilots and a flight engineer. There is no doubt that an eastbound LAX to LGW (for example) was sometimes a bit of a struggle but we coped with the time shift etc and always got the job done.

Then they invented two pilot aeroplanes and got rid of the flight engineer. Unfortunately, they had to replace him with another pilot and he as often as not had four rings on his sleeve so was probably more expensive to employ.

Then it had to be sorted out (by the management) "who did what and when" and so company procedures were set up (think AF447) whereby the captain had to take to the bunks two hours after take-off whether he felt tired or not and a complete roster was set up for when the entire crew had to sleep whether they felt like it or not.

It is simply not possible to sleep when ordered to by company SOPs any more than it is possible to order anyone to have 8 hours good sleep before a flight.

Then some airlines introduced a fourth pilot. Speaking personally, this must be a rostering nightmare.

It seems to me that having four pilots on a heavy crew probably results in all four of them being totally knackered at the end of the flight!

Finally, perhaps I didn't read the preliminary report correctly, but did it not say that the guy in the left seat of the Asiana 777 reported to the airport six hours before departure? Why? I can understand two hours but this chap must have been buggered before he took the park brake off.

Toruk Macto

1st Aug 2013, 14:45

There are many more pilots flying wide bodies today that can't really fly . Its just reality of the way the industry has gone .

JammedStab

1st Aug 2013, 15:17

Is it possible that this visual approach stuff is just a red herring. I am wondering if these are cases of instrument approaches(regardless of what the clearance was) that happened to have been flown in visual conditions and errors were made, but the same errors would have happened regardless of the weather.

gwillie

1st Aug 2013, 15:51

Similarly, if you know ATC is just ITCHING to give you a visual, when he asks if you have XYZ in sight, say "negative" and if he says, "report it in sight," say, "Roger," and just wait, sooner or later he has to clear for some sort of instrument approach.
That's a pretty professional way of going about business...Not

True.

But...........proof positive that "new-age-workarounds" ARE the order of the day!

A quite frightening 'epiphany' for those of us in the back rows, frankly.

armchairpilot94116

1st Aug 2013, 15:59

Just a little reminder that Asian airlines employ a lot of western pilots . So that KAL 747 could've been flown by a western pilot. The erring EVA flight could have been flown by a western pilot. My last EVA 77W landing at SFO , the Captain was most definitely western.

Many are inner racists with the Asians can't fly (possibly because they can't drive either) belief. And no doubt there are many Asians who should not be doing either. But don't forget there are many western drivers and pilots who perhaps shouldn't as well.

There are many cases of western pilots who stuffed it up. Just as many as there were asian ones who did the same.

To recap the Asiana crash seems to have been a case which included:

1. Pilots who thought they were able to land on a beautiful windless day onto a long runway visually, but in fact were proven to be unable to do so. Possibly because of:

a. fatigue
b. lack of training in doing a visual
c. lack of real time practice doing visuals
d. lack of knowledge of the aircraft systems and operation at critical stages
e. company policy dis-allowing hand flying except the last 500 feet.
f. and let's add this one for the ones who believe this happened simply because they were ASIAN (shame on you).

2. The EVA crew who were generally agreed to be way too low? We can cut and paste the above from a to f.

But it could be that the pilots of today are often much less capable at hand flying then before and are less able pilots, many of them. Due to lack of proper training and/or lack of practice?

They are becoming like BART train operators who just watch and don't actually operate the trains perhaps.

Check Airman

1st Aug 2013, 17:18

Armchair,

How does one not get trained to do a visual? I thought that was covered in PPL lesson 1?

I can accept that one needs to learn energy management on each new type. That would require some experience. However their problem was not energy management. They failed to look at the runway and the ASI. Planes get vectored in high and fast all the time, without landing short.

The facts as they are today, point to gross negligence on the parts of the flying pilots. That's the sort of mistake I'd expect a 20hr student pilot to make before solo. Not 20,000 hrs worth of "pilots".

island_airphoto

1st Aug 2013, 19:15

"And as for private pilots, their remarks here are worthless."

Well I am not now a private pilot, but when I was I flew out of an airport with a seawall - still do actually - and did not ever hit the thing. When I got my commercial I continued on not hitting it ;)

olasek

1st Aug 2013, 19:28

sir, I'm assuming that you pretty much have been operating only in domestic setting (let's not count CUN), and not in a wide body aircraft with a worldwide route structure, that's why I made the rebuttal about short haul guys proud that they are accomplished at the Bridge Visual, of course the are!
Sorry, little of this makes any sense to me. What long haul/short haul domestic/international has anything to do with inop ILS. Inop ILS (or just GS) is fact of life in pilot's life, they knew about it before they even took seat in the cockpit, when another Korean crew crashed in Guam in 1997 and GS outage was a real big factor there (IMC, instrument approach, etc.) NTSB did not come out pointing finger at the airport - how dare you Mr.Airport depriving those brave pilots of such a valuable tool.

island_airphoto

1st Aug 2013, 19:40

I think the point was long-haul pilots are liable to be half-awake and need to let otto do the flying.

Seriously - if you really are rusty and half-awake, UNABLE is a magic word to use at least in the USA.

Gegenbeispiel

1st Aug 2013, 19:43

No, it doesn't seem extensively automated.

There is no yoke on Airbuses at all, they used sidesticks and there is quite a bit of handflying in this clip. If I understand it right, they disable the autothrottle and handfly power towards the end of the approach.

Do correct me if I'm wrong.

Capn Bloggs

1st Aug 2013, 23:35

bubbers44

2nd Aug 2013, 00:14

All ATP and lower check rides require the pilot to do a precision approach, a non precision approach and a visual approach with no electronic guidance. Anybody that can't fails. This is of course at least one with an engine out. At least one engine out ILS is always hand flown in our country along with the visual approach. We do this to make our aviation safe with qualified crews.

We should not exempt foreign airlines because they can't meet these minimal standards. Every pilot flying an airplane should be able to do this easily.

The FAA requiring foreign carriers to not do visual approaches is unfair to the airlines that meet these standards but how do we determine which airlines can and which can't?

We have been shown which can't but I know of a lot of foreign carriers that can meet these standards easily.

Check Airman

2nd Aug 2013, 06:32

The facts as they are today, point to gross negligence on the parts of the flying pilots.
You blokes still don't get it. Do you really think they either crashed into the wall/got very low because they were slack or couldn't be stuffed trying harder, or were p1ssed? Of course not! Their performance was the result of the training and checking they they had been through. You of all people (being a Check Airman?) should understand that.

They had probably done the absolute minimum hours as a bugsmasher pilot. A Cessna visual is nothing like a 777 visual. Of course the principles are the same, but then so is your Corolla and an F1.

They need far more sim training/line experience doing visual approaches or they get banned for these operators.

Firstly, I'm not a check airman, that's just a screen name. From what I recall of my initial training, I did one, maybe two visuals in the sim. The rest were on the line.

I don't know how the airline training is at fault when an airline pilot can't recognize and recover from a low and slow situation. At a bare minimum, they had the following tools at their disposal:

PAPI
DME
FMS distance
FPA
Altimeter
ASI trend vector

With the information they had available, 100hr pilot would probably experience information overload. Are people suggesting that a VISUAL approach is a difficult task with all that information?

We've all been unstable on final before. We've also all been low and slow at some point. I'm not knocking them for that. What's unacceptable is their inability to recognize and recover from the situation in an airplane with all the bells and whistles functioning normally.

Capn Bloggs

2nd Aug 2013, 08:24

I don't know how the airline training is at fault when an airline pilot can't recognize and recover from a low and slow situation.
Flying aeroplanes is like bringing up kids. You have to train them, then let them consolidate, then practice. If they don't get any of those, they will burn themselves on the toaster, never get their algebra right, scare or kill themselves crossing the road. Post after post after post on Prune about the lack of training and on-going experience in visual approaches in some airlines show that at least one of those requirements are not being met by some operators.

You hit the nail on the head when you said:
The rest (meaning Vis Apps) were on the line.

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole thing is appalling but until the Children of the Magenta running these outfits see sense and actively allow training in manual/raw data/handflying, in the SIM if necessary, we'll see more of these types of prangs. As for the possible banning of visual approaches, companies can run but they cannot hide. The wheels will fall off eventually and people will get hurt.

root

2nd Aug 2013, 09:37

a. fatigue
b. lack of training in doing a visual
c. lack of real time practice doing visuals
d. lack of knowledge of the aircraft systems and operation at critical stages
e. company policy dis-allowing hand flying except the last 500 feet.
f. and let's add this one for the ones who believe this happened simply because they were ASIAN (shame on you).

Another point is probably the incredibly punitive actions that will follow when pilots screw up the approach.

Punitive action or negative training leads to pilots sticking to the SOP for dear life in fear of being blamed or punished for any potential error that could be traced back to not following the SOP 100%.

Your point e. is major contributor. If pilots ignore that and the OFDM shows they disconnected at 10,000 feet and ended up in a go-around the blame will be put squarely on them. Maybe all the way up to demotion or dismissal.

In my opinion this is always overlooked. People make mistakes because they try to stick to SOP's up to the point where they enter a situation where the SOP can no longer save you.

I've seen negative training in all layers of my flight career and it is slowly destroying good pilots everywhere.

framer

2nd Aug 2013, 10:14

With the information they had available, 100hr pilot would probably experience information overload. Are people suggesting that a VISUAL approach is a difficult task with all that information?

If you haven't done one in a long long time, it can be challenging because you are out of practice. Trying to use too much information is part of the problem.
At the end of the day it would be a walk in the park if they ( visuals) were practiced every now and again. If the pilots regularly had to arrange a message from their brain to be sent to the hand that's on the thrust levers that would become instinctive as well. Constant use of automatics removes the instinctive element that those of us who hand fly have.

millerscourt

2nd Aug 2013, 10:29

I have operated into SFO many times from Seoul when with SQ and usually with just one Captain and two F/O's and with the other Captain who is required for the return sector ( because of the winds ) sitting in First Class enjoying his meals and Champagne. Sometimes that was me other times it was the other Captain.

The two F/O's took turns in the bunk but I if the operating Captain had to sit there the whole flight.

Why I hear you ask was the other Captain not sharing the flying as he was on board?? Simple because if not operating he would be on 50% Flight Pay so SQ saves a few bucks.

CXHep

2nd Aug 2013, 13:59

millerscourt,

I am just an interested observer of this thread, but your post was so intriguing to me that I had to comment. I hope you don't mind.

You say that the other Captain, who would be required for the return sector would be in First "enjoying means and Champagne". Wouldn't it be prudent for that Captain, even if not part of the operating crew, to abstain from the alcohol? The logic of this to me seems to be that even though he wasn't operating, if anything did occur, I imagine that the operating crew would value his input up front. And also, that he himself having a vested interest in the safe conduct of the flight, would want to be in a position to do that. Or have I just missed some sarcasm?

I want to add again that I am an interested observer and I am not, nor ever will be a qualified pilot.

Thanks. :O

MissedApp

2nd Aug 2013, 13:59

don´t know if they calculated manually, ever thought about that they simply mixed up 3 degrees GS with 3%? Would fit quite well:
regular GS at 3,8NM= 1.200 ft agl
3% GS = 693 ft agl
:eek:

millerscourt

2nd Aug 2013, 14:45

CXHep

Aircraft these days are designed as two crew so only two crew are required ie a Captain and a First Officer.

Extra crew are only required for those flights over a certain length of time.

The extra Captain was a passenger the same as everyone else on board. No doubt in an emergency he might be required to have an input as in the DC10 crash some years ago but that would be unofficial.

Most flights under 12 hours only have two crew so they have to be capable of sorting things out themselves.

I believe in this SFO incident there were four crew in the cockpit as was the case with an EK A340 at Melbourne some years ago so extra numbers do not always equate to extra safety.

BOAC

2nd Aug 2013, 14:55

millers - was this 'Captain' on a rostered duty or travelling at his own expense, and did your company have any restrictions on alcohol consumption on duty?

millerscourt

2nd Aug 2013, 15:03

BOAC

Daft question. Of course he was not travelling at his own expense. He was positioning as you well know for a duty some 48 hours later.

I should have added that said positioning Captain would position all the way straight through to SFO from Singapore so by the time he got to hotel in SFO he had been on the go for almost 24 hours .The operating Captain started at Seoul having night stopped there.

millerscourt

2nd Aug 2013, 15:41

Claybird

I doubt if any Airline allows jump seating flight deck crew to consume alcohol.

West Coast

2nd Aug 2013, 15:51

Clay bird

My read of 91.17 wouldn't prohibit a crew member who is being positioned for a flight a few days away from knocking one back.Obviously the airline can place restrictions on such if they choose but from a regulatory standpoint I see no issue.

Would I drink, no. If I was in a position to write my companies policies, I would prohibit consumption.

MPN11

2nd Aug 2013, 16:07

I hate to interrupt a good rant, but was it possible that the dead-heading Captain wasn't type qualified?

Rhetorical question only, no response needed. ;)

Metro man

2nd Aug 2013, 17:22

Being in uniform in the cabin and drinking alcohol might not go down too well with management.;)

HeliStudent

2nd Aug 2013, 18:11

If the ILS is inoperative and there are no VASI's at SFO couldn't the pilot simply use the radio altimeter to maintain a safe height until over the threshold?

olasek

2nd Aug 2013, 18:30

If the ILS is inoperative and there are no VASI's at SFO couldn't the pilot simply use the radio altimeter to maintain a safe height until over the threshold?
It could but why? Barometric altitude is as good (and better in many cases). And it was said before - 777 avionics can generate its own slope displayed on the PFD.

golfyankeesierra

2nd Aug 2013, 18:34

The two F/O's took turns in the bunk but I if the operating Captain had to sit there the whole flight
What's the use of augmenting a crew when one crew member is up front the whole trip?
Surely the max FDP will not increase without any rest?

The Range

2nd Aug 2013, 18:39

millers,
There is no need to call this man an idiot. Don't you think?

bubbers44

2nd Aug 2013, 20:56

As I recall flights under 12 hrs require a captain and two FO's. Over 12 hours it is two captains and two FO's. Sounds like the eastbound tailwind flight did not require the second captain so if he was out of uniform could drink. Both captains were required on the return flight because of headwinds and the captain on the eastbound flight had to take his break to stay under 8 hrs.

bugg smasher

2nd Aug 2013, 23:11

As has been pointed out so many times on this thread, there is absolutely no reason why an Asian pilot can't perform a reasonably easy visual to a large airport in good weather. It is a question of training, exposure, and repeated practice.

If fault may be found, then it certainly lies with the training departments of the various carriers who have been having problems at SFO. Off with their heads I say, get some seasoned IP pilots with solid experience in there, do away with the political appointments, the favoritism, nepotism even, that drives the dismal selection process to these positions.

bubbers44

2nd Aug 2013, 23:42

I see the foreign airlines are now required to do a full ILS approach and no visuals. Also they have to be staggered so they are not next to the AC on the parallel runway. Sorry all you Euopean airlines that know how to fly. The weak link has caused our FAA to respond to the Asian errors landing at KSFO. Hopefully they will learn how to do a visual approach so we can go back to normal ops. I know, it is unlikely.

bugg smasher

2nd Aug 2013, 23:47

Costing us a huge amount of money in delays, methinks those costs should be absorbed by someone else, go land at another airport, let us know when you're ready to rejoin aviation, :ugh:

BuzzBox

3rd Aug 2013, 00:11

Culture is another significant factor in understanding how these events occur. A great deal of research was conducted by Robert Helmreich, Ashleigh Merritt and others at the University of Texas in the 1990s and early 2000s. Today's CRM, Threat & Error Management and LOSA all arose out of work conducted at the University of Texas.

The following link is good reading for anyone interested in learning how culture influences safety in the cockpit:

http://aireform.com/wp-content/uploads/20001018..-Culture-Error-CRM-by-Helmreich-et-al.pdf

WhatsaLizad?

3rd Aug 2013, 00:14

Ok,

This thread is getting a little out of hand. Some of the comments are inane and reflect a curious and a well meaning interest in the subject.

But enough is enough.

My humble suggestion is that any potential poster first read the title of this website at the top of the page. PPRune, "Professional Pilots Rumour Network".

If you don't fit that description, or are a mechanic/engineer, dispatcher or directly involved in commercial aviation or a field related to it, you should direct your questions and comments to the Misc forums of "Self-Loading -Freight" or the "Spectators Balcony". As a commercial pilot who has flown as Captain, First Officer, Relief Officer and Flight Engineer, PPrune used to be a great place for pilots worldwide to discuss operational issues from a perspective of many cultures and countries. It has become almost as worthless as a Yahoo chatboard.

At a minimum, threads on subjects like incidents and accidents should have two. One for actual pilots and others close to the subject and others who are just interested in flying. For me, it has gotten very old trying to sift through pages of endless comments to find the valuable posts of those knowledgable on the subject matter.

Thank you

AtomKraft

3rd Aug 2013, 01:09

If you cannot fly a visual, retire.

(11,000 hours on regional operations)

TRF4EVR

3rd Aug 2013, 02:58

Gosh, ya think? It amuses me no end that there's a huge banner-ad for "multi-crew licenses" as I read this thread. That seems like the solution to the inability to fly a freaking kite! We really are in Negativeland now, aren't we?

Capn Bloggs

3rd Aug 2013, 05:27

If fault may be found, then it certainly lies with the training departments of the various carriers who have been having problems at SFO.
Good to see you've changed your tune somewhat. Now we can think about addresssing the real problem instead of shooting the "messengers".

millerscourt

3rd Aug 2013, 08:49

bubbers44

What you recall may be the case under FAA rules or whatever but in SQ the Captain remained in the LHS the whole of the flight eastwards, ie over 8 hours as First Officers were not allowed to sit in the LHS as they were not qualified to do so.

In the Air France accident the Captain was in the bunk with the two F/O's in control ( well not so as it happened)

allthecoolnamesarego

3rd Aug 2013, 10:35

West coast,

What is the problem with deadheading crew, not in uniform, operating more than 12 hours after paxing, having an alcoholic drink whilst paxing?

Not trying to take the :mad:, just seriously curious

bugg smasher

3rd Aug 2013, 13:38

How's that 'dive for the dirt/water' working out there, Bloggs? :)

Capn Bloggs

3rd Aug 2013, 13:57

How's that 'dive for the dirt/water' working out there, Bloggs? :)
Ha! The rest of the world has lambasted you yanks for Dive n Drive, but I think getting a itsy bit low and drivin' her in for the last 1/2 mile or so makes a lot of sense; get below the cloud and go-around at the aid. Best chance of getting in! Better view of the whales for the punters, too... :ok: :}

West Coast

3rd Aug 2013, 15:39

Cool name

There isn't, at least here. The FAA in 91.17 would seem to allow it.

I'm just of a differing opinion.

bugg smasher

3rd Aug 2013, 21:58

Lot of opinions on that Bloggs, I cut my teeth on drive n' dive, that was the way things were done not so long ago. With the advent of FMS generated glide slopes, the stabilized 3 degree approach became the recommended way of doing things.

Pluses and minuses, everything is a trade off. Arriving at the MAP on a three degree path doesn't really give you much time to evaluate the approach environment, visually speaking, when the weather is at absolute minimums.

Drive n dive allows you to get beneath it all, but it brings you frighteningly low, a very long way from the airport. Many mates of mine have had their BBQ parties disrupted by the jet blast from a DnD heavy at low altitude, the sheer affrontery of it all, guess they shoulda picked somewhere else to live. :) Tends to deflate the Soufflé, if ya get my drift.

In any event, I work for an airline that publishes recommended practices, as opposed to must-do SOP's. We recognize cockpit authority, that which is vested in the Captain, Capitol C, which will not be usurped by the desk jockeys, in any way, shape, of form.

Standard wisdom Bloggs, as long as yer safe, and bring the metal home, whichever way you choose to do it, nobody will bother you.

**** it up, God Speed.

bugg smasher

3rd Aug 2013, 22:45

Btw, for all youse captain exactos out there, it's not 'drive n dive', it's 'dive n drive' just way too lazy to correct my post, sorry. :cool:

FERetd

4th Aug 2013, 15:55

bugg smasher, Quote " Drive n dive allows you to get beneath it all, but it brings youfrighteningly low, a very long way from the airport" and

" In any event, I work for an airline that publishes recommended practices, as opposed to must-do SOP's. We recognize cockpit authority, that which is vested in the Captain....."

I wish you would let us know who you fly for - so that I could avoid flying with your company.

Recommended practices as opposed to SOPs???? Now that leaves a lot of second guessing as to who is going to do what next.

Surely the object of a Non-precision approach is to arrive at the MAP and MDA at the same time, i.e. a constant descent and not dragging the aircraft in frighteningly low (and slow). Then, not much to evaluate at the MAP really, see the lights, continue - don't see the lights, go around. Or is that only a recommended practice in your Company?

I don't much enjoy being frightenened in an aeroplane, not as a passenger nor even before I retired.