Do We Have a Stable Approach?

[JohnMcGhie]

Shot down in flames: the dangers of the blame game | Flight Safety Australia (http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2015/11/shot-down-in-flames-the-dangers-of-the-blame-game/)

[Lonewolf_50]

A most excellent article, thanks for the link.

The internet does indeed lend itself to the crowd or mob mindset.

[MrSnuggles]

Very interesting article. Internet really brings out the worst in people.

Maybe better suited in Jet Blast though?

[JohnMcGhie]

A question I wrestled with.

Jetblast is a place where people who like to flame each other can have at it. I think (my humble opinion...) that the people in Jetblast know what they are doing, and more important, then know when and where not to. That's why they are in Jetblast.

But in here, I think we have a problem. In here, I know for a fact that highly experienced and senior flyers don't come in. Yes, I could quote names, and no, I am not going to...

I don't think it's because they are 'scared'. I suspect they think we're a rowdy bunch of idiots, in some cases incapable of disagreeing without becoming disagreeable.

By all means, move the link to JB if you think it would do more good there. You might be correct!

[ATC Watcher]

Excellent article , and most of us long timers in this Forum have seen some of the examples mentioned
Every time a person shames another, they’re implicitly declaring, ‘I would never be that stupid, careless or heavy handed’.
It is also a self preservation mechanism in aviation. By declaring we would have done différently, we can deny the consequences and continue to fly.

Re jet Blast , at the begining it was very funny, even sexy with superb stories (like those of the famous " I Follow snails trails" posts for those old enough to remember) Sadly the forum changed and what is described in the article set in , that is why many left , including me.

[Lookleft]

A very good article and it describes why a lot of pilots I fly with say they don't bother looking at Pprune. Of all the different forums it seems to me that the two Australian centered forums are the worst.

I noticed at the bottom of the article there is a comment from someone posting a link to another aviation based bulletin board. If you want to see a prime example of what the article is referring to then click on the link. The site is used to harass and bully anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view even if people post on Pprune or Ben Sandilands blog. There is one individual who will post the most vile of comments if he/she thinks they know your identity.

Of course a lot of teenagers would know that the Internet is the cowards preferred method of harassment and bullying.

[Check Airman]

I was lost at the first paragraph. What's wrong with discontinuing a takeoff, and why would one necessarily report it to the authorities?

[no_one]

I was lost at the first paragraph. What's wrong with discontinuing a takeoff, and why would one necessarily report it to the authorities?

I can't decide if you are being cleverly ironic or are serious. If you are serious have a read to the end of the article and decide if you need to be so quick to criticize.

[G0ULI]

PPRuNe does at least have the benefit of moderators who do intervene when posts "cross the line".

A lot of the points made apply to any specialist forum on the internet, where long standing members become fed up with the constant repetition of trite queries that could have been answered with a quick Google search.

If you cannot be bothered to do some research before hand, how can you possibly benefit from a detailed technical explanation if you don't know the basics?

PPRuNe is one of the best sources for technical discussion available on the internet. Like all internet sources, it works best when you have sufficient background knowledge to know what you don't know, and when to accept the opinions of those who are better informed than yourself.

[Wizofoz]

I can't decide if you are being cleverly ironic or are serious. If you are serious have a read to the end of the article and decide if you need to be so quick to criticize.

Umm....do you see any irony in this reply in a thread regarding that article??

[n5296s]

+1 for CheckAirman. I've never had a rejected takeoff, but if I did, say because I was unhappy with the engine performance, there's no reason I'd report it. Not unless it met the criteria of NTSB 830, basically death, serious injury or damage exceeding $25000. Even a blown tire or other real failure comes nowhere close, in itself.

Maybe there is more to this story, I have no idea.

[peekay4]

Same here Check Airman, I had the same question, the article isn't very clear?

Perhaps the abort resulted in an overrun, or had some other type of off-runway excursion, or impacted something during the abort? Even then these aren't required for reporting usually.

There's a phrase in the article ("Although there was no visible damage...") which made me think that the plane either left the runway or impacted something.

Otherwise I was puzzled about the reporting requirement and the viciousness of the responses, unless the rules are different down under...

[Smilin_Ed]

I've had multiple aborted takeoffs. A couple of malfunctioning engines, an airspeed indicator not registering, and one on the catapult (before the shot) requiring that several other planes in line behind me to be towed out of the way so that I could taxi out of the way. Big Deal :ugh:

There has to be more to the story but is sure is not in the article.

[ironbutt57]

It would depend on what is specified as an MOR in the operator's manuals, as required by their regulatory authority..

[PCTool]

I think Internet forums encourage people to let fly with their opinions and the fact that you are more or less anonymous makes people think they can say whatever they like. The dangerous thing is that things said in forums can be taken as fact. And also, people who know nothing about anything, can post stuff online. There is no accountability. So, it's like reading newspapers; you have to know how to read between the lines.

[G0ULI]

Pure guess here (in line with the article!).

Judging by the frequent occurance of undercarriage collapses and damage in air accident reports, this aircraft may well have suffered hidden damage that caused a collapse at a later date, or expensive remedial work when it was discovered during a subsequent service.

The "no visible damage" remark is probably the crucial clue.

Just one of those things, but the lesson here is that if you have a heavy landing or a rough aborted takeoff, then it should be reported and the aircraft checked. Too many people get killed through embarrassment, or shame.

[Wizofoz]

Note this was a C206- a fixed gear, piston engine single.

An aborted take- off in such an aircraft is no might deal, and there'd be zero reason to suspect damage.

[AtomKraft]

The last three pilots who did an aborted takeoff while working for BA CityFlyer, at London City Airport- were sacked.

Maybe no big deal to some on here, but a bigger deal to them.

[peekay4]

AtomKraft this appears to be about a student pilot aborting takeoff on a Cessna with his instructor on board... not exactly an equal comparison to BA CityFlyer commercial ops?

[AtomKraft]

Peekay
I hadn't bothered reading the original article, when I posted- but I've read it now.

My comment stands.

[Lonewolf_50]

My comment stands.The last three pilots who did an aborted takeoff while working for BA CityFlyer, at London City Airport- were sacked. :eek:

I'm not going to derail this thread, but unless there is a linkage to a series of performance shortcomings of which an abort was "the last straw" once the company investigated it ... :confused:

What is it about an abort, itself, that was so critical at BA CityFlyer? (Maybe fodder for a different thread?)

[Willie Nelson]

Lonewold_50, If the last three guys were sacked it would be good to hear the context of that, whether justified or not. I'm sure it's not quite as straight forward as your text implies.

Back to the article; I thought this was a very accurate statement by Psychologist Brene Browne who says:

‘Men walk this tightrope where any sign of weakness elicits shame, and so they’re afraid to make themselves vulnerable for fear of looking weak.’ I would argue that this is the same problem that women deal with, why wouldn't it be.

I think we've all read the crash comics where you can read between the lines that the guy in the left seat perhaps felt the loss of his own SA or feeling shame for some other failing on his part. It is these times when the cockpit gradient often suddenly becomes very steep perhaps as a perverted means of compensation.

Some famous countering lines to this I remember in successful incidents that have occurred are when the captain has said in one instance of a fire in the flight deck now successfully extinguished while in the middle of the pacific 'Can you guys see any reason why we shouldn't divert to XXXX?'

Or Captain Sullenberger once lined up with the Hudson on short final 'Is there anything I've missed?' (or words to that effect).

Nobody perceived these guys as weak for implying their SA may be lacking.

At the same time us captains are all too aware of the need not to be too deferential to the FO but rather 'bring him along with us'.

Some people are naturally better than others at this but it's a skill I think would can all learn and improve on as we go.

I always highlight to new FO's that their job is to find my mistakes and mine is to politely return the favour, this keeps us out of head office. I also like to add that should there be doubt in a critical phase of flight as to the correct procedure we will make best endeavours to do what is most conservative and talk about it later, not always possible but worth mentioning.

[stilton]

Seriously ?



An aborted take off in a Cessna 206 requiring 'notification of authorities'



Do they call out the forensic chaps and take tire samples as well ? :eek:

[Wizofoz]

Stilt,

It's an example of how Euro-centric PPRUNE is- most of these guys wouldn't have the first clue what a C206 looks like, let alone the realities of operating one commercially in the outback.

[RealUlli]

Wiz,

It's an example of how Euro-centric PPRUNE is- most of these guys wouldn't have the first clue what a C206 looks like, let alone the realities of operating one commercially in the outback.I'm from Germany, I'm not even a pilot (yet), however I thought having a rejected takeoff was part of the training for becoming a pilot?

To me, something smells quite fishy from that story.

Please enlighten us, why was this considered a big deal in Oz? Maybe the story doesn't present all the facts and is a try to spin something. I think I have an idea what a C206 looks like, however at least at an airport, a rejected takeoff for one shouldn't be a big deal. (On a dirt strip it's probably another story, at least if he hit something...)

[Lookleft]

I imagine that the author of the article is feeling a little bit frustrated that the major talking point has been around the aborted take-off and not what happened to the pilot afterwards on social media:

"A month later, Masterton was ‘let go’ by the school. For the next six months, he found it impossible to obtain another job, despite attending more than 10 interviews. He started to feel there was a conspiracy against him, but he couldn’t prove it. That is, until he joined Facebook.

Within hours, Masterton was able to read malicious rumours, threats and stories people—pilots—had spread about him. No one had used his actual name, nicknaming him Captain Crash and Dash*, and claiming he was a negligent and hapless instructor, and that his undisclosed event was tantamount to murder. False Facebook profiles were created, including one in the name of Captain Crash and Dash.

He followed the posts across Twitter and Facebook, and then to LinkedIn and PPRuNe, and soon began receiving anonymous text messages claiming ‘we know what you did’. Slurs were posted across all forms of social media and his email account was hacked.

Close to a nervous breakdown, Masterton changed his name and phone number, moved to a different state and eventually left the industry altogether. He now works in a factory to pay off his aviation debts."

The incident itself was minor but it was the unleashing of the social media cowards which was the point, and the negative effects it can have on an individuals state of mind.

[Judd]

I always highlight to new FO's that their job is to find my mistakes and mine is to politely return the favour


That should ensure cordial cockpit relations. You get me and I'll get you.
Surely this is taking political correctness too far. A bit yukky, IMHO

[Wizofoz]

RealUli,

My point is that rejecting a take-off in a c206 ISN'T a big deal. The thing lifts of at around 70 knots, so any reject is in what could only be described as low speed, the aircraft has a tough fixed gear and you are not even likely to unduly wear the brakes.

People whose sole experience of Aviation is heavy, fast jets are implying an RTO is always a big deal. In a C206 it just isn't.

[JammedStab]

I highly doubt that there was criticism of this crew for aborting a takeoff for a valid reason. So what was the reason for this RTO?

[megan]

The Australian reporting requirements - Transport Safety Investigation Regulations 2003

Aircraft operations other than air transport operations

(2) For the purposes of the definition of routine reportable matter in subsection 3 (1) of the Act, the following investigable matters, in relation to an aircraft operation (other than an aircraft operation mentioned in subregulation 2.1 (2) or an air transport operation), are prescribed:

(a) an injury, other than a serious injury, to a person on board the aircraft;

(b) a flight crew member becoming incapacitated while operating the aircraft;

(c) airprox;

(d) an occurrence in which flight into terrain is narrowly avoided;

(e) the use of any procedure for overcoming an emergency;

(f) an occurrence that results in difficulty controlling the aircraft, including any of the following occurrences:

(i) an aircraft system failure;

(ii) a weather phenomenon;

(iii) operation outside the aircraft’s approved flight envelope;

(g) fuel exhaustion;

(h) the aircraft’s supply of useable fuel becoming so low (whether or not as a result of fuel starvation) that the safety of the aircraft is compromised;

(i) a collision with an animal, including a bird, on a licensed aerodrome.

[JammedStab]

Just to be clear, is the whole thread in question was about a pilot who did an RTO for some reason in a small aircraft and didn't report it to the authorities?

[Lonewolf_50]

Just to be clear, the whole thread in question was about a pilot who did an RTO for some reason in a small aircraft and didn't report it to the authorities?It's about how the internet turns into a lynchmob, when sometimes not all facts are known. It has infected the aviation world along with other parts of the world. That seems to have been the point of the thread/discussion being opened.

[Ozlander1]

I would think that if you did a RTO because of
(g) fuel exhaustion;
You would not want to tell anybody.

[Willie Nelson]

Judd,

That should ensure cordial cockpit relations. You get me and I'll get you.
Surely this is taking political correctness too far. A bit yukky, IMHO

I know what you're saying Judd, this is where your people skills come in to it and you're discretion to know which battles to fight. Not every little error is going to have going for tea and biscuits but your experience will inform you as to where you need to show leadership. If they're comfortable in speaking up it will hopefully be because you have fostered such and environment by not bringing a glass jaw in to the flight deck. A simple 'good pick up' goes a long way. When I've spoken up I haven't always got it right that's true enough however my F/O's seem to walk away getting along well more often than not.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Just to be clear, is the whole thread in question was about a pilot who did an RTO for some reason in a small aircraft and didn't report it to the authorities?
Well, ATC would probably like to know your intentions after you've stopped on the runway (are you going to taxi off the runway? backtrack and try again? would you like the fire engine?), but I can't see anyone else being interested.

Either there's more to this than reported or it's utterly weird.

[Nerik]

Great article.

[awqward]

Great article.

I suspect it was a bit more than pull the throttle and stand on the brakes....he may have been airborne an put it back down hard.,,,damaging the firewall due to heavy nose wheel loads.....that would explain it... He looked and couldn't see any damage but if he really did have such a heavy landing he should have fessed up..., All my speculation of course but you can see how a forum could make the same assumptions and then carry on to crucify the guy...