B737 crash during Cat 3A ILS 2006. Auto-pilot stuff up

[Centaurus]

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20060615-0

Final Report:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5423008140f0b61342000997/5-2008__OO-TND.pdf

Comment:
Compare the following anecdotal report with the autopilot disconnect major accident above.
Middle East operator A330 incident which went unreported in 2017. This operator's SOP requires autopilot to remain engaged until 300 ft AGL on all visual approaches.
On this particular occasion, the PF under line training disengaged AP at 1000 ft. The captain remonstrated with the PF in no uncertain terms that SOP required the AP disconnect should be at 300 ft not 1000 ft.
Captain then immediately re-engaged AP and shortly after permitted PF to disengage AP again as aircraft passed through 300 AGL. Normal landing then made. Blind adherence to SOP to satisfy a QAR read-out? The mind boggles. :ugh:

[BewareOfTheSharklets]

What does it say about an airline if they don't even trust their flightcrew to be able to fly a visual approach without help from the AP?

[sheppey]

What does it say about an airline if they don't even trust their flightcrew to be able to fly a visual approach without help from the AP?

As a rough estimate I wouldn't be surprised if about 90% of the world's airlines don't trust their flight crew to be able to fly a visual approach without help from the AP. That includes Australia.. It could be a company restriction or the captain is too nervous. :E

[maui]

Will long remember an approach into Thessalonica. in an MD80. Severe CAVOK. At 30 miles offered the F/O a visual approach. Overfly join downwind to normal circuit and landing.
To her credit, she expressed under confidence. Proceeded to talk her through the join + circuit. After a successful approach she commented, "that was just like a circuit in a 172". I agreed.

Point being, new breed get so little exposure, they have difficulty with the basics. The problem is not with the candidates, the problem lies with the abysmal training standards of some current flight ops departments.
When you don't know what you don't know; you can't effectively teach. When the flight ops departments are peopled with people who don't know what they don't know, you are obviously heading for a fall. The only thing that mitigates the current deplorable lack of training skills, is the incredibly brilliant technology that keeps everyone safe.

That feels better.

Maui

[Centaurus]

After a successful approach she commented, "that was just like a circuit in a 172". I agreed.


Had similar experience going into Hamburg in a 737 Classic eons ago. The co-pilot's name was Anya and she had been in the airline for about a year and had been given a hard time in the simulator from instructors who didn't believe in women pilots. She seemed quite uptight. Beautiful night and I suggested she manually fly a raw data descent from cruise (35,000 ft?) since the duty runway just happened to align with our inbound track. She had never been taught the basic three times the height profile descent because all her flying was Lnav/Vnav.

Talked her down and it worked out just fine culminating intercepting the ILS glide slope and a smooth landing. Afterwards she said to me "Thank you - that's what I call flying." Isn't that so true. :ok:

[GA Driver]

new breed get so little exposure, they have difficulty with the basics
You’ve hit the nail on the head there, but it isn’t always just a lack of training. We can all turn of the automatics and fly raw data, but with 48 constraints on a star after 3 or 4 sectors, I can definitely see a reluctance in people to actually do it in fear of busting a level. I fully understand anyone can hold an altitude, but the fear of the QAR and standards Dept is at the forefront of most people’s minds. The actual opportunity for a visual circuit is also rapidly diminishing. Mostly class D airports it’s possible but now even YMHB which was always good fun is ‘descend via the star’

[Bergerie1]

Centaurus,

Yes - that is so true. You must have been a very good bloke to fly with. Young newish pilots, male and female, need their confidence to be built in just that way!

[underfire]

This operator's SOP requires autopilot to remain engaged until 300 ft AGL on all visual approaches.

For some airports, especially in the ME, this is a very good idea as there is almost always a windshear at around 500'. Keeps the surprises down a bit.

[piratepete]

Well the best evidence that this kind of dumbing down of piloting skills can in fact be dangerous is to look at the Korean Air 777 accident at San Francisco....

[Capt Fathom]

This operator's SOP requires autopilot to remain engaged until 300 ft AGL on all visual approaches.

For some airports, especially in the ME, this is a very good idea as there is almost always a windshear at around 500'. Keeps the surprises down a bit.

Why is windshear less surprising with the autopilot engaged?

[morno]

Well the best evidence that this kind of dumbing down of piloting skills can in fact be dangerous is to look at the Korean Air 777 accident at San Francisco....

Might want to check your airline there buddy

[maui]

Well the best evidence that this kind of dumbing down of piloting skills can in fact be dangerous is to look at the Korean Air 777 accident at San Francisco....

Pete, that was Asiana.

[old freightdog]

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20060615-0

Final Report:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5423008140f0b61342000997/5-2008__OO-TND.pdf

Comment:
Compare the following anecdotal report with the autopilot disconnect major accident above.
Middle East operator A330 incident which went unreported in 2017. This operator's SOP requires autopilot to remain engaged until 300 ft AGL on all visual approaches.
On this particular occasion, the PF under line training disengaged AP at 1000 ft. The captain remonstrated with the PF in no uncertain terms that SOP required the AP disconnect should be at 300 ft not 1000 ft.
Captain then immediately re-engaged AP and shortly after permitted PF to disengage AP again as aircraft passed through 300 AGL. Normal landing then made. Blind adherence to SOP to satisfy a QAR read-out? The mind boggles. :ugh:


I would also want to quiz ATC on the decision of transmitting a company message at such a critical time. Surely not the best choice. Being well familiar with this incident, it makes it all the worse as the company message contained a suggestion that that the crew could/should divert yet again. Nonetheless the skippers got the boot. my final judgement on this one remains open.....

[Chesty Morgan]

For some airports, especially in the ME, this is a very good idea as there is almost always a windshear at around 500'. Keeps the surprises down a bit.

Almost always is surprising?!

[The Cassidy Kid]

First, a disclaimer- these comments more relate to the anecdotal example above than the report that has been linked.

That said, this whole issue gives me the sh*ts.

I'll counter with another rumour/hearsay- the one that the cp at our outfit wanted to ban us from flying visual approaches because people were cocking them up too often. Surely, the answer to this has to be to fly them more, not less?

I fly for an outfit where I _know_ that the guys pride themselves on not being the type of low experience cookie cutter pilot who can't confidently fly this typeof thing. Yet I reckon at least half the time, when I tell the other guy I'm going to disconnect everything at 10k feet I get looked at sideways like I'm a madman. Don't get me wrong, these are good, capable guys, but it seems the system is set up to dissuade them from practicing the very skills that they need to keep sharp. I mean if you can't confidently do it on a gin clear day with everything going for you, what chance do you have on a dark and stormy night when it all turns to s**t?