Boy pilot died after tower gave suprise instruction
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the Dog and Duck
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dream Land At last!!
"after tower gives surprise instruction"
Apart from confusion over the back track it was a textbook circuit
I have been reflecting on this accident as one does sometimes.
The report does not, I think, comment on the adequacy of the stall warning system in the aircraft. Psychologists have established that the first sense which tends to go when humans (pilots) become overloaded is the sense of hearing. Part of CRM training with the airlines these days highlights this fact since a pilot may become so engrossed in the task that he fails to hear the other pilot making a comment on the operation. (In which case, digressing slightly, said monitoring pilot may have to touch flying pilot to break his pattern and draw attention to what is going on).
Aircraft which have insufficient aerodynamic warning of stall must be fitted with (serviceable) artificial stall warning systems. All the C150/152 type aircraft I have flown are fitted with a "reed" system which will sound as the stalling angle of attack is approached. The efficacy of this system sometimes varies between individual aircraft. Maybe it's time to review the stall warning systems fitted to light aircraft and/or install some other warning system such as a warning light or a louder klaxon of some description.
So in summary my simple questions are:- a) Did the stall warning system operate but (more significantly) b) was the pilot aware that the system was giving a warning?
PS Mods - another thread on this accident running on Private Flying - maybe a case for merging threads?
The report does not, I think, comment on the adequacy of the stall warning system in the aircraft. Psychologists have established that the first sense which tends to go when humans (pilots) become overloaded is the sense of hearing. Part of CRM training with the airlines these days highlights this fact since a pilot may become so engrossed in the task that he fails to hear the other pilot making a comment on the operation. (In which case, digressing slightly, said monitoring pilot may have to touch flying pilot to break his pattern and draw attention to what is going on).
Aircraft which have insufficient aerodynamic warning of stall must be fitted with (serviceable) artificial stall warning systems. All the C150/152 type aircraft I have flown are fitted with a "reed" system which will sound as the stalling angle of attack is approached. The efficacy of this system sometimes varies between individual aircraft. Maybe it's time to review the stall warning systems fitted to light aircraft and/or install some other warning system such as a warning light or a louder klaxon of some description.
So in summary my simple questions are:- a) Did the stall warning system operate but (more significantly) b) was the pilot aware that the system was giving a warning?
PS Mods - another thread on this accident running on Private Flying - maybe a case for merging threads?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flower, no instructor is going to send a student solo until they're absolutely certain he/she is ready to deal with whatever may arise on that circuit(s). Including, engine failures after take-off and go-arounds.
It's a very sad incident that ultimately comes down to the guy handling the aircraft, it's not a controllers job to decide who should and who shouldn't be sent around.
It's a very sad incident that ultimately comes down to the guy handling the aircraft, it's not a controllers job to decide who should and who shouldn't be sent around.
However ComJam perhaps you would really care to explain the statement about who decides who goes around and who doesn't, that one doesn't make any sense to me. Yes Pilot initiated go arounds we understand but there are also ATCO initiated go arounds and they don't tend to be given simply because we feel like them they are for reasons of safety .
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Over b' yer
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ComJam
Also bit puzzled as to this response..... who's job do you think it is to send aircraft around in a situation when a go around is needed??
Originally Posted by ComJam
it's not a controllers job to decide who should and who shouldn't be sent around.
Flower, no instructor is going to send a student solo until they're absolutely certain he/she is ready to deal with whatever may arise on that circuit(s).
The relative responsibilities of student, instructor and ATC are at issue.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm:
1) 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing
2) You can't foresee every eventuality
3) This is what happens when SOP's and written orders / memorandum (please refer to the AAIB report to see what I'm referring to) are not adhered to.
You're barking up the wrong tree with this one, with regards to instructor responsibilities I fear.
1) 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing
2) You can't foresee every eventuality
3) This is what happens when SOP's and written orders / memorandum (please refer to the AAIB report to see what I'm referring to) are not adhered to.
You're barking up the wrong tree with this one, with regards to instructor responsibilities I fear.
1) 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing
2) You can't foresee every eventuality
2) You can't foresee every eventuality
If we don't examine the evidence we have and re-evaluate the procedures after accidents like this, we're not doing a good job of managing safety. That doesn't mean that things have to change every time there's an accident, but it's right to consider the questions raised, and I don't think your dismissal of the relevance of the issue of student solo is warranted.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magp1e,
This was not my post, think it was MikeJ in post #81:
However, after the reply "GBB maintain centreline" if that is not what was required why didn't the controller instruct the pilot to go around deadside - ie follow a normal pocedure?
I am concerned that the idea of breaking off traffic on finals on a non-standard routing seems to be accepted as a fairly ordinary situation. It would be interesting to know if the two ATCOs who are both pilots have done this either under instruction or voluntarily whilst flying, or as a matter of routine whilst controlling and therefore created a mindset that this is safe as nothing has gone wrong before. It is well known that standard procedures, including checklists, are developed so that safety is not compromised. Unfortunately it is human nature to take shortcuts and not follow procedures when the end benefit is not immediately apparent. In this way the new 'shortcut' becomes the accepted way of operating, after all, it worked OK like that last time so it must be safe. Inevitably this comes back to bite.
With general reference on this thread to having solo students identify themselves some way on the RT, how about asking controllers who are UT to let pilots know that they are not qualified and operating under supervision?
There are documented cases in the UK where UT controllers have contributed to incidents and the screen has been unable to react in time. What about a controller who has just qualified and might be operating solo for the first time? How many hours before we as pilots are absolutely certain he/she is ready to deal whatever may arise on his shift?
This was not my post, think it was MikeJ in post #81:
Spey, it wasn't. At least 2 calls had to be repeated after no response, and after the initial go-around instruction he replied "GBB maintain centreline". As the go-around is to the deadside he would have been clear of the inbound. maintaining centreline means that no2 has nowhere to go in the event he breaks off. Therefore the ADC moves him out the way by turning to the North. He had 40 seconds from the initial go-around instruction and 30 seconds from the instruction to turn North before he turns.
I am concerned that the idea of breaking off traffic on finals on a non-standard routing seems to be accepted as a fairly ordinary situation. It would be interesting to know if the two ATCOs who are both pilots have done this either under instruction or voluntarily whilst flying, or as a matter of routine whilst controlling and therefore created a mindset that this is safe as nothing has gone wrong before. It is well known that standard procedures, including checklists, are developed so that safety is not compromised. Unfortunately it is human nature to take shortcuts and not follow procedures when the end benefit is not immediately apparent. In this way the new 'shortcut' becomes the accepted way of operating, after all, it worked OK like that last time so it must be safe. Inevitably this comes back to bite.
With general reference on this thread to having solo students identify themselves some way on the RT, how about asking controllers who are UT to let pilots know that they are not qualified and operating under supervision?
There are documented cases in the UK where UT controllers have contributed to incidents and the screen has been unable to react in time. What about a controller who has just qualified and might be operating solo for the first time? How many hours before we as pilots are absolutely certain he/she is ready to deal whatever may arise on his shift?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS,
There is a fundamental difference in the way PPLs and ATCOs are trained to the point where they are let loose on their own.
At all times when ATCOs are under training, there is the instructor sat right next to them, on whose ATCO licence the trainee is operating. I can only speak for Heathrow, but this training period lasts for around a year before the trainee ATCO goes 'solo' and operates on his own licence. Obviously, units which are less complex and less busy will have shorter training periods. And trainees are only put forward for their validation board (SRG-run examination) when a pass in the said examination is as close to guaranteed as possible. The preparation for this would have included many ATC simulator exercises (at units where a sim exists of course) involving emergency after emergency, unusual situation after unusual situation, and many, many scenario discussions and theory questions. Very often the SRG-approved Unit Training Plan will entail familiarisation flights with based airlines, visits to agencies such as the Airfield Fire Service, Police, possibly flights in the local police helicopter etc etc.
I went solo in a 152 at EGNX after four hours.
Slightly different.
There is a fundamental difference in the way PPLs and ATCOs are trained to the point where they are let loose on their own.
At all times when ATCOs are under training, there is the instructor sat right next to them, on whose ATCO licence the trainee is operating. I can only speak for Heathrow, but this training period lasts for around a year before the trainee ATCO goes 'solo' and operates on his own licence. Obviously, units which are less complex and less busy will have shorter training periods. And trainees are only put forward for their validation board (SRG-run examination) when a pass in the said examination is as close to guaranteed as possible. The preparation for this would have included many ATC simulator exercises (at units where a sim exists of course) involving emergency after emergency, unusual situation after unusual situation, and many, many scenario discussions and theory questions. Very often the SRG-approved Unit Training Plan will entail familiarisation flights with based airlines, visits to agencies such as the Airfield Fire Service, Police, possibly flights in the local police helicopter etc etc.
I went solo in a 152 at EGNX after four hours.
Slightly different.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the Dog and Duck
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spey,
Sorry for the mis ident....I'm still none the wiser though....Yes, it was a non-standard call but why is asking a pilot to climb and turn (the basics of flying a cct) an unusual event? Surely a controller can expect ANY pilot to perform this maneouvre...If not, then should he be solo?
Sorry for the mis ident....I'm still none the wiser though....Yes, it was a non-standard call but why is asking a pilot to climb and turn (the basics of flying a cct) an unusual event? Surely a controller can expect ANY pilot to perform this maneouvre...If not, then should he be solo?
How can you possibly write that when this whole thread originates from a fatal accident in which a student was sent solo by an instructor and was unable to deal with what arose??
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK lets see you try that with a 747 at 300ft on final approach - after all you are only
Climbing and turning in approach configuration with full drag flap and low speed at low height is not something that is part of flying a normal circuit. Have you ever tried it - if not I suggest you ask an instructor to take you up and demonstrate - but do it starting off at a safe height.
However, executing a go-around by applying full power, controlling the pitch up (in a 152) removing drag flap, stabilising the climb attitude and trimming off the resultant stick forces, accelerating to safe speed to clean up remaining flaps, whilst flying over a cleared area (ie the aerodrome and climbout lane) is the basis of normal circuit flying. Now try adding a turn into this and it is easy to see how the situation can quickly become unsafe.
asking a pilot to climb and turn (the basics of flying a cct)
However, executing a go-around by applying full power, controlling the pitch up (in a 152) removing drag flap, stabilising the climb attitude and trimming off the resultant stick forces, accelerating to safe speed to clean up remaining flaps, whilst flying over a cleared area (ie the aerodrome and climbout lane) is the basis of normal circuit flying. Now try adding a turn into this and it is easy to see how the situation can quickly become unsafe.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't read the transcript, if placed in a similar situation I would more than likely if i was to have broken off the approach by the student ( I am not saying I would or not I wasn't there) I would have sent them around and asked them to turn as soon as able to the north or south, using the words "when safe"" or "when able to do so" either one of them. That of course may not have helped in this scenario as we are talking about an extremely inexperienced young boy who may have blindly followed ATC instructions rather than sorting his aircraft out first.
We cannot unfortunately know the level of experience unless someone tells us, we can hazard a guess and the way he handled the backtrack instruction would have sent red warning lights flashing before my eyes. When I suggested again on another forum that perhaps a local instruction advising when someone is inexperienced is passed with the book out instructions I was told I was nanny state by PPLs so I guess it is very hard to win.
We cannot unfortunately know the level of experience unless someone tells us, we can hazard a guess and the way he handled the backtrack instruction would have sent red warning lights flashing before my eyes. When I suggested again on another forum that perhaps a local instruction advising when someone is inexperienced is passed with the book out instructions I was told I was nanny state by PPLs so I guess it is very hard to win.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We cannot unfortunately know the level of experience unless someone tells us...
SRG was not minded to accept the suggestion ~ clearly, its neddies felt that they knew best.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the way he handled the backtrack instruction would have sent red warning lights flashing before my eyes.
A call-sign of "tyro" would plug that particular hole in the cheese.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have often wondered on the reluctance of accepting TYRO as part of standard RTF. Yes it is one extra word but if aware we are dealing with a low hours student before we issue any instructions it may in the scheme of things save time.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Chilli,
Yes, thank you, the other aircraft actually has not too dissimilar a minimum approach speed to the Cessna ahead; that is why I quoted the information about the joining / following type of aircraft’s performance.
Vector 801, Sorry for the slow response to your post requesting answers from me in particular – a few folk have already responded in my absence on my behalf, by the looks of it. I’ve been away from home.
I found your questions a little strange due to the context you give. Surely we were not discussing jet traffic. I certainly wasn’t doing so and it isn’t pertinent to this accident. The second aircraft was a single turboprop GA aircraft with a minimum final speed only about 10 to 15 kts faster than that of a Cessna 150. Secondly, the accident took place at Southend, not Cardiff.
Nevertheless, YES I would fully expect any student pilot to be fully competent to carry out a go–around by the time of first solo, in fact this is a syllabus pre-requisite, for obvious reasons. However, a normal go-around involves initially climbing straight ahead, then offsetting onto a parallel track the dead side to allow any other aircraft the safe use of runway track, including another aircraft either taking off, or coming in from behind, as per your “number two on finals also going-around” scenario. The next part of the manoeuvre is to fly upwind, maintaining parallel to the runway, normally at circuit height or still climbing to it. The third part is to assess when it is safe to turn crosswind and enter the downwind leg, with other aircraft in sight and with ATC assistance for spacing if necessary. An aircraft going around and still climbing straight and not yet having crossed to the dead side, could be turned early onto the crosswind leg instead, ahead of the next inbound aircraft. If necessary, the second, faster go-around could extend up wind to gain better circuit spacing, allowing the first to continue onto a normal, second circuit, hopefully to land without further ado.
Most students on first or second solo are still flying very much “by numbers” and easily run out of capacity when faced with something unexpected, such as an unusual turn into an unfamiliar position in relation to the airfield. An overloaded student may make the most basic of errors so a standard missed approach is much safer because the student will have practiced it. I find it highly worrying that an ATCO might have no sympathy for, or understanding of, this situation.
Was mine one of the posts you found “shocking and puzzling”? Surely the AAIB report is published in the public domain where it can be discussed so others can learn from it; it appears that most contributors to the thread were doing just that, in reply to the original poster's question.
Agree with the slowing down, but probably worth clarifying here that, although IFR, it was actually carrying out a visual approach, not an ILS and was joining right base.
Vector 801, Sorry for the slow response to your post requesting answers from me in particular – a few folk have already responded in my absence on my behalf, by the looks of it. I’ve been away from home.
I found your questions a little strange due to the context you give. Surely we were not discussing jet traffic. I certainly wasn’t doing so and it isn’t pertinent to this accident. The second aircraft was a single turboprop GA aircraft with a minimum final speed only about 10 to 15 kts faster than that of a Cessna 150. Secondly, the accident took place at Southend, not Cardiff.
Nevertheless, YES I would fully expect any student pilot to be fully competent to carry out a go–around by the time of first solo, in fact this is a syllabus pre-requisite, for obvious reasons. However, a normal go-around involves initially climbing straight ahead, then offsetting onto a parallel track the dead side to allow any other aircraft the safe use of runway track, including another aircraft either taking off, or coming in from behind, as per your “number two on finals also going-around” scenario. The next part of the manoeuvre is to fly upwind, maintaining parallel to the runway, normally at circuit height or still climbing to it. The third part is to assess when it is safe to turn crosswind and enter the downwind leg, with other aircraft in sight and with ATC assistance for spacing if necessary. An aircraft going around and still climbing straight and not yet having crossed to the dead side, could be turned early onto the crosswind leg instead, ahead of the next inbound aircraft. If necessary, the second, faster go-around could extend up wind to gain better circuit spacing, allowing the first to continue onto a normal, second circuit, hopefully to land without further ado.
Most students on first or second solo are still flying very much “by numbers” and easily run out of capacity when faced with something unexpected, such as an unusual turn into an unfamiliar position in relation to the airfield. An overloaded student may make the most basic of errors so a standard missed approach is much safer because the student will have practiced it. I find it highly worrying that an ATCO might have no sympathy for, or understanding of, this situation.
Was mine one of the posts you found “shocking and puzzling”? Surely the AAIB report is published in the public domain where it can be discussed so others can learn from it; it appears that most contributors to the thread were doing just that, in reply to the original poster's question.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS
That is EXACTLY what happend a MAN when a Dash8 Departing 24L lost a donk on t/o.
ALL a/c on finals [including a Virgin B744 at 1.5 mile final were instructed to go around....NON-STANDARD, ie to the South. Result, APC were [extremely] busy for a time, but the Dash staggered round the circuit and landed safely.
And your point is.........
watp,iktch
OK lets see you try that with a 747 at 300ft on final approach
ALL a/c on finals [including a Virgin B744 at 1.5 mile final were instructed to go around....NON-STANDARD, ie to the South. Result, APC were [extremely] busy for a time, but the Dash staggered round the circuit and landed safely.
And your point is.........
watp,iktch
Last edited by chiglet; 16th Jul 2007 at 21:14. Reason: cr@ppy speeling
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chiglet - confirm please then that the B744 was instructed to 'just take a left turn and fly south' followed 30 seconds later by 'Virgin x just to confirm turn southbound now'? Note - no instruction to go around.
Somehow I seriously doubt that this was the way the incident you refer to was handled. If it was then I would have major concerns about the standard of ATC at MAN.
Incidentally, have you read the AIB report?
Somehow I seriously doubt that this was the way the incident you refer to was handled. If it was then I would have major concerns about the standard of ATC at MAN.
Incidentally, have you read the AIB report?