Sending the Goat-Acts Around
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: England
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sending the Goat-Acts Around
Looking for a bit of guidance here.... from qualified and experienced Air Traffic (Tower) Controllers.
Me: Pilot - mostly military 4-holer - but hold ATPL
Scenario - any airfield any time. Controller sees aircraft on finals that's obviously high and hot and the runway is not all that long and you are suddenly concerned that:
a. This guy is serious about planting it and stopping
b. You know damn well he hasn't got a chance of stopping in the distance available (particularly as there's an 8kt downwind component).
c. You'd already cleared him to land before you realized that he was suicidal.
d. It's an airliner with about 150+ people on board
e. You already feel like reaching for the crash button yet he's still above 500 feet.
f. After he plants it, it's probably going to be too late to send him around (or you'd not feel you could then anyway).
What to do, what to do?
Any controller might see this sort of thing once a year at least - to whatever extent of aggravation or extreme. Whilst I realise that the tendency is always to mind your own business and let him (and his oppo) break the jet, the temptation must always be there to simply send him around (presuming you are a socially responsible non-Al Qaeda type with the normal due regard for your fellow human beings).
You could also specify the taxiway take-off scenario - per Anchorage and the CAL A330 (and there's possibly others that I've not thought of but you've possibly seen). What I'm getting at here is that there's probably a lot of merit in a dispassionate uninvolved third party observer (with a microphone) intervening at some point when the very real expectation is that not doing so will produce that familiar sound of rending metal, palls of smoke, heart-rending screams and the sound of sirens.
The big question is however whether or not:
a. You can intervene under your existing regs, guidance and SOP's - without flushing your career down the toilet.
b. Whether your Tower Boss or Supervisor will back you up (or whether your judgement will forever after be in question)
c. In the blinding absence of an accident (which you've neatly avoided) whether you will be able to successfully field all the nasty and indignant phone-calls (particularly from the testosterone-laced individual who's single-mindedness caused the ruckus in the first place).
d. If you are legally within your rights (or is it that, maybe, post-Reagan, controllers should be entitled ATC advisors and facilitators).
e. You can simply say when asked why? "Because I exercised my prerogative. I was simply not happy that it looked safe. End of story. Take it up with the padre."
The reason I ask is that the Managing Editor of a major Aviation Safety Publication asked me and I gave my view (that I'd not be upset at being sent around if I was alarming a Controller - and there was obviously much more at stake than my ego and a bit of fuel). However I also said that whether or not a licenced controller was still authorised to exercise such a prerogative? Well that I would have to check up on. Therefore this post. So no flaming pls. It is a genuine effort to establish where the goal-posts are in this post-Reagan era of laissez-faire ATC.
If anyone can email me a copy (and reference) of the pertinent FAA regulation (assuming that there is one), I'd be eternally grateful. However I warn you now that a large section of the pilot fraternity have already claimed that you do not have this right to exercise your alarm nor judgement...... and have no such prerogative.
[email protected]
Me: Pilot - mostly military 4-holer - but hold ATPL
Scenario - any airfield any time. Controller sees aircraft on finals that's obviously high and hot and the runway is not all that long and you are suddenly concerned that:
a. This guy is serious about planting it and stopping
b. You know damn well he hasn't got a chance of stopping in the distance available (particularly as there's an 8kt downwind component).
c. You'd already cleared him to land before you realized that he was suicidal.
d. It's an airliner with about 150+ people on board
e. You already feel like reaching for the crash button yet he's still above 500 feet.
f. After he plants it, it's probably going to be too late to send him around (or you'd not feel you could then anyway).
What to do, what to do?
Any controller might see this sort of thing once a year at least - to whatever extent of aggravation or extreme. Whilst I realise that the tendency is always to mind your own business and let him (and his oppo) break the jet, the temptation must always be there to simply send him around (presuming you are a socially responsible non-Al Qaeda type with the normal due regard for your fellow human beings).
You could also specify the taxiway take-off scenario - per Anchorage and the CAL A330 (and there's possibly others that I've not thought of but you've possibly seen). What I'm getting at here is that there's probably a lot of merit in a dispassionate uninvolved third party observer (with a microphone) intervening at some point when the very real expectation is that not doing so will produce that familiar sound of rending metal, palls of smoke, heart-rending screams and the sound of sirens.
The big question is however whether or not:
a. You can intervene under your existing regs, guidance and SOP's - without flushing your career down the toilet.
b. Whether your Tower Boss or Supervisor will back you up (or whether your judgement will forever after be in question)
c. In the blinding absence of an accident (which you've neatly avoided) whether you will be able to successfully field all the nasty and indignant phone-calls (particularly from the testosterone-laced individual who's single-mindedness caused the ruckus in the first place).
d. If you are legally within your rights (or is it that, maybe, post-Reagan, controllers should be entitled ATC advisors and facilitators).
e. You can simply say when asked why? "Because I exercised my prerogative. I was simply not happy that it looked safe. End of story. Take it up with the padre."
The reason I ask is that the Managing Editor of a major Aviation Safety Publication asked me and I gave my view (that I'd not be upset at being sent around if I was alarming a Controller - and there was obviously much more at stake than my ego and a bit of fuel). However I also said that whether or not a licenced controller was still authorised to exercise such a prerogative? Well that I would have to check up on. Therefore this post. So no flaming pls. It is a genuine effort to establish where the goal-posts are in this post-Reagan era of laissez-faire ATC.
If anyone can email me a copy (and reference) of the pertinent FAA regulation (assuming that there is one), I'd be eternally grateful. However I warn you now that a large section of the pilot fraternity have already claimed that you do not have this right to exercise your alarm nor judgement...... and have no such prerogative.
[email protected]
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure where you originate from but suspect it's Stateside. In the UK ATC Managers, Supervisors, Bosses, etc., do not interfere with the operational controller unless there is a seriously good reason to do so. Quite often those people are not qualified to do so, ie they do not necessarily hold validations for the units where they work.
In answer to whether one should intervene - been there, done that, got the tee shirt... and seen it happen several times with other controllers too. My attitude - and, I suggest, the attitude of all professional controllers - is definitely NOT one of watching the bloke make a cock of it. Whether there is anything definitive in writing which says we should take action in such circumstances the answer is probably "no". But if safety of human life is involved then it's our job to take action and if a crash had resulted one can only imagine what the lawyers might have said! If the guy wants to whinge later, that's when the supervisor does his bit.
It's not only controllers. I have first hand experience of a runway checker vehicle, not driven by ATC personnel, being on the ball and warning ATC of imminent danger to an a/c. ATC subsequently took action based on that info and saved a lot of lives.
In answer to whether one should intervene - been there, done that, got the tee shirt... and seen it happen several times with other controllers too. My attitude - and, I suggest, the attitude of all professional controllers - is definitely NOT one of watching the bloke make a cock of it. Whether there is anything definitive in writing which says we should take action in such circumstances the answer is probably "no". But if safety of human life is involved then it's our job to take action and if a crash had resulted one can only imagine what the lawyers might have said! If the guy wants to whinge later, that's when the supervisor does his bit.
It's not only controllers. I have first hand experience of a runway checker vehicle, not driven by ATC personnel, being on the ball and warning ATC of imminent danger to an a/c. ATC subsequently took action based on that info and saved a lot of lives.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with HD (Yet again!)
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Only thing to add to HD's post is that today it might be considered good CRM (or TRM) to have the input of the TWR controller. After all, ATC is part of your flight deck resources, even if we aren't literally on it.
Can't see any arguments arising subsequently, the ATCO would only be sending you around for a (percieved) safety reason.
As HD says, this is the story in the UK, in the US things could be different.
Rgds BEX
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Only thing to add to HD's post is that today it might be considered good CRM (or TRM) to have the input of the TWR controller. After all, ATC is part of your flight deck resources, even if we aren't literally on it.
Can't see any arguments arising subsequently, the ATCO would only be sending you around for a (percieved) safety reason.
As HD says, this is the story in the UK, in the US things could be different.
Rgds BEX
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Just North of France
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite HD,
As a Swanwick controller and obviously not therefore TWR/APP, I have to add my 2p worth. Ultimately it's the captains responsibility in these circs, but a gentle reminder or more suggestive approach is clearly the way forward. What's the worst that can happen?
At least you have then done your bit!!! If the managers wish to add their unqualified opinion then let them, safety is our job, bean counting is theirs!
AREA52
As a Swanwick controller and obviously not therefore TWR/APP, I have to add my 2p worth. Ultimately it's the captains responsibility in these circs, but a gentle reminder or more suggestive approach is clearly the way forward. What's the worst that can happen?
At least you have then done your bit!!! If the managers wish to add their unqualified opinion then let them, safety is our job, bean counting is theirs!
AREA52
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: In the golf tee
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep 1261, and being the good little trainnie that I am
Mats prt 1, section 2, chapter1, 16.2.5
A landing aircraft, which is considered by a controller to be dangerously positioned on final approach, shall be instructed to carry out a missed approach. An aircraft can be considered as 'dangerously positioned' when it is poorly placed either laterally or vertically for the landing runway.
Mats prt 1, section 2, chapter1, 16.2.5
A landing aircraft, which is considered by a controller to be dangerously positioned on final approach, shall be instructed to carry out a missed approach. An aircraft can be considered as 'dangerously positioned' when it is poorly placed either laterally or vertically for the landing runway.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Deepest Englandshire
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the UK ATC manual there is an instruction which says 'an aircraft shall be instructed to carry out a missed approach when it appears to be dangerously positioned on final approach'.
This is then expanded by an entry which states that 'dangerously positioned' is difficult to define and basically leaves it to the professional judgement of the controller looking at the aircraft, either on RADAR or out the window.
In my opinion this does give us the power to tell them to throw it away if we don't like the look of it. I would certainly defend anyone who did so and was then questioned about it. Conversely, I wouldn't expect it to be a decision that the controller made lightly due to the issues involved in late go-arounds from a low height.
Whether someone is already cleared to land or not is irrelevant. Would a pilot ignore a go-around instruction due to a runway infringement just because they'd already got landing clearance?
YM
This is then expanded by an entry which states that 'dangerously positioned' is difficult to define and basically leaves it to the professional judgement of the controller looking at the aircraft, either on RADAR or out the window.
In my opinion this does give us the power to tell them to throw it away if we don't like the look of it. I would certainly defend anyone who did so and was then questioned about it. Conversely, I wouldn't expect it to be a decision that the controller made lightly due to the issues involved in late go-arounds from a low height.
Whether someone is already cleared to land or not is irrelevant. Would a pilot ignore a go-around instruction due to a runway infringement just because they'd already got landing clearance?
YM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: England
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent input thanks gents.
Wouldst love to have the FAA reg reference / URL.
May later post the background to the query. Your responses are now in responsible hands - as we speak. Pleased to say that you share my views on intervention in the interests of safety. Sometimes that's a difficult call and not without undeserved "payback". Perhaps ATCO's need an LSO style PLAT camera doing some continuous recording of the runway vista - from your eagle-eye viewpoint.
Wouldst love to have the FAA reg reference / URL.
May later post the background to the query. Your responses are now in responsible hands - as we speak. Pleased to say that you share my views on intervention in the interests of safety. Sometimes that's a difficult call and not without undeserved "payback". Perhaps ATCO's need an LSO style PLAT camera doing some continuous recording of the runway vista - from your eagle-eye viewpoint.
Overtalk
If your gonna give them a plat, you might as well teach them to write backwards on the status board and move bolts on the greenie board also. There is a deliniation of responsibilities. There are 2/3 folks watching the approach from the front office along with a strict SOP that drives them. If they see an obvious configuration problem, yup sound off, but I am leary of a ATC flying the plane for me. Open to debate as to where the line should be drawn.
If your gonna give them a plat, you might as well teach them to write backwards on the status board and move bolts on the greenie board also. There is a deliniation of responsibilities. There are 2/3 folks watching the approach from the front office along with a strict SOP that drives them. If they see an obvious configuration problem, yup sound off, but I am leary of a ATC flying the plane for me. Open to debate as to where the line should be drawn.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast
There may be 2/3 people on the flight deck but not all of them will adhere to SOP's and be as professional as yourself. There is a wonderful set of pictures of a B747 from an asian airline landing sideways at Kai Tak, when he should have been going around. It's this sort of thing that the ATCO is there for to stop happening by means of sending him around.
Overtalk
I'm not a US but a UK Controller, but as others have said it is allowable in the UK. I couldn't find it in the US regs but if it's going to be anywhere it'll be in Order 7110.65 - Air Traffic Control - happy reading
CM
There may be 2/3 people on the flight deck but not all of them will adhere to SOP's and be as professional as yourself. There is a wonderful set of pictures of a B747 from an asian airline landing sideways at Kai Tak, when he should have been going around. It's this sort of thing that the ATCO is there for to stop happening by means of sending him around.
Overtalk
I'm not a US but a UK Controller, but as others have said it is allowable in the UK. I couldn't find it in the US regs but if it's going to be anywhere it'll be in Order 7110.65 - Air Traffic Control - happy reading
CM
Chilimonster
Yup, I have seen the video. My brother flies a CRJ for a living(if you wanna call it that) On that acft due to the wings being close to the deck they dont use the wing low/top rudder method in a X wind. They crab at a rather large angle to the runway till the 20ft callout and all of a sudden kick it out, fairly dramatic divurgance angle in a strong crosswind. The last thing I would want is some well meaning controller sending him around for what is a normal approach. Going into LAX behind Dynasty 74-400s I stay two dots high, again a well meaning controller might step in. Going into John Wayne (KSNA) I duck under the GS a tad, only 5700ft of runway. All of these profiles might set off some well meaning controller to do something unneeded. What we are talking about here is very subjective, what you as a reasonable person may note as a fairly normal approach may be completely unstabilized to your collegue next to you.
I claim to be no more a stickler to SOP than others, we all have our favorites, but to an exceeding large degree professional pilots do comply with our requirements. So unless you have some sort of first hand knowledge of pilots from flight deck experience not doing so, please pull your fangs back in.
I have no problem with, and advocate ATC callouts, such as you appear high, low,etc but I would prefer to keep the final authority for flying the aircraft within the cockpit.
Yup, I have seen the video. My brother flies a CRJ for a living(if you wanna call it that) On that acft due to the wings being close to the deck they dont use the wing low/top rudder method in a X wind. They crab at a rather large angle to the runway till the 20ft callout and all of a sudden kick it out, fairly dramatic divurgance angle in a strong crosswind. The last thing I would want is some well meaning controller sending him around for what is a normal approach. Going into LAX behind Dynasty 74-400s I stay two dots high, again a well meaning controller might step in. Going into John Wayne (KSNA) I duck under the GS a tad, only 5700ft of runway. All of these profiles might set off some well meaning controller to do something unneeded. What we are talking about here is very subjective, what you as a reasonable person may note as a fairly normal approach may be completely unstabilized to your collegue next to you.
I claim to be no more a stickler to SOP than others, we all have our favorites, but to an exceeding large degree professional pilots do comply with our requirements. So unless you have some sort of first hand knowledge of pilots from flight deck experience not doing so, please pull your fangs back in.
I have no problem with, and advocate ATC callouts, such as you appear high, low,etc but I would prefer to keep the final authority for flying the aircraft within the cockpit.
Last edited by West Coast; 7th Sep 2002 at 05:10.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast wrote: "I have no problem with, and advocate ATC callouts, such as you appear high, low,etc but I would prefer to keep the final authority for flying the aircraft within the cockpit." I don't think your examples of nipping a few feet above or below the GP are what we are talking! We're talking about the guy(s) who are going to die if nothing is done.
As a general principle I don't think any of us ATC guys would dispute that remark. However, there are times..... I have personally been involved on several occasions during my Heathrow career when air traffic controllers have intervened and undoubtedly saved hundreds of lives. If, on those occasions, the situation had been left to the guys in the front office they'd be dead. Full stop. Examples? Sure - at least two occasions when ATC sent around 747s with no gear down! Had they left things to run (or had it been dark) I dread to think of the result. The a/c were properly positioned on final approach so the instructions in our Manuals would not cover such eventualities.
YOU fly the plane but if you get into some kind of dangerous mix-up which is blindingly obvious to me then I'm going to do something about it.
As a general principle I don't think any of us ATC guys would dispute that remark. However, there are times..... I have personally been involved on several occasions during my Heathrow career when air traffic controllers have intervened and undoubtedly saved hundreds of lives. If, on those occasions, the situation had been left to the guys in the front office they'd be dead. Full stop. Examples? Sure - at least two occasions when ATC sent around 747s with no gear down! Had they left things to run (or had it been dark) I dread to think of the result. The a/c were properly positioned on final approach so the instructions in our Manuals would not cover such eventualities.
YOU fly the plane but if you get into some kind of dangerous mix-up which is blindingly obvious to me then I'm going to do something about it.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry West Coast, must disagree with you I'm afraid.
I've been an ATCO for a looooong time and I have no compunction about sending round an aircraft if I think it looks dangerous. I've done it a fair number of times and will ( hope) recognise the times when I will do so again.
NATS actually have a system, built into the aerodrome radar which checks the alignment of an aircraft on short finals. If this gives out a warning then ultimately the controller has no choice but to send the aircraft around. Failure to do so would get him in the office pronto! (Unfortunately this does not give warnings in the vertical sense, only lateral.)
BTW NATS needs money...anybody want to buy a version!!!
In case you're interested I've sent aircraft around for many reasons, including trying to land without u/c down, trying to land at another airport!, and trying to land on the Terminal Building!
Keep flying - I need the wages!!
I've been an ATCO for a looooong time and I have no compunction about sending round an aircraft if I think it looks dangerous. I've done it a fair number of times and will ( hope) recognise the times when I will do so again.
NATS actually have a system, built into the aerodrome radar which checks the alignment of an aircraft on short finals. If this gives out a warning then ultimately the controller has no choice but to send the aircraft around. Failure to do so would get him in the office pronto! (Unfortunately this does not give warnings in the vertical sense, only lateral.)
BTW NATS needs money...anybody want to buy a version!!!
In case you're interested I've sent aircraft around for many reasons, including trying to land without u/c down, trying to land at another airport!, and trying to land on the Terminal Building!
Keep flying - I need the wages!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast
Also disagree I'm afraid. Like Line up, I have also sent aircraft around for trying to land without the gear, landing at the wrong airfield / on the wrong runway. There are probably several other times I should have but didn't for whatever reason. (Like 4km of runway...)
Just yesterday I listened to a colleague being chastised for checking with a pilot that he was SURE he could get it down...as if it was an insult to his manhood. I'm sorry, but if you can't arrange to be less than 7000ft and 200+ knots at 6 or 7 DME then I'm perfectly entitled to question if it's going to work and that's without starting the "stabilised approach" argument. It is not an insult. It is not a case of being beligerent. We are required to do so and anything less would be grossly unprofessional.
I hope that Some of you aircrew guys (and gals) will start to realise that we don't do such things just to **** you off / to make a point or just because we can. As always, there is method in our madness and a much bigger picture than you can see on your TCAS. If things really have got pear shaped on an approach, I would hope that any pilot worth his salt would bite the bullet, initiate a go-around, and try again. Frankly, from my side, I have much more respect for the guy who does that than for the guy who insists on continuing until the situation becomes critical and we're all desperately hoping it doesn't end in tears.
Rant over.
Also disagree I'm afraid. Like Line up, I have also sent aircraft around for trying to land without the gear, landing at the wrong airfield / on the wrong runway. There are probably several other times I should have but didn't for whatever reason. (Like 4km of runway...)
Just yesterday I listened to a colleague being chastised for checking with a pilot that he was SURE he could get it down...as if it was an insult to his manhood. I'm sorry, but if you can't arrange to be less than 7000ft and 200+ knots at 6 or 7 DME then I'm perfectly entitled to question if it's going to work and that's without starting the "stabilised approach" argument. It is not an insult. It is not a case of being beligerent. We are required to do so and anything less would be grossly unprofessional.
I hope that Some of you aircrew guys (and gals) will start to realise that we don't do such things just to **** you off / to make a point or just because we can. As always, there is method in our madness and a much bigger picture than you can see on your TCAS. If things really have got pear shaped on an approach, I would hope that any pilot worth his salt would bite the bullet, initiate a go-around, and try again. Frankly, from my side, I have much more respect for the guy who does that than for the guy who insists on continuing until the situation becomes critical and we're all desperately hoping it doesn't end in tears.
Rant over.
Gentlemen
Review my posts, I advocate ATC stepping in if they see some sort of config problem(gr up), and I am in favor of ATC pointing out what they see as a problem, such as you appear high, low etc. However the final say as to the safe operation of the aircraft must lie with the crew and more specifically the pilot in command.
Just as I dont see all that goes on in your job, you dont have the picture the crew does. The original poster believed that every controller must see this type of approach at least yearly, just aint so. The numbers just dont bear it out. Otherwise we would be lawn darting a few a day. There are times we will be high on final and still meet the parameters of a stabilized approach by 1000ft. Controller A might not send the plane around for what controller B will, just too hard to call. Again for clarification, tell us we look hi or low to aid in our decision making process, but leave the final decision to the pilots Allowing controllers to send folks around for issues beyond the perview of ATC places us on a slippery slope. What is next, is the short approach on the Cessna a bit too short? Send him around. The Attitude of an empty 757 climbing out a bit too much, tell him to shallow it out. That 737 is still doing 320 kts, better slow him down. I have no doubt that it is all very well intentioned, and that its no power trip, but leave the flying to me and I will leave the controlling to you. On a company computer in a rush so excuse spelling/grammer, blah blah
Review my posts, I advocate ATC stepping in if they see some sort of config problem(gr up), and I am in favor of ATC pointing out what they see as a problem, such as you appear high, low etc. However the final say as to the safe operation of the aircraft must lie with the crew and more specifically the pilot in command.
Just as I dont see all that goes on in your job, you dont have the picture the crew does. The original poster believed that every controller must see this type of approach at least yearly, just aint so. The numbers just dont bear it out. Otherwise we would be lawn darting a few a day. There are times we will be high on final and still meet the parameters of a stabilized approach by 1000ft. Controller A might not send the plane around for what controller B will, just too hard to call. Again for clarification, tell us we look hi or low to aid in our decision making process, but leave the final decision to the pilots Allowing controllers to send folks around for issues beyond the perview of ATC places us on a slippery slope. What is next, is the short approach on the Cessna a bit too short? Send him around. The Attitude of an empty 757 climbing out a bit too much, tell him to shallow it out. That 737 is still doing 320 kts, better slow him down. I have no doubt that it is all very well intentioned, and that its no power trip, but leave the flying to me and I will leave the controlling to you. On a company computer in a rush so excuse spelling/grammer, blah blah
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West coast
Sorry if the rant got a bit out of hand but it was necessary. I fully agree with the "you fly it, I'll do the controlling" concept - if only it worked (does the phrase "we have it on TCAS - can't we continue the climb" sound familiar?) however, if you are obviously very hot and high, I WILL ask if it's going to work, which you seem to agree with but I do not expect to be chastised for doing so.
You say The original poster believed that every controller must see this type of approach at least yearly, just aint so. The numbers just dont bear it out. I'm sorry but that is just not the case. I remember distinctly from my days at Dubai, every morning a certain US freight carrier arrives with an MD11 - no height / speed restrictions from first contact and direct to FAF at around 15nm - and every morning they manage to arrive at 10DME at 7 - 8000ft and 300+ knots. Sure, they manage to get it down about 40 - 50% of the time but again, "stabilised approach" anyone?
Admittedly, I am no MD-11 expert (or any other type for that matter) but in my last year in Dubai I saw a 747 try to land on the creek, an A300 nearly hit the tower after stalling during a go-around , an IL-86 land wheels up and the gulfair crash at Bahrain, all, I believe, due to messed-up (high speed) approaches. Should we really have to sit there with our sphincters clenched, wondering if it's all going to go to ratsh*t that often?
I do hope that this will not be seen as a case of pilot - bashing but as a genuine plea to look at both sides of the coin.
Salut!
Sorry if the rant got a bit out of hand but it was necessary. I fully agree with the "you fly it, I'll do the controlling" concept - if only it worked (does the phrase "we have it on TCAS - can't we continue the climb" sound familiar?) however, if you are obviously very hot and high, I WILL ask if it's going to work, which you seem to agree with but I do not expect to be chastised for doing so.
You say The original poster believed that every controller must see this type of approach at least yearly, just aint so. The numbers just dont bear it out. I'm sorry but that is just not the case. I remember distinctly from my days at Dubai, every morning a certain US freight carrier arrives with an MD11 - no height / speed restrictions from first contact and direct to FAF at around 15nm - and every morning they manage to arrive at 10DME at 7 - 8000ft and 300+ knots. Sure, they manage to get it down about 40 - 50% of the time but again, "stabilised approach" anyone?
Admittedly, I am no MD-11 expert (or any other type for that matter) but in my last year in Dubai I saw a 747 try to land on the creek, an A300 nearly hit the tower after stalling during a go-around , an IL-86 land wheels up and the gulfair crash at Bahrain, all, I believe, due to messed-up (high speed) approaches. Should we really have to sit there with our sphincters clenched, wondering if it's all going to go to ratsh*t that often?
I do hope that this will not be seen as a case of pilot - bashing but as a genuine plea to look at both sides of the coin.
Salut!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast
Are you looking at this thing from an 'All Round' aviation perspective or just from the Commercial point of view. I have seen and sent round student pilots who were never going to make the runway unless it were 7 miles long - they were that hot and high. Now although I agree with your comments aboout 'division of responsibilty' there comes a point where you have to say something because as well as the pilot killing himself or damaging the aircraft it's also our livelihood on the line. My licence is my living - and no person's going to risk that.
Nobody ever got hurt from being sent around - but believe me, it's not a decision we take lightly. If it's done it's done for good reason, and because it's OBVIOUS that the guy has got it wrong.
As has been hinted before you do your job and I'll do mine - part of mine is keeping that runway open and not having a ball of metal rolling down it in bits and flames
CM
Are you looking at this thing from an 'All Round' aviation perspective or just from the Commercial point of view. I have seen and sent round student pilots who were never going to make the runway unless it were 7 miles long - they were that hot and high. Now although I agree with your comments aboout 'division of responsibilty' there comes a point where you have to say something because as well as the pilot killing himself or damaging the aircraft it's also our livelihood on the line. My licence is my living - and no person's going to risk that.
Nobody ever got hurt from being sent around - but believe me, it's not a decision we take lightly. If it's done it's done for good reason, and because it's OBVIOUS that the guy has got it wrong.
As has been hinted before you do your job and I'll do mine - part of mine is keeping that runway open and not having a ball of metal rolling down it in bits and flames
CM
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 8th Sep 2002 at 18:07.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: England
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli Monster
Thanks for the steer to that FAA URL. I'm still looking through it (but no specific luck so far).
One aspect that does come to mind is LAHSO and all the caveats and cautions attending its use. Obviously if it appears that someone has stuffed up his approach to the extent that he won't be able to land and hold short (but also doesn't look as though he's about to stop trying)..... well that's another case where a prudent step in by the ATCO might just save the day. Two a/c full of fuel and pax (and both in jeopardy) is no time to start debating with yourself whether you have either the right or the rectitude to say the words.
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0403.html#4-3-11
Overtalk
Thanks for the steer to that FAA URL. I'm still looking through it (but no specific luck so far).
One aspect that does come to mind is LAHSO and all the caveats and cautions attending its use. Obviously if it appears that someone has stuffed up his approach to the extent that he won't be able to land and hold short (but also doesn't look as though he's about to stop trying)..... well that's another case where a prudent step in by the ATCO might just save the day. Two a/c full of fuel and pax (and both in jeopardy) is no time to start debating with yourself whether you have either the right or the rectitude to say the words.
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0403.html#4-3-11
Overtalk
Guy and Chilli seem to be missing an important distinction, between a piece of advice and an instruction.
There's a difference between a request to continue a climb based on TCAS and an instruction to go around. In the former case that Guy cites, the controller is clearly in the better position to make the judgement as to whether the climb should continue. The crew ask, and further climb is refused. The controller may be frustrated by the request, but the decision is made in the right place.
On an "unusual" approach, the controller may advise the crew of the anomaly, and West Coast has pointed out that he would welcome that. But I find it very hard to believe that a controller in the tower has the combination of information, expertise and experience on type to make a better decision than those on board the aircraft with the responsibility for its overall safety. The crew should make the decision. Once a go-around instruction is given, the controller has made that decision in place of the crew.
It's not a commercial issue, but a safety issue. Chilli writes:
but it's by no means an easy option. I've read with interest and horror the tales of minimal fuel reserves that seem to be the norm in some airline operations, and there is no shortage of incidents of pilots coming to grief in the go-around process. Sure it should be a normal procedure, but it's not without risk, and the assessment of that risk is the crew's job.
Crews make decisions that affect the safety of the aircraft frequently. The division of responsibility between flight crew and ATC is not the result of some treaty ending a long and bitter war between the parties -- it's that way because there's a well thought out and well tested balance of authority and responsibility. Trust it, as the crew trust you.
There's a difference between a request to continue a climb based on TCAS and an instruction to go around. In the former case that Guy cites, the controller is clearly in the better position to make the judgement as to whether the climb should continue. The crew ask, and further climb is refused. The controller may be frustrated by the request, but the decision is made in the right place.
On an "unusual" approach, the controller may advise the crew of the anomaly, and West Coast has pointed out that he would welcome that. But I find it very hard to believe that a controller in the tower has the combination of information, expertise and experience on type to make a better decision than those on board the aircraft with the responsibility for its overall safety. The crew should make the decision. Once a go-around instruction is given, the controller has made that decision in place of the crew.
It's not a commercial issue, but a safety issue. Chilli writes:
Nobody ever got hurt from being sent around
Crews make decisions that affect the safety of the aircraft frequently. The division of responsibility between flight crew and ATC is not the result of some treaty ending a long and bitter war between the parties -- it's that way because there's a well thought out and well tested balance of authority and responsibility. Trust it, as the crew trust you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: England
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm
If you review the SWA Flt 1455 Burbank Accident Report on the NTSB web-site you might agree that what you say about crews being best-equipped to determine their own destinies (no matter how sizeable their apparent and forthcoming upcock) - is a bit Utopian and could apply in an ideal world - however fatigue and task fixation and pomp and circumstance can cause crews to lose the bubble. I've seen it myself.
The NTSB's server seems to be down at present so the site is tempo unavailable.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES B-737 RUNWAY OVERRUN IN BURBANK
or perhaps something like this:
Emergency Landing for Plane After Crew Fight
Updated: Fri, Sep 07, 2001
TEHRAN, Sep (Reuters) - An Iran Air plane with 430 passengers on board made an emergency landing in Frankfurt after a dispute between the pilot and security guards, the carrier's head Behzad Mazaheri said Thursday.
The fight followed an attempt by the guards to keep a passenger from visiting the pilot in the cockpit during Wednesday's flight from Tehran to London, Mazaheri said on state television.
"The pilot then landed in Frankfurt airport, saying he did not have the morale to continue," he said, adding that the plane resumed its flight after six hours.
Mazaheri said the authorities were investigating.
Iranian airliners have been carrying several members of the Revolutionary Guards on each flight since a spate of hijackings in the 1980s by the People's Mujahideen, an Iraq-based Iranian rebel group.
Mazaheri said there have been numerous instances of quarrels between pilots and guards on Iran Air flights.
If you review the SWA Flt 1455 Burbank Accident Report on the NTSB web-site you might agree that what you say about crews being best-equipped to determine their own destinies (no matter how sizeable their apparent and forthcoming upcock) - is a bit Utopian and could apply in an ideal world - however fatigue and task fixation and pomp and circumstance can cause crews to lose the bubble. I've seen it myself.
The NTSB's server seems to be down at present so the site is tempo unavailable.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES B-737 RUNWAY OVERRUN IN BURBANK
or perhaps something like this:
Emergency Landing for Plane After Crew Fight
Updated: Fri, Sep 07, 2001
TEHRAN, Sep (Reuters) - An Iran Air plane with 430 passengers on board made an emergency landing in Frankfurt after a dispute between the pilot and security guards, the carrier's head Behzad Mazaheri said Thursday.
The fight followed an attempt by the guards to keep a passenger from visiting the pilot in the cockpit during Wednesday's flight from Tehran to London, Mazaheri said on state television.
"The pilot then landed in Frankfurt airport, saying he did not have the morale to continue," he said, adding that the plane resumed its flight after six hours.
Mazaheri said the authorities were investigating.
Iranian airliners have been carrying several members of the Revolutionary Guards on each flight since a spate of hijackings in the 1980s by the People's Mujahideen, an Iraq-based Iranian rebel group.
Mazaheri said there have been numerous instances of quarrels between pilots and guards on Iran Air flights.