Real Men don't go around - a fatal cultural flaw.

[kiwi grey]

Go-round call from the EGPWS system

mingalababya asked
"could this be alleviated by technology? ie, have the aircraft's systems call for a go around when an unstablized approach and landing is detected"?

As it happened, last week's Flight International carried an article about Honeywell's ongoing development work on providing additional functionality to EGPWS. (see here http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...the-egpws.html)

To paraphrase the magazine, one mode suggested will have the system annunciate in a male voice "Too fast - too high" and, if the wayward approach continued below 400ft, the system would issue its final plea: "Unstable, unstable!" This warning would also appear in text on the multifunction display.


So yes, technology could help with this, and by the look of it, in the rather near future.

[pakeha-boy]

Kiwi grey...yeah mate,have seen that also .......they could title it

"Go- Around for Dummies"

Ultimately it is up to the crew to make this decision,based upon their current and actual config....you are within the "Gates" or you are not.

For those of us that do CAT 3 GA,S at 50 ft,the aircraft will in most cases touch down,but the procedure is to continue the go-around,we practice these in the sim(Ive had one actual) and they work very well.To me it proves a GA is possible from just about anywhere.... I dont say they are guranteed,but possible....

You talk of computers that crank out voice commands,....we have plenty of them now thankyou,and I personally dont believe they are the answer.. who,s flying the bloody thing.....it lies in the training,the abilty to make a decision.

I use my company ops as an example.....at the 1000ft(RA) gate the PM calls "one thousand"...the PF...calls "STABLE"... or ...UNSTABLE and correcting(whether it be be or altitude,speed etc)....@t the 500ft(RA) gate the PM calls" five hundred".....stable or unstable(meaning you are within the parameters,ie speed,altitude,VSI,GS,LOCALIZER).....anything outside of that is a GA,(whether VMC or IMC)......IT IS MANDATORY!!!!.....it works......

I,m sure this is similar to other ops,but my point here is that most do not "condition" themselves for the GA......everything is predicated on approach and landing....in that sequence.....you throw in a GA....and it seems most(not all) are not prepared for the event .....I think we have all at some time been guilty of that....

The bottom line here is training and a GA event must be briefed in all apps,whether VMC or IMC...

[Tee Emm]

I use my company ops as an example.....at the 1000ft(RA) gate the PM calls "one thousand"...the PF...calls "STABLE"... or ...UNSTABLE and correcting(whether it be be or altitude,speed etc)....@t the 500ft(RA) gate

I thought the radio altimeter gave the instantaneous height above the terrain immediately below the aircraft and therefore simply using 1000 ft (RA) would not necessarily be the height above the runway. Same with the 500 (RA) call. Obviously if the terrain below the aircraft on final approach is not dead flat and same altitude as the runway, the calls based on purely a radio altimeter read-out are superfluous and worse still potentially misleading. It is a wonder that the CAA have not commented on this during their audit of the company Ops Manual.

[pakeha-boy]

it does....when was the last time @ 1000ft on final or 500 ft you flew over a hilltop etc on landing....this may come as a surprise to you ...but most airports are on flat land ,away from hills and mountains in the immediate area......

also the callouts are specific to "our" operation and the airports "we" fly into...

[galdian]

PK-KAR
Greatly appreciate and respect your input, hope you realise there will be times we "agree to disagree" and it is not personal (although I know deep down you realise I'm actually right! )

Have to disagree about "out of the slot" Vs "unrecoverable", one calls for a re-assessment of how to safely complete the approach whilst the other dictates that the current approach can never be safely completed.
This incident is certainly a case of the latter and, based on the figures you quote even the most generous interpretation is that it was "questionable" above 1000' AGL, below 1000' AGL with a contant high speed, unconfigured and a huge sink rate it became "unquestionable."

I've had a good look at the thread in "reporting points" we have had the following suggestions/conjecture/thoughts/observations/musings from various people such as Ppruners/various investigators/reporters/government officials/ministers etc that the cause or mitigation was:
downdraft/flap failure/normal flight was OK above 1000'AGL/flap assymetry/operational and non-operational equipment on dispatch/losing of "plot"/flaps in or not in position/ high plane speed/no report to ATC of any configuration problems/airport vehicle on runway/Captain "good" Co-pilot "average or less"/absentmindedness/crew argueing or not/go-around calls or not/Captain "experienced", Co-pilot "young"/go-around call too late/"no argument" and "co-ordination between them about flight safety"/go-around asked, recommended, called for by Co-pilot/go-around call made too late.

And THEN, in the last few days, out of the blue the words "subtle incapacitation" came to the fore - a situation that will be unable to be definitively confirmed nor denied by its very nature but sit back, relax and have a laugh as various psychologists try to justify various positions using exquisite psycho-babble.
And when things start getting leaked/suggested/theorised by heavyweights or people "in the know" I always wonder whether they are trying to lead you to a path that is true or a path that deviates.

That is one of the things that confuses me about some of your posts - are you simply passing on information as relayed to yourself or are you also doing some editing to move things in certain directions?
As an example you included in one of your posts what added up to "Captain good, Co-pilot average" however the (now apparent?) CVR fact that he 3 times voiced his concerns with growing intensity greatly impresses me for an asian F/O and is worthy of note. Maybe that's just me.

The stage has been set, the company and authorities will get a slap on the wrist, the Captain will cop some but also receive sorrow for his "subtle incapacitation" and the F/O will be literally strung up by his nether regions in the town square.
And everyone (well I suppose the F/O might be inclined to disagree!), will happily celebrate an "unfortunate" situation, "well resolved!"

That's about all, reckon the topics been well covered except to say that after this incident, if the world airline industry has ANY desire to pick up their game then, in principle or similar:
- IATA, ICAO or whomever dictates that ALL airlines around the world set up a "black and white", step by step CRM pyramid within their legal Operating Manuals which lays out the required actions by ALL crew INCLUDING the stated requirement for the F/O to take over, this also enforces legal company responsibility and support for their crew members, no more crap "CRM is good for safety" single statement bull**** acceptable;
- company training must vigorously reflect the same;
- country authorities confirm in class and simulators that thje policy is being vigorously trained/enforced;
- maybe set up a central authority outside of the countries to regulate the above in a totally unbiased way (boy, watch the fur fly on THAT suggestion!! )
- give them a reasonable time frame (I'd say 3 months but others may disagree) to comply;
- those that can't/won't - remove their licences, better they (the airline) die than the passengers they purport to care for.

OK - end of imminently sensible suggestions (or rant, whichever you see fit!)

[UNCTUOUS]

Speedbrakes and Auto-throttles?

PK-KAR

Thanks to your insights into the Investigator's preliminary report, I've picked up that it's not yet known whether an "over-flare" kicked in an auto-throttle response (>27ft RA, to maintain whatever speed was dialled up on the MFP as bug-speed) - aka Captain Marwoto's "the push" - but also haven't heard any comments upon:

"Whether or not the observation by a very experienced traveler that the airbrakes (aka speedbrakes) were extended throughout finals is a fact (i.e. the investigator hasn't yet said yea or nay on that?).

If they were, it could be interpreted that their use by the captain perhaps demonstrated that he was doggedly determined to "show" the copilot that he could still land, despite the copilot's refusal to extend the flaps any further because of their limiting speeds."

Is the above comment near the truth? / nearer to the truth or just (as yet) uncalled for? But I must add that the Austral/Italian journalist has been adamant throughout that the speedbrakes were extended. Sometimes it's little clues like that that can give truer insights into what was going on in the pilot's inner cranium.

[PK-KAR]

Galdian,

although I know deep down you realise I'm actually right!

If everyone agrees then this place will be damn boring! But, when I feel I'm right, I say I'm right, when not, I say I'm not right, when I am unsure, I'd say so... same on my opinions on other people's opinions... Differences is what makes us learn something everyday!

As to out of the slot and unrecoverable... unrecoverable is a subset of out of the slot... but that's just my personal opinion.

I've had a good look at the thread in "reporting points" we have had the following suggestions/conjecture/thoughts/observations/musings from various people such as Ppruners/various investigators/reporters/government officials/ministers etc that the cause or mitigation was:
downdraft/flap failure/normal flight was OK above 1000'AGL/flap assymetry/operational and non-operational equipment on dispatch/losing of "plot"/flaps in or not in position/ high plane speed/no report to ATC of any configuration problems/airport vehicle on runway/Captain "good" Co-pilot "average or less"/absentmindedness/crew argueing or not/go-around calls or not/Captain "experienced", Co-pilot "young"/go-around call too late/"no argument" and "co-ordination between them about flight safety"/go-around asked, recommended, called for by Co-pilot/go-around call made too late.

"Subtle incapacitation" that has surfaced in the last few days did not come from anywhere in the investigation nor Garuda. If the investigators or Garuda subscribe to that view than it won't be me receiving "fixed info" but me giving them a fix. All the NTSC will say to subtle incap for the moment will likely be "we're looking into it"...

As an example you included in one of your posts what added up to "Captain good, Co-pilot average" however the (now apparent?) CVR fact that he 3 times voiced his concerns with growing intensity greatly impresses me for an asian F/O and is worthy of note.

The stage's not set at all! He voiced his concerns, so what? Does that make him an impressive (asian) F/O? No, he didn't take over like someone else (another asian F/O) did and saved the day. He just sat there and let it happen.

That is one of the things that confuses me about some of your posts - are you simply passing on information as relayed to yourself or are you also doing some editing to move things in certain directions?

This place is a discussion forum and not a place for indoctrination nor it is a news agency... None that I've written are guaranteed to be accurate. As to whether I'm simply passing the info or me editing it at the same time, well, it's up to you to decide.

I always wonder whether they are trying to lead you to a path that is true or a path that deviates.

So, am I being led to or am I leading people to a certain path? Then, do I receive fixed info or am I fixing info or perhaps there's truth? Disect the threads, but don't forget the timestamps on the posts and also those of newspaper articles and see which one... *coz I dunno myself!*
---

Unctuous,
1. The damn wrong FDR was fitted so some parameters are missing! I have yet to see the info on A/T and A/P conditions in the flight and when were they deployed. But I myself find it eyebrow raising that GA seems to use "A/T at all stages of the approach" down to that 27' feet... but I have yet to see it on the manual with my own eyes.

2. Speedbrake deployment? Well, the detailed data of the FDR hasn't been released, but, from what I've seen, unless I've forgotten the details, no, they were not deployed once the flaps were set.

One thing that peeved me off so far in this accident is people's definition of "landing" and "approach". I'm beginning to think that the public/media's view of landing was when the plane taxies off the runway, and everything else before that was approach. This of course does not help us understand the chain of events prior to the landing... until the FDR data was sighted...

PK-KAR

[galdian]

PK-KAR
- when I said "you know I'm right" (with smilies ) I was only joking - sorry if it came across as being serious;
- in wondering whether people are fed information that gives a true or deviating path I said "you", I did not mean you personally but anyone receiving information from someone else, not meant personally and probably could have been phrased better, apologies;
- I still reckon voicing his concerns with (apparent) increasing intensity is impressive for an asian F/O, the question of not taking over is simply a question of whether the Ops Man states, in black and white, that it is a company requirement that he do so.
If it is NOT laid out as such he does not have the absolute support of the company for such actions and, like most, is more prepared to accept a possible incident or accident rather than the fallout of challenging the cultural norms and expectations.
And is that HIS fault?? Called a Catch-22 as far as I can see.

If it IS laid out in black and white then he has screwed himself bigtime.

If anyone cannot believe that F/O's are more willing to accept an incident or accident rather than challenge the culture - well I personally reckon that's the case and am happy to "agree to disagree" and leave it at that.

PK thanks for the exchanges - been interesting.

[Centaurus]

when was the last time @ 1000ft on final or 500 ft you flew over a hilltop etc on landing

Try Pago Pago ILS in American Samoa. Approach over water over rising ground on the coast the radio altimeter drops rapidly to 300 ft then back to 800 ft. Try the 1000ft call RA approaching over water to the the island of Nuie in the South Pacific that stands around 400 ft amsl. Get around a bit and there is no shortage of undulating terrain under close in flight paths on final. Port Vila runway 28 where the 1000ft AFE call is 600 RA.

Read the 737 FCTM where the recommended call by the PNF is "500 Feet" and the condition is 500 ft above field elevation - no reference to radio altimeter reading.

It is clear that the call of 1000 ft and 500 ft in these respects are above airport elevation in terms of barometric altimeter reading - not radio altimeter.

[PK-KAR]

Galdian,
Nurries mate... Sometimes cultural differences and humour need to be reminded of each other. The "rant" was good to remind us all too.

As to the F/O taking over in such a situation, it is laid out in the manual under the, if I remember correctly, Basic Operating Manual (GA's company manual (equivalent QF's Flight Administration Manual) under, I am told, non-normal and CRM sections).

Has he screwed himself bigtime? Well, we have to wait and see... but with the limited info we have, looks like it...

PK-KAR

[YesTAM]

With the greatest of respect, and as a low time PPL with no aspirations of ever flying a jet and nothing useful to contribute to this debate, I respectfully suggest that the candour, honesty and tenor of PK-KAR's posts on this disaster should be recognised by Ppruners.

I dips me lid to you Sir for your efforts to shed light on this awful accident, in what appears at least to me, to be highly professional and unbiased manner.

[A37575]

With the greatest of respect, and as a low time PPL with no aspirations of ever flying a jet and nothing useful to contribute to this debate

That is true.

[EY777]

galdian, any self respecting airline (or is it any airline?) will have CRM built into their ops manual.The million dollar question will be like you asked earlier is it just lip service?

As for my present employer, we can consider it western management (debateable), with western pilots in the system.Need I say more?

I still reckon voicing his concerns with (apparent) increasing intensity is impressive for an asian F/O,

galdian, it's more the norm in any asian airline.The only problem is if they have the will to take over (irrespective of any ethnic or gender biasness).

[pakeha-boy]

Centaurus.....your point is noted and valid...no argument here and the 500/1000 ft calls for most operators are BA......we used to use these also .......but as I also noted....

we use RA as this is specific to "our" operations and the airports "we" fly into ......mostly for "our" CAT 3 operations......unless the app says
"RA NOT AUTHORIZED" for "our" ops.....then we use BA for "our" ops


(wished I,d never said RA now.....sort of screwed the point Iwas trying to make...fu )

[aerostatic]

Two SMH articles today:

Crash poses questions Jakarta cannot ignore
Mark Forbes in Jakarta
April 12, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cra...971179811.html

Pilot may have been trying to save fuel
Mark Forbes Herald Correspondent in Jakarta
April 12, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pil...971179808.html

[ithinkso]

runway 28 in vila

it's runway 29

cheers

[squire]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races.

[Will964]

What’s your point Squire?

Trying to stir the pot?

[Zhaadum]

I think Squires point is Asians SUCK as pilots. Generally with a very few exceptions.

Well that is my view anyway. From experience.

Rote learning ROBOTS with little ability or interest in understanding.

There, did that stir the pot sufficiently?

Z

[Brian Abraham]

little ability or interest in understanding

Zhaadum, a trait unfortunately present in many of our Caucasian brothers/sisters (from my experience).