Real Men don't go around - a fatal cultural flaw.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Real Men don't go around - a fatal cultural flaw.
On TV Channel Nine this morning (Sunday 1st April) the reporter interviewed the Indonesian chief aircraft accident investigator about the recent Garuda Boeing 737 accident where the aircraft landed long and fast and over-ran the runway with resulting loss of lives. The questions were about the CVR readings and the statement made that the first officer had suggested to the captain that a go-around should be made.
While the chief investigator chose his words very carefully the reporter in summing up the interview was startlingly blunt. She said that in Indonesia, it was considered "shameful" if the pilot elected to go-around. Clearly she had done her homework - perhaps having sought opinions from aviation professionals who are aware of the loss of face syndrome in Asian culture.
Despite extensive accent by many major airlines on the principles of CRM or Threat and Error Management (whichever), it is an expensive waste of time if local ethnic culture is so powerful in the crew member's mind that lives are put at risk because of cultural mores.
Asian cadet pilots are now a normal feature of several Australian flying schools where flying training to CPL standard is conducted before the cadets return to their country as qualified pilots ready to go into jet training and ultimately first officers on passenger jets.
While the training in Australia will of course include the usual theory subjects of navigation, meteorology and other allied subjects to ATPL standard, I wonder if there should be included in the syllabus accent on cultural issues. By these I mean blowing out of the water the insidious "real men don't go around" syndrome. It is all too easy for flying instructors to advise their Asian students that when in doubt go-around - after all this is taught as good airmanship in all flying schools.
But there needs to be more than just a few words of casual advice to overseas students who, on their return home to their native country, will quickly be pressured by their culture to disregard the norms of sound airmanship practices. Australian flying school instructors from the most junior grade 3 to the CFI, can have a powerful influence on their Asian students but in turn the flying school management must not fall in the trap of political correctness just to keep the dollars flowing in.
There is a need to approach the cultural problem associated with go-around philosophy in strong terms. The perceived shame of a go-around in Asian pilot's minds is nothing to laugh about over coffee in the crew room. It is a lethal problem that needs to be addressed all through the flying training of cadets who are trained in Australia.
While the chief investigator chose his words very carefully the reporter in summing up the interview was startlingly blunt. She said that in Indonesia, it was considered "shameful" if the pilot elected to go-around. Clearly she had done her homework - perhaps having sought opinions from aviation professionals who are aware of the loss of face syndrome in Asian culture.
Despite extensive accent by many major airlines on the principles of CRM or Threat and Error Management (whichever), it is an expensive waste of time if local ethnic culture is so powerful in the crew member's mind that lives are put at risk because of cultural mores.
Asian cadet pilots are now a normal feature of several Australian flying schools where flying training to CPL standard is conducted before the cadets return to their country as qualified pilots ready to go into jet training and ultimately first officers on passenger jets.
While the training in Australia will of course include the usual theory subjects of navigation, meteorology and other allied subjects to ATPL standard, I wonder if there should be included in the syllabus accent on cultural issues. By these I mean blowing out of the water the insidious "real men don't go around" syndrome. It is all too easy for flying instructors to advise their Asian students that when in doubt go-around - after all this is taught as good airmanship in all flying schools.
But there needs to be more than just a few words of casual advice to overseas students who, on their return home to their native country, will quickly be pressured by their culture to disregard the norms of sound airmanship practices. Australian flying school instructors from the most junior grade 3 to the CFI, can have a powerful influence on their Asian students but in turn the flying school management must not fall in the trap of political correctness just to keep the dollars flowing in.
There is a need to approach the cultural problem associated with go-around philosophy in strong terms. The perceived shame of a go-around in Asian pilot's minds is nothing to laugh about over coffee in the crew room. It is a lethal problem that needs to be addressed all through the flying training of cadets who are trained in Australia.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how long it would take to re-educate the in-grained cultural loss of face in student pilots or if it is even possible.
If the student has been taught this philosophy or mind set since birth and only spends a few years in the west and then is re-acquainted with this culture as soon as he is back home will anything have changed?
If the student has been taught this philosophy or mind set since birth and only spends a few years in the west and then is re-acquainted with this culture as soon as he is back home will anything have changed?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The focus of CRM is "What is right?" not "Who is right". That makes it ideally at least, culture free. As long as "we who know better" (i.e. western pilots) think this can only happen to "them" (Asian pilots) then we ourselves are part of the problem.
Were there asians in the cockpit of this Southwest 737 at Burbank?...
"Arriving in Burbank on a flight from Las Vegas, NV, the crew contacted SOCAL Approach and were told to expect the visual approach to runway 8 at BUR. Approximately 10 miles from the field, while descending to 3000 feet, the crew was instructed to maintain 230 knots until further advised. One minute later, the crew was cleared for the visual approach to runway 8, with an instruction to maintain 3,000 feet until passing the Van Nuys VOR (approx 6nm from the runway).
For unknown reasons, the flight crew passed the VOR and failed to start their descent from 3000 feet. 3.9nm from the runway threshold, at an airspeed of 230 knots and an altitude of 3000 feet, the crew began their descent to land. Due to the steep nature of the descent (nearly 7°), the crew received two "sink rate" warnings at approximately 400' AGL, and a "pull up" warning at 190' AGL. The aircraft touched down 2800' down the 6032' runway with a groundspeed of 181 knots.
Despite using max reverse thrust, spoilers, and brakes, the crew was unable to stop the aircraft before the end of the runway. The plane broke through a blast fence at approximately 40 knots, skidded across Hollywood Way, and came to rest 38' from a Chevron gasoline station. The aircraft was evacuated via the escape slides."
This was an amazing approach effort. As with American MD-80 at Little Rock, Air France 340 at Toronto, Qantas 747 at Bangkok etc etc. It can happen anytime that one pilot thinks the other knows what he is doing or thinks the price of speaking up is too high. That can come from items other than DNA such as friendship, admiration, bewilderment, pride, fatigue etc etc.
FWA (Flying While Asian) is not yet an indictable offence.
Were there asians in the cockpit of this Southwest 737 at Burbank?...
"Arriving in Burbank on a flight from Las Vegas, NV, the crew contacted SOCAL Approach and were told to expect the visual approach to runway 8 at BUR. Approximately 10 miles from the field, while descending to 3000 feet, the crew was instructed to maintain 230 knots until further advised. One minute later, the crew was cleared for the visual approach to runway 8, with an instruction to maintain 3,000 feet until passing the Van Nuys VOR (approx 6nm from the runway).
For unknown reasons, the flight crew passed the VOR and failed to start their descent from 3000 feet. 3.9nm from the runway threshold, at an airspeed of 230 knots and an altitude of 3000 feet, the crew began their descent to land. Due to the steep nature of the descent (nearly 7°), the crew received two "sink rate" warnings at approximately 400' AGL, and a "pull up" warning at 190' AGL. The aircraft touched down 2800' down the 6032' runway with a groundspeed of 181 knots.
Despite using max reverse thrust, spoilers, and brakes, the crew was unable to stop the aircraft before the end of the runway. The plane broke through a blast fence at approximately 40 knots, skidded across Hollywood Way, and came to rest 38' from a Chevron gasoline station. The aircraft was evacuated via the escape slides."
This was an amazing approach effort. As with American MD-80 at Little Rock, Air France 340 at Toronto, Qantas 747 at Bangkok etc etc. It can happen anytime that one pilot thinks the other knows what he is doing or thinks the price of speaking up is too high. That can come from items other than DNA such as friendship, admiration, bewilderment, pride, fatigue etc etc.
FWA (Flying While Asian) is not yet an indictable offence.
019360
In all the instances you listed the FO wasn't sitting there telling the captain to go around. From current reports; in the Garuda accident the FO was telling the captain that the approach was no good and to go around. The captain ignored this for whatever reason.
In the QF accident the captain said that the approach was at the upper end of his tolerance. I'm sure if the FO had said too high go around this was all he needed to confirm his gut feeling.
Two totally different problems between stuffing the approach and landing long, and the FO sitting there saying go around yet you are to proud to do so.
Unfortunately Asian culture; for all it's positives and the amazing advancements they have brought to technology and production, just does not work well in a multi crew aeroplane.
In all the instances you listed the FO wasn't sitting there telling the captain to go around. From current reports; in the Garuda accident the FO was telling the captain that the approach was no good and to go around. The captain ignored this for whatever reason.
In the QF accident the captain said that the approach was at the upper end of his tolerance. I'm sure if the FO had said too high go around this was all he needed to confirm his gut feeling.
Two totally different problems between stuffing the approach and landing long, and the FO sitting there saying go around yet you are to proud to do so.
Unfortunately Asian culture; for all it's positives and the amazing advancements they have brought to technology and production, just does not work well in a multi crew aeroplane.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm....so its OK to crash if you both agree that all is OK? Situation AWareness is one of the basic planks of CRM. If you can't see that things are wrong then you have nothing to call out about. I cannot believe that in the examples cited, as in almost all similar Asian and non-Asian cases, neither crew member had any doubt that everthing was fine. What sort of clowns would that make them?
When one pilots watches and doesn't speak up, because a) he doesn't think there's a problem, b) he does but doesn't want to call it out c) thinks the other guy PF-knows what he's doing or d) calls it out but it is ignored....then passengers die. Wrong is wrong and I bet that passengers don't die happier if the crew up the front is smiling just before "sound of impact".
My airline had a horrible accident years ago at Guam. At night, below the FAF crossing height with no RW in sight, one crew member queried whether the glide slope was working. Up to a few seconds before impact that nagging "something is wrong" feeling, translated into action, would have saved hundreds of lives. In the years since then we have spent a fortune on training, and a generous fuel policy and a total "no-fault" go-around policy to ensure it doesn't happen again. We're not pefect...no-one is. Our FOQA system monitors go-rounds to ensure there are enough of them, not to reduce them.
But to pretend that we (Asian airlines) alone have to fix this problem is to stick our collective heads right in the sand.
When one pilots watches and doesn't speak up, because a) he doesn't think there's a problem, b) he does but doesn't want to call it out c) thinks the other guy PF-knows what he's doing or d) calls it out but it is ignored....then passengers die. Wrong is wrong and I bet that passengers don't die happier if the crew up the front is smiling just before "sound of impact".
My airline had a horrible accident years ago at Guam. At night, below the FAF crossing height with no RW in sight, one crew member queried whether the glide slope was working. Up to a few seconds before impact that nagging "something is wrong" feeling, translated into action, would have saved hundreds of lives. In the years since then we have spent a fortune on training, and a generous fuel policy and a total "no-fault" go-around policy to ensure it doesn't happen again. We're not pefect...no-one is. Our FOQA system monitors go-rounds to ensure there are enough of them, not to reduce them.
But to pretend that we (Asian airlines) alone have to fix this problem is to stick our collective heads right in the sand.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Garuda 737 captain had 15,000 hours and his first officer 2000 hours. Yet despite the experience of the captain he pressed on regardless with what appears to have been a horrendous visual approach. How bad must things get before the first officer finally decides bugger this for a joke I am not ready to die yet - and takes over control? It is not exactly the sort of training exercise taught in the simulator. Maybe it should be.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the QF accident the captain said that the approach was at the upper end of his tolerance. I'm sure if the FO had said too high go around this was all he needed to confirm his gut feeling.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In The Office
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do Garuda have stable approach criteria? If so, and I'd be surprised if they didn't, the FO should have felt confident in forcing the go around.
If the first officer recognised the need for a go around, and 2000hrs should have given him enough experience to reach the conclusion that this was not a stable approach, where is the "simple oversight" by the crew that the investigator refers to?
If the first officer recognised the need for a go around, and 2000hrs should have given him enough experience to reach the conclusion that this was not a stable approach, where is the "simple oversight" by the crew that the investigator refers to?
Psst... It is not only asians that don't like to lose face. How many Australian, American or English pilots are happy to "lose face"?
"Losing face" is a perception in the mind of the "loser" and is a function of his/her ego. If he/she has no ego, they cannot lose face.
How many pilots don't have an ego? How many humans don't have one?
"Losing face" is a perception in the mind of the "loser" and is a function of his/her ego. If he/she has no ego, they cannot lose face.
How many pilots don't have an ego? How many humans don't have one?
Nunc est bibendum
An F/O 'forcing' a go around. Now we have two pilots wrestling on the controls at 300'. One is driving toward the runway and the other has applied max thrust for a go around.
Have we really thought this all the way through?
I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment and I acknowledge that it's a difficult situation with an unknown outcome. Over the last nine years or so I've thought through a number of times the possible responses to a disagreement at such a critical phase of flight and it's possible outcomes. None of them are very pretty.
Have we really thought this all the way through?
I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment and I acknowledge that it's a difficult situation with an unknown outcome. Over the last nine years or so I've thought through a number of times the possible responses to a disagreement at such a critical phase of flight and it's possible outcomes. None of them are very pretty.
An F/O 'forcing' a go around. Now we have two pilots wrestling on the controls at 300'.
Rougue & unstable PF can not land without landing clearance.
Except maybe in Asia.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah there's only so much "forcing" you can do if the other bloke is hell bent on continuing whatever he's doing. Any of the possible outcomes while doing that could end in disaster depending on how the cookie crumbles at the time.
Whatever the case, it sounds like a stupendous cockup by the skipper, very much unhelped by the good ol' face-saving tradition you find in some parts of the world.
Whatever the case, it sounds like a stupendous cockup by the skipper, very much unhelped by the good ol' face-saving tradition you find in some parts of the world.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: some dive
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's only one way to stop some d***head continueing the approach after consistant verbal requests to go around and that is, to pull the gear up. From personal experience,it certainly works. But it needs to be done well before the flare point.
If I were an F/O in a situation where the aircraft was descending through 500 ft at 180 kts with only 15 degrees of flap (or whatever the scenario might be) and I thought a crash at the other end of the runway was looking inevitable, I would simply reach for the gear selector and select "GEAR UP"!
If we're talking about "Emergency Language" from the F/O being completely ignored or dismissed by the Captain and lives are at stake, this would be the alternative to taking control of the aircraft.
I don't see how the approach could possibly be continued from that point unless the Captain was completely insane.
[Ha! You beat me by one minute!]
If we're talking about "Emergency Language" from the F/O being completely ignored or dismissed by the Captain and lives are at stake, this would be the alternative to taking control of the aircraft.
I don't see how the approach could possibly be continued from that point unless the Captain was completely insane.
[Ha! You beat me by one minute!]
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ozzzzzzz
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote Tee Em "There is a need to approach the cultural problem associated with go-around philosophy in strong terms. The perceived shame of a go-around in Asian pilot's minds is nothing to laugh about over coffee in the crew room. It is a lethal problem that needs to be addressed all through the flying training of cadets who are trained in Australia."
Agreed. However, having worked, teaching Asians how to fly, a big part of our time with the cadets was to encourage them to 'come out of their shell' and speak up to the pilot next to them. A good practical example is, when practice IFR flying in the T/A we instructed the cadets to decend to 500ft. Most did, without question. When we asked them, "why didn't you click, that perhaps thats a little low..." they answered that they knew it didn't sound right, but didn't want to question it. This was the case that we brought up with many other cadets, saying to them that you must open your mind and think about every order, every instruction. Not only relating to ATC but to the other pilot (us included) in the cockpit too.
According to ninemsn.com, the FO spoke up to the captain and instructed him to go around. He didn't listen. As we learn in human factors, say it once more. No response, or no action... take over. It's in the interest of lives and safety.
My point is, getting our guys out of their shell, it worked and they left the college a lot more confident than when they arrived here. However, the culture is that instilled in their lives and within the airline, that the day they get into their 777's or whatever, the captain will shoot them down if they speak up, and all that work, wasted.
It's cultural, its instilled, it's virtually impossible to change.
Simple.. choose with whom you fly with...
Agreed. However, having worked, teaching Asians how to fly, a big part of our time with the cadets was to encourage them to 'come out of their shell' and speak up to the pilot next to them. A good practical example is, when practice IFR flying in the T/A we instructed the cadets to decend to 500ft. Most did, without question. When we asked them, "why didn't you click, that perhaps thats a little low..." they answered that they knew it didn't sound right, but didn't want to question it. This was the case that we brought up with many other cadets, saying to them that you must open your mind and think about every order, every instruction. Not only relating to ATC but to the other pilot (us included) in the cockpit too.
According to ninemsn.com, the FO spoke up to the captain and instructed him to go around. He didn't listen. As we learn in human factors, say it once more. No response, or no action... take over. It's in the interest of lives and safety.
My point is, getting our guys out of their shell, it worked and they left the college a lot more confident than when they arrived here. However, the culture is that instilled in their lives and within the airline, that the day they get into their 777's or whatever, the captain will shoot them down if they speak up, and all that work, wasted.
It's cultural, its instilled, it's virtually impossible to change.
Simple.. choose with whom you fly with...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought a crash at the other end of the runway was looking inevitable, I would simply reach for the gear selector and select "GEAR UP"!
