Merged: NJS/QANTASlink 717 accident report update
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whatever happened to the notion of hitting the autopilot/flight director disconnects and driving it immediately back to where you want it with good old Mark 1 hand and eye co-ordination?
I agree with you there, but to be fair - the report states that this is effectively what happened. In the first instance, the pilot attempted to recapture the GS using V/S mode on the autopilot, then disconnected the autopilot and captured the GS manually.
It would help of course if the FMS database was programmed so that the HWS altitude of 3000ft was an AT altitude instead of an AT or ABOVE altitude.
Why not take the aircraft out of VNAV earlier and use another mode such as V/S to make sure the aircraft intercepts the glideslope from below?
Just a thought...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it difficult to accept that a pilot with 7,500 hours and 400 on type would have such difficulty landing such that several heavy landings occur in a short space of time. Make me think of that MD-11 that got bent on landing in the States a while back. The pilot had thousands of hours but a poor flying history. Landed with lots of drift, crab and high ROD, gear collapsed. How do such pilots get so far in the industry?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Earth
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like NJS's Check and Training Department need a good clean up.
Regardless of the experience of the co-pilot who was involved, she did pass her concerns on about her difficulty with landings to the appropriate people, and what happened, nothing obviously until NJS ended up with a bent plane. Was the Captain a Checkie, No ! And he shouldn't have to wear the rap if the F/O screws up if the company can't put confident and well trained pilots in the cockpit with him.
This really is a swiss cheese job, all the holes lined up and bingo. Very lucky there weren't any serious injuries of fatalities. I know there is/or was a pilot shortage, and to try and justify part of the blame onto having to employ low time pilots just does cut the mustard. Nothing wrong with employing low timers, but they need more training in most cases than experienced pilots.
Regardless of the experience of the co-pilot who was involved, she did pass her concerns on about her difficulty with landings to the appropriate people, and what happened, nothing obviously until NJS ended up with a bent plane. Was the Captain a Checkie, No ! And he shouldn't have to wear the rap if the F/O screws up if the company can't put confident and well trained pilots in the cockpit with him.
This really is a swiss cheese job, all the holes lined up and bingo. Very lucky there weren't any serious injuries of fatalities. I know there is/or was a pilot shortage, and to try and justify part of the blame onto having to employ low time pilots just does cut the mustard. Nothing wrong with employing low timers, but they need more training in most cases than experienced pilots.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F.Nose, your analysis of the FDR sounds pretty good to me, the only thing wrong is certain NJS drivers have a hard time admitting the outfit they work for is complete crap, human nature I guess.
[QUOTE]7000 hrs low time ?[QUOTE]
7000 hours on what ? piston, T/prop ? yeh, 7000 hrs does not an ace make ( necessarily )
[QUOTE]7000 hrs low time ?[QUOTE]
7000 hours on what ? piston, T/prop ? yeh, 7000 hrs does not an ace make ( necessarily )
Total time is no indication of a pilots ability this is just another example. What did the 7000hrs consist off? I bet it wasnt jet operations?
Pilots shortage and high turn over puts pressure on the check captains to check to line copilots that probably require more training or should not be checked at all.
Pilots shortage and high turn over puts pressure on the check captains to check to line copilots that probably require more training or should not be checked at all.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When did 7,000 TT become "Low TT" ?, in other countries FO's have bare licences in this type.
Perhaps said pilot was simply having a bad day,,,,,have you ever had a bad day ?.
Perhaps said pilot was simply having a bad day,,,,,have you ever had a bad day ?.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the report, aforementioned f/o had lots of bad days, self confessed.
7000 TT means jack s**t.
Yes, in other countries F/Os have 250tt on similar or bigger types.................ask the Captains of those A/C how much support they get when the going gets tough, or slightly abnormal.
7000 TT means jack s**t.
Yes, in other countries F/Os have 250tt on similar or bigger types.................ask the Captains of those A/C how much support they get when the going gets tough, or slightly abnormal.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: InDahAir
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I think we can all agree that 7,000 hours at the golf course does not mean we can all play like Tiger. Perhaps this was yet another example of how people believe that throwing money at a problem ie: Pay-For-Training can make the problematic history disappear. This is totally irresponsible and is the reason the Yanks have the Pilot Records Improvement Act, to prevent pilots with poor training records being unleashed on unsuspecting employers who have been smoothed over by some interview prep' course.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Earth
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't matter how many hours we have, we all have a bad day now and then. The problem is that the F/O concerned knew she had a problem and sought help prior to the accident, and what happened ? She get none.
Sounds as though NJS management have a bit of a culture problem. Hopefully we all can learn from this accident and move on in a positive direction.
What happened to the Captain, is he back on line ? And is the aircraft back in service ?
Sounds as though NJS management have a bit of a culture problem. Hopefully we all can learn from this accident and move on in a positive direction.
What happened to the Captain, is he back on line ? And is the aircraft back in service ?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 60
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any one who is not confident to be able to perform their duties should not report for duty. Whether it is due to sickness or any other reason? If you belive you don't have the necessary skills to perform your job, but still turn up to work and take passengers for a ride, you are irresponsible and deserve to be prsecuted. It is that simple. The company also has the responsibillity to ensure you are trained to the required standards.and will be held responsible if found to be negligent in this.
However, as alway we pilots must take the final decision as to whether we are prepared to accept the responsibillity for our actions. If I don't think I can land my aircraft in any conditions I am likely to experience I am not going to be stupid enough to take it into the air. You should never assume that there will be someone else available to save you.
What input did the Captain have during the approach and landing? Did he/she attempt to take control at any time? The Captain is responsible for the safety of the aircraft so why allow this situation to develop so far and then fail to prevent the aircraft being flown onto the runway at 900fpm. It must have been fairly obvious things were less than satisfactory. It makes no difference that he/she was not a training Captain, it was his/her aircraft and he/she allowed their co-pilot to screw up. Not a good day.
However, as alway we pilots must take the final decision as to whether we are prepared to accept the responsibillity for our actions. If I don't think I can land my aircraft in any conditions I am likely to experience I am not going to be stupid enough to take it into the air. You should never assume that there will be someone else available to save you.
What input did the Captain have during the approach and landing? Did he/she attempt to take control at any time? The Captain is responsible for the safety of the aircraft so why allow this situation to develop so far and then fail to prevent the aircraft being flown onto the runway at 900fpm. It must have been fairly obvious things were less than satisfactory. It makes no difference that he/she was not a training Captain, it was his/her aircraft and he/she allowed their co-pilot to screw up. Not a good day.
Shockwave,
I agree, to a point. That classic line from Topgun, "your ego is writing cheques your body can't cash" comes to mind. Whether due to ego or lack of talent/training, a person's perception of their performance may be higher or lower than their actual (or required) performance. IMO it is the responsibility of the training and checking organisation to make sure a pilot is at the required standard for the operation. I think your inference that the FO, because she asked for more training, should not be in the cockpit is a little harsh. If fact, she should be complimented on identifying a problem and asking for help. That does not necessarily imply that she thinks she's so bad that she shouldn't be in the cockpit and should take herself off line.
Regarding the Captain's performance, once again, I think you're being a bit too black and white. While the approach was pretty wobbly, which would indicate that a dodgy landing may ensue, not a lot matters until the gravy-stroke at 30 feet. Unless one becomes paranoid and takes over at the slightest hint of a problem, it is difficult to micro-manage the flare when one is not the PF. The captain relies, to a large extent, on the skill and ability of the FO to not "crash" the aeroplane. As I captain, I should not have to continuously worry about what the FO's landing will be like or whether I should take over. If that is the case, then the T and C system has failed to do it's job.
I agree, to a point. That classic line from Topgun, "your ego is writing cheques your body can't cash" comes to mind. Whether due to ego or lack of talent/training, a person's perception of their performance may be higher or lower than their actual (or required) performance. IMO it is the responsibility of the training and checking organisation to make sure a pilot is at the required standard for the operation. I think your inference that the FO, because she asked for more training, should not be in the cockpit is a little harsh. If fact, she should be complimented on identifying a problem and asking for help. That does not necessarily imply that she thinks she's so bad that she shouldn't be in the cockpit and should take herself off line.
Regarding the Captain's performance, once again, I think you're being a bit too black and white. While the approach was pretty wobbly, which would indicate that a dodgy landing may ensue, not a lot matters until the gravy-stroke at 30 feet. Unless one becomes paranoid and takes over at the slightest hint of a problem, it is difficult to micro-manage the flare when one is not the PF. The captain relies, to a large extent, on the skill and ability of the FO to not "crash" the aeroplane. As I captain, I should not have to continuously worry about what the FO's landing will be like or whether I should take over. If that is the case, then the T and C system has failed to do it's job.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Earth
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs,
I totally agree 100% with you comments, you have taken the words right out of my mouth !
Shockwave,
I can understand where you are coming, I feel that the T & C department should have addressed the issue before the accident.
I totally agree 100% with you comments, you have taken the words right out of my mouth !
Shockwave,
I can understand where you are coming, I feel that the T & C department should have addressed the issue before the accident.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Outa Space
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all Risk Management gone wrong
From the CEO PN all the way down through the C + T department.
The failure of PN "No Horizons", junior FO's on "B" scale wages, nil morale within the company and a high performance jet = a smackdown landing.
NJS would rather employ nil to very low jet time FO's on B scale wages than to employ experienced jet hours Pilots from inhouse. This is evidenced by the number of experienced FO's walking out the door.
Its all about the $$$$.
Responsibility for this rest squarely with the "we-can-do-no-wrong" CEO PN.
Welcome to National Joke's regional jet operations.
From the CEO PN all the way down through the C + T department.
The failure of PN "No Horizons", junior FO's on "B" scale wages, nil morale within the company and a high performance jet = a smackdown landing.
NJS would rather employ nil to very low jet time FO's on B scale wages than to employ experienced jet hours Pilots from inhouse. This is evidenced by the number of experienced FO's walking out the door.
Its all about the $$$$.
Responsibility for this rest squarely with the "we-can-do-no-wrong" CEO PN.
Welcome to National Joke's regional jet operations.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Adelaide
Age: 69
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buck,
I think you are still in space.
For starters, there are not many "experienced" 717 F/O's walking out the door. A few inexperinced ones have.
Although you cannot name them on here, you can give us a hint of where they have left from and gone to.
If this person was trained to a satisfactory standard on day one, and then if her problem was addressed when she bought it to the attention of the C&T dept, this probably wouldn't have happened.
I think you are still in space.
For starters, there are not many "experienced" 717 F/O's walking out the door. A few inexperinced ones have.
Although you cannot name them on here, you can give us a hint of where they have left from and gone to.
If this person was trained to a satisfactory standard on day one, and then if her problem was addressed when she bought it to the attention of the C&T dept, this probably wouldn't have happened.
I think you will find the first port of call for the FO to sort out the "problems" was to talk to line captains ...and we all know what happens then
The request for help was after the event and was given.
The request for help was after the event and was given.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Adelaide
Age: 69
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a check and trainer you should know better than tell porkies on here 86.
The F/O advised a check capt, in fact a check capt saw for himself firsthand PRIOR to the event. A brief brief was given, you may call that help, that may also be part of the problem.
Lets all balme the line capts cause the 217 org could do no wrong, could it.
Who trained this person? Maybe thats were the problem started?
The F/O advised a check capt, in fact a check capt saw for himself firsthand PRIOR to the event. A brief brief was given, you may call that help, that may also be part of the problem.
Lets all balme the line capts cause the 217 org could do no wrong, could it.
Who trained this person? Maybe thats were the problem started?
Last edited by five dogs; 17th Jul 2008 at 07:14.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: At a Bordello
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey 5DOGS-I know of several Experienced 717 F/Os who have walked (I may or may not be included in said list.)
You certainly cannot say that having a non 717 endorsed head of 717 training was ever a smart thing to do, OR having had the 717 sops written by a 146 driver who was not 717 endorsed. Is the 2nd version of the SOPs out yet???
You certainly cannot say that having a non 717 endorsed head of 717 training was ever a smart thing to do, OR having had the 717 sops written by a 146 driver who was not 717 endorsed. Is the 2nd version of the SOPs out yet???