QF Captain was feeling low...
If you feel you are less safe on a visual approach than an ILS approach, you shouldn't be flying an aeroplane
"If you feel you are less safe on a visual approach than an ILS approach, you shouldn't be flying an aeroplane."
According to the FAA you statistically ARE less safe.
According to the FAA you statistically ARE less safe.
@it'snothatbloodyhard:
Like I said, in this instance, the time this crew were to save, could have been an eternity.
I agree. However, I argue, that in some visual approach scenarios it's not actually prudent to 'take the opportunity' to practice etc (especially considering there are 100-300-400 people on board your aeroplane who are along for the ride on your visual approach practice). The Aseana into KSFO is on the face of it a botched landing, and I'll keep this courteous, there are plenty of reasons behind that, beyond lack of ability or currency.
@Keg
I am sure Qantas pilots are more than able to fly a visual approch into anywhere - all things being equal. Infact, I will expand that to Australian airline pilots in general.
@The Green Goblin
Ahh, that ol' chestnut. 
You're right! BUT, the HUMAN operating the machine does, and in fact, the human's ability to operate in various environment varies, and often, deteriorates. I won't get into how we react in a dynamic environment and cope with short term targets at the expense of the long term goals. The ILS in GA days was considered a harder approach, because we hardly did them. So, we are talking about deteriorating skill-sets, and hopefully, an airlines Check & Training System will give guys training and plenty of opportunity to keep those visual approach skills to a safe level before releasing a pilot to the line. BUT - again, I argue, the JET, is a machine to get the punters from A to B, not a place for you to be practicing an eroded skill, if it has, in fact, eroded. I am sure, anyone who ended up in the same position as the investigation crew (or even if they FOQA busted or got unstable) would, if they could turn back time, let the 'automaton' fly the ILS approach, and both pilots would be actively monitoring the flightpath - leaving plenty of brain space for increased SA.
@The Green Goblin
Like I said, it's not a pissing competition, and the jet i command is not the place for me to display my huge cajones.
In the operation I fly, I do a mixture of all types of instrument and visual approaches, many times a week
so currency is not an issue. (Some of my hot-shot FO's might argue that my level of skill may be an issue 
).I still pick my fights so to speak. And the scenario that these Qantas guys found themselves in, is one that rings alarm bells in my head, especially into Melbourne. Why doesn't YSSY or YBBN or other major TMA's have the same level of incidents as YMML?
Ok, on the face of it, a VISAPP into YMML16 should be 'easy'. But there are plenty of underlying snags, and when you add it all up..... stupid CTA steps that aren't a defined DME distance or arc, late track shortening, increased track shortening on an ATC opportunity basis, being held high by ATC above your already tight profile, that screw with your now decreasing options to manage the aircraft energy reduction requirements and company FOQA speed limits, flap speeds, speedbrake availability, elevation considerations when calculating your profile, and the looking out the window bit where you are looking into haze, tracking to a visual aim point that is a faarking paddock all the while looking at 60m runway with terrain sloping back up at you. The SHEED arrival, on the other hand, although a pain in the arse with the profile, can be PLANNED and a strategy can be briefed, flown and MONITORED.
I am sure these guys were skilled pilots & quite capable of flying a visual approach in their aircraft. Hell, I'll even bet a fiver they were able to multiply DTR x 3 + 480' for profile!! However, in my view, things were stacking against them in terms of how they felt, and the increase of crew workload at low level, late in the approach, and the things I have stated above and in my previous post.
Finally, although this is a polite and good discussion, I must admit that I feel somewhat disappointed that professional pilots on here, who face the same thing daily, feel they are somehow immune from all the factors that trapped these guys, and are quick to blame our colleagues.
For me, what it's about is being able to take the opportunity to save the odd few minutes and few hundred kilos of fuel - and more importantly, exercising some basic skills which can easily atrophy if we spend our lives coupled up to an electronic glideslope and flight director. Skills which might've come in handy when Aseana tried to land that 777 in SFO.
I agree. However, I argue, that in some visual approach scenarios it's not actually prudent to 'take the opportunity' to practice etc (especially considering there are 100-300-400 people on board your aeroplane who are along for the ride on your visual approach practice). The Aseana into KSFO is on the face of it a botched landing, and I'll keep this courteous, there are plenty of reasons behind that, beyond lack of ability or currency.
@Keg
Or may come in handy on the day when you've got issues and there is no ILS available.
@The Green Goblin
The aeroplane doesn't know it's day, night an ILS or visual approach. The physics of flight does not change one iota.
You're right! BUT, the HUMAN operating the machine does, and in fact, the human's ability to operate in various environment varies, and often, deteriorates. I won't get into how we react in a dynamic environment and cope with short term targets at the expense of the long term goals. The ILS in GA days was considered a harder approach, because we hardly did them. So, we are talking about deteriorating skill-sets, and hopefully, an airlines Check & Training System will give guys training and plenty of opportunity to keep those visual approach skills to a safe level before releasing a pilot to the line. BUT - again, I argue, the JET, is a machine to get the punters from A to B, not a place for you to be practicing an eroded skill, if it has, in fact, eroded. I am sure, anyone who ended up in the same position as the investigation crew (or even if they FOQA busted or got unstable) would, if they could turn back time, let the 'automaton' fly the ILS approach, and both pilots would be actively monitoring the flightpath - leaving plenty of brain space for increased SA.@The Green Goblin
If you feel you are less safe on a visual approach than an ILS approach, you shouldn't be flying an aeroplane.
In the operation I fly, I do a mixture of all types of instrument and visual approaches, many times a week
so currency is not an issue. (Some of my hot-shot FO's might argue that my level of skill may be an issue ).I still pick my fights so to speak. And the scenario that these Qantas guys found themselves in, is one that rings alarm bells in my head, especially into Melbourne. Why doesn't YSSY or YBBN or other major TMA's have the same level of incidents as YMML? Ok, on the face of it, a VISAPP into YMML16 should be 'easy'. But there are plenty of underlying snags, and when you add it all up..... stupid CTA steps that aren't a defined DME distance or arc, late track shortening, increased track shortening on an ATC opportunity basis, being held high by ATC above your already tight profile, that screw with your now decreasing options to manage the aircraft energy reduction requirements and company FOQA speed limits, flap speeds, speedbrake availability, elevation considerations when calculating your profile, and the looking out the window bit where you are looking into haze, tracking to a visual aim point that is a faarking paddock all the while looking at 60m runway with terrain sloping back up at you. The SHEED arrival, on the other hand, although a pain in the arse with the profile, can be PLANNED and a strategy can be briefed, flown and MONITORED.
I am sure these guys were skilled pilots & quite capable of flying a visual approach in their aircraft. Hell, I'll even bet a fiver they were able to multiply DTR x 3 + 480' for profile!! However, in my view, things were stacking against them in terms of how they felt, and the increase of crew workload at low level, late in the approach, and the things I have stated above and in my previous post.
Finally, although this is a polite and good discussion, I must admit that I feel somewhat disappointed that professional pilots on here, who face the same thing daily, feel they are somehow immune from all the factors that trapped these guys, and are quick to blame our colleagues.
Why doesn't YSSY or YBBN or other major TMA's have the same level of incidents as YMML?
Just because Flight Safety Foundation data suggests that, industry-wide, ILS approaches are statistically safer, doesn't mean that we, as individuals, shouldn't be able to fly a visual approach with an equal amount of safety and efficiency. In many cases it may be in the best interests of our passengers to do so.
Case in point (which seems to occur every so often): say there's a cell preventing you joining the ILS at 10 nm, and your choices are to fix the vertical offset and cut in for a 5 mile visual final, or to refuse this and instead hold for an hour before flying the ILS. If I can safely take the first option, without my brain being 10 miles behind the jet, then I will. I'd suggest that it's in the interests of both my employer and my passengers to be able to do so. But if I've spent years spurning visual approaches and/or track-shortening, and just flying the full ILS wherever possible, then I'm less likely to feel comfortable and competent in taking the more expedient (and desirable) option.
It's not a question of displaying huge cojones, more a matter of maintaining an overall level of professional competence. If someone's not totally comfortable doing something, then they absolutely shouldn't be doing it (particularly with a few hundred passengers down the back). But equally, they should maybe be wondering why they're not comfortable with it, and what they could do to improve things.
If you're not well practiced and current in any type of approach, you won't recognise when it's not going so well. (Case in point). Which is why we are encouraged to get practice on the line.
I try to do a manual thrust approach and visual approach every new roster publication.
I feel completely comfortable flying any approach and I enjoy flying the Victor type arrivals.
I signed up to be a pilot, not a systems analyst. I take pride in the way I fly.
I try to do a manual thrust approach and visual approach every new roster publication.
I feel completely comfortable flying any approach and I enjoy flying the Victor type arrivals.
I signed up to be a pilot, not a systems analyst. I take pride in the way I fly.
Old Bold Pilots
Visual approaches. Are they really all that exciting? Do you get a Mickey Badge when you do one? 
"Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots." – E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
"Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots." – E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
I said this back in post #35 and I stand by it:---
Really mate? I suppose a circling approach in bad weather whilst an ILS was available to save a few minutes and make you feel like Chuck would be perfectly acceptable as well?
There is a time and a place for visual approaches, I've done Hundreds in my time all over the world and will continue to advocate their use as long as it's JUSTIFIED under ALL circumstances on the day.
I think you've lost sight of the job requirement.......
Really mate? I suppose a circling approach in bad weather whilst an ILS was available to save a few minutes and make you feel like Chuck would be perfectly acceptable as well?
There is a time and a place for visual approaches, I've done Hundreds in my time all over the world and will continue to advocate their use as long as it's JUSTIFIED under ALL circumstances on the day.
I think you've lost sight of the job requirement.......
