Same old story re unstable approaches
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same old story re unstable approaches
Safety message included in ATSB Report involving Airbus A330 9M-MTA hard landing at Melbourne.
Quote: "A stable approach significantly reduces the risk of a hard landing.
If an approach does become unstable, a rushed attempt to recover the approach may produce an undesirable aircraft response. There is also a risk of breaking down the shared understanding between the pilots, which in turn limits the opportunity of the other flight crew to detect or react to inappropriate actions.
When landing, pilots should maintain a safety philosophy of “if in doubt, go around.” Unquote.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5772618...nal-report.pdf
............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ .............................................
All of the above merely states the bleeding obvious and has been regurgitated hundreds of times in similar landing incidents over the years. What is significant is the aircraft was on automatic pilot down to 700 feet when the pilot disengaged it and attempted a manual landing. He stuffed it up big time and landed so heavily a complete undercarriage change was the result. Once again the entirely predictable result of an airline philosophy of actively discouraging manual flying until the last few seconds on final. And this type of accident is increasingly common given the well known issue of automation dependency encouraged by various operators around the world.
Quote: "A stable approach significantly reduces the risk of a hard landing.
If an approach does become unstable, a rushed attempt to recover the approach may produce an undesirable aircraft response. There is also a risk of breaking down the shared understanding between the pilots, which in turn limits the opportunity of the other flight crew to detect or react to inappropriate actions.
When landing, pilots should maintain a safety philosophy of “if in doubt, go around.” Unquote.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5772618...nal-report.pdf
............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ .............................................
All of the above merely states the bleeding obvious and has been regurgitated hundreds of times in similar landing incidents over the years. What is significant is the aircraft was on automatic pilot down to 700 feet when the pilot disengaged it and attempted a manual landing. He stuffed it up big time and landed so heavily a complete undercarriage change was the result. Once again the entirely predictable result of an airline philosophy of actively discouraging manual flying until the last few seconds on final. And this type of accident is increasingly common given the well known issue of automation dependency encouraged by various operators around the world.
Last edited by sheppey; 5th Apr 2017 at 07:37.
Hmmm. Methinks ATSB doesn't fly big aeroplanes. PAPI use at 125ft?? I do but... Pitch changes +/-2.5°? Not especially bad. Not good, but not really bad.
Reason? Can't fly. As Sheppey said. No amount of stabilised approach stuff is going to save an aeroplane from a cruncher if it isn't flown properly.
"Glide Path". No! No ILS! Approach path.
Reason? Can't fly. As Sheppey said. No amount of stabilised approach stuff is going to save an aeroplane from a cruncher if it isn't flown properly.
"Glide Path". No! No ILS! Approach path.
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards the “if in doubt, go around.” quote, when a pilot does initiate a go-around, is there a chance of bad reprocusions from the airline?
I'm guessing all go-around are costly and investigated. So are pilots sometimes "worried" about it and err on the opposite side of caution?
I'm guessing all go-around are costly and investigated. So are pilots sometimes "worried" about it and err on the opposite side of caution?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards the “if in doubt, go around.” quote, when a pilot does initiate a go-around, is there a chance of bad reprocusions from the airline?
I'm guessing all go-around are costly and investigated. So are pilots sometimes "worried" about it and err on the opposite side of caution?
I'm guessing all go-around are costly and investigated. So are pilots sometimes "worried" about it and err on the opposite side of caution?
This airline has also tried in the past to bully their Captains into only taking the amount of fuel that the company has planned for them and to not carry any additional discretionary fuel.
Therefore, the "safe" course of action (executing a go-around) could ultimately lead to an even more "unsafe" situation (emergency fuel state).
The airlines can't have it both ways and thankfully most Captains are wise enough to carry additional fuel, despite the pressure applied by their company.
Unfortunately, some Captains do take only the flight planned fuel quantity and it is those Captains who will be forced into making an unpleasant choice as to which situation they want to be more accountable for. Continue the unstable approach and face disciplinary action, or execute a go-around and potentially run out of fuel.
Last edited by The Bullwinkle; 6th Apr 2017 at 04:00.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fifty feet call.....look down the runway end.twenty feet call just pull back a bit and idle thrust at the same time.This isnt hard is it?
Yeah, gross oversimplification pete
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: melbourne
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the major Airlines I have dealt with note go arounds in their Data but don't call the Pilots involved unless grossly mishandled. Can't speak for overseas Airlines.
Not sure which major Airline it is with the minimum fuel story but it ain't the one with the V in the name.
Not sure which major Airline it is with the minimum fuel story but it ain't the one with the V in the name.
Nor q ime
123456
123456
Its all part of long term policy by Airlines and Manufacturers. As automation increases and pilot skills decrease it then makes it easier to start saying that its safer to design the pilot out of the equasion altogether.
Whats the bet that will start with freighters to get everyone used to the idea and iron the bugs out without killing too many people.
Emeritus.
Whats the bet that will start with freighters to get everyone used to the idea and iron the bugs out without killing too many people.
Emeritus.
At least one of Australia's major airlines has a fuel policy that has their aircraft arriving with such a small amount of fuel that if they were to go-around, it would put them into an emergency situation .
You're probably referring to the Roo branded airline. If so, the fuel policy doesn't always/often plan as much fuel as other airlines, but to suggest that carriage of "Flightplan Fuel" means any go-round would lead to an emergency fuel situation is just plain wrong.
This airline has also tried in the past to bully their Captains into only taking the amount of fuel that the company has planned for them and to not carry any additional discretionary fuel.
might be closer to the mark, but again I've never been questioned on the amount of fuel I've carried….not once and there have been many occasions where we've felt the need for significantly more than the 'min required' on the plan.Any airline management that is not reminding pilots of the cost of fuel doesn't have fuel cost as a significant expense in their operation.
When we talk about the fuel policy at the Q airline, from the author of this policy, WFK, it is the absolute minimum you can take. Himself used to take a bit more without fail - we flew together a bit so we got to chat about it. Those cpts who took absolute min were, I hear, counseled over a bevvy that it might not be such a good idea.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're referring to Q then that is absolute crap.
Yes, management will write memos about fuel costs, so what's new?
I've never heard of a QF Capt being taken to task about ordering extra fuel. If you want to discuss certain other airlines in the world, then you may hear a different story.
Yes, management will write memos about fuel costs, so what's new?
I've never heard of a QF Capt being taken to task about ordering extra fuel. If you want to discuss certain other airlines in the world, then you may hear a different story.
Once again the entirely predictable result of an airline philosophy of actively discouraging manual flying until the last few seconds on final. And this type of accident is increasingly common given the well known issue of automation dependency encouraged by various operators around the world.
While there are enlightened operators who encourage their crews to keep their hand in by switching off technically non-essential automatics for the task in hand, they are probably in the minority. Conversely there are those operators who actively discourage any sort of hand flying and are known to impose severe penalties for those who genuinely would like to keep up manual flying skills. It seems to be a culture thing.
In the case of the incident involving the hard landing by the A330 at Melbourne - the subject of the first post - it seems evident that the pilot left the auto throttles to do their own thing while he (or "they" the political correctness term beloved by ATSB but not by overseas authorities) thrashed around his control stick to such an great extent that he assaulted the runway with the A330. The A330 lost the battle with the runway as evidenced by the landing gear severe damage.
I would have thought it would be common sense for a pilot when switching to manual flying on final approach to simultaneously turn off the auto-throttle so he is completely in the loop so to speak, rather than half-automatics and half manual flying.
Maybe that is inadvisable in the Airbus series because of various PFM inputs by computers that are in place to minimise pilot incompetency?
Not having flown an Airbus I wouldn't have a clue. I do know that Boeing advise (for example) in their 737 FTCM: " To simplify thrust setting procedures, autothrottle use is recommended during takeoff and climb in either automatic or manual flight. During all other phases of flight, autothrottle use is recommended only when the autopilot is engaged."
That said, it is common practice by some airline pilots to conveniently disregard that Boeing advice and leave the autothrottle engaged (when Boeing advise it should be switched off) because of lack of confidence in their own ability to handle the aircraft manually with the autothrottle switched off.
Suggest refer to original post as above. Thread drift on to QF bashing seems to have got more attention than the hard landing at Melbourne..
While there are enlightened operators who encourage their crews to keep their hand in by switching off technically non-essential automatics for the task in hand, they are probably in the minority. Conversely there are those operators who actively discourage any sort of hand flying and are known to impose severe penalties for those who genuinely would like to keep up manual flying skills. It seems to be a culture thing.
In the case of the incident involving the hard landing by the A330 at Melbourne - the subject of the first post - it seems evident that the pilot left the auto throttles to do their own thing while he (or "they" the political correctness term beloved by ATSB but not by overseas authorities) thrashed around his control stick to such an great extent that he assaulted the runway with the A330. The A330 lost the battle with the runway as evidenced by the landing gear severe damage.
I would have thought it would be common sense for a pilot when switching to manual flying on final approach to simultaneously turn off the auto-throttle so he is completely in the loop so to speak, rather than half-automatics and half manual flying.
Maybe that is inadvisable in the Airbus series because of various PFM inputs by computers that are in place to minimise pilot incompetency?
Not having flown an Airbus I wouldn't have a clue. I do know that Boeing advise (for example) in their 737 FTCM: " To simplify thrust setting procedures, autothrottle use is recommended during takeoff and climb in either automatic or manual flight. During all other phases of flight, autothrottle use is recommended only when the autopilot is engaged."
That said, it is common practice by some airline pilots to conveniently disregard that Boeing advice and leave the autothrottle engaged (when Boeing advise it should be switched off) because of lack of confidence in their own ability to handle the aircraft manually with the autothrottle switched off.
While there are enlightened operators who encourage their crews to keep their hand in by switching off technically non-essential automatics for the task in hand, they are probably in the minority. Conversely there are those operators who actively discourage any sort of hand flying and are known to impose severe penalties for those who genuinely would like to keep up manual flying skills. It seems to be a culture thing.
In the case of the incident involving the hard landing by the A330 at Melbourne - the subject of the first post - it seems evident that the pilot left the auto throttles to do their own thing while he (or "they" the political correctness term beloved by ATSB but not by overseas authorities) thrashed around his control stick to such an great extent that he assaulted the runway with the A330. The A330 lost the battle with the runway as evidenced by the landing gear severe damage.
I would have thought it would be common sense for a pilot when switching to manual flying on final approach to simultaneously turn off the auto-throttle so he is completely in the loop so to speak, rather than half-automatics and half manual flying.
Maybe that is inadvisable in the Airbus series because of various PFM inputs by computers that are in place to minimise pilot incompetency?
Not having flown an Airbus I wouldn't have a clue. I do know that Boeing advise (for example) in their 737 FTCM: " To simplify thrust setting procedures, autothrottle use is recommended during takeoff and climb in either automatic or manual flight. During all other phases of flight, autothrottle use is recommended only when the autopilot is engaged."
That said, it is common practice by some airline pilots to conveniently disregard that Boeing advice and leave the autothrottle engaged (when Boeing advise it should be switched off) because of lack of confidence in their own ability to handle the aircraft manually with the autothrottle switched off.
It is a very good system in the Airbus, it has a few catches just like the Boeing, however if you're aware of its limitations and use appropriate automation for the task - then it works well.
Pitching +/- 2.5 like this pilot did will cause the autothrust to exacerbate the pilot induced occilations. the secret to the bus is 'small' control inputs and maintain the body angle from 200 feet.
Suggest refer to original post as above. Thread drift on to QF bashing seems to have got more attention than the hard landing at Melbourne..
While there are enlightened operators who encourage their crews to keep their hand in by switching off technically non-essential automatics for the task in hand, they are probably in the minority. Conversely there are those operators who actively discourage any sort of hand flying and are known to impose severe penalties for those who genuinely would like to keep up manual flying skills. It seems to be a culture thing.
In the case of the incident involving the hard landing by the A330 at Melbourne - the subject of the first post - it seems evident that the pilot left the auto throttles to do their own thing while he (or "they" the political correctness term beloved by ATSB but not by overseas authorities) thrashed around his control stick to such an great extent that he assaulted the runway with the A330. The A330 lost the battle with the runway as evidenced by the landing gear severe damage.
I would have thought it would be common sense for a pilot when switching to manual flying on final approach to simultaneously turn off the auto-throttle so he is completely in the loop so to speak, rather than half-automatics and half manual flying.
Maybe that is inadvisable in the Airbus series because of various PFM inputs by computers that are in place to minimise pilot incompetency?
Not having flown an Airbus I wouldn't have a clue. I do know that Boeing advise (for example) in their 737 FTCM: " To simplify thrust setting procedures, autothrottle use is recommended during takeoff and climb in either automatic or manual flight. During all other phases of flight, autothrottle use is recommended only when the autopilot is engaged."
That said, it is common practice by some airline pilots to conveniently disregard that Boeing advice and leave the autothrottle engaged (when Boeing advise it should be switched off) because of lack of confidence in their own ability to handle the aircraft manually with the autothrottle switched off.
While there are enlightened operators who encourage their crews to keep their hand in by switching off technically non-essential automatics for the task in hand, they are probably in the minority. Conversely there are those operators who actively discourage any sort of hand flying and are known to impose severe penalties for those who genuinely would like to keep up manual flying skills. It seems to be a culture thing.
In the case of the incident involving the hard landing by the A330 at Melbourne - the subject of the first post - it seems evident that the pilot left the auto throttles to do their own thing while he (or "they" the political correctness term beloved by ATSB but not by overseas authorities) thrashed around his control stick to such an great extent that he assaulted the runway with the A330. The A330 lost the battle with the runway as evidenced by the landing gear severe damage.
I would have thought it would be common sense for a pilot when switching to manual flying on final approach to simultaneously turn off the auto-throttle so he is completely in the loop so to speak, rather than half-automatics and half manual flying.
Maybe that is inadvisable in the Airbus series because of various PFM inputs by computers that are in place to minimise pilot incompetency?
Not having flown an Airbus I wouldn't have a clue. I do know that Boeing advise (for example) in their 737 FTCM: " To simplify thrust setting procedures, autothrottle use is recommended during takeoff and climb in either automatic or manual flight. During all other phases of flight, autothrottle use is recommended only when the autopilot is engaged."
That said, it is common practice by some airline pilots to conveniently disregard that Boeing advice and leave the autothrottle engaged (when Boeing advise it should be switched off) because of lack of confidence in their own ability to handle the aircraft manually with the autothrottle switched off.
The a330 flies very nicely with manual thrust and I practice it regularly. Its good to also practice and fly with it in on approach as it is a little different and better at some things like when I'm tired as all ****. Flying a mix of domestic and long haul on it allows me the luxury of picking and choosing good opportunities for this.
I've also recent experience where that is certainly not the case.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern boeings (ie not the 737 in any variant) recommend autothrottle use during manual flight, look at that 777 pranged in dubai...
The a330 flies very nicely with manual thrust and I practice it regularly. Its good to also practice and fly with it in on approach as it is a little different and better at some things like when I'm tired as all ****. Flying a mix of domestic and long haul on it allows me the luxury of picking and choosing good opportunities for this.
I've also recent experience where that is certainly not the case.
The a330 flies very nicely with manual thrust and I practice it regularly. Its good to also practice and fly with it in on approach as it is a little different and better at some things like when I'm tired as all ****. Flying a mix of domestic and long haul on it allows me the luxury of picking and choosing good opportunities for this.
I've also recent experience where that is certainly not the case.
The B737 family is the odd one out with regard to auto throttle use.
Boeing 747-4 manual flight, manual throttle as well. With the auto-throttle left in I always felt it closed a little early. (but then again I flew the 727 where you never closed the thrust levers until you were finished with the wings).
This business of disconnecting low to the ground to manually fly is alien to me. Give yourself room to gain the feel and trim.
This business of disconnecting low to the ground to manually fly is alien to me. Give yourself room to gain the feel and trim.