B737 crash during Cat 3A ILS 2006. Auto-pilot stuff up
Thread Starter
B737 crash during Cat 3A ILS 2006. Auto-pilot stuff up
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20060615-0
Final Report:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...08__OO-TND.pdf
Comment:
Compare the following anecdotal report with the autopilot disconnect major accident above.
Middle East operator A330 incident which went unreported in 2017. This operator's SOP requires autopilot to remain engaged until 300 ft AGL on all visual approaches.
On this particular occasion, the PF under line training disengaged AP at 1000 ft. The captain remonstrated with the PF in no uncertain terms that SOP required the AP disconnect should be at 300 ft not 1000 ft.
Captain then immediately re-engaged AP and shortly after permitted PF to disengage AP again as aircraft passed through 300 AGL. Normal landing then made. Blind adherence to SOP to satisfy a QAR read-out? The mind boggles.
Final Report:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...08__OO-TND.pdf
Comment:
Compare the following anecdotal report with the autopilot disconnect major accident above.
Middle East operator A330 incident which went unreported in 2017. This operator's SOP requires autopilot to remain engaged until 300 ft AGL on all visual approaches.
On this particular occasion, the PF under line training disengaged AP at 1000 ft. The captain remonstrated with the PF in no uncertain terms that SOP required the AP disconnect should be at 300 ft not 1000 ft.
Captain then immediately re-engaged AP and shortly after permitted PF to disengage AP again as aircraft passed through 300 AGL. Normal landing then made. Blind adherence to SOP to satisfy a QAR read-out? The mind boggles.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does it say about an airline if they don't even trust their flightcrew to be able to fly a visual approach without help from the AP?
Will long remember an approach into Thessalonica. in an MD80. Severe CAVOK. At 30 miles offered the F/O a visual approach. Overfly join downwind to normal circuit and landing.
To her credit, she expressed under confidence. Proceeded to talk her through the join + circuit. After a successful approach she commented, "that was just like a circuit in a 172". I agreed.
Point being, new breed get so little exposure, they have difficulty with the basics. The problem is not with the candidates, the problem lies with the abysmal training standards of some current flight ops departments.
When you don't know what you don't know; you can't effectively teach. When the flight ops departments are peopled with people who don't know what they don't know, you are obviously heading for a fall. The only thing that mitigates the current deplorable lack of training skills, is the incredibly brilliant technology that keeps everyone safe.
That feels better.
Maui
To her credit, she expressed under confidence. Proceeded to talk her through the join + circuit. After a successful approach she commented, "that was just like a circuit in a 172". I agreed.
Point being, new breed get so little exposure, they have difficulty with the basics. The problem is not with the candidates, the problem lies with the abysmal training standards of some current flight ops departments.
When you don't know what you don't know; you can't effectively teach. When the flight ops departments are peopled with people who don't know what they don't know, you are obviously heading for a fall. The only thing that mitigates the current deplorable lack of training skills, is the incredibly brilliant technology that keeps everyone safe.
That feels better.
Maui
Thread Starter
After a successful approach she commented, "that was just like a circuit in a 172". I agreed.
Talked her down and it worked out just fine culminating intercepting the ILS glide slope and a smooth landing. Afterwards she said to me "Thank you - that's what I call flying." Isn't that so true.
new breed get so little exposure, they have difficulty with the basics
Centaurus,
Yes - that is so true. You must have been a very good bloke to fly with. Young newish pilots, male and female, need their confidence to be built in just that way!
Yes - that is so true. You must have been a very good bloke to fly with. Young newish pilots, male and female, need their confidence to be built in just that way!
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This operator's SOP requires autopilot to remain engaged until 300 ft AGL on all visual approaches.
This operator's SOP requires autopilot to remain engaged until 300 ft AGL on all visual approaches.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Globally where the money takes me
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20060615-0
Final Report:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...08__OO-TND.pdf
Comment:
Compare the following anecdotal report with the autopilot disconnect major accident above.
Middle East operator A330 incident which went unreported in 2017. This operator's SOP requires autopilot to remain engaged until 300 ft AGL on all visual approaches.
On this particular occasion, the PF under line training disengaged AP at 1000 ft. The captain remonstrated with the PF in no uncertain terms that SOP required the AP disconnect should be at 300 ft not 1000 ft.
Captain then immediately re-engaged AP and shortly after permitted PF to disengage AP again as aircraft passed through 300 AGL. Normal landing then made. Blind adherence to SOP to satisfy a QAR read-out? The mind boggles.
Final Report:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...08__OO-TND.pdf
Comment:
Compare the following anecdotal report with the autopilot disconnect major accident above.
Middle East operator A330 incident which went unreported in 2017. This operator's SOP requires autopilot to remain engaged until 300 ft AGL on all visual approaches.
On this particular occasion, the PF under line training disengaged AP at 1000 ft. The captain remonstrated with the PF in no uncertain terms that SOP required the AP disconnect should be at 300 ft not 1000 ft.
Captain then immediately re-engaged AP and shortly after permitted PF to disengage AP again as aircraft passed through 300 AGL. Normal landing then made. Blind adherence to SOP to satisfy a QAR read-out? The mind boggles.
I would also want to quiz ATC on the decision of transmitting a company message at such a critical time. Surely not the best choice. Being well familiar with this incident, it makes it all the worse as the company message contained a suggestion that that the crew could/should divert yet again. Nonetheless the skippers got the boot. my final judgement on this one remains open.....
Gender Faculty Specialist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First, a disclaimer- these comments more relate to the anecdotal example above than the report that has been linked.
That said, this whole issue gives me the sh*ts.
I'll counter with another rumour/hearsay- the one that the cp at our outfit wanted to ban us from flying visual approaches because people were cocking them up too often. Surely, the answer to this has to be to fly them more, not less?
I fly for an outfit where I _know_ that the guys pride themselves on not being the type of low experience cookie cutter pilot who can't confidently fly this typeof thing. Yet I reckon at least half the time, when I tell the other guy I'm going to disconnect everything at 10k feet I get looked at sideways like I'm a madman. Don't get me wrong, these are good, capable guys, but it seems the system is set up to dissuade them from practicing the very skills that they need to keep sharp. I mean if you can't confidently do it on a gin clear day with everything going for you, what chance do you have on a dark and stormy night when it all turns to s**t?
That said, this whole issue gives me the sh*ts.
I'll counter with another rumour/hearsay- the one that the cp at our outfit wanted to ban us from flying visual approaches because people were cocking them up too often. Surely, the answer to this has to be to fly them more, not less?
I fly for an outfit where I _know_ that the guys pride themselves on not being the type of low experience cookie cutter pilot who can't confidently fly this typeof thing. Yet I reckon at least half the time, when I tell the other guy I'm going to disconnect everything at 10k feet I get looked at sideways like I'm a madman. Don't get me wrong, these are good, capable guys, but it seems the system is set up to dissuade them from practicing the very skills that they need to keep sharp. I mean if you can't confidently do it on a gin clear day with everything going for you, what chance do you have on a dark and stormy night when it all turns to s**t?
