Can you actually do a Visual Approach with confidence?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong K ong
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you actually do a Visual Approach with confidence?
If you were cleared for a visual approach in CAVOK Wx would you accept?
Yes there are a few things you would consider, Traffic, Fatigue, familiarity, currency, briefed or not etc.. Anyway u could make a long list.
And every time you decline one your list will get longer and longer...
Until one day you as a Snr Cpt accepts one and has say a A/T problem and a cockpit gradient.. The outcome may not be as good as you would expect..
All I'm saying it is not only Korean Pilots as below that have this issue.
As SOP's grow to protect our lack of currency "incompetence" coupled with less all rounded experience in the flight deck. We may also be heading for trouble in CAVOK conditions..
Still some way off yet, though the trend is certainly heading that way.
Sorry got to go, and find ways to squeeze that training budget again.
Yes there are a few things you would consider, Traffic, Fatigue, familiarity, currency, briefed or not etc.. Anyway u could make a long list.
And every time you decline one your list will get longer and longer...
Until one day you as a Snr Cpt accepts one and has say a A/T problem and a cockpit gradient.. The outcome may not be as good as you would expect..
All I'm saying it is not only Korean Pilots as below that have this issue.
As SOP's grow to protect our lack of currency "incompetence" coupled with less all rounded experience in the flight deck. We may also be heading for trouble in CAVOK conditions..
Still some way off yet, though the trend is certainly heading that way.
Sorry got to go, and find ways to squeeze that training budget again.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
World’s Airline Management Culture to Blame for Asiana Crash
The unfortunate crash of Asiana Flight 214 two days ago is an accident that has been 15 years in the making.
On June 28, 1998, a United Airlines 747-400 departed San Francisco from runway 28R when the aircraft suffered an engine failure just after takeoff and the Pilot at the controls so badly mishandled the recovery, that the aircraft barely cleared the San Bruno hills by only 100 feet setting off car alarms and sending residents scurrying for cover.
The later report from the NTSB cited the Pilot’s inability to correctly identify and recover from one of the most practiced emergencies and that this was directly a result of a lack of recent real time flight experience and manual handling proficiency.
It seems as if once again this lesson has been lost on the Airline Industry.
I imagine that even before the NTSB report comes out that something very similar will be in the Board’s findings on this accident as well. In addition, I would bet that fatigue, lack of training and a complete failure of the all of the pilot’s situational awareness will also be cited as contributing factors. What all of this comes down to is that the Pilots training or lack thereof had failed them.
In terms of the conditions for the approach, this should have been a routine landing, even for a pilot under training and especially for the Captain who was conducting the training on this flight. However, what occurred was anything but routine.
On final approach, Asiana Flight 214’s attitude decayed to a point well before the crash that could only be described as being a completely unstable approach.
So what does all of this have to do with the Culture of Airline Management?
Fifteen years ago, it was indentified that there was a deficiency and erosion in the skills of pilots flying predominately long-haul routes and that there was a need to rectify this through increased training and also that when the situation was warranted and under controlled conditions, that the automatics of the aircraft should be disengaged and that the pilot should manually fly the aircraft to maintain their proficiency and familiarity with the handling characteristics of the aircraft in which they fly.
What has instead happened, is that training has been reduced to save costs and Airline Management across all of the Industry has discouraged their flight crew from disconnecting the automatics and the Manufacturers have backed this up with their own hubris extolling the performance of their automation saying that there a is minimal need, if ever, for the Pilot’s to fly the aircraft manually.
The result of all of this is what we saw in San Francisco over the weekend. Several experienced pilots who were not sufficiently trained to handle their aircraft in manual flight and the result being the loss of two lives for now and several injured.
The System of Air Travel is an amazing and complex system and thanks to the dedication and hard work of so many talented people, runs most days without a hitch. But as we all know things do change, break, mistakes are made and as this is known in the Industry an ‘Error Chain’ begins to form. When all of the errors in this chain of events line up, an incident or sometimes an accident will occur.
What will be debated after this accident and which has been discussed since automation first began making its way into the cockpits of modern airliners, is where do the errors originate, with the Pilot’s or with the automation. With this new technology the error chain has definitely been consistently weakened and this automation has been responsible for covering up many deficiencies that occur inside the cockpit and externally that once caused so many accidents.
But what we have witnessed is that even with all of these advancements, on a clear and sunny day with calm winds, is that there is no substitute for a well trained pilot.
Whatever, comes out of this investigation, I hope that the Industry and the Managers responsible for maintaining the proficiency of their Flight Departments will take to heart the importance of proper and regular training.
There will be more sunny days with aircraft without autothrust, with the Instrument Landing System inoperative, a runway with non-standard markings, it could possibly be another training flight and on top of all of this, all of the crew will be incredibly fatigued from a long night over the Pacific. What we can hope for is that this lesson will not be lost again on those responsible for the maintaining the standards of Aircrew. We can hope that Airline Managers will finally understand that training and proficiency are two things that cannot be sacrificed because no matter what their cost, the cost of not maintaining this standard is so much greater.
The unfortunate crash of Asiana Flight 214 two days ago is an accident that has been 15 years in the making.
On June 28, 1998, a United Airlines 747-400 departed San Francisco from runway 28R when the aircraft suffered an engine failure just after takeoff and the Pilot at the controls so badly mishandled the recovery, that the aircraft barely cleared the San Bruno hills by only 100 feet setting off car alarms and sending residents scurrying for cover.
The later report from the NTSB cited the Pilot’s inability to correctly identify and recover from one of the most practiced emergencies and that this was directly a result of a lack of recent real time flight experience and manual handling proficiency.
It seems as if once again this lesson has been lost on the Airline Industry.
I imagine that even before the NTSB report comes out that something very similar will be in the Board’s findings on this accident as well. In addition, I would bet that fatigue, lack of training and a complete failure of the all of the pilot’s situational awareness will also be cited as contributing factors. What all of this comes down to is that the Pilots training or lack thereof had failed them.
In terms of the conditions for the approach, this should have been a routine landing, even for a pilot under training and especially for the Captain who was conducting the training on this flight. However, what occurred was anything but routine.
On final approach, Asiana Flight 214’s attitude decayed to a point well before the crash that could only be described as being a completely unstable approach.
So what does all of this have to do with the Culture of Airline Management?
Fifteen years ago, it was indentified that there was a deficiency and erosion in the skills of pilots flying predominately long-haul routes and that there was a need to rectify this through increased training and also that when the situation was warranted and under controlled conditions, that the automatics of the aircraft should be disengaged and that the pilot should manually fly the aircraft to maintain their proficiency and familiarity with the handling characteristics of the aircraft in which they fly.
What has instead happened, is that training has been reduced to save costs and Airline Management across all of the Industry has discouraged their flight crew from disconnecting the automatics and the Manufacturers have backed this up with their own hubris extolling the performance of their automation saying that there a is minimal need, if ever, for the Pilot’s to fly the aircraft manually.
The result of all of this is what we saw in San Francisco over the weekend. Several experienced pilots who were not sufficiently trained to handle their aircraft in manual flight and the result being the loss of two lives for now and several injured.
The System of Air Travel is an amazing and complex system and thanks to the dedication and hard work of so many talented people, runs most days without a hitch. But as we all know things do change, break, mistakes are made and as this is known in the Industry an ‘Error Chain’ begins to form. When all of the errors in this chain of events line up, an incident or sometimes an accident will occur.
What will be debated after this accident and which has been discussed since automation first began making its way into the cockpits of modern airliners, is where do the errors originate, with the Pilot’s or with the automation. With this new technology the error chain has definitely been consistently weakened and this automation has been responsible for covering up many deficiencies that occur inside the cockpit and externally that once caused so many accidents.
But what we have witnessed is that even with all of these advancements, on a clear and sunny day with calm winds, is that there is no substitute for a well trained pilot.
Whatever, comes out of this investigation, I hope that the Industry and the Managers responsible for maintaining the proficiency of their Flight Departments will take to heart the importance of proper and regular training.
There will be more sunny days with aircraft without autothrust, with the Instrument Landing System inoperative, a runway with non-standard markings, it could possibly be another training flight and on top of all of this, all of the crew will be incredibly fatigued from a long night over the Pacific. What we can hope for is that this lesson will not be lost again on those responsible for the maintaining the standards of Aircrew. We can hope that Airline Managers will finally understand that training and proficiency are two things that cannot be sacrificed because no matter what their cost, the cost of not maintaining this standard is so much greater.
Last edited by Sullys Revenge; 12th Jul 2013 at 09:45.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would I accept a visual approach? Absolutely. Its what I do almost every flight and indeed the only times I haven't made a visual approach is while under training. Let me clarify: I am not a heavy pilot (well actually I AM heavy, but the aircraft I fly aren't). I fly gliders, hence my user name, and SEP only.
However my son is about to progress heavies after flying twin engine turbo props for a while, and I hope that he hasn't lost the skills that were passed on to him early in his career. If you are reading this forum B then I say Hi.
Before going off to aviation college he had already had a little stick and rudder time on a C172, and had progressed to single seat gliders. During his CPL training at aviation college he realised that there were issues that were not being adequately covered, and he came back to our local aero club for some one on one mountain flying and visual flight training. On one trip I even took him on a 3 hour mountain flight via a large diverison to a distant strip through deep valleys and gorges always staying lower than the ridge line, then returned to base via a direct route at just above mountain top height. Our landing at that distant strip was without benefit of any guides, and I didn't even give him an airfield chart. His approach was a straight in after crossing a saddle 18 Nm out, then approach over a lake before he could even see where the grass strip was.
This is the type of training that I hope he keeps with him his whole life as he moves up the chain and progesses to different aircraft. I would expect that if offered a visual approach that he would accept it, and that he would establish a stable approach early, and that he will also monitor both airspeed and altitude at all times.
However my son is about to progress heavies after flying twin engine turbo props for a while, and I hope that he hasn't lost the skills that were passed on to him early in his career. If you are reading this forum B then I say Hi.
Before going off to aviation college he had already had a little stick and rudder time on a C172, and had progressed to single seat gliders. During his CPL training at aviation college he realised that there were issues that were not being adequately covered, and he came back to our local aero club for some one on one mountain flying and visual flight training. On one trip I even took him on a 3 hour mountain flight via a large diverison to a distant strip through deep valleys and gorges always staying lower than the ridge line, then returned to base via a direct route at just above mountain top height. Our landing at that distant strip was without benefit of any guides, and I didn't even give him an airfield chart. His approach was a straight in after crossing a saddle 18 Nm out, then approach over a lake before he could even see where the grass strip was.
This is the type of training that I hope he keeps with him his whole life as he moves up the chain and progesses to different aircraft. I would expect that if offered a visual approach that he would accept it, and that he would establish a stable approach early, and that he will also monitor both airspeed and altitude at all times.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Helping out on the 3rd floor
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Children of the Magenta
Can you imagine Cathay every teaching this??
And this was done back in the 90's....
Our training department is so antiquated it's not even funny... Yet those third floor managers are so full of themselves that they think they're pioneers!
We're just rolling the dice...
Cathay this... Cathay that... We're a small, small airline in the grand scheme of things... maybe instead of being so arrogant we can learn a thing or two from airlines TEN TIMES our size...
And this was done back in the 90's....
Our training department is so antiquated it's not even funny... Yet those third floor managers are so full of themselves that they think they're pioneers!
We're just rolling the dice...
Cathay this... Cathay that... We're a small, small airline in the grand scheme of things... maybe instead of being so arrogant we can learn a thing or two from airlines TEN TIMES our size...
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MOON
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Partner and I asked each other the same question three days ago, and have been doing visuals in the 330 on regional flights since. It was a bit of a wake up, but its not something that was beyond either of us.
Obviously @ HKIA and busy ports we accept the ILS, but we've just deselected the FD and LS buttons and flown it visually/manually.
That said, its not something the culture here encourages. Regardless, I will be doing many many more, with no auto thrust as its time pilots actually flew again. Maybe not on really bad days, or high traffic times, but certainly you can pick your days doing regional stuff, and have a go.
Edit : iflylow, I've seen that before and no, i don't think the idiots who think they "manage" KA or CX could grasp that. it would destroy their MPL, no experience cadet plans. They may actually have to start paying people who are qualified.. Can't have that.
Obviously @ HKIA and busy ports we accept the ILS, but we've just deselected the FD and LS buttons and flown it visually/manually.
That said, its not something the culture here encourages. Regardless, I will be doing many many more, with no auto thrust as its time pilots actually flew again. Maybe not on really bad days, or high traffic times, but certainly you can pick your days doing regional stuff, and have a go.
Edit : iflylow, I've seen that before and no, i don't think the idiots who think they "manage" KA or CX could grasp that. it would destroy their MPL, no experience cadet plans. They may actually have to start paying people who are qualified.. Can't have that.
Last edited by twotigers; 12th Jul 2013 at 10:48.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honkers
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay this... Cathay that... We're a small, small airline in the grand scheme of things... maybe instead of being so arrogant we can learn a thing or two from airlines TEN TIMES our size...
So true iflylow....
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Macau
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The spoken English of most Korean pilots was just horrible! It really scared you off.
Based on what Tom's said, it would be nice that some pilots chose the VOR/DME approach for training purpose at HKIA.
Based on what Tom's said, it would be nice that some pilots chose the VOR/DME approach for training purpose at HKIA.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong K ong
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thks iflylow, exsactly what is needed esp from a humble and straight talking boss. Esp the last min. It needs to start in the sim, as many of us are so far from the mark.
Ironically our GMF is reminding us of a amendment to a company NOTAM, for SFO which may mean the a lot more heads down when the opposite may to true with RWY changes.. on the plus he is thankful to those superior skilled pilots flying to TPE tonight...
Is it just me but these FMC SOP's with IANs RNP etc are getting out of hand.
Esp when they cannot even certify new planes with bug free software u can depend on.
When can we get back to flying for a living?
Ironically our GMF is reminding us of a amendment to a company NOTAM, for SFO which may mean the a lot more heads down when the opposite may to true with RWY changes.. on the plus he is thankful to those superior skilled pilots flying to TPE tonight...
Is it just me but these FMC SOP's with IANs RNP etc are getting out of hand.
Esp when they cannot even certify new planes with bug free software u can depend on.
When can we get back to flying for a living?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Shower house of Africa
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most basic rule of flying is to keep your instrument scan on going !!!
in glass cockpit aeroplanes you got to scan and at the same time be aware of your FMA !
An airbus instructor once told me you gotta be like a chameleon. One eye on the PFD and the other outside the cockpit. (During visual approaches)
If you don't do the above then you are useless and a danger to yourself and everyone around you !
in glass cockpit aeroplanes you got to scan and at the same time be aware of your FMA !
An airbus instructor once told me you gotta be like a chameleon. One eye on the PFD and the other outside the cockpit. (During visual approaches)
If you don't do the above then you are useless and a danger to yourself and everyone around you !
Last edited by Ghost_Rider737; 12th Jul 2013 at 14:51.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: crewbag
Age: 51
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm quite confident that today's CX flight crews can handle a visual approach, having the experience and skills to accept and monitor it to a) a successfull landing or b) a safe go-around.
Without drawing any premature conclusions about he Asiana accident, I'm by no means equally confident we can say the same in 10-15 years time. We've purchased a lot of experience over the years, and that experience has built our standards, trainers and flight ops reputation.
By ending the import of experience and flight hours, as a matter of politics and cost control, the mix will dillute to a point where the blond will be leading the blind.
And we will again apply the fix every short sighted investor loves, treat the symptoms and not the disease by banning visuals, manual landings and non-precision approaches all together.
But that's long after I'm gone, just like those who are currently overseeing this skills erosion.
Without drawing any premature conclusions about he Asiana accident, I'm by no means equally confident we can say the same in 10-15 years time. We've purchased a lot of experience over the years, and that experience has built our standards, trainers and flight ops reputation.
By ending the import of experience and flight hours, as a matter of politics and cost control, the mix will dillute to a point where the blond will be leading the blind.
And we will again apply the fix every short sighted investor loves, treat the symptoms and not the disease by banning visuals, manual landings and non-precision approaches all together.
But that's long after I'm gone, just like those who are currently overseeing this skills erosion.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GREAT VIDEO....WE SHOULD ALL WATCH IT
In CX we do exactly the opposite what this video recommends for WINDSHEAR AND LOW LEVEL ENGINE FAILURE. We are encouraged to engage the autopilot at low level instead of hand flying.
The other issue that concerns me is the Handling sim that was introduced to improve our handling skills {DUH} is being hijacked to cover niff naff such as cargo fires, low temp altimetry, and other minor topics that can all be covered in regulatory items in PC/RT sessions . I would suggest we would be better off practising hand flying visual approaches and other back to basic skills in the Handling session.
The other issue that concerns me is the Handling sim that was introduced to improve our handling skills {DUH} is being hijacked to cover niff naff such as cargo fires, low temp altimetry, and other minor topics that can all be covered in regulatory items in PC/RT sessions . I would suggest we would be better off practising hand flying visual approaches and other back to basic skills in the Handling session.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: somewhere
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you imagine Cathay every teaching this??
And this was done back in the 90's....
Our training department is so antiquated it's not even funny... Yet those third floor managers are so full of themselves that they think they're pioneers!
We're just rolling the dice...
Cathay this... Cathay that... We're a small, small airline in the grand scheme of things... maybe instead of being so arrogant we can learn a thing or two from airlines TEN TIMES our size...
And this was done back in the 90's....
Our training department is so antiquated it's not even funny... Yet those third floor managers are so full of themselves that they think they're pioneers!
We're just rolling the dice...
Cathay this... Cathay that... We're a small, small airline in the grand scheme of things... maybe instead of being so arrogant we can learn a thing or two from airlines TEN TIMES our size...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be Careful!
The other issue that concerns me is the Handling sim that was introduced to improve our handling skills {DUH} is being hijacked to cover niff naff such as cargo fires, low temp altimetry, and other minor topics that can all be covered in regulatory items in PC/RT sessions . I would suggest we would be better off practising hand flying visual approaches and other back to basic skills in the Handling session.
You may remember when the handling sim began a few years ago, it was close to what you suggest (not quite, but close), and it was constantly being used as a "free reserve" by screw control. So, one of the designers of the program very cleverly added in a few CAD required recurrent items, that was it can't constantly be changed. A small smattering of the "niff naff" as you call it is a small price to pay to ensure that the session is actually completed, IMHO.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst Broadband is factually correct about the "niff naff" being put in the handling sims to protect us, Cyril is right. The Handling Sim was created with the best of intentions but has morphed into another Vol 8 driven, box-ticking, threat dodging Cathay waving of w!llies-fest.
