Middle East Many expats still flying in Knoteetingham. Regional issues can be discussed here.

EK207 Jfk

Old 16th Dec 2017, 08:49
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: FL370
Posts: 132
Edit: not going to waste my time, will have a beer instead.
sealear is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 10:47
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 851
Originally Posted by Selfmade92 View Post
One thing that completely baffles me is so called professional pilots saying a VOR/Circling approach would be dangerous??? It's a standard procedure easy to be flown...
Yep, but statistics are very clear on that....
gearlever is online now  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 13:16
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Red Star
Posts: 54
Originally Posted by fliion View Post
I’ll add to what Trader said

It is NOT the AUGs ‘duty’ to monitor any part of the approach in a way that will result in punitive measures in the event of a screw up.

Because as far as the GCAA are concerned - those augmenters are NOT on duty per the ACARS duty report and subsequent calculations for max duty limits per year.

This is a total croc of shyte. The luxury of having a colleague there to assist is just that and the Co punishing guys who are wiped out at that stage is a disgrace.

Yes the OMA lists responsibilities but to hold those guys to same standard is so beautifully characteristic of the flawed approach to Man mgt here - that it, well, speaks for itself.

No EPT mount is provided for CM3/4 and thus may not be used in the flight deck (OMA 8.1.13 a. 4.)
No pilot with near vision problems is required by EK Medical Services to view screens from 2+/- meters away at night.

At no point have EK pilots been been trained to PM from CM3 (you can’t even see from CM4). Trainers on the other hand are.

Stop pandering to the ever widening net of those to blame that has been perfected here by mgt.

It’s the Operating Crews responsibility - period.

Otherwise can we please have no notice Line checks conducted from CM4 observing CM3 observing CM1+2 - after we have had the eye monitoring feedback from sim in the CM3 position- all the while making it known to the GCAA - THAT THESE PILOTS ARE TECHNICALLY NOT ON DUTY!

One other point - if any of you guys augmenting find yourself in a JFK situation- IMMEDIATELY write a fatigue report.
I have no doubt what you say is correct.
I have been #3 or #4 myself, many times. I could choose to sleep, read a book, or act as an extra set of eyes in the cockpit. In that position my mental capacity was very high. Not occupied with radio, check lists, procedures or flying.
The capacity to just look out the window and say a word or two if I had to look up to see the runway. Never happened to me, though.

I am comparing these two incidents with the Asiana SFO accident. Those pilots were praised as heroes when they got home. The rest of us know what they did. Or failed to do. They were along for the ride and crashed because they did not understand the aircraft and failed to take control when things went bad.
Is it easy to accept this because it was a Korean airline with asian pilots?

Are we more inclined to blame everything else when something very similar happens with an EK aircraft? Because of what? Caucasian pilots, maybe? The standard is supposed to be higher? Why?
We all know Emirates have lowered the requirements got get a job. Several times. By doing so, the standard of EK pilots have been lowered. Less hours. Less experience.
And, in any airline there are average pilots, very good pilots, and some who are below average. Get the wrong combination in the cockpit and things can get interesting.

I am not saying the EK pilots are to blame, but you can’t say they are not. They put the aircraft in that position. Nobody else.

Where I am now, an incident like this would be investigated. The pilots would normally get som extra training. Everybody else would get the benefits of the investigation and the knowhow of how to avoid something like this in the future.

We know the Emirates way, and it is dead wrong. You can’t scare your pilots to be safe. You can’t beat them to make them safe. You can’t fire them to make them safe.
Xiamen is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 15:05
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In the State of Perpetual Confusion
Posts: 185
I think we can all agree that there appears to be a trend here. The incidents (that I'm aware of at least and that are under discussion) are really too similar to say otherwise. If there is a trend, then the cause(s) must be organizational. Is it training, culture, recruitment, morale, equipment, procedures etc. or some combination? The thing is; if it's more than one pilot/incident, it's not a factor of some rogue pilot going out there and screwing up in a vacuum and it's not going to be fixed by disciplining the individuals involved in the incidents. The levers of ALL of those potential "root causes" are pulled by the management of the airline and unless the "root cause" is lax checking standards (which I highly doubt), simply "turning up the heat" isn't going to do a damn thing.

It's ironic that EK management is so quick pat themselves on the back when things go well yet they absolutely refuse to accept any responsibility when things go wrong - and I'm talking about the very top management! Can't have it both ways.

To be honest, I've been gone quite a while and I'm surprised that it's taken this long to come to this.

Last edited by Gillegan; 16th Dec 2017 at 15:29. Reason: Punctuation
Gillegan is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 15:59
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Knoteatingham
Posts: 829
Turning up the heat

Turning up the heat will change things.

It will make them worse.
BANANASBANANAS is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 16:12
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In the State of Perpetual Confusion
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by BANANASBANANAS View Post
Turning up the heat will change things.

It will make them worse.
Fair point.
Gillegan is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 17:30
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mars
Posts: 521
Flown with the augmenting FO was impressed with his professionalism.

207 is pretty hard for the augmenting crew. You are sent to the bunk at about 3.30pm body clock, roll around for 6 1/2 hours then operate just when you want to go to sleep until about 4am body. The approach to JFK is flown right at the bottom of the circadian cycle. Last time I flew the operating trip, the augmenters tried to stay engaged but woke up when the gear went down. I think that is pretty standard, it’s also why we fly with augmented crews!

How they can be blamed for screwing up when expected to be fatigued is beyond me. It is a very worrying precedent.
Schnowzer is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 19:10
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: DXB & FL 410
Posts: 922
How they can be blamed for screwing up when expected to be fatigued is beyond me. It is a very worrying precedent.
Well said S.

I can't remember the last time I was truly awake for TO or Landing as augment. I fly my 'on duty' period flawlessly but when I come off duty I'm not always in the zone due to the timings.

Also really hard to reach the Take Over PB from where I'm sitting and if I did the outcome would probably be worse.
Craggenmore is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 19:22
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Orient
Age: 63
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by Killaroo View Post
JFK ATC and Canarsie, what a combo.
My Canarsie story....
I was sent to the Holding Point at 13L for departure (Canarsie approaches were in use).
I spent the next 30 minutes watching the air show as the heavies flung themselves at the runway.
A little Commuter Jetstream appeared at the Holding Point on the opposite side of the runway and was given barked instructions to line up after a landing Air France A330 on short finals, and be ready immediate.
Air France rolled onto finals and touched down - a bit long. The Jetstream lined up and held.
ATC began yelling at Air France to get off the runway - the reason being a Speedbird B747 now rolling onto finals!
As AF finally was clearing, the Jetstream was ordered to “stand up your throttles and release brakes when I tell you” (what kinda BS!). He was then cleared immediate take-off, and started rolling. We watched in amazement - the BA jumbo was now at about 200’.
The Jetstream probably got to 50kts only, then the shout came for him to “abort your takeoff immediately” followed by another order for the BA to GoAround. Which he did, from about 150’ - spectacular! I’m sure the BA crew knew they’d have to throw it away, but were hoping?
So now we had just seen an RTO and a low GA.
With the Jetstream still on the RWY the next up was an American Airlines MD-11 peeling around the Canarsie corner onto finals for 13L.
“American, do you have 13R in sight?”
“Affirmative sir”
“OK you’re cleared land 13R!”
American peels off toward 13R, then quickly realises the staggered runway is closer and he’s too high and too close. He calls Going Around.
Two GAs and an RTO in the space of a minute.
Gobsmacking.
But that’s Kennedy...
That's pushing tin.

The whole aviation industry is becoming very very stressed.

The can do, win at all cost, attitude is making everybody on edge. You are no longer enjoying your work, or contributing usefully to the world. But slaving for the people raking in big dollars at the expense of your safety, health and well being.

Fly safe and happy.

My two cents
bakutteh is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 19:40
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Orient
Age: 63
Posts: 63
Devil

Originally Posted by POTATOW View Post
The distance/altitude checks are based on DME from CRI so pretty straight forward. And yes you can manually tune an ILS on the 380. It's really not necessary though considering you already have a vertical deviation indication on the PFD with the RNAV selected in the box.
Tuning the ILS13L can help but it will bring lots of other problems before you hit short finals on the slot.

Before getting into the slot on short finals you would get all kinds of ILS deviation warnings or glideslope warnings which will be a great distaction. Besides, some airlines require long explanations for ignoring GPWS glideslope warnings. And if you have a very anal aussie pm( pilot monitoring ), he would insist you go around at the first hint of glideslope warnings...
bakutteh is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 19:45
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Orient
Age: 63
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by The Outlaw View Post
They did that in YYZ some years ago and "exited" at the end, should we blame YYZ ATC?
They were entitled to use the whole runway unless they agreed to LAHSO earlier. All the new HIRO shit is just stressing everybody up. C
bakutteh is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 20:25
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,204
Originally Posted by bakutteh View Post
Tuning the ILS13L can help but it will bring lots of other problems before you hit short finals on the slot.

Before getting into the slot on short finals you would get all kinds of ILS deviation warnings or glideslope warnings which will be a great distaction. Besides, some airlines require long explanations for ignoring GPWS glideslope warnings. And if you have a very anal aussie pm( pilot monitoring ), he would insist you go around at the first hint of glideslope warnings...
I've sure had Ozmate pm's before.

And speaking of raw data, were these guys shooting a VOR approach using a non-approved in-house RNAV profile (either the non-approved AR RNAV-X or the canceled by notam RNAV Visual 13L) in the box? Is VOR data displayed in the A380 in this case?

I'm not questioning the nav accuracy of a modern plane but since the FAA is taking a look, is this legal? I've questioned similar kludges in the past but been assured that as long as you can monitor raw data to insure compliance it is OK.

Also, did the crew get an EGWPS warning before or after the tower controller alerted them to the low altitude?
Airbubba is online now  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 21:24
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Blandings
Posts: 686
Neither GPWS nor EGPWS have a glideslope "warning".

Terms are important.
Dropp the Pilot is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 22:11
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UAE
Posts: 233
But they do .. excessive deviation below g/slope Egpws alert is “ glide slope “ one of the Egpws modes . Terms are indeed important dropp
Jack D is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 22:18
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 994
Well you said it right there: alert v warning...

GS mode off. Simples even for this Aussie pm
maggot is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 22:30
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Blandings
Posts: 686
"Glideslope" is not a warning. RTFM is a much-mourned practice.
Dropp the Pilot is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2017, 23:47
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: bkk
Posts: 285
Whether its a WARNING or ALERT is just semantics.You are LOW and should never ever have a FLY UP indication unless you have abandoned the ILS for any reason AND VERBALISED THIS.The correct action is to either turn off the ILS or announce "continuing visually" using purely visual cues to landing...and ignoring the ILS and its associated aurals from the GPWS no?
piratepete is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2017, 01:08
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: 37000
Posts: 15
"Glideslope" is a GPWS CAUTION.

"Whether it is a WARNING or ALERT (sic)..." is not just semantics. The difference between CAUTION and WARNING dictates the response. So yes, I agree, terms are important.
Tube Rider is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2017, 01:10
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 50
Posts: 2,585
'Too Low, Terrain' is a warning; the one they had.
White Knight is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2017, 02:22
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,204
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
Also, did the crew get an EGWPS warning before or after the tower controller alerted them to the low altitude?
Originally Posted by White Knight View Post
'Too Low, Terrain' is a warning; the one they had.
Thanks for the answer, I appreciate it.

Isn't 'Too Low, Terrain' a Mode 4 caution? And 'Terrain Ahead, Pull Up' a Mode 2B warning?

Originally Posted by aussiefarmer View Post
For the last 3 years there have been 482940250 versions on how to fly this approach on the A380, supported by 274829 training videos that were wrong each and everytime and every trainer teaching a different way to fly it.
Seems like I've had nearly as many explanations of EGPWS modes over the years.
Airbubba is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.