Whats even worse is management desk jockey pilots who( try to) fly:}

No one knows what went through the crew's head on that day but just an advice to all....

Always prepare for a REJECT on all takeoffs - it's a 'bonus' if you get airborne and always prepare for a GO AROUND on all approaches - it's a 'bonus' if you get to land.......:ok:

Too bad if you can't accept this but many find this the best tool to keep themselves SAFE.

It was also mentioned at the roadshow that less than 30% of unstable approaches resulted in GA!!

That is F##king scary :eek:
Until the real cowboys are brought to task then we all get labelled!
Enough PC/CRM/Human Factors crap do something about it EY before we bend an aeroplane!

Hey sandyballs lets not get crazy with " Thats F***ING Scary" statement. Yes the incident was a failure by the flt deck to implement correct SOP's. But I think your comment is taken way over the top. You're probably one of the guys who does a new performance for a change of 100kgs in ZFW. Get real mate......

I think this is what the "scary" statement refers to.

Its well documented as the the hazards of landing off an unstable approach can be (in particular engines not spooled up). Okay the scary, thing might have been a bit dramamtic, but he's got a point.

ANY company has to draw a line in the sand as to limits for stabilised criteria, and ok we've all milked it at times, and it can be a pain in the a$$, but the reality is it is unsafe to continue to land in such a condiotion.

If you don't agree, have a quick look at the habsheim 320 going into the trees in a cloud of smoke. Unusual scenario yes, but graphic example of an abort from idle thrust.

Completely unrelated event...even from an engine spool up point of view.

Anyway, before these unstable approache events, we had a very clear stable/not stable policy. Ops decided to be more conservative...when does it end?

Over the illustrated period, less than 10% resulted in G/A.

I disagree.

Ok, how and why the a/c got to be low level with the engines at idle is unrelated for sure.
But from the point were he poured the power on with the intention to climb, it is exactly like a rejected landing from idle thrust scenario.

CFM did change some FADEC logic to do with spool up from idle post crash, but I think the lessons learned from that one are still valid.

Hey Mumbo Jumbo sorry but your wrong!
Im just one of the guys who tries to stick to the SOPs and knows when to GA.... Maybe you should get real mate...:ugh:....If you feel that this kind of flying is acceptable or something to be just brushed off as one of those things....we are in trouble!

Maybe your one of those in 70% who knows better than the rest of us mere mortals and lands from unstable approaches citing the usual crap of: "Good VMC"/"Long Runway" etc etc....."ATC asked us to keep our speed up" is another good one! :rolleyes:

That is why a good friend (TRE on the EY bus ),always sent his family on GF,EK or any other carrier rather than EY!!!!

haha, some in EK send their families on EY I heard

GF is the safest so far!! EY guys sent the families with us! Even the 320 CP fly with us !! He he

Tmax

so do i fly GF more than i do EY

its called a level ...........

and not had a bad flight yet

shame it has to be like this but it is

somebody should be wondering " WHY" ???????

s.l.

Dixons.............

Your reference to L'Affaire Habsheim seems valid.

Source: Peter B. Ladkin (ladkin(at)rvs.uni-bielefeld.de)

Safety-Critical Mailing List Archive 2002: Re: [sc] A320 crash at Habsheim.

Hey Dusty Balls. Who said anything about it being acceptable? Maybe you should let them out more. Would stop them from collecting all that Dust or Sand as you like to call it......

The practice of storing balls dry and dusty is a well known preventative treatment for the Jock Itch.

Mr Stain (Balls cricket)
 

BeGad Sir you must be an Australian; or is that a different 'ash'ue. Sad, but I try.