Hard landing in C-130J
Flight global has reported on the SI into the hard landing of ZH873. Having read the SI report I would have personally placed the error as lack of currency rather than a loss of SA. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...3H#sf213125226 https://assets.publishing.service.go...RT_Final-O.pdf A very comprehensive and thorough report. |
An extensive report; ‘comprehensive and thorough’ to the point of using every flight safety and HF cliche in the industry. If you require a crew to undertake a very challenging operation in limiting conditions, with significant operational hazards, then the better conclusion is that the accident was an operational risk. Those on the front line managed what they could at the time; those in background, with hindsight might have managed to greater effect, but those distant managers conducted their tasks very well - never took their hands out of their pockets. |
Not sure that either actually constitute an error
|
Not really. You might conclude that such an accident is an acceptable operational risk when weighing up the cost versus gain. But the purpose of an accident investigation is to understand its cause so as to minimise the likelihood of recurrence. Operational risk did not cause the accident! |
Originally Posted by safetypee
(Post 10477459)
An extensive report; comprehensive and thorough to the point In the three day acclimatisation period they completed a handover, theatre read-in and mission planning. The PF was unable to remember any details of the handover brief, nor did the PF or PNF manage to commit either the aircraft parking location or take off time to memory. The use of the term "consistently fast" on the approach, which the PNF called out twice, is quaint. Maybe "approach speed was never stabilised"? That's also a good indicator of something... "The panel concluded that fatigue was not a factor" It appears that the definition of fatigue used now extends to 'they had a good sleep the night before' in a single section which considers fatigue through the narrowest of windows. To my reading, the rest of the report is littered with indications of significant fatigue factors. The report is also spectacularly verbose, I opine. |
A real `double Leerdammer` for parts of the AT fleet.
Why is there no mention of the use of `tactical IR PAPIs`....? or are they `in stores`...? Even a good google on GE would show up the slope...... Agree with SP, whilst the crew were unfortunate, a lot of others contributed along the way.... The word " should" in the recommendations `should` be replaced by "must"...!!! |
The word " should" in the recommendations `should` be replaced by "must"...!!! |
The report is also spectacularly verbose, I opine. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10478212)
Prolix, not verbose. |
Originally Posted by Bing
(Post 10478206)
In MAA speak should = must. You need to re-tune your mind when you read these things...
|
'Must': do it or be in the crap.
'Should': if you can't demonstrate good reason for not doing it, you can expect to be in the crap. That, as it happens, is the official usage of the words in Welsh Assembly documents. Who knew the Giant Parish Council would have the foresight eh? CG |
"Propose" = "I would like to do this if you approve" "Intend" = I will do this unless you tell me otherwise". I once flew with a captain who was a great user of "intend", as in "I intend that we will route AAA to BBB via a nightstop in XXX" XXX was always, of course a great place to nightstop.
|
The word " should" in the recommendations `should` be replaced by "must"...!!! |
But “must” implies an order to someone beneath you in the CoC, surely? Anyway, a most interesting and detailed read. |
Originally Posted by MPN11
(Post 10478858)
But “must” implies an order to someone beneath you in the CoC, surely? Anyway, a most interesting and detailed read. |
Originally Posted by MPN11
(Post 10478858)
But “must” implies an order to someone beneath you in the CoC, surely? Anyway, a most interesting and detailed read. |
They`re not `independent of the CoC.....
Anyway,nobody answered my query about tactical IR PAPIs...? 50 Yrs ago we used to fly into DZ/LZs using torches mounted on bamboo poles,or Gurkhas holding torches,45 yrs ago I did trials on tactical ILS in helos and tac transports,;the Navy have been getting guys onboard at night using a man and illuminated tennis bats.,......... Seems like not much `lateral/out of the box thinking` going on...... Gaius Petronius AD22-67 Must go and make up a few acronyms..... |
This SI is the crowning glory of the long growing trend to validate the "holes in the cheese" theory of accident cause (it even uses that graphic in the report). Yes, we all know there is seldom a single root cause, yes, we all know you have to look well past the smoking hole, and yes, we all know piss-poor organisation is a frequent driver for uninformed decision making in the cockpit, but my life, this outpouring of self-serving drivel is ridiculous. When I hear hoof beats I think horses, not zebras, but this report has looked for every zebra the AT fleet ever rode.
|
(Not a pilot) Agreed, Sir! What also struck me from the surgical dissection was the voluminous documentation and cross-referencing and box-checking associated with operations these days. Yes, in my ATC days (69s-90s) we had [I guess] about a 2 to 3 ft pile of documentation to work from ... with a limited pile of ‘recall items’ within it. But nowadays it seems that operators are submerged in paperwork, as the comments about meeting actions never being actioned indicates. I know safety is paramount, and things have progressed since my days, but I just wonder how much brain-power is required to trawl through, memorise or comply with the myriad of regulationary and other material required now. |
Originally Posted by MPN11
(Post 10479485)
...I know safety is paramount, and things have progressed since my days, but I just wonder how much brain-power is required to trawl through, memorise or comply with the myriad of regulationary and other material required now.... |
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:39. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.