Have we come full circle?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have we come full circle?
Years ago, we heard of accidents being caused by pilot error while in IMC. More often now, we're hearing about accidents where lack of an electronic or visual glideslope is a contributing factor. Obviously the glideslope information makes the approach easier, but have we now become so dependent that we can't do some mental math to give us the basic information we need for a stabilized approach?
On the Asiana crash thread, it was noted that at multiple airlines, the FO's are hesitant to accept visual approaches. I understand that it can be challenging initially, considering the new sight picture, but surely after a few landings, a straight in visual shouldn't cause any anxiety?
What is it about the training culture at some airlines that causes a visual approach to be unduly difficult?
On the Asiana crash thread, it was noted that at multiple airlines, the FO's are hesitant to accept visual approaches. I understand that it can be challenging initially, considering the new sight picture, but surely after a few landings, a straight in visual shouldn't cause any anxiety?
What is it about the training culture at some airlines that causes a visual approach to be unduly difficult?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St. Charles, Missouri, USA
Age: 76
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would venture that visual approaches are generally taught, in conjunction with following any electronic glide slope or visual aids (PAPI/VASI) as this is a regulatory requirement for air carrier operators in most countries. The 777 is a FOQA aircraft, so every approach parameter is recorded. If an aircraft deviates below any electronic glidepath on a visual approach and landing, the flight gets tagged for "flying below the glideslope". Depending on the severity, the captain gets an inquiry from the airline. I know that Korean Air, for example, was very aggressive with their FOQA data. In the Flight Simulator, all electronic aids and approach aids are turned off, and the trainee and/or applicant must fly a "true" visual approach with only what is available inside the airplane (Windshield, flight instruments, flight controls). Ironically, the 777 is equipped with a green arc which predicts, on the electronic map, the point at which the aircraft will reach that altitude. Our company procedure for all non precision or visual approaches was to set the TDZE (touchdown zone elevation) in the altitude selector window and then adjust the flight path so that the green arc was resting in the touchdown zone of the runway, referencing the electronic map on very reduced scale. Stabilized approach criteria are more easily assessed until outside aids (if available) come into view. You make a good point.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Europe/USA
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Procedures or training for Visual Approaches
Having flown for the Koreans and in China, I can tell you that there is no training given or procedures for doing visual approaches. In fact, the US is about the only country I can think of where Visual Approaches are given or that pilots would even do it and I have worked in 7 countries. Not that a visual wouldn't be granted elsewhere but has anyone ever heard "Cleared for the Visual" at LHR, AMS, NRT, HKG etc.?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holland
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yankeeclipper is quite right, flying an ILS 98% of the time is standard when flying international, occasionaly a Vor/dme or visual, but always a landing with some aid.
The absence of a basic thing like a PAPI when a visual approach is required is a big miss ( like in the sfo accident).
The absence of a basic thing like a PAPI when a visual approach is required is a big miss ( like in the sfo accident).
Last edited by slam_dunk; 7th Jul 2013 at 07:23.
In 20 years I've regularly done visual approaches into:-
KIX
NGO
FUK
TPE
MNL
CEB
SIN
KUL
PEN
BAH
MEL
ADL
LAX
JFK
JNB
I will however agree that:-
1/ FO's don't like them
2/ they are getting harder to obtain.
KIX
NGO
FUK
TPE
MNL
CEB
SIN
KUL
PEN
BAH
MEL
ADL
LAX
JFK
JNB
I will however agree that:-
1/ FO's don't like them
2/ they are getting harder to obtain.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 7th Jul 2013 at 07:41.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between FL280 and FL410
Age: 56
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as AMS concerned YES , '' follow the coast line , cleared visual 18C/R''
True , usually the pilot has to take the initiative............I flew all runways visual and that quite some times..........
True , usually the pilot has to take the initiative............I flew all runways visual and that quite some times..........
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: PURPA
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't mean to hijack the topic, but on that note it is becoming extremely difficult for a flight crew to do a go around.
It is simply discouraged so much, coupled with the human factors that are involved in a go around (most of us are hesitant to do one) making matters worse.
I believe there are some airlines, emirates, that don't even allow visual approaches. My first go around in my airline 4 years ago, my former chief pilot called me to the HQ.
"We are not a training airline, you wasted precious time and fuel"
How about the time when I saved a ton of them? Since then, stabilised instrument approaches. That's what the bosses want!
It is simply discouraged so much, coupled with the human factors that are involved in a go around (most of us are hesitant to do one) making matters worse.
I believe there are some airlines, emirates, that don't even allow visual approaches. My first go around in my airline 4 years ago, my former chief pilot called me to the HQ.
"We are not a training airline, you wasted precious time and fuel"
How about the time when I saved a ton of them? Since then, stabilised instrument approaches. That's what the bosses want!
I noticed this in the jet charter business as well. I think it might not necessarily the training itself as much as it is the lack of previous experience to build upon. Historically, pilots attained a significantly higher level of skill and experience in light aircraft before getting hired onto a jet than they often do now. I submit that having significant PIC experience prior to moving into jet aircraft makes the skills and understanding one already has more transferable by simple virtue of the earned confidence one should rightfully have in their own abilities. I saw this time and again when I was flying charter for a company that favored entry level (read low paid and even a couple of PTF) FOs.
At another charter company prior to that I was spoiled beyond belief in comparison. They gave me mostly Navy pilots to train and check. No problems with visuals from them. They didn't scare easy and they knew the difference between merely challenging and outright dangerous already. Mostly, all they needed help with was adapting to our procedures. Hell, I learned plenty from some of them. Most of Navy guys got their 1,000 hours or so in the charter biz and moved on to better jobs.
Pretty stark difference between the two scenarios eh? Well, there were also guys like me who came from GA, had some PIC time and a little teaching experience but no jet time. When opportunity knocked... I guess our learning curve was somewhere between the above extremes. I didn't find my own initial transition to a jet easy by any means, but was able to transfer previous learning after some coaching, some experience and earning the self confidence to trust myself like I had previously in piston airplanes.
Anyway that's what I see from my vantage point.
At another charter company prior to that I was spoiled beyond belief in comparison. They gave me mostly Navy pilots to train and check. No problems with visuals from them. They didn't scare easy and they knew the difference between merely challenging and outright dangerous already. Mostly, all they needed help with was adapting to our procedures. Hell, I learned plenty from some of them. Most of Navy guys got their 1,000 hours or so in the charter biz and moved on to better jobs.
Pretty stark difference between the two scenarios eh? Well, there were also guys like me who came from GA, had some PIC time and a little teaching experience but no jet time. When opportunity knocked... I guess our learning curve was somewhere between the above extremes. I didn't find my own initial transition to a jet easy by any means, but was able to transfer previous learning after some coaching, some experience and earning the self confidence to trust myself like I had previously in piston airplanes.
Anyway that's what I see from my vantage point.
Visual approaches? All in "Handling the Big Jets" by D. P. Davies.
As a young (rather naive) Second Officer with BOAC on the B707, I recall doing a (night) visual approach to (I think) Kuwait in the mid 1970s.
I always packed D.P. Davies book in my case as it was good reading on layovers.
The approach had no electronic glideslope or VASIs (too early for PAPIS) but I measured that we would be crossing the coastline at 5 miles out from the runway (it was a clear night). I therefore planned (and achieved) crossing the coastline (clearly visual and also on radar) at 1,500 ft in the landing configuration and flew 700 ft/min to a successful landing with a stable approach. All executed by hand flying and no FMC/EFIS autopilot or autothrottle.
Something is seriously wrong with the system if pilots cannot hand fly a visual approach.
As a young (rather naive) Second Officer with BOAC on the B707, I recall doing a (night) visual approach to (I think) Kuwait in the mid 1970s.
I always packed D.P. Davies book in my case as it was good reading on layovers.
The approach had no electronic glideslope or VASIs (too early for PAPIS) but I measured that we would be crossing the coastline at 5 miles out from the runway (it was a clear night). I therefore planned (and achieved) crossing the coastline (clearly visual and also on radar) at 1,500 ft in the landing configuration and flew 700 ft/min to a successful landing with a stable approach. All executed by hand flying and no FMC/EFIS autopilot or autothrottle.
Something is seriously wrong with the system if pilots cannot hand fly a visual approach.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yankee .. If you don't ask, you don't get. I've done a visual into Paris CDG on an exceptionally quiet day, but admittedly it caused some discussion / surprise with ATC. Many regional and quieter international airports in the UK and Europe have no problem with accommodating a visual, in Australasia they are more common and as you know in the US in very busy places like LAX and SFO they are almost the norm in appropriate met conditions - a cynic would say a proven method of passing 'the buck' for separation to the flight crew. In Asia however... can't say I've ever done one.
There is no doubt that as the years pass we pilots are expected to fly the aircraft with more and more automation (for instance things I did on the 744 are verboten on the 777), and we generally won't get much (or in some cases any?) practice doing things without automation except once every few months in a hurried sim session. Yet we have always been expected by employer, regulator and the public, to miraculously maintain a highly proficient level of hand-flying ability.
Fortunately, I've noticed a new emphasis in the last year or so, at least with my current employer where there is open recognition of the issue - we're now getting some delightfully tricky manual flight scenarios built into the usual array of failures and HF issues.
Easy to make quick judgments about what occurred in SFO. However, lets wait for the report.
There is no doubt that as the years pass we pilots are expected to fly the aircraft with more and more automation (for instance things I did on the 744 are verboten on the 777), and we generally won't get much (or in some cases any?) practice doing things without automation except once every few months in a hurried sim session. Yet we have always been expected by employer, regulator and the public, to miraculously maintain a highly proficient level of hand-flying ability.
Fortunately, I've noticed a new emphasis in the last year or so, at least with my current employer where there is open recognition of the issue - we're now getting some delightfully tricky manual flight scenarios built into the usual array of failures and HF issues.
Easy to make quick judgments about what occurred in SFO. However, lets wait for the report.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many places have, in fact, that's why I'm content accepting lower pay and staying with my current carrier.
Doing an instrument approach is out of the ordinary for us, 99% of the time it's a visual, so long as minimum visibility criteria are met. Then again our AP is a SP-150, so you can't do much besides HDG and ALT Hold.
Doing an instrument approach is out of the ordinary for us, 99% of the time it's a visual, so long as minimum visibility criteria are met. Then again our AP is a SP-150, so you can't do much besides HDG and ALT Hold.
Last edited by aviatorhi; 7th Jul 2013 at 08:01.
we generally won't get much (or in some cases any?) practice doing things without automation except once every few months in a hurried sim session. Yet we have always been expected by employer, regulator and the public, to miraculously maintain a highly proficient level of hand-flying ability.
Ain't that the truth. We seem to spend more and more time in the sim looking at and practicing the latest automated procedure and/or being checked on Team skills and less and less time actually "poling" the thing. Until/unless there's a complete change in emphasis I think that will only get worse.
The absence of a basic thing like a PAPI when a visual approach is required is a big miss
Last edited by wiggy; 7th Jul 2013 at 08:07.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Y'all need to bring your A game anywhere. The fact that anyone considers a PAPI/VASI to be mandatory equipment is shocking.
I recently had an FO who was tremendously concerned because the DME was out (no GPS aircraft)... /U only. I hadn't done that in years, but how to do it, at night, into a poorly lit field, in the relative middle of nowhere, was a no brainer. I suspect the average fully automated CML would have flown the thing into the cliffs.
I also particularly enjoy two other items...
1) People who can't tell exactly where the aircraft is headed by looking out the window.
2) People who use the VSI to maintain level flight.
I recently had an FO who was tremendously concerned because the DME was out (no GPS aircraft)... /U only. I hadn't done that in years, but how to do it, at night, into a poorly lit field, in the relative middle of nowhere, was a no brainer. I suspect the average fully automated CML would have flown the thing into the cliffs.
I also particularly enjoy two other items...
1) People who can't tell exactly where the aircraft is headed by looking out the window.
2) People who use the VSI to maintain level flight.
Last edited by aviatorhi; 7th Jul 2013 at 08:14.
To those who suggest we do more visual approaches, Im guessing you don't fly long haul. After being in an aircraft for 12-14 hours, awake for up to 24 hours total minus some poor rest onboard, the last thing I want to see is a visual approach. The closest to a visual is disconnecting the autopilot around 500' to then follow the PAPI. When you're knackered I want to see the simplest approach possible, with the most automation possible.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To those who suggest we do more visual approaches, Im guessing you don't fly long haul. After being in an aircraft for 12-14 hours, awake for up to 24 hours total minus some poor rest onboard, the last thing I want to see is a visual approach. The closest to a visual is disconnecting the autopilot around 500' to then follow the PAPI. When you're knackered I want to see the simplest approach possible, with the most automation possible.
I shudder to think what the pilots of the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s would be saying to your remark.
Last edited by aviatorhi; 7th Jul 2013 at 08:21.
Talked to a former simulator student of mine flying the A330 for an Asian operator. He was undergoing command training. Approaching Melbourne duty runway was 34 which is 10,000 ft plus, wind 340/25 knots and weather fine. They were initially told to expect VOR/DME approach which is aligned with 34.
The captain asked ATC for Melbourne 27 which has an ILS and length around 8000 ft. Crosswind was going to be 25 knots. They landed on 27. Reason being? They preferred to couple to the ILS and take the 25 knot crosswind rather than land into wind on the 10,000ft 34 runway which would have involved using PAPI for glide slope guidance since weather fine. The captain did not like flying a PAPI approach....
The captain asked ATC for Melbourne 27 which has an ILS and length around 8000 ft. Crosswind was going to be 25 knots. They landed on 27. Reason being? They preferred to couple to the ILS and take the 25 knot crosswind rather than land into wind on the 10,000ft 34 runway which would have involved using PAPI for glide slope guidance since weather fine. The captain did not like flying a PAPI approach....
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nowhere near Shinbone Waterhole
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recently I was offered a visual approach at a usually busy airport on a
crystal clear day, birds singing, bees humming. Licking my lips at the
yummyness of this I rebriefed the Magenta child in the RHS that this
will be done with all the modcons and AT off (A320). I set ROSE NAV
as per the book but did all my referencing outside the window.
Positioning downwind everything went fine but calling for flap 1 the kid
was head down arse up and missed the call - HE WAS TYPING IN THE
FMCG SOME WAYPOINTS ALONG MY V/APP FLIGHT PATH and
trying to join them all up!
crystal clear day, birds singing, bees humming. Licking my lips at the
yummyness of this I rebriefed the Magenta child in the RHS that this
will be done with all the modcons and AT off (A320). I set ROSE NAV
as per the book but did all my referencing outside the window.
Positioning downwind everything went fine but calling for flap 1 the kid
was head down arse up and missed the call - HE WAS TYPING IN THE
FMCG SOME WAYPOINTS ALONG MY V/APP FLIGHT PATH and
trying to join them all up!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yankee Clipper. Visuals were common in AMS when I was flying F27s ...visual break for 24 off 27 appr to expedite traffic (24 departure runway, so no approach aids). I also had the pleasure of being based in HKG Kai Tak for 12 years, and the best thing in the world to hear from ATC was `Clear for the Visual Stepdown 13...Keep the speed up. Agree with the points made on dteriorating standards of basic skills.