PIA Manchester Scare.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PIA Manchester Scare.
Anyone see the PIA B747 today at MAN. Seems it was well off track on approach, ATC told them to go around, but pilot replied I've got the runway in sight, and landed. Scared the ATP crew at the hold!
! Did you see it Ransman.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LTN uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft should be impounded and crew licences suspended.
An instruction from ATC is just that, an instruction. For all the PIA crew knew, ATC could be instructing the a/c to go around for any number of reasons. Feel free to conduct antics like that on your home turf, but not here in the UK where flight safety is amongst the best in the world.
An instruction from ATC is just that, an instruction. For all the PIA crew knew, ATC could be instructing the a/c to go around for any number of reasons. Feel free to conduct antics like that on your home turf, but not here in the UK where flight safety is amongst the best in the world.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guess when G-registered, Brit airline aircraft have a problem, these aircraft should be impounded and crew licenses suspended when at 'foreign' airports.
Caledonian L10 at KOS, for example.
Caledonian L10 at KOS, for example.
I suppose a damned good thrashing for them is out of the question BB1?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LTN uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a,
They had a problem then?
They would have had a far bigger problem had they slammed into another aircraft unseen to them. The point being that ATC could have instructed the a/c to go around for any number of reasons, all of which (according to the inital report) were disregarded.
Unfamiliar with the L10 incidient at Kos, but yes (if the situation did occur as in the initial report) I would expect local authorities to take action.
They had a problem then?
They would have had a far bigger problem had they slammed into another aircraft unseen to them. The point being that ATC could have instructed the a/c to go around for any number of reasons, all of which (according to the inital report) were disregarded.
Unfamiliar with the L10 incidient at Kos, but yes (if the situation did occur as in the initial report) I would expect local authorities to take action.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB1, have you ever flown a heavy? I suspect not........ It flies just like any other aeroplane, but with more inertia.
If they had the runway and considered landing safer than going round, we must respect their judgement. After all, the crew were there, we were not.
As for ignoring an ATC instruction, they must have had good reason. Better to argue it on terra firma when eveyone is safe, I think.
If they had the runway and considered landing safer than going round, we must respect their judgement. After all, the crew were there, we were not.
As for ignoring an ATC instruction, they must have had good reason. Better to argue it on terra firma when eveyone is safe, I think.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stockport
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny I was talking about it last night in the pub and wondered what happened because visibility was very poor and aircraft not breaking cloud until about 200 feet height (couldn`t have had very long from breaking cloud to getting runway in sight)
Ian
Ian
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LTN uk
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point is being missed again.
"they had the runway and considered landing safe"
This may well be the scenerio at un controlled airfields, but not at major like MAN. Regardless of this situation , the point that Im trying to make is that ATC could have ordered them to go around for any number of reasons, most notibly that the runway could well have been occupied and not because the tower controller thought that they were unstable on the approach.
"they had the runway and considered landing safe"
This may well be the scenerio at un controlled airfields, but not at major like MAN. Regardless of this situation , the point that Im trying to make is that ATC could have ordered them to go around for any number of reasons, most notibly that the runway could well have been occupied and not because the tower controller thought that they were unstable on the approach.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: uk
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well the point here as I see it,
"but pilot replied I've got the runway in sight, and landed"
well thats nice, but was he CLEARED to land? if he was, that would certainly change things would`nt it, as this assures, at least from an ATC point of view that the runway is clear, so this is not a factor, however if he was not cleared, then different story, a GA would have been mandatory,
I suspect it was more a question of ,
" you do not look established, can you make it work"
I can say, having taken 74`s into MAN many times, that the controllers do tend to create a short gate at times, and perhaps do not allow for the need to establish a little further out, as well if the final intercept is not a shallow enough cut, and the speed perhaps a little high, the classic is not the best at capturing, this can certainly be seen as an unstable app, but if you feel it is coming back then no problems.
"An instruction from ATC is just that, an instruction"
tell you what BB, before you make a blanket statement like that, you may want to spend some time in some of the more ATC challenged parts of the world mate, you will develop a pretty healthy lack of trust in "instructions" not that this is the norm in MAN and the UK in gen, but do not assume that if it comes from ATC it must be right...
"but pilot replied I've got the runway in sight, and landed"
well thats nice, but was he CLEARED to land? if he was, that would certainly change things would`nt it, as this assures, at least from an ATC point of view that the runway is clear, so this is not a factor, however if he was not cleared, then different story, a GA would have been mandatory,
I suspect it was more a question of ,
" you do not look established, can you make it work"
I can say, having taken 74`s into MAN many times, that the controllers do tend to create a short gate at times, and perhaps do not allow for the need to establish a little further out, as well if the final intercept is not a shallow enough cut, and the speed perhaps a little high, the classic is not the best at capturing, this can certainly be seen as an unstable app, but if you feel it is coming back then no problems.
"An instruction from ATC is just that, an instruction"
tell you what BB, before you make a blanket statement like that, you may want to spend some time in some of the more ATC challenged parts of the world mate, you will develop a pretty healthy lack of trust in "instructions" not that this is the norm in MAN and the UK in gen, but do not assume that if it comes from ATC it must be right...
stilljustanothernumber
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the night sky
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, to ignore an ATC instrustion like "go around", which obviously cancels a previous landing clearance is probably unwise. What is even less wise IMHO, is for an ATCO to order a G/A because he considers an app unstable. This is the pilot's responsibility as they are in a far better position to know whether an approach is viable or not. Further, the ATCO cannot know the fuel or serviceabilty state of the a/c. He'd look pretty daft if it had just lost two engines / engine fire / cabin fire / hijack attempt, wouldn't he?
Guest
Posts: n/a
And so if ATC see an aircraft on short final who has obviously forgotten to lower his landing gear - then it's not their problem, so they don't advise (instruct) the pilot to go-around?
In my experience in UK if ATC say "go-around" then that is good enough for most intelligent crews.
In my experience in UK if ATC say "go-around" then that is good enough for most intelligent crews.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Box Hill or Bust
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unwiseowl,
ATCO has no choice, MATS PT1 states:-
A landing aircraft, which is considered by a controller to be dangerously positioned on final approach, shall be instructed to carry out a missed approach. An aircraft can be considered as 'dangerously positioned' when it is poorly placed either laterally or vertically for the landing runway.
What is even less wise IMHO, is for an ATCO to order a G/A because he considers an app unstable.
A landing aircraft, which is considered by a controller to be dangerously positioned on final approach, shall be instructed to carry out a missed approach. An aircraft can be considered as 'dangerously positioned' when it is poorly placed either laterally or vertically for the landing runway.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This might help qualify the pilots attitude. a couple of years ago same airport same ailine but on 06lLand a bit farther out, they broke out and were obviously not lined up with the runway,heated discussion followed with atc the upshot was that the pia capt, got his way and continued to land, basically he ignored instuctions. Cultural differences is the polite term.
Wierdly i was two aircraft behind this guy on sat morning. cloudbase was actual 400', i know because i beat the auto land trim wind up with an a/p disconnect with seconds to spare.
Having spent most of my career not in this fir i would put money on it being crew/cultural arrogance and not an overly bossy controler.should be grounded and charged with the flying equivalent of dangerous driving. but that wouldnt please the P.C. police would it.
jack
Wierdly i was two aircraft behind this guy on sat morning. cloudbase was actual 400', i know because i beat the auto land trim wind up with an a/p disconnect with seconds to spare.
Having spent most of my career not in this fir i would put money on it being crew/cultural arrogance and not an overly bossy controler.should be grounded and charged with the flying equivalent of dangerous driving. but that wouldnt please the P.C. police would it.
jack
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all those out there who are saying that ATC do not know if an approach is unstable, I must intervene. We may not know if the crew believe it to be unstable but our job as controllers is to enforce safety at the aerodrome (at least in the UK). To do this we have a number of aids at our disposal, not lest our experience - if you spend years looking out of the window, you learn to spot an approach that is off track either laterally or vertically.
More importantly, we also have an electronic aid called an AMA - Approach Monitoring Aid. This provides information on the stability of the lateral track of an aircraft on the approach. The closer tha aircraft gets to the airfield, the less the tolerance of lateral deviation allowed on the approach by the system. If the aircaraft deviated too much, an audible buzzer sounds. We have to check if the aircraft is happy with the approach. If the aircraft is within a mile and outside the tolerance, we HAVE to instruct the aircraft to go around, no choice, these are the rules. The device was designed after someone tried to land on the A4 instead of 27R at Heathrow.
My point is this - whilst ATC abroad may not be what it is here, when you are here you should do as you are told. When in Rome I suppose. The controller may have given the go around for any number of reasons. The previous lander may have left debris on the runway for instance. How then could it be safer for the PIA to land? Forget the old "what if they had an engine fire?" twaddle, if they had, everyone would have known about it. They landed cos they thought that they knew better. Final command may well rest with the captain, but what would be the outcome of landing on a contaminated runway after being instructed to go around? Potentially very bad, I proffer.
Also, to call into question ATCs knowledge on unstable approaches is churlish at the outside. We may not know how to fly as well as you and we are certainly NOT telling you how to fly, but we DO see more approaches and landings at our aerodrome than any pilot (try doing arrivals 27R at Heathrow for an hour, boring as hell) so we do know when one is not in the correct place.
We are here to provide safety as I said earlier on. If I say go around, it ain't a joke, I MEAN GO AROUND. If you choose not to and something bad happens, don't blame me. I don't give 'em lightly because it means more work for me. Most pilots I've ever met would prefer to land as well, so if we give a go around there is usually a good reason. Imagine if the Manchester controller had NOT given the go around and the crew had stuffed it. Who's head would you want on the platter then?
ATC over here is about as safe as you can get, so let's all try and keep it that way.
P7
More importantly, we also have an electronic aid called an AMA - Approach Monitoring Aid. This provides information on the stability of the lateral track of an aircraft on the approach. The closer tha aircraft gets to the airfield, the less the tolerance of lateral deviation allowed on the approach by the system. If the aircaraft deviated too much, an audible buzzer sounds. We have to check if the aircraft is happy with the approach. If the aircraft is within a mile and outside the tolerance, we HAVE to instruct the aircraft to go around, no choice, these are the rules. The device was designed after someone tried to land on the A4 instead of 27R at Heathrow.
My point is this - whilst ATC abroad may not be what it is here, when you are here you should do as you are told. When in Rome I suppose. The controller may have given the go around for any number of reasons. The previous lander may have left debris on the runway for instance. How then could it be safer for the PIA to land? Forget the old "what if they had an engine fire?" twaddle, if they had, everyone would have known about it. They landed cos they thought that they knew better. Final command may well rest with the captain, but what would be the outcome of landing on a contaminated runway after being instructed to go around? Potentially very bad, I proffer.
Also, to call into question ATCs knowledge on unstable approaches is churlish at the outside. We may not know how to fly as well as you and we are certainly NOT telling you how to fly, but we DO see more approaches and landings at our aerodrome than any pilot (try doing arrivals 27R at Heathrow for an hour, boring as hell) so we do know when one is not in the correct place.
We are here to provide safety as I said earlier on. If I say go around, it ain't a joke, I MEAN GO AROUND. If you choose not to and something bad happens, don't blame me. I don't give 'em lightly because it means more work for me. Most pilots I've ever met would prefer to land as well, so if we give a go around there is usually a good reason. Imagine if the Manchester controller had NOT given the go around and the crew had stuffed it. Who's head would you want on the platter then?
ATC over here is about as safe as you can get, so let's all try and keep it that way.
P7
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: uk
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seven,
you make some excellent points, and please do not misconstrue what I said previously as a knock on UK ATC, you boys and girls are at least tied with the best in the world, from my point of view, you know how to move airplanes, ( but you do use an amazing number of frequencies in the process!
)
I take your points regards what is and is not stabilised, you have probably seen every extreme.
I am curious to learn more about this AMA, do you know the tolerances inside a mile? it must be far more than full scale deflection on the HSI I would imagine, cause while I have seen "glideslope glideslope" inside a mile, it has not prompted a GA call from ATC.
So I would imagine the tolerance required to ring your bells would be pretty obvious to anyone observing, both in and out of the cockpit anyway.
Now with most SOPs I have seen requiring a stabilised app. inside of 1000 feet in a widebody for example, this pretty much covers it anyways, without intervention from ATC.
Up to this point, the reasons for it happening are many and varied, WX, autoflight anomilies, hand flying poorly, ATC, lots more too, but thats why SOPs are there, and if followed the GA is required anyway.
As mentioned before, gear, this is really no factor, as it is clearly annunciated in anything coming into MAN, etc anyway, as well a checklist item, that a GA by ATC due lack of gear is not going to be a factor,
( Ironically the airline that started this thread has managed to get through all of these warnings, and still land a 74 gear up in Islamabad!)
I would say though, before condemning this crew in the court of pprune, that the actual facts are known, the initial post leaves a great deal of room regards just what happened.
you make some excellent points, and please do not misconstrue what I said previously as a knock on UK ATC, you boys and girls are at least tied with the best in the world, from my point of view, you know how to move airplanes, ( but you do use an amazing number of frequencies in the process!
)I take your points regards what is and is not stabilised, you have probably seen every extreme.
I am curious to learn more about this AMA, do you know the tolerances inside a mile? it must be far more than full scale deflection on the HSI I would imagine, cause while I have seen "glideslope glideslope" inside a mile, it has not prompted a GA call from ATC.
So I would imagine the tolerance required to ring your bells would be pretty obvious to anyone observing, both in and out of the cockpit anyway.
Now with most SOPs I have seen requiring a stabilised app. inside of 1000 feet in a widebody for example, this pretty much covers it anyways, without intervention from ATC.
Up to this point, the reasons for it happening are many and varied, WX, autoflight anomilies, hand flying poorly, ATC, lots more too, but thats why SOPs are there, and if followed the GA is required anyway.
As mentioned before, gear, this is really no factor, as it is clearly annunciated in anything coming into MAN, etc anyway, as well a checklist item, that a GA by ATC due lack of gear is not going to be a factor,
( Ironically the airline that started this thread has managed to get through all of these warnings, and still land a 74 gear up in Islamabad!)
I would say though, before condemning this crew in the court of pprune, that the actual facts are known, the initial post leaves a great deal of room regards just what happened.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cause while I have seen "glideslope glideslope" inside a mile, it has not prompted a GA call from ATC.
careful inspection of .7's post will reveal...
provides information on the stability of the lateral track of an aircraft