BA 747 100Kts & stick shake?
Moderator
Join Date: May 1998
Location: .
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aiming point - at Astraeus we always brief the go-around before every approach and by this I mean that we concentrate as much ( or even more so ) on who says what, who presses what, who moves what, who does what, what GA thrust is required, etc, as we do on what the approach plate has to say about the latteral and vertical navigation aspects of the GA - and wherein, as you correctly say, it's something we don't often get to do for real and so careful review of the actuall stick and rudder bits go a long way towards helping to keep it safe.
Nb. This year alone I've presonally done two go-arounds, once due a GPWS "Terrrain pull-up" at Taba / HETB ( caused by an error in the approach procedure - since revised ) the other was as a result of not being able to see any approach lights at the MDA at Innsbruck / LOWI ( due snow storm ) - and I'm still here to type about it.
Nb. This year alone I've presonally done two go-arounds, once due a GPWS "Terrrain pull-up" at Taba / HETB ( caused by an error in the approach procedure - since revised ) the other was as a result of not being able to see any approach lights at the MDA at Innsbruck / LOWI ( due snow storm ) - and I'm still here to type about it.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evening gents,
there has been reference to an incident involving an a340 and Windshear I think it is. Can someone elaborate or can I read about it somewhere. It sounds as if it was very, very exciting, to say the least.
thanks,
there has been reference to an incident involving an a340 and Windshear I think it is. Can someone elaborate or can I read about it somewhere. It sounds as if it was very, very exciting, to say the least.
thanks,
A company that I flew for had 2 different engine fits on their fleet of 747-200s. The simulator had the lower powered PW engines, and the OEI go-arounds practised during LPC/OPC were inevitably at max landing weight. Therefore, the performance was OK and the rates of climb and acceleration during flap retraction easily manageable. The first one that I flew for real (due to no visual cues at CATI DA) was in a more powerful RR engined aircraft, AEO, at light weight . The excess power was impressive, and a non-standard power reduction was needed during flap retraction to keep the speed under control in the SOP profile! No problems, as our operations involved a lot of hand flying due to the older generation of the aircraft. However, I always briefed this excess power aspect in subsequent arrival briefs.
I was involved in 3 GAs in 2 years ( 2 as PF, 1 as PNF), 2 for weather, 1 for a blocked runway, and although the workload was high the task was philosophically similar to take-off procedures and not a problem. It is interesting to consider the problems and scope for errors in automated GAs in automated aircraft vs manual GAs in manual aircraft. Comments from pilots with experience of both greatly appreciated.
I was involved in 3 GAs in 2 years ( 2 as PF, 1 as PNF), 2 for weather, 1 for a blocked runway, and although the workload was high the task was philosophically similar to take-off procedures and not a problem. It is interesting to consider the problems and scope for errors in automated GAs in automated aircraft vs manual GAs in manual aircraft. Comments from pilots with experience of both greatly appreciated.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Africa
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aiming point
My thoughts entirely.
Just been told the other day by my "airline" that stick and rudder skills, (by that I think they meant basic flying skills), was well down on the list of priorities in today’s aviation/airline environment. Hand flying practice is also discouraged at all costs.
With that attitude, we are going to hear a lot more of incidences like this. If indeed that was the cause of this incident. It will get a lot worse, believe me and it worries the hell out of me.
My opinion is when current and familiar with manual flying skills, for that a/c, then when the automatics let you down for whatever reason, one is not afraid to go back to basics. ie fly the damn thing yourself.
My thoughts entirely.
Just been told the other day by my "airline" that stick and rudder skills, (by that I think they meant basic flying skills), was well down on the list of priorities in today’s aviation/airline environment. Hand flying practice is also discouraged at all costs.
With that attitude, we are going to hear a lot more of incidences like this. If indeed that was the cause of this incident. It will get a lot worse, believe me and it worries the hell out of me.
My opinion is when current and familiar with manual flying skills, for that a/c, then when the automatics let you down for whatever reason, one is not afraid to go back to basics. ie fly the damn thing yourself.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A340 - CLK - windshear (microburst!)
Ramrise, can't find any report, but attended a company briefing where the A340 "windshear" incident was most comprehensively reviewed. Managed to trawl up some of the information, but please bear in mind that this is by no means categoric or the entire story!
They had a descent at 2000 feet/min over the sea – with a very low RA height. It was the second approach (the first had resulted in 2 windshear warnings, with subsequent go-around). Through a combination of circumstances (Terminal Doppler Weather Radar going down – it didn’t like the 75 knots of wind, local anemometers that wouldn’t report winds above 30 knots – a computer “fudge” due to geographical siting locations, and runway change), the crew (no fault of their own) ended up in worse circumstances than on their first approach. Most importantly, all weather warnings on the ATIS and from ATC controllers referred to “microburst;” this flavoured the crew expectations towards convective TS activity, whereas the actual conditions were severe windshear. There are numerous other facets that I can't quote or cannot remember!! However, the very positive aspect was that the software-related “protection” features of the A340 almost certainly saved the day. Similar conditions were programmed into B747 simulator, a ditching every time! IIRC, major changes for wind reporting/calculations came into effect at CLK shortly afterwards (don't go there with current company!).
Anyway, back to the thread - if terrain isn't an issue, why the heck is full TOGA power needed?? Many go-around altitudes will be reached in seconds if carrying out a "missed" from DA, light aircraft + full power = ROC like a rocket! Frightens the punters down the back too!!
They had a descent at 2000 feet/min over the sea – with a very low RA height. It was the second approach (the first had resulted in 2 windshear warnings, with subsequent go-around). Through a combination of circumstances (Terminal Doppler Weather Radar going down – it didn’t like the 75 knots of wind, local anemometers that wouldn’t report winds above 30 knots – a computer “fudge” due to geographical siting locations, and runway change), the crew (no fault of their own) ended up in worse circumstances than on their first approach. Most importantly, all weather warnings on the ATIS and from ATC controllers referred to “microburst;” this flavoured the crew expectations towards convective TS activity, whereas the actual conditions were severe windshear. There are numerous other facets that I can't quote or cannot remember!! However, the very positive aspect was that the software-related “protection” features of the A340 almost certainly saved the day. Similar conditions were programmed into B747 simulator, a ditching every time! IIRC, major changes for wind reporting/calculations came into effect at CLK shortly afterwards (don't go there with current company!).
Anyway, back to the thread - if terrain isn't an issue, why the heck is full TOGA power needed?? Many go-around altitudes will be reached in seconds if carrying out a "missed" from DA, light aircraft + full power = ROC like a rocket! Frightens the punters down the back too!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: St Kitts
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...getting back to my original rumour, I'm not too concerned about the stick shaker but I am about the 100Kts. That's close to losing the airframe and its contents altogether- on a go-round..
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought - stalling speed is 'g' dependent so if you are bunting your brains out and you have enough altitude, there will be no buffet, even on a Jumbo at 113kts!!
(eg the 'vomit comet' used to train NASA astronauts and in the filming of Apollo 13 etc)
(eg the 'vomit comet' used to train NASA astronauts and in the filming of Apollo 13 etc)
Seven four seven: so no problems were experienced while using the A-330/340 automation? Must be nice in theory, although I recall a few major problems years ago with very similar automation in A-320s; Habsheim, Alsace, India, Warsaw (hydroplaning with superior automation-the Luft. FO died)......and the tragedy at Toulouse with an empty 330 flown by factory pilots, bringing the two doomed Italian pilots on the jumpseats into eternity. Maybe such theory is, after all, not so superior as to allow any pilot to comfortably "rest on his/her laurels"?
Go-around proficiency: how often do YOU airline/corporate/mil. pilots fly a go-around, other than once or twice a year in a simulator, or a few pilots in their own small private planes?
I can not speak for any others, but after no practice for ten or eleven months, it can be a fairly intense situation, especially with no warning.
Go-around proficiency: how often do YOU airline/corporate/mil. pilots fly a go-around, other than once or twice a year in a simulator, or a few pilots in their own small private planes?
I can not speak for any others, but after no practice for ten or eleven months, it can be a fairly intense situation, especially with no warning.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 5th Apr 2004 at 04:31.
How often did we practise go-arounds on the RAF VC10? Several times per training sortie. 3-engined and 2-engined go-arounds also flown under the supervision of FIs. Not difficult, hardest part was levelling off after the go-around; 96% on all 4, accelerate and climb at 190 KIAS, retract flaps/slats at 1500 ft then manage the level off at 2500 ft to be stable at 210 KIAS - all whilst flaps/slats were moving. The manoeuvre wasn't dangerous, just required regular practice and sound manual flying skills....
Go-arounds are extremely rare in the civil world. Is getting behind the drag curve ar$eing about with an over-automated aircraft running away from you very likely to happen given the very low opportunity for practice nowadays? I would be very worried indeed to think that a crew could get so close to the edge of disaster attempting something as very basic as a low go-around.
Go-arounds are extremely rare in the civil world. Is getting behind the drag curve ar$eing about with an over-automated aircraft running away from you very likely to happen given the very low opportunity for practice nowadays? I would be very worried indeed to think that a crew could get so close to the edge of disaster attempting something as very basic as a low go-around.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several times per training sortie.
There are hazards in using any automation irrespective of aircraft type, particularly if it is misused or the circumstances are unfamiliar. Whichever point of view is taken then either the design is deficient, the interpretation of its function or training is incorrect, or the operator just made a mistake; all of these are down to one human or another – designer …>>… operator. A solution to some of these problems is to renew familiarity with the equipment and its operation i.e. practice GAs.
Furthermore I would argue for this training to be done in the aircraft. There have been several incidents recently where crews have suffered from somatogravic illusion – false sense of attitude due to acceleration. Although simulators mimic attitude reasonable accurately, some acceleration cues are poor. Thus in a modern twin jet with high thrust to wt during a GA at the end of a sector, it may be the first time that a crew has experienced the conditions conducive to somatogravic illusion.
There is good presentation on the 757 Oslo incident that involved such an illusion; extracts are here:- A GA Goes Bad.pdf.
It is interesting to note some of the other findings of the investigation; the PF was ‘automation dependent’, he had a slow instrument scan, concentrated on a single cue, and was out of practice for hand flying skills. Sounds like a training / checking issue to me.
Earlier posts referred to a Windshear GA; I do not have a link for the specific event, but there is a very good write up on an incident where the captain correctly flew a Windshear GA maneuver, at or near stick shake, and even after ‘clipping the trees all crew and pax survived:- An Accident of Windshear.
Furthermore I would argue for this training to be done in the aircraft. There have been several incidents recently where crews have suffered from somatogravic illusion – false sense of attitude due to acceleration. Although simulators mimic attitude reasonable accurately, some acceleration cues are poor. Thus in a modern twin jet with high thrust to wt during a GA at the end of a sector, it may be the first time that a crew has experienced the conditions conducive to somatogravic illusion.
There is good presentation on the 757 Oslo incident that involved such an illusion; extracts are here:- A GA Goes Bad.pdf.
It is interesting to note some of the other findings of the investigation; the PF was ‘automation dependent’, he had a slow instrument scan, concentrated on a single cue, and was out of practice for hand flying skills. Sounds like a training / checking issue to me.
Earlier posts referred to a Windshear GA; I do not have a link for the specific event, but there is a very good write up on an incident where the captain correctly flew a Windshear GA maneuver, at or near stick shake, and even after ‘clipping the trees all crew and pax survived:- An Accident of Windshear.
When simulators can provide real 'g' (not just pitch, roll, yaw and heave), the go-around can be correctly simulated. Until then, only practice in the real ac will suffice.
jtr - by 'government sponsored aero club', do you mean ba?
Are you a pilot or an apartment salesman?
jtr - by 'government sponsored aero club', do you mean ba?
Are you a pilot or an apartment salesman?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Beagle, by (tongue in cheek) govt sponsored aero club, I mean the armed forces Didn't hit a nerve did I???
And since you asked, I do have an apartment for sale, so please let me know.
Now I am not sure which airline you work for, but certainly with the mob that pay me, if I decided to do a "practice g/a", there would be a few raised eyebrows.
And since you asked, I do have an apartment for sale, so please let me know.
Now I am not sure which airline you work for, but certainly with the mob that pay me, if I decided to do a "practice g/a", there would be a few raised eyebrows.
Did you really? Gosh, well silly me - I'd never have guessed... 
I don't work for an airline, although I do have a JAR ATPL(A). It simply doesn't appeal to me...... 10 or 20 years ago, perhaps. But in today's world - not b£oody likely!
Back to the thread - if the reports of this low go-around are true, then perhaps it's a health warning to all the bean counters who have conspired to erode manual flying skills and decision making. With luck it'll at least be a nail in the coffin of the of the appalling MPL idea!
I don't work for an airline, although I do have a JAR ATPL(A). It simply doesn't appeal to me...... 10 or 20 years ago, perhaps. But in today's world - not b£oody likely!
Back to the thread - if the reports of this low go-around are true, then perhaps it's a health warning to all the bean counters who have conspired to erode manual flying skills and decision making. With luck it'll at least be a nail in the coffin of the of the appalling MPL idea!
Last edited by BEagle; 4th Apr 2004 at 17:09.