flyBe GPWS incident (rumour)
Gender Faculty Specialist
Hudson. Come on man. What is this thread, or part of it, about? Why else would you or I be on a FINAL APPROACH if we weren't landing? Why would you presume that I will descend, for instance, in the cruise just because I could see the ground? The cruise being
In your very first post on this thread you stated
A go around from what? Ahh yes, a final approach!
And yes, regardless of phase of flight, well not really - We usually do it in the descent - our company allows us to descend below MSA if we are either: under Radar Control; Procedural or VISUAL!
If you can prove otherwise, as I have stated before, I will happily stop doing it. Swallowing my words never gave me indigestion. Maybe you need an antacid or two.
...[a] phase of flight.
In your very first post on this thread you stated
Idiot for orbiting on final. Why did he not carry out a standard go around?
I-Ford. Show me an OP's manual that approves orbits on final approach?
If you thought for yourself you wouldn't be orbiting on final approach.
Take note of Telstar and the latest report of orbiting on final approach
If you can prove otherwise, as I have stated before, I will happily stop doing it. Swallowing my words never gave me indigestion. Maybe you need an antacid or two.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chesty,
the trouble with Hudson Bay is that he is so determined to "have a go" at Flybe, it clouds his judgement.
He quotes "sources at Exeter" then states drivel, he attacks Jim French and critises pilots at every opportunity.
Don't rise to his pathetic bait, best ignored I think.
the trouble with Hudson Bay is that he is so determined to "have a go" at Flybe, it clouds his judgement.
He quotes "sources at Exeter" then states drivel, he attacks Jim French and critises pilots at every opportunity.
Don't rise to his pathetic bait, best ignored I think.
Regarding comments about orbiting not being in any ops manual - we have it in ours.
SOPs chapter "Orbits and similar manoeuvres used to correct vertical offsets at low altitude are a threat to flight safety, particularly at night or in conditions of reduced visibility. The preferred method to correct a verical offset is to request additional track miles from ATC or, in Class G airspace, descend in a published holding pattern.
Descending orbits are not permitted below 3,000ft AGL. Above 3,000ft AGL, they should only be contemplated after due consideration is given to surrounding terrain and in flight meteorological conditions. Autopilot and autothrust should be used".
SOPs chapter "Orbits and similar manoeuvres used to correct vertical offsets at low altitude are a threat to flight safety, particularly at night or in conditions of reduced visibility. The preferred method to correct a verical offset is to request additional track miles from ATC or, in Class G airspace, descend in a published holding pattern.
Descending orbits are not permitted below 3,000ft AGL. Above 3,000ft AGL, they should only be contemplated after due consideration is given to surrounding terrain and in flight meteorological conditions. Autopilot and autothrust should be used".
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kellykelpie,
They are wise words in your ops manual. It doesn't say MUST NOT, just offers sage words of advice.
StudentInDebt - Good point well made - I shall get back to you with further - standby!
They are wise words in your ops manual. It doesn't say MUST NOT, just offers sage words of advice.
StudentInDebt - Good point well made - I shall get back to you with further - standby!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In Hotels..
Age: 45
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with the industry is that use of common sense is being ignored for Standard ops.. We are becoming lemmings and quite frankly I am bored of it.. An orbit on final is perfectly exceptable if space and height permit. Try flying to Africa to places like Port Harcourt or Liberville... You cant just go in there like a robot.. If you are thinking ahead then things will work out.. Its all these robotic SOPs that mean when something out of the ordinary happens, pilots in Airlines get lost and do stupid things.. We worked long and hard to get here and they try and turn us into machines.. Screen for common sense, not ability to follow a Furer....
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Holiday Inn Mostly
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ollycopter - I am normally a great advocate of SOP's. However you do raise a very good point. Having had a deal of experience of 'bush' type flying and a deal of convential commercial flying I have seen that as soon as anything 'out of the box' occurs the wheel starts to wobble if not fall off in the latter.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In Hotels..
Age: 45
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont get me wrong guys, there has to be SOPs to an extent and I am not saying plan to 360 on final as a first resort.. I just think we need to be free to improvise if need be. Is a go around better then a 360 really? More fuel consumed, possible diversion if flying with minimum block, passengers will be scared anyway if you hit the TOGAs so why not scan the Tcas, observe the Terrain, look out the window and gently roll into a bank?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the more experienced appreciate the difficulties - trouble is we are more and more often flying with 200 hr Jerez/Oxford cadets (yes I know we all have to start somewhere), who are often excellent when everything is on the rails - but some rapidly lose the plot when something out of the usual happens. Often leaving the flight deck as almost a one man/woman band. Or worse than that - interfering (not that they necessarily realise). And this is augmented by some very rigid SOP's which don't allow any free thought any more 
Airmanship becomes a thing of the past It is by the book - else your "friendly" FO with 200 hrs reports you to your Manager for not complying with xyz. No room for any original thought or common sense (airmanship is now a dirty word). What is the world coming to?
Airmanship becomes a thing of the past It is by the book - else your "friendly" FO with 200 hrs reports you to your Manager for not complying with xyz. No room for any original thought or common sense (airmanship is now a dirty word). What is the world coming to?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that airmanship needs to be taught better nowadays. That's not to say we disregard SOPs - far from it. SOPs are there for everyone's safety but airmanship saves our bacon for times when there is no SOP.
Free thought and what if thinkers welcome....
Free thought and what if thinkers welcome....
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sink Rate & Black Cap:
We are between a rock and a hard place. Firmly stuffed into a no-win situation. You deviate from SOP's and risk the wrath of 'them upstairs', the armchair captains and desk jockeys. You stick rigidly to SOP's when the moment is not suitable, when some airmanship judgement is required, and you risk the wrath of ...............! "What were you thinking? Why didn't you realise what was going on and do...........?"
I believe in SOP's but not to the point of deteriorating airmanship. There have been many cases where the cowboy captain has been 'single crewing' it because the 2nd officer hadn't a clue what was going on. Rightly or wrongly they had faith that 'himself' knew what he was doing. Surely 10.000hrs knows better than 1000?
It is difficult; and how many of us have seen the C.P change and the SOP change. It's now his trainset and he wants to let everyone know. The disappointing time is when SOP's change with no explanation why. Where is the education in that? Understanding why encourages better compliance, especially with modifications. I flew with an airline that introduced a new procedure and no-one could understand the thinking behind it. Indeed, it seemed without reason, but we had to do it, disgruntly.
I hear that RYR are putting bank angle at 10 at high FL's, yet my friend doesn't know why. Another buddy flying the same type for another airline doesn't do this. There is a big ? here and that is not so healthy, as some guys will be tempted to ignore the change because they can see no reason for it.
The captain can always deviate from SOP's for safety reasons and to meet the requirements at the time. That necessitates some airmanship, courage and good understanding of our a/c and enviroment. It also necessaitates a good reason when questioned about it. With a good briefing (if time) and good CRM, the rest of the crew should follow common sense leadership. Isn't that one of the attributes we are expected to have?
Willy nilly disregard of SOP's is a waste of energy. 99% of them are liveable with. It is just not possible to cover every scenario, and those who try are fooling themselves and no-one else. That can lead to the perhaps worse situation where a captain, when quesioned why he was doing xyz, replied "where is it written I can't?" Many accidents have happened in subtle circumstances where there were no SOP's to cover the scenario. There was no QRH to give guidance. The failures were inoccuous and obtuse with a creeping result. That is when we depend on airmanship and it needs to be a seed kept alive not dismissed as irrelevant in the modern age, but to be used wisely.
We are between a rock and a hard place. Firmly stuffed into a no-win situation. You deviate from SOP's and risk the wrath of 'them upstairs', the armchair captains and desk jockeys. You stick rigidly to SOP's when the moment is not suitable, when some airmanship judgement is required, and you risk the wrath of ...............! "What were you thinking? Why didn't you realise what was going on and do...........?"
I believe in SOP's but not to the point of deteriorating airmanship. There have been many cases where the cowboy captain has been 'single crewing' it because the 2nd officer hadn't a clue what was going on. Rightly or wrongly they had faith that 'himself' knew what he was doing. Surely 10.000hrs knows better than 1000?
It is difficult; and how many of us have seen the C.P change and the SOP change. It's now his trainset and he wants to let everyone know. The disappointing time is when SOP's change with no explanation why. Where is the education in that? Understanding why encourages better compliance, especially with modifications. I flew with an airline that introduced a new procedure and no-one could understand the thinking behind it. Indeed, it seemed without reason, but we had to do it, disgruntly.
I hear that RYR are putting bank angle at 10 at high FL's, yet my friend doesn't know why. Another buddy flying the same type for another airline doesn't do this. There is a big ? here and that is not so healthy, as some guys will be tempted to ignore the change because they can see no reason for it.
The captain can always deviate from SOP's for safety reasons and to meet the requirements at the time. That necessitates some airmanship, courage and good understanding of our a/c and enviroment. It also necessaitates a good reason when questioned about it. With a good briefing (if time) and good CRM, the rest of the crew should follow common sense leadership. Isn't that one of the attributes we are expected to have?
Willy nilly disregard of SOP's is a waste of energy. 99% of them are liveable with. It is just not possible to cover every scenario, and those who try are fooling themselves and no-one else. That can lead to the perhaps worse situation where a captain, when quesioned why he was doing xyz, replied "where is it written I can't?" Many accidents have happened in subtle circumstances where there were no SOP's to cover the scenario. There was no QRH to give guidance. The failures were inoccuous and obtuse with a creeping result. That is when we depend on airmanship and it needs to be a seed kept alive not dismissed as irrelevant in the modern age, but to be used wisely.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Royal Navy used a similar principle in the days when we didn't have easy and fast communications around the globe - if a ship's captain followed orders that were inappropriate for the local situation then he lacked initiative and usually didn't progress very fast. If he ignored orders and scored a stunning success then he was praised. Of course, if he ignored orders and screwed up then he was finished.
