rubber jonny

a report is out


Refer to post #183?

FougaMagister

It's a special bulletin, NOT a report. Accident reports, even interim ones, take weeks or even months to be compiled and published. I.e. this is a FACTUAL document and does not draw any conclusions as to why the events it refers to happended, and it doesn't present any technical recommendations.

Cheers

rubber jonny

oh yeah, whoops

JonaLX

heard from a few guys down there in Belgium, that the cause of the disconnection of the AP was pilot's mistake (pressed the AP Disc. button instead of the R/T button) because tower made a call around 500 ft AGL telling the crew that their company wanted them to go to BHX instead of Nottingham.

Only a rumour of course...

Codman

Well I guess the company got what they wanted then.

JW411

Is it normal for ATC to talk to an aircraft conducting a CAT III approach at 500 ft except in an emergency?

Codman

I guess if ATC deem the message to be of significant importance they'll relay it.

rodthesod

The only comms I want from ATC after landing clearance at OM or equivalent are:

• surface wind check
• RVRs for info
• 'Go Around' if the runway becomes blocked

And Codman - Some stupid admin message about Company commercial diversion does not qualify as an Emergency.

Whatever the reason for AP disengagement, previous posts have made it clear that re-engagement was strictly prohibited at that height (<500ft atde). The pilots will fry for that, of course.

I do, however, sympathise with the crew who would probably have landed uneventfully at EMA if some stupid pillock had kept their gob shut at a critical time of their flight.

Nogbad the Bad

Oh I see...so it's not the done thing in this thread to speculate when it comes to the pilots (sic), but it's OK to slander ATC if there is even a hint of some blame to apportion ??

captjns

Hey... Mag plug... did you read that?

pprecious

If the interim report is correct and the A/P was disconnected at approx 300' with the remaining 30 odd seconds before touchdown (based on 500' per min) was there any chance of a go around without the aircraft hitting the deck first anyway?
I would assume that the minimum height includes the time taken for the engines to spool up etc, as well as some decision making time for the crew?
(Disclaimer: Not a Commercial pilot and casting no opinions or otherwise anything at all on the pilots, operator or manufacturer BTW)

Cough

pprecious

On my cat III training, a regular (and recurrent theme) in the 737 sim is a G/A from 50feet (Cat IIIa minimums), with an engine failure at that moment, which leads to both autopilots disconnecting with a single electrical system failure. Its nasty, but quite manageable.

A manual G/A from 300' is quite routine. You would only loose 20-30'.

omnidirectional737

Even if they did disconnect the autopilot they should have been well aware of it, and been able to perform a go-around with out any trouble.

JW411

Nobody out there has answered my question yet. What does the ATC Manual say about talking to aircraft on a CAT III approach when LVPs are in force and the aircraft has passed the OM/Decision Point? Surely there is an air trafficer out there with the answer?

I can well remember arriving at EDI early one morning with the RVRs around 300 metres and I am doing a CAT II approach with LVPs in force. I was handed over to Tower (118.7) by Approach (121.2) at about 7 nms on finals.

When I changed to Tower all hell errupted. It quickly became apparent that the Ground frequency was still not manned and every man and his dog was on Tower frequency:

"Tug 46 request clearance to tow a....737....from Stand....XYZ to ......Standby one.....Ah....to Stand ......ABC".

"Ops One request permission to enter ........ to pick up a dead rabbit from...... but that might not be where it is......"

Etc. Etc. Etc.

In the meantime I am on short finals still without a landing clearance with an RVR of 300 metres.

I finally managed to get a word in and said something along the lines of:

"It might astonish all you guys down there but some of us are actually up here trying to get down there so can you all shut up and can I please have landing clearance".

After landing I was invited to visit the Tower. My response was "Don't worry, I'm already on my way"! I really was very piss*d off.

The ATC excuse was that their manning levels were such that they couldn't man the Ground frequency until such and such a time and there was therefore no alternative.

I gave them my alternative and that was that the Approach Controller gave the landing clearance and the aircraft only changed to the Tower frequency after landing safely.

This was greeted by blank stares. I pointed out that every single PAR approach in the RAF was completed on the Radar frequency and it was only on the rollout that the aircraft was changed to Tower frequency.

It is totally unacceptable to carry out an approach in LVP conditions with all of these totally unnecessary distractions taking place.

Could an air trafficer please give some comment?

Shaggy Sheep Driver

I'm not an Air Trafficer but as a pilot my understanding of civilian ops is that 'Tower' own the runway. The only way an Approach controller can issue a landing clearance is to co-ordinate it with Tower (who are controlling not only landings, but also departures, runway crossings etc).

That might work OK on a PAR in the Military, but with the situation you describe with understaffed ATC, the Approach controller would still have to overcome the bottleneck of the combined Ground / Tower to get you a landing clearance, so you'd have been no better off.

SSD

JW411

Well no, my friend; all the Approach Controller has to do is to ask the Tower Controller either by shouting across the room or by making a quick phone call (I presume that ATC have "Red" phones or even a Squawk Box") as to whether the aircraft on finals has clearance to land. This is not rocket science.

You are saying that it is OK to hand the aircraft over to a Tower controller who is barely in charge of bedlam and is certainly not looking after me who is stupidly trying to land while he is being besieged by the tugs and the dead rabbit collectors which are doing their essential duties.

Now either an airport is for landing on or it is for trying to separate competing ground movements. Which is it to be?

heading 125

I find it totally odd that a very few pilots, usually ex military have no idea what goes on in ATC and the pressures that we are under. Yes we all want more staff but your airlines want a cheaper service so your are now getting it. Most of my ATC colleagues tell me they are at understaffed towers. So give us a break we are doing our best with what your airline CEOs are prepared to pay. The tone of some of the messages are along the lines "why am I number 2 to so and so I should be number one" the phrase that I used to hear many years ago. So grow up!!! ATCOs and pilots are professionals - it is just a few pilots/ATCOs that seem to have had their brains removed. With todays pressures I understand what the pilots need and I feel that most of the pilots understand what I need. If you as a pilot don't understand what is required then get yourself down to your neaest ATC unit, or better still get out for a beer with one of us and tell us, we would truely welcome it.

Perhaps if this ATCO did transmit at an inappropiate time then he will only learn by a dialog between ATC and the pilots. Famflights were always the best for this lesson learning. Unfortunately cost cutting has resulted in these stopping.

So stop bashing ATC!!

JW411

heading 125:

You are missing the point entirely. It was not because the Tower Controller was transmitting when I was trying to get a landing clearance in fog. It was because he was in a situation where HE had no control of who was blocking the frequency by calling HIM; viz: tugs, dead rabbit collectors, "have you got my clearance to Heathrow etc etc". He was not in a position to do his job properly for whatever reason.

THESE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ON THE FREQUENCY WHILST LVPS ARE IN FORCE - CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

Finally, I just have to point out that professional only has one "f", transmit only has one "t" and "there", as in the possessive is "their" .

PS. Why did the Tower controller find it necessary to invite me over the RT to visit the Control Tower? Did he think that he was going to discipline me like a naughty little boy? Naughty little boys are unlikely to be conducting CAT II approaches in fog. Sadly, his parochial aspirations disappeared when he found himself confronted with someone who had been flying for 45 years and was very, very happy to file an MOR. He was VERY happy to bury the hatchet.

heading 125

Yes totally agree that the frequency should be quiet in LVPs, but please read my previous reply. ATC at the towers have lost a lot of staff to keep cost down. Therefore there may only be one controller working air and ground - thus you will hear all those extra calls. But we are going off the point a little. So do come and visit atc. WE ALWAYS WELCOME AIRCREW VISITS.

By the way Approach control cannot issue a landing clearance. This must be issued by the tower controller as any vehicles or other aircrew may loose situational awareness. If a vehicle was on the runway, when the tower controller issued the landing clearance the vehicle of other aircrew have chance to question an incorrect landing clearance. If not on the tower frequency then disaster, the vehicle driver will not hear a thing until ......

chiglet

JW411,
So you were flying after you SHOULD have retired?
watp,iktch