GotTheTshirt

411A

I suggest you look at EU regulations re-Hand mikes!!

BOAC

- thanks for the update. Is that 'your fleet'/CatIIIB specific or is it a change from the Cat IIIA policy in 2004? Probably suffering from 'brain fade' as I recall the co-pilot always used to fly the approach (and g/a) in AWOPS in BA? Certainly did in DanAir and does in Astraeus. How do these 'new' SOPs cope with the 'master' A/P selection for Cat IIIA g/a on the 737?

Spruit

Appologies for the thread drift!

Unfortunately they would now be changing the pages back as it's been renamed to "East Midlands Airport - Nottingham, Derby, Leicester" to save confusion over where it is, obviously!

and Bizarre!

Spru!

Mercenary Pilot

I'm also surprised the AAIB didn't make a recommendation regarding the approach plates. They do hint at the issue very heavily throughout the report.

Anyone know where to find the Jepps for Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield these days?!?

Talkdownman

The World has gone mad.
What's wrong with Castledon and Finningly?

I reckon a lot of ATCOs will be 'turning deaf ears' to company messages after this......

captplaystation

Very "off thread". . . . sorry, but an associated video on youtube at the link given by PPRuNe Towers is the Tarom " car crash", Jeez , I didn't realise they were going THAT fast, collision was 27 sec into T/O roll, that too was a close call for all concerned.
Regards Capt handling on AWOPS , both BMI and VEX used to have Capt handling in the past too, don't know current policy, have to say I prefered it that way too, but no choice now. In RYR it's the other way. . . . 300hrs/200m Yeah Sure, why don't you fly this approach. . . . . Duh.

Mercenary Pilot

Well, I gotta say that I think that it should be the F/O flying with the skipper making the final decision to land. That's how I've always done a monitored approach anyway.

captplaystation

Done it both ways, and I prefer the other.
"Vive le difference", it would be boring if we were all the same.

411A

Know all about those, TShirt, and indeed it is quite likely that this contributed to this accident.
I have had UKCAA guys on the FD during low visibility approaches, and we used hand mics throughout, and strangely enough, they never objected.
One must realise that some CAA/JAA/EASA regulations are, shall we say, just a tad behind the times...or, if you prefer, obtuse.

Hotel Tango

Come off it 411A, Yanks like hand mikes because it's macho........

fmgc

In my Company for LVPs the FO flies the approach and the Captain does the "landing" such as it is. That way the Capt is doing all the tricky bits like making the decision, take over in the event of a high flare etc.

Somebody said to me once that the reason that ATC always have to call the Americanos 2 or 3 times before getting a reply was because they use hand mics & speakers rather than headsets!!

Wee Weasley Welshman

For me - an ATC transmission at 400ft is not something I'd consider crashing for.

I'd buy that ATCO a beer.


WWW

JW411

TNT SOPs for an approach under LVPs are such that the approach is treated like a "monitored approach" in that the F/O flies the aircraft (through the automatics) to minima and the captain monitors and makes the landing/go around decision at minimas.

The F/O is taught to understand that his big game in life is the G/A procedure and to thoroughly absorb what he is going to do if a G/A is called by the captain at minimas. The G/A procedure is often complex.

Therefore, the captain is geared up to "landing" and the F/O is geared up to "going around".

Some of you out there (and I am talking about the professionals and not
the sciolists) might still be a little bit confused about the terms PF (Pilot Flying) and PNF (Pilot Not Flying).

In this case, the captain is the PF because he is the "landing" pilot but, during the approach, he will be making the radio calls as the F/O is otherwise engaged in flying the aircraft.

I had nothing to do with the TNT 737 fleet but I taught LVPs for nearly 20 years on other TNT aircraft.

BOAC

Thank you, JW for confirmation. May I have your comments on para 2.3.3. of the 'Analysis' regarding SOPs? I still read Captain 'flying', F/O 'monitoring'? What do you read? I actually (reading 'between' the AIB lines, particularly the last para of 2.3.2) think the approach mindset could well have been to set up a dual a/p Cat I based on the wx info they had? This does explain the apparent anomaly in handling.

BTW, I agree with your comment on the possible confusion amongst the readers, but I still reckon the Captain is 'PNF' on a correctly flown IIIA approach from handover until 'Decide'?

PS - you taught me a new word tonight

JW411

Let's face it; this crew did not do particularly well.

BOAC:

Send me a PM and I will happily answer your questions.

lederhosen

There are companies who do it differently. Our SOP for the 737 states clearly that the Captain is PF all the way down. The FO is to stay head down on instruments (monitoring as PNF) all the way until rollout and to call for a go-around if he spots any problems. The Captain flies the G/A.

I fully understand reasons why the alternative system might have been favoured in the past. But these days with autothrottle and glass cockpit the situation has changed. Indeed it could be argued that some of the things we practice in the sim (e.g. TOGA button failure on G/A) are better handled by the Captain.

Full marks to JW411 for sciolist. My dictionary defines this as 'a superficial pretender to knowledge'. Apparently not much used, but I think Pprune could give it a new lease of life!